Opinion: Election Edition: Misleading, Bored, and Uninformed
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
| Comeback kind: Lou Cannon says Schwarzenegger’s likability puts Westly and Angelides in the shade (illustration by Roman Genn) |
The primary election is just a week away, which for most voters means fumbling through misleading voter information guides, picking Superior Court judges’ names at random, or just staying home. Here’s some notable recent election coverage in the opinion and news pages to get you in the voting mood:
Lying guides: The Times’ Robert Greene dissects the state’s Official Voter Information Guide. He writes: ‘The Official Voter Information Guide (available, by the way, in seven languages, and costing $9.3 million this year to print and mail) becomes an extension of the pro and con campaign mail that floods mailboxes a few days before each election. Backers and opponents of ballot measures can, and often do, say pretty much anything to get you on their side.’
Election fatigued: Too many elections make Jack a bored voter, says analyst Tony Quinn. He writes:
‘The biggest decision on the ballot is whether Democrats prefer state Treasurer Phil Angelides or state Controller Steve Westly as their candidate for governor. Neither has stirred much political excitement, a state of affairs reflected in the relatively large number of voters still undecided. Tired voters may do what they always do when bored by politics — stay home.
‘A low turnout usually means an older, more conservative electorate. In 2002, nearly as many Republicans as Democrats voted despite the fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 1.5 million voters. If that happens in June, Proposition 82, the measure to raise income taxes on the rich to pay for universal preschool, will probably lose. Polls show voters are split on the proposal.’
Schwarzenegger’s baaack: The Austrian-born mumbler has rumbled back into the thick of the gubernatorial race, writes author Lou Cannon. Why? He’s just too darn likable to let a few political stumbles get in his way:
‘The biggest single reason that Schwarzenegger is favored to win reelection is that a significant majority of voters, including those who take a dim view of his policies, like him. He descended into politics as a popular celebrity known from his movies, particularly the ‘Terminator’ films, and this aura still clings to him despite his many political mishaps. A poll in March by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that, his policies notwithstanding, 71% of prospective voters said they liked the governor.
‘When any incumbent enters an election with the personal approval of more than 70% of the electorate, he has a leg up on his opponents. ‘There’s a reservoir of goodwill for Gov. Schwarzenegger,’ said H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the state Department of Finance and the governor’s chief spokesman on fiscal issues. ‘People want him to succeed because they want the state to succeed.’ ‘
Sandbox standoff: The debate over Proposition 82, the universal preschool initiative, is a chalkboard scratch-off. Clouds of chalk dust fly as foes scribble numbers and try to wipe out their opponents’ fuzzy math. Here’s a taste from two recent op-eds:
From opponent Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley education prof: ‘Lower-income children would get less than half of the estimated $2.4 billion in new annual pre-school funding that would be raised by taxing the wealthiest Californians. That’s partly because over half of these children already attend free preschool. At least $1.4 billion would go to subsidize better-off parents who can already afford to pay for preschool.’ From proponent Arthur Reynolds, a Minnesota child development specialist: ‘A much-discussed 2005 Rand Corp. study found that a universal program of high quality for all California 4-year-olds would return to society from $2 to $4 for every dollar invested. That’s a conservative calculation.’
Go HERE to read the full op-eds and cast your vote.
The Superior Court guessing game: Times reporter Jessica Garrison writes about the uninformed scramble for state Superior Court spots: ‘Chances are, most voters won’t have heard of any of the prospective judges whose names will appear at the bottom of their ballot next month. Chances are, most voters will vote anyway.’ Judges with unusual names are especially at risk of election challenges. Example: experienced jurist Dzintra Janavs, whose campaign consultant believes was targeted because of her tongue-twisting name.
Want to skip the guesswork? See the Times endorsements for Superior Court, the nation’s largest trial court. And yes, the Times endorses Janavs, whose white-bread challenger Lynn Diane Olson put lawyering on hold to run a Manhattan Beach bagel shop. ‘Olson may make the better bagel. Janavs would remain by far the better judge,’ write the Times editors. See all Times endorsements at www.latimes.com/endorsements.