>I also have heard from various sources that many thought
>they were voting for affirmative action when they voted yes on 209. The
>wording said that it was a vote against discrimination. You had to get
>past the way it was worded to understand it. Even though there was a lot
>of publicity on it, you can certainly chalk up some yes votes to
>confusion.
Based on my experience (first and second hand) organizing against 209, it's
clear that *lots* of folks understood 209 as a vote against discrimination
(and I don't just mean "reverse discrimination"). In fact, up until the
Republicans weighed in near the end of the campaign, its
sponsors/organizers waged a brilliant propaganda effort based on precisely
that deliberate confusion. Only when the Repubs came in at the end with
heavy-handed support for 209 did the significant numbers for the initiative
begin to drop, so that in the end it did not win by nearly as much as it
looked like it would.
Of course, on the other hand, the population as a whole voted against a tax
that would only affect a very few rich people. Even though I know better, I
remain dumbfounded at the ignorance of the US people. This particular vote
has much to do with the absolute pervasiveness of Neoclassical economics
("the economics we all already know, whether we know it or not") upon which
hinges the effectiveness of business anti-tax propaganda campaigns.
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
