Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and Historical Trends in California

Entering the polling booth on Tuesday, November 3, 1964, the typical California voter found himself confronted with an immense sheet of finely-printed green paper, a dirty black rubber stamp, a tiny ink pad, and thirty decisions to render. A few minutes later (the legal maximum is 10) he emerged and numbly surrendered to a clerk his ballot, now slightly embellished, like the fingers of his decision hand, with black ink stains. Most of his decisions were made on a lengthy array of propositions. In these, questions on an assortment of issues were posed, each couched in language tedious and obscure—as only minds trained in the finest law schools could devise. This study seeks to gain some knowledge about factors which influence the vote on these propositions. It employs a somewhat unorthodox method: an analysis of the voting patterns on actual ballots. The ballots furnish attractive data because they are, after all, completely accurate records of the results of those minutes of decision-rendering in the artificial privacy of that cramped polling booth. It would be impossible by this method to generate a comprehensive theory about proposition voting behavior—too much information about the individual voter is forever lost by the secrecy incorporated in the balloting procedure. Nevertheless a contribution can be made in several areas of relevant concern, areas currently dominated more by folklore and mythology than fact or theory.

[1]  G. Lundberg.  The Newspaper and Public Opinion , 1926 .

[2]  D. Riesman,et al.  The Lonely Crowd , 2017 .

[3]  K. Wallis,et al.  Statistical Methods of Econometrics. , 1967 .

[4]  J. E. Brinton,et al.  Effects of Newspaper Reading on Knowledge and Attitude , 1961 .

[5]  L. Cronbach.  Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design , 1950 .

[6]  I. A. Berg,et al.  Response Bias in an Unstructured Questionnaire , 1954 .

[7]  K. Keniston,et al.  Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[8]  Murray B. Levin,et al.  The alienated voter : politics in Boston , 1960 .

[9]  J. Lapalombara,et al.  The initiative and referendum in Oregon, 1938-1948 , 1950 .

[10]  H. Gosnell,et al.  Non-voting : causes and methods of control , 1925 .

[11]  J. Ridley,et al.  Status, Anomia, Political Alienation, and Political Participation , 1962, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  V. Key,et al.  The initiative and the referendum in California , 1951 .

[13]  Joseph Pratt Harris,et al.  Election Administration in the United States , 1934 .

[14]  John E. Mueller.  The Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities , 1966, The Western political quarterly.

[15]  W. Gamson.  THE FLUORIDATION DIALOGUE: IS IT AN IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT? , 1961 .

[16]  W. E. Thompson,et al.  Powerlessness and Political Negativism: A Study of Defeated Local Referendums , 1962, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  W. E. Thompson,et al.  Political Alienation as a Force in Political Action , 1960 .

[18]  B. Bass.  Development and evaluation of a scale for measuring social acquiescence. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[19]  Alvin Boskoff,et al.  Voting patterns in a local election , 1964 .

[20]  Karl A. Fox,et al.  Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis. , 1930 .

[21]  Stanley Kelley.  Political Campaigning: Problems in Creating an Informed Electorate , 1960 .

[22]  A. Simmel.  A Signpost for Research on Fluoridation Conflicts: The Concept of Relative Deprivation , 1961 .

[23]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis , 1966 .