Posted by: captainfalcon | May 8, 2012

Amendment One and Structuring Direct Democracy

Andrew links to a poll of North Carolina voters indicating the following:

  1. 55% would vote for Amendment One (refusing recognition to gay marriage and same sex civil unions).
  2. 57% think gay marriage should be illegal.
  3. 27% think gays should be allowed to marry and 26% think gays should only be allowed to form civil unions and 43% think there should be no legal recognition of gay couples.
  4. Only 46% think Amendment One bans both gay marriage and civil unions.

From these numbers the pollsters infer that “In some sense North Carolinians are voting against their own beliefs. 53% of voters in the state support either gay marriage or civil unions, yet a majority also support the amendment that would ban both.”

There is another permissible inference. Overall, 69% (heh) of North Carolinians think gay couples should not be allowed to marry (43% who oppose by gay marriage and civil unions + 26% who oppose only gay marriage). If 12% of those who support civil unions but not gay marriage are more avidly opposed to gay marriage than they are supportive of civil unions then 55% in favor of Amendment One makes perfect sense.

The pollsters prefer an explanation grounded in voter ignorance, pointing out that “only 46% of voters realize the proposal bans gay marriage and civil unions” and noting that “informed voters oppose the amendment by a 61-37 margin.” On the other hand, only 44% of hypothetical informed voters would vote no on Amendment One if they knew it banned both gay marriage and civil unions, leaving 39% in favor of Amendment One and 16% undecided. There was no option “conflicted,” so no way to further parse the 16% to see which are really in favor of the Amendment, but regretfully so; and which are legitimately unsure. But it is a tantalizing possibility that the 16% are actually conflicted — that “unsure” is where the conflicted went — thereby yielding 55% in favor of Amendment One.

Bracketing the general desirability of initiatives legislatively referred referenda from the point of view of political theory (they are a bad idea), the real lesson here is that the so-called “single subject rule” — which requires that if an initiative question asks multiple sub-questions they all must pertain to the same subject matter (so no omnibus initiatives) — is not stringent enough to ensure that each norm of law an initiative selects is actually approved by a majority of voters. This is a travesty even (especially!) on the assumptions of those weirdos who support direct democracy. In this case, it also happens to be a human travesty.

Update: Although I’m inclined to think this reaction is a bit hyperbolic. Yes it’s deeply regrettable that the abstraction known as North Carolina is about to make economic planning harder for gay people as a result of its inchoate homophobia, but surely life goes on, particularly in the enclaves of academe? A little perspective here, please. This is not Jim Crow; this is not Kristallnacht; and it is merely a reminder, not a cause, of the horrendous incidence of teen gay suicide. And I say all this as somebody for whom gay marriage is the only political issue that is not just interesting to think about, but can actually get the blood up.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] posts back, I argued that it is reasonable to interpret North Carolina polling data as indicating that a majority of […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: