Proposition 19 – Crunching the Numbers and Pointing the Finger
There have been a number of articles which have emerged over the last few days in an attempt to explain what happened with Proposition 19 and to explain how and why it failed.
I believe every one of those articles – save one – do not bear up to statistical analysis and are little more than amateur explanations without any basis in evidence.
But before we get to the critical (and highly debatable) answer as to “why”, we need to look at the cold hard data of who. Who voted against Proposition 19? Where do we point the finger?
We have Met the Enemy and it is Us
Turns out, we have met the enemy and it is us.
The demographics which betrayed the movement to legalize marijuana were those who were aged 40-59 years of age. It wasn’t the kids who didn’t turn out to vote in large numbers who are to blame (they never do). It also turns out that it WASN’T the senior citizens who “betrayed” the movement either. Actually, the seniors overperformed!
No. It was those who were aged 40-59 years of age who are responsible for this defeat. The demographic slice of California who have more lifetime experience with marijuana than any other demographic group. Those were the people who were, statistically speaking, the ones who were most likely to have tried pot at least once in their lifetime. As it turns out, those were the people who voted against it. The voting data reveals a very pronounced "Ganja Gap". [See Figure 1.]
Figure 1
The Green line represents the incidence of voters by age in America who have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime. This data is the most up to date data presently available from National Survey on Drug Use and Health for the year 2009.
The Red line represents the voter results for “Yes on Prop 19” by age group as reported in CNN’s Exit Polling data.
[There are a couple of provisos on this data. The confidence in the NSDU data is extremely high, but those figures represent national averages, not California averages. Statistically, there is a regional incidence of greater marijuana use in California vs the overall national number. It’s not a huge difference, but, the incidence of past marijuana use is somewhat higher in California than it is nationally in terms of the overall trend line.]
While the above data is not perfect – the Red line represents a reasonable picture of the electorate and how they voted by age group. The Green Line represents a line over which we can have a very high degree of confidence.
The trend lines show four things:
1. Younger Voters: Younger voters – even those who have never tried marijuana before, are highly in favor of legalization;
2. New Parents in their Mid-Thirties: Those in their mid-thirties are also inclined to be somewhat more in favor of legalization than their past experience with marijuana would indicate;
3. Seniors/GranParents: Amazingly, senior citizens in California are far more supportive of legalization than their past experience with marijuana would indicate they should be. Overall, the seniors in California voted far more in favor of marijuana than past use experience would have predicted - and not by just a little. Compared to the national averages in the most recent Gallup Poll, they voted about 2 points higher than in other areas of the country, too. (Regional Differences and liberal political views probably explain this variation). Overall, there were no big surprises here - and to the extent there was a surprise, it was mostly positive.
4. The Parents of Teens: The traitors - the hypocrites - are those aged 40-59. In particular, those aged 45-55 are the people responsible for the loss of Prop 19. They very clearly did not vote in accordance with their past experiences with marijuana. The data is clear, significant and pronounced.
Why Was There a Ganja Gap?
The $64,000.00 question is WHY. Why did they vote this way?
Without understanding why this demographic voted in the manner that they did so that we can change the message to address this “Ganja Gap”, no vote in 2012, or 2016 or even 2020 is going to succeed. Please understand that the people who voted against Prop 19 and ensured that it failed are not going away. They are going to be voting again in subsequent years. Indeed, they are going to be voting for DECADES and the likelihood that they will vote in each election cycle only increases as time marches on.
I have written elsewhere that legalization was virtually certain in America by 2022. This theory was premised upon the reasonable – and until this week – tenable hypothesis that there was no greater indicator of a person being in favor of legalization than their having smoked marijuana at least once previously in their lifetime. The theory is, with past marijuana use, Reefer Madness type arguments are supplanted by direct and personal evidence to the contrary.
My theory went down to defeat on November 2, 2010 when those adults aged 40-59 voted against their past practices and turned out en masse to “do as I say, not as I did”.
The first person to write on the Ganja Gap that has emerged came from Ryan Grim, who reported on the phenomenon before the vote was even held.
Ryan Grim’s belief is that as the likelihood of a Yes vote appeared on the horizon, those people who were most likely to be parents of teenagers and those in their early 20s? They were the ones who voted "No". Ryan Grim believes that, in the end, it was parents of teens who voted against Prop19 as they approached and saw the “whites of Prop 19’s eyes”, as it were. They flip-flopped dramatically in the middle of October's polling.
I think Ryan Grim's explanation is probably correct. Moreover, I think we are fools to ignore it. It is, far and away, the#1 issue which the legalization movement now faces. We don't need to worry about the parents of elementary and middle school aged kids, nearly as much as we have to worry about the parents of teens and those kids in their college years. Those parents are the target demographic we need to work on.
And let's be clear - the news is bad. Those parents didn’t vote in accordance with their own past experiences and they KNEW that Reefer Madness style arguments are false. Nevertheless, they voted out of fear for their teenaged kids and switched their voting intentions as the likelihood of a victory became clear. If Ryan Grim is right (and there is no reason that I have been able to think of so far which better explains this data) then we need to rethink the strategy here very carefully.
The biggest issue we need to come to grips with is that this problem isn't going away in the near term. There is not much reason to believe that this is a one-time statistical blip. We will face this same phenomenon in 2012 and 2016 (2020? Depends on whether their vote was related to the current age of their kids). This phenomenon probably doesn’t go away. It will potentially stay with us for decades. This is extremely troubling data and no serious activist can ignore it.
If we don’t fix this issue and address it? We’re going to lose next time, too. When the single largest demographic of people who have smoked pot before in their lifetime STILL voted "no"?
We’ve got a serious problem on our hands.
There have been a number of articles which have emerged over the last few days in an attempt to explain what happened with Proposition 19 and to explain how and why it failed.
I believe every one of those articles – save one – do not bear up to statistical analysis and are little more than amateur explanations without any basis in evidence.
But before we get to the critical (and highly debatable) answer as to “why”, we need to look at the cold hard data of who. Who voted against Proposition 19? Where do we point the finger?
We have Met the Enemy and it is Us
Turns out, we have met the enemy and it is us.
The demographics which betrayed the movement to legalize marijuana were those who were aged 40-59 years of age. It wasn’t the kids who didn’t turn out to vote in large numbers who are to blame (they never do). It also turns out that it WASN’T the senior citizens who “betrayed” the movement either. Actually, the seniors overperformed!
No. It was those who were aged 40-59 years of age who are responsible for this defeat. The demographic slice of California who have more lifetime experience with marijuana than any other demographic group. Those were the people who were, statistically speaking, the ones who were most likely to have tried pot at least once in their lifetime. As it turns out, those were the people who voted against it. The voting data reveals a very pronounced "Ganja Gap". [See Figure 1.]
Figure 1
The Green line represents the incidence of voters by age in America who have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime. This data is the most up to date data presently available from National Survey on Drug Use and Health for the year 2009.
The Red line represents the voter results for “Yes on Prop 19” by age group as reported in CNN’s Exit Polling data.
[There are a couple of provisos on this data. The confidence in the NSDU data is extremely high, but those figures represent national averages, not California averages. Statistically, there is a regional incidence of greater marijuana use in California vs the overall national number. It’s not a huge difference, but, the incidence of past marijuana use is somewhat higher in California than it is nationally in terms of the overall trend line.]
While the above data is not perfect – the Red line represents a reasonable picture of the electorate and how they voted by age group. The Green Line represents a line over which we can have a very high degree of confidence.
The trend lines show four things:
1. Younger Voters: Younger voters – even those who have never tried marijuana before, are highly in favor of legalization;
2. New Parents in their Mid-Thirties: Those in their mid-thirties are also inclined to be somewhat more in favor of legalization than their past experience with marijuana would indicate;
3. Seniors/GranParents: Amazingly, senior citizens in California are far more supportive of legalization than their past experience with marijuana would indicate they should be. Overall, the seniors in California voted far more in favor of marijuana than past use experience would have predicted - and not by just a little. Compared to the national averages in the most recent Gallup Poll, they voted about 2 points higher than in other areas of the country, too. (Regional Differences and liberal political views probably explain this variation). Overall, there were no big surprises here - and to the extent there was a surprise, it was mostly positive.
4. The Parents of Teens: The traitors - the hypocrites - are those aged 40-59. In particular, those aged 45-55 are the people responsible for the loss of Prop 19. They very clearly did not vote in accordance with their past experiences with marijuana. The data is clear, significant and pronounced.
Why Was There a Ganja Gap?
The $64,000.00 question is WHY. Why did they vote this way?
Without understanding why this demographic voted in the manner that they did so that we can change the message to address this “Ganja Gap”, no vote in 2012, or 2016 or even 2020 is going to succeed. Please understand that the people who voted against Prop 19 and ensured that it failed are not going away. They are going to be voting again in subsequent years. Indeed, they are going to be voting for DECADES and the likelihood that they will vote in each election cycle only increases as time marches on.
I have written elsewhere that legalization was virtually certain in America by 2022. This theory was premised upon the reasonable – and until this week – tenable hypothesis that there was no greater indicator of a person being in favor of legalization than their having smoked marijuana at least once previously in their lifetime. The theory is, with past marijuana use, Reefer Madness type arguments are supplanted by direct and personal evidence to the contrary.
My theory went down to defeat on November 2, 2010 when those adults aged 40-59 voted against their past practices and turned out en masse to “do as I say, not as I did”.
The first person to write on the Ganja Gap that has emerged came from Ryan Grim, who reported on the phenomenon before the vote was even held.
Ryan Grim’s belief is that as the likelihood of a Yes vote appeared on the horizon, those people who were most likely to be parents of teenagers and those in their early 20s? They were the ones who voted "No". Ryan Grim believes that, in the end, it was parents of teens who voted against Prop19 as they approached and saw the “whites of Prop 19’s eyes”, as it were. They flip-flopped dramatically in the middle of October's polling.
I think Ryan Grim's explanation is probably correct. Moreover, I think we are fools to ignore it. It is, far and away, the#1 issue which the legalization movement now faces. We don't need to worry about the parents of elementary and middle school aged kids, nearly as much as we have to worry about the parents of teens and those kids in their college years. Those parents are the target demographic we need to work on.
And let's be clear - the news is bad. Those parents didn’t vote in accordance with their own past experiences and they KNEW that Reefer Madness style arguments are false. Nevertheless, they voted out of fear for their teenaged kids and switched their voting intentions as the likelihood of a victory became clear. If Ryan Grim is right (and there is no reason that I have been able to think of so far which better explains this data) then we need to rethink the strategy here very carefully.
The biggest issue we need to come to grips with is that this problem isn't going away in the near term. There is not much reason to believe that this is a one-time statistical blip. We will face this same phenomenon in 2012 and 2016 (2020? Depends on whether their vote was related to the current age of their kids). This phenomenon probably doesn’t go away. It will potentially stay with us for decades. This is extremely troubling data and no serious activist can ignore it.
If we don’t fix this issue and address it? We’re going to lose next time, too. When the single largest demographic of people who have smoked pot before in their lifetime STILL voted "no"?
We’ve got a serious problem on our hands.
