Fun with the 2005 Special Statewide Election Voter Information Guide: Prop. 77
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we’ve made it to my all time favorite part of the voter information guide: the rebuttal! These are the true gems of the whole booklet. They’re an opportunity for each side, presumably after reading the opposition’s argument (although I’ve not read one yet that references the opposing argument even once), to speak their mind in response and clear up any misconceptions introduced by their ideological foes. They’re rarely used for that purpose, though. More often they’re playgrounds for thrilling smears and questionable rhetoric. You’ve got to love ‘em!
I remember well the rebuttal to my argument in the one and only one formal debate I ever participated in. It was during eighth grade, the topic was gun control, and I was put on a team with Julie Cho. Julie knew the subject matter, thought quickly on her feet, and in general clue one and then some about what she was doing. I, on the other hand, didn’t really read any of the background material, bungled my prepared statement and took to sketching at the table in response to our opponent’s arguments. It was such a thrilling experience that I never participated in formal debate ever again, and to this day I hope that I didn’t do too much damage to Julie’s academic career. The other team worked well enough together, and despite questionable rhetoric dealt me a death blow after my argument.
The devastating rebuttal that ended my short and unspectacular debate career went, word for word, as follows: “My opponent doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Period, full stop. That was it. I was done. They had clear and compelling evidence that my position was flawed, and they drove it in to my skull like a railroad spike. Truly it was crushing. I don’t think I was able to string six consecutive coherent words together for the rest of the debate.
Of course, their argument had no rhetorical meat to it, but I didn’t know that. What’s funny is that the people writing rebuttals for the ‘05 voter information guide don’t seem to know either. Their rebuttals at times amount to little more.
Let’s take a look at the two rebuttals to Proposition 77: Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. To make the comparison easier, we’ll just look at the handy lists of facts or whatever they are that each side provides. (interesting aside: The rebuttal to the argument PRO uses a numbered list while the rebuttal to the argument CON uses a bulleted list. What could this mean?)
First, the rebuttal to the argument PRO:
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 77
[...]
Read the fine print.[...]
- PROP. 77 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT OF VOTERS to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect.
- The so-called independent redistricting judges are HAND-PICKED BY POLITICIANS.
- Every time voters reject these redistricting plans, IT WILL COST TAXPAYERS MILLIONS.
- Everything is decided by a small panel of ONLY THREE UNELECTED JUDGES.
- This flawed idea is CEMENTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.
First things first: read each item out loud, YELLING WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO USE ALL CAPS. That was fun, wasn’t it? I certainly enjoyed it.
Above and beyond the SCREAMING, the fact that all four points made — the “fine print”, if you will — pertain to the proposition stands out to me. This is how things should be, but it seems somehow alien. Now, whether or not all of these points are correct is another question. For example, voters may in fact reject redistricting plans, however a rejected plan will still be used at least once according to proposition 77. (From the Summary: “If voters reject a redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.) You can disagree with their arguments, but you can’t deny that they’re actually talking about the proposition.
Let’s take a look at the rebuttal to the argument CON:
Rebuttal to the Argument Against Proposition 77
[...]
Remember these important facts:Prop. 77 is simple and straightforward
- Opponents don’t want competitive elections. They like the status quo and will do anything to protect their power.
- They want the politicians to continue protecting their special interests at the expense of California’s working families.
- Voter approval of redistricting plans will be held at regularly scheduled elections, so opponents’ claims of huge election costs are false.
YES ON PROP. 77 — IT’S ABOUT RETURNING POWER TO THE PEOPLE
- A bipartisan panel of retired judges would establish new, fair district boundaries for the Legislature and Congress.
- They want the politicians to continue protecting their special interests at the expense of California’s working families.
- Fair districts mean competitive elections. Competitive elections ensure our elected officials listen to citizen voices and not just campaign contributors. Nothing could be fairer than letting voters have the final word!
[...]
Two quick editorial notes: yes, they include the “at the expense of California’s working families” point twice, and “fairer” in the final bullet point is not a typo on my part.
They get things going by giving us a list of “important facts,” most of which are speculations regarding their opponent’s motivation. Priceless! Their third “fact” is contradicted by the fiscal effects section of the analysis by the legislative analyst. (Specifically: “If, however, voters rejected any redistricting plan, there would be some additional state and county costs for a new plan to be developed and implemented.”) They follow this up with a few unsupported talking points and a revisited speculation from the original section of “important facts.”
You know what they’re saying here, right? “THE ARGUMENT CON DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT!” If this were the eighth grade and I was arguing against prop 77, they would have totally won with this.
Mercifully, this isn’t the eighth grade, so perhaps it would be best if instead of being swayed by PRO’s compelling argument you reviewed the League of Women Voters page for Prop. 77. Read it yourself and make up your own mind.