The following is an excerpt from the Seattle Times (Sun. 24 Oct)(http://seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/trut_19991022.html)

Targeting union members

The ads are running throughout the state, including five TV stations in the Seattle area, as well as in Portland, and are costing the campaign about $800,000, said Jim Kneeland, a consultant to No on 695. The campaign also bought time on cable TV.

The ads, produced by Democratic consultant Frank Greer, feature a Boeing machinist, a Tumwater firefighter, a Seattle health-care worker and an Everett police officer - all active union members.

That's no accident. Kneeland said the campaign is targeting union households because surveys show that 60 percent of those households support I-695 - though labor-union leaders are among those leading the opposition.

"We need to convince 10 percent of those households to oppose it," Kneeland said.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I find it somewhat bizarre that unions, per se' have taken a position on this issue at all... but to discover that they've taken these positions in OPPOSITION to their OWN membership?

What's wrong with THAT picture?

Seems to me that the unions who oppose this are engaging in a little of that time-tested "democratic centralism" that our friends in the Kremlin were so fond of.

Isn't it just the tinniest bit strange that the the vast majority of unions that oppose this obviously have come out in opposition without taking a member vote, or without considering the now admitted SUPPORT that the rank and file have for 695?

In the face of allegations made by the anti side of this issue about how this initiative "hurts" representative democracy, what more of an example of outright arrogance towards the most important people (the voter) do you need?

Unions are not only afraid of the will of the voter... they're even afraid of the will of their own members!

Westin

"Don't tell me how bad it's going to be without car-tab revenues; explain how you defend the current tax. If a tax is unfair at its core, a free people have the right to repeal it."

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 24, 1999

Answers

Westin

Nothing the union bosses do surprizes me anymore. There is no organization more undemocratic than a union decision making process.

The worst example that comes to mind is: a public employees union in Sonoma county Ca. who endorsed an avowed Communist for Congress.

Imagine the surprize of the union members when they found out what had been done in their name.Of course the membership was never asked their opinion prior to the endorsement.

"Liberals believe businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 24, 1999.

When union members (as well as most of the rest of the thinking population) actually look at the numbers, they quickly realize how bad 695 is.

-- Dues Payer (Union.member@695.org), October 24, 1999.

dues payer

apparently 60% of your union peers disagree with you. Are they Stupid?

Only a mind-numbed robot,afraid to think for themselves would believe the tripe being put out by the anti-taxpayer crowd.

"The government that does everything FOR you is the goverment that can (and will) do anything TO you."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 24, 1999.

Sorry guys, the 60% of union members support I-695 argument doesn't hold water anymore. The latest poll done by the No campaign (and the poll showing 60% was done by the No camp too) shows only 40% support.

"Especially targeted are households with union members, which have shown the most significant slip in support for I-695, Kneeland said. About 60 percent of union households supported the measure in September, while less than 40 percent did last week."

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/poll25.shtml

I know you have a pretty high contempt for our system of representative democracy Westin, but here's a pretty good example of how it works. The rank and file union members elect their representatives to study an issue in depth. In this case, they examined 695, and figured that if informed, the rank and file members would not support it. So the reps voted to oppose it. Not knowing too much about the initiative, there were a lot in the rank and file who initially supported it. However, as the union leadership predicted, once informed about what 695 would do, the rank and file union members no longer support it.

Funny how these things work out isn't it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.

"Funny how these things work out isn't it. " Funny how I don't see any increase in the number of people who plan on voting no in these figures. And every day that passes, the absentee votes are being mailed in by those who are pro-695, adding to the backlog of "yes" votes that the pro-MVET people must overcome. And of course, every person who delays purchase of a motor vehicle, or puts theirs up on blocks planning on re-licensing it after the initiative passes, is one VERY HIGHLY motivated pro-695 voter. And of course, outside of the Puget Sound region, I-695 support remains high. I wouldn't start crowing just yet, Patrick. Let's see what the next eight days bring. My guess is the pro-MVET people started their disinformation campaign too late.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

Patrick, you missed the point.

The point is that the union rank and file support this initiative. They have from the beginning... yet their leadership doesn't care, because what the rank and file wants is meaningless.

They admit in their quote that 60% supported it, as recently as a few days ago. Then you actually rely on a "no" supplied poll that shows that number down to 40%?

Can you BE that gullable?

Westin

"I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period" in Congress, the vice president told NPRs Bob Edwards.

Do the math. Thats 187 town hall meetings per year, or a meeting in Tennessee every other day for 16 years, including weekends, holidays, vacations, and time spent running for president in 1988 and for vice president in 1992.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 25, 1999.

"Can you BE that gullable? Gullable- Def: Subject to or in the process of being defecated upon by seagulls. - - I think you mean gullible. The Spellmeister ;)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

That's what I love about debating Westin. He makes it SO easy!

"They admit in their quote that 60% supported it, as recently as a few days ago. Then you actually rely on a "no" supplied poll that shows that number down to 40%?

Can you BE that gullable?"

You know Westin, had you actually paid closer attention, you would have discovered that the original 60% approval number came from polling data that the No campaign did as well. That was their September result, this is their October result. So yes, as someone who knows a thing or two about statistics, I find it prudent to compare polls that are performed by the same group and done under the same conditions.

Any more stammering from you, or have I "bitch slapped" a strong enough rebuttal into you? Please reply again. I just love bringing out the fool in you.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.

"I find it prudent to compare polls that are performed by the same group and done under the same conditions. " Except they weren't. If you read the poll, they eliminated people who had already voted by absentee ballot.

- - That was perfectly reasonable for the purposes of the poll. If you are trying to assess how to influence voters, you eliminate from the pool any that either aren't eligible to vote, or whose vote is already used up. Your target audience is those that can still be influenced. But for purposes of predicting the election results, you bias your results this way. For one thing, you significantly increase your undecided percentage. Those who have already cast their ballots were some of the more highly committed individuals, both pro and con. By eliminating them you automatically enrichen the remaining pool of uncertain voters. And for every day that goes by that the yes vote exceeds the no vote, it is likely that you are seeing more YES absentee ballots casts than NO absentee ballots. These early ballots will generally tend to favor the yes side, since popular opinion favors the yes side presently. Even at the claimed 46 yes, 35 no percentages, this amounts to a real head start for I-695 in the voting, even should the undecideds eventually decide against I-695. But the fact of the matter is, the longer voters remain undecided on initiatives and referendums, the more likely they appear to be to not vote at all. Factoring out the undecided altogether gives 46 of 81 (46+35=81) or 57% FOR, 35 of 81 or 43% AGAINST. So the pro-695 side is getting a real lead in absentee ballots, but continues with a 57 to 43 lead among probable voters who have not yet voted. If those numbers give the pro-MVET people any solace, they are welcome to it. Hold on to your delusions for another 8 days, if it makes you happy.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

Actually Craig, I don't see any information mentioning that they excluded those who have already voted. I agree that they asked people if they voted already, but they didn't say anything about filtering them out.

So basically we are left with the assumption that they might have filtered them out. However the evidence does not seem to support this theory. If they had filtered out those who have already voted I agree that the size of the undecided pool would get larger. However, the percentage of the "no" vote should decrease as well. You would have to assume that there is a significant number of people voting no who are just as sure of their vote as some yes people are, and have already cast their ballots as well (I for one placed my ballot in the mail last Tuesday). Since there is no decrease in the "no" percentage (actually it increased a little), it would seem as if there is more evidence supporting the idea that the people who already voted were included in the numbers.

Finally, you also assume that most of those undecided will not vote at all. Although I agree that a portion of those people may not vote, I've got to go with my feeling that a lot of them will climb off the fence on or before the election. And as history has shown, undecided's tend to vote no on something they are unsure on.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 25, 1999.

We'll see Patrick, but if it gives you eight nights of sleep, I'm glad you think so. My bet is that this'll pass. IF it is even close, I think the absentee YES votes will put it over the top.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.