Opinion: The Times endorsement scoreboard
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
In our haste to update Vote-o-rama, the Opinion Manufacturing Division’s shrine to the perpetual election cycle, we inadvertently made it harder for folks to judge how seriously the electorate took our endorsements (cough, cough). So, on a day when the print version of the Times is in unusually high demand, let me simplify the task of measuring the Times’ influence. Hey, if we can measure the gravitational force exerted by distant galaxies, we ought to be able to measure the pull the Times exerts over the electorate.
On the 12 statewide propositions, the Times and the voters were in sync on nine : 1a, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12. The splits were on requiring more humane treatment of farm animals, barring gay marriage and giving crime victims more constitutional rights, all of which the Times opposed but the voters did not.
On the six local ballot measures ...
... the Times and the voters diverged on just one: Measure Q, the jawdroppingly ginormous $7 billion bond issue for construction projects at the Los Angeles Unified School District. The grab-bag quality of the measure turned off the editorial board, but the voters’ enthusiasm was undimmed.
For the Board of Supervisors, the Times joined the L.A. Chamber of Commerce in backing Bernard Parks, but the voters in the 2nd Supervisorial District chose Mark Ridley-Thomas. The Times also supported five Superior Court judges, four of whom won their races. The one who didn’t was Cynthia Loo in Office No. 82; next time, perhaps, Loo should run for an office that doesn’t rhyme. And in the lone legislative race to draw our attention, state Senate District 19, our choice, Hannah-Beth Jackson, clings to a wisp of a lead (108 votes out of more than 300,000 cast). Put that one in the win column!
Oh and yes, we backed Barack Obama. It doesn’t seem fair to include that one in our tally, given that John McCain had given up on California by the time we published our endorsement, but I’m going to count it anyway because it makes us look better.
All told, the voters agreed with the Times on 20 out of 26 issues, or 77%. We were in sync on 10 of 13 local measures, also 77%. That’s a considerably lower score than in the last election (the June primary). More telling, though, is that the Times failed to sway voters on the item it devoted the most attention to: Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban. You can (and will) say we’re out of touch with the public, especially on issues with a moral or religious appeal. But another way to look at it is that we’re willing to take unpopular stands.
Besides, our philosophy on these things is similar to that of the T-ball and under-6 soccer leagues: it’s not about winning or losing, it’s about teaching and learning. We make pick sides in races and ballot measures to sink more deeply into the arguments on both sides and spotlight the data points we find most important (or, in the case of Prop. 1A, the vision that outweighs the lousy numbers). We don’t expect you to agree. We just want to have a voice in the debate, one that tries to make the discussion more focused and fact-based than it might otherwise be. OK, ‘fact-based’ might sound absurd to those who think we’ve been in the tank for Obama since he announced his candidacy. It’s also quixotic, given how little currency the facts have in many of these campaigns. But that’s our story, and we’re sticking with it.
Los Angeles Times photo