Earlier this week, Nate Silver coined the term “Broadus Effect” to describe a phenomenon he was seeing with the polling on California’s Proposition 19. He noticed that polls done via automated polling were showing higher support for marijuana legalization than polling done via live operator. The difference was particularly stark for minority groups.
This got me thinking back to some of the discussions that were happening late last year around pushing a ballot initiative for 2010. At the time, the ACLU (and Alison Holcomb specifically) was arguing against putting a full legalization initiative on the ballot this year. Their rationale was that the internal polling they’d done was not showing strong enough support for it. In an email to me, Holcomb indicated that their polling showed support for legalization was only between 33-40%. I found that figure to be hard to believe (considering that 44% of Nevada voters supported legalization at the ballot box in 2006) and wrote up a post about it.
As I-1068 was formed, Holcomb and the ACLU remained convinced that a marijuana legalization initiative couldn’t pass. The I-1068 folks largely left them out of the planning and then later requests for their support ended with them making a public refusal to endorse it. This lack of support eventually doomed the initiative’s ability to raise money from other Democratic groups who otherwise saw big benefits from getting it on the ballot.
So this week, I emailed Holcomb about Silver’s post. And it looks like the ACLU is now re-evaluating their previous pessimism over their internal polling in light of the “Broadus Effect”.
UDPATE: Governor Gregoire’s office responds to the fact that legalizing marijuana is still the top vote getter on the website they launched last week to take suggestion on how to fix the state budget.
UDPATE 2: Alison Holcomb wrote to me directly complaining that I didn’t properly characterize her email response that spurred this post, so I’m posting her follow-up email right here:
Your question was, “I’m curious if you’ve thought about the ACLU’s previous polling on marijuana legalization with respect to what Nate Silver has dubbed ‘The Broadus Effect.'” Indeed I have, and I’ve compared the margins our polls show on hypothetical proposals to WA voters with those described in Silver’s piece on the CA polling of Prop 19. What I’ve seen hasn’t given the ACLU reason to “re-evaluat[e our] previous pessimism.” Instead, we are thinking about how best to do necessary follow-up research that might, in part, test the existence and extent of a “Broadus Effect” in Washington – assuming the actual vote in CA provides additional support for the theory. This is what I meant when I said in that same email, “And it’s figuring prominently in thinking about future qualitative and quantitative research.”
I’ve also been examining our crosstabs to see whether sufficient samples of various races existed to draw any conclusions as to where, for example, African Americans were as a group on the questions we asked. I’m interested in testing messages about the racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws, how that contributes to the shame and stigma Silver identifies, and whether we can do effective public education around this issue in a way that helps us build a broader coalition of support that includes our communities of color.
Lee,
The ACLU’s biggest concern with I-1068 was not as simple as skepticism that a marijuana legalization measure could pass now, but that our research – which included both focus groups and polling – showed it would be more difficult than some advocates think and would depend heavily on how an initiative was framed and worded.
We particularly felt that an initiative that legalizes selling without any regulation (which I-1068 proposed to do, but Prop 19 does not) would be vulnerable to attack during a campaign – a very different environment than polling hypothetical proposals – and would be unlikely to pass.
Alison Holcomb
Drug Policy Director
ACLU of Washington
@Lee, thanks for the heads up on Washington State Wire.
puff puff pass……
Huh,
Your link to about The Governors response goes to a rightie blog. I do believe that the Erik Smith that’s the author of the piece is the same Erik Smith that’s been in Republican circles for years and was a college house mate of Rob McKenna.
From what I understand Mr. Smith still has all the stuff he and his, now ex-wife, purchased with the proceeds from this.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ca.....6/014.html
Apologies upfront if I got the wrong Erik Smith!
Re #1 Alison what regulations would you have wanted in the initiative?
Thank you.
The Nate Silver article led me to look up “Stoners Against Prop 19”. I’m in favor of legalization of marijuana, but the SAP19 analysis of the actual legislation, if accurate, concerns me. Better no change now than a really bad law.
Lee
Sadly you seem to have not read the stats very well.
As of now, there are 1111″ votes” for marijuana out of 3,927 people who have voted. Moreover, the format allows each submitter to list multiple ideas they favor and all ideas submitted by anyone have an equal weight so …. just correctinf for all the ways an idea can be stated …
96% of folks want to fix the budget by welfare reform
53% want to do this by one form or another of forcing prisoners to work.
Only 30% want to legalize MJ???
Not very impressive!
@1
Alison,
That’s true, but the focus of this post was about the discussions that were occurring before I-1068 was conceived.
@7
That comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Lee
Hmm. have you ever taken a statistics course? 96% is a lot bigger than 30%!
Let me help you understand the math.
There were 1111 votes for marijuana.
3,927 folks voted.
Therefore, no more than 30% of voters included MJ in their want lists.
Part of your confusion may be because there was only one category that advocated MJ legalization.
There were several different categories advocating welfare reform.
Using the same math, but totaling all the categories suggesting welfare reform, 96% of the 3927 voters included welfare reform on their want lists for budget reform.
Actually if you look at the website there is also a count of key words, showing that MJ is is well below welfare.
Seems as if the ACLU’s concerns were VERY valid …at least if you want to use this sort of data as a valid measure.
There were 1111 votes for marijuana.
3,927 folks voted.
Therefore, no more than 30% of voters included MJ in their want lists.
Um, no. That’s not even remotely correct. There are a number of things wrong with what you’re saying:
1. According to the sidebar, there are 3559 users and there have been 108,000 votes. I have no idea where you’re getting the “3,927 folks voted” figure from, but it’s hard to fathom since there have only be 3,559 users who’ve registered at the site.
2. The total votes of 1111 is NOT the total votes, since a person voting “DISAGREE” moves the tally down by 1. That figure is “total votes for AGREE – (minus) total votes for DISAGREE”. The reality is that of the 3,559 users, far more than 1111 had voted for marijuana legalization at the time you left this idiotic comment.
3. Regardless of what the percentage voting in favor of marijuana legalization, the percentage voting for it will be higher than the others since the overall number of users and votes used to make that calculation is the same for all entries.
Part of your confusion may be because there was only one category that advocated MJ legalization.
This also makes no sense. Every idea was put into a single category. And if you look through the comments, you’ll notice that the site admins worked hard to consolidate duplicate entries into their proper parent entries.
There were several different categories advocating welfare reform.
No, there weren’t. It was only in Economic Development, and it was in 6th place.
Using the same math, but totaling all the categories suggesting welfare reform, 96% of the 3927 voters included welfare reform on their want lists for budget reform.
Can you please show your work on how you came to this conclusion? There’s absolutely nothing on the site that even remotely suggests that this is true, and as I’ve pointed out before, the site only had 3,559 registered users.
Actually if you look at the website there is also a count of key words, showing that MJ is is well below welfare.
No it’s not. It’s four words above welfare. And even so, there’s nothing there that says that the order of those words is indicative of anything. It’s just a list of key words. The list could have been generated chronologically. You have no idea.
Seems as if the ACLU’s concerns were VERY valid …at least if you want to use this sort of data as a valid measure.
This site alone is certainly not proof that a marijuana initiative could pass in Washington state, but it does show that support for it among the online community is strong. I’ve written before about the polling on marijuana legalization and I stand by my conclusions in the past that a well-written initiative with a well-run campaign could get marijuana legalized in this state at the ballot box.
1. I gave you the votes at the time I looked. Obviously there were more total “users” later. As of this AM, the numbers are:
3991 comments 109K votes 3563 users ..
2. The only meaningful stat would be the number of users/voters who chose legalization of MJ. In other words the average number of ideas per commenter is 30 109K votes/3563 users.
3. The sight places NO limit on the number of times you can “vote”. Given that there are 30 votes per user, I assume many K
fanaticsvoters have voted MANY times .. eg this is a great measure of the fanaticism of the 3563 folks who have actually chosen to vote.4. BTW .. I signed in with two different user names. This software seems to me to be based on Mayor Curley’s ideas about how often each of his voters should vote.
I hope you do not write marketing software for a living?
@11
1. I gave you the votes at the time I looked. Obviously there were more total “users” later
No, there were LESS users later than what you claimed there were.
As of this AM, the numbers are:
3991 comments 109K votes 3563 users ..
Exactly, and you claimed above that “3,927 folks voted.” That can’t be possible if the site only had 3,563 users.
2. The only meaningful stat would be the number of users/voters who chose legalization of MJ. In other words the average number of ideas per commenter is 30 109K votes/3563 users.
Well, no. That’s the number of votes per user. The number of ideas per commenter is different. Votes, users, ideas, and commenters are four separate things. I was a user on the site, but not a commenter. I only voted on the site, I never left any comments.
That said, you’re not making a point here of any relevance. Marijuana legalization is in first place in the survey – ahead of all other ideas – because it had the highest margin of people voting for it vs. people voting against it. Your attempt to claim that it’s not really the most popular idea is almost comical. You’re just making up numbers out of nowhere.
3. The sight places NO limit on the number of times you can “vote”.
Yes, it does. It only allows you to vote once on each idea. You can vote AGREE or DISAGREE.
Given that there are 30 votes per user, I assume many Kfanatics voters have voted MANY times
Well, I voted on about two dozen ideas myself, some to AGREE, some to DISAGREE. But I could only cast one vote on the marijuana legalization idea.
eg this is a great measure of the fanaticism of the 3563 folks who have actually chosen to vote.
No it’s not. If you’re insinuating that marijuana legalization is being boosted by people voting repeatedly for it, you’re completely misunderstanding the way this website actually works.
4. BTW .. I signed in with two different user names. This software seems to me to be based on Mayor Curley’s ideas about how often each of his voters should vote.
I’m sure anyone could do that if they had the motivation, but there’s a difference between saying that someone could manipulate the site that way, and actually throwing out some imaginary figures to claim that marijuana legalization really isn’t the most popular entry. You just made up numbers in order to argue something.
I hope you do not write marketing software for a living?
I’ve worked in the software industry for over a decade and have been very successful at it. How you’ve been paid to do scientific research for as long as you’ve been is truly the greatest mystery I’ve encountered in my entire life.
None of the comments you’ve left in this thread have made any sense. You’ve made absolutely no attempt to justify any of the figures you’ve thrown out here. You’ve run away from my challenge to show your work on specific claims. And you’ve repeatedly shown that you don’t even understand basic things about how the site worked. I hope for the sake of UW, you take your job more seriously than you’ve taken this attempt to criticize my post.
I have no doubt that you are competent at coding commercial software. Your somments on other statistical issues, however suggest, you are pretty ignorant of basic stats. I also suggest that 3,927 users is obviously more than 3,563.
Even with one ID/vote (assuming that the MJ voters have not used multiple IDs .. something trivially easy to do). … the calculation of popularity of an idea based on how many folk support others’ ideas depends on the number of times the “idea” has been posted. Since MJ has only been posted twice and welfare many times, the implication is obvious that few folks are supportive enough of MJ to propose legalization and even then only 30% of participants in the site support even that idea when posted by others.
As for your other BS, I am not sure what more you want? I simply went through the list of suggestions and tallied all those that advocated legalizing MJ (there were two) and all those that proposed saving money from welfare reforms .. there were many.
@13
I have no doubt that you are competent at coding commercial software. Your somments on other statistical issues, however suggest, you are pretty ignorant of basic stats.
I’m not sure what part of this discussion suggests that.
I also suggest that 3,927 users is obviously more than 3,563.
Ok good. So then please explain how the following assertion from you is possible:
If there are only 3,563 folks who’ve signed up, how did 3,927 vote?
Even with one ID/vote (assuming that the MJ voters have not used multiple IDs .. something trivially easy to do).
If they used multiple IDs, they’d also be counted twice in the user tally.
the calculation of popularity of an idea based on how many folk support others’ ideas depends on the number of times the “idea” has been posted.
And as I mentioned before, the folks who run the site have been consolidating all the duplicate ideas into single ones. In fact, here’s the link for the Welfare Reform proposal. If you look through the comments, you’ll see that all the other attempts to post a similar idea were just rolled up into the existing one with a note in the comments.
Since MJ has only been posted twice and welfare many times, the implication is obvious that few folks are supportive enough of MJ to propose legalization and even then only 30% of participants in the site support even that idea when posted by others.
Wrong again. Here’s the link for the marijuana legalization idea. Over 40 people nominated that and they were all rolled into a single page for people to vote on.
As for your other BS, I am not sure what more you want?
I’ll try to make this is as simple for you as possible. You said in your original comment:
Point me to the specific numbers that you’re using to make that calculation.
I simply went through the list of suggestions and tallied all those that advocated legalizing MJ (there were two) and all those that proposed saving money from welfare reforms .. there were many.
It’s possible that at the time you did, the ideas hadn’t been consolidated yet. Otherwise, you’re just making this up. But even if it’s true, the ideas have been consolidated and marijuana legalization is still far ahead of welfare reform.
Even a software tester probably can understand that 3563 was the number of users when I looked.
Not sure where you got your numbers but as of 3:16PM:
1185/3609 = 33%
BTW there is a second legalize MJ wi 77 votes so the percent get to nearly 35% hardly a huge vote for MJ
summing work for welfare,drug tests for welfare, Welfare Reform, time limit welfare,(no more) Free Money , eliminate welfare for illegals, limit time on social programs,stop program benefits for illegals, stop supporting illegals, incentivize welfare, state benefit abuse, in your face savings (stop welfare for illegals), 5 year welfare rule, food assistance for immigrants, stop benefits to undoc aliens, Reform DSHS, no aid for undoc people, no state benefits for illegal aliens, stop benefits to illegals, find and prosecute welfare abuse, …
(stopped at 40 vites, I am sure there are more)
3364/3609=93%
Next time, do your own work .. laziness does not become you.
BTW … here is a list of al;l the titles, I believe they are ranked by occurence:
education budget
taxes
schools
waste
tax jobs
marijuana
cut transportation
(cut) revenue welfare
economy
effective government
prison drugs
money
jail
fees
unemployment
safety unions
income tax
hemp
environment
deficit reduction
crime
economic development
college
green sales tax
dnr
school health
parks
transit
roads
cannabis
prohibition
recreation
energy
employment
private
licensing
legalize marijuana
higher education savings
family planning funding
privatize
@15
Even a software tester probably can understand that 3563 was the number of users when I looked.
If it was, then how come you wrote that the number of users was 3,927 (in comment #7)?
Not sure where you got your numbers but as of 3:16PM:
1185/3609 = 33%
No, as I explained in comment #10, the 1185 figure is not the number of people who voted for marijuana legalization. It’s the number of people who voted for marijuana legalization MINUS the number of people who voted against marijuana legalization. Therefore, unless the number of people who voted against marijuana legalization is 0 (which is highly unlikely), the number of people who voted FOR marijuana legalization is much higher. And regardless of whatever the real percentage is, it’s the highest percentage of all of the ideas.
BTW there is a second legalize MJ wi 77 votes so the percent get to nearly 35% hardly a huge vote for MJ
And that one will be rolled into the main one and the votes will be combined.
summing work for welfare,drug tests for welfare, Welfare Reform, time limit welfare,(no more) Free Money , eliminate welfare for illegals, limit time on social programs,stop program benefits for illegals, stop supporting illegals, incentivize welfare, state benefit abuse, in your face savings (stop welfare for illegals), 5 year welfare rule, food assistance for immigrants, stop benefits to undoc aliens, Reform DSHS, no aid for undoc people, no state benefits for illegal aliens, stop benefits to illegals, find and prosecute welfare abuse, …
(stopped at 40 vites, I am sure there are more)
3364/3609=93%
What? You can’t just add all of those together and then divide it by the number of users. That’s ridiculous. People can vote AGREE on more than one idea. In fact, the number you’re calculating could easily be more than the number of total users. So if that’s the case, would that issue have more than 100% support? Are you a complete moron?
Next time, do your own work .. laziness does not become you.
Hahahahahahaha. That may be the funniest thing you’ve ever said. Fucking idiot.
@16
This is what you wrote in comment #9:
Now look at the list you just posted.
Fucking idiot.
Huh… Apparently SJ is too stoned to do simple math. Duly noted.
Incidentally, On Stoner Jew’s list welfare appears once, [(Cut)revenue welfare], but marijuana appears four times (marijuana, legalize marijuana, hemp, cannabis) in addition to the word “prohibition”, which is undoubtedly in reference to marijuana. So, if we combine all those results into one heading, how far “below” welfare will marijuana rank, Stoner Jew? Huh?
>:: *& ^^ %% $FR# )OOO(
or can you r4ead Kligon as poorly as you read English.
Yep there are 3 instances that can be read as leglaize MJ.
There are 20 that want welfare reform.
Now a little lesson for Mr. Lee …
YEP, more folks could have lost their votes cuz others voted no. More evidence of the brilliance of the author!
YEP folks can vote multiple times by voting for the different ways an idea appears. True enough!
Of course this is true for MJ as well and for whatever effort was made at consolidating votes … ore do you suppose that votes for the different mjs were thrown out if a user appeared on more than one???
I guess that is true for the 20 variations on welfare reform vs. the 3 for MJ too?
Then too, we have no way of knowing whether the votes for MJ actually came from 1k different folks or from mj folks registering several times. Have you noted that the stupid SW does not confirm the email addresses? I out in some votes fro you at your Lee@Legoman.net address ,,, no problem at all!
BTW Guy B. Anonymous (do you know him) authored @ of the MJ ideas!
Seems to me that this is not a very robust poll huh? Makes me wonder whether maybe a bud of yours put this thing together?
Jumping fucking jesus you nutter. You posted a list of forty words. WELFARE appears on that list ONCE. Marijuana appears four times, arguably five if you accept that the word “prohibition” has a direct correlation to the subject of marijuana. Please, for shits and giggles, show us the other nineteen times the word or concept of WELFARE appears on your list, which in your own words and shitty spelling supposedly contains
@20
Yep there are 3 instances that can be read as leglaize MJ.
And as I’ve pointed out three times in this thread, the site administrators will keep moving those extra instances into the main idea and consolidate the votes.
There are 20 that want welfare reform.
No, there aren’t. You’re making that up.
YEP, more folks could have lost their votes cuz others voted no. More evidence of the brilliance of the author!
What the fuck are you talking about? I was challenging the way you were calculating the percentage, so all you’re saying here is that I was right.
YEP folks can vote multiple times by voting for the different ways an idea appears. True enough!
No, because eventually those votes will be merged in with the original idea, so there won’t be extra votes any more.
Of course this is true for MJ as well and for whatever effort was made at consolidating votes … ore do you suppose that votes for the different mjs were thrown out if a user appeared on more than one???
Yes, I do.
I guess that is true for the 20 variations on welfare reform vs. the 3 for MJ too?
Yes, it is.
Then too, we have no way of knowing whether the votes for MJ actually came from 1k different folks or from mj folks registering several times.
That’s just as true for welfare reform or any other idea. Do you have any evidence that people were registering a bunch of fake emails specifically for marijuana legalization as opposed to the other ideas?
BTW Guy B. Anonymous (do you know him) authored @ of the MJ ideas!
Um, no, I have no idea who authored it.
Seems to me that this is not a very robust poll huh? Makes me wonder whether maybe a bud of yours put this thing together?
The Governor’s office put this thing together. Fucking idiot.
Are you calling Guv Gregoire a fucking idiot?
BTW, not being of your foul mouthed persuasion, I ca never tell what you mean by these trite epithets . Is a fucking idiot better than a celibate idiot?
Gosh bubbela .. I went to all the trouble of listing the ideas that add up to 20 … do you think I made all these up or are you just to lazy to look ftr ya self?
Actually; if you look, the poll is an automaton from Idea Scale. Best news, it looks as if the state used the FREE option!
Seriously …
It seems to me that this sort of silliness .. including the cartoon you posted and your passion for medical MJ, do a lot more harm than good for your cause.
Fact is, I know of only one expert (a non scientist who has worked with a lot of kids on pot) who does not agree that the shit is harmless. These same folks are natural supporters for legalization for many of the reason you do state (crime, race, etc) but are really put of by the excesses of potheads like yourself.
I expect the Cal initiative to pass and that will force the issue. However, with legalization I suspect the pothead community will become estranged from their own cause .
Maybe 5 years after legalizationb, you and yours will be complaining that KK&R have taken over your cottage industry.
Thus, all things must paqss.
@15 –
@16-
So, using your own method, summing all the welfare categories you mention @15, Welfare comes in at 8 on your list of forty, while marijuana comes in at 6, plus four alternate mentions – hemp, cannabis, legalize, prohibition.
You posted the list to bolster your claims that welfare reform topped marijuana in the key words (it doesn’t) and to show that welfare comes up twenty times (it doesn’t).
Let it rest, old man.
@23
Are you calling Guv Gregoire a fucking idiot?
No, I’m calling you a fucking idiot, and I have this comment thread as Exhibits A-M.
Gosh bubbela .. I went to all the trouble of listing the ideas that add up to 20 … do you think I made all these up or are you just to lazy to look ftr ya self?
And as has been said four times now, the duplicate ideas will get merged into a single idea. Some of the ones you listed are different enough from each other to stay unique, others have already been merged.
On top of that, your way of adding up the votes for each of those unmerged items together and then dividing it by the total number of users is an idiotic way of deriving an accurate statistic. Since a single user can vote for multiple ideas, you could very easily end up with over 100% support for an idea. That should probably clue you in to the fact that you’re not doing it right.
@24
It seems to me that this sort of silliness .. including the cartoon you posted and your passion for medical MJ, do a lot more harm than good for your cause.
After all this, you actually believe that people still care what you think? You’ve utterly humiliated yourself in this thread.
Fact is, I know of only one expert (a non scientist who has worked with a lot of kids on pot) who does not agree that the shit is harmless.
Doesn’t agree with who? I don’t think it’s harmless. You’re getting real close to accusing me of believing things I don’t believe, asshole. Watch yourself.
These same folks are natural supporters for legalization for many of the reason you do state (crime, race, etc) but are really put of by the excesses of potheads like yourself.
How am I a pothead? I haven’t smoked pot in almost a year.
Are you really going to keep replying to me? Have you not embarrassed yourself enough today?
Lee
Seems like a good question for you.
As for the term “pothead” .. given your Asberger’s problem, it is odd that you would care about what you are called. I think you qualify for this term, not because you use pot, because of your bizarre behavior in supporting pot.
Do you really thunk the cartoon you posted is a good argument for legalizing pot?
As for the term “pothead” .. given your Asberger’s problem, it is odd that you would care about what you are called.
Excuse me? I neither smoke pot, nor do I have Asperger’s. Do you have any desire in this comment thread other than to simply be an asshole?
I think you qualify for this term, not because you use pot, because of your bizarre behavior in supporting pot.
Wow, you’re simply delusional. How about this. I will give you $100 if you can find a single person in the DL community (i.e. not a troll here) who thinks that your comment at #7 makes sense. Got it? $100. All yours if you can find a single person who thinks you’ve been the one making sense in this thread and that I’m the one who can’t understand statistics.
Good luck!
I’ve posted it at EffU.
I’ve now updated the wager. With Darryl as the judge, SJ, I will bet you $10,000 straight-up over whether or not the comment at #7 makes sense. Are you man enough to take the bet?
@27
Do you really thunk the cartoon you posted is a good argument for legalizing pot?
No, I thought it was a clever and enjoyable video. If I want to make a good argument for legalizing pot, I’ll do it with words, as I’ve done many times before.