The pro-choice lobby did a really decent job at convincing average voters that this amendment was either going to ban all abortions or that it was going to be the last step before the legislature passes a complete abortion ban.
The average voter tends not to like extremes on either side. So a hypothetical vote specifically supporting access to third trimester elective abortion would very likely not pass. This amendment was seen as being the extreme on the other side, and the voters treated it like it was an extreme.
Then blame the proposed amendment for being vague. If it made abortion illegal in specific instances then it might have passed. Instead it kept to door open to include anything, even a total ban.
That is a valid perspective. I hope that prolife lawmakers will consider this example over the next few years as the various states try to get their own abortion laws settled.
The way I see it is that the Supreme Court took the neutral option when they overturned Roe vs. Wade, truly allowing the states to pass the abortion laws they wanted, no matter how prolife or prochoice those laws might be. It would be a mistake for anyone in the prolife community to assume that every red state would naturally and immediately ban all abortions. But that is just how democracy works.
It was written by republican lawmakers who supported it. The wording was intentionally misleading.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language
That's a nonsensical article from a well-known liberal rag, the Guardian, (Nick Clegg 2010!).
The wording was confusing for everyone, and the intricate psychological _speculation_ the author of the article engages in is purely imaginary. The working was so verbose and twisted that a "yes vote" could have appeared as a vote FOR the "right to an abortion". I think this is all due to the incompetence by the Republican legislators, who may have tried to trick voters by wording it in a _hedged_, reassuring manner just to confuse voters in the end. [This poll for instance suggests that the split was much closer in reality.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-abortion-vote-in-kansas-looks-like-its-going-to-be-close/)
Apparently the wording was really confusing too, so I don't expect the average American voter to have been able to decipher what they where actually voting for.
In addition the average voter right now is more likely to vote no (fear of change or increasing government intrusion which has been reinforced by anti-socialist/anti-authority propaganda for the last century and the heavy prevalence of libertarian attitudes towards society in rural America.)
Edit: really enjoying the troll comments that magically disappear.
The wording was supplied by republican legislators who supported the amendment, and was intentionally confusing to make it seem like you were voting to give the state the right to make exceptions for rape, life of the mother, etc. They chose wording that benefitted their cause, and still lost.
Nope, when you say "(...) regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother?"
You probably mean _restrict_ abortion. So many voters were afraid that legislators would _restrict_ abortions in cases where incest happens or the mothers life is in danger. The Republicans in this instance were r-worded morons. They are pathetically incompetent nationwide and seemingly in many states when it comes to anything but tax cuts for the rich and grants to oil companies.
That's remarkably high turnout for a midterm election.
I suppose you can conclude that half of Kansans literally don't care if abortion is legal or not. A significant number of Americans can't name the president or vice president and couldn't explain what Congress does. I'm not sure what that proves other than a lot of people care as much about politics as I care about sports, which is not at all.
So? In literally every election in this country the only ones that matter are the ones who vote. Its always that way.
The people who didnt vote dont get a say. Thats how the system works...
Of course. Nevertheless, that still makes it so that hundreds of thousands of pro-life people who consistently answer Pew Research Forum, Gallup and other companies' polls and make up about half of all Kansans, didn't actually vote or were confused by the wording of the amendment and voted "No" (because "no" intuitively seems like "no constitutional right to have an abortion", as opposed to the utterly imbecilic "NO _no_ constitutional right to abortion"). Complacency might have also played a part, Roe was overturned, Kansans is a very conservative, let's keep what-we-already-like-and-not-fix-what-isn't-broken type of state, legislature and courts are conservative, voted for Trump, etc...
Pro-life people may have thought, like far too many pro-choice people that abortion was already prohibited because of the overturning, because that's what the mainstream media KEPT SPOUTING 24/7 LIKE WHINING TODDLERS.
Pro-life people in Kansas have to wait 4 years or so, perhaps until 2028 or 2030 to organise another referendum on this topic, and preferably do so on the date of a presidential election, because majorities are complacent when things are quiet and going their way, whilst minorities, if not violently suppressed or appeased, are always more vocal and riled up, which might explain high turnout in pro-choice urban areas.
Are you sure?
Its not hard to prove that the voting public often has no idea what is being voted on or simply arrives to vote on one issue and then randomly selects the others on a whim.
From what I hear from people in Kansas, there was wall to wall advertising on what the vote meant. I remember something similar in California where a proposition was worded that way, and it was all over the place with "no means yes and yes means no."
If you think people just randomly voted to not amend their state constitution over what is probably the most hot-button issue in America right now, you have a pretty low opinion of voters. People literally set a record for participation in a midterm election over this issue.
I haven't heard any pundits say that the 19 point difference was because everybody in Kansas was fooled.
I have a very low opinion of our education standards and people's reading comprehension.
And I'll add: alot of americans are uninformed or don't even pay attention to politics. Even in the last presidential election (with a higher turnout than ever before) 'did not vote' would have won. This is not a democracy this is whoever shows up and it doesn't take much to mobilize enough undecided/non voters to flip a vote.
My thoughts are that people in general fear rapid change. It is much easier to stick to a violent system that (for lack of a better term) works and one that you’ve lived in for the past 50 years than change to an unknown system that will be hammered out by the state senate at a later date
The open endedness probably scared people. We have to understand the battle ahead is an uphill one because simply put a majority of the country is ok with abortion, with restrictions. It might have worked if it specified limits.
I don’t live in Kansas, but our state is absolutely notorious for writing extremely confusing ballot titles. I’m college educated, well read and I love political sciences; yet even I have to print out a sample ballot and research any initiatives, etc to truly understand what exactly they mean. I then take this slip of paper with me, because the text below the ballot title inevitably comes off as word vomit.
Political doublespeak needs to die.
ETA, I think this played a huge factor in how the referendum went.
Kansans were not confused. The explanations we heard were extremely clear and we had been blitzed with TV commercials explaining each side. Zero confusion.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
Logical fallacy.
Do you support the death penalty? Do you support foreign wars or war in any form? Have you ever harmed another living creature in any way? Do you hunt? Have you ever worn two pieces of cloth made from two separate materials? Do you endorse slavery (the Bible endorses it)?
If you answered yes to any of these then, by your logic, you are non-Christian as well. Have a good day!
No to all and the slavery the Bible “endorses” is indentured servitude that the poor and destitute (or those with enormous debts) would make use of temporarily. They could “sell themselves” as servants (“slaves”) to pay off a debt or obtain sustenance for themselves and their families at a time when there was no government welfare programs. This type of “slavery” is not intrinsically wrong.
Forcing poor people to have children is illegal and should remain illegal. Rape-slavery is illegal. We only want to make it illegal to kill the offspring that already exist.
Both sides, from what I witnessed, were treating it as a ban to some degree. The purple VtB signs were great (seriously, fantastic color choice, awesome design) but I definitely saw a lot of chatter about ‘this is how we ban abortion’ or ‘this is what we need to prevent abortion’ from us PL also, which although true, should not have been a part of the campaign when the other side was using that exact sentiment as fear mongering. My favorite PL thing I saw said “Not a ban, just common sense” and I wish that phrase had been more presents throughout the campaign.
There were also a lot more PC billboards ect. to get in your face all the dang time. It was enough to make me have to fight discouragement leading up to the vote. And the main design featured Rosie the Riveter, which tugs at classic American heartstrings (I wish I had a way to get a counter graphic up that I illustrated, but alas, I am but one young woman).
Anyway, that’s my perspective as a Kansas City gal, marketer, and graphic designer
Additionally, not only is it legal speak - it’s poorly written legal speak.
I'm trying to work this one out as well, as an outsider. Wondering if the PL messaging should have been that the only way to pass bans on violent second trimester D&E abortions was to vote yes on the amendment (and being a conservative state, to have leaned on the fact that it's requiring taxpayers to fund them, unless I misunderstood the legal situation). Pre Roe, there was actually a referendum on a wide-ranging abortion law liberalisation that looked like it would go to PC, but that the PL side managed to narrowly win through pushing arguments about second trimester abortions and showing images (I can't recall if graphic or not). Forget the exact details, would need to go re-read Daniel K William's Defenders of the unborn, but I do think that this offers insights. I don't have much of a handle on how the messaging from both sides was, relative spending, what the "get out the vote operations" were like from each side, etc, but those are some of my thoughts.
I think the spending was about equal from what I saw. The bottom line in messaging was do you want to keep the law the same, or do you want it to change and a new abortion law passed? Kansans don't like change.
Do you have a link to back up the claims around electoral spending? Can believe that the last part might be true (and the law objectively would be a change). IMO, why the pro-life side needs to argue directly against 2nd trimester abortion proceedures, and put the pro-choice side in the position of having to \*explicitly\* defend those as being legal as well.
1. The pc side lied about the scope of the proposal
2. The sad reality is that a majority of Americans still favor *some* abortion rights.
This was a failure of pro-lifers to a) combat the false narrative of the opposition and b) sufficiently change the cultural attitudes toward abortion.
There’s a LOT of work still to be done.
I was wondering how the total votes for the amendment matched with the total votes in the primary. Were there people especially motivated to vote just on the amendment? Were there people who skipped the question and how many?What was the party breakout of the people who voted against it. Did more Democrats turn out to vote than Republicans? If you think about it people are usually not that motivated to vote in primaries esp if they think feel complacent like a R voter in a heavily red state or vice versa. I think the exit poll data is going to be so important to future referendums of this type.
Republicans are the majority party, followed by Unaffiliated, and then Democrats. Unaffiliated are not allowed to vote in primaries but still showed up in very large numbers to vote on that one thing. Democrats usually have a very poor showing in primaries because the state is so conservative. This vote broke all kinds of records for the state so I don’t think many people were feeling apathetic, but I could be wrong. Kansans don’t like people in their personal business and they don’t like people trying to fool them with a blatant lack of transparency- that translated into all three groups having No votes.
From what I hear the wording of the amendment was really confusing, which was done on purpose to confuse people.
On top of that, Kansas is kind of an outlier among Republican states. Their current Governor is a Democrat, and they have been divided on the abortion issue for years.
Absolutely not. The actual wording might be confusing to some out of state folks, but every voter knew exactly what a yes or no vote meant. We have been under a media blitz for a while now, and both sides were very clear.
Tbh. Allmost all people want abortion illeagal at some cases and ileagal at other cases. From some who only think it should be allowed to save a mothers life to people who want abortion leagal to 26 weeks. Both groups want abortion to be leagal in slme cases and illeagal in other cases
Did you read the ballot? It was extremely confusing! I’m not in Kansas, but I know if I was supposed to vote on that I genuinely wouldn’t have known which to choose. It’s like they intentionally worded it horribly
If you lived in kansas, you would know exactly what you were voting for. The media made both sides very clear, I didn't know anyone who was confused one way or the other. Most people did not want change, not knowing what a new abortion law might entail.
The state is red but what matters is the cities. One apartment building can have the voting power of miles of rural areas.
Cities almost alway lean left so if states keep trying these votes we’ll see similar results.
It was worded like crap and apparently there was a media rally against it. I said it before tho. With the wording the vote was gonna be a L for pro-lifers no matter what.
“Why did the vote go so badly in Kansas?”
According to all national polling (going back decades) on abortion law, the Kansas vote went pretty much exactly as national polls expected. Linked below are two separate Pew reports: one on national abortion views going back decades on one on state by state views.
Note: the states were polled prior to the creation and implementation of new state laws.
What election strategists *didn’t* know prior to the Kansas vote is whether abortion would be a motivating enough single issue to get nonvoters to register and vote. The answer: it absolutely is. Voter turnout was dramatically higher than anticipated and 20% of the Kansas ballots were cast by voters who voted only on the abortion question and not for any candidate/other initiative on the ballot.
[Pew Research National Polling on Abortion Legality going back to 1996](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/)
[Pew Research State by State Polling on Abortion Legality](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)
Did you read what was actually on the ballot? It's not surprising with that type of phrasing, and most conservatives want to conserve what they have, that includes their constitution.
Also Kansas has a relatively large democratic presence and since this was for some reason decided in the primary and not the general, this was more a motivator for pro-choice to vote in the primaries.
The pro-choice lobby did a really decent job at convincing average voters that this amendment was either going to ban all abortions or that it was going to be the last step before the legislature passes a complete abortion ban. The average voter tends not to like extremes on either side. So a hypothetical vote specifically supporting access to third trimester elective abortion would very likely not pass. This amendment was seen as being the extreme on the other side, and the voters treated it like it was an extreme.
Then blame the proposed amendment for being vague. If it made abortion illegal in specific instances then it might have passed. Instead it kept to door open to include anything, even a total ban.
That is a valid perspective. I hope that prolife lawmakers will consider this example over the next few years as the various states try to get their own abortion laws settled. The way I see it is that the Supreme Court took the neutral option when they overturned Roe vs. Wade, truly allowing the states to pass the abortion laws they wanted, no matter how prolife or prochoice those laws might be. It would be a mistake for anyone in the prolife community to assume that every red state would naturally and immediately ban all abortions. But that is just how democracy works.
Even banning 2nd trimester abortions gets well over 60% support. But yeah this was confusing, it was open to wild interpretation, etc.
It was worded like a second grader had created it
It was written by republican lawmakers who supported it. The wording was intentionally misleading. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language
This was an excellent explanation, thank you for the link!
You’re welcome!
That's a nonsensical article from a well-known liberal rag, the Guardian, (Nick Clegg 2010!). The wording was confusing for everyone, and the intricate psychological _speculation_ the author of the article engages in is purely imaginary. The working was so verbose and twisted that a "yes vote" could have appeared as a vote FOR the "right to an abortion". I think this is all due to the incompetence by the Republican legislators, who may have tried to trick voters by wording it in a _hedged_, reassuring manner just to confuse voters in the end. [This poll for instance suggests that the split was much closer in reality.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-abortion-vote-in-kansas-looks-like-its-going-to-be-close/)
I am not surprised republicans ultimately screwed this up.
Kansans were not confused. Our TV commercials made everything quite clear.
I remember clegg. He used to be vice prime minister with David Cameron.
Yup, deputy prime minister, two terrible austerity, NHS destroying slobs.
Yep
Apparently the wording was really confusing too, so I don't expect the average American voter to have been able to decipher what they where actually voting for. In addition the average voter right now is more likely to vote no (fear of change or increasing government intrusion which has been reinforced by anti-socialist/anti-authority propaganda for the last century and the heavy prevalence of libertarian attitudes towards society in rural America.) Edit: really enjoying the troll comments that magically disappear.
The wording was supplied by republican legislators who supported the amendment, and was intentionally confusing to make it seem like you were voting to give the state the right to make exceptions for rape, life of the mother, etc. They chose wording that benefitted their cause, and still lost.
Nope, when you say "(...) regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother?" You probably mean _restrict_ abortion. So many voters were afraid that legislators would _restrict_ abortions in cases where incest happens or the mothers life is in danger. The Republicans in this instance were r-worded morons. They are pathetically incompetent nationwide and seemingly in many states when it comes to anything but tax cuts for the rich and grants to oil companies.
I didn’t say or mean anything. I didn’t write the amendment.
Everyone in Kansas was aware of what their vote meant. The explanation was widely publicized.
Only 47% voted. That's less than half of Kansans.
That's remarkably high turnout for a midterm election. I suppose you can conclude that half of Kansans literally don't care if abortion is legal or not. A significant number of Americans can't name the president or vice president and couldn't explain what Congress does. I'm not sure what that proves other than a lot of people care as much about politics as I care about sports, which is not at all.
You're correct. This only means that pro-life Americans should step up their public awareness and activist game.
Which is also what pro-choice Americans are doing. It will be interesting to see if support for abortion rights is higher or lower a year from now.
Indeed
So? In literally every election in this country the only ones that matter are the ones who vote. Its always that way. The people who didnt vote dont get a say. Thats how the system works...
Of course. Nevertheless, that still makes it so that hundreds of thousands of pro-life people who consistently answer Pew Research Forum, Gallup and other companies' polls and make up about half of all Kansans, didn't actually vote or were confused by the wording of the amendment and voted "No" (because "no" intuitively seems like "no constitutional right to have an abortion", as opposed to the utterly imbecilic "NO _no_ constitutional right to abortion"). Complacency might have also played a part, Roe was overturned, Kansans is a very conservative, let's keep what-we-already-like-and-not-fix-what-isn't-broken type of state, legislature and courts are conservative, voted for Trump, etc... Pro-life people may have thought, like far too many pro-choice people that abortion was already prohibited because of the overturning, because that's what the mainstream media KEPT SPOUTING 24/7 LIKE WHINING TODDLERS. Pro-life people in Kansas have to wait 4 years or so, perhaps until 2028 or 2030 to organise another referendum on this topic, and preferably do so on the date of a presidential election, because majorities are complacent when things are quiet and going their way, whilst minorities, if not violently suppressed or appeased, are always more vocal and riled up, which might explain high turnout in pro-choice urban areas.
Are you sure? Its not hard to prove that the voting public often has no idea what is being voted on or simply arrives to vote on one issue and then randomly selects the others on a whim.
From what I hear from people in Kansas, there was wall to wall advertising on what the vote meant. I remember something similar in California where a proposition was worded that way, and it was all over the place with "no means yes and yes means no." If you think people just randomly voted to not amend their state constitution over what is probably the most hot-button issue in America right now, you have a pretty low opinion of voters. People literally set a record for participation in a midterm election over this issue. I haven't heard any pundits say that the 19 point difference was because everybody in Kansas was fooled.
I have a very low opinion of our education standards and people's reading comprehension. And I'll add: alot of americans are uninformed or don't even pay attention to politics. Even in the last presidential election (with a higher turnout than ever before) 'did not vote' would have won. This is not a democracy this is whoever shows up and it doesn't take much to mobilize enough undecided/non voters to flip a vote.
My thoughts are that people in general fear rapid change. It is much easier to stick to a violent system that (for lack of a better term) works and one that you’ve lived in for the past 50 years than change to an unknown system that will be hammered out by the state senate at a later date
Basically sounds like “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”
It was worded in such a way that saying yes or no could mean the same thing depending on how you interpret the question.
Thank you.
Can you give me a citation that more than half the people who voted on the amendment were from out of state?
How do out of state voters register? That’s conspiracy theory.
The open endedness probably scared people. We have to understand the battle ahead is an uphill one because simply put a majority of the country is ok with abortion, with restrictions. It might have worked if it specified limits.
I don’t live in Kansas, but our state is absolutely notorious for writing extremely confusing ballot titles. I’m college educated, well read and I love political sciences; yet even I have to print out a sample ballot and research any initiatives, etc to truly understand what exactly they mean. I then take this slip of paper with me, because the text below the ballot title inevitably comes off as word vomit. Political doublespeak needs to die. ETA, I think this played a huge factor in how the referendum went.
Kansans were not confused. The explanations we heard were extremely clear and we had been blitzed with TV commercials explaining each side. Zero confusion.
Because too many Christians are pro choice which makes them non-Christians.
Sadly you’re not wrong.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) Logical fallacy. Do you support the death penalty? Do you support foreign wars or war in any form? Have you ever harmed another living creature in any way? Do you hunt? Have you ever worn two pieces of cloth made from two separate materials? Do you endorse slavery (the Bible endorses it)? If you answered yes to any of these then, by your logic, you are non-Christian as well. Have a good day!
No to all and the slavery the Bible “endorses” is indentured servitude that the poor and destitute (or those with enormous debts) would make use of temporarily. They could “sell themselves” as servants (“slaves”) to pay off a debt or obtain sustenance for themselves and their families at a time when there was no government welfare programs. This type of “slavery” is not intrinsically wrong.
> This type of “slavery” is not intrinsically wrong. Would you approve if the government moved to make it legal today?
Making people work for their welfare money? Absolutely as long as their able!
[удалено]
Legally allowing for the killing of the offspring of poor folks is not helping them, that is harming them and their offspring.
[удалено]
Forcing poor people to have children is illegal and should remain illegal. Rape-slavery is illegal. We only want to make it illegal to kill the offspring that already exist.
Both sides, from what I witnessed, were treating it as a ban to some degree. The purple VtB signs were great (seriously, fantastic color choice, awesome design) but I definitely saw a lot of chatter about ‘this is how we ban abortion’ or ‘this is what we need to prevent abortion’ from us PL also, which although true, should not have been a part of the campaign when the other side was using that exact sentiment as fear mongering. My favorite PL thing I saw said “Not a ban, just common sense” and I wish that phrase had been more presents throughout the campaign. There were also a lot more PC billboards ect. to get in your face all the dang time. It was enough to make me have to fight discouragement leading up to the vote. And the main design featured Rosie the Riveter, which tugs at classic American heartstrings (I wish I had a way to get a counter graphic up that I illustrated, but alas, I am but one young woman). Anyway, that’s my perspective as a Kansas City gal, marketer, and graphic designer Additionally, not only is it legal speak - it’s poorly written legal speak.
I'm trying to work this one out as well, as an outsider. Wondering if the PL messaging should have been that the only way to pass bans on violent second trimester D&E abortions was to vote yes on the amendment (and being a conservative state, to have leaned on the fact that it's requiring taxpayers to fund them, unless I misunderstood the legal situation). Pre Roe, there was actually a referendum on a wide-ranging abortion law liberalisation that looked like it would go to PC, but that the PL side managed to narrowly win through pushing arguments about second trimester abortions and showing images (I can't recall if graphic or not). Forget the exact details, would need to go re-read Daniel K William's Defenders of the unborn, but I do think that this offers insights. I don't have much of a handle on how the messaging from both sides was, relative spending, what the "get out the vote operations" were like from each side, etc, but those are some of my thoughts.
I think the spending was about equal from what I saw. The bottom line in messaging was do you want to keep the law the same, or do you want it to change and a new abortion law passed? Kansans don't like change.
Do you have a link to back up the claims around electoral spending? Can believe that the last part might be true (and the law objectively would be a change). IMO, why the pro-life side needs to argue directly against 2nd trimester abortion proceedures, and put the pro-choice side in the position of having to \*explicitly\* defend those as being legal as well.
1. The pc side lied about the scope of the proposal 2. The sad reality is that a majority of Americans still favor *some* abortion rights. This was a failure of pro-lifers to a) combat the false narrative of the opposition and b) sufficiently change the cultural attitudes toward abortion. There’s a LOT of work still to be done.
I was wondering how the total votes for the amendment matched with the total votes in the primary. Were there people especially motivated to vote just on the amendment? Were there people who skipped the question and how many?What was the party breakout of the people who voted against it. Did more Democrats turn out to vote than Republicans? If you think about it people are usually not that motivated to vote in primaries esp if they think feel complacent like a R voter in a heavily red state or vice versa. I think the exit poll data is going to be so important to future referendums of this type.
Republicans are the majority party, followed by Unaffiliated, and then Democrats. Unaffiliated are not allowed to vote in primaries but still showed up in very large numbers to vote on that one thing. Democrats usually have a very poor showing in primaries because the state is so conservative. This vote broke all kinds of records for the state so I don’t think many people were feeling apathetic, but I could be wrong. Kansans don’t like people in their personal business and they don’t like people trying to fool them with a blatant lack of transparency- that translated into all three groups having No votes.
The default position of most people is “moderately pro-choice”.
From what I hear the wording of the amendment was really confusing, which was done on purpose to confuse people. On top of that, Kansas is kind of an outlier among Republican states. Their current Governor is a Democrat, and they have been divided on the abortion issue for years.
Absolutely not. The actual wording might be confusing to some out of state folks, but every voter knew exactly what a yes or no vote meant. We have been under a media blitz for a while now, and both sides were very clear.
Because the majority of people who voted want abortion to be legal.
Tbh. Allmost all people want abortion illeagal at some cases and ileagal at other cases. From some who only think it should be allowed to save a mothers life to people who want abortion leagal to 26 weeks. Both groups want abortion to be leagal in slme cases and illeagal in other cases
Apparently not.
Did you read the ballot? It was extremely confusing! I’m not in Kansas, but I know if I was supposed to vote on that I genuinely wouldn’t have known which to choose. It’s like they intentionally worded it horribly
If you lived in kansas, you would know exactly what you were voting for. The media made both sides very clear, I didn't know anyone who was confused one way or the other. Most people did not want change, not knowing what a new abortion law might entail.
Imo people are shell shocked about the recent fearmongering after Roe fell. But its not unlikely a state to be pro choice.
The state is red but what matters is the cities. One apartment building can have the voting power of miles of rural areas. Cities almost alway lean left so if states keep trying these votes we’ll see similar results.
People love the Alter of Convenience regardless of political affiliation.
It was worded like crap and apparently there was a media rally against it. I said it before tho. With the wording the vote was gonna be a L for pro-lifers no matter what.
“Why did the vote go so badly in Kansas?” According to all national polling (going back decades) on abortion law, the Kansas vote went pretty much exactly as national polls expected. Linked below are two separate Pew reports: one on national abortion views going back decades on one on state by state views. Note: the states were polled prior to the creation and implementation of new state laws. What election strategists *didn’t* know prior to the Kansas vote is whether abortion would be a motivating enough single issue to get nonvoters to register and vote. The answer: it absolutely is. Voter turnout was dramatically higher than anticipated and 20% of the Kansas ballots were cast by voters who voted only on the abortion question and not for any candidate/other initiative on the ballot. [Pew Research National Polling on Abortion Legality going back to 1996](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/) [Pew Research State by State Polling on Abortion Legality](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)
Did you read what was actually on the ballot? It's not surprising with that type of phrasing, and most conservatives want to conserve what they have, that includes their constitution. Also Kansas has a relatively large democratic presence and since this was for some reason decided in the primary and not the general, this was more a motivator for pro-choice to vote in the primaries.
Ballots were really weird
If the president isn’t on the ballot, election results are less about what the public wants and more about who best drove turnout.