If I’m understanding it, they set up the voting so you can’t vote for two contradictory initiatives. You vote twice. The first time, you vote whether you’re in favor of one of the initiatives or whether you think they’re both bad. And then in your second vote, you can pick which initiative you like better (even if you voted that you preferred neither of them - this allows you to choose the lesser of two evils as a second choice).
So let’s say some people in California started petitions to rename the state West Nevada. And some other people started a petition to rename the state South Oregon. Obviously, you can’t use both names.
So they’d set up a two-stage vote:
Do you think we should rename the state or keep it California?
a. Rename it.
b. Keep it California.
Which of these names would you prefer to rename it as?
a. South Oregon
b. West Nevada.
So they would first count up the votes for the first question. If “b” got the majority, then there would not be a renaming. But if “a” got the majority on the first question, they would use the results of the second question to pick a new name. But nobody would be able to vote for both new names.
I haven’t seen anything from the Secretary of State on this type of ballot. Granted that the voters’ guide hasn’t been released yet, given what happened the one and only time RCV was tried around here — massive voter confusion (despite extensive attempts at education), delayed results, and the election of a complete nutcase to a county office because everyone knew his name — one would think they’d want to be on top of any deviation from the norm.
If they do use anything like the ballot described above, I’d better lay in some popcorn and a comfy chair. “A little chaos” may be an understatement.
Topic is wrong. It should be whoever votes for the GOP in the last 10 years should never be allowed to vote again. You may ask a mod to change the title of your topic to that last sentence, adaher.
The only way people could assume that liquor would become cheaper is by assuming that the government stores were inefficient. (After all, the promise was to raise the state’s total revenue, and the old model had the state keeping all of the profits on liquor sales, not just a tax. So the only way you could get lower cost with higher revenue is to assume inefficiency). Unfortunately, the default position for many people is that government must always be inefficient. They didn’t bother to research the fact that the state-run stores were comparable a similar private enterprise.
I voted for it expecting higher costs, but being willing to pay it for the convenience of buying liquor at the same places I already shop. I don’t buy enough in a year for the added cost of purchasing it to outweigh the cost of making a separate trip to get it.