MN: Marriage amendment failing, voter ID passing, Dayton popular

[Miles]

Full report.

Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

Yes- 43% (48)
No- 49% (44)
Unsure- 7%


Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters?

Yes- 58%
No- 34%
Unsure- 8%

Dayton has a 49/36 approval spread. The Republican majority in the legislature has a 21/61 approval rating, with Democrats at a better 31/46. The DFL also leads 48-36 on the generic ballot.

[ajc0918]

Nice, hopefully the amendment fails. November could be a good month on the marriage equality front.

[Brittain33]

Nice, hopefully the amendment fails. November could be a good month on the marriage equality front.

The impact of Obama's announcement has been a pleasant surprise. I didn't think it would matter, but it has.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Quite pleased with all results.

[Tender Branson]

43-49 is still "danger zone" -> Gay Bradley Effect.

[Brittain33]

43-49 is still "danger zone" -> Gay Bradley Effect.

Absolutely, but at least the change is nice.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

43-49 is still "danger zone" -> Gay Bradley Effect.

About how many points would be fair to subtract if we took that into account?

[ottermax]

43-49 is still "danger zone" -> Gay Bradley Effect.

About how many points would be fair to subtract if we took that into account?

Undecideds historically vote 95% in favor of marriage amendments. Also I believe California had a Gay Bradley Effect of about 5 percentage points, but I'm not sure what the exact numbers were. I do remember that the results appeared to be the flip of the result.

[ottermax]

So WA had R-71 in 2009 and the Gay Bradley Effect ranges from -11 to +3% points. In general it appears that undecideds tended to vote for the "traditional" marriage route or no voters had higher turnout than expected. On average, the polls expected a 9point lead for R71, but the result was a 6point lead.

In CA the polls were off by 9% points on average, with a general complete flip of the election result.

Since WA is a more recent ballot and also more similar to Minnesota, I would expect a result somewhere between, so you can chip about 5% off this poll, leaving a 1% point difference against the amendment for MN.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hey this is nice. A lot nicer than our neighbors to the east. The one thing I don't like is the voter ID but once the DFL retakes the legislature they can just make getting a photo ID far easier.

[Alcon]

43-49 is still "danger zone" -> Gay Bradley Effect.

About how many points would be fair to subtract if we took that into account?

I think Nate Silver calculated that the average is about 7 percentage points.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If it fails in MN, the bigots have got to be screwed in WA, ME, and and MD. Too bad CA didn't decide to join the party.

[Alcon]

If it fails in MN, the bigots have got to be screwed in WA, ME, and and MD. Too bad CA didn't decide to join the party.

One is a constitutional amendment against gay marriage...the other three are yes/no votes on gay marriage.  Especially since MN is clearly much more anti-gay than WA and MD, and possibly ME, it wouldn't be a shock if MN's amendment passed while WA, MD and/or ME passed gay marriage.

[Inverted Things]

It's important to keep in mind that, in amending the MN constitution, the amendment must have "yes" votes on 50% of all ballots cast.  All ballots which have no answer on the amendment issue count as "no" votes for that amendment.

It really looks probable, on that basis, that the marriage amendment is going to fail.  (Put all 7% of that "unsure" bin into the "no" column)

The Voter ID amendment seems to have a good chance of passing, but I expect the margin to be a bit slimmer considering:
1) Amendments tend to lose support as the election nears.
2) This is a presidential election year, so turnout will be up, so a larger percentage of ballots will probably be left blank for the amendments.

My current silly-wise-ass-guesses: Marriage amendment fails by getting "yes" votes on 45% of all ballots cast (Bradley effect is a consideration here).  Voter ID amendment passes by getting "yes" votes on 53% of all ballots cast.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's important to keep in mind that, in amending the MN constitution, the amendment must have "yes" votes on 50% of all ballots cast.  All ballots which have no answer on the amendment issue count as "no" votes for that amendment.

It really looks probable, on that basis, that the marriage amendment is going to fail.  (Put all 7% of that "unsure" bin into the "no" column)

The Voter ID amendment seems to have a good chance of passing, but I expect the margin to be a bit slimmer considering:
1) Amendments tend to lose support as the election nears.
2) This is a presidential election year, so turnout will be up, so a larger percentage of ballots will probably be left blank for the amendments.

My current silly-wise-ass-guesses: Marriage amendment fails by getting "yes" votes on 45% of all ballots cast (Bradley effect is a consideration here).  Voter ID amendment passes by getting "yes" votes on 53% of all ballots cast.

Here in California, only 2.48% abstained on Prop. 8. That's pretty low. For comparison 1.32% abstained on the Presidential race. Over 50% of voters did vote for it, but it only need a majority of those who voted for or against it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's the numbers we had on our last constitutional amendment vote:

Yes   1635046
No   1141540
Estimated Blanks   143628
Estimated Total Voters   2920214

That's almost 5% blank. Gay marriage might be a bit more polarizing issue that'll have less blanks than a 3/8 of a percentage sales tax increase, but even 2.5% blank means that it takes only 47.5% No to beat it.