A November 9 Los Angeles Times article noted that Proposition 87’s defeat was largely due to voter unease about the cost and the mechanics of the measure’s implementation. Foremost in voters’ minds were worries about the cost of gasoline going up and the nature of the bureaucracy necessary to implement the measure. Even Proposition 87 backers admitted that opponents of the measure were able to “plant seeds of doubt,” as one pro-initiative spokesperson put it, “on the issues of cost and accountability.”

Other theories about Proposition 87’s defeat popped up in news analysis articles and in the political blogs. One widely disseminated conclusion was that Proposition 87’s advertisements (many of which in the final days of the campaign featured Bill Clinton) and high-profile celebrity endorsements left voters either cold or indifferent, especially in the state’s non-coastal regions. This conclusion appears to be supported by Secretary of State voting pattern maps, which show that inland counties opposed Proposition 87 by anywhere from 56% (Imperial County) to 78% (Glenn County). The Bay Area, in fact, was the only part of the state where some counties voted for the measure with numbers exceeding 60%.

Even in the Bay Area, Contra Costa County voters opposed the measure 51-49%. Coastal support for the measure was by no means solid, with the region from Paso Robles to Ventura opposing the measure by margins in the 53-58% range.

Despite the measure’s loss, the funding pool for alternative energy itself isn’t going anywhere but up. According to an article in the November 9 San Francisco Chronicle, $843 million was invested in alternative energy during the second quarter of 2006 alone, more than double the amount from the same period in 2005.

Trackback this post