This is really great, thanks for sharing. I’m curating the post.
I was going to ask why you chose to focus on this set of ballot initiatives — and then found the “Ballot Initiative Selection” section in the full report. My summary (in case anyone else is curious) is that you tried to find ~all possibly relevant measures (140 initiatives), then filtered for those that have financial information (21 measures), and then narrowed down to “ballot initiatives that mandate specific welfare requirements in farm animal operations, so as to do an analysis directly relevant to farm animal advocates.”
Another thing I’m curious about is whether you’ve looked at ballot initiatives and measures that didn’t pass. (You flag the fact that all four initiatives passed as a limitation.) Alternatively, I’m interested in hearing how we should adjust how we use the results here to estimate the EV of possible future initiatives (although maybe there are few general heuristics — it would depend too much on the state, etc.?).
(Thanks so much for working on this. As an aside, I had tried to BOTEC the following myself recently (very poorly), so I doubly appreciate the table:
Hi Lizka! Thanks for the good summary of the ballot initiatives selection process.
Regarding the second question, I think you’re right it would be hard to estimate the probability of similar initiatives passing in other states, as well as the costs of doing so. Here are a few thoughts:
1. One reason we might be optimistic about the cost-effectiveness of pursuing ballot initiatives in more states is that the campaigns in California, Massachusetts, and Arizona may have done much of the heavy lifting in terms of proving to the public that these initiatives are feasible. Advocates also may have refined their techniques to be more effective, and the publicity they got (Prop 12 especially) may have made people in other states more willing to vote for enhanced welfare requirements.
2. But it also might be harder to pass these initiatives in states other than California and Massachusetts for various reasons (they’re very liberal, for example). Nevertheless, one study from 2014 models which states could pass initiatives similar to California Proposition 2 (which applied to domestic production only). Here’s a summary of their findings from my report (pg. 115):
“One study from 2014 used demographic data to model the vote share that a hypothetical initiative designed like California Proposition 2 would receive in all states. Amongst the states that allow ballot initiatives, Proposition 2 is predicted to gain above 50% of the votes in several of them. Depending on the model, these potential states could include Washington, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon, and Colorado, amongst others (Smithson et. al. 2014, pp. 120, 122). Though a few of these states have already passed legislation to implement some farmed animal welfare standards on the state level (Smithson et. al. 2014, pp. 122), and though the study only estimated the likelihood of passing initiatives that affect domestic animals, it seems plausible that initiatives impacting all goods sold in-state could pass in more states than just California and Massachusetts.
In the end, we really do not yet know if the cost-effectiveness of ballot initiatives–especially ones modeled after California Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3–generalizes to states with political ideologies, wealth, and other demographics that differ from California and Massachusetts (which are themselves outliers).”
In all, I think this is a great question to be asking, and there are some reasons to be cautiously hopeful that ballot initiatives could be successful in states other than those studied, namely California and Massachusetts. In addition, I would suspect there is a lot of room for advocacy in these two states as well with regard to broiler chicken welfare.
Thank you! Makes sense that (paraphrasing, would appreciate corrections if something is off):
The existence of and publicity for past initiatives helps (makes it easier to pass future initiatives)
But also the campaigns might have been run in states more likely to pass them — a factor that means the likelihood of passing future initiatives in other states is smaller
Caveat for the models you shared
And I appreciate the flag: “I would suspect there is a lot of room for advocacy in these two states as well with regard to broiler chicken welfare.”
This is really great, thanks for sharing. I’m curating the post.
I was going to ask why you chose to focus on this set of ballot initiatives — and then found the “Ballot Initiative Selection” section in the full report. My summary (in case anyone else is curious) is that you tried to find ~all possibly relevant measures (140 initiatives), then filtered for those that have financial information (21 measures), and then narrowed down to “ballot initiatives that mandate specific welfare requirements in farm animal operations, so as to do an analysis directly relevant to farm animal advocates.”
Another thing I’m curious about is whether you’ve looked at ballot initiatives and measures that didn’t pass. (You flag the fact that all four initiatives passed as a limitation.) Alternatively, I’m interested in hearing how we should adjust how we use the results here to estimate the EV of possible future initiatives (although maybe there are few general heuristics — it would depend too much on the state, etc.?).
(Thanks so much for working on this. As an aside, I had tried to BOTEC the following myself recently (very poorly), so I doubly appreciate the table:
)
Hi Lizka! Thanks for the good summary of the ballot initiatives selection process.
Regarding the second question, I think you’re right it would be hard to estimate the probability of similar initiatives passing in other states, as well as the costs of doing so. Here are a few thoughts:
1. One reason we might be optimistic about the cost-effectiveness of pursuing ballot initiatives in more states is that the campaigns in California, Massachusetts, and Arizona may have done much of the heavy lifting in terms of proving to the public that these initiatives are feasible. Advocates also may have refined their techniques to be more effective, and the publicity they got (Prop 12 especially) may have made people in other states more willing to vote for enhanced welfare requirements.
2. But it also might be harder to pass these initiatives in states other than California and Massachusetts for various reasons (they’re very liberal, for example). Nevertheless, one study from 2014 models which states could pass initiatives similar to California Proposition 2 (which applied to domestic production only). Here’s a summary of their findings from my report (pg. 115):
“One study from 2014 used demographic data to model the vote share that a hypothetical initiative designed like California Proposition 2 would receive in all states. Amongst the states that allow ballot initiatives, Proposition 2 is predicted to gain above 50% of the votes in several of them. Depending on the model, these potential states could include Washington, Nevada, Michigan, Oregon, and Colorado, amongst others (Smithson et. al. 2014, pp. 120, 122). Though a few of these states have already passed legislation to implement some farmed animal welfare standards on the state level (Smithson et. al. 2014, pp. 122), and though the study only estimated the likelihood of passing initiatives that affect domestic animals, it seems plausible that initiatives impacting all goods sold in-state could pass in more states than just California and Massachusetts.
In the end, we really do not yet know if the cost-effectiveness of ballot initiatives–especially ones modeled after California Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3–generalizes to states with political ideologies, wealth, and other demographics that differ from California and Massachusetts (which are themselves outliers).”
In all, I think this is a great question to be asking, and there are some reasons to be cautiously hopeful that ballot initiatives could be successful in states other than those studied, namely California and Massachusetts. In addition, I would suspect there is a lot of room for advocacy in these two states as well with regard to broiler chicken welfare.
Thank you! Makes sense that (paraphrasing, would appreciate corrections if something is off):
The existence of and publicity for past initiatives helps (makes it easier to pass future initiatives)
But also the campaigns might have been run in states more likely to pass them — a factor that means the likelihood of passing future initiatives in other states is smaller
Caveat for the models you shared
And I appreciate the flag: “I would suspect there is a lot of room for advocacy in these two states as well with regard to broiler chicken welfare.”