I work in US politics and I’m more knowledgeable about the United States, but a few points come to mind:
Incremental ballot initiatives are more likely to pass than sweeping ones (at least in the USA)
The meat and agribusiness lobbies are incredibly powerful
Positively framed initiatives are generally more likely to pass than ones that take something away or focus on something negative. But arguments opposing changes are generally more likely to win over ones supporting changes. Most initiatives fail.
As for what this would look like with positive framing, it would probably take some careful thought but maybe end up with ballot text something like “Healthy/Natural Farms Initiative—ensure all farm animals live in healthy, safe, and humane conditions”
If we combine that with something more incremental, it might look like “Open stables initiative” “Ensure farm animals live free from disease causing overcrowding and confinement” or “have __ time outside cages.” A more specific narrow initiative may have helped against arguments that “factory farms don’t exist” which is perhaps harder to pin down what it means to people.
A series of narrow initiatives could potentially be more effective at eroding cruel conditions over time than a binary yes or no abolish ballot initiative that takes effect in 25 years since there are more chances for change to accumulate and less change on the ballot all at once.
*I don’t really know much about specific policy interventions or mechanisms of change that would be narrow and impactful in the factory farming space, so someone else could probably improve these.
Great points—especailly the positive framing. On the surface it seems valid, although I’d want to see evidence to support the positive framing perspective. Also, I really like how you give examples to back up your points.
I work in US politics and I’m more knowledgeable about the United States, but a few points come to mind:
Incremental ballot initiatives are more likely to pass than sweeping ones (at least in the USA)
The meat and agribusiness lobbies are incredibly powerful
Positively framed initiatives are generally more likely to pass than ones that take something away or focus on something negative. But arguments opposing changes are generally more likely to win over ones supporting changes. Most initiatives fail.
As for what this would look like with positive framing, it would probably take some careful thought but maybe end up with ballot text something like “Healthy/Natural Farms Initiative—ensure all farm animals live in healthy, safe, and humane conditions”
If we combine that with something more incremental, it might look like “Open stables initiative” “Ensure farm animals live free from disease causing overcrowding and confinement” or “have __ time outside cages.” A more specific narrow initiative may have helped against arguments that “factory farms don’t exist” which is perhaps harder to pin down what it means to people.
A series of narrow initiatives could potentially be more effective at eroding cruel conditions over time than a binary yes or no abolish ballot initiative that takes effect in 25 years since there are more chances for change to accumulate and less change on the ballot all at once.
*I don’t really know much about specific policy interventions or mechanisms of change that would be narrow and impactful in the factory farming space, so someone else could probably improve these.
Great points—especailly the positive framing. On the surface it seems valid, although I’d want to see evidence to support the positive framing perspective. Also, I really like how you give examples to back up your points.