"By about a 2 to 1 ratio"
No, unless my math is off a 2 to 1 ratio would be 33.333% voting in favor and 66.666% voting against. Since it was 40% in favor and 60% against, that would make it exactly a 3 to 2 margin against. Why couldn't the reporter use that, when it's exact, instead of completely fudging his numbers to get the '2 to 1'?
Not to mention these people are delusional if they think this is a big enough defeat to stop this from getting on the ballot again. If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted, Mason Tevert will go away, and the measure will pick up a few more percentage points. It may not win, but more gains in the next election will make the drug warriors sweat. The measure in Nevada in 2002 to legalize pot failed with 40% in favor. The measure in 2006 failed with 44% in favor. I have no idea where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, but they would be crazy not to get it on the ballot again since they gained four percentage points between elections, just like the Colorado people would be crazy not to try it again to see if they can gain any percentage points.
Could it be that at the time the report was filed the ratio was closer to 2:1 than 3:2?
"If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted"
You mean better hidden. Like I-100 in Denver. That's the only way the dopers win.
Interesting choice of words, diminishing returns.
In 2002, the measure called for the legalization of 3 ounces. It got 40%. In 2006, the measure called for the legalization of 1 ounce. It got 44%.
At this rate, Nevada may end up with 51% voting in favor of legalizing possession of a marijuana seed.