Here’s what a more honest ‘card’ would have looked like.

An awful lot of people parroted the same talking points supported by your cards (i.e. the large print) in your ‘explainer’ article and ignored statements from uber and lyft to the contrary (only stated as “The companies say they cannot operate […]” in the small text).

What do I mean?

Here’s one example of your explanation of what a yes/no vote would mean:

Prop1YESNO_tradedress

Note that both side of the card start with Uber and lyft will.

Huh. Here we are immediately after the election, and what happened?

lyftaustinmap

But wait. That can’t be right! Let’s look at KUT’s card again. Maybe we read it wrong.

Prop1YESNO_tradedress

zoomin1

zoomin2

Wait, it still seems to say that if we voted NO, Uber and lyft drivers would be forced to do the things that we want.

If only some internet crank had warned you the language was misleading ahead of the election, I’m sure you would have done the right thing.

Wha’ happen, KUT?
Hey KUT! It’s not that difficult, really! I showed you this before the election, remember.

Card 1:

BAD:

Prop1YESNO_backgroundchecks_2

GOOD:

moreaccuratecard

Card 2:

BAD:

Prop1YESNO_feestructure_2

(Bad – implies that uber and lyft will stay, and will pay. An honest version of this would say “Uber and lyft will leave. Other TNCs will pay […]”).

(A different card): Card 3:

GOOD:

moreaccuratecard2

(Did I show these to KUT well before the election? What do you think?)

Note: In 2017, when this came up again, and I had to repair this page from the Great Pharma Hack Of 16, I noticed that card 2 and card 3 weren’t actually the same card. Sorry. I think it’s still clear enough what the issue was with each).