I don't know. I think to put it simply:

Some are afraid of the future and what could happen. Others are cognizant that this is a good time to take advantage of our leverage.

I think wary, instead of afraid, is a much more realistic word to describe the sentiment.

​​​The worst case scenario for a YES vote is that we left a little money on the table, while making BIG financial, and more importantly,QOL gains.

The worst case scenario for a NO vote is that we would be stuck with the old dog sheet of a contract for much longer than bearable.

Absent a crystal ball, the majority elected to go with the safer, more prudent choice, all things considered.

We all have differing opinions, but guess what? That's OK..

Because it's happened to many of us in the past, many times. Also there's a difference between afraid and being informed.

Nothing wrong with this if you're risk tolerant.

Same ocean, different boats.

S

I think my response in list format above was a mistake. I was pulled into responding to bad logic in the same format.

There is no need for long winded explanations or rebuttals.

In this case: One voter is basing their vote in fear the other is basing their vote on their self-worth.

That's somewhat insulting.

It's not meant to be. The world is what you make of it I guess...

In case you've lost sight of why we had the exchange, I'll remind you, as you try to be cute with your response:

You said you didnt/wouldn't consider the state of the economy in deciding how to vote because you're not an economist.

I find that claim to be silly because though you're not one, I assumed you were intelligent enough to find reliable info on the subject to inform your decision. My mistake.

I can only explain that concept to you, I can't understand it for you.

The more I see long winded and defensive posts like this...

It's called a rebuttal son.