Hours before the polls closed Tuesday, campaigners for Proposition 8 were informed that many Latino voters supporting traditional families were misreading the ballot and accidentally voting against the proposition.

"The way they worded it - it's a double negative and so voters get confused," said Tim Butler, zip-code manager for the Yes on 8 campaign. Equality for All volunteer Mahesh Mehta did not think the wording affected polls.  However, in one instance an opponent for the proposition accidentally urged voters to vote "yes" at a public rally in San Francisco.

This issue was brought up in July as well. The title proposed for Proposition 8 was "Limit on Marriage." What voters saw on the ballot on Tuesday was, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry," which a few voters found confusing.  

Latinos and African Americans were a big vote bank for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Newell and two other volunteers stood outside polling stations in the Westside of Los Angeles and tried to clarify the language of the proposition with as many Latino voters they could find.

Proposition 8 passed on Wednesday, despite the wording on the ballot and the increased funding received by the No on 8 campaign in the last few weeks.  This immediately cast a spell of doubt on the status given to around 18,000 same-sex couples that married in the past 4 months.

"Its clear that California is narrow-minded and heartless, I wouldn't be surprised even if these marriages become unconstitutional, but these couples are married in their hearts and no government can take that away," said Mehta. Melvin Brown, a student for the ban agreed. "We do not expect the status given to families in the past 4 months to be revoked. That's not we voted for," he said.

Speaking on the presidential candidates Newell said, "I thought I misunderstood when I heard Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate when he defined marriage. It doesn't really matter which candidate wins, both the vice presidential and presidential candidates support traditional marriages."  Many voters who were against Proposition 8 disagreed with Newell and believed that Obama and Biden supported same-sex marriage. Mehta too, was surprised by Biden's comments and said, "Obama will remain the favorite."

Presidential elect Barack Obama has publicly opposed both same-sex marriage and the ban on gay marriage.

Proposition 8 is believed to be the most funded proposition on the ballot all over the nation this year, over $74 million was raised by both sides. There have also been an unprecedented number of volunteers in both camps. "Until 2 weeks ago, we were pretty much neck-to-neck in funding, but the job got a lot more challenging for us volunteers in the past few weeks," said Newell.  Many volunteers left their jobs to campaign. Freelance visual effects designer Russell Lloyd, has been working on the Yes on 8 campaign for a month.  "As much as I enjoyed myself, I could really do with getting back to work," he said as he drove his car towards his third polling station of the evening.

After Californians elected for Proposition 8, some chapels are expecting same-sex couples to have rushed weddings before the law comes to effect. The opponents have already filed two legal challenges and Mehta said, "more may be expected."

I followed a team of supporters of Proposition 8 on this historic election day.

Halfway through my ride-along, Officer Butler turned towards me and said "hopefully you will be one of the journalists to give the police some positive publicity." Me? I don't know - after being strip searched, detained for laughing too loud and receiving three very expensive tickets for what could be at best, minor traffic violations, I tried to divert the attention away from journalists towards filmmakers. But my attempts were in vain. 

Our conversation started around 10 p.m. "We are going to go look for bad guys," Butler said as we drove out of the Culver City police station. I was riding shotgun in the 2004 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.

The citizen ride-along program was initiated to involve the community in police affairs with the aim of building mutual respect. But Butler believes that the Culver City doesn't have that problem. He said the community is satisfied; they appreciate the department's work. This is probably the reason this police department doesn't have cameras in their patrol vehicles. 

"How would you feel, if you were continuously recorded?" Butler blames the media for encouraging the public's poor opinion of the police, and specifically of the Los Angeles police. "The LAPD is possibly the finest police outfits in the world. It's just sad," he said.

Our first stop: 7-Eleven. I bought myself a donut. I don't like donuts, especially not from 7-Eleven, but I thought it was the appropriate thing to do. I paid for the bottle of water he was buying; thought he would need it after all the questions I was prepared to ask.

So far, the ride had been a series of friendly warnings for broken brake lights. The idea of chasing and stopping vehicles for minor violations is to search for something more serious.

 Around 10:30 p.m., we stopped a Chevy pick-up for an expired registration. The man has an eagle's vision. He saw an "AUG" sticker on the left hand corner of the license plate of the pick-up that zoomed past us on LaSelle Avenue. This stop was unusual. I got out of the car to take notes the moment I heard Butler radio for back-up.

Butler found some crystal methamphetamine (popularly called "meth") residue on the driver - it was hardly one-tenth of a gram. The officer who responded to Butler's call for back-up recognized the passenger in the Chevy. A few years ago, he had arrested him for stealing pizzas from a Pizza Hut deliveryman. The passenger is now all of 19 years old.

 Butler consulted his colleague. "I have let people go with more and booked people with less," he said. A few moments of silence later Butler walked towards the driver who was made to leave his vehicle and sit on the curb. He gave him the tiny zip-lock bag of residue and said, "empty it here on the floor."

 I was surprised. "That's a pussy arrest," Butler said as we got back in the cruiser. There was virtually nothing there; we got bigger problems than that. Butler has definitely seen bigger problems. He is an ex-marine, who served two terms in Iraq.

"I don't think we need to be in Iraq right now. Afghanistan, sure," he said. But when your in Iraq, you are not there for your president, your there for the marines on either side of you."

 Since this was the night of the vice presidential debate, I couldn't resist asking his opinion of Sarah Palin. "She worries me," he said "but what can I do, I am a Republican."

Watching a presidential debate in seclusion and with an audience are two entirely different experiences. Often, people form solidified opinions, only after being exposed to other opinions, both conflicting and reinforcing. After a debate, according to communication professor Thomas Hollihan, there is a 48-hour period of elasticity of public opinion. What people remember, he said, "is the excerpt they see, that gets played back again and again, and gets turned around in everyday conversation."

Viewing in a live audience however, its almost like the period of elasticity is shorter. The audience reactions are cues, similar to the ones they provide on sitcoms. Canned laughter and applauses prompt audiences to laugh and clap. Similarly, a room filled with a primarily democratic audience prompts viewers to applaud Senator Obama and "boo" the Republican candidate.

Doggonit! Audiences react to Sarah Palin at USC Annenberg's vice-presidential debate watch party. Photo: Anant Goenka

The difference wasn't evident to me until the second presidential debate - the first debate that I saw alone. I enjoyed watching McCain at his most aggressive yet. He walked in the hall and immediately began scribbling on his notepad.

The Commission on Presidential Debates has tried to keep these debates as unbiased, informative and helpful for voters, as possible. Anchors are selected by campaigns before presidential candidates are even elected; they are not allowed to ask follow up questions to minimize the effects of their biases. The cameras can not focus on the questioner's face after the questioned is asked and now, the anchors even hesitate to ask follow-up questions, (something we saw especially with Gwen Ifill).

Infact many find the format, entirely useless and the biggest evidence of this this time around, is a recent bipartisan effort called Open Debate Coalition, which hopes to change things before the final debate.

This presidential campaign has been unusually long, and voters have gotten to know both candidates pretty well. The result of the attemped neutral and unbiased campaign, are undecided voters, who remain as undecided after the debate, as they were before it. The debates seem to have become terribly predictable and rehearsed.

The biggest problem is the ease with which the candidates get away with general answers to specific questions.  In this last debate, both candidates simply repeated parts of their nomination acceptance speeches when they couldn't answer a question. Neither the anchor, nor the questioner, was allowed to ask a follow-up.

The commission has also tried to get the debate as freely accessible to citizens as possible. The format must be adjusted to make the debate more useful to undecided voters.

A member of CNN's focus group after the second presidential debate said, "I didn't hear anything at all..I just heard a bunch of..the same old thing, from both candidates, which I am surprised by. I was disappointed."

Candidates should not be able to get away with the same old, vague answers. Lets hope for some more aggressive cross questioning in the debates to come. 

The much-awaited debate season had a cold and unpromising start. MSNBC believed that Obama "won" the debate and Fox believed the same for McCain. The truth is, both candidates lost.

Debates are a huge opportunity for either side. The 1976 debates illustrated the potential they have to influence a presidential election. Although Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in the elections, polls showed the gap narrowing after the first debate - and swaying almost entirely Ford's way, until the third debate.                                                                                                                   

The purpose of having a presidential debate in such close proximity to the main elections was entirely defeated this year. As an audience, we only heard again what we have been hearing through the race. The undecided voters remained undecided and the voters who were certain will remain unwavering.

Surprising, given the number of Democrats that agreed with McCain, and the number of Republicans that agreed with Obama, as was visible in CNN's "audience reaction" meter. Also surprising, given how close this presidential race is.

The choice of topics didn't help either. Both sides have been very clear about their foreign policy, especially with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan and Georgia. The economic crisis issue had tremendous potential as a debate topic. Both candidates, however, were hesitant to aggressively comment on the issue because it is so new - they haven't had the time to effectively use it to their advantage. Both candidates are well aware that every single thing they say is going to be simultaneously checked by scores of fact checkers, waiting for one to make a mistake. 

In this excerpt, the extent to which the moderator and PBS anchor Jim Leherer tried to illicit a substantial response from the candidates becomes evident: 

"I'm trying to get at, that one of you is going to be the President of the United States come January. In the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific, small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."

I do find specific fault with Obama. The Democratic nominee should have stepped out, gotten aggressive and taken a few risks. His opponent is a member of the party that has arguably recreated America's 1929 depression. Only this time, the impact is much more global. According to filmmaker and author Bernard Henry Levy, "the left has always been too shy," and especially in the American scenario. At an event to promote his new book "The Left in Dark Times:  A Stand Against New Barbarism," Levy mentioned this fairly global trend. And this has been evident in this debate.

The following is one instance where Obama should have hit back a lot harder than he did. John McCain's vague justification of being cost-conscious:

"Who is the person who has believed that the best thing for America is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair? And I've fought to simplify it, and I have proposals to simplify it. Let's give every American a choice, two tax brackets, generous dividends, and, ah, and two, and let Americans choose whether they want the, the existing tax code or they want a new tax code. And so, ah, again, look at the record, particularly the energy bill."

We can only hope the debate will get more interesting in the future when topics of abortion and same-sex marriage come up. For now we can just look forward to an entertaining vice president's debate. Especially since we know so little about one of the candidates.