KQED61%

2026 Election Results for San Francisco Proposition D | KQED 55%

By npiper0%

6/1/2026, 4:32:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Indoctrination, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 26.1% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 402 faulty-reasoning hits from 180 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,968 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.50% of the article peer group.

This measure would change the base comparison for the city’s existing Top Executive Pay Tax from the median pay of a business’s employees in San Francisco to all of its employees. 
It would also add additional gross receipts taxes and administrative office taxes on businesses subject to the Top Executive Pay Tax. 
Passes with majority vote. 
Proposition C and Proposition D are competing measures. 
If both pass, the proposition that receives the most votes goes into effect. 
Yes Argument 
Proposition D could generate over $300 million per year, restoring funding for critical public services that were lost through federal corporate tax breaks. 
It will require large corporations with over $1 billion in revenue to pay more, while not raising additional taxes on small and midsized businesses. 
No Argument 
Proposition D risks driving away large businesses from San Francisco at a time when the city needs their tax revenue for economic recovery. 
This measure would also undo parts of Proposition M, a business tax measure that voters approved in November 2024. 
Confirmation Bias
13.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
4.4%
Loss Aversion
12.8%
Status Quo Bias
10.6%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
12.8%
Pessimism Bias
26.1%
Negativity Bias
25.6%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
10.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
10.6%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
12.8%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
13.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
12.8%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
12.8%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
17.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
2.2%
Indoctrination
25.6%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

180 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.