I have to disagree with the Powells on their assessment of the outcome of a vote.
The diplomatic process allows for a re-examination why a ballot measure failed or succeeded following an election. It was the wording of the Green Space initiative that got it defeated in 2008. And feedback on the Library proposal indicates that wording may be behind the defeat of that effort.
Given that the vote was so incredibly close, i don't think you can fairly assess that the "NO" was all that resounding of a forever and ever amen.
Whether its the district library, funding for a senior center, a green space initiative or other proposal, i think the signal is to examine the chosen wording and evaluate it prior to any campaign. If a NO vote is overwhelming, then it might be worth retiring a concept as soundly defeated. When a No vote is close, its reasonable and necessary to evaluate the language used to understand what the citizenry is communicating.
This is the democratic process and how we work towards compromise.