Did nearly 80% of registered voters sit out for State Question 832? 32%

By Matthew Yim45%

7/28/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Status Quo Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 35.5% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 232 faulty-reasoning hits from 186 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of 32% (17,423 of 25,365 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.70% of the article peer group.

Of the 2.4 million registered voters in Oklahoma, only 630,488 cast votes for State Question 832; this means that about one in four registered voters voted on SQ 832. 
This is a decrease from the 674,591 votes cast for a state question in 2020  the last time a June primary election ballot included a state question  both in the number of votes and the turnout of registered voters, which was 32% in 2020. 
Fifty-five percent of voters voted no on SQ 832. 
The only counties with majority yes votes were Oklahoma, Tulsa, and Cleveland counties. 
SQ 832 would have gradually raised the minimum wage, which is currently the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, to $15, with updates based on cost of living increases. 
The hourly median wage across all occupations in Oklahoma is currently $21.92, which is 11% less than the national median. 
This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one . 
Oklahoma Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs  bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.1%Oklahoma Watch: 1.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 35.5%Matthew Yim: 6.5%Oklahoma Watch: 1.5%Anchoring Bias35.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.1%Oklahoma Watch: 1.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.8%Matthew Yim: 1.1%Oklahoma Watch: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Matthew Yim: 11.6%Oklahoma Watch: 2.7%Framing Effect31.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 3.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.6%Matthew Yim: 2.8%Oklahoma Watch: 0.7%Status Quo Bias15.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 15.0%Oklahoma Watch: 4.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.9%Oklahoma Watch: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Matthew Yim: 3.1%Oklahoma Watch: 1.6%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 5.2%Oklahoma Watch: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.9%Oklahoma Watch: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.4%Matthew Yim: 3.3%Oklahoma Watch: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 3.6%Oklahoma Watch: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 1.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Yim: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Matthew Yim: 3.9%Oklahoma Watch: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

186 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.6%attributed speech170writer words
Selected voice

Oklahoma Watch

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words100% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Oklahoma Watch: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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