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. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.3%npiper: 2.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%npiper: 1.9%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%npiper: 12.7%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 12.8%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion12.8%This article: 10.6%npiper: 6.8%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%npiper: 3.8%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias12.8%This article: 26.1%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias26.1%This article: 25.6%npiper: 3.8%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias25.6%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%npiper: 3.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect10.6%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%npiper: 1.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 0.0%npiper: 1.5%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 12.8%npiper: 5.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope12.8%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.3%npiper: 3.9%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization13.3%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.8%npiper: 8.4%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion12.8%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%npiper: 1.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.2%npiper: 2.6%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.2%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.2%npiper: 0.3%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 25.6%npiper: 5.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination25.6%This article: 0.0%npiper: 7.8%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 5.4%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%npiper: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

180 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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