My understanding was that both yes and no on prop 22 are net positives compared to the status quo ("yes" providing 120% minimum wage guarantees and some benefit

My understanding was that both yes and no on prop 22 are net positives compared to the status quo ("yes" providing 120% minimum wage guarantees and some benefits, vs no obligations currently), and I recall reading Uber saying these will indeed incur extra costs that will get passed onto consumers. I feel that prop 22 is often incorrectly characterized as either an attempt at maintaining the status quo or a step backwards, but it's neither. It's easy to say "well I support everyone making more money", but that is an idealistic position that ignores the basic fact that there's a limited amount of money that needs to be distributed among a lot of people. If you were in charge, you might be of the opinion that only some stakeholders should get that money and others get nothing in order to allow at least some people to meet some arbitrary minimum threshold (the "no" in prop 22), or you could choose to distribute evenly across all existing stakeholder even if it doesn't meet the threshold for anyone (the "yes"). I don't think there's necessarily a right/wrong stance here; they're just different philosophies, and it makes sense to then vote on which people prefer. The people voted, and I imagine they did so with understanding of the propositions. I think it's dangerous to insinuate that people can easily be manipulated to vote one way or another. If that were indeed the case, then what exactly is the merit of a democracy over a dictatorship? I'd rather believe that people do indeed take their civic responsibility seriously and vote in an informed manner.