Over the past few years, as I have become more attentive to details, I have noticed that the various questions we're presented with on our ballots are, quite frankly, terribly presented.

The wording chosen in presenting these questions is such that, if a voter doesn't plan ahead, look at sample ballots, and perform thorough research, he/she could very well vote wrong.

There were only three such questions on the ballot for this cycle, where I live in Georgia. When presented with them, two of my friends' initial impressions had them voting incorrectly (against their actual wishes). Only after research and thorough consideration were they informed enough to vote correctly and with confidence.

I have no doubt that the members here who are active in political discussion take that initiative on those questions. If there are members who aren't as pro-active, I recommend that you take the time to look into those questions, before you're stumped at the polling place, and potentially cast a vote that doesn't actually represent your wishes.

In Para's GA early voting thread, 220-9er comments on this exact thing.

One thing I’ll give Colorado credit for is that the voting guides make it clear what a vote means, “If you vote Yes, it means ….” But of course that requires reading the voting guide. The actual ballot questions can still be unclear, confusing, or even possibly misleading. And from what I’ve seen, reading anything at all, much less a dry political explanation is not very common these days.

We have three of them, state law changes, all presented in legalese.
They were passed in the spring and zero attempts were made to inform and/or educate us commoners as to what they mean, even their own self-interest version.
Whenever they do that my default position is no. NoF'enWay.

A similar situation awaits voters in VA. Ballot questions are usually so poorly written as to be very difficult to understand, even with close reading. I doubt this is just a consequence of our failing to teach students how to read and write, or failing to hold them back when they cannot demonstrate these skills.

ALso, in most cases they are written from a political perspective that pushes a "Yes" vote, especially the bond initiatives. School bond approvals make it seem like schools will not be able to operate without additional funding, roads must be built to relieve traffic congestion, etc. I find automatically voting "No" to be my best strategy (but I still read enough of the text to understand the intent).

I doubt this will change until Conservatives start playing a greater role in the electoral process (from the ground up). A change in the administration is not enough, this has to happen at the local level where political decisions are dominated by post-menopausal white women with more time on their hands than sense.

We have them in Florida, many are written IMHO deceptively, I've had friends tell me how they voted and only to turn out they voted the opposite of their intentions, ie they didn't want the amendment to pass but the way it was written a no vote was a yes vote.



Standing on soap box:

Personally I think these constitutional amendment process should be eliminated, at least in it's current form.

Down here it's turned into corporate pandering to create markets for large companies, or, for opposition to existing laws to create a law to eliminate something.

We've had anti gun groups try and eliminate gun laws/rights, now it's pro abortion groups trying to disloge the abortion laws, both lying in what they want, and in one case the abortion, may have forged signatures to get on the ballot.

MJ ballot #3 lies on TV telling people it's about "adults, freedom, choice" when it's really about restricting personal rights to grow, and, limiting sales to just a few mega companies, who btw are funding the campaign.

I'd like a constitutional amendment to end voting for constitutional amendments. It's a disaster..

jumping off the box...

I really hate how they word ballot questions around here, it’s purposely done I swear.

The question arises in the state that pepperoni pizza is harmful.

The ballot question SHOULD BE:

Ban pepperoni pizza in the state of Pennsylvania?
YES
NO

The ballot question is more like:

Pepperoni pizza, being a pizza and served within the state of Pennsylvania is recognized as being harmful to the residents of the state and while harmful it is nonetheless delicious and therefore may not be harmful and vis a vis this deliciousness shall be construed that the appropriateness of this pizza shall not be denied unto itself as it now stands in the minds of the people and shall not be misconstrued into a construct that is wholly useful to the means of the state in that it shall not be denied to the mouths of said consumers of this edible substance.

Shall pepperoni pizza therefore not be denied unto the mouths of the people whereas it shall be allowed until the decreee henceforth be misconstrued to the will of the eaters:

YES
NO

Sometimes what isn't in the language is more important that what is, as those are the grey areas which are used to push the issues.

Luckily there are groups out there that parse some of these issues and make recommendations, but you may have to seek them out.

We’ve got three. They are intentionally confusing and misleading so that the Dems writing them have a much better chance of getting them rammed through. I have to do my own research to actually find out what they mean.

I was bamboozled few years back by a PA question. It asked if you wanted to limit the mandatory retirement age for Common Pleas Judges to age 68 (or something like that). Hell yea, I voted yes. However the current mandatory retirement age was 3 years younger. I actually voted to allow them to stay on the bench longer.

They 100% word the question in favor of the answer they wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
We have three of them, state law changes, all presented in legalese.
They were passed in the spring and zero attempts were made to inform and/or educate us commoners as to what they mean, even their own self-interest version.
Whenever they do that my default position is no. NoF'enWay.

The Georgia Ballot

Erick-Woods Erickson
Oct 17, 2024


The end of the Georgia general election ballot has one constitutional amendment and two questions, the last of which is nonbinding. I am voting yes for all three.

The constitutional amendment is about a homestead exemption. By voting yes, you will agree that local governments should not tie the value of your home to inflation. This will protect you as a homeowner, providing uniformity in property increases, with some exceptions for local governments.

The first of the two questions concerns a statewide tax court. Currently, when the state judiciary has questions about taxes, those questions are referred to the tax collectors in the Executive Branch, who, naturally, want the taxes. Setting up a tax court, particularly as taxes become more complicated, will provide a level of nonpartisan competence from people who understand tax law but who do not benefit from its collection.

The second question and final part of the ballot asks if you agree with a law that raised the personal property tax exemption from $7,500.00 to $20,000.00. I agree with that.

Those are the last three portions of the ballot.



https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-georgia-ballot


There is one more on the Gwinnett ballot for a one cent SPLOST tax, eff that

quote:

Originally posted by gpbst3:
I was bamboozled few years back by a PA question. It asked if you wanted to limit the mandatory retirement age for Common Pleas Judges to age 68 (or something like that). Hell yea, I voted yes. However the current mandatory retirement age was 3 years younger. I actually voted to allow them to stay on the bench longer.

They 100% word the question in favor of the answer they wanted.

This should be 100% illegal and it should be the law that ballot questions are clear and simple with clear and simple responses.

Kentucky has 2 Constitutional Amendments on the November ballot.

Amendment #1 concerns adding wording to who can vote in Kentucky elections. The main last sentence is that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. But the “usual suspects” are upset with the original wording in the current Constitution, which dates from 1891, about “idiots and the insane” being prohibited from voting.

Amendment #2 concerns possible State funding for non-public/private schools. Naturally the Teachers Unions (Democrats) are against it as it would decrease funding to public schools and thus their power over kids.

Here’s the website from the KY-SecState Office about the proposed Constitutional Amendments. https://www.sos.ky.gov/electio...onal-Amendments.aspx

I simply vote "No."

I had to look up the exact wording in the KY constitution.

quote:

from https://apps.legislature.ky.go...Constitution?rsn=166

Section 145 Persons entitled to vote.
Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years who has resided in
the state one year, and in the county six months, and the precinct in which he offers to
vote sixty days next preceding the election, shall be a voter in said precinct and not
elsewhere but the following persons are excepted and shall not have the right to vote.
1. Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony,
or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the General Assembly may
declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage, but persons hereby
excluded may be restored to their civil rights by executive pardon.
2. Persons who, at the time of the election, are in confinement under the
judgment of a court for some penal offense.
3. Idiots and insane persons.
Text as Ratified on: November 8, 1955.
History: 1955 amendment was proposed by 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 1; original version
ratified August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Amendment #1 concerns adding wording to who can vote in Kentucky elections. The main last sentence is that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. But the “usual suspects” are upset with the original wording in the current Constitution, which dates from 1891, about “idiots and the insane” being prohibited from voting.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I simply vote "No."

Voting this way can, as others have pointed out, be a vote for something you don't want or a vote against something you do want.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I simply vote "No."

Voting this way can, as others have pointed out, be a vote for something you don't want or a vote against something you do want.

In Loudoun County, most ballot measures seek millions to fund something that the county residents don’t need and can’t afford (if they own real property).

So I vote no quite a bit.

When I was in NC, I just asked one of the DEMs for the paper they were distributing so they could vote “correctly”, and I voted against that.

There was ALWAYS someone handing out a list, just outside the boundary of the polls.

We don’t have that where I live in TX, any questions on the ballots are worded so the regular man can understand them-that was a breath of fresh air when we moved here.

Can’t vote till next week when the polls open for early voting-but rest assured I will be voting.

CA is same way, very confusing language where often yes means no. Or ad campaigns that omit important info. a few years back there was one proposal on ballot and all the realtors were in favor but was gonna be great. The law for 45 years had been if you inherit your parents home and it’s a rental you get to keep that low tax basis. The new law says unless the inheriting child lives in the home as the kids new primary the property tax will go to market.

Well in some parts of CA that could go from hundreds of dollars a year to many many thousands depending where the property is and I knew of many people who have had to sell because taxes went through the roof after the parents died on 1 or a handful of rentals. Helping the realtors of course. But the way they pitched it and sold the ads was downright on the edge of criminal deceit. Saying the law would help those fire victims that entire towns burned down a few years ago etc. never mentioning this other part based on reassessment depending on usage.

I had conversations with realtors after the reality set in and most were aghast they had been hoodwinked by the realty industry to vote yes when nobody wanted taxes to go up by many multiples in some cases in an inherited home.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One thing I’ll give Colorado credit for is that the voting guides make it clear what a vote means

About the only thing CA did right was their voter guides, which also were excellent.

Arizona’s ballot is fairly straightforward, but I read into each proposition and what all it entails, before making a selection.