Try deciphering ballot measures, if you don’t mind muddling up your mind.
Reading Bill Hudson’s “Killing Gallagher” editorials, I’m thinking your ballot measures, in Colorado, are just as confusing as our state and municipal government ballot measures, in California. We’re voting on a property tax ballot measure, by the way, that’s somewhat similar to yours. We still can’t figure it out, even after reading, re-reading and researching the proposed legislation online. We’ve talked to family and friends who are as confused as us.
How can it be that words in sentences and paragraphs can be so difficult to figure out? Voting ‘yes’ might actually mean you’re voting ‘no,’ or vice versa, my wife complained, the other day.
What does it take to be a ballot writer? Deceptive communication skills? A postgraduate degree in obfuscation?
If you go by the definition of ‘communication’ – the art of using words effectively to impart information – you have to wonder about ballot measures. How can they be imparting information, if they’re muddling your mind? If you can barely remember your own name, after pouring over them?
Why can’t they be clearly written and easier to understand? Is there some kind of law against that? A law established, perhaps, by an affirmative vote on a ballot measure, written by some scheming writer?
Things should be easier. More straight-forward.
Take that big election coming up next month. Instead of all the scheming, the voter suppression, that brouhaha involving Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s United States Postal Service… to name just a few things, wouldn’t going about everything, fairly and squarely, be a lot easier? And probably cheaper, to boot.
Imagine how much it’s costing to have Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, running around the Ukraine, trying to get some dirt on the Bidens. Who’s paying the tab for all his travel, lodging and meals? Digging up dirt must be time-consuming… and without knowing what the deal is with Mr. Giuliani, attorneys’ hourly rates, generally, are pretty steep.
If competing for the highest office in the land was all fair and square, there’d be no need to dig up dirt or, shall we say, ‘restructure’ the USPS. These are just a few examples of potential cost savings.
There would be other side benefits, as well, like maybe the country wouldn’t be so stressed out?