Wording of questions, proposals, amendments on ballots

[LadyShea]

The year I turned 18 was a Presidential election year (Bush/Dukakis). I was totally psyched to vote because of the stupid gag order regarding discussing abortion as an option that Reagan and Bush had imposed. This was in Colorado, and we also had a couple of serious questions on the ballot (can't remember what they were now, but they were controversial and important), so I read all I could about those specific ones.

So I get down to the polling place and vote for Dukakis and voted Democrat for some other local offices and such, then get to the questions. Now, I was only 18, but I was well educated, I knew how to read, I was a "gifted" student, but if I hadn't read about those issues prior to voting, I wouldn't have had a CLUE what the hell I was being asked. The questions I hadn't researched might as well have been in Japanese for all I could make sense of them...I had to read each one several times and hope I was understanding. One question was worded in such a way that if you WANTED it to happen you would vote NO. Since then, I read all I can about the all of various questions, so I know what I am voting prior to showing up, but what about all the other young people?

Now, how do they expect the average, everyday, C-student American to understand their vote if they can't read the damn thing? Is there a law that says the questions can't be translated to normal, everyday English from legaleze or what? This is wrong on so many levels, and almost smells like a ploy to keep people from voting, or keep them from making informed choices at the polls.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now, how do they expect the average, everyday, C-student American to understand their vote if they can't read the damn thing? Is there a law that says the questions can't be translated to normal, everyday English from legaleze or what? This is wrong on so many levels, and almost smells like a ploy to keep people from voting, or keep them from making informed choices at the polls.

but if you vote on a particular law the wording can be quite important as that wording is what is going to be used in legal cases later.

What if there are ramifications based on the wording that you couldnt foresee based on a simpler version?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

but if you vote on a particular law the wording can be quite important as that wording is what is going to be used in legal cases later.

What if there are ramifications based on the wording that you couldnt foresee based on a simpler version?

Thats an important point, and I don't know the answer. All I know is that it's not right to ask laypeople to make sound decisions about something when it is written in what amounts to another language.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've heard the occasional politician suggest that ballot initiatives should be composed in "Plain Language." Usually, when someone proposes such a bill, it's called the "Plain Language Bill" or something like that. Nothing ever seems to come from these proposals though, as far as I can tell.

Maybe it's because precision is valued over comprehensibility. I dunno.

I do know that I've had to read some ballot questions twice or even three times before I was sure whether I was to vote "Yes" or "No" to express my disapproval. Certainly, I've encountered questions that were worded in such a way that if you're reading quickly, you'll think that to oppose it you have to vote "No" when, if fact, you have to vote "Yes." I'd bet that I'm a rather better-informed and more careful reader than the average Joe, so I do wonder about the validity of such questions.

I suppose it's possible that such questions were worded that way to encourage voters to read them carefully. Or maybe it's the case that when people don't understand the question they're more likely to vote "No," (or is it "Yes"?), and so rewording the question this way is an attempt to eliminate bias.

I don't have any answers, but I agree that such questions seem unfair.

Cheers,

Michael

[Blake]

It's my understanding that such proposals are supposed to be written so that a "yes" vote favors its passage and "no" opposes, but that politicians frequently massage them so that those responses are reversed because people generally prefer to affirm any given thing than to negate it. Maybe they also write them over-complexly in an effort to depress turnout on the question to influence its passage.

There's also the opposite problem, though, when the question is written overly simply to conceal its ultimate consequences. Such questions include the last referendum on Quebec's independence in 1995 ("Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995, Yes or No?"), which concealed quite a bit within the innocuous-seeming references to the bill and agreement. It also includes the proposed amendment to Georgia's constitution for the ballot this fall to forbid gay marriage; opponents of the measure are suing to have it removed because the actual language will not be on the ballot, denying the electorate the chance to assess exactly what it says and might imply.