Freudian slip?
The materials that have been sent out to the voters of Portland in connection with the four proposed city charter changes that are currently up for a vote are downright daffy. As we've already noted here, the factions for and against the changes have sent out some highly misleading glossy brochures, and that's disappointing. But even more deflating is the fact that neither the official Voter's Pamphlet nor the ballot materials themselves even bother to print out all the details of the changes that are in the measures! All we get are summaries, prepared by who-knows-who, with who-knows-what agenda. The actual texts of the laws on which we are voting are nowhere to be found.
Oh yeah, I'm sure they're buried on some website somewhere, and I've heard that they're 80 pages long and no one would be able to understand them even if they tried. But hey. There should have been a copy of the full glory of the full text of the actual language in every voter's mailbox, along with the hokum.
Now, there's a charter change that I could get behind -- rules that make sure we get to see what we're actually voting on.
But it gets goofier. It appears that a subliminal message may have been slipped into the Voter's Pamphlet as well. Let's see how good your eyes are. Here are the tops of the first pages of the Voter's Pamphlet sections on two of the ballot measures. See if you notice anything different between them:
Hmmmmm. Very subtle.
| Posted at 5:22 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (15)
I wasn't sure how week I'd do on this test, but as it turns out my eyes are pretty goob.
Posted by b!X | April 29, 2007 5:59 PM
ummm.
the second one says measure no 26-xx as opposed to just measure 26-xx.
The second one says "a survey of comparable sized cities" at the top right before the "what does the measure do" part.
I must be missing something.....
Posted by Mike | April 29, 2007 6:21 PM
No, you got it. There's a "No." on 26-91.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 6:27 PM
It tells you how to vote!
Posted by Allan L. | April 29, 2007 6:39 PM
Finally, a Voter's Pamphlet that does its job.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 6:40 PM
My experience in election law and my current level of cynicism leads me to believe this is purposeful. How sad.
Posted by Molly | April 29, 2007 8:53 PM
It may have been subconscious.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 9:15 PM
My experience in election law and my current level of cynicism leads me to believe this is purposeful. How sad.
An amusing glitch, but let's not get carried away. After all, the voters pamphlet is assembled by the County Elections office, right?
John Kauffman has previously been very transparent about responding to questions about the mechanics of voting here at bojack.org.
So, John, an explanation?
Posted by Kari Chisholm | April 29, 2007 9:22 PM
There's one here.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 29, 2007 9:33 PM
If someone can dig up an older pamphlet from a previous election, we'd know which one is the fluke. 26-89 is the only one without the "No." on it, the other three have it. I suspect the standard is to have the "No."
Posted by b!X | April 29, 2007 9:48 PM
Typical for the People's Republic of Oregon...
Posted by Michael | April 30, 2007 12:00 AM
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
Posted by Britt Storkson | April 30, 2007 7:34 AM
Bah. They do this crap all the time. The ballot language for the Mult I-Tax promised restoration of elder services, mental health services and keeping crooks in jail, in addition to schools. It was a bald faced lie.
Posted by Dave Lister | April 30, 2007 9:14 AM
And don't forget the ballot-title howler from the '90s, describing how the proposed Metro charter would limit the powers of that layer of government.
Posted by Molly | April 30, 2007 9:25 AM
Ever wonder why many contracts, legal documents, ballot measures, etc. are convoluted and full of legalese? It is not because they want you to understand it. They are written that way purposely so you WON'T understand it. Because if you did understand it you would probably reject it.
For what it's worth, the Charter isn't difficult to understand, either in its current form or the proposed revision. They just won't publish the entire 80-page language of the proposal in the voters' pamphlet.
Posted by b!X | April 30, 2007 9:42 AM