An informed electorate
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:13 pm
Our mail ballots for the upcoming election came, and I looked them over.
They are not easy to read because they are in English and Spanish, interspersed. But I question why, in a nation where we are all descended from immigrants, if not immigrants ourselves, the bulk of which did not have English as their primary language, but who learned English, we make an exception for one group. I was going to list the types of immigrants who came and learned English, but it is a very extensive list, and it grows even today. Even the Native Americans learned English. Why do we treat Hispanics differently. Are we trying to set them aside as differently enabled? Or has one party concluded that they can take power by maintaining a Hispanic bloc?
What really set mo off is that we apparently are held in such contempt by the politicians that they no longer present the amendments themselves, but instead give us a summary of the amendments, much as the mass media now no longer presents facts for our evaluation, but rather gives us sound bites and explanations of what we should think. It is especially unnerving because the bilateral ballot is inherently inaccurate, as a translation is always subject to error and interpretation. So if an amendment apparently passes, did we pass the English or the Spanish version. There is no way to answer that accurately, as they don't know which of us read the English version, and which of us read the Spanish version.
I know they held a meeting to discuss the proposed Charter amendments, but few voters attend such meetings, so I don't see how they can say that an amendment was passed by the voters, when they have done all they can to prevent the voters from seeing the actual amendment. Even the LWV gives only the summary information (in English and in Spanish) and I haven't found an online source that contains the actual language of what we are voting for or against.
An example is Referendum 2. A well informed citizen will know what this is about; but in all honesty most of us are not well informed citizens. The very brief summary, which is all that is on the ballot, merely talks about "a new law relative to government union contracts and other government employment contracts and policies." It strikes me that that is so vague that the normal voter will either guess, or vote based on what other people and ads have told him, and there is no legal requirement that what other people have told him and ads have to be accurate.
I don't mean this to sound anti-Hispanic. I favor immigration from anywhere, as those with the gumption to immigrate are likely to be good workers. But I am strongly against policies and practices that have the effect of keeping us separate, and favor one group over another. We have an unfortunate history of not welcoming immigrants from other than our own group, but we somehow have gotten past that with each group.
They are not easy to read because they are in English and Spanish, interspersed. But I question why, in a nation where we are all descended from immigrants, if not immigrants ourselves, the bulk of which did not have English as their primary language, but who learned English, we make an exception for one group. I was going to list the types of immigrants who came and learned English, but it is a very extensive list, and it grows even today. Even the Native Americans learned English. Why do we treat Hispanics differently. Are we trying to set them aside as differently enabled? Or has one party concluded that they can take power by maintaining a Hispanic bloc?
What really set mo off is that we apparently are held in such contempt by the politicians that they no longer present the amendments themselves, but instead give us a summary of the amendments, much as the mass media now no longer presents facts for our evaluation, but rather gives us sound bites and explanations of what we should think. It is especially unnerving because the bilateral ballot is inherently inaccurate, as a translation is always subject to error and interpretation. So if an amendment apparently passes, did we pass the English or the Spanish version. There is no way to answer that accurately, as they don't know which of us read the English version, and which of us read the Spanish version.
I know they held a meeting to discuss the proposed Charter amendments, but few voters attend such meetings, so I don't see how they can say that an amendment was passed by the voters, when they have done all they can to prevent the voters from seeing the actual amendment. Even the LWV gives only the summary information (in English and in Spanish) and I haven't found an online source that contains the actual language of what we are voting for or against.
An example is Referendum 2. A well informed citizen will know what this is about; but in all honesty most of us are not well informed citizens. The very brief summary, which is all that is on the ballot, merely talks about "a new law relative to government union contracts and other government employment contracts and policies." It strikes me that that is so vague that the normal voter will either guess, or vote based on what other people and ads have told him, and there is no legal requirement that what other people have told him and ads have to be accurate.
I don't mean this to sound anti-Hispanic. I favor immigration from anywhere, as those with the gumption to immigrate are likely to be good workers. But I am strongly against policies and practices that have the effect of keeping us separate, and favor one group over another. We have an unfortunate history of not welcoming immigrants from other than our own group, but we somehow have gotten past that with each group.