Rachel Maddow is delighted -- and so are we, because happy Rachel = Happy us -- that in the recent Scottish independence referendum, small but substantial numbers of ballots had to be thrown out because they had both "Yes" and "No" marked on the simplest question ever put on a nationwide referendum: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This was too much complexity for some folks, apparently.
More like writing them in such a way that "Yes" means "Yes" and "No" means "Okey-dokey."
<i>small but substantial numbers of ballots had to be thrown out because they had both &ldquo;Yes&rdquo; and &ldquo;No&rdquo; marked on the simplest question ever put on a nationwide referendum: &ldquo;Should Scotland be an independent country?&rdquo; </i>
So Washington is voting on a ban to ban gun background checks versus a non-ban on a ban of gun background checks? Obviously, reefer madness has set in.
Yes, but Rachel, if 20ish percent of the populace are now smart, and if that constitutes 50% more smartness, then that actually means that 40% of the population <a href="https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/work\/quotes\/517654-gal-pagos" target="_blank">are never going to write Beethoven&#039;s Ninth Symphony anyway</a>.
Most ballot propositions are completely illegible to a non-lawyer. We do an awful job of that here. I&#039;ve seen props with triple negatives, all sorts of crazy wording, with no explanation anywhere as to what the fuck they will actually do. Our newspapers really suck.
The fun is writing it in such a way that &quot;no&quot; means yes and &quot;yes&quot; means no, because people have a tendency to vote no on something they don&#039;t understand.
More like writing them in such a way that &quot;Yes&quot; means &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot; means &quot;Okey-dokey.&quot;
<i>small but substantial numbers of ballots had to be thrown out because they had both &ldquo;Yes&rdquo; and &ldquo;No&rdquo; marked on the simplest question ever put on a nationwide referendum: &ldquo;Should Scotland be an independent country?&rdquo; </i>
Excluded Middle Libel!!
It&#039;s easily explained. I want background checks for guns for everyone. &#039;Cept me. Paradox solved!
So Washington is voting on a ban to ban gun background checks versus a non-ban on a ban of gun background checks? Obviously, reefer madness has set in.
Yes, but Rachel, if 20ish percent of the populace are now smart, and if that constitutes 50% more smartness, then that actually means that 40% of the population <a href="https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/work\/quotes\/517654-gal-pagos" target="_blank">are never going to write Beethoven&#039;s Ninth Symphony anyway</a>.
Most ballot propositions are completely illegible to a non-lawyer. We do an awful job of that here. I&#039;ve seen props with triple negatives, all sorts of crazy wording, with no explanation anywhere as to what the fuck they will actually do. Our newspapers really suck.
The fun is writing it in such a way that &quot;no&quot; means yes and &quot;yes&quot; means no, because people have a tendency to vote no on something they don&#039;t understand.
And negative signs? Please, please, please, omg, please?
Hate to see what happens when it&#039;s time for Washingtonians to order a pizza.
Some candidates should just have several &quot;No&quot; boxes.