From Billll, complaining about Colorado politics (about which there's much to complain!):
What we need is a constitutional amendment calling for all ballot questions to have 3 options available to the voters; Yes, No, and Hell No. Should the third option win, the sponsors and principal supporters of the failing question will be subject to tarring and feathering. Stupidity should be painful.
Word.
Peter
7 comments:
I'll vote yes to that amendment!
+1 from Weld County.
I think it was the Greeks that required the person introducing a bill to do so with a noose around his neck. If it didn't pass, the noose was used.
Heck, EVERY state could use a law like that! I'd vote for that!
I'd also love the following choices on a ballot:
[] Bob Cheatum (incumbent)
[] Tim Graft
[] Jim Stealman
[] Tar and feather all of the above, and start over
I'd like to see a requirement that ballot questions be written in plain english, not lawyerese or doublespeak, with no double-negatives, no obfuscation, no slanting of the question to try to get a particular result. Like "Pay 1% more in sales taxes to fund road and park construction?" I've seen precisely that question, but phrased in such a way that I wasn't sure what I was voting about, much less whether I was voting for or against the proposal if I checked "yes".
And though I know it'd never happen, I'd like to see an "All of these candidates are morons. Start over with a new slate" option be specifically added to the ballot. That's different from just not voting, or writing in Mickey Mouse or some such.
And for election to offices, all the way up to President, an added slot for "none of the above". If" none of the above" wins, the listed candidates are KAPUT! and ineligible to run in the race. Same with any candidate who gets fewer ballots than "None of the Above". And no uncontested wins, there must be opposition. I know, totally impossible. But I can dream, can't I?
Post a Comment