A study of more than 1,200 state-level ballot questions that voters across the
US were asked to approve between 1997 and 2007 found that, on average, they were
written at a 17th-grade level — in other words, you’d need more than a
four-year college degree in order to understand what you were being asked to
vote on.
In response, many voters just skipped those questions altogether: A
more complex ballot question led to a 5 percent decrease in participation. On
about one-quarter of all ballot questions studied, that was larger than the
margin between victory and defeat. Confusing language actually could have
changed the outcome of the race.
"Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?"
If you think that forcing judges to retire at a certain age is a good idea, you will be inclined to vote "yes". The problem is that PA already has mandatory retirement for judges, only at age 70. So the way that the question is phrased is very misleading, and could easily lead to PA raising the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 despite voter intent to the contrary.
As I understand it, this is the intent of the wording after a couple of previous, clearly worded ballot questions properly went down in flames at the hand of the voters.
Also read there's a particular Supreme Court judge for whom this latest effort was made.
I can't speak to the particular judge being the driving force behind it, but you are spot-on about the wording. In the primary, the question was worded this way:
"Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?"
That's not misleading, it's a straight up lie. It doesn't say that it would change previous laws. So if there is an existing law that says judges must retire at 70, nothing there says it will be repealed.
> A study of more than 1,200 state-level ballot questions that voters across the US were asked to approve between 1997 and 2007 found that, on average, they were written at a 17th-grade level — in other words, you’d need more than a four-year college degree in order to understand what you were being asked to vote on.
To me, the worst part of the Austin one is not the rather complex ballot question, but the way the answer choices are written. By choosing "For the ordinance", you're actually voting against the ballot measure (which repeals "the ordinance"). Some people might be excited when they hear that there's a ballot measure to bring back Uber and vote "For the ordinance" without understanding that that means keep things as they are now. The options should be something more like -- "YES -- repeal the ordinance" and "NO -- keep the ordinance as is".
Is that actually what it means? The question asks about repealing an ordinance and replacing it with a new one. I thought "for the ordinance" meant for the new one which would also repeal the old ordinance.
Either of us might be right... the fact that we can't be sure without further research is exactly the problem I'm pointing out! My interpretation is based on the only use of the word "Ordinance" in the ballot question referring to the existing Ordinance on the books.
Indeed, I didn't catch that. And based on some reading [1] it seems my interpretation was indeed exactly wrong. Thereby either proving my original point -- that the answers are quite confusing -- or maybe just that I'm an idiot/outlier. I'd argue it's especially confusing with the capitalized 'O' in the ballot answer and the corresponding capital O when the ballot question refers to the existing 'Ordinance', but not the replacement 'ordinance'. Crazy...
To amend my original post, the answers should have been phrased more like "YES -- repeal and replace the existing ordinance" and "NO -- keep the existing ordinance".
Crucially, Britain has a well-funded independent body tasked with overseeing every aspect of an election. The EU referendum question was decided after lengthy research and testing; this testing included subjects with limited English literacy and learning difficulties. Similar efforts went into the design of the Scottish independence referendum ballot.
We do not use any form of voting machine, preferring the simplicity, reliability and integrity of pencil and paper. If multiple elections occur simultaneously, each election will be conducted on a separate ballot paper. This naturally results in a slower and more expensive counting process, but we avoid the threat of hanging chads or broken touchscreens. That greater procedural cost is more than offset by strict campaign finance restrictions.
I've never seen it before. Read it for ~30 seconds.
Vote yes to repeal the existing ordinance that requires background checks and to install an ordinance that smooths the way for corporate ride finding companies.
I can see an argument for splitting the various issues out more though.
At least one other commenter so far thought "for the ordinance" meant for the capital O ordinance, the one they're considering repealing. I agree with your interpretation, but I'm not totally convinced we're right.
The Brexit ballot paper illustrates the exact opposite of that: unlike the confusing Austin example, the Brexit ballot paper makes it absolutely clear to the voter what they're voting for.
I think what the parent poster refer to isn't so much whether the voter understood the wording of the ballot and how to cast their vote, but whether they understood the implication of it. Indeed, the fact that no one is able to define what leave means even now should be evidence enough that no one could possibly have understood it at the time of the referendum.
Putting politics aside and focusing on design alone I agree with you though, the ballot is very much on point.
This City of Austin ballot question:
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6679117/S...
The Brexit ballot:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160621144335-uk-...
Can anyone (who hasn't seen it before) easily explain what a vote in the Austin example would do?
From http://www.vox.com/2016/6/23/11979522/brexit-ballot: