|
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) New Jersey voters decided Tuesday to put tighter restrictions on how the state borrows money.
But they also rejected a measure that would have allowed local officials, rather than the governor, to appoint joint municipal judges who serve multiple communities.
With about 76 percent of votes counted, the borrowing question was backed by 57 percent of voters, while 43 percent opposed it. The judicial appointments question was rejected by 55 percent of voters.
|
We received a sample ballot ahead of time which had two questions for voters to answer.
Although my wife and I are both university graduates and have good eyesight, we could make little sense of the wording of these two questions.
We read the "interpretive statement" and were just as confused.
We knew what we wanted and didn't want, but were still confused. The "NO" or "YES" boxes were the only part that we understood, but we couldn't figure out which of the two boxes we should check.
I suppose the experts would attribute this to our senility.
Based on a survey by Fairleigh Dickinson, we are not the only ones who had trouble deciphering the statement. (You can read the Associated Press report on the lower left side of this page - I hope that is not too confusing).
|
Poll finds voter confusion about wording of N.J. ballot question
by The Associated Press
Monday November 03, 2008, 5:35 AM
A poll found that how a ballot question is posed has a great impact on the amount of support it receives in New Jersey.
The Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll out today focused on the ballot question that would put more restrictions on how the state borrows money.
When asked whether they support an "amendment to the state constitution to require all state agencies to get voter approval for any money they borrow through issuing bonds," 75 percent of respondents said they would, while 9 percent would not. That statement was formulated by the FDU pollsters.
However, when the question was put to respondents using the actual "interpretive statement" found on the ballot, which is intended to explain the proposal, only 46 percent said they would support it and 28 percent would not. |
I am not very bright, but can tell you that a Democratic lawyer formulated both the question and the interpretive statement. If the question had been formulated by an ordinary English teacher or even an average grammar school pupil, everyone would have understood it and it wouldn't have had a ghost of a chance to pass. |
