Tuesday, November 3, 1998
Initiatives need concise diction to inform voters
BALLOT: Misleading ads confuse public on which proposals should
become law
Today, although many of us will cast our ballots, most of us
will not. The general populous has become disillusioned with the
voting process and, apparently, they have every right to be.
Various problems exist within the voting process which, in
combination, result in poor turnout. Unconvincing candidates and
the relentless mudslinging of TV commercials contribute to the
circus that is the election campaign. Other problems include the
poorly worded and misleading initiatives and advertisements which
prevent voters from making the most informed decision.
Voters receive information on the initiatives through the ballot
handbook, paid advertising and the mass media. This information,
however, is usually biased and confusing  or in the case of
television, virtually impossible to obtain.
There is a greater incentive for proposition proponents to
persuade voters and not to educate them. Backers seem to write
proposals in a deliberately confusing way.
Proposition 8 is a blatant example of this; it is cluttered with
several measures (class-size reduction, creation of a Chief
Inspectors Office, parent-teacher councils, required teacher
testing and pupil suspension for drug possession among them). The
excessive number of measures, as well as the confusing language,
may cause well-meaning voters to make misinformed decisions at the
polls; since voters do not have access to legal analysts to
interpret propositions for them, they may vote on measures that
"seem" beneficial.
Even the titles of propositions (i.e. Proposition 209: The
California Civil Rights Initiative and Proposition 227: English For
the Children) are purposely deceptive and can confuse voters; many
of those who voted for Proposition 209 thought that their vote
supported affirmative action. In many voters’ minds, the
terminology "Civil Rights Initiative"did not reflect the
dismantling of affirmative action.
Propositions are written in the ballot pamphlet for those with a
12th to 14th grade reading level. Because of this, many voters are
less likely to understand the issues, and consequently, less likely
to vote on initiatives.
Besides the voter pamphlet, voters rely heavily on the mass
media for information on initiatives. Unfortunately, this
information is usually limited to the biased and uninformative
propaganda from proponents and opponents of a bill. Since there are
no limits on the amount of initiative campaign expenditures,
corporations and public interest groups saturate television and
radio with advertisements that give only partial or biased
information.
The primary source of unbiased information, or "free
advertising," should be California’s secretary of state Â
whose job requires the dissemination of election information. In
addition, the media holds a certain responsibility to present the
initiatives in a comprehensive and informative manner. More
reporters need to go beyond what the proponents and opponents of an
initiative say; they need to consult legislative analysts,
legislators and law professors (among others) in order to fairly
present information to the voters.
More importantly, the language of propositions needs to be
simpler. People need accessible, understandable and honest
information.
Initiatives are designed to empower the people and to address
the issues and problems that they feel are important. Such powers,
however, are not effective if the voting population cannot
understand what they are voting on.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]