Con-Con: Location, Location, Location
Much has been said by Pat Quinn and others about the wording of the Con-Con question, but I wonder if the placement of the Con-Con question on touchscreen voting booths didn't have more to do with the outcome.
In the City of Chicago, the Con-Con question appeared in the lefthand column, while the Presidential race appeared in the righthand column. Like many voters, I was eager to cast my ballot for president, and only afterward did I realize that all of the gobbledygook to the left wasn't Instructions, but the Con-Con question.
Check out the ballot results in Chicago:
Yes: 314,321
No: 414,229
Undervotes: 354,166
7 comments:
Just what we need another Quinnian type excuse. The fact is that most Illinois voters saw the Con Con for what it really would have been, an expensive boondoggle which would have accomplished little if anything.The people have spoken loud and clear. Get over it!
Over 4 million people figured out how to vote on the issue. Just because you were too impatient to read does not in any way change this outcome. The pro con con crowd kept saying everything eould be fine becasue the voters have the final say. Now that the voters have spoken, the pro con con folks think the voters weren't smart enough to figure out how to vote on the question? Give it up.
The paper ballot was a disgrace, and the question phrasing was an outrage.
Sounds very whiny to me YDD. I was a Con Con supporter and think the issue was hurt by the language and by many counties not following the judicial remedy, but mostly I think the measure lost because the opponents were effective. Numerous voters I talked to while campaigning for it said they had heard Jim Edgar on the radio or seen the ads. The high number of under votes probably is a reflection of low voter knowledge of the issue.
I vote in Lake Co., the ballot question was printed along side of two other ballot measures, not hidden and not in a colored box. I was also given the new language prior to voting.
I know someone who thinks Kerry really "won" Ohio in '04 too. I may wish it were true, but my brain says no.
Good call. The paper ballot was the same way. When I voted I missed the Con-Con question at first and only caught it because I was looking for it.
Heavens, people. Are you too old to change? I'm old and I understood the ballot and the con-con question, even without having it pointed out that the initial verbage was irrelevant. Are we now going to have to test people's reading skills to allow them to vote. Pay attention, for goodness sake!
Con-con is dead-dead. The machine did its job-job just like they always do.
Get over it.
Post a Comment