2 CommentsElection 2010

In 2008, every ballot issue passed with a decisive majority. Last night, we witnessed the very same story. This trend begs a question: Is it possible that Arkansans are so hungry for change, they’ll vote for any ballot issue in hopes that actual positive change will occur? It’s a question worth asking.

I think this question is especially relevant, considering that issues 2 and 3 on this year’s ballot were so convoluted and difficult for the average voter to understand, yet they passed in a landslide anyway. Perhaps part of it was the push on TV—all three issues were advertised as a package deal that was good for Arkansas. This certainly could have been what did it—especially since the passage of issues 2 and 3 brought with it the promise of new jobs in Arkansas. In a depressed economy, folks seemed to be looking for anything that might bring relief.

The problem, as the old saying goes, is that “not all that glitters is gold.” There were good reasons to be against issues 2 and 3 in particular (which we won’t go into right now), so I’m left with an unsettling feeling that some voters would now approve nearly any ballot proposal without doing their homework first.

This should be a challenging reminder to every voter to do the proper research—and a call to conscience for the Arkansas Legislature, which is the main body responsible for referring ballot issues.

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailLottery Sheriff Earns More than Head of State Police Default ThumbnailStudents, Know Your Rights as You Head Back to School Default ThumbnailKATV: Lottery Unveils Arkansas-Only Jackpot Game Default ThumbnailDo You Watch ‘Game of Thrones’?

2 comments

  1. David L. Colbert

    Totally agree with the points and also believe ballot position has a strong correlation to voter support. At one time the Hunt and Fish act was at 95 percent, making me think people who lead with a resounding yes vote psychological say yes down the line with out actually knowing all the issues on the acts. The referred acts 2 and 3 both were corporate focused financially, the commercial buys for 2 and 3 were clever if not misleading in the tied in Hunt and Fish issue, was funded by a group of special interest people, to their advantage of course. Now for a final look at proof of the vote yes on initiated acts theory, in 2008 the leading vote was conservative in nature and won by 63 percent, and yet we passed gambling at nearly the same percentage number. Truth or coincidence? probably both.

  2. David L. Colbert

    Totally agree with the points and also believe ballot position has a strong correlation to voter support. At one time the Hunt and Fish act was at 95 percent, making me think people who lead with a resounding yes vote psychological say yes down the line with out actually knowing all the issues on the acts. The referred acts 2 and 3 both were corporate focused financially, the commercial buys for 2 and 3 were clever if not misleading in the tied in Hunt and Fish issue, was funded by a group of special interest people, to their advantage of course. Now for a final look at proof of the vote yes on initiated acts theory, in 2008 the leading vote was conservative in nature and won by 63 percent, and yet we passed gambling at nearly the same percentage number. Truth or coincidence? probably both. Thanks for your work and support of lottery reform legislation, perhaps we both can have an advantage in that issue now.

Comments are closed.