Voter guides confuse

By Editorial

The mid-term elections are a mere five days away and Californian voters have a lot of decisions to make. With 13 measures on the ballot, voters are left to decide on issues from education to the environment.

It's not an easy task -- just skimming the 191-page voter's guide is bound to give anyone a headache. Although propositions are intended to give voters a say in how tax money is spent, they are often filled with complicated political rhetoric and dominated by bitter battles between special interest groups.

Just look at Prop. 87, which would establish a program designed to collect $4 billion in taxes from California oil producers to encourage alternative energy education, research and development. On the surface, this proposition seems great to the environmentally-friendly citizen: Tax those who hurt the environment and use the money to fuel research in areas of alternative energy.

But relying on the quick reference summary is a big mistake. Only after reading through the 31 pages of the proposition does the voter realize the true effects of a policy some see as littered with loopholes.

So what is a voter to do? If you rely on the quick reference pro and con arguments within the voter pamphlet, they not only both seem appealing, but they contradict each other. On one side, a "yes" vote will make oil companies pay their fair share for cleaner, cheaper energy without passing the costs to consumers, but on the other hand, it will raise gas prices and deny revenue to schools. These conflicting messages leave voters confused rather than informed and encourage a political arena filled with complicated speech.

Prop. 86 isn't any clearer. The proposed $2.60 per pack tax on cigarettes is designed to provide funding for health programs, children's health coverage and tobacco-related programs. Those in favor say Prop. 86 will reduce smoking and save lives, with 100 percent of funds going to health care programs. They even cite a study by the California Department of Health Services which says the proposition will prevent 700,00 kids from starting to smoke. But opponents claim that only 10 percent of the money will go to prevent smoking. Plus, an increase in cigarette prices will decrease consumption, therefore decreasing the intended funds set for the programs.

And one look at the advertising campaigns will leave you even more confused. Prop. 86 is supported by the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, but opposed by doctors, police officers and firefighters.

Who do we trust? Most are in favor of curbing the nation's smoking habits and you will struggle to find anyone who doesn't support funding to programs that "save lives," but there appear to be intricacies to the proposition that the common voter can't understand.

Poorly constructed propositions, combined with a growing amount of inflammatory political advertising, forms a political environment filled with negativity and confusion where even well-intending voters have difficulty deciphering how to vote.

Maybe these decisions shouldn't be left up to us. We vote for people to represent us for a reason. If propositions are going to be written using lengthy political jargon, then let's leave the decision to our representatives. They're in office to represent their voting constituents, so let them do this.

But if these decisions are left up to voters, changes need to be made so propositions have clean and simple arguments. Write the policies with the reader in mind.

There's no denying the good intentions behind propositions set to the public. It's our civic duty to research the issues and vote in an informed manner. But persuasive ad campaigns and complicated wording make our task difficult. Only with a change in the infrastructure will our society realize the value in its democratic system.