<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Legislators seek to intentionally confuse voters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.irreverentview.com/down-the-middle/legislators-seek-to-intentionally-confuse-voters/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.irreverentview.com/down-the-middle/legislators-seek-to-intentionally-confuse-voters</link>
	<description>Chris Ingram&#039;s political commentary with an edgy and &#34;irreverent view.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:24:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimjohnson</title>
		<link>http://www.irreverentview.com/down-the-middle/legislators-seek-to-intentionally-confuse-voters/comment-page-1#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>jimjohnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.irreverentview.com/?p=269#comment-294</guid>
		<description>Mike,

The Florida Legislature did not write ANY of these ballot summaries.

The first (Amendment 2) was written by the attorneys hired by Florida4Marriage.  The remainder were written by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Moreover, ballot summaries have to be direct and specific, or the Supreme Court can throw the language out as misleading.

For example you suggested this for Amendment 3: &quot;For or Against using home improvements (specifically those that increase resistance to wind damage etc.) to raise a person’s property taxes?&quot;

Well, that is not what that amendment does.  It would be better written as &quot;Allowing the legislature to tell property appraisers whether or not to include in the assessed value some improvements to real property, specifically those increasing wind protection or using alternative energy sources.&quot;

Finally, I will add that while your details are off, your comments are valid.  Studies have shown when voters are confused, they tend to vote yes or not vote at all.  Given those who propose amendments want them to pass, they will want to obfuscate their real meaning as much as possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>The Florida Legislature did not write ANY of these ballot summaries.</p>
<p>The first (Amendment 2) was written by the attorneys hired by Florida4Marriage.  The remainder were written by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.</p>
<p>Moreover, ballot summaries have to be direct and specific, or the Supreme Court can throw the language out as misleading.</p>
<p>For example you suggested this for Amendment 3: &#8220;For or Against using home improvements (specifically those that increase resistance to wind damage etc.) to raise a person’s property taxes?&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, that is not what that amendment does.  It would be better written as &#8220;Allowing the legislature to tell property appraisers whether or not to include in the assessed value some improvements to real property, specifically those increasing wind protection or using alternative energy sources.&#8221;</p>
<p>Finally, I will add that while your details are off, your comments are valid.  Studies have shown when voters are confused, they tend to vote yes or not vote at all.  Given those who propose amendments want them to pass, they will want to obfuscate their real meaning as much as possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

