Comments on: Depends on Your Definition of the Word Yes

By: America Is Great and Tax a Tax « The Mike Slater Show

America Is Great and Tax a Tax « The Mike Slater Show — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:50:03 +0000

[...] No means yes. [...]

By: Kino

Kino — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:53:48 +0000

Bottom line , if the average joe get’s a headache trying to figure out how to vote , to achieve their desired intent , then it’s wrong , and at least one , likely many people should be punched square in the nose …HARD!!!

By: Kino

Kino — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:45:20 +0000

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties (((which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure. ))))
~ T. Jefferson

By: BamBam

BamBam — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:52:53 +0000

#29 is right. The State of Oregon passed their 2010 budget as if Measure 66 and 67 passed (Yes votes are majority). How disgusting is that?

On another note, trial of cop who beat the crap out of the 15 year old girl in the cell for her flicking her shoe at him ends in MISTRIAL. ????
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/mistrial_declared_in_case_of_k.html

By: Ric in Oregon

Ric in Oregon — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:49:00 +0000

Now of course the tax increases are up for the vote. For some reason the public unions (Teachers et al) are all in favor.

What happened is the congress and governor passed the budget as if these tax increases already happened AND will meet expectations. (ie no one will close their business, no rich people will move out of state etc)

And the State government is hiring.

If you are a Diversity “Something” – manager, administrator, planner, Community Activist – there may be a position just for you.

By: bearing

bearing — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:13:17 +0000

I try really hard not to have a knee-jerk assumption of bad faith. Just because the folks who wrote that language probably disagree with me politically doesn’t mean that they are automatically trying to hoodwink voters.

That said:

I am working very very hard to try to figure out how that language could possibly be inserted in good faith. Tim did the best job possible, but that still doesn’t explain why “adopt” and “reject” are being used interchangeably.

Could it be that “the measure rejecting the measure” refers to two different measures? Maybe they’re just really, really bad writers.

By: Sean L.

Sean L. — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:58:22 +0000

“It actually looks like they tried to pass a law defining no as yes, and yes as yes.”

That’s what I thought, too. You need to really think about each phrase to understand it:

Here’s the original: “A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.”

Replace “A measure referred to the people by referendum petition” with “A ballot measure”
Replace “may not be adopted” with “will lose”
IMPORTANT: Keep “unless”
Replace “it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure.” with “most people vote against it.”
Replace “considered adopted” with “passes”
Replace “rejected by the people” with “most people vote against it.”

Here’s what you get: “A ballot measure will lose unless most people vote against it. For purposes of this subsection, a measure passes if most people vote against it.”

Radley has it exactly right. Yes means no, and no means yes.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:17:44 +0000

Clearly this is a failure of the free market and capitalism and more regulation is needed.

By: damaged justice

damaged justice — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:37:14 +0000

Yes it is in legalese

Then to borrow a page from the anti-immigration folks, they should have written it in fucking English.

By: bobzbob

bobzbob — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:14:39 +0000

This is more RWNJ stupidity, if you read the previous sentence they are talking about a 2nd measure regarding rejecting the first. there is a double negative, if the measure regarding rejection fails, then the original measure is considered adopted – which is of course the appropriate result. Yes it is in legalese, but it does not define yes as no or vice-versa.
This is a smear job, and as usual radley uncritically repeats it here.

By: Mo

Mo — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:07:49 +0000

Isn’t this how Prop 8 worked in CA?

By: roy

roy — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:26:53 +0000

Do you not want to not repeal the adoption of the rejection of the repeal of the cuts?

By: supercat

supercat — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:48:46 +0000

This reminds me of a dialog box put up by a certain program when one clicked the “Cancel” button during a lengthy operation:

. Cancel this operation?

. OK Cancel

Sometimes using alternate wording can make things a lot clearer:

. Cancel this operation?

. Yes–cancel it No–let it proceed

Tagging “yes” and “no” choices on referenda might be helpful, though one might have to worry about how the labels were drafted:

Vote for this bond measure?

. Yes–Minimal tax effect No–Let cars get swallowed up by potholes the size of Sheboygan.

By: frompdx

frompdx — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:29:17 +0000

Coming from the Democratic stronghold of Oregon, I think there was just a misinterpretation. Here’s why: Rarely if ever do ballots appear in favor of the liberal urban establishment. Nearly all of the referred ballot measures are put forth by a handful of conservative activists and largely supported in only rural Oregon. So this “no as yes” wording really wouldn’t work in favor of those supposedly doing it. And I doubt it would hold up in court, beyond that, since there would be no way to reject a measure. I’m smelling bullshit on this.

By: b-psycho

b-psycho — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:57:43 +0000

Wow, that actually got through my wall of cynicism enough to prompt a “WTF?”…

By: HCR haterade: maybe it’s simpler than that « Blunt Object

HCR haterade: maybe it’s simpler than that « Blunt Object — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:45:27 +0000

[...] Depends on your definition of the word ‘yes’ (The Agitator) Last June, Democrats in the Oregon legislature attempted a nutty little bit of political chicanery. After some anti-tax groups and Oregon Republicans began agitating to put recently passed tax increases to a popular vote, Democrats tried to sneak the following language into the bill: “A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.” Emphasis mine. Yep. You read that right. They attempted to pass a law defining yes as no, and no as yes. [...]

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:28:49 +0000

……”what’s good is bad. What’s bad is good. You’ll find out when you reach the top you on the bottom. Idiot wind, blowing from the Grand Coolie dam to the capitol……We are idiots babe. It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves.”
Dylan

By: Cynical in CA

Cynical in CA — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:05:45 +0000

2+2=5

/batshit insane

By: David

David — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:56:12 +0000

The problem is that the tax hike is referred to as “a measure,” and the proposal to reject the tax hike is referred to as “a measure.” So no matter how the vote goes, one of the measures has passed.

By: MacGregory

MacGregory — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:49:33 +0000

Politicians do what they want, regardless. When caught pissing on the constitution, they change the definition. “yes, no” matter of opinion isn’t it? That “Constitution” is just a crusty old piece of paper. Those old coots idea of freedom is much different than it should be by our modern beliefs.