Now, at the time, I was wryly amused that someone thought the best way to deal with possibly being given the wrong ballot was voting, going home and then complaining to someone who is not, in fact, either a public official or a rep of the voting board, and went to vote.
As I'm voting, said man is finishing up and, in a quiet voice, says "I don't see how anyone would know there were two sides to vote," as he stomps off to actually vote.
At just about that moment, I got to Resolution 3, which had a title, a single paragraph of text, and a block of different type saying "Vote Both Sides." That was it: an incomplete description and that text with no place to vote on Resolution 3. That's why, in a flash of brilliance, I thought of turning the page over. There I found the remainder of the Resolution 3 description, a place to vote for, and, a couple of resolutions down, a list of names to vote for to sit on a committee to explore alternative county governments organizations. These were the only names on the back of the page.
I'm very glad I'd decided to vote against Resolution 5 before I heard all this. Because after it, I would have had to vote against it, and that's not the best way to make a decision. Or maybe it would have been--do we really want someone that clueless making decisions about our form of government?
Some days, the principle of 'one man, one vote' seems a bit....idealistic.


