TODAY’S VOTERS ARE VERY INTELLIGENT. TODAY’S VOTERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO THOROUGHLY RESEARCH ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET.
THE ONLY BARRIER FOR THEM IS SHOVELING THROUGH ALL THE MISINFORMATION AS THEY SEEK THE TRUTH .
At last weeks League of Women Voters forum, Karl Uppiano debated for Propositions 1 and 7. The debates did not stay focused on each of the Propositions that each of the debaters were assigned to argue for or against, thus the debate got muddied for observers to follow, more so for those who don’t spend their lives following the inner-workings of local politics.
As I’ve stated in past postings and on the Liberty Road Facebook page, it is important to inform the voters on what each of this years Propositions are meant to do. But, when false statements are made and if not corrected immediately, the incorrect, if not dishonest statement is allowed to languish uncorrected. The saying; “If you tell a lie often enough, the people cannot tell the difference between the lie and the truth.”, requires that I address it here and provide Mr. Uppiano the opportunity for correction. In the end it is the responsibility of the voter to read, listen, and learn about the issues themselves.
It is my sincere belief that they will do just that, or they’ll choose not to vote on the proposals. Ask yourself who wins in that scenario? The truth or the lie?
~ Kris Halterman
Karl Uppiano I sent the following email to Mr. Browne, just to get this on the public record. I expect the entire council will see it:
Dear Mr. Browne,
Thank you for the opportunity to debate with you on Saturday. I do wish to correct the record, however.
On at least two occasions, you mentioned that Propositions 2 & 3 would eliminate any future ability of the voters to modify the charter. Were you deliberately misrepresenting the situation with campaign rhetoric, or did you not fully understand the intent and letter of the amendments? (See the video…)
These amendments in no way affect the voters’ ability to do anything. Voters can always bring an initiative. As for petitioning the council, these amendments simply require a unanimous vote by the council to propose amendments for two very specific issues: 1. An amendment that would repeal a previous voter-approved amendment that had passed by a super-majority, and 2. An amendment that would affect the way council members themselves are elected – seen by many as a form of corruption. Everything else is wide open.
You mentioned elsewhere in the debate that amendments such as these would have perpetuated slavery and prevented women’s suffrage. Seriously? It certainly depends heavily on uninformed voters and a profound unfamiliarity with civics to buy that one. I would be embarrassed to take advantage of the ignorant in that way.
Even the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights prohibits the legislature from taking certain actions deemed to be detrimental to citizens’ rights. To wit, “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis mine.) Propositions 2 & 3 stop short of an outright prohibition, and merely say the entire council must agree; not an unusual situation in any event.
Because of the timing of the proceedings, it was not until my closing remarks that I was able to address this, and by then the moment had passed. I do hope we can correct the record somehow.
Can our problems be solved with more freedom, instead of less? ~ Karl Uppiano
You can read many of Karl Uppiano’s screeds at on his blog here … AntiKakistocracy Blog