Thursday October 8, 2015
Jump to content
If you read the Tea Party News this week you'll see this comment in it:
"A separate comment from Tom Garrett:
Shirley Dye, who does such great work each week of sending the latest news about the Tea Party, included some advice which I thought was very good. But since I always edit out anything which could be misconstrued as an endorsement of either side of any issue, I couldn't include it here. However, I thought it was good advice and needed to be aired, so I'll put it up as a separate string in a minute, as soon as I post this."
Here's the comment that Shirley made:
"Please consider the unintended consequences of your vote on a proposition which if passed will become law. It is best to skip a ballot measure and not vote on that particular one, than to accidently vote opposite of what you would want if you understood it. If in doubt, don’t!"
I think that makes good sense. What do you think?
How about it? Which way should we go? If we don't know too much about an initiative, is it wiser to vote yes, or no?
Abstain, but only on that issue.
I agree, if you don't understand the issue, don't vote on it.
Thanks, folks. That's the way I was leaning, but you know how it is; It's nice to know that other people agree. I think Shirley Dye has the right idea. Just as you said, if something is going to make a big change, as an initiative is bound to do, and you aren't really sure that it's right, it's best to vote no, or at least to do what Fred suggests--don't vote at all on it.
That, by the way, is what conservatism is all about: not making changes unless they are proven to be necessary and right.
Look at the state that just wrote a law making it illegal to spank a child, putting parents in prison for either one or two years for doing it.
Just remembered I haven't put that one up yet. I'll do it right now.
Here's a crazy idea. In a world where communications take place at the speed of light why do we need a Republic?
Why not elect an advisory board instead of a legislature, let them study and make laws, and vote on each one directly. Not the great number of people we have now. A far smaller number elected on the basis of their expertise in important areas.
Think of it first as if we were only speaking of--say--Payson. The Town Council looks at what's going on and makes recommendations. Then the people vote on them. Try it first at that level, then go to the county and state level, and finally to the federal level if it works well.
Posting comments requires a free account