You get to choose between two of our nation's finest. The choice is clear. On one side you can choose a candidate who is crippled by incomprehension; on the other, you can choose a candidate who is crippled by indecision. So take an hour off of work and go stand in a line so you can go do you meaningless patriotic duty! Go tell your electoral college member how to vote for the next President of the United States!
(Author's note: Sometimes I really do wonder when I became such a cynic.)
On another note, if you haven't voted yet and would just vote for Question 1 because of the arts - don't. The Performing Arts Center is already paid for! That's why you would only see it in the background at the booths at the Plaza Art Fair and such. This is also the reason the drawings weren't used in the TV commercials. I'm sorry, but this is a quarter of a billion dollar money grab by the two sports teams. It's dirty politics to put the "Arts" in there with this question - they knew if they had two questions the arts would pass and the sports would fail, but throw it all together and you might just get 'em both. I don't think we should be given an itemized budget to vote on, but I think there's a difference between tailgating and watching the symphony.
And finally, am I the only one that considers the following incomprehensible blabber?
Should the Charter of Kansas City be amended by repealing various sections and enacting new sections to read as provided in Second Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 040924, As Amended, to remove certain operational mandates and to permit the City Council to adopt ordinances to regulate these areas?
What the fuck does that mean? [Edit] Yes, I understand that it means that certain parts of the Charter would be changed as the Second Committee requested. I'm posing this as a deeper question, what am I amending? You know, the stuff that ballots might just be expected tell you.[/Edit] I really wish they had a "Yes/No/Ask me again when you can actually explain what you want". I know, I should have been informed on what it meant, but really... "as provided in Second Committe Substitute for Ordinance No. 040924". Yeah, that means a lot to anyone who didn't actually write it. How 'bout this - why not provide both the old version and the suggested new version. Whoa... what an idea! Fill the voter in when they vote!
You know, this is another argument for electronic voting. A properly created electronic voting system could easily provide all of the additional information and context a voter could want. Allow every candidate to submit a paragraph explaining their positions and allow both the for and againsts to provide a paragraph explaining why you should back their amendment.
But then you might actually have informed voters! Hell, the fact that the parties have to put up with voters in the first place is nuisance enough, why actually let them know what they're voting for.
(Author's Note: Really? When did I become so cynical?)