If It Raises Taxes Caters to the Homosexual agenda or puts one farthing into The Mass Transit tax I will vote not only NO but HELL NO

"Attention... attention....homosexual agenda is calling a MR DD877... you're bathroom stall is ready for you Senator."

The arguments serve a useful purpose in identifying who's in support of what measure on the ballot. In the same breath, at $500 a pop, that's pretty cheap paid advertising (assuming none of the sponsors opted to gather 1000 signatures rather than pay the fee). Too bad there's now way to confirm the factual accuracy of the arguments.

However, in regards to "How much will the 175 arguments affect the outcome for the two measures?", not nearly as much as the ballot titles.

Too bad there's now way to confirm the factual accuracy of the arguments.

if only someone could create a system of review for initiatives that the people could trust to be fair and balanced.....

homosexuals? ... catering? ... DD877, wha??

Oh, and Jenni. Not to despair. The Oregon Voters Pamphlet is not meant for any single citizen to tackle alone. We like to gather up at least a half-dozen friends and meet at a local public house. 'Course the 2000 election was a 5 pint evening.

[Dinsclamjer: I occidintly vorted frr Bush und theer by thru the ellection,,,]

I won't be wasting any of my time reading any of those arguments either in Favor or Opposed.

Just vote Yes on 49 and Yes on 50.

THIS JUST IN FROM HOMOSEXUAL HEADQUARTERS: New toaster ovens will be issued to anyone who can convert 20 heterosexuals to homosexuals, at 30 converts ruby slipppers will be issued.

To review ballot measures we've been proposing the Citizens' Initiative Review over at Healthy Democracy Oregon. Using citizen deliberation to evaluate policy is one way to provide voters with a source of in-depth and trustworthy information on political decisions.

With the Voters' Pamphlet as it is now, the arguments are not much more than a list of endorsements. There's a lot of quality information mixed in, but who's to say what's truthful and what's not. Studies show that voters turn to the arguments to simply assess who is on what side. The arguments could probably be cut down to 25 words and serve the same purpose. Granted, that wouldn't be a very popular idea, but it would certainly save on the cost and produce a simpler VP in the process. What else could be done to improve the arguments in the VP?

Already Decided: How did you inform so fully inform yourself on M49&M50? Those high-quality, nuanced arguments haven't even been published yet.

For M49, I haven't been won over by the TV ads with farmers reading cue cards. Nor by the contemplative, "save it or pave it" yard signs, which frankly I find almost offensive- they seem to suggest that if I plan to read the measure and actually consider it before voting, I might as well consider paving my uncle's filbert orchard. Of course, the wolf in sheep's clothing crap (anti-49) doesn't exactly present a case, either. It's as if you vote for M49 and the government is going to seize your house and terrorize your kids. Now that's quality debate.

Seriously though- anyone know where one might find some quality, reasoned debate about M49 or M50? The arguments sure won't support that, but I believe it's a critical function in a democracy.

In terms of improving the arguments- why not get rid of them and just have a list of paid endorsements for both sides? The function of telling who's on what side is fulfilled (so don't worry, Already Decided) and the state will save millions. OTOH- we'd lose all those joke arguments. That would be indeed be a loss.....

Oregon37- thank you-

Already Decided- it was more fun to write that comment than read that the league's voter guide was already out and eat some of those words- my apologies for the snarky comment. I guess the campaign ads get me a little worked up

There are only about 7500 Measure 37 claims. Some are by corporations that have as many as 200 claims, so it is reasonable to estimate there are 5500 or 6000 smaller claimants. Claimants are the only people who have anything to gain from Measure 49 failing to pass, because if it does not, they will have until they die to do Anything They Want to their land without regard to land use laws or the effect on the neighbors. Corporations never die and they own vast tracts of Oregon, so they are paying for the campaign on TV and radio. Little people DO die, so they are better served by passing M49 to allow their heirs to add a few houses at a later date. Everybody wins except a very small number of Huge Companies. Hope that helps.

For Elliot:

Sorry to be slow in replying.

There is really no chance of voting no on either issue for any reasonable person.

Measure 37 has been a absolute disaster for saving the quality of life we enjoy in here Oregon which is due in part to excellent land use planning laws dating back to Governor Tom McCall. Measure 49 reverses only the worst parts of measure 37. In my opinion measure 49 doesn't go far enough.

Measure 50 rolls back some of the mean spirited budget cuts that brought to us by Karen Minis and her greedy Republican crew. It also has the benefit of providing additional motivation for some of our fellow citizens who are trying to break the pattern of addiction being peddled by BIG TOBACCO.

These two issues are very easy to decide on without reading the partisan debate in the voters pamphlet.

I did use the voters pamphlet as well as many other sources to try and decipher the real meaning and impact of the four City of Portland measures on the ballot last May. These issues are pretty cut and dried for life long blue Oregonian.

Best to you,

<h2>A. Decided</h2>