Jenkins brochure on state proposals is not an unbiased explanation
To the Editor,
I’d like to thank Representative Nancy Jenkins for clarifying some of the more confusing ballot proposals voters will decide on this November. I’d like to thank her, but I will not.
I am familiar with the subtle and not so subtle power of words and rhetoric. The brochure produced and distributed by Rep. Jenkins seems on the surface to be an unbiased explanation of the ballot proposals. But it is not. Not by a long shot.
When Rep. Jenkins greets her readers with “Dear Friends,” she attempts to ingratiate herself with the reader. And when she claims “the language of each proposal is provided exactly as approved by the State Board of Canvassers” and “the accompanying analyses have been prepared in keeping with the facts” she attempts to gain our trust. However, a quick read reveals her real motivation. The most obvious case of bias is found in the analysis of Proposal 4. Under the section titled “People voting NO say” it reads, “This proposal would effectively force in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient, to join a union and pay union dues.” But wait, Rep. Jenkins. I thought the analyses were “in keeping with the facts.” Clearly there are those who will misread or otherwise fail to grasp the wording of a particular proposal.
Should one then repeat that ridiculousness and intentionally confuse voters? Am I really to believe that I’ll be forced to join a union if I provide home health care for a loved one?
Well, I’ve read the proposal and there’s nothing there to warrant this kind of scare tactic. Nothing. Democracy only works if people are provided with factual information and educate themselves. How dare you use a position of power to intentionally confuse voters. I don’t buy what you’re selling, Rep. Jenkins. Not one little bit. You will never receive my vote, nor will I be swayed by your propaganda.