The Mysterious Question F
In a previous post, I gave my election endorsements. I relied on this article from the Gazette to guide me as to the meaning of Question F. The article said
Now comes the Washington Post with their endorsement. They say,
What? That would be the opposite of what the other paper said. Let's look at the text.
You know, I was going to change my vote on Questions A-E, since the Post recommends a yes vote, but now I just feel like they're not really paying attention.
Question F...would prevent any council members who have served two terms from running for an at-large seat in the 2006 election, assuming at-large seats are added.
Now comes the Washington Post with their endorsement. They say,
We...urge a "yes" vote on...Question F, which would allow a district council member who has maxed out under Prince George County's two-term limit to run again for an at-large seat.
What? That would be the opposite of what the other paper said. Let's look at the text.
To provide that members of the County Council may not be elected to more than two consecutive terms...So the Post recommended a yes vote based on a complete misreading of the Question.
You know, I was going to change my vote on Questions A-E, since the Post recommends a yes vote, but now I just feel like they're not really paying attention.
posted by Jon at
10/26/2004 09:56:00 PM
(share this on facebook)
2 Comments:
They made a correction, but their official stance is still vote yes.
Just in case you were wondering. :)
Hmm, so the Post can botch their reading of the question that badly and you believe other things they say?
Post a Comment
<< Home