First, my thanks to the entire staff, contributors and the delivery people for feeding my morning addiction to The Olympian.
Second, Marti Schodt’s Aug. 9 young adult perspective hit a cord with my near-retirement sensibilities. Maybe she can help me with some lead-in remarks to bridge the chasm between the safety of patter and the risk of revealing one’s true self to strangers.
Lastly, I ask “Our View - More misguided Eyman antics” what is the functional difference between a short 30-word description of an advisory vote on a ballot and the six-word name and party preference description of the candidates on the same ballot? We expect the voters to know something more about the candidates than their name and party preference, so we should also expect them to spend a little time learning about the advisory votes they’re asked to make.
A reasonable nonpartisan explanation of the legislation and the pro and con arguments on the bill that appear in a voter’s pamphlet is a good start. Add the respected opinions expressed in the pages of The Olympian and some of that check-out line conversation that Marti wishes for and then maybe an occasional advisory vote wouldn’t seem absurd at all.