Its title reads at a 19th-grade level, and its summary reads at a 24th-grade level.
What the hell Axios?
You might need a college degree to read a ballot, but you need a Slop degree to make sense of Axios
They explain what absurdly high “grades” mean earlier in the article.
- The national average is 17th grade, about the level of a first-year graduate student, according to Ballotpedia.
- Colorado’s ballots rank hardest at a 33rd-grade level, theoretically 17 years of schooling beyond a bachelor’s degree.
I have to assume this is part of a standardized reading-level scale, not something they made up for the article.
Oh, I think they made it up. Most PhD’s “only” need 10-12 years of school after High School. 33rd Grade isnt a thing at all.
Which should tell you something when we have ballots that go that far off the scale. It’s not an accident.
Long words and long sentences can get non-sensical “grade levels” out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests#Flesch–Kincaid_grade_level
If the average word is 4 syllables and the average sentence is 4 words, that gives a “grade level” of 33+. I imagine the problem with the ballot measures are extremely long sentences. Lists, conditions, and lists of conditions all make for very long sentences that can still not require any sort of advanced vocabulary. If the average sentence is 65 words and the average word is just 2 syllables, you still get a 33+ “grade level”.
So it has nothing to do with the content at all, just how many words are in sentences, and how many syllables are in those words. A twelve year old with a penchant for run-on sentences (and a thesaurus) could invent a “33rd-grade” sentence if they put their mind to it.
It’s actually dumber than if they had an AI grade it for readability.
That’s like saying the ability to have theoretical shoe sizes for giants makes practical shoe sizes useless. In reality, the hypothetical text you’re describing that breaks the scale isn’t something we need to worry about.
And yet, I’ve seen it touted as a useful, if approximate, metric since I was in secondary school last century (1990s).
Sometimes the “dumbest” stuff gets used just because it’s a translation to the “standard” number line. I don’t know which, if either, was the cause and which was the effect, but it kind of thinking strongly correlates with a “number go up” / infinite growth measure of success.
Axios is slop
If I could venture a guess, either the article is slop or the editor is slop.
The majority of US adults read below a 6th grade level (source). To put it into perspective, Dungeons and Dragons is written for a highschool reading level.
Even though I have some graduate work, I’m always glad to get the Arkansas ballot measure explainers from: https://www.youtube.com/@ArkanSense
Perhaps an ambitious Kansan or Missourian could do such a project for future ballot measures.
I also hate things like “33rd grade”, which make no damn sense, but are likely just blind application of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests#Flesch–Kincaid_grade_level if not outright “AI hallucinations”.
EDIT: Correct nominative for a citizen of Missouri, per replies.
Missourian.
This article is stupid because the interesting part is how these theoretical grade levels “33rd” are defined, that’s an article I’d actually like to read.
It’s like the kid in 4th grade who thought they were awesome when they learned the word zillion when everyone else realized it didn’t really matter much when even a trillion was stupidly incomprehensible.
that’s an article I’d actually like to read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests#Flesch–Kincaid_grade_level (probably)
Funny you say that. The average American “56%” can only read at a 5th grade level. Axios can’t afford that level of a writer.
So, this is the proposal the article claims is the most challenging:
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to establish the “Show-Me Prosperity Fund,” a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes without impairing the real value of the fund’s principal; prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting monies from the fund until notification is given by the State Treasurer that the net investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to eliminate state-imposed taxes; cap the total amount of moneys that may be appropriated from the fund in a fiscal year to three percent of the average market value of the fund over the preceding five fiscal years; and prohibit the General Assembly from enacting the eliminated state-imposed taxes, provided, however, that in the event the fund is unable to meet its obligations due to insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure, the General Assembly shall retain full authority to appropriate funds from any lawful source and to enact legislation establishing or increasing taxes or other revenues as necessary.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes.
If passed, this measure will have no immediate impact on taxes but could lead to the elimination of state-imposed taxes if the net investment earnings of the fund become sufficient to support that outcome.
This seems pretty straightforward (basically a pension fund to offset taxes, if I’m reading it correctly), but I could picture maybe 50+% of the population having difficulty exactly grasping what they’re going for.
From what I can tell, there isn’t necessarily a limit on what can be made a ballot initiative, but it makes me feel wonder if there is a certain point where the public should or shouldn’t have a say on specific issues. If the US would enter a significant depression, and this tax program was in place, all of a sudden, Missourians would either get hit by a surprise sales tax or have to pay state tax out of pocket unexpectedly. The people that would have a hard time understanding the text of this ballot question would probably be hot disproportionately harder. I feel enough ballot questions are misleading to begin with (I typically vote against open space preservation in my area because it sounds like it pays wealthy landowners to just hold onto their property rather than sell to developers or to build sports parks for private leagues rather than preserving specific ecosystems of need), but voting on a significant structure of the tax system kinda feels like something that might be better left to experts than the average joe.
I don’t remember if I had a specific point or am just thinking out loud, but I don’t like ballot questions. It feels like the government just passing the responsibility back to us. If they do something that is stupid, they blame the people, and if an initiative is passed, I don’t believe they are compelled to act on it if I remember correctly.
This seems pretty straightforward (basically a pension fund to offset taxes, if I’m reading it correctly),
No, you’re absolutely fucking not reading it correctly. Good try though.
Thanks for proving the article’s point.
Care to state what you feel they read incorrectly?
I didn’t find it difficult to read, but I guess if the point is it being a college sophmore level, I’m over educated with a masters
My biggest issue with it is that I have so many unanswered questions about it. Chiefly, where is this money coming from?
The pension part. The fund is “public” in that it pays for public stuff, but it would be directly investing in stocks, bonds, and the active market. Yes, I’m being nitpicky as fuck, but that’s kind of the point; if the language itself is that murky and perfidious, bad faith shenanigans will ensue the second it passes.
It’s kinda funny, but the one thing you did nitpick is wrong. Pension funds do invest in stocks/bonds/etc. The biggest issue with calling it a pension fund is that it’s not for retirement. But by all accounts it’s just a sovereign wealth fund though. The tricky part of the language is they aren’t just voting on a wealth fund, but the regulations on the fund too.
Checking a few summaries, I’m not sure how I’m off on this.
A “yes” vote supports creating a permanent public endowment fund managed by the state to generate revenue, and using the earnings to eliminate state-imposed taxes when sufficient to replace them.
The Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund would receive funds appropriated by the legislature, as well as grants and donations, and the state treasurer would be required to invest it in exchange-traded funds tied to the S&P 500. Under the amendment, no money could be appropriated from the fund until its annual investment earnings are sufficient to replace revenue generated by state taxes. It would require that the money in the fund be used solely to eliminate state taxes, including the individual income tax, the state sales and use tax, the state corporate income tax, and all other state-imposed taxes. After these taxes are eliminated, the amendment would prohibit reenacting them, unless the fund is unable to meet its obligations. (Ballotopedia)
An investment fund to theoretically eliminate state taxes for taxpayers, should the legally allowed 3% withdrawal limit cover it. If that 3% doesn’t cover it, they can institute any legal method to collect the balance. What am I missing?
I think this back and forth about what it means, by what I assume are well-educated people, goes to the argument that it is basically written in confusing lawyer jargon and not easily digestible to the average person.
You initially said “a pension fund to offset taxes.” What I would take issue with there is using pension and endowment interchangeably when they’re not at all interchangeable, and the use of the word “offset” when it’s supposed to eliminate and replace, not simply offset, taxes (unless it becomes insolvent, in which case they would have to get voter approval to bring taxes back. Yikes!).
But I agree with your point that the taxpayers shouldn’t be deciding this in the first place because even if it were written clearly, there’s not enough information you can fit in the space to let anyone make an informed decision. You’d have to understand what an endowment is, what incentives have historically been created by them, and most importantly (what critics have been asking), where would the money be coming from?
My interpretation of where the money is coming from is bribes. That’s a detail in the word “donations” I didn’t get from the wall of text that is that amendment, but from further reading.
My main source was this article.
Pension was definitely the wrong word, I’ll cop to that. It’s an invested fund designed to payout at what I assume should be a relatively stable rate while not depleting itself.
The offset comment was a mildly sarcastic remark about my uncertainty that it would cover expenses to the extent it could fully eliminate taxes on a permanent basis. I just don’t see the motivation (for officials) to lock away large amounts from funds they can spend at will to an account that’s off limits.
The article you linked was very interesting, as this is the first I’d heard of this proposed fund (not from Missouri) and the bit at the end about the Hanremoved Amendment was intriguing, as it seems the state has a lot of special rules about taxation that could further complicate what this agreement proposes.
Thanks for taking the time to respond civilly. It does highlight the significance of clear and proper wording. I knew what I meant, but I didn’t make it clear to some of you. That’s why I don’t write ballot questions maybe. 😅
