The really “rigged” elections

There has been a lot of talk about “rigged” elections this year and, while we don’t buy into the conspiracy theories, giving one side unlimited resources and giving another zero resources certainly comes close to determining the outcome of an election, right?

Take the $140 million in higher education bonds on the ballot this fall in New Mexico. If you log on to UNM’s website, you’ll find a large message (screen shot below) urging you to go vote for the higher education bond.

A website solely dedicated to passage of Bond C is available to tout the benefits of passing the bond along with the requisite claims about “no tax hikes” and job creation. What is never mentioned is how taxes would go down or how many jobs might be created if people kept their own money instead of having it taxed away.

And, not that I’m complaining (because we wouldn’t take it anyway), while the “pro” side obviously has access to deep pockets from those who would benefit from the flow of your tax dollars, those who want to see taxpayers keep their money must rely on their own resources or those of donors “to the cause.” Perhaps the Legislature should put a stop to some of the most egregious abuses such as express advocacy on a taxpayer-funded website like UNM’s?

unm-go-bond-2016

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “The really “rigged” elections”

  1. I early voted against the measure and hope that many others will join in a “no” vote.
    As has been stated a number of times before, on a per capita basis, NM has 7.8 times as many 4 year public colleges and universities as does AZ. Here’s the math: NM, with a population of 2.1 million has SEVEN public universities that grant 4 year degrees (UNM, NMSU, Tech, Highlands, Eastern, Western and Northern).That’s one for every 300,000. AZ, with a population of 7 million has THREE (U of A, ASU and Northern). That’s one for every 2,333,333. Dividing 300,000 into 2,333,333 equals 7.8. Why doesn’t the main stream media in NM ever mention this fact?

  2. UNM has 23 vice-presidents, several of which were given the fluff jobs as reward for supporting Richardson. The outgoing president is moving to a “created” job paying $300+K, so, the real question here is why do we need to support a country-club good ole’ boys group? They seem to have enough money to do silly things already don’t they?

  3. One little thing to do would to be certain that an “educator” who leaves the classroom for an administrative post loses tenure and becomes “at will”.

    Another would be to remove public sector unions if any form of civil service or similar set of legislated rules exist.

    By the way, if 70% of teachers rate as acceptable, or effective (or whatever),why are 70% of their pupils not meeting reasonable standards (Which, admittedly, rather low)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.