Tribune editorial board

Tuesday may have been a great day for the country's Republicans, but it was pretty dismal day for local issues on the ballot.

In Ironton all three issues put to the voters were shot down in flames - from a proposed tax increase, to the continuation of a tax to an issue that would reduce the salary of the city's next mayor.

We're not convinced that all of the voters truly understood what was being asked on the ballots. Why do we think that? Look at the total number of votes cast as a determinant.

A total of 5,068 voters punched their cards in favor or against a proposed increase in the Ironton income tax rate.

Only 4,971 voters made a choice in deciding whether or not to approve the city's replacement floodwall levy proposal.

And even less, 4,893, voters made a choice on whether or not to reduce the next city mayor's salary.

Those people who didn't vote on one of the issues had to have a reason, didn't they? The most obvious answer is, they just didn't feel like voting on the issue.

Perhaps a more correct answer is that they simply did not fully understand what the issues were in relation to the mayor's salary and the floodwall levy.

The issue of an "income tax increase" is pretty clear and voters clearly voted "no."

Unfortunately, ballots do not often include enough information to truly communicate what the issues are. And a number of voters said after they voted that the issues were not clear. The phrase "replacement flood wall levy" is easily misunderstood. "The flood wall doesn't need replacing," a voter might say. "Especially if it requires more tax money."

But that wasn't exactly the issue. The issue was approval of a tax already on the books and already being paid by our tax dollars.

And, more important, a tax that helps fund the maintenance of the levy that protects large areas of the city from the dangers of flooding.

It is too bad the ballots could not contain a bit more information. If they could, perhaps we'd have a little more security when the floodwaters rise.