That is exactly what the voters will do. Editorial writers, however, are supposed to make a convincing case one way or the other. The editorial begins with this assertion:
Proponents of Proposition A are focusing mainly on what they say will be additional funding for public schools if the measure passes — a part of the proposal that will likely attract widespread support. But there are a lot of unknowns in the plan that are being touted as givens.
For example, Proposition A backers say increasing the casino tax to 21 percent — 1 percentage point — will generate more than $100 million of new funding for education. But that would occur only if Missouri's casinos experience a nearly $500 million increase in gambling proceeds. The supporters say that's a fair assumption that would result from eliminating the loss limits and limiting gambling to existing casinos.
It might help if the Southeast Missourian had added that these "proponents of Proposition A" are almost exclusively the major casinos, primarily Ameristar Casinos and Pinnacle Entertainment, which have poured millions of dollars into this effort to limit their competition and increase their revenues by removing loss limits.
Those in education, while they would certainly be happy to see the amount of money promised from this proposition, are not jumping on the bandwagon for A because they are fully aware that the increases are not likely to be anywhere near that much, and legislators will likely move to reduce general fund spending on education because of the new revenues, leaving it a wash and making education dependent on the success of the gambling industry.
The tone of the editorial indicates the Southeast Missourian does not like the measure. If that is the case, a strong stance against it would have been a much better approach than "Missourians can make up their own minds."