Ballot questions
Oct. 29th, 2006 11:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmcirvinAside from all the candidates up for election this year, there are also three questions on the Massachusetts ballot, the first two of which are interestingly tricky for me. I think I know how I'm going to vote on all of them, but it's not a knee-jerk thing.
Question 1 is the one getting all the publicity because there are interests with lots of money pushing both sides. Currently, in Massachusetts, there is no state monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages, but there is a partial monopoly on the part of licensed private liquor stores. Some food stores can sell beer and wine, but there's a weird and arbitrary restriction on how many of them in a given chain can sell it, so that you can get wine at some grocery stores but not others, with no particular rhyme or reason. Question 1 would greatly broaden the licensing of food stores to sell wine (and only wine).
Opponents (supported by big liquor-store chains) warn of the social damage that could be wrought by the ability to buy wine at every corner convenience store; proponents (supported by big grocery-store chains) simply point out that it's bizarre that, for instance, I can buy wine at the local Butcher Boy but not at the local Stop & Shop, though I could buy wine at the Stop & Shop in my old town.
I'm leaning toward yes, though I acknowledge some validity to the arguments of question opponents. The existing law is just too obviously an arbitrary kludge for the benefit of vested interests, and it's caused some annoyance for me personally, as it does for almost everyone.
Question 2 is the really tricky one: it would allow minor parties to endorse major candidates for public office and get this on the ballot, so that, say, the Democratic candidate could appear twice, as the candidate of the Democratic Party and also as the candidate of the Liberal Green Worker's Party or whatever. (Overvotes as a result of this, where the voter votes for the same candidate under multiple parties, would be counted once, with the party information removed.)
I think the state of New York has something like this already, and I appreciate the boost it would give to third parties and the extra information it would give elected officials about the platform under which their constituents voted for them. I do think it's unfortunate that our electoral system tends to suppress third parties and drive everyone toward a two-party system that muffles the individual ideological voices of voters. It's true that measures to extend the visibility of third parties tend to give greater voice to loony and scary extremist parties, but that's all part of democracy.
On the other hand, I really don't like the idea that one candidate could appear on the ballot multiple times, thereby biasing accidental or random voting in that candidate's favor. It seems like a system ripe for gaming. So I'm leaning toward no, but weakly.
Question 3 would, as I understand it, allow workers at small child-care businesses to unionize. I'm thinking yes for reasons that are basically ideological—I'm generally pro-collective-bargaining—though of course this could mean higher costs for me down the line.
Question 1 is the one getting all the publicity because there are interests with lots of money pushing both sides. Currently, in Massachusetts, there is no state monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages, but there is a partial monopoly on the part of licensed private liquor stores. Some food stores can sell beer and wine, but there's a weird and arbitrary restriction on how many of them in a given chain can sell it, so that you can get wine at some grocery stores but not others, with no particular rhyme or reason. Question 1 would greatly broaden the licensing of food stores to sell wine (and only wine).
Opponents (supported by big liquor-store chains) warn of the social damage that could be wrought by the ability to buy wine at every corner convenience store; proponents (supported by big grocery-store chains) simply point out that it's bizarre that, for instance, I can buy wine at the local Butcher Boy but not at the local Stop & Shop, though I could buy wine at the Stop & Shop in my old town.
I'm leaning toward yes, though I acknowledge some validity to the arguments of question opponents. The existing law is just too obviously an arbitrary kludge for the benefit of vested interests, and it's caused some annoyance for me personally, as it does for almost everyone.
Question 2 is the really tricky one: it would allow minor parties to endorse major candidates for public office and get this on the ballot, so that, say, the Democratic candidate could appear twice, as the candidate of the Democratic Party and also as the candidate of the Liberal Green Worker's Party or whatever. (Overvotes as a result of this, where the voter votes for the same candidate under multiple parties, would be counted once, with the party information removed.)
I think the state of New York has something like this already, and I appreciate the boost it would give to third parties and the extra information it would give elected officials about the platform under which their constituents voted for them. I do think it's unfortunate that our electoral system tends to suppress third parties and drive everyone toward a two-party system that muffles the individual ideological voices of voters. It's true that measures to extend the visibility of third parties tend to give greater voice to loony and scary extremist parties, but that's all part of democracy.
On the other hand, I really don't like the idea that one candidate could appear on the ballot multiple times, thereby biasing accidental or random voting in that candidate's favor. It seems like a system ripe for gaming. So I'm leaning toward no, but weakly.
Question 3 would, as I understand it, allow workers at small child-care businesses to unionize. I'm thinking yes for reasons that are basically ideological—I'm generally pro-collective-bargaining—though of course this could mean higher costs for me down the line.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 07:12 pm (UTC)I think that Question 4, the Community Preservation Act, is on the ballot only on a town/city by town/city basis - raising property taxes around 3% to get matching state funds for greenspace preservation and recreational use. I wish they'd find something other than property taxes to raise, and I'm not totally certain that the matching money from the state is as secure as it's being presented.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-30 10:48 am (UTC)One of the most amazing things about our civilization is how poorly we pay the people who deal with the upbringing and socialization of small children. It is the same here, of course.
But I'd guess the state still would face the question of what to do with those low-income kids. Tax payers may not want them running around in the streets or having mothers on minimal welfare staying at home instead of working and paying taxes. Maybe specialized subsidies are in the way of efficiency and kindergartens would be more cost-effective than small day care providers, or maybe the state just has to give small day care providers more money.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 06:12 am (UTC)No on 3
Date: 2006-11-06 08:49 pm (UTC)