![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurEveryone's been focused on the actual election this time around (which is great). But let's take a moment to examine the ballot questions that will be available in MA this year.
First off: the official listing of the questions, including the petitions themselves and the arguments for and against, can be found on the Elections Commision page. I recommend taking a few minutes to look it over before going to vote, since this stuff is a nuisance to figure out while you're standing in the voting booth.
Some of my current opinions, not necessarily final, which I throw open for discussion:
Question 1 is the one that you've probably heard about if you have watched any TV at all in the past few months. Like so many ballot questions, it is phrased differently by the two sides: it's "grocery store wine" if you're for it, or "convenience store alcohol" if you're against it. (The first invoking the idea of nice friendly little stores run by Mom and Pop, the second providing images of teenagers passed out in front of 7-11.)
Let's be clear here: this one is noisy precisely because of the money involved. Liquor stores stand to lose significant sales if it passes; supermarkets stand to gain similarly. Hence, both sides have poured a *considerable* amount of money into ads that are, if not precisely misleading, at least pretty well slanted. The No campaign is typically overstated (most "No" ballot questions are fear-oriented), but the Yes campaign does quietly ignore the ramifications.
(I should state my biases here -- I am generally more disposed to favor questions that loosen the laws, more than those that tighten them. IMO, we live in an excessively regulated society. So I will tend to prefer changes that "allow" more than changes that "require" or "prevent".)
I personally consider this one an easy Yes. (Although I feel slightly traitorous, since the owner of Kappy's is a Lodge brother of mine.) The No campaign implies that every convenience store will wind up carrying booze, but that's untrue -- it simply allows local authorities to issue liquor licenses to such stores, and while it increases the number of available licenses, it doesn't increase them infinitely. They've tried to claim that it will lead to more drunk driving, but the evidence for that seems weak at best -- their claims that liquor store clerks are far better at regulating sales to underagers doesn't mesh especially well with my experiences. The only real restriction on local authorities is that all applicants for wine licenses must be treated equally, which is quite reasonable. There's nothing preventing stringent local regulation, though, and it explicitly permits the local authorities to set their fees appropriately.
So overall, I think this one is a very well-considered change, with little likely downside (for anyone except existing liquor stores) and moderate public benefit.
Question 2 is the subtlest of the questions, and interesting to me from a political-theory POV. Basically, it tweaks the rules to allow a candidate for public office to be nominated by multiple parties.
Again, this one is an "allow" change. Basically, the rules currently say that a given candidate can only be nominated by a single party. This change would remove that restriction. Again, it's opposed by vested powers -- in this case, the big parties, which lose a tiny amount of power due to it.
I don't think this change is anywhere near as apocalyptic as the No campaign would make it out to be -- they predict "massive voter confusion", but that's nonsense, and frankly pretty insulting to the electorate. Many states allow this approach, and having talked to a few friends in and from such states, they seem to all think that it's a perfectly nice (if minor) aspect of those states' laws.
It isn't likely to have a significant outcome on most elections, although it gives the minor parties just the tiniest chance of banding together and getting someone elected. It also gives them a small amount of political leverage: for instance, if the Green party were to throw its weight behind a Democratic candidate, they could point to the votes garnered by that candidate on the Green ticket as evidence of the number of voters who care about their issues.
Basically, it's makes the minor parties a shade more influential, since it would sometimes allow voters to vote for such a party while not feeling like they are "throwing away" their vote; that should increase the number of votes cast for those small parties. In some elections, that may matter; indeed, it may even prove occasionally crucial. I think it's less likely to matter hugely here than in states that have a razor-thin balance between the big parties, but in principle it seems like a good idea.
So again, this one's a Yes for me. Not a very important measure, but overall an appropriate lifting of a rule that only benefits the big parties while slightly hindering the electorate.
Question 3 is the one I have the most mixed feelings about. Basically, it lays the first step in allowing licensed in-home child-care providers to unionize.
Mind, I'm no fan of unions. My biases are those of the professional, and not unusual for my industry: I find unions weird and limiting, and my experiences with them have not, on the whole, been positive. That said, there's something to be said for philosophical consistency, and this does seem consistent with the general tenor of labor-relations laws. Insofar as one thinks that unions are a good idea, this one doesn't seem any less reasonable than the rest. And the question doesn't really cause anything to happen -- it simply allows unionization to happen, if the child-care providers choose to do so.
It's interesting to see the arguments here. In particular, no one stepped forward by the deadline to advance a "No" argument, which I suspect is because there aren't any organized vested interests against it. Eventually, one of the commisioners in the Dept. of Early Education presented an argument, claiming that this measure isn't being pushed by the child-care providers themselves, which leaves me a tad confused about who *is* behind the question. Is there an organization that is seeking to become the official union organizer for the child-care providers? Wouldn't surprise me, but it isn't obvious.
Overall, I'm more or less neutral on this one. It being again an "allow" question, my biases favor it; however, it does have some coercive elements to it. If certified, the union would have considerable influence over state child-care policy; whether that is good or bad is hard to know upfront. The union would (as unions always do) represent some people well, but wind up squashing some people who don't fit the union's mold. And it explicitly exempts the union from anti-trust laws (as I believe is fairly common for unions), which *always* makes me suspicious -- my libertarian biases aside, I tend to find those laws useful and important on the economic level.
So I'm likely to abstain on this one -- I don't care enough to vote it down, but I can't say I really *like* it...
First off: the official listing of the questions, including the petitions themselves and the arguments for and against, can be found on the Elections Commision page. I recommend taking a few minutes to look it over before going to vote, since this stuff is a nuisance to figure out while you're standing in the voting booth.
Some of my current opinions, not necessarily final, which I throw open for discussion:
Question 1 is the one that you've probably heard about if you have watched any TV at all in the past few months. Like so many ballot questions, it is phrased differently by the two sides: it's "grocery store wine" if you're for it, or "convenience store alcohol" if you're against it. (The first invoking the idea of nice friendly little stores run by Mom and Pop, the second providing images of teenagers passed out in front of 7-11.)
Let's be clear here: this one is noisy precisely because of the money involved. Liquor stores stand to lose significant sales if it passes; supermarkets stand to gain similarly. Hence, both sides have poured a *considerable* amount of money into ads that are, if not precisely misleading, at least pretty well slanted. The No campaign is typically overstated (most "No" ballot questions are fear-oriented), but the Yes campaign does quietly ignore the ramifications.
(I should state my biases here -- I am generally more disposed to favor questions that loosen the laws, more than those that tighten them. IMO, we live in an excessively regulated society. So I will tend to prefer changes that "allow" more than changes that "require" or "prevent".)
I personally consider this one an easy Yes. (Although I feel slightly traitorous, since the owner of Kappy's is a Lodge brother of mine.) The No campaign implies that every convenience store will wind up carrying booze, but that's untrue -- it simply allows local authorities to issue liquor licenses to such stores, and while it increases the number of available licenses, it doesn't increase them infinitely. They've tried to claim that it will lead to more drunk driving, but the evidence for that seems weak at best -- their claims that liquor store clerks are far better at regulating sales to underagers doesn't mesh especially well with my experiences. The only real restriction on local authorities is that all applicants for wine licenses must be treated equally, which is quite reasonable. There's nothing preventing stringent local regulation, though, and it explicitly permits the local authorities to set their fees appropriately.
So overall, I think this one is a very well-considered change, with little likely downside (for anyone except existing liquor stores) and moderate public benefit.
Question 2 is the subtlest of the questions, and interesting to me from a political-theory POV. Basically, it tweaks the rules to allow a candidate for public office to be nominated by multiple parties.
Again, this one is an "allow" change. Basically, the rules currently say that a given candidate can only be nominated by a single party. This change would remove that restriction. Again, it's opposed by vested powers -- in this case, the big parties, which lose a tiny amount of power due to it.
I don't think this change is anywhere near as apocalyptic as the No campaign would make it out to be -- they predict "massive voter confusion", but that's nonsense, and frankly pretty insulting to the electorate. Many states allow this approach, and having talked to a few friends in and from such states, they seem to all think that it's a perfectly nice (if minor) aspect of those states' laws.
It isn't likely to have a significant outcome on most elections, although it gives the minor parties just the tiniest chance of banding together and getting someone elected. It also gives them a small amount of political leverage: for instance, if the Green party were to throw its weight behind a Democratic candidate, they could point to the votes garnered by that candidate on the Green ticket as evidence of the number of voters who care about their issues.
Basically, it's makes the minor parties a shade more influential, since it would sometimes allow voters to vote for such a party while not feeling like they are "throwing away" their vote; that should increase the number of votes cast for those small parties. In some elections, that may matter; indeed, it may even prove occasionally crucial. I think it's less likely to matter hugely here than in states that have a razor-thin balance between the big parties, but in principle it seems like a good idea.
So again, this one's a Yes for me. Not a very important measure, but overall an appropriate lifting of a rule that only benefits the big parties while slightly hindering the electorate.
Question 3 is the one I have the most mixed feelings about. Basically, it lays the first step in allowing licensed in-home child-care providers to unionize.
Mind, I'm no fan of unions. My biases are those of the professional, and not unusual for my industry: I find unions weird and limiting, and my experiences with them have not, on the whole, been positive. That said, there's something to be said for philosophical consistency, and this does seem consistent with the general tenor of labor-relations laws. Insofar as one thinks that unions are a good idea, this one doesn't seem any less reasonable than the rest. And the question doesn't really cause anything to happen -- it simply allows unionization to happen, if the child-care providers choose to do so.
It's interesting to see the arguments here. In particular, no one stepped forward by the deadline to advance a "No" argument, which I suspect is because there aren't any organized vested interests against it. Eventually, one of the commisioners in the Dept. of Early Education presented an argument, claiming that this measure isn't being pushed by the child-care providers themselves, which leaves me a tad confused about who *is* behind the question. Is there an organization that is seeking to become the official union organizer for the child-care providers? Wouldn't surprise me, but it isn't obvious.
Overall, I'm more or less neutral on this one. It being again an "allow" question, my biases favor it; however, it does have some coercive elements to it. If certified, the union would have considerable influence over state child-care policy; whether that is good or bad is hard to know upfront. The union would (as unions always do) represent some people well, but wind up squashing some people who don't fit the union's mold. And it explicitly exempts the union from anti-trust laws (as I believe is fairly common for unions), which *always* makes me suspicious -- my libertarian biases aside, I tend to find those laws useful and important on the economic level.
So I'm likely to abstain on this one -- I don't care enough to vote it down, but I can't say I really *like* it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 04:20 pm (UTC)This was the impression I got. Reading the text, basically it says that if 30% of affected folks vote it so, then all 100% are represented by an exclusive union. I'm not a fan of exclusive unions; that's another form of over-governance. If you want to form a union, that's fine; but excluding other potential unions smacks of monopoly. I'm also not a fan of the minority affecting the majority. So this one leaves me with very mixed feelings, since I *am* a believer in organized labor providing an effective voice for the members. And the "pro" argument wasn't really very convincing either.
Around here, moreso in other places, labor unions seem to be primarily revenue-generating machines for the union leaders. So it feels like a unionization effort by childcard workers may have gotten hijacked by a group that wants to have exclusive trading rights with that population of businesses...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 04:51 pm (UTC)I've also heard some serious questions about the quality of the representation that the SEIU would give.
I think unionizing people against their will, with a union that may not represent them well - is a very bad idea.
On the other questions - Question 1 is, to me, a screw up. It does one good thing, and many foolish things. For one, most towns have two kinds of alcohol sales license - alcohol/beer and all alcohol. This forces a third category. Also, the regulation does not require or regularize the means by which a town can or will give out those licenses. (Arlington recently passed a voter referendum allowing sales by convenience stores. Many applied. None of the five were given out...) What it does do, is remove a rather foolish restriction by the state on how many liquor sales licenses a single chain can have within the entire state, which is currently 3. I'm sure this law is just going to create more bureaucracy and local town struggle, without doing much for consumers. I'd send it back, and ask for a better law.
On Question 2 - I forecast seeing candidate A appear on both the Republican and Democratic ballots... and that's about it. :-) The language also encourages electronic voting, which in its current state, I despise.
So, I am voting no on all of them. :-)
Fusion ballots
Date: 2006-11-03 05:14 pm (UTC)I don't see that at all. In states that have fusion ballots, the effect is that minor parties can get credit for throwing their weight behind major-party candidates. It provides a way for a minor party to actually have an effect, even if they can't get a candidate elected by themselves.
Not at all. The summary says, "If voting technology allowed, voting machines would be required to prevent a voter from voting more than the number of times permitted for any one office.". This is just a requirement on the user interface for whatever kind of voting system is used.
It could be done with interlocks on old-fashioned pull-the-level machines; it could be done with paper ballots which get scanned for validity on-site; it could be done with some sort of put-the-block-in-the-slot system where you get one block per office, and blocks for office A won't fit in the slot for office B.
Re: Fusion ballots
Date: 2006-11-03 07:02 pm (UTC)However, this particular law is written really badly. It starts with 650 words of rabble-rousing exposition on "policies and purposes", which looks non-normative and therefore harmless...but then you get to Section 7, which states, "The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act."—in other words, the expository section is normative, even though it's too vague to be sure what it means. In between, it's got nearly 1200 words of language modifying the General Laws--so much that you can't hope to tell just what effect it has unless you go and compare the two side-by-side. I'd be much happier with something cleanly written.
Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 06:41 pm (UTC)Here's a problem: if you look at the actual text of the law, it specifies that a food store "must carry fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items". This sounds to me like language narrowly tailored by the grocery stores to exclude as many convenience stores as possible.
Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 06:55 pm (UTC)Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 07:09 pm (UTC)Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 07:11 pm (UTC)Law =/= programming. :-)
Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 07:16 pm (UTC)The Mathematician Says: "=/="? I'm not aware of a division operation on equivalence relations.
Yeah, and that's part of what's wrong with it; legislatures never get around to debugging their code until it hits the courts.
I suppose this isn't reason enough to vote against it, though.
Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 07:18 pm (UTC)Tel your Programmer persona that the law isn't even INTERESTED in programming. Nor (and I came to this idea the hard way) should laws even pretend they ARE programming.
Re: Flaw in Question 1
Date: 2006-11-03 10:14 pm (UTC)(Now there's an interesting long-term project: come up with a legal model that adapts the best practices learned in programming, while still being a viable legal model. Don't know if it's even remotely possible, but worth thinking about. A thread for another day, though.)
I can understand why they did it the way they did -- I'm enough of a linguist to know how utterly vague and hackable a term "grocery store" is. But they do seem to have avoided under-specifying by over-specifying instead...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 09:02 pm (UTC)But that's not really an option. The two choices we have are “Yes” and “No,” without a box for “Needs Improvement.” If this fails, the message will be that voters don't want this sort of change. In general, I think this moves things in a more sensible direction, so I'm voting “Yes.”
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 09:21 pm (UTC)But it is my estimation that, given the money involved for the grocery chains, they would try again if they failed.
Not quite
Date: 2006-11-03 04:59 pm (UTC)Not quite--if 30% join the union, then there will be a vote on whether to make it exclusive. Presumably, that means over 50% have to vote yes.
However, there are two more stings in the tail:
A union that can't strike is essentially worthless. This is clearly an effort for some established union to pick up a new revenue stream. I'm voting no.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 10:02 pm (UTC)That said, the exclusive-union point is a very good one, and a pretty strong argument against the proposal. It also clarifies why they needed to exempt it from anti-trust laws...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 04:48 pm (UTC)(Although I feel slightly traitorous, since the owner of Kappy's is a Lodge brother of mine.)
Thank you for saying this out loud, even parenthetically: I do still come across people who believe that Masons will support each other business-wise as a point of principle. Of course, as a
mundaneprofane, I don't know, but from the Masons I do know I've come to doubt it.On Question 2, I remember this practice did cause massive voter confusion on West Wing. Oh wait a minute, no, that was a deliberate put-on. I favor Question 2 exactly to the extent that the Big Parties put it down.
On Question 3, I was working at Harvard when the UAW tried to come in and be the union for the clerical workers - you could say "aggressively" if you didn't like them, or "assertively" if you did. It didn't work, though I believe they have since unionized on their own. So while I have no problem with in-home child-care providers unionizing (and I say that as a former client), the exact phrasing does give me an iffy feeling here.
re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-03 05:24 pm (UTC)Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-03 06:14 pm (UTC)Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-03 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 10:21 pm (UTC)It's an easy misimpression to get, and it's probably even true statistically. That is, the organization builds a sense of camaraderie and kinship, and with any such case, there's a tendency to stick together in business. I've found it to be roughly as true in Masonry as it is in the SCA. But while Ralph Kaplan may be an old friend, I'm not going to let that affect my legal principles.
Now that said, there *are* certain statutory ways in which Masons are obligated to help each other -- in particular, there's an explicit requirement to "help, aid and assist all poor and worthy Brothers", as well as one to keep each others' secrets except in the most dire and egregious cases. But helping each others' business dealings isn't on that list.
(And points to you for knowing both the word "profane" and its correct usage. More than I can say about most Masons -- it's a piece of mildly useful jargon that has gradually fallen out of usage for precisely the same reasons that "mundane" is somewhat falling out of favor in the SCA...)
Summaries?
Date: 2006-11-03 05:03 pm (UTC)Re: Summaries?
Date: 2006-11-03 05:25 pm (UTC)Re: Summaries?
Date: 2006-11-03 05:42 pm (UTC)Re: Summaries?
Date: 2006-11-03 05:57 pm (UTC)Re: Summaries?
Date: 2006-11-03 06:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 05:08 pm (UTC)Especially on #1. Pretty much every other state I've lived in allows beer/wine sales in grocery stores. If I recall correctly, two states I've lived in (IL & CA) permit hard liquor sales in grocery stores, which I thought was just heavenly. And I found I was actually MORE likely to get carded at grocery stores that packys, since the minimum-wage workers at grocery stores can generally less afford to lose their jobs than the owner of a packy (usually working the register as well) can afford to pay a fine.
re: #1
Date: 2006-11-03 05:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 07:18 pm (UTC)As for kids selling booze to their friends, I knew somebody that was fined $3000 for serving minors. That's a lot of money for a minimum wage person to have to scrounge up. The store got fined as well, I forget how much.
In 2004 (according to http://www.alcoholalert.com) 37% of Michigan's 1,159 traffic related fatalities were alcohol related, compared to 43% of Massachusetts 476 traffic related fatalities.
Time for some Philosophizing
Date: 2006-11-03 05:21 pm (UTC)Question 2: I think this one has a lot of potential. Fusion voting was systematically eliminated in 43 states by the Ds and Rs acting in concert to protect their duopololy. The states that do have it can find it annoying, but only because it holds them accountable to voters. The Working Families Party, the organization that got this on the ballot, has had a lot of success as a Third Party in New York precisely because of Fusion Voting. Their independent fund raising and third partiness give them credibility amongst the disenfranchised. Their individual platform ensures that when they do get votes, it matters. They have been the margin of victory in several elections - those who win them, Republican or Democrat, know they are beholden to the voters on WFP's issues.
With their help, a powerful Republican in a tight race managed to win. 10% of the people voted for him through the WFP, more than twice the margin of victory. He knew that their agenda - a raise in the minimum wage - was what got him the win. With his help, it ceased to be stuck in committee and debate and was quickly passed. They also ran a candidate in Manhattan against a Republican who was so popular the Democrats didn't even run a candidate! The WFP Candidate got the Democratic endorsement and ultimateley won. Let me repeat that: A Third Party won an election where the other mainstream party wasn't even going to try. That's powerful stuff. See this entry for more information/conversation.
If you do vote YES on 2, please also vote for Rand Wilson for State Auditor. He expects to lose, but if we can get him the 3% of the vote required to be a recognized political party, we'll have a true multiparty system in Massachusetts.
Question 3 leaves me leaning toward NO. I've had good experiences with the Unions I was a part of, but Monopolies are bad for the people. In this case, if the workers in question aren't for it, it has my opposition. Publix employees are repeatedly harassed by the Teamsters to Unionize, despite the fact that they get higher wages and better benefits than Teamsters grocery workers - and that's before Union Dues!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 05:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 05:40 pm (UTC)I'm a little dubious about Question 2, because I'd like to see the third parties have more of a shot than this measure would give them, and it strikes me as a patchwork and insufficient solution...and one that would make certain other solutions more difficult to understand / implement. (Certain alternative voting schemes that would really enhance third-party presence wouldn't work so well - or might function, but would be confusing - in concert with listing the same person on the ballot more than once.)
As for #3: I'm a fan of unions in the abstract - I've seen cases at my workplace where it would have been beneficial for the techies to get together and talk over/agree upon "what is acceptable for management to demand of us?", and we're four professionals with non-trivial leverage; if I extrapolate those sorts of situations to companies with hundreds or thousands of workers and less leverage (more-common skillsets, less retained-knowledge value), I can readily imagine how individuals could be ground to pieces by the gears of uncaring capitalism without some sort of group bargaining.
In the concrete, though, my experiences haven't matched up to the ideal; I've heard far more bitching about the annoying side-effects of unions (mostly from those required to be in them; partly from those trying to get something done that involves a heavily interlocked system of unions - see The Wizard of Speed and Time for a dramatized illustration) than praises to their benefits, and have seen the unfortunate side-effects that can come from too much job security (whether via unions, or tenure - but that's a separate rant).
Other comments on this post have suggested that this ballot question is being sponsored by an existing union seeking to expand their representation and make more money. This notion does not fill me with glee, especially in concert with some of the things mentioned about exclusivity, and the fact that they failed to get these folks to unionize in the usual way...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 05:44 pm (UTC)...however, the information posted between when I began my comment and when I finished it is moving me towards being less dubious.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 06:01 pm (UTC)re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-03 06:02 pm (UTC)Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-03 10:37 pm (UTC)If you *really* want multiparty politics, you need to change either the voting model (to, eg, Australian ballot) or the representational model (to, eg, a parliamentary system). But neither of those is plausibly going to happen...
Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-04 03:51 am (UTC)Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-05 12:18 am (UTC)Re: Question 2
Date: 2006-11-06 01:38 pm (UTC)However, in this case, I think the cure is worse than the disease. A parliamentary system gives all power to the party leaders; individual MPs are more or less forced to vote along party lines. As a result, a district whose people disagree with one plank of the party's platform can't elect an MP that will do what they want; they can only vote for the party, and grind their teeth over that one plank.
I don't know a solution, though. Banning parties, for example, would be impossible, short of banning all sorts of political association, and that would be much worse.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 08:01 pm (UTC)I think this is leaning towards "making perfect the enemy of better". Failing to be ideal is not a reason to avoid making a step in the proper direction. It isn't as if you'll get your ideal in one fell swoop, given the minimal visibility they get now, right? Wouldn't an interim, patchwork solution that moves towards increased power and visibilty be useful to you end desire?
and one that would make certain other solutions more difficult to understand / implement. (Certain alternative voting schemes that would really enhance third-party presence wouldn't work so well - or might function, but would be confusing - in concert with listing the same person on the ballot more than once.)
If Massachusetts were to move to alternate voting schemes, the entire process and mechanism would have to get reconsiderd and rewritten anyway, so I don't see this as a problem. The machines will need to be replaced, the ballots entirely redesigned, and the public re-educated anyway.
As a really rough RPG analogy - if you hope to switch from D&D to WoD in the future, you don't worry about adding a D&D houserule right now as a major block. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 11:04 pm (UTC)*nod* True. My mind keeps whispering, "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution", but, well, even a temporary solution is often better than nothing.
If Massachusetts were to move to alternate voting schemes, the entire process and mechanism would have to get reconsiderd and rewritten anyway, so I don't see this as a problem.
This is an excellent point.
As a really rough RPG analogy - if you hope to switch from D&D to WoD in the future, you don't worry about adding a D&D houserule right now as a major block. :)
*laugh* Nice. :) Yes.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 10:31 pm (UTC)A plausible complaint, but I'll invoke political reality here. Not only is the two-party system very deeply entrenched in the US, it's heavily a consequence of how our first-past-the-post electoral system works in the first place. It would be *very* difficult to change the system enough to genuinely open things up -- enough so that I don't consider it likely in my lifetime.
That being the case, the pragmatic course seems to be fusion voting. It's not a great solution, but it's an improvement on what we have now, and it's sufficiently compatible with the existing system to work without dramatic change...
Info on Question #3
Date: 2006-11-06 08:23 pm (UTC)Please consider voting "no" on question 3! Caroline has worked in the trenches for pro-child legistlation.
[and Caroline's email]
Hi Everyone,
Don’t be fooled by question three on the ballot. It seems tantamount to opposing motherhood and apple pie to vote against this question, but again-don’t be fooled. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) got this on the ballot to take advantage of small business owners who are providing childcare in their homes. It purports to advocate for improving the quality of childcare in these homes without additional money or taxes, by getting itself designated as the sole agent to negotiate with the state on behalf of the providers of care.
As a childcare professional for the past 24 years, I can state that quality costs money. I can also say the network of 15 homes that I work with was shocked to see this question on the ballot-it was initiated by the SEIU, not providers, as part of national campaign to line the coffers of the union. The Mass Department of Early Education and Care has stated its opposition to this initiative out of fear that current regulations, which are minimal, could become bargaining points, decreasing hard won quality initiatives. As an advocate for increased quality and increased salaries for childcare workers, I can also say that in my work at the state house, I have never run into members of the SEIU. The only organization that has achieved any increases in childcare rates has been MADCA, the Mass Association for Early Education and Care.
So don’t be fooled-vote “no” on question # 3!
Caroline