Amidst the noise, let's look at the ballot questions

[jducoeur]

Everyone'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...

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

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.

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...

[gyzki.livejournal.com]

On Question 1, as for the fear that supermarkets can't control the purchase of controlled substances, I haven't heard that they've majorly failed on the sale of cigarettes. I absorbed too much French culture at an early age to find the thought of wine in the supermarket scary. Tangentially,

(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 mundane profane, 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.

Summaries?

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Note that these are labeled as summaries of the proposed laws, not the actual text of the laws. I wonder what's hiding under the hood? The actual text does not appear to be available at the site.

[vairavi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my feelings exactly.
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.

Time for some Philosophizing

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Question 1: Agree

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!

[elizabear.livejournal.com]

I've finally seen a posting from a home-based child care worker saying this is SIEU trying to get their foot in the door, and that many HB child care workers don't want them, so I'm voting no.

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

Of the questions, 2 is really important to me. I register as a Green-Rainbow for ideological reasons, but I am often frustrated by the slow process we face getting anything major accomplished. I don't want to feel like I "throw away" my vote.

[mindways]

I agree entirely on Question 1. I did some reading up on it, and from the available evidence, there's no reason to believe that it'd cause an increase in drunken driving. (Some states with grocery-store booze have higher rates of such things, others have lower - there doesn't appear to be much of a correlation.)

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...

Info on Question #3

[ladymacgregor.livejournal.com]

I received the following email from my stepmother. Now - I will admit that she is not familiar with snopes.com, and has occasionally sent me various untrue wild-eyed emails. But this is what was forwarded, and it sounds plausible:

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