I Guess It's One of Those Days
The Boston Globe has three editorials up today, outlining their arguments for the three ballot initiatives the voters of Massachusetts will be faced with next week. And, I find myself oddly in agreement with all three of their positions.
Yes on 1: Wine sales in groceries
See my earlier post on this matter here, as well as the subsequent discussion in the comments section.
No on 2: Fusion Voting
Well, they got the fusion part right, anyway.
This feel-good concept, as I understand it, allows a candidate to get his or her name on the ballot multiple times by lining him or herself up with any number of smaller, lesser known [read: fictitious and misleading] parties.
For example: rabid socialist, tax-raising, gun-banning candidate, Polly Peacebunny could appear on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate, and also as the "Save the Kittens Party" candidate, the "Celebrate Freedom [read: free from personal responsibity] Party" candidate, the "Eliminate Poverty [read: give all your money to the government] Party" candidate, or any number of made-up, misleading, party affiliations.
Likewise, devout right-wing, Christian, tax-cutting, conservative candidate, Freddy Freedom, could appear on the ballot as the Republican Party candidate, and also as the "Let Women Choose Party" candidate [read: choose to carry a gun, choose to not pay higher taxes], the "Bread [read: Communion wafers] on the Table [read: altar] party", and any other impossible-to-decipher party name his supporters can come up with.
How this could be seen as a good thing by anyone other than people looking to gain votes through voter confusion is beyond me.
No on 3: Unionizing child-care providers
I haven't done any research on this topic, so maybe some of my more enlightened readers can fill us in on this one. The people I see benefiting the most from this one would be the higher-ups at the newly created union [read: Democratic special interest group]. I'm simply going with "When in doubt, vote in favor of the free market system" on this one.
Agree? Disagree?
The floor is yours.
Yes on 1: Wine sales in groceries
See my earlier post on this matter here, as well as the subsequent discussion in the comments section.
No on 2: Fusion Voting
Well, they got the fusion part right, anyway.
This feel-good concept, as I understand it, allows a candidate to get his or her name on the ballot multiple times by lining him or herself up with any number of smaller, lesser known [read: fictitious and misleading] parties.
For example: rabid socialist, tax-raising, gun-banning candidate, Polly Peacebunny could appear on the ballot as the Democratic Party candidate, and also as the "Save the Kittens Party" candidate, the "Celebrate Freedom [read: free from personal responsibity] Party" candidate, the "Eliminate Poverty [read: give all your money to the government] Party" candidate, or any number of made-up, misleading, party affiliations.
Likewise, devout right-wing, Christian, tax-cutting, conservative candidate, Freddy Freedom, could appear on the ballot as the Republican Party candidate, and also as the "Let Women Choose Party" candidate [read: choose to carry a gun, choose to not pay higher taxes], the "Bread [read: Communion wafers] on the Table [read: altar] party", and any other impossible-to-decipher party name his supporters can come up with.
How this could be seen as a good thing by anyone other than people looking to gain votes through voter confusion is beyond me.
No on 3: Unionizing child-care providers
I haven't done any research on this topic, so maybe some of my more enlightened readers can fill us in on this one. The people I see benefiting the most from this one would be the higher-ups at the newly created union [read: Democratic special interest group]. I'm simply going with "When in doubt, vote in favor of the free market system" on this one.
Agree? Disagree?
The floor is yours.
