Massachusetts Ballot Questions
QUESTION 1
Should convenience stores be allowed to sell wine?
“This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a “food store” as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell.”
To a casual observer this should be a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to sell wine. Yet, the sheriffs and police are against it due to low drunk driving rates and fatalities in the state.
In 2001, Massachusetts had the 5th fewest alcohol related fatalities per 1 million car trips in the nation.
A quick review of the other four and their liquor laws
Vermont- Stop selling at Midnight. Grocery Stores are allowed to sell beer and wine (wine with greater than 16% alcohol must be sold in state contracted liquor stores only).
New Jersey- Alcohol can only be sold in liquor stores or in a specially cordoned off portion of a grocery store (in essence creating a liquor store inside the grocery store).
New York- Beer can be sold 24 hours a day at convenience stores. Wine can only be sold at liquor stores until midnight.
Minnesota- Alcohol is stopped being sold at 10PM. Gas stations, et al. can only sell beer and wine coolers (both less than 3.2% alcohol by weight).
Now what about the other end of things
South Carolina- Highest drunk driving fatalities per car trip (three times that of MA). There is a cap on the percentage alcohol beer may have. (6.5%) But, convenience stores and grocery stores may sell beer and wine. And liquor stores sells any wine over 16%.
Louisiana- Grocery Stores can sell liquor 24 hours a day. Gas Stations are allowed to sell single beers on ice.
Montana- Beer can be sold at grocery stores, et al. until 2 AM. Liquor must be sold at liquor stores.
Now there is no causal evidence to state that ones liquor control laws affect the driving fatalities. However, a look at the evidence shows that there may be some effect. My theory is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
VOTE NO ON ONE
QUESTION 2
Should political parties be allowed to “cross-endorse” with other parties?
“This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the winner of the election.”
Say What? Here’s the real gist of it. With this law, a candidate would be allowed to be nominated by both the Green Party and the Democratic Party or the Libertarian and the Republican, etc.
Now the argument against it starts with, only in seven states can you do this. Of course only in Montana have such organizations as the New Party won any power (the Missoula City Council).
Anthony Petrucelli of the State House of Representatives has pointed out that voting no will “protect voters from confusing ballots” and “counting votes will be more complicated.” Indeed Mr. Petrucelli I might go into the ballot box and go “should I vote for Edward Kennedy of the Democratic Party or the Edward Kennedy of the Working Families Party?”
The fact is that if I was not well informed about the race I would probably just vote for the Democrat. However, if I knew what the Working Family Party stood for I may vote for him there. This would still give Ted Kennedy my vote, but he would see that I cared for the specific issues regarding Working Families.
And you are right Mr. Petrucelli, it would make counting votes more complicated. Once all the votes were counted, the people at the Secretary of the Commonwealth would then have to go through the laborious work of adding the votes Sen. Kennedy got from the Working Families Party to the votes he received from the Democratic Party to see if he got more votes than the other guy. Now I know complex math such as adding may seem like a whole lot of work, but I do it almost every day and, with practice and patience, it can be mastered.
Mr. Petrucelli has argued that “only a benefit to fringe political parties and designations at the expense of voters.” This is not true it actually assists specific issue voters. Say you and I started the “No Drilling In ANWAR Party” or even the “Drill in ANWAR Now Party.” Then, we nominate Ted Kennedy and get him on the ballot. Then everybody who thought that that was there number one issue would still be able to vote for Kennedy AND get their specific issue out there in his mind and realize exactly how many of his constituents were really against (or for) drilling and that they are voting on that issue.
And, now suppose the Green Party had been able to nominate Al Gore for president. He would have received many of the votes in Florida that Ralph Nader did. And, the Democrats could stop blaming somebody else for why they couldn’t convince people why an idiot and bumbling fool like Geo. W. Bush was bad for the country – TWICE.
No Mr. Petrucelli, cross-endorsement does not help exclusively fringe parties. It helps voters and threatens the monopoly of the two party system. It would mean that you would be forced to listen to the voters instead of the people who fund your campaign which I understand at times is as hard as addition.
VOTE YES ON TWO
QUESTION 3
Should state subsidized child-care givers be allowed to unionize?
“This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state’s subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state’s child care assistance program and its regulations.”
This one actually is a no-brainer. The Secretary of the Commonwealth couldn’t even find anybody to produce a “NO” argument for the official voter information booklet.
VOTE YES ON THREE
Should convenience stores be allowed to sell wine?
“This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a “food store” as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell.”
To a casual observer this should be a no-brainer. Of course they should be allowed to sell wine. Yet, the sheriffs and police are against it due to low drunk driving rates and fatalities in the state.
In 2001, Massachusetts had the 5th fewest alcohol related fatalities per 1 million car trips in the nation.
A quick review of the other four and their liquor laws
Vermont- Stop selling at Midnight. Grocery Stores are allowed to sell beer and wine (wine with greater than 16% alcohol must be sold in state contracted liquor stores only).
New Jersey- Alcohol can only be sold in liquor stores or in a specially cordoned off portion of a grocery store (in essence creating a liquor store inside the grocery store).
New York- Beer can be sold 24 hours a day at convenience stores. Wine can only be sold at liquor stores until midnight.
Minnesota- Alcohol is stopped being sold at 10PM. Gas stations, et al. can only sell beer and wine coolers (both less than 3.2% alcohol by weight).
Now what about the other end of things
South Carolina- Highest drunk driving fatalities per car trip (three times that of MA). There is a cap on the percentage alcohol beer may have. (6.5%) But, convenience stores and grocery stores may sell beer and wine. And liquor stores sells any wine over 16%.
Louisiana- Grocery Stores can sell liquor 24 hours a day. Gas Stations are allowed to sell single beers on ice.
Montana- Beer can be sold at grocery stores, et al. until 2 AM. Liquor must be sold at liquor stores.
Now there is no causal evidence to state that ones liquor control laws affect the driving fatalities. However, a look at the evidence shows that there may be some effect. My theory is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
VOTE NO ON ONE
QUESTION 2
Should political parties be allowed to “cross-endorse” with other parties?
“This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the winner of the election.”
Say What? Here’s the real gist of it. With this law, a candidate would be allowed to be nominated by both the Green Party and the Democratic Party or the Libertarian and the Republican, etc.
Now the argument against it starts with, only in seven states can you do this. Of course only in Montana have such organizations as the New Party won any power (the Missoula City Council).
Anthony Petrucelli of the State House of Representatives has pointed out that voting no will “protect voters from confusing ballots” and “counting votes will be more complicated.” Indeed Mr. Petrucelli I might go into the ballot box and go “should I vote for Edward Kennedy of the Democratic Party or the Edward Kennedy of the Working Families Party?”
The fact is that if I was not well informed about the race I would probably just vote for the Democrat. However, if I knew what the Working Family Party stood for I may vote for him there. This would still give Ted Kennedy my vote, but he would see that I cared for the specific issues regarding Working Families.
And you are right Mr. Petrucelli, it would make counting votes more complicated. Once all the votes were counted, the people at the Secretary of the Commonwealth would then have to go through the laborious work of adding the votes Sen. Kennedy got from the Working Families Party to the votes he received from the Democratic Party to see if he got more votes than the other guy. Now I know complex math such as adding may seem like a whole lot of work, but I do it almost every day and, with practice and patience, it can be mastered.
Mr. Petrucelli has argued that “only a benefit to fringe political parties and designations at the expense of voters.” This is not true it actually assists specific issue voters. Say you and I started the “No Drilling In ANWAR Party” or even the “Drill in ANWAR Now Party.” Then, we nominate Ted Kennedy and get him on the ballot. Then everybody who thought that that was there number one issue would still be able to vote for Kennedy AND get their specific issue out there in his mind and realize exactly how many of his constituents were really against (or for) drilling and that they are voting on that issue.
And, now suppose the Green Party had been able to nominate Al Gore for president. He would have received many of the votes in Florida that Ralph Nader did. And, the Democrats could stop blaming somebody else for why they couldn’t convince people why an idiot and bumbling fool like Geo. W. Bush was bad for the country – TWICE.
No Mr. Petrucelli, cross-endorsement does not help exclusively fringe parties. It helps voters and threatens the monopoly of the two party system. It would mean that you would be forced to listen to the voters instead of the people who fund your campaign which I understand at times is as hard as addition.
VOTE YES ON TWO
QUESTION 3
Should state subsidized child-care givers be allowed to unionize?
“This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state’s subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state’s child care assistance program and its regulations.”
This one actually is a no-brainer. The Secretary of the Commonwealth couldn’t even find anybody to produce a “NO” argument for the official voter information booklet.
VOTE YES ON THREE
posted by Eucleides of America at 8:21 AM
0 comments
