How I'm voting, for those what may care

[yendi]

Probably not of interest to anyone outside of MA. Probably not even to folks inside of MA, but what the hell.

Governor: I'm about 95% sure I'm voting Falchuk here. Baker is mediocre, of course, and I get the argument (call it Nader 2: The Nadering) that the Dems are making, that voting third party will get him into office. But you know what? In terms of competence (as opposed to stances on issues), Coakley is worse. By far. And give our generally blue legislature, Baker's going to have to compromise; he's already on the Dem's side of the page on abortion, gay rights, and a bunch of other issues, and while I find him horrific on some other fronts (education for one), I don't expect him to be able to push things through there. Meanwhile, I'd expect a Coakley administration to be every bit as incompetent as her campaigns have been and her later run as DA has been (and, incidentally, hasn't anyone who's paid attention to NY over the last two decades realized that DAs are terrible in executive positions?). She's a prime example of the corruption, incompetence, and laziness of the Democratic machine in MA, and I refuse to let the consequences of their actions over the last few years guilt me into voting for someone as terrible as Coakley. If Baker wins by one vote in the state, feel free to yell at me; I'll still put the blame on Coakley and the Dems, where it belongs.

(An aside: Nader wouldn't have mattered in 2000 if Gore had run a half-decent campaign, and if shenanigans hadn't occurred elsewhere.)

As an aside, my disgust for the so-called "Progressive Watertown" group going all in on Coakley cannot be understated.

Senate: Markey. This is a pretty solid no-brainer. Herr is a Blue State Republican -- pro-marriage equality, pro-choice -- but I still find his stances on other issues (his weasel words on gun control, his anti-ACA rhetoric, etc) enough to not consider him. I'm also dubious about anyone wanting to transition from town selectman to US Senator.

Representative: Clark. She's got no competition, and I'm fine with her.

Attorney General: Healey. I supported her in the general election, and support her here.

Third District Councillor: Sheff. I will never vote for Devaney after her shenanigans in the past. It's a matter of trust and competence, not political stances, here.

All other local races: Democrats (in many of them, there aren't even independents, let alone Republicans, on the ballot).

Ballot initiatives: No on 1, Yes on the other three. I can't see any way to morally take any other stance. Voting "yes" on 1 means essentially letting our already-poor bridge and road infrastructure crumble even more. Having the gas tax align with inflation, which removes the need to re-vote on it constantly, is both a no-brainer and politically smart, removing it as a bullshit "new tax" issue that can be constantly brought. So that's an easy "no." For 2, having the bottle deposit law apply to bottled water -- one of the biggest environmental wastes out there -- is a slam dunk. On 3, I've come around over the last decade and changed how I feel about adding casinos to the state, and I do not want to see us going down that road. For 4, it's just basically humane to provide sick leave. Period.

I don't think there are any Watertown-specific initiatives on the ballot, but I've been wrong before.

Anyway, those are the tiny bubbles I'll be filling in tomorrow.

Comments

[ron_newman]

I am still waffling about question 3 so I'd appreciate hearing more about your reasons for voting Yes.

ETA: also, why does Devaney keep winning elections?

[phi]

Casinos are a net drain on the economy. They effectively function as an extra tax on the poor, and whatever money the state makes from taxing casino profits is never enough to offset the increased cost in services the state really ought to provide for families, especially children, destroyed by a parent's gambling addiction. (nb, the state never actually provides enough services so people suffer needlessly.)

[yendi]

Beyond all of the problems that Saira cites (which are more than enough, imho), there's also the fact that it's a failing industry in the two cities where it's central to the economy, and places like Mohegan Sun are also not doing well. Basically, gambling's not the economic boon people are claiming it to be.

[phi]

I lived in Mississippi when they legalized gambling boats, and my family lives in Ohio, which legalized casinos about two years ago. They absolutely wreck the local economy, especially in cities/counties that are started out economically depressed. If you could design one to ensure only rich people with excess money to throw away can play, sure, go have your $10,000 buy-in poker tables for all I care, but the $0.25 slots and the like are just evil.

Edit: To be clear, I don't care if people want to gamble, regardless of their income. Office betting pools, poker night with your buds, sure, whatever. Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to try to legislate my religious convictions on you. I object to casinos as a for-profit industry, because they are predatory and terrible.

[yendi]

And I've got nothin' for Devaney, other than maybe inertia.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Mohegan Sun is $1.6 billion in the hole. Gambling is a dying industry.

The argument in favor is that it will be a source of jobs, and if I thought it would be, I'd be more ambivalent. But I think that the casinos are going to crash and burn into some sort of quagmire, and we're going to somehow end up stuck with the bills. Not sure how, but I suspect that's what will happen.

[phi]

You can see a mockup of your ballot at http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.aspx. That will tell you if you have any local ballot initiatives.

Talk to me more about 2 please? I can see good reasons to vote no (increased economic burden on the poor; unnecessary since almost all municipalities have curbside recycling) but the advertising from No on 2 has also been dubious (hints of usual republican brain damage around taxation).

And I think you're missing a negative in "I see any way to morally take any other stance."

[ron_newman]

Question 2 is easy: do you want less litter and more recycling of water and sports drink bottles? Then vote yes. You don't see many beer cans or soda bottles lying around, because people return them for deposits. This would just extend the same sensible system to non-carbonated drinks.

It is not a burden on the poor, because nobody needs bottled water. MWRA tap water is of excellent quality.

[phi]

Is that actually a problem? I personally don't see water bottles or sports drink bottles lying around, and I've never taken my soda cans or bottles in to get the deposit back. I just use curbside recycling (although I do see people picking through my recycle bin for deposit cans and bottles, and the fact that this is a significant source of income for some people in my neighborhood makes me very sad).

[ron_newman]

I see lots of water and sports-drink bottles in trash cans* (which means they won't be recycled), or on the ground (which means they won't be recycled and are litter). Extending the deposit law to cover them will eliminate this problem and improve the recycling rate.

* to clarify: I don't mean home trash cans, I mean trash cans in public parks and plazas and streets -- places where there aren't usually recycling bins handily available.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Carbonated bottles don't end up in landfills. Non-carbonated bottles do. Curbside recycling isn't a factor in this -- it's about what happens with cans and bottles that are consumed places OTHER than homes.

[yendi]

Yeah, I'd gone to that site, but since it had a disclaimer that some local races might not be on it, I didn't know if that also included local initiatives.

Thanks for the typo note -- fixed it.

My sentiments on 2 echo Ron's; beyond the overall lack of burden, there's still a decent amount of waste, and all of the arguments behind deposits for soda (they're consumed quickly and away from home, etc) apply to fruit drinks and bottled water, too.

I absolutely see tons of them thrown away at public trash cans (often even when there are recycling cans within line-of-sight, which is just appalling).

[phi]

Hmm. I know I've seen Cambridge city ballot measures on it in the past, but I'm pretty sure I have none this year. Could be they just don't want to promise to be complete in case your municipal elections board is incompetent at communicating with them, or something.

[ron_newman]

I think the only local measures allowed on a state election ballot are Community Preservation Act referenda (a small property surtax earmarked for historic preservation, parks, and affordable housing initiatives). We had one in Somerville on the 2012 ballot, and some other cities and towns may have them this year. The state website should list this (as 'Question 5') if it applies to your community.

ETA: Ten cities or towns have CPA referenda on tomorrow's ballot. The two most likely to be within your readership area are Arlington and Woburn.

[ron_newman]

The risk of Karyn Polito becoming governor, if Baker gets tired of the job and quits, is worth considering. She seems to lean toward the right-wing nut side of the Republican party rather than the sensible establishment side.

Both Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci quit part way through their terms as Governor.

(see this post for more)

[yendi]

Hunh. That's something I hadn't thought of. I'm not sure it's enough to change my mind in and of itself (I don't vote for LT govs any more than I vote for veeps in general elections), but it's something that's definitely worth consideration.

[phi]

The other question is, even if Baker is not terrible himself, who will he appoint to judicial benches, regulatory agencies, etc? He's pretty scarily anti-regulation, "pro" "business."

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes, she's terrible. However, she's terrible enough that she'd be unable to do anything. When you're against gay marriage, and the other high-profile people in your party in your state are gay married, you're kind of out of luck.

And if she DID end up governor? C'mon. Even COAKLEY could beat her in the next election.