I won't be voting early because a) I'm going to be in town, and b) Easthampton uses optical scan ballots, not those horrid touch screen things, and the polls are staffed by volunteers from the League of Women Voters. I think I'm pretty safe from votescams, thank goodness. I will be voting *early*, though, since I intend to vote before I go into work that day.
As for how I'm voting:
President: Obama/Biden. The closest I ever came to voting Republican for President was John Anderson back in 1980, and at this point the only way I ever will vote Republican for President is if they take the anti-abortion language out of the platform and go back to old-style fiscal conservatism. Since that doesn't look very likely, I'm left with the donkeys, as flawed as the Democratic Party is. *sigh*
Senator: John Kerry. He's been a decent senator for lo these many, and with Ted Kennedy's health so questionable I see no reason to dump someone with his credentials and seniority.
Representative: John Olver. Yes, he's a cranky old chemistry professor, but by God he's *our* cranky old chemistry professor who drives his own Toyota Camry around the district. I hope he never retires.
State Rep: John Scibak. He's strongly pro-gay rights and overall very progressive, and he answers his own e-mail!
State Senator: alas, Mike Knapik, the entrenched voice of Westfield, is running unopposed. I stopped rubber-stamping him when he voted for the anti-gay marriage petition a few years ago, and I see no reason to resume rubber-stamping him now that the gay marriage issue is settled. :(
Question #1: NO NO NO NO. It would repeal the state income tax effective January 9, 2009, which would cut state revenues by 40%. It's a terribly written law, mean-spirited, and would gut social services, public safety, and pretty much everything except absolutely essential services, with no transitional period. It would throw thousands of people out of work, shut medical clinics, and generally create chaos.
Question #2: a tentative yes. This would drastically reduce penalties for first-time arrests for marijuana possession and would basically decriminalize small amounts of personal pot. I don't use pot myself and never have, but it strikes me as ridiculous to allow tobacco (which killed two of my relatives) and alcohol (which kills or maims at an appalling rate) while giving people a criminal record for having a joint. I'm still undecided, though.
Question #3: yes. This would close the state's two greyhound tracks. A no-brainer.
As for how I'm voting:
President: Obama/Biden. The closest I ever came to voting Republican for President was John Anderson back in 1980, and at this point the only way I ever will vote Republican for President is if they take the anti-abortion language out of the platform and go back to old-style fiscal conservatism. Since that doesn't look very likely, I'm left with the donkeys, as flawed as the Democratic Party is. *sigh*
Senator: John Kerry. He's been a decent senator for lo these many, and with Ted Kennedy's health so questionable I see no reason to dump someone with his credentials and seniority.
Representative: John Olver. Yes, he's a cranky old chemistry professor, but by God he's *our* cranky old chemistry professor who drives his own Toyota Camry around the district. I hope he never retires.
State Rep: John Scibak. He's strongly pro-gay rights and overall very progressive, and he answers his own e-mail!
State Senator: alas, Mike Knapik, the entrenched voice of Westfield, is running unopposed. I stopped rubber-stamping him when he voted for the anti-gay marriage petition a few years ago, and I see no reason to resume rubber-stamping him now that the gay marriage issue is settled. :(
Question #1: NO NO NO NO. It would repeal the state income tax effective January 9, 2009, which would cut state revenues by 40%. It's a terribly written law, mean-spirited, and would gut social services, public safety, and pretty much everything except absolutely essential services, with no transitional period. It would throw thousands of people out of work, shut medical clinics, and generally create chaos.
Question #2: a tentative yes. This would drastically reduce penalties for first-time arrests for marijuana possession and would basically decriminalize small amounts of personal pot. I don't use pot myself and never have, but it strikes me as ridiculous to allow tobacco (which killed two of my relatives) and alcohol (which kills or maims at an appalling rate) while giving people a criminal record for having a joint. I'm still undecided, though.
Question #3: yes. This would close the state's two greyhound tracks. A no-brainer.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 01:15 am (UTC)From:Not meaning to pick a fight or anything, but figuring that since you posted you'd be up for rational debate...
I'm currently leaning towards No on Question 3. My initial gut reaction was a Yes. But then a friend commented that shutting down an industry (and eliminating jobs, in this economy) just because of potential for abuse isn't fair. His analogy was that it would be like outlawing bars because fights could happen there. Of course, the problem with all ballot questions is that they never allow the "No, but you should do this instead" option. In that case I'd want to say "No, but you should increase penalties for animal abuse and crack down on violators."
But then, all of the above is still tentative, pending me finding opportunity to talk to a friend of mine who is an SPCA cop to see what he has to say on the subject.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 01:28 am (UTC)From:BTW, the MSPCA itself is asking for a Yes (http://www.mspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=adv_greyhounds) vote on the question. Let me know what your friend thinks - it would be good to get an insider's view.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:36 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 02:17 am (UTC)From:Before I went to grad school, I worked cataloguing a collection that focused on drug abuse treatment and treatment evaluation. I indexed over 3000 articles/books/white papers and wrote abstracts for about half of them.
What I took away from that was that tobacco and alcohol were way worse than pot. Tobacco would kill you with carcinogens and alcohol would rot your liver and brain, and depending on how one drank might kill with alcohol poisoning, or through something like drunk driving. This doesn't even begin to cover the interpersonal issues of dealing with a drunkard.
Personal experience taught me that I have more to fear from a drunk man and one who's stoned.
I really think pot ought to be decriminalized at the least, if not out and out legalized.
(IIRC, part of the reason it was criminalized had something to do with the rope trade early last century, not because of its intoxicating effects.)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 02:40 am (UTC)From:It's so stupid/annoying too, as hemp is a lovely fiber.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:06 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:03 am (UTC)From:The only proposition on New York's ballot, as far as I can tell, is one to give veterans care and support even if they aren't registered with the federal department (there was a lot of federal/legal speak to wade through). Which, um, duh.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:06 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 04:43 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:30 am (UTC)From:Ha, got you beat: Ashfield uses paper ballots where you mark your vote with an 'X' using a #2 pencil.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:36 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 03:48 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 04:44 am (UTC)From:The ballot was easy: a list of names, pick one...
...by putting an "X" in the circle using a #2 pencil.
Yes, places like that still exist.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-27 12:54 am (UTC)From: