ellid | Obligatory voting post

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.