The Ballad of the Ballot Questions

Tomorrow is election day, because we like pretending at the whole democracy thing still works.

Here in Massachusetts, as usual, there are a bunch of b.s. ballot questions that need addressing.  There are also people running for elected positions, but that is good and decent and exactly as it should be.  Whatever my feels toward them, that's not what I want to discuss here.

"Vote Lincoln!  Because Habeas Corpus is overrated, anyway!"

Ballot questions, on the other hand, are our misguided experiments with actual democracy, as though to quietly remind us of why we don’t get to have democracy.  Because we can’t handle the democracy.

I don’t like ballot questions.  I have heard argued on many occasions that ballot questions are in fact a more true expression of democracy, like the New England tradition of a town meeting.

Anyone of you ever been to a town meeting?  I have.

If that’s democracy, I don’t want no part of it.  (Yes, grammar police, it’s a double negative.  I’m using it in its form as an idiomatic expression.)

(What’s an idiomatic expression?  Look it up.)

Town meetings are a train wreck, a shit storm, and a sharknado, all rolled into one, but with a one old guy harping on about parliamentary procedure, which no one has any idea about anyway.

Ballot questions aren’t quite that bad.  In fact, they seem like such a good idea.  They allow us, the registered voters, to directly vote on whether or not we support a specific measure, or to change the current law.  It allows us to let our own voices be heard, without having to rely on the inconvenience of our elected representatives trying to interpret our opinions.

And that’s where they go wrong.

I don’t WANT to bypass my elected representatives.   We live in a Republic, which is a form of representative democracy.  We elect people, those people debate and vote on our behalf, so we don’t have to.  Sure, I can have opinions about how these representatives should vote, and I can even express those opinions, but at the end of the day, let them do the voting, because I’ve got shit to do!

The intent of the founders (speaking here of John Adams, who single-handedly wrote the Massachusetts constitution, and whose ideas heavily influenced the James Madison and the Constitutional Convention) was for a bicameral legislature, meaning our laws would be decided by two separate but co-equal camels.  (It’s true, I checked Snopes.)  Being as no camels were available, people were elected as representatives in their stead.  He cleverly split the legislature in two to help assure that no one’s singular opinion of a law or idea would be given disproportional weight, since both houses of would need to vote upon it, plus present it to the governor.

 It can be a painful process, watching sides snipe at each other over petty partisan ideas, but this process, ultimately, leads to the best possible laws, as well as ways of addressing unintended consequences of laws that, in retrospect, turn out to not be the best.

Ballot questions try to bypass all of this, which usually means they couldn’t pass the legislative process in the first place (or some law did pass, but some guy didn’t like it, so he wants to repeal it).  It is, ultimately, a waste of time, money, effort, and the elective process.  The only upside is that, in cases where one question in getting a lot of publicity (Hello, Question 3!), it might increase voter turnout.  The potential downside is that people who turn out for one question might not understand the issues and consequences of the other questions on the ballot.  The only thing worse than direct voting is direct, uninformed voting.

But we have 4 questions this year, and, because no one ever asked me my opinion, I will give it to you.  I don’t actually care if you agree or not.  You have, I hope, your own opinions, and perhaps we all could come together to discuss these opinions in a rational, civilized, and intelligent matter, calling upon facts and logic to dictate the outcome.  I mean, we won't.  But we could.

Question 1:  The Repeal of the Automatic Gas Tax To Inflation Indexing

Against.  Against the repeal, that is.

People are shouting out against the law previously passed that would cause the gas tax to increase in line with the rate of inflation, in order to make sure that the actual, inflation-adjusted revenue from the gas tax stays the same, to allow it to do its job of paying for our vehicular infrastructure.  And they usually do it by shouting, “No taxation without representation.”

Now, you just pissed me off twice.

“No taxation without representation” has a specific and important historical meaning from the birth of our country, as one of the founding ideas of the Revolutionary War.  It came from a time when the English Parliament passed numerous taxes on the American colonies as a way of paying for the recent war with France (which, by the way, they don’t call the French and Indian War).  The colonists were a little ticked off because they had no representatives in Parliament to at least argue their side.  It wasn’t even an option.

Every single town, every single county, every single person residing in this state that is of voting age has had the opportunity to vote for a representative.  Did your candidate lose?  That’s not “taxation without representation,” that’s the fundamental principle behind a Republic, which you may recognize is the form of government we came up with BECAUSE we had “taxation without representation.”

So knock it off.  The government, which IS your representative, collects taxes to provide YOU services.  If you don’t like it, vote for a different representative.  If they lose, tough luck.  The majority is still represented.

As for automatic tax increases tied to inflation?  Seems pretty reasonable.  Sure, it is true that you could expect the legislature to review the rate of inflation every year, look at the potential shortfall between the current tax rate and what will be needed to maintain our roads and bridges, and adjust the tax rate accordingly, which would mean a considerable amount of debate, a couple of politicians trying to play politics with such a vital issue in order to make a name for themselves, and a vote in both houses plus the signature of the governor.

Because that would be way more efficient.  And either the tax increase would pass, which would be the same outcome as the law already calls for, or it wouldn’t, because people are stupid, and a bridge would fall down.  Seems totally reasonable.

Sarcasm aside, I support the gas tax, support increases to the gas tax, and support giving the legislature a freakin' break in having to go through all the hullabaloo to pass the freakin' increases when they are necessary.

Question 2:  Expansion of Bottle Deposits.

For. 

Very, very, very much for.

There’s no real controversy here except the manufactured kind.  We already have bottle deposits for such things as soda bottles and beer bottles.  But, for some reason, not water bottles.  It's worked well enough, encouraged recycling, encouraged less littering, and how many boy scouts and girl scouts have done bottle drive fundraisers that rely on such deposits?  So, just apply it to water bottles.

No brainer.  Go, support it.

But the real issue here is this:

Stop drinking bottled water!

Let me explain, in simplest terms.  This is the chemical structure of a plastic water bottle:

Actually called polyethylene terephthalate.

Plastic bottles are made of polymers, complex strings of molecules that are designed, through the miracle of chemistry, to last practically FOREVER!

We are taking a substance create by science to persist in our environment indefinitely and we’re using it to drink water out of once, then throwing it away.  This is INSANE!

Buy a water bottle (the reusable kind), and fill it with tap water.  You can filter the water, if you feel you must.  This is also way cheaper than paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 per gallon for bottled water, which is really just someone else’s tap water stuck into a single use plastic bottle, which, as I said, never really goes away after you’re done using it.

For that reason alone, if you do use bottle water, you deserve to pay more for it.

(Sidebar:  From this moment on, anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change doesn’t get to use plastic.  Or cell phones.  Or anything else made by science.  Agreed?)

Question 3:  Repeal of Casino Gambling.

Against.  

Perfect example of my rant from above.  This has been explored, studied, voted on, and re-voted on so many times, just let the damn thing be!

Oh, traffic will be a nightmare!  Crime will go up!  Just look at how awful things are in Connecticut!

I checked the crime rates in Connecticut over the past fifty years, and crime has been steadily decreasing since the late eighties and early nineties, better known as the time when the casinos opened.

Might there be unexpected consequences for the communities where the casinos are being built?  Maybe.  Is gambling the best kind of industry for economic growth?  No, but it is better than no industry.  Will it employ people and provide tax revenue to the state?  Yep, and yep.  Should we repeal this law, which passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the governor before it has even actually taken affect (since not one single resort casino, as specified in the law, has even begun construction yet)?

No!  Let the law do its job, and let the legislature do their job.  This ballot question, for all the press it’s been getting, is ridiculous.

Question 4:  In Which Employers Are Required to Grant Their Employees Sick Time.

For. 

Because, you know, I’m not an asshole.

Am I saying that anyone who votes to allow employers to not provide sick time to employees because they don’t want to is an asshole?

Yes.  Yes, I am.

That said, if you’re going to vote NO on 4, at least do it because you think the legislature should be the body to debate, decide and pass this law.  Not because you’re an asshole.  Which you probably are.

So, in closing, please vote.  As a corollary, please know what you’re voting on, and why.  And if someone disagrees with you, try to find out what he or she bases his or her decision on, and try to under the perspective of others.  It probably won’t change your mind, and you won’t change their minds, but what have you got to lose, besides misinformation and partisan attack ads?