Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Greater Boston tonight

By

… airs a short segment on ballot questions 2 and 3.  Michael Jonas of MassINC and I were there to help clear things up.

Clear as mud, I’d say, by the time we were done.

Anyway, it’s on at 7 pm on channel 2.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It was nice to see your face and hear your voice. You had a nice presence and were very clear about the fact that none of this is clear. đŸ˜‰

  3. I eagerly anticipated this segment, but found myself at the end resigned to leaving the questions blank. What is the point of these ballot questions anyway? I realize that you’d never get the legislature to agree to a fusion ballot system, but really, how can we voters know what the real story is behind these issues? And the day-care question is just totally baffling. As one of you said on the show, there’s just no way to know how this will work in the end. I was tempted to just ignore it on the grounds that it doesn’t affect me, when my dear wife reminded me that it’s our tax dollars funding this. Oh, right.

    <

    p>
    Question 1 has irked me no end because it’s such a he said/she said argument. Don’t we elect representatives to handle these things? Just what are they doing up there anyway? Don’t answer that!

    <

    p>
    I think at the very end, Emily threw out the comment that I’d been wondering all along about fusion ballots. Why did we stop using it back in 1912?

    <

    p>
    In reading an article in The Nation, The Power of Fusion Politics, I’m beginning to see it as another form of endorsement, but with the opportunity to choose your cause. For example, if the Mass. Teachers Assoc. endorses a candidate, you never know how many teachers (or sympathizers) vote for that candidate. But with fusion voting, although I guess MTA would have to qualify as a political party, you know exactly how many people vote for a particular reason. And that gets you the kind of clout with candidates that you don’t get in the major parties.

    <

    p>
    I just worry that every special interest will get to be on the ballot–MFI, NRA, god knows who else. But maybe that’s not how it works.

    <

    p>
    As to why fusion ended, The Nation article says, “Most states abolished cross-endorsements more than a century ago, as the major parties consolidated their power.” Ah ha!

    <

    p>
    But here, with the Dems so strong, fusion voting could end up helping Republicans instead. So far, this has been largely an effort of the Working Families Party–made up of unions. But couldn’t you just see a right-wing cloaked party worming it’s way into Mass. politics? Conservatives are so good at making up names. Think Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forest Campaign. Yeah, right.

    <

    p>
    But I guess if we’re sick of the two major parties (and I am), and third parties so far are just making things worse, maybe this is worth a try.

    • that if fusion passes, we’ll see stronger minor parties on both the left and the right.  Look for a “Taxpayer’s party” starring Barbara Anderson, and possibly an “America First” sort of party, focusing on immigration and Second Amendment rights.  The question is whether that would be a good thing or not, and there are decent arguments both ways.

Archives