Mass. election confusion

ballz2wallz · 11-06-2006, 05:41 PM

Ok, so I'm voting tomorrow, and there are 3 initiatives on the ballot, 1 of which is easy, the other two are confusing, so anybody want to help me figure out exactly what they are talking about?

The first is to enable grocery stores, convenience stores, etc. to sell wine. The only people who will vote against this are to be those that support private liquor stores.

"This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a 'food store' as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell. The licensing authorities in any city or town of up to 5000 residents could issue up to 5 licenses for food stores to sell wine. In cities or towns of over 5000 residents, one additional license could be issued for each additional 5000 residents (or fraction of 5000). No person or business could hold more than 10% of the total number of the licenses that could be issued under the proposed law. Such licenses would not be counted when applying the laws that limit the number of other kinds of alcoholic beverage licenses that may be issued or held. Any applicant for a license would have to be approved by the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, and any individual applicant would have to be at least 21 years old and not have been convicted of a felony. In issuing any licenses for food stores to sell wine, local licensing authorities would have to use the same procedures that apply to other licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Except where the proposed law has different terms, the same laws that apply to issuance, renewal, suspension and termination of licenses for retail sales of alcoholic beverages which are not to be consumed on the seller's premises, and that apply to the operations of holders of such licenses, would govern licenses to sell wine at food stores, and the operation of holders of such licenses. Local authorities could set fees for issuing and renewing such licenses."

A YES VOTE would create a new category of licenses for food stores to sell wine, and it would allow local licensing authorities to issue such licenses.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning the sale of wine.

That one seems easy...it's getting a yes vote from me!!!

The second one is a little more confusing; I think it basically states that a candidate can recieve nomination for a public office from more than one political party, and will be listed under both of those parties, votes taken separately, but the total added between the two.

"This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the winner of the election. The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party's nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year. The requirement applies to candidates for nomination for statewide office, representative in Congress, governor's councillor, member of the state Legislature, district attorney, clerk of court, register of probate, register of deeds, county commissioner, sheriff, and county treasurer. The proposed law would also allow any person to appear on the primary ballot as a candidate for a party's nomination for those offices if the party's state committee gave its written consent. The proposed law would also repeal the existing requirement that in order to be nominated to appear as an unenrolled candidate on the state election ballot, or on any city or town ballot following a primary, a person cannot have been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days before the deadline for filing nomination papers. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate were nominated by more than one party or political designation, instead of the candidate's name being printed on the ballot once, with the candidate allowed to choose the order in which the party or political designation names appear after the candidate's name, the candidate's name would appear multiple times, once for each nomination received. The candidate would decide the order in which the party or political designation nominations would appear, except that all parties would be listed before all political designations. The ballot would allow voters who vote for a candidate nominated by multiple parties or political designations to vote for that candidate under the party or political designation line of their choice. If a voter voted for the same candidate for the same office on multiple party or political designation lines, the ballot would remain valid but would be counted as a single vote for the candidate on a line without a party or political designation. If voting technology allowed, voting machines would be required to prevent a voter from voting more than the number of times permitted for any one office. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate received votes under more than one party or political designation, the votes would be combined for purposes of determining whether the candidate had won the election. The total number of votes each candidate received under each party or political designation would be recorded. Election officials would announce and record both the aggregate totals and the total by party or political designation. The proposed law would allow a political party to obtain official recognition if its candidate had obtained at least 3% of the vote for any statewide office at either of the two most recent state elections, instead of at only the most recent state election as under current law. The proposed law would allow a person nominated as a candidate for any state, city or town office to withdraw his name from nomination within six days after any party's primary election for that office, whether or not the person sought nomination or was nominated in that primary. Any candidate who withdrew from an election could not be listed on the ballot for that election, regardless of whether the candidate received multiple nominations. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect."

A YES VOTE would allow a candidate for public office to be nominated for the same office by more than one political party or political designation at the same election.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning nomination of candidates for public office.

This confuses me; why would someone need to be nominated by two parties? Is it to avoid an instance where another candidate might take away votes from a person? This seems kinda weird to me, but then again, why would I care if a person was nominated by two parties? I'm not sure about this one...can anyone think of a reason why to vote or vote against this?

And now for the last one; I really have no idea what it's saying. Anybody care to explain what the fuck I'm voting for on this one?

"This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect."

A YES VOTE would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state¿s subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the state.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning licensed and other authorized family child care providers.

7960 · 11-06-2006, 05:48 PM

#2 repeals a law that had to do with changing parties and getting a nomination..... you want to vote yes on this

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip/pipf.htm

#3 ..... no idea. This might help

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepip/pipidx.htm

ballz2wallz · 11-06-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

#2 repeals a law that had to do with changing parties and getting a nomination..... you want to vote yes on this

Elections: Initiative Petition F

Why wouldn't a party just vote for a person of another party if they liked what they had to say?

#3 ..... no idea. This might help

Elections: 2006 State Ballot Questions

Even though they say they don't want to raise taxes or cost more, it seems like this is going to cost more money.

And I have no idea what exactly it'll do.

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 05:55 PM

# 3 is a union thing. Collective bargaining is basically unions.
it has something to do with child care workers working in a private home and the ability to unionize or something like it.

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 05:57 PM

I would vote against #2. IT would allow an election where there was only one person running, but nominated by several different parties. so maybe you would have an election like:

"democract: BIll smith"
"republican: Bill Smith"
Independant: Bill smith"
Green party: Bill Smith"

Gee, who will I vote for? oh gosh I can't decide between bill smith and bill smith.

7960 · 11-06-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I would vote against #2. IT would allow an election where there was only one person running, but nominated by several different parties. so maybe you would have an election like:

"democract: BIll smith"
"republican: Bill Smith"
Independant: Bill smith"
Green party: Bill Smith"

Gee, who will I vote for? oh gosh I can't decide between bill smith and bill smith.

There's more to it than that...

The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party’s nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year.

So if I was (R) I couldn't change my party affiliation 2 months before the election and run as (I). This "fixes" that, and at the same time adds that if my name appears as both 7960 (R) and 7960 (I) then any votes for those are added.

This makes sense.

ballz2wallz · 11-06-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

There's more to it than that...

The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party’s nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year.

So if I was (R) I couldn't change my party affiliation 2 months before the election and run as (I). This "fixes" that, and at the same time adds that if my name appears as both 7960 (R) and 7960 (I) then any votes for those are added.

This makes sense.

First, why would youw atn to change parties and secondly, why couldn't independents vote for you, even as a republican?

7960 · 11-06-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

First, why would youw atn to change parties

you're really asking that?

and secondly, why couldn't independents vote for you, even as a republican?

They could.

Actually, I'm going back on my first comment on this. I do not like the idea that you have to have been a member of the party for a year before being on the ballot for that party, but it's wrong that people will be able to intentionally list themselves more than once.

If I lived in mass I'd vote no on #2.

RMNIXON · 11-06-2006, 06:31 PM

Did you hear about LA City Prop R? It is stated to limit City Council Terms to 3 terms or 12 years. What they don't tell you up front is that they already have voter approved 2 term limits! Talk about deceptive!

Diesel66 · 11-06-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Did you hear about LA City Prop R? It is stated to limit City Council Terms to 3 terms or 12 years. What they don't tell you up front is that they already have voter approved 2 term limits! Talk about deceptive!

Another great argument against democracy.

ballz2wallz · 11-06-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

you're really asking that?

Within months before the election, yes. They should have done that a long time ago. Lieberman was a different case. He went as an independent, not because he is an Independent, but because nobody was running and he wanted to continue running for office. But that situation rarely happens.

7960 · 11-06-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Within months before the election, yes.

I should be able to change my party affiliation right up until the ballots are printed.

Diesel66 · 11-06-2006, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I should be able to change my party affiliation right up until the ballots are printed.

Nope you were nominated by one party, you cannot change your party status after.

7960 · 11-06-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Nope you were nominated by one party, you cannot change your party status after.

Yes, I should be able to. But if I change my party then I'm not longer the former party's candidate.

ballz2wallz · 11-07-2006, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes, I should be able to. But if I change my party then I'm not longer the former party's candidate.

That seems so retarded.

ballz2wallz · 11-07-2006, 07:34 AM

I bet they didn't expect a Republican vote to be the first in the ballot box here in Cambridge Mass!!! It'll take a miracle to get Ted Kennedy out of office...I have no idea why Massholes continue to vote that idiot in.

Anyway, I have to admit, I voted Democrat on some things...

...mainly cause they were either the only candidate listed or they were against the Green-Rainbow Coalition or the Socialist party

On the measure above I voted:

1) Yes (I want to be able to buy wine with my food)

2) No (It seems retarded)

3) No (They only want more money)

7960 · 11-07-2006, 08:28 AM

#3 kind of confuses me... it allows the *owners* of in-home and private daycare to collectively bargain. So can a homeowner say "my house is unsafe for children, state needs to pay for me to upgrade my electric/water/heat"?

ballz2wallz · 11-07-2006, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

#3 kind of confuses me... it allows the *owners* of in-home and private daycare to collectively bargain. So can a homeowner say "my house is unsafe for children, state needs to pay for me to upgrade my electric/water/heat"?

I just see it as they are positioning themselves to ask for more money, even though they stress numerous times 'this will not requires more taxes'.

I guess a good way to see it is, if it's too confusing for the taxpayer to understand, don't vote for it, because it will most likely be abused in the future.

Diesel66 · 11-07-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes, I should be able to. But if I change my party then I'm not longer the former party's candidate.

Except now there are two members of one party running and you were never given the right to run under the other party.

You run for the Rep seat and lose to a rino. Quick jump to the I party and get a quick nomination. One month before the election you shouldnt be able to switch back to Rep because the Rep party did not select you.