You Too Can be a Legislator!

Massachusetts underwent a significant re-write of its constitution in the 1920's, pretty much during the height of the progressive era.

In addition to the good things the Progressives gave us (universal suffrage, government intervention against accumulations of commercial power, worker's compensation programs), Massachusetts was saddled with a few stinker ideas that linger to this day.

One of them is the ever popular right to Initiative Petition.

Under this law, if you get enough crazy people to sign a petition, you can have a law put on a statewide ballot to be voted on by the people. Now it's a little more complicated than that, and the legislature has a chance to vote on your proposal, but basically, if you get enough signatures you can put pretty much whatever you want on the ballot*

(*Well, no. You can't put stuff like "Governor Jones is a doody-head and has to wear a shirt everyday that reads in large type "I am a doody-head". That kind of thing is off limits, but a lot of other crazy ideas go through the Initiative Petition process.)

Here's how you can tell Initiative Petition is a loony idea. California uses it. A lot. Anything California does a lot of should automatically be questioned. This is one of those things.

Well, this year we've got three questions to deal with. Question One is a question of ginormous implications that I've decided to deal with with its own post. Here's a helpful breakdown of the other two ballot questions.

MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: Recently some members of the Alcohol Beverages Control Commission came out against Question One. I think they got in trouble. It has been implied that Public Employees can't campaign against ballot questions. But they were stupid and made their anti-Question One statements during business hours and speaking from their public positions. That's just dumb. Even if I am a public employee -- and I'm not admitting anything here, mind you, I can do say or write much whatever I want (that doesn't include asking folks for money) regarding ballot questions, particularly regarding ballot questions over which I have no professional stake. Like these. So there. Go suck eggs. Now back to our regular programming:

Let's take them from last to first.

Question Three basically allows private daycare providers, you know, the Moms who bring in four or five kids during the day while they're still home with their own kids (Wifeypooh did this for eight years and only barely escaped with her sanity intact)... anyway, Question Three would allow these folks to essentially bargain with the state for their rates.

Rather than Wifeypooh saying "I'm going to charge $5.50 per kid per hour, and give you a break if you've got two kids, even though Mrs. Smith down the road charges $7.50...", there would be some sort of regulatory action by MaMa State to impose rates. Rates which, no doubt, would creep up year after year, bankrupting people putting their kids in daycare.

Of course, the real story is that the market would correct, and a flourishing black-market daycare sector would be born. It's already out there; to get licensed in Massachusetts you have to submit yourself to a somewhat intrusive and nosey process where they come and snoop around at your house, tell you to get that lead paint covered, and reserve the right to drop in unannounced from time to time (in reality, I don't think Wifeypooh was ever surprise inspected, and for-real inspected maybe twice. It was kind of a joke), and many people provide daycare without license, outside of the system.

Yes, yes. That's illegal. And you don't think that when the Daycare International American Providers Union Representatives (DIAPUR) gets the prevailing daycare rates up to $9 an hour, there won't be plenty of folks willing to skirt the law and charge $6-7 an hour and there won't be plenty of harried folks quite willing to put up with an (allegedly) substandard daycare in order to save $100 a week?

So question three is a typical effort by an interest group to use the ballot to pick your pocket. Nothing out of the ordinary there...

Question Two is another typical Massachusetts affront to good government, the quadrennial Goo-Goo Reform initiative. Last time it was public financing of elections (which the legislature promptly ignored after the public inexplicably passed it). This time it's this stuuuupid practice they have in Sweden, of all places, where candidates can run as members of two parties and have their votes count together.

Here's how it would work.

Joe Studly runs for Governor as a Republican.

Mindy Moonbat is the Democratic candidate. But she also gets the nod of the Rainbow Party, the Hemp Party, and the Suffragette Party, so her name shows up four times on the ballot.

Let's say Joe gets 45% of the Vote.

Mindy the democrat gets 42%.

But that 2% of the electorate that are Rainbow loonies also vote for Mindy.

And 4% of the electorate, stoned college students, think it's great Mindy supports organically grown hemp clothing, and vote for her too.

And 1% of the electorate - the clinically insane and women over the age of 95 - think that suffrage for women is an idea whose time has come, and vote for Mindy the Suffragette.

So, Joe gets 45%. Mindy gets 42+2+4+1%, or 49%. Mindy wins! Yippee! Free cookies for everybody!

Now, according to the ignorant cotton-brained lunatics earnest folks who put this damned thing on the ballot, Mindy Moonbat will see that 4% of her votes came from folks who support the Hemp movement, and will act accordingly in office.

Oh my god. Either these folks are irretrievably stupid, or this is some very sophisticated plot to encourage the formation of 107 weird-o political parties to make Massachusetts an even more ungovernable state than it already is.

Let me tell you something, folks. Any politician who would actually stop and think that because 4% of their votes came from the Hemp Party, or, heaven forfend, the Rainbow Party, she has to support their initiatives in some sort of blind obedience to public opinion, does not deserve the public trust. And exactly what does it mean, and I'm quoting from the supporter's statement here (regarding their fictional potential account of what would happen, which was similar to my own, minus the snark):

"Because she sees that 10% of her vote came from the Good Jobs Party, she’ll have to prioritize that issue. So whether you care about jobs, taxes, schools or health care, voting “yes” will let you send politicians a message they can’t ignore. Vote “yes” for more power at the polls."

You've got to be kidding me. You want power at the polls? Freaking show up. How about that one? The people who bitch and moan most about being dispossesed are the ones who never vote. How about you try voting next time? And instead of gimmicks like this split voting crap, let's just cut to the chase and bribe people.

You come out to vote, you get an ice cream cone. Or a Dunkin' Donuts gift certificate. Why not, people are expecting all sorts of praise for routine crap all the time now? (Oh, bravo, Mr. $3 million per year defensive lineman: you made a tackle. Wow-wee. Go pump your fist some more, jerk...)

Anywho, there are two of the laws so necessary to the public good that we have to vote on them at the polls this November.

And, yeah. Sure. It's not like if either of these abominations pass the legislature would go and just repeal them or ignore them almost immediately...

..Like the tax cut to 5% we voted in '98...

...or the "Clean Elections" public financing system...

...or the Death Penalty the people voted for in the 1980's....

etc etc...

This is just like being a state legislator! You get to vote on all sorts of arcane stuff and then "leadership" does whatever the hell it wants anyway...