Carol and I are getting ready to cast our vote in the upcoming election. Early voting starts today at Cohasset Town Hall, and we wanted to be ready. So we sat in the kitchen and did some research on the candidates and the ballot questions.
We no longer have a real newspaper in Cohasset. There’s the Coastal Mariner, but it’s a typical Gannet local paper, with very little actual local news. There’s the online Cohasset Anchor, which has some good lifestyle stories but it’s not a place I’d look for hard news on local elections. As for the regional newspapers, the Quincy Patriot-Ledger used to be an OK source for local news, but it’s yet another Gannet paper where staff has been cut to the point where there’s not much local coverage any more. As for the Boston Globe, they pretty much ignore southeastern Massachusetts.
So we turned to the League of Women Voters for information about state and local elections. We went to https://www.vote411.org/ and entered our address. Up popped a list of every candidate for every race. We looked at the Massachusetts Information for Voters booklet, which is mailed to everyone in Massachusetts and contains comprehensive information about the five ballot measures we vote on this year.
In this post, while I’ll offer some opinions about the election, more importantly I’m going to reflect on democracy and the democratic process. And my first reflection is this — we hear a great deal about the presidential election, both in the news, on social media, and in face-to-face interactions. This emphasis on the presidential election makes it seem like we’re voting for emperor or king. But U.S. democracy encompasses far more than Harris vs. Trump (and before you complain, I listed those two candidates in alphabetical order). In fact, the overemphasis on the presidential election is harming our democracy. So let’s talk about all those other elections.
We started by looking at the candidates for the U.S. Senate. The League of Women Voters sends out these standard questions for all Senate candidates to answer:
- What is your position on the Electoral College and how would you build support for your position within the Senate?
- What are your top two priorities related to climate change? How would you create equitable, climate-resilient communities?
- How would you address the rising maternal and infant mortality rates in the US? What do you consider to be the most important factors causing this national health crisis?
- What steps, if any, would you take to strengthen federal regulation of firearms and lower the death-by-gun rate?
- What are your top priorities to reform US immigration policy on children and families. Please be specific.
(These are good questions, by the way. Kudos to the League of Women Voters.)
The two candidates for Senate here in Massachusetts both offered thoughtful and articulate answers to these questions. As you might expect, the incumbent, Elizabeth Warren, was able to offer specific examples of how she has already addressed these issues; we considered her legislative experience, but it was not a deciding factor. We were, however, impressed that she provided links to her website if we wanted more detail on specific policy positions. John Deaton offered some interesting ideas for policy initiatives, but I didn’t get the sense that he has fully considered how to implement his ideas.
Using the links provide by the League of Women Voters, I also checked out both their websites to find out more about their experience. Warren has a lengthy track record of relevant experience. Deaton apparently has never held public office; his website summarizes his experiences as “father, cancer survivor, U.S. Marine veteran, trial lawyer.” Deaton has some interesting ideas, and deserves a look. But given his lack of experience in actual governance, and his sometimes vague notions of how to implement his ideas (and these two things are related), he won’t get my vote this year. I’d love to see him run for another public office, get some actual experience in implementing his ideas through actual governance, and run again in six years — if he does that, I’ll give him a close look.
Next, we looked at the candidates for Representative in Congress, Ninth District (i.e., House of Representatives). The League of Women Voters provided the same set of questions. Both candidates answered all the questions fully. However, Dan Sullivan lost me on his answer to the question about rising maternal and infant mortality rates. Sullivan is a nurse, so I expected a well-reasoned answer based on direct experience. Instead, Sullivan’s answer begins: “Increasing maternal and infant mortality rates is an indictment of the failed leadership and policies of the WHO, CDC, NIH and DPH.” Then Sullivan goes on to state, “Poor health hygiene, poor water quality, malnourishment of mother and infant, inadequate prenatal/neonatal and medical care, use of infant formula as a breast milk substitute contribute to the rates.” All the organizations that Sullivan condemns in the previous sentence support good health hygiene, adequate nourishment, etc. Furthermore, other governmental bodies have far more influence over water quality, access to food, and medical care. Sullivan gets a failing grade from me for what appears to be a poor grasp of basic principles of governance.
Next on the ballot is the single candidate for Massachusetts House of Representatives for 3rd Plymouth District. That one candidate is the incumbent Joan Meschino. She did not answer any of the questions posed by the League of Women Voters. Therefore, she doesn’t get my vote.
Next is the election for Governor’s Councillor, 4th district. The Governor’s Council’s most important function is to oversee gubernatorial appointments including judges, justices of the peace, etc. The one candidate on the ballot, Christopher A. Ianella, did not answer the League’s questions. Again, if the candidate can’t take fifteen minutes to answer questions posed by the League of Women Voters, I see no reason to vote for them.
Democracy is based on the principle that elected officials must be responsive to the electorate. By ignoring the League of Women Voters questions, both Meschino and Ianella are ignoring this basic principle of democracy.
In a pleasant contrast to the previous two candidates, even though William Patrick O’Donnell is the only candidate for the Norfolk County Register of Deeds, he provided full answers to all of the League’s questions. Not only that, he gave good solid responses. One of the League’s questions was “What are the principal challenges facing the Register of Deeds?” O’Donnell’s answer emphasized modernization and “quality user-friendly customer service.” That is exactly the kind of thing we want to hear from a Register of Deeds. In response to other questions, O’Donnell also emphasized his management and administration skills — this is good, I want a Register of Deeds who emphasizes exactly these qualities.
The Clerk of Courts for Norfolk County is the next race on the ballot. Walter F. Timilty is the only candidate for the position. Like Meschino and O’Donnell, he didn’t bother answering the League’s questions. He knows he’s going to get elected anyway, why should he bother reaching out to voters? He clearly doesn’t understand accountability to voters, which means he doesn’t understand one of the basic principles of democracy. He doesn’t get my vote.
Next we turn to the ballot questions. Carol and I spent most of our time discussing these.
The first ballot question would give the State Auditor the authority to audit the legislature. At first glance, this seemed like a good idea; of course we want to audit all branches of government. But as we read more carefully, some serious questions arose. First and foremost for me, the State Auditor is in the executive branch of government. If we believe in the separation of the branches of government, and the primacy of the legislative branch (principles enshrined in our state constitution), then the executive branch should not be auditing the legislative branch. Then I read that the legislature already conducts audits, and makes the results of the audit freely available on the web. This sounds like a problem that doesn’t need fixing. I decided to vote against this ballot initiative.
The next ballot initiative would do away with the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) tests as a requirement for graduating from a Massachusetts high school. On the one hand, it does make sense to have at least one uniform state-wide requirement for high school graduation (and students who do not pass the MCAS in 10th grade can take it again, or even pursue a “performance/cohort appeal” to demonstrate that even though they didn’t pass the test they have the same skills as those who passed the test). On the other hand, high-stakes testing is not the best way to assess actual learning; and furthermore, teachers feel they have to “teach to the test,” which means they may ignore important material not contained in the test. Carol and I talked this over for quite a while, and reached no conclusion. I’m not going to vote on this ballot initiative.
We also had a long discussion about the ballot question for unionization for transportation network drivers (TNDs). We both agreed with the intent behind this law, but we bogged down on the specifics of the wording of the proposed law — it’s a long and complex law. I also questioned why the law only would apply to TNDs, and not include delivery network companies (DNCs) such as Instacart. Finally, we both decided to vote in favor of it. I feel that the right for TNC drivers to unionize outweighs the other factors.
The fourth ballot initiative would provide limited legalization for some “natural” psychedelic drugs. I feel it’s probably a good idea to legalize some psychedelic drugs. However, when I read the wording of the law, it seemed to me that the law placed an undue emphasis on creating business opportunities for those who want to sell psychedelics. I also noted that the Massachusetts legislature heard testimony from Oregon’s Manager of the Oregon Psilocybin Services Section of the Oregon Health Authority, who testified that Oregon is having to adjust their legalization law based on their experience; specifically, Oregon changed the law so that no personal cultivation is allowed. I finally decided that the ballot initiative needs to be rewritten, and thus even though I support legalization I feel I have to vote against it.
This brings up an important point. We may sometimes get frustrated by the pace of the legislative process at the state level — it can feel like it takes forever to get bills passed. But sometimes, it’s necessary for legislation to go through several revisions, to make sure the law is well-written. A longer legislative process can also allow for more of the electorate to provide their input — which may be slower, but better than having some random person or group draft a law and then raising lots of money to do lots of advertising to convince voters to vote for a law that might be ill-considered or poorly drafted.
The fifth and final ballot question concerned raising the minimum wage for tipped workers. Both Carol and I support laws that provide a living wage for working stiffs, so at first we thought we were going to vote for this ballot question. But here again, the actual wording of the proposed law didn’t hold up for me. One big question for me was why the law would grant employers the right to require employees to pool tips. Then too I felt the law didn’t adequately address the concerns of those people who seek out jobs as waitstaff precisely because they can make more money as a tipped employee than in other lines of work. The intent of this proposed law is good — trying to figure out how to raise the wages of low-wage workers — but I wasn’t convinced that the law as worded would actually achieve this goal.