Question 1 gets all the press, but there are two more questions on the ballot this year, and I’m going to talk about them. Question 2 is about ballot fusion, and I think it’s a good idea.

The short description of Question 2: A candidate can be endorsed by more than one party; when you vote you get to choose which candidate and which party you support. For longer descriptions, the explanations on the state election site and the Yes on 2 site have good sample ballots and more text.

The intent of the question is to enable voters to signal their support for a particular party or position more specifically than supporting a single candidate. For instance, a voter might strongly support gay marriage. The Democrats sometimes have candidates that support gay marriage, but sometimes not. There is a particular candidate who supports gay marriage, and he is the Democratic candidate and he is endorsed by the Marriage Equality party. Voters can choose to vote for the candidate on the Democratic line or the Marriage Equality line. The votes all count towards the candidate, but voters in favor of gay marriage can signal that fact by voting on the Marriage Equality line rather than the Democratic line. Theoretically, other Democrats will see how many votes that was, and adjust their positions accordingly.

The opponents of this question say that it will lead to voter confusion. I think that New York state effectively squashes that argument. New York has several third parties that cross-endorse candidates. The Conservative Party is most commonly cited. In New York, Republicans without Conservative support have a tough row to hoe. And, before you think this whole Question 2 thing is a conservative conspiracy, remember that it’s endorsed by the Working Family Party and a series of unions, and they aren’t conservatives.

The real opponents to this question are the two major parties. They have the most to lose in this – cross-endorsement weakens their grip on power and opens the door for another party to, just maybe, become “major.”

There is another change in this law that hasn’t been mentioned on other websites. The first is that third parties will be recognized by the state for 4 years, not 2, after they meet the 3% requirement in a state election. That’s a big deal. Under current law it’s easy in Massachusetts to get recognition in off-presidential years like this one, but very hard in presidential years like 2006. In 2004 there were 4 parties in the state; this year there are 2. This law change would make it easier for third parties to build over time rather than appear and disappear on a biannual basis. I still can’t figure out why both the Libertarian and Green parties are opposed to it.

I think the effect of this will be to redistribute a bit of power from the major parties to other organized groups. I think that is a good thing. I also tend to give voters credit. I’m not worried about them getting confused. They are plenty smart enough to see their candidate on the ballot and cast their vote.

Vote yes on 2!

I was in a liqour store buying beer, and as I was waiting for my credit card to go through, I read the note taped to the cash register.

DON’T BE FOOLED! PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN!

I immediately thought of Helen Lovejoy on the Simpson’s. She’s the reverend’s wife, and it’s her role to beg the town to consider the welfare of children. It doesn’t matter if the issue is gambling, potholes, or zombies, she’s there to plaintively wail “Will somone please think of the children!” The running gag is that the issue she’s wailing about really has nothing to do with children – she’s just using a fictional threat to win the debate.

The poster I saw was demanding “no” votes on Question 1, on whether to permit wine sales in grocery stores. The poster went on to claim that every convenience store, many drug stores, and many gasoline stores would start selling wine if Question 1 passes. This wine would be available on every street corner and be “easily accessible” to teenagers. Helen Lovejoy would be pround of this poster.

When you read the Yes on 1 and No on 1 websites, you can see which side is making arguments and which side is fear-mongering. The Yes site promiently posts the text of the initiative and explains how it will work. The No site posts inferred statistics (“190 deaths per year”) and says that under the law, Arlington will have 13 new wine licenses. Can you name 13 locations in Arlington that “must carry fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items”? Of course you can’t – the 13 license claim is another attempt to spread fear, unknown, and doubt without regard to the facts.

I argued half-heartedly with the guy behind the counter. I asked him if he really believed any of the stuff on the sheet. He defended it for a bit, then said “We have to post that stuff. If grocery stores start selling wine, we’ll lose the business.” I’m not sure his boss wanted him to say this, but the real issue was finally on the table.

When you read the text of the law you understand that there won’t be alcohol on every corner and there won’t be wine at gas stations, convenience stores, and drug stores. This isn’t a fight about child safety. It’s a fight about whether or not the current liquor stores can retain control of the wine sales revenue stream. Ironically, it’s a posting on the “no” site that highlights this best: “The independent package store owners will be hurt by this proposed law, and many will be put out of business. Such a cost is not worth the 50 cents per $10 bottle of wine.”

I will be voting “yes” on Question 1 in November. I think the children of Massachusetts will be just fine, and that wine will be cheaper.

UPDATE: The Patriot Ledger has a great right-hand sidebar showing donors for and against Question 1. Who would have thought that package stores love children so much?