I voted. In California there were provisions on the ballot--one to review health insurance increases and the other to raise the cap in medical malpractice cases--that insurance companies opposed and I could not count how many ads I saw against those propositions (I saw 1 ad on favor of health insurance increase review). Without getting into the merits of the propositions, it was a bit distressing to see how uneven the playing field is when you want to do something opposed by insurance companies (or powerful corporations, Wall Street, or any other powerful interest group). And RJ...I voted for the Democrat every time even in races where I was a decidedly "low-information voter".

I voted. I did not vote for the GOP candidate for governor.

The one issue I wanted to highlight, in keeping with freeman3's theme here, was Question 3. If it passes, it will stop casinos from being built in MA. Interestingly, casinos were the pet project of Gov. Deval Patrick, someone who was pretty new to the Commonwealth when he ran for governor.

All the ads have been anti-3. Is that surprising? It's corporations pushing it and politicians pushing the idea of "good jobs." Of course they fail to mention that (now this is an anecdote) that more people in Atlantic City asked to be on the "exclusion" list than were ever employed by casinos. In other words, gambling damaged so many lives that people asked NOT to be permitted in.

I don't care if people want to gamble. However, don't tell us about the "good jobs." It's civilized cannibalism.

Doctor Fate wrote:I voted. I did not vote for the GOP candidate for governor.

The one issue I wanted to highlight, in keeping with freeman3's theme here, was Question 3. If it passes, it will stop casinos from being built in MA. Interestingly, casinos were the pet project of Gov. Deval Patrick, someone who was pretty new to the Commonwealth when he ran for governor.

All the ads have been anti-3. Is that surprising? It's corporations pushing it and politicians pushing the idea of "good jobs." Of course they fail to mention that (now this is an anecdote) that more people in Atlantic City asked to be on the "exclusion" list than were ever employed by casinos. In other words, gambling damaged so many lives that people asked NOT to be permitted in.

I don't care if people want to gamble. However, don't tell us about the "good jobs." It's civilized cannibalism.

Interesting that most of the ads in NY State on the casino referendum, which passed last year, were pro-casino. It probably helped that it was being pushed by Cuomo, so many interests couldn't really fight it without retaliation. But I completely agree with Fate. Casinos are awful, yet we keep allowing them to grow. Hopefully the good voters of MA figure that out today.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I voted. I did not vote for the GOP candidate for governor.

The one issue I wanted to highlight, in keeping with freeman3's theme here, was Question 3. If it passes, it will stop casinos from being built in MA. Interestingly, casinos were the pet project of Gov. Deval Patrick, someone who was pretty new to the Commonwealth when he ran for governor.

All the ads have been anti-3. Is that surprising? It's corporations pushing it and politicians pushing the idea of "good jobs." Of course they fail to mention that (now this is an anecdote) that more people in Atlantic City asked to be on the "exclusion" list than were ever employed by casinos. In other words, gambling damaged so many lives that people asked NOT to be permitted in.

I don't care if people want to gamble. However, don't tell us about the "good jobs." It's civilized cannibalism.

Interesting that most of the ads in NY State on the casino referendum, which passed last year, were pro-casino. It probably helped that it was being pushed by Cuomo, so many interests couldn't really fight it without retaliation. But I completely agree with Fate. Casinos are awful, yet we keep allowing them to grow. Hopefully the good voters of MA figure that out today.

I voted to not disallow casinos and to legalize pot, which was a local ballot initiative. I believe in grown ups making grown up decisions. I also voted that corporations are not people as defined in the constitution, another local ballot issue. I guess my libertarian streak only goes so far.

Freeman

And RJ...I voted for the Democrat every time even in races where I was a decidedly "low-information voter".

Fair enough ... let's chat in 10 years.

I voted Republican except when the Democrats ran unopposed, which was actually the case in most of the contests on my ballot here in MA. My Congressman (Kennedy) ran unopposed. I didn't even realize that we had a Senate race. It's not part of the 10 in the country that are up for grabs.

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman

And RJ...I voted for the Democrat every time even in races where I was a decidedly "low-information voter".

Fair enough ... let's chat in 10 years.

I voted Republican except when the Democrats ran unopposed, which was actually the case in most of the contests on my ballot here in MA. My Congressman (Kennedy) ran unopposed. I didn't even realize that we had a Senate race. It's not part of the 10 in the country that are up for grabs.

I voted for Herr. #retireMarkey

I abstained for Congress. Our local Congressman isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, but he has the magical "D" after his name and was unopposed.

Ray Jay wrote:I voted to not disallow casinos and to legalize pot, which was a local ballot initiative.

I get it. I have a problem with legalizing pot, mainly connected with driving.

With regard to gambling, it's not a "problem" for me. I have too much regard for earning money to gamble. However, there's not only the damage it does to many, but the shady characters and activity it attracts.

Still, what bothered me the most was Baker and Coakley vowing to fight for the Springfield casino even if the voters go against it. That's not democracy.

Isn't it a pretty short drive to gamble at a casino in Connecticut (2 hours or less from Boston). Why do you need a casino closer than that?

Isn't it a pretty short drive to gamble at a casino in Connecticut (2 hours or less from Boston). Why do you need a casino closer than that?

Maybe you live in Boston and fancy being able to spend a few hours in the casino on a saturday night with some friends without having to drive two hours to get there ?

I like to gamble, I must admit, but I also have a very firm understanding of what my limits are and I never go beyond them. Last time I was in the casino (conveniently located in the centre of town about a half hour walk from my house) I had an idea of how much I was willing to lose that night and within 20 mins of getting there I'd already lost all of it. I put my wallet away and headed to the bar, waited for my mates to finish their gambling and then left. Granted, not all casino punters are like me, but I don't see why I should be penalised just because other people are lacking in self-control.

Sassenach wrote:

Isn't it a pretty short drive to gamble at a casino in Connecticut (2 hours or less from Boston). Why do you need a casino closer than that?

Maybe you live in Boston and fancy being able to spend a few hours in the casino on a saturday night with some friends without having to drive two hours to get there ?

I like to gamble, I must admit, but I also have a very firm understanding of what my limits are and I never go beyond them. Last time I was in the casino (conveniently located in the centre of town about a half hour walk from my house) I had an idea of how much I was willing to lose that night and within 20 mins of getting there I'd already lost all of it. I put my wallet away and headed to the bar, waited for my mates to finish their gambling and then left. Granted, not all casino punters are like me, but I don't see why I should be penalised just because other people are lacking in self-control.

Here's the thing: every community has voted it down, except (maybe) Springfield (and I'm not sure about it). This is something no one wants in their backyard. However, corporations and corrupt politicians have kept it alive.

And, I think "self-control" is in the eye of the beholder. On that alone, I'm not an alcoholic. Does that mean every alcoholic simply lacks it? Drug addicts?

I just have a fundamental problem with playing a game that is stacked against me. When I was younger I played blackjack, and counted cards, so I was able to justify it. I never played for very much money but I did ok. Wasn't worth the hassle so I stopped. Now my gambling is limited to a once a year trip to Del Mar where my betting on horses is pretty much guessing (but I don't bet much) and a once a year hockey trip to Las Vegas where I play roulette (where the odds are horrible but...). Again, I don't play for much. I wouldn't do either more frequently. I played so much blackjack when I was young that I pretty much loathe the game at this point. I don't think I am wired to get as much enjoyment from gambling as some people and I find losing to be intolerable. Not much of a gambler, I guess...So I don't need a close casino, but I can see someone who really likes to gamble would appreciate the convenience of having a casino near-by.

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the thing: every community has voted it down, except (maybe) Springfield (and I'm not sure about it). This is something no one wants in their backyard. However, corporations and corrupt politicians have kept it alive.

There are lots of things people don't want in their back yards that are not simply about corruption.

And, I think "self-control" is in the eye of the beholder. On that alone, I'm not an alcoholic. Does that mean every alcoholic simply lacks it? Drug addicts?

On that basis should we outlaw alcohol or heavily restrict bars based on public votes? The extreme was tried a while ago in the US and didn't really work very well. Similarly gambling - despite a lot of gambling laws in the US, a lot of people use illegal channels and I suspect they'd be better going through regulated bookies/houses, even if they are still stacked against the punter.

Like Sass, I like to gamble recreationally. Four days in Vegas was great fun with a few short sessions at the blackjack tables. I had a budget and spent it over the period, but a good streak also paid for a pretty good night out in between.

I can see why people don't want casinos, but at the same time I think we do need to treat people like adults as a default.

Here's the thing: every community has voted it down, except (maybe) Springfield (and I'm not sure about it). This is something no one wants in their backyard. However, corporations and corrupt politicians have kept it alive.

Well sure, if people vote against it then that's their decision and people like me would just have to lump it. I do tend to the view that people should be free to make their own bad decision though.

Mostly I like the casino because it's the only place that you can go to play poker to a decent standard. I realise that the normal casino games are stacked against you but the house edge is only about 3 or 4% soon any given night you have a good shout of making money. I treat it as a night out. Take no more than £100 in with you and aim to leave with at least something in your pocket and you're not really spending any more than you would on a night out anyway. If you get on a roll of really bad luck and lose your money quickly you just need to be be able to walk away, and likewise if you find yourself up by a decent chunk you need to know when to bank your profit and move on somewhere else. This is much easier when the casino is right there in town and there are other places you can go. If you have to travel hours just to get there then you don't have any other options but to keep gambling.

Doctor Fate wrote:I abstained for Congress. Our local Congressman isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, but he has the magical "D" after his name and was unopposed.

Me too. Except she's a Congresswoman.

freeman3 wrote:I voted for the Democrat every time even in races where I was a decidedly "low-information voter".

I didn't vote for a single democrat. Nor did I vote for a single republican. I abstained and voted third party when I could. The ballot measures had a little more interest for me than the candidates.