Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com is quoted in Newsweek talking about how Virginia will be an early sign of the election's outcome.  I agree.  It's a fairly red state, and if it swings blue it will be a good indicator that other fairly red states will also swing blue.  Polls will close in VA at 7PM tomorrow night.  Here's Nate:

…Virginia, for my money, is the most important state in this election. If John McCain loses it, his path to victory is exceptionally narrow—he would need to pull out an upset in Pennsylvania, while holding on to Florida and Ohio, and avoiding a sweep out West. Barack Obama has considerably more ways to win without Virginia, but a failure to close out the state would suggest at best a more circuitous route to victory. As Obama remains about five points ahead in most polls of Virginia, what we're really looking for is a quick call on anything before 8 PM that would indicate that the map has indeed changed from 2004, and not in McCain's favor…

As a quick review, for those of you who are in Massachusetts:

Question 1: “A PROPOSED LAW TO ELIMINATE THE STATE INCOME TAX”

This proposed law would eliminate the state personal income tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Question 2: “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SENSIBLE STATE MARIJUANA POLICY”

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Question 3: “AN INITIATIVE FOR AN ACT TO PROTECT GREYHOUNDS”
This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.

On Question #2 I will probably vote YES.  IMHO marijuana is a minor drug, and possession of it shouldn't be treated the same as possession of hard drugs.  That type of prosecution costs the state a lot of money.

I am torn on Question #3.  Right now I am leaning toward yes because I don't want gambling in my state and I am concerned about the ethical treatment of animals.  But I don't like the idea of putting hundreds of racetrack employees out of work.  I'm not sure which way I am going to vote on Q3, although right now a YES vote seems more likely to me.

Question #1? Yeah I'll be voting a big fat NO on that. I can't see how anybody who is seriously concerned about throwing people out of work could consider voting yes on Q1. If you think 1,000 racetrack workers being out of their jobs is a tragedy, think a moment about the approximately 163,000 people employed by the MA state government that Q1 intends to essentially halve the funding for. An additional seventy to eighty thousand unemployed (and collecting unemployment) doesn't sound like a great way to begin the next fiscal cycle. To say nothing of the loss of essential services.

Q1 is for libertarians and those who would gladly accept a short term gain, no matter how dire the long term loss. Basically those unknowingly itching to take Tytler's* first step toward the fall of their own civilization:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

(*) Apparently there is some disagreement whether that quote was made by Alexander Tytler or some other scholar.

Prudent tax policy is desirable, and grotesque waste is not, but to decry every single farthing needed to fund the services that benefit us all, a.k.a. the “common wealth“, is to usher in the demise of democracy and the rise of anarchy. This is why I say libertarianism = insanity. I will never be able to get behind it. Humans do not have to choose to be selfish–yes we are animals, but we are sentient animals, and we can choose to recognize a greater good. We can choose to progress beyond our baser instincts–it only takes courage.