Buried among the comments on this thread about ballot confusion is Jack Prior’s tabular guide to strategies for voting on the two cannabis referenda. Jack says,
“In case you are confused on how to vote in today’s Newton election on retail cannabis in Newton, here’s a table that translates your priorities and your forecasts about the election into a strategy for voting….
- The 2nd question (on opt-out) is clear. You should vote Yes if you want to opt out and No if you want retail dispensaries.
- But voting on the 1st question (on limiting to 2-4 dispensaries) is more complicated and depends on your preferences as well as your forecast about what the battle is among the various outcomes (“opt out” vs. “2-4” vs. “8”) and which of the two questions will have majority Yes votes. That’s because a Question 1 will override the Question 2 if it gets more Yes votes than Question 2’s Yes votes.
- If neither question achieves a majority Yes vote, then the default is 8 dispensaries.”
Shame on our elected officials for designing such a deliberately convoluted ballot.
Kudos to Jack for putting the time into this. But absent any kind of polling or data indicating where most voters are leaning, this is still like playing darts blindfolded.
On one hand I’m mad about this weird ballot situation. On the other hand, I’m glad the city did not delay any of the votes because now it coincides with a national election, meaning higher turnout and likely a similar voter pool to 2016.
The two questions are about the same issue, but will be tabulated separately.
Voters should read each question and decide whether they want to vote yes or no on it, then read the second question and do the same thing -answer yes or no, depending on their position on the question.
Nice theoretical work from Jack.
OON spent a lot of energy vilifying 2-4, and 2-4 responded by squaring off directly against the ban.
Very, very few voters are strategizing to fill out one question and leave the other blank, or fill out “yes” to both questions. That means the scenario of both questions getting a majority, and having to count which one received the most votes to pre-empt the other, won’t happen.
If you think EITHER the Opt Out or the 2-4 Limit is likely to get a majority of the votes (so don’t feel the need to worry about the unrestricted minimum of 8 dispensaries), why wouldn’t you just vote your preferred option among those two and leave the other blank? Can someone more expert on game theory explain this to me?
Hi @NewtonNewbie, intriguing possibility. The key is “if you think either [Opt Out/2-4] is going to win”. Who thinks they have a clear handle on the outcome? Many people are voting on strongly held beliefs today. I doubt many are going to play guessing games with their votes.
My 2 cents: Opt-out passing is the worst outcome, and preventing it is more important that defeating the 2-4 proposal, which I don’t like either. Therefore, I am voting yes on 2-4.
Hi Newtoner, I would welcome your vote for 2-4 because I believe letting City Council regulate market entry is the right thing for Newton. But rather than telling you what to do, I would recommend for you to vote your conscience, because it is your voice in our democracy.
A voter must vote “no” on two separate ballot proposals just to reaffirm their 2016 vote in favor of ending prohibition. It’s a disgraceful situation manipulated by Newton’s elected officials, the majority of whom have zero respect for their constituents or the democratic process…
Of the 25 elected officials responsible for implementing the 2016 law in Newton, not a single one of them stood up to defend an outcome that more than 25,000 Newtonites voted in favor of. What they’ve done is rig this vote so that the least likely outcome is reaffirmation of the 2016 vote. This type of vote rigging should be a crime, and the legality of what they’ve done remains an open issue regardless of today’s outcomes.
The dispensaries are a nice idea. But they’re going to be charging a lot more per weight than a lot of peoples’ buddies.
If people want to pay something like 25% tax on their weed, and to deal with security guards and airlocks, the stores should be welcomed. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, none of the more traditional ways of getting weed are going to be changing.
@Yuppie — Yes, this is disappointing. I think Mike has more friends to his cause on city council than he gives them credit for.
@Greg — Thanks — you can see the importance of polling in this particular case. On that note I did get an automated and attributed phone poll from OON a couple of weeks ago. Not sure what they found.
@Jane — your instructions are well aligned with your objective, but not with the voter that strongly prefers opt out over 2-4, but who likely votes 2-4 against their interest today.
@Dulles — I think opt-out will get majority. There were 20K hard opt-out in 2016 and they only have to be joined by 10% of the 2016 Yes on 4 folks as “nimbys”. Few will peel off to respect the vote. I don’t know where 2-4 will land. Conditioned on opt-out it would get a large majority.
@NewtonNewbie — your scenario would be 1st line of each block on 2-4. I can’t think of a scenario where someone would blank opt-out.
@Newtoner — You are the 1st line in the last block
@Mike — You are off the chart :-). Seriously, the chart doesn’t capture any proportionality in the ranking. If 8 is most important to you on principle, No on both is appropriate regardless of scenarios if you want to send a (possibly futile) message.
@Jims — In near term yes, but in long term, when taxes are involved … https://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco
if the reefer-end-um passes, expect to see the weed crop up on people’s lawns come spring
and remember, City questions are non-binding, so the end result will be a decision by the COUNCIL whether they want to admit it or not.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter53/Section18A
@Jack –
Touché. You’re quite right in your observation: once unlicensed sales in a regulated environment are determined to represent a significant amount of tax revenue if the sales were taxed, enforcement against non-regulated sellers is a reasonable prediction.
Of course, they will not be prosecuted because of the “war on drugs.” They will be prosecuted because they violate the rules of business and commerce.
That’s exactly how things got started for them Duke Boys….
I had a question for readers. OON and RSFN had a respectable number of signs on lawns. They spent roughly $3500 and $1500 respectively through 10/19.
On the other hand, Respect the Vote disclosed a $2500 liability incurred on 10/15 for design and production of lawn signs. Did anyone see one of these in the wild? That is a lot of $ per yard, particularly if the yard count was 0.
@Jack– Name one of my “friends” on the City Council? This whole revote insanity started because the Council passed a moratorium on legal cannabis without a single dissenting vote.
Hi Jack,
To confirm your observation, I have not seen a single RtV sign around the city.
We’ll all know in about 3 hours what happens, so I don’t want to speculate beyond the obvious: if ban wins a majority, 2-4 won’t (and vice versa).
Maybe David M is confused? Home grows have nothing to do with today’s ballot questions. David M, you’re welcome to grow a plant on your lawn and see how long it takes before someone figures it out, the police show up, confiscates the plant(s) and writes a big ticket.
@Mike — I’ve only been following it recently, but we have a quiet medical dispensary in my ward, with a supporting ward-elected councilor. I know there were delays. This year the majority of the council voted against putting opt-out on ballot (which they had the right to do independent of any petitions) initially despite pressure from residents, and for putting 2-4 in opposition to the opt-out rather than conditioned on it when petition came in. They had the power to push for more signatures or to push off the opt-out election, but expedited it to this election for faster clarity for businesses.
As far as moratorium goes, these establishments will be in place for decades (grandfathered) wherever they are located, with their starting zoning and code, so I’d cut them some slack on that. Public opinion on medical is trending in right direction. I think most people needed to hear of benefits from someone personally to understand its valid. You have made a strong case here on that front.
Vote no to pot in Newton. That’s what we have WALTHAM and Brookline for.