Question #3 (Massachusetts)

Posted on by

Question #3 would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs.

This seems like a question that targets people’s emotions. “Oh, think of the pretty dogs and how they’re abused.” While I’m sure that some abuses occur, I would tend to think (not really knowing anything of the industry) that if you own a champion racing dog, you’d try to take good care of it so that it would win you races for as long as posible.

I’m a little undecided on this one. Both the Telegram & Gazette and Southbridge Evening News, (PDF, p. 4) editorials state that there’s a big decline in people betting at the track anyway, but the Telegram uses this as a means to say that we shouldn’t let government interfere in private business, whereas the News uses this to say that we might as well ban it to finally get rid of it. I tend to find the Telegram‘s argument the more compelling one out of those two.

On the other hand, the industry does get financial help from the state. (That’s some of the pork that I hope Question 1 would get rid of.) The Telegram‘s editorial states that “Make no mistake: A ‘no’ vote on Question 3 should also be read as a ‘no’ vote to special tax breaks to track operators and legalization of racetrack slot parlors to keep the moribund operations afloat.” I tend to doubt it would be interpreted that way, though. State Rep. Candidate Ron Chernisky (whom I’m supporting) says that he’s voting for the measure, primarily to stop the government subsidies for the industry.

I’m leaning toward voting No, mainly on the argument that government shouldn’t be getting involved at all. But it’s not an easy decision.

Then again, I tend to think that this question will pass with well over a majority of the vote. I’ve seen several yard signs in favor of it, and I’ve seen no organized campaign against it. When you tell people that they can protect animals, sometimes it seems like they get more excited about that then if you told them that they can protect people.