Comparing these tests I’ve become less right on the Economic axis and essentially remained the same on the Social Axis. Since the Political Compass is a two axis measurement, to convert it to the simplified Left/Right scale it seems best to rotate the axis 45 degrees clockwise and project the data point onto the new horizontal axis. This leaves just right of center (random side thought: While centre is most likely the proper Canadian spelling, it doesn’t feel right using it for a location. Centre feel right when I use it for a facility, but I feel the need differentiate them through spelling. Maybe it has to do with the fact that programming languages use American spellings), but very much a centrist.

It appears that I’ve actually moved a little left since the previous test which if I equal the left/right to liberal/conservative respectively, as is often done, I’ve become more liberal making Levi wrong (I just had to point that out). I don’t feel like pulling out a textbook to remember how to find the perpendicular distance of a point from a line so I’m really just eyeballing the vector projection. Either way, I’m moving more to the left again, which I’ll attribute to the substantial reading in economics and political economy I’ve done over this last year. I’ve become a little more pragmatic about government intervention.

Political Compass has a great little app that you can take the test on and plot you against your friends scores. Here is mine:

As you can see, I tend to have friends on the socially libertarian side (Chris and Kevin being the only authoritarians). On a Left/Right scale there would be 34 on the Left and 6 on the Right with Andrew Falcao being most Left and Kevin Royal being most Right (of course we all know from The Next Great Prime Minister that Kevin is an extremist who the poor, minorities, and women won’t vote for). It is pretty evenly distributed on the Left and my friends on the Right hug the center.

As a ending note I will be heading up to TBay after exams. I’ll be taking off the term so I’ll likely just play which city I’m in by ear, but I’ll likely be in TBay for at least a month, part of which will be me house siting for my parents when they go to California and their “puppy” (he looks full grown to me) Baxter (a black lab) needs taking care of. Now that I got Atlas Shrugged off my desk (I DO NOT recommend it) I can do some varied reading now so I expect to do that alot over the next 6 months.

Random Wikipedia Article: LaVeyan Satanism

Currently Listening to: Heat Of The Moment - Asia

If you had not heard, I decided during finals to purchase a house and took possession less than a week ago. I’ve had my eye on the property for a while and had previously lived here for three school terms so I’m very familiar with it. The sale came together very quickly and I was a little overwhelmed by all the details that needed to be worked out. Dealing with the real estate brokers, lawyers, and the bank was confusing, as it was the first time I purchased a house, but my parents assisted me through the process (my dad is a manager for Ontario Realty Corporation) and I’m pleased with the result.

I got an excellent deal for financing, 4% interest rate (Prime minus .75%) because rates are so low currently. The Bank of Canada has lowered rates by 100 basis points over their last two scheduled dates. I decided to go with a 5-year variable rate mortgage (amortized over 25 years) and take a little risk. A fixed one would have been at 5% and with the slowing economy and inflation under control (in Canada at least) interest rates are likely to remain stable or be lowered. When I got it the mortgage it was 4.5% and it is already at 4%; I’ll track the rates and after three years (about the length of time I plan on holding it) I’ll evaluate if it was a good decision or not. I’m also doing bi-monthly payments to also help reduce the interest I need to pay.

Overall I think it is a good investment. I’m renting to three people and living there so the rent I collect will pay my mortgage and other costs so I’ll live rent free for the next few years (saving thousands of dollars) and when I sell the house I should make a profit given the appreciation of the house and the amount being paid into the mortgage after the interest. Of course I need to deduct lawyer fees and other costs, but the recent trends indicate that the value should increase. With improvements to the area such as the iXpress and the universal bus pass for students (I can’t believe I’m pleased with the UPass but it makes my property more valuable for renting) where one of the stops is only 1 minute walk away, I should have no problem renting. In fact I have tenants committed for roughly the next two years. I was able to transfer leases from the previous landlord, which also made the deal more appealing; less work for me.

In other news, I am officially not a student councillor or board member for Feds as of May 1st. I’m also no longer a member of the Student Services Advisory committee and the only official position I have is Genius Bowl director for EngSoc (to be held on May 26th!). I’ll now have lots of time to work on other things and Waller and I will be starting up an Optimist International club on campus. It will be different being on the other side of the room for IAC asking for approval instead of giving it. I found it intriguing this last term when people claimed my work in Feds was only to a) pad my resume, and/or b) practice for being a real politician. For the jobs I apply for, employers care more about my technical experience at NRCan, Nemak (Ford), and GM than the volunteer mention Feds gets on the second page of my resume. As well, I said I don’t plan on being a politician, either a Feds Executive, or elsewhere. I don’t have any interest in that form of public service.

Right now I believe there are 3 vacancies for engineering councillors. I feel no obligation to help fill them. For the most involved people, you get very little out for the work you put it. I don’t know how Councillor/Director/Governor/FOC Neal does it. He should have won either the President’s Circle award or the Feds Leadership award but instead he didn’t even get a piece of council gear or a meal at the end of the year. Volunteer appreciation severely lacks at Feds and along with apathy it is not surprising why 8 council seats remain unfilled. There is also a definite lack of empowerment. If I ever have a problem I’ll go straight to Chris, Justin, Del, Andreas, or Andrew. The fact is that my representatives are inexperienced (due to the fact of being new to council). It looks like only three councillors have previously served a full year on Feds.

So for now I’m going to focus on school and catch up on my growing book shelf of unread books. On Justin’s advice, I believe the next book I’ll read will be Rawls’s Theory of Justice to be quickly followed by Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Currently Listening to: Still Alive - Jonathan Coulton

Random Wikipedia Article: Dulce et Decorum Est

In terms of her ability to express her opinions, she (as well as all non-student CKMS members) has always had the right to talk to the ‘No’ Committee chairs to provide arguments, opinions, or rebuttals. I will use an analogy of the House of Commons. This was a student referendum issue deciding a topic pertaining to student funding. It would be akin to a US Ambassador walking into the House and yelling out their opinions on the Canadian budget. Yes, this student decision will impact the radio station, just as many decisions our government affects the US. The US has the ability to send us their opinions but they have no right to interfere in the process. CKMS interfered in the process by inhibiting information flow to shareholders, using staff members to prepare an advertising campaign (which used CKMS funds), and by intervening legally. (BTW, is paid CKMS staff participating in information sessions the best use of their time and CKMS’s money?)

Furthermore, three CKMS volunteers (one being a CKMS Board member) were the ‘No’ Committee Co-Chairs. If the board member (who participated in one of the forums) doesn’t have an intimate knowledge of the corporation (which for the record, I believe he does), then that would be a serious concern. In reality, the ‘No’ Committee had access to CKMS Board information and other resources provided to them that were not provided to the Yes committee, despite being requested and promised (i.e. number of student volunteers requested January 23rd, promised January 24th, that was never provided but later was released by the ‘No’ Committee). They had the information advantage all along.

She states that she “felt the adjudication during the committee was biased toward the Yes committee, and that the adjudicator was not an impartial judge.” That is quite a defamatory claim about the Referendum Committee and its Chair. Knowing all the councillors on the committee, I am confident that they worked in an impartial manner. I will also note that there is a separate Referendum Appeals Committee that does not have councillors that any decision can be appealed to.

To address the first defamatory comment, the one claiming that I violated referendum procedures by having a Facebook group soliciting members of ‘Yes’ Committee, I will state that I believe there were no rules violated (given my experience on the Referendum Committee last year). Soliciting members of the committee, which the ‘No’ Committee did as well, is not a violation of procedures as it is not campaigning. The group never discussed the campaign, only informing people of the date of committee formation. I will also note that if you review the Referendum Committee’s decisions, they were never fined for having their Facebook group, even the “I support CKMS” group that they turned into their main campaign group (which I believe is it in violation of referendum rules since it was created outside the campaigning period). As always, someone (even non-students) could have (and may have) filed a complaint.

I will not comment on the document mentioned for legal reasons, but I do appreciate Selene confirming that the CKMS Board knows that I was not the author. I will note that my sources are not limited to that document and I consulted numerous past Board members and staff including ones within the last 3 years. It continues to be my assertion that all information my committee provided is truthful and the facts were not misrepresented.

I found out about the motion for the referendum at the same time CKMS supporters did. I had the same time (and substantially less resources) to prepare my campaign as the ‘No’ side. The referendum was called and was run in a fair way (except, of course, all the violations by the ‘No’ Committee). As per her last comments about me not being at CKMS Board meetings, I’ve never claimed to have attended them. Selene has not been at all the Students’ Council and Referendum Committee meetings in the last year, yet she criticizes their decisions. I am able to my make my claims in the same way; by talking to sources and reading documents.

I think fees for students should always be debated and the organizations that receive them should be held accountable if they aren’t transparent or are poorly managed. I like Imprint and believe they are run transparently and are managed well. Athletics falls under the Student Services Advisory Committee in which funding is reviewed constantly. You don’t think Plant Operations and Employees have reviews and are held accountable if they screw up? This came down to students deciding if they wanted the fee. They resoundingly supported its removal.

I never claimed that campus radio is a bad thing, and I agree that it could fit within the Feds mission statement. CKMS, on the other hand, does not.

EDIT:

Selene has continue to post on LJ and I have more to add now (and will continue to add).

On February 14th I had communication with her that explained the referendum process. It seems this went in one ear and out the next. I stated: “While Feds does not administer the fee, they are the sole representative of students and the only body that the Board of Governors listens to on this matter. While what you state is technically true, in practice it is Feds that yields influence over levying student fees by long standing agreement with the University.” Her “paranoid” “theories” (her words) are just that: paranoid.

Selene has posted a comment that has patently false information (which was even ruled on and explained why it is false in Referendum Decision 5 - Has she even read the decisions she criticizes?). She says the $230 fee (There exists no $230 fee but a range from $163.56 to $241.87) is non-refundable, which is a lie. The Health and Dental plan are refundable (online opt-out) and the non-refundable part is the bus pass. These have all been approved by referendums. I will continue to refute her misrepresentation of the facts. Students put a value on CKMS. It was $0.00.

The Board of Governors will pass this fee removal at their April meeting.

It has been very enlightening reviewing the general meeting minutes of the past few years. The September 2005 meeting minutes discuss how Heather intervened (saying it “sucked”) and stopped a legitimate vote under CKMS’s bylaws (which is noted in the next minutes that their lawyer said was perfectly legal). Too bad it took 7 weeks to get what I requested from CKMS or I would have been able to present more facts to students of CKMS’s ongoing (and still present) issues. Well, I received most of what I requested. CKMS has yet to produce an up-to-date copy of their bylaws. A change occurred at the March 2007 AGM and yet they only have produced a copy from March 2006. So coming up to their March 2008 AGM where new directors will be voted in, shareholders don’t even know the process by which they use to vote.

This is a transparency and accountability issue NOW, occurring under Selene’s time on the CKMS Board. It will be interesting if shareholders hold her accountable for losing 90% of the station’s revenue while she was Treasurer.

I did not bring forward this motion to Council and found out about it the same time everyone else did. During the debate I provided only one argument to hold the referendum that was not challenged. I said “I cannot see anything that is negative about bringing up this
issue, because it is a way of promoting what everyone here has said they want.”

I decided to become Chair of the ‘Yes’ Committee because of my knowledge of the procedures due to sitting on the Referendum Committee last year and the Bylaws, Policies, and Procedures Committee for two years. I took on an important role in the democratic process.

From the start I was faced with unfair campaigning. Before committees were even formed (the day after council), CKMS was running ads telling people to vote No. They also ran insulting ads with a character meant to be a dimwitted student mocking the referendum question itself. The question was worded the way it was (which I had no part in drafting) due to procedure that dictates that change is in the affirmative and the negative is for the status quo. There was no conspiracy or purposeful bias. The claims of such are just absurd.

The reason that outside corporations can’t campaign is because it creates an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, CKMS used its paid staff and capital to advertise, campaign actively through interviews, through free concerts (including one they named their Birthday celebration despite them having claimed an activity for that in the Fall) and handing out flyers (with false information). CKMS had every right to meet with the ‘No’ Committee and provide them with information, arguments, rebuttals. CKMS had a voice through the ‘No’ Committee, the proper channel.  No campaign rules said that CKMS couldn’t provide them information. As well, one of the CKMS Board members was a Co-chair of the ‘No’ Committee so they had a direct voice. The process would have been fair, but CKMS and the ‘No’ side made it unfair. After all, this was an undergraduate student referendum. They are the ones with rights here, not external organizations. On top of all this unfairness is the fact that the majority of my posters were illegally removed or defaced (apparently speech is only free if you agree with it).

They went out of their way to make my information collection harder. When I requested budget information, instead of numbers, a useless pie chart was sent. It is both quicker and more transparent to copy the numbers and send them to me. When a budget for Feds was requested by the ‘No’ Committee Chair, I sent it 9 minutes later. CKMS went out of their way to keep information from me to present to students. I requested documents (to this date I have not received copies of them, 6 weeks later), went to CKMS to talk to the Station Manager who asked me to make an appointment, which was reasonable so I did. My appointment was cancelled twice (first was double booking, and second her story changed for canceling from personal issues to the snow day), yet I rebooked again, canceling my an appointment to accommodate the other parties. When the meeting finally came I, a shareholder, was treated with contempt and the atmosphere was hostile. I was trying to get information to disseminate to 99% of their shareholders and for fallacious reasons I was denied copies of the documents.

Despite all this, the referendum went forward. The result was a landslide win for the ‘Yes’ side, (2280 Yes vs. 1081 No), over 2:1 margin. It had the highest turnout of the Exec and Referenda votes and beat my own estimates on how many people would come out. I expected 400 less voters due to the acclamations of President and VP Admin-Finance, usually the positions that bring out the voters.

Now I shall air my grievances. As you know, the ‘No’ side was disqualified due to seven different Referendum Committee decisions directed at them (while the ‘Yes’ side had none). They hired a lawyer to help them appeal it. There was no respect for the rules that are meant to allow an even playing field. The GSA Pres has some endgame analysis that I think everyone should read.

One misconception that keeps coming up is this so called “Feds Radio”. I’ve followed the Facebook/Livejournal/Myspace/random blog diatribes and many are filled with fallacious arguments and juvenile rhetoric. Take this MySpace page, making the Feds Radio claim. I never brought up such a concept in the campaign and as a Feds Board and Council member I’ve never participated in any discussions about it. It doesn’t exist! Looking on I’ll note that students contribute 90% of funding while community members contribute only 2%. Then we get to the tenure claim. A radio station does not have tenure. Shareholders have every right to withdraw their funding. The second most offensive (to me) poster was the one that said something like Referendum, Best Birthday Present Ever! It’s insulting to think that you shouldn’t be held accountable because you’ve been around a while. The most offensive claim was the sandwich one, where we have students who can’t afford to buy food and make use of our Food Bank. Disgusting.

Of course there were the claims of smearing Heather Majaury’s name. My original posts did no such things, and only after I felt the need to make transparent a source document drafted by a past Board Member was she ever mentioned (Note: I removed it to comply with the legal threat sent to me. Threatening to sue a student who is just presenting information provided to him is so classy…). I had never met her before this campaign. Now I have and I have experience to make a judgment. In my opinion, despite being a shareholder trying to get information, I was treated hostilely and with contempt by her. She made many false statements (e.g. providing a falsely deflated budget number to The Record), and in my opinion acted unprofessionally when dealing with a shareholder. When she makes comments like “I personally feel it was a hijacking by the student government” to The Record it shows her total contempt for the democratic process and for the great majority of students who agreed with the ‘Yes’ side. My judgment is that I now have no respect for her.

Now CKMS has posted information on their home page which I shall disect. First the statement “not one single concrete concern or suggestion was communicated to CKMS from the Federations of Students”. This is a lie, as the Feds Board has sent CKMS many letters with concerns, and example concern being in a letter to the CKMS’s Board on January 13, 2006, where the Federation of Students Board of Directors declared:

“In the opinion of the Federation of Students Board, the CKMS’s General Meetings were unacceptable. They were poorly planned, executed and more than controversial, they were tense and unwelcoming. In the opinion of the Federation of Students Board, a violation of UW’s policy #33 specifically related to a poisoned environment [has occurred].”

More than one letter has been sent and several issues have been identified in them. CKMS has been plagued by issues for (anecdotally by past Board Members) over a decade. Didn’t their 2006 AGM, where they didn’t elect their Board members, not clue them in that people have concerns? I’ve addressed above the issue of external organization prohibition and the fictitious Feds Radio.

If you want a good laugh you can read this absurd article written by the Editor of Now Media. I love the part where my side is compared to political extremists overthrowing governments.

Finally there are several personal statements that were not shared by my committee, but since this is my blog I get to state my opinions. I believe that the current incarnation of CKMS is corrupt. I believe a group of people have been exploiting students by stealing their money to fund their own personal hobbies. The abused spouse needs to leave the abuser even if they say they will stop and make it better. As the Phoenix, sometimes something old but damaged has to go up in flames to be created new and better.

The place that I do get the most spam from is through my Feds email. I’d say that 90% of my email spam comes from that account. I was getting some through this domain’s email but I turned it off until I decide how I will deal with it. Mike uses a form on his site for contact, maybe I (and probably Feds) should do something similar (with a captcha of course). The only real email to my Feds account was sent to all councillors, and it should be stated that they can reach everyone by posting to the Council list. Then maybe they can just have a link to UWDIR for if they do only want to contact one councillor and we can save the Feds IT guy time making email accounts that change often. Oh yeah, I see that Feds has a new design for the site. I guess this is a good time to change over before the next term where there will be a flood of traffic to find Del’s number to complain about Health and Dental plan opt-out…

Natalie was complaining last night that I haven’t posted in a while. I haven’t been feeling too well this term, though I’m sure a change of environment will help with that. Maybe living alone in a cold basement in Oshawa wasn’t the best decision I’ve ever made. Either way, this is my last week in Oshawa and I will be flying to Thunder Bay for 2 weeks on Saturday and then back to Waterloo on the 5th to start my term as a pretend Arts student. I haven’t been back since last Christmas and from what I hear, much hasn’t changed. Apparently the Golf Dome has been replaced. Thrilling.

Currently Listening to: It’s Beginning to Get to Me - Snow Patrol

Random Wikipedia Article: Bill C-60

The one I’m reading now on my lunch breaks is The Virtue of Selfishness, a non-fiction collection of essays on ethics, philosophy and morals. While I find parts of it to be repetitive (which is sort of expected for stand alone essays and lectures on similar subject matter), there are interesting topics on rights, collectivized ethics, and various questions posed about objectivist theory. The articles were written in the early 60’s and some parts need to be taken with a grain of salt such as this passage from Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice discussing morality and self-esteem implying homosexuality is a mental illness due to being “insufficiently hypocritical” on the practice of “traditional morality”:

“Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality beacause he has been taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshipped, but not desired?”

I guess I should note that Rand’s “selfishness” is in the strictest sense of “concern for one’s own interests” and not that of the commonly used word with negative connotations. The cornerstone of Objectivism is rational self-interest without force (noting that “without force” is critical). My favourite essay so far in the collection is The Ethics of Emergencies, which discusses aid of others. The last paragraph sums up the ideas well:

“The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental - as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existance - and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.”

The act of helping others is based on your love for them (which also determines who and how much help you give) as well as your respect for human life. It should not be based on altruist morality that forces you to sacrifice.

Currently Listening to: Pat Benatar - Love is a Battlefield

Random Wikipedia Article: Special Handling Unit

President:

Justin Williams - Current ES Councillor, Feds Director, Past FOC, and general socialist proselytizer, Justin is a (very) early leader in the race to be the next Feds President. A supportive Facebook group already has several councillors as members as well as 3 of the 4 other Feds non-exec directors.

Renjie Butalid - Senator-at-large and past Feds VP AF, Renjie will be completing his degree and could be a star candidate if he decides to run. Part of the Jenjie Hentalid duo that held the Feds together earlier this year, Renjie’s record could bring him a second election win.

Steve Hayle - Arts Senator, Student Governor, and Past Feds Councillor and Board Member, Steve has a long history with Feds that gives him the experience to run Feds.

VP Admin-Finance:

Aaron Stauch - Senator and Coordinator for CRT, Aaron seems keen on running for a Feds Exec position. It’s still unclear what position he’s interested in (Maybe Education), but for the last 9 months he’s had Feds2008.com registered (as well as .ca).

VP Education:

Andres Fuentes Martinez - Andres is a political powerhouse with strong connections to the Liberal Party (He’s been UW President of the UW Young Liberals for 2 years), great for lobbying. Former SJU Student’s Council Vice-Pres, he seems connected to Williams, who has created a Facebook group.

Chris Neal - SJU Councillor, Feds Director, SJU Student’s Council VP, and committee whore, Chris will be a strong candidate for the position he’s been building up to for the past few years. (EAC, OUSA delegate, etc.)

VP Internal:

Dan DesRosiers - Past Service Coordinator and small business owner, Dan has a long history of involvement at UW and in the community.

Andrew Falcao - Past SciSoc President, Feds Councillor and Director as well as Arts Commissioner, Andrew has many connections to clubs and services and has been a tireless volunteer to many causes.

I’m sure there are other people considering a run, but I’ve only heard so many rumours given that I’m not on campus this term. So far it looks like it will be an interesting campaign.

Currently Listening to: Don’t Stop Believing - Journey

Random Wikipedia Article: LOLCODE

The topic in which I want to discuss this dual with is that of Involuntary Admission, specifically in the case of possible harm to self. Suicide ceased to a crime in Canada in 1961, and within the Canadian Criminal Code the only mention of it is the criminalization of assisted suicide or counselling someone to commit suicide. What distresses me is that within the Ontario Mental Health Act (OMHA) there are provisions for involuntary admission on the basis of self harm.

I suspect that the vast majority of people believe that such a provision is reasonable, so I pose the question: Is it acceptable to hold someone against their will for something they have not done but on the suspicion that they may commit a legal act? I am taking issue here only with self harm as the act is legal while harm of another person is not. They are entirely separate cases. Harm of another person comes down to the security of the public over the freedom of a patient (another debate altogether), while in the case of potential self harm the claim is that security of the patient trumps the freedom of the patient.

Under the OMHA, revised in 2000 with “Brian’s Law“, physicians have the ability to hold a patient involuntarily for 3 days without appeal by just filling out a form, with the provisions for longer times with additional forms (though requiring another doctor). It is worth noting that the patient can refuse treatment during that time, so this can literally result in a patient being held in a locked down facility for having not committed any crime. An issue like this is about freedom of choice. We don’t lock people up for wanting to have an abortion, a self inflicted amputation of sorts (and I don’t suggest we do), but we do for the mentally ill. Such a law could impede assessment and treatment as a voluntary patient may sanitize his response in fear of being processed as an involuntary patient.

Some people may argue that such a patient cannot make decisions of freedom due to their mental illness. I would note then that such an individual is allowed under law to make decisions regarding their treatment. Why not allow the same of their freedom? A person with mental illness, even with suicide ideation, is still frequently capable of making rational decisions. There is a big difference between voluntary admission and involuntary admission in terms of freedoms for a patient. It is completely rational for a patient to want to perseve their freedoms while seeking treatment. To me, it is one who gives up their freedoms willingly who is irrational.

Currently Listening to: Lay All Your Love On Me - ABBA

Random Wikipedia Article: Sola fide

I will be voting in the Oshawa riding because it’s my current residence. I will be voting for Jerry Ouellette and against MMP. I’ve decided to endorse the Progressive Conservative candidate because in this riding it seems that the race is between the PCs and the NDP (Sid Ryan) (Third is Liberal Faelyne Templer). As well, it seems that Mr. Ouellette is the most experienced, and has vowed to vote against faith-based school funding. I will note that CAW president, Buzz Hargrove has said that there is no reason to vote NDP.

Polls are now indicating that the Liberals will get a majority.

For the first referendum in Ontario since 1924 (to repeal prohibition!) you’d think that there would be a lot more people discussing the issue. It’s likely a change in the electoral system would last much longer than the next government and if changed will cause a major shift in the composition of MPPs in the future. Unfortunately almost half of Ontarians say they don’t know about the proposed change.

The government has set up a website to try to present both sides and have mailed out information and have been advertising, but the message is not getting across. Questions such as how much additional will the new system cost are not answered while the entire issue is being overshadowed by the General Election. My personal thought is that regardless of the cost (and the savings due to holding the referendum with the election), it should have been held separately. A majority of the resources for the politically active are being focused towards the election while the referendum supporters and opponents are few and their messages aren’t being broadcast.

I encourage everyone to investigate both sides of the debate and encourage discussion in this last week leading up to the vote. Some recent Globe articles on the topic are here, here, and here.

What do you think?