CW Unbound looks at the numbers, discovers a huge shift in votes in western Massachusetts from the last time voters considered a ban. But why?

There was a survey posted here on Universal Hub back on October 22nd regarding the ballot questions. I summed up the results at 217 responses to get a feel for what each question's outcome would be based on our limited and biased sample. Let's see how well we predicted the final voter population...

Richard Howe wonders if the president-elect would consider a Massachusetts greyhound, since there will soon be plenty of those available.

Woof! Paul Keleher photographed this Question 3 supporter.

Channel 5 is projecting:

• No income tax repeal.
• Yes pot-possession changes.
• Yes on banning dog racing.

Here's a guide to the 3 referendum questions on the ballot Tuesday, with pro's con's articulated by the experts who are supporting and opposing the measures. It's surprisingly concise.

Q1 Would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.

Q2 Would replace the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties, and would exclude information from the state's criminal record system.

Q3 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 rest is here.

Seriously - if the devil's in the details on some of these questions (in terms of practical implementations, presuming you're not already fundamentally decided) - could someone please ensure that online information about the ballot is a little more complete and correct?

• The individual ballot question pages on the Sec. State website are fine, but: where's the link to the detailed legislation? People might want to know the details.
• On the other hand, clicking the Back to: Proposed Ballot Questions link from any of these pages results in a 404 error. Oops. I hope they count ballots better than build websites. Normally, they're pretty good.

Tip: here's the actual overview of the 3 questions.

Worth noting that the people opposing Question One are backed almost entirely by Big Government Unions.

The MTA and SEIU gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the pro-tax movement.

No one should be shocked that government employee unions are fighting Question One to the death. If it passes they will lose their superhuman benefits and government perks that no one except the CEOs of AIG get.

Coaliton for Our Communities report 1

The Globe covers yesterday's anti-income-tax rally in Boston (only 250 people?), while Yvonne Abraham heaps scorn on Carla Howell and her made-up figures about waste in state government.

A Proper Bostonian comes up with Swiftian reasons to vote for the measure (as in Jonathan, not Jane).

The Herald takes a look at the people paying Carla Howell's salary as she tries to convince people to repeal the state income tax:

The push to scrap the state income tax - billed as a grassroots movement - is heavily bankrolled by an odd-ball collection of libertarians who don't even pay taxes in Massachusetts, including a crackpot who’s likened Homeland Security to the "Gestapo" and a "Biblical capitalist" who thinks paper money should be eliminated. ...

Rick Holmes, opinion editor at the Metrowest Daily News, explains why he isn't buying Carla Howell's effort to repeal the Massachusetts income tax in November:

Carla Howell, the leader of the income-tax-repeal effort, came in to see me last week. I have an editorial here about the question I keep asking: Is the point of the referendum to "send a message" or enact a law?

Howell says it's about enacting a law, one that would remove some $12 billion from the state budget. Fine, but if you are going to ask the voters to make decisions on the budget, you ought to be able to provide some details, and Carla appears to have decided not to. ...