The Greenfield Recorder sent reporters to polling places Tuesday to hear what voters had to say about the ballot questions on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. Here’s a sampling.
Matthew Griswold of Greenfield said on his way into the polls at the high school that he planned to vote “no” on Question 1 — “Right to Repair” — because he doesn’t like the idea of his information being available to people he doesn’t know, and because he doesn’t want to make it easier for people to steal information.
Griswold said ranked choice voting “intrigues” him, so he planned to vote “yes” on Question 2, and was also going to vote “yes” on Greenfield’s Question 3, which asked voters to allow the city to adopt the Community Preservation Act. His family donated the 200-acre Griswold/GTD Conservation Area on Lampblack Road, so he said he’s for anything that helps preserve land.
“I’m always happy to see ‘great escapes,’ like the land my grandfather donated, preserved,” he said.
Pamela Goodwin, who lives at The Weldon on High Street, said she voted “yes” on all three questions on Greenfield’s ballot.
“My son is a mechanic and said private shops need the data to repair vehicles,” Goodwin said, holding a “ranked choice voting” sign in the high school parking lot after she voted. “And I’m all for ranked choice voting. I’m all for choosing first, second and third choices. It gives voters more of a voice.”
Dan Pittenger of Elm Terrace voted “yes” on Question 1, but said ranked choice voting is too complicated, so he voted “no” on Question 2. He said he voted “yes” on Question 3, because he is all for preserving land and restoring historical buildings.
John and Pat Zywna of Turners Falls said they voted “yes” on all four ballot questions in Montague, saying they all made sense to them. Those questions included the Right to Repair and ranked choice voting questions, as well as a question for the 1st Franklin District only, instructing Rep. Natalie Blais to support legislation to require Massachusetts to get to 100 percent renewable energy within two decades. The fourth question asks the 1st Franklin District to support legislation that would make votes in legislative committees publicly available on the Legislature’s website.
Nicole Kelly of Turners Falls voted “yes” on Question 1, because she feels “it’s your car and you should not be forced to have to use a dealership that can charge double or more for the same services a local garage charges.”
Kelly voted “no” on ranked choice voting, saying she believes there should be only one vote for one person.
“By having ranked voting, you’re opening the flood gates to more scandal and potential fraud than we are already experiencing during the current election,” she said.
Supporting the Right to Repair ballot question was an easy decision, said Ellie Burton.
“People should have the right to fix their own vehicles,” she said simply.
Lydia Grey voted the same way because the mechanic she uses is an independent business.
“For them to not have access to that information just seems not right,” she said.
Shelburne residents interviewed across party lines largely supported the Right to Repair law in Question 1, with a shared opposition to a continued monopoly by big auto manufacturers of access to vehicle data platforms.
“I think it’s too much corporate big business trying to kill the pursuits of the American people,” commented Richard Pless, who voted “yes” on Question 1.
Likewise, Christopher Law voted “yes” on Question 1, as he hoped to give local businesses the best opportunities possible.
Spencer Hayes voted “yes” on the Right to Repair ballot question, mentioning that “electronics the future.” He also voted “yes” on Question 2, supporting ranked choice voting, because of the negative things he’s heard about the Electoral College.
“I wanted to have my vote count,” he said.
Emmy Howe, who used to live in Cambridge where they already have ranked choice voting, said the system works well.
“It makes more equitable end results,” Howe said.
Clayton Herbert said he supports the Right to Repair law as he prefers to fix his own cars. He’s upset that when you take your vehicle to a dealership the cost rises fast, and what could have been a quick oil change suddenly turns into three or four times that amount.
“I hate to see big auto dealerships take control of things. When you buy a car you should be able to make your own decisions,” said Herbert, who voted “no” for ranked choice voting, saying it involves “too many changes.”
George Esworthy also voted “yes” on the Right to Repair law.
“I don’t want to see a corporate monopoly on info about our automobiles,” he said.
Esworthy voted “yes” on ranked choice voting as well, as “it’s less of a lesser of two evils.”
Angela Dodge, a Buckland resident of 30 years, voted “no” on both Right to Repair and ranked choice voting, as she feels that the current system works well.
“I don’t want to change what we have, it seems like it’s worked,” she said.
“Ranked choice voting is too confusing,” commented Andrea Rose. “You either win or lose.”
In South County, the voters who spoke to the Recorder appeared to be split on ranked choice voting.
Charles Parham in Deerfield and Joshua Mogus in Sunderland voted “yes” on the question.
“We have a lot of very antagonistic approaches to politics these days, and I think a lot of people get drowned out of considering the fact that, ‘Of course there are alternatives,’” said Mogus. “We’re trying to hire someone for one of the most important jobs in the world.”
Mogus, who voted Libertarian in the presidential election, said he thinks ranked choice voting is a “more democratic process.”
“I think it would be great to have more discussion, more people considered,” he said.
Sunderland resident Eric Trueswell agreed, adding that he thinks ranked choice voting would be a “step in the right direction” toward expanding beyond the two-party system.
“I don’t really agree with the two-party system, but I understand it’s … just the most likely thing to happen,” he said. “Ranked choice voting makes (a third party) at least a little more viable.”
But Carlyn Dahlkes of Sunderland felt differently. The way it was worded, she said, didn’t seem to be a fair or straightforward process.
“It didn’t sit right with me,” she said.
On Question 1, the Right to Repair initiative, Parham and Victor Russo of Deerfield voted “yes.”
“So much of that (data) is restricted now and you can’t repair a vehicle unless you go to a dealer, so I voted ‘yes’ on that,” Parham said.
Russo added, “For the sake of the local little guys, and the repair shops, I’m certainly for that.”
Few voters interviewed by the Recorder on Friday morning had strong opinions on the final two questions, both of which pertained uniquely to the 1st Franklin District.
“I didn’t know they were there until today,” Trueswell said. “There hasn’t been any campaigns for them, but with my general beliefs on the two topics, I voted ‘yes.’”
Andrew Vernon said the argument against the Right to Repair law was not compelling enough to vote against it.
“If there’s that much info from my car, it’s been had already anyway,” he said. “If that’s the only argument against it, I’m in favor of it.”
Mason Whiteman said he voted the same way.
“No company or state or government should control whether a third party can fix a car or not,” he said.
Louise Legouis supported ranked choice voting because she thought it would make voting more fair and more accessible, which could drive higher participation.
“Voter participation can be greatly increased by making voting more accessible,” she said. “Voting in the 21st century in this great nation should be flawless, and we are far from it. So there’s a great deal more work that can be done.”
But Dan Canon voted against changing the voting system, saying he thinks ranked choice voting is overly complicated.
“I wasn’t for making it any more complicated than it already is,” he said.