Although I am eighteen, I am not yet registered to vote. If were registered, however, I would have voted for Charlie Baker for multiple reasons. I like that Charlie Baker focuses on secondary education and I agree with his plan for higher education. A three-year bachelor's degree could reduce the cost of a regular college education by 25%. Furthermore, I believe students would be willing to work a bit hater within those three years to save their parents and/or themselves thousands of dollars. I also agree with Charlie Baker's plan for sick time for workers. Martha Coakley's plan states that any business with over eleven workers would qualify and I believe that this would include many more businesses than necessary. Charlie Baker's idea is that only businesses with over fifty workers will be eligible for paid sick time, with the plan of one hour for every forty hours worked. In my opinion, this idea is more reasonable because it lets businesses have more control over what they do. Also, it is unlikely that businesses would not give sick time because if they didn't they would have a difficult time getting employers. When it comes to welfare reform, Martha Coakley seems to not be focused on the issue while Charlie Baker wants stricter welfare conditions. Charlie Baker also wants to raise the age for work exemption from sixty to sixty-five, which in my opinion makes a lot of sense because people live longer than they used to and many people are still able to work even past the age of sixty-five. Some people argue that Charlie Baker cannot be trusted on the issue of climate change because he changed his mind in the past five years. I don't believe this is a problem because his opinion very well could have been the result of more evidence arising on the topic of climate change. Lastly, when it comes to climate change, I believe that both parties have solid goals for reducing green house gasses. If I were a registered voter, I most likely would have voted for Charlie Baker because of the reasons presented.
