THE BALLOT will provide Massachusetts voters with a series of clear choices on the candidates--on issues, performance and style. But one of the clearest choices of all has nothing to do with candidates. It is on an idea. For all the lies, distortion and complex legalese, the essence of Question One, an amendment to the State Constitution calling for tax classification, is very clear indeed: should Massachusetts corporate interests be able to shift hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on to homeowners? Or, to phrase the question in a more loaded but equally accurate way: Will Big Business's fraudulent advertising campaign convince the citizens of Massachusetts to vote against their economic interests? We hope the answer to both these questions is no. For that to happen, voters must vote yes on Question One.

Therein lies part of the problem, of course. The issue has become so confusing that many voters have no idea what a Yes or No vote means on tax classification. That alone keeps business hopes alive. Every single office-holder and candidate for statewide office in Massachusetts, Democrat or Republican, is in favor of Question One (including Ed King). Ralph Nader calls it crucial. Boston Mayor Kevin H. White, as part of his machine-building, is banking his political future on it, in part because he realizes that its failure will mean angry homeowners storming City Hall to protest skyrocketing property taxes. And yet, by planting confusion in the voter's minds, the business community has kept the fate of Question One in doubt. From an advertising perspective, it is far easier for opponents of the amendment to say it does no good, than for proponents to convince voters that 100 per cent valuation is a serious danger.

But 100 per cent valuation really is a serious danger, and 100 per cent valuation is what Massachusetts will get if they defeat Question One. That's because a 1974 Supreme Court decision ordered cities and towns to conform to the law and bring their assessment up-to-date so everyone is taxed at full market?--100 per cent--of the value of their property. If Question One is defeated, that court decision will be implemented and $265 million in taxes will be shifted from commercial to residential property. In other words, a windfall for business and a serious blow to the already-strapped homeowner.

If Question One is approved, the State Constitution will be amended to allow cities and towns to tax property according to different "classes," with each class of property owners taxed at a different and appropriate rate. That would in effect give legal grounding to the status quo, preserving the right of homeowners to pay less in taxes than businesses do.

Two years ago, Massachusetts voters faced two other referenda that pitted the common good against corporate interests: the bottle bill and a graduated state income tax. Both lost. This time the stakes are higher. Homeowners pay too much in property taxes right now. To gently increase that burden will hurt not only homeowners but all of Massachusetts. It will make the "tax revolt" experienced so far seem tame by comparison. Approval of Question One is a necessity.