Not Surprised I Side With Jill Stein

featured image with text I side with Jill Stein

One of the mainstays of the Internet are self-check quizzes you can take. The ones I like are the political ones. The most famous is the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” to find out if one is a Libertarian – I’m not by the way. Another quiz that actually can help one understand US politics today is the isidewith.com. You answer questions on various issues and as if by magic the quiz tells you which Presidential candidate your views align with. I wasn’t surprised mine were aligned with Jill Stein from the Green Party.

Continue reading “Not Surprised I Side With Jill Stein”

Primary start to long election cycle

This week is when the rubber hits the road and all the glad handing and baby kissing done this past year takes a breather as the 2008 US Presidential election begins its primary phase. Politically I am an independent so I don’t get to vote for a candidate during the primaries nor do I want to.

Although I don’t vote in the primaries, I want to write about some of the choices available and why it doesn’t matter anyway and that primaries are only a dog and pony show at tax payer expense.

First up is Iowa and New Hampshire. Basically these 2 states are the 4th quarter of a close football game as one team tries all out to win it in the last 2 minutes of the game. If it works the winning team moves on to the playoffs and if not then they pretty much go home.

These first 2 contests starts the process of shaking the chafe from the stalks, as lessor candidates start to drop out as momentum and money flows elsewhere if they lose or lose badly.

The end of primary phase is the respective party conventions before Labor Day.

GOP

Sorry, I just can’t force myself to write anything about the GOP candidates. The part they are all playing this year is the anti-immigrant, anti religious freedom bigots and they all simply disgust me. If you really want to read something about them then check out this website that seems to gloss over their anti-American stances – Election Center 2008. I just can’t bring myself to give them any space for their so-called views in my blog.

Democrats

This is going to be the election that the Democrats have the inside track of winning since the GOP is in a tailspin and old 24% Dubya is in his last organismic throes as the guy that stands in front of microphones and tells us what Lord Cheney tells him to say.

Congress changed hands in 2006 even though the Dems have really not done anything yet less they upset Lord Cheney so while they have a good chance of winning the White House in 2008, they also have a great opportunity to fuck it up like they did in 2004.

While my fingers are crossed I will leave the party poppers in the closet until January 20th 2009 when a Democrat is actually taking the oath of office.

But who?

I would like to see Dennis Kucinich get the nomination but unless a majority of Democrats “grow a pair” I doubt he will get it. Kucinich is my kind of Democrat – against the war from day one, calling for impeachment of Lord Cheney, and I agree with most of his positions as to the economy and civil rights. Dennis is portrayed in the “media” as a kook but he is the only one I see who isn’t playing the “Republican Lite” game.

The “media” and most political insiders have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the ones duking it out for the nomination.

I really don’t have a problem with either one, but seeing as candidates are suppose to play to the extreme side of the party – since they are ones most likely to vote in the primary – Clinton and Obama have the “Republican Lite” down pat. We know how that worked for President Kerry…. oh wait….. Maybe this time the Dems could show an actual contrast with the GOP rather than a less extreme form of them.

Clinton is making an issue of experience claiming that since she was First Lady for 8 years that she is more experienced than Obama at being President. I don’t know how that claim is valid. That is like saying the wife of the fire chief is more experienced at being fire chief than an actual fireman.

I have just never bought into the idea that someone who has NEVER been the President of the United States can claim they have more experience just because they lived in the same house as a President. Someone can learn what the job is like but until you have to make the same decisions and take the responsibility for the decisions then you can’t claim you have experience in it.

Who would I choose?

One thing I tried to do was find out – If I could vote in the primaries – who I should vote for. By that I mean which person shares most of my views.

There are several unscientific “candidate match” websites out there. Basically they all present quotes or issues and you choose which ones that you agree with. At the end the websites show you which candidates matched your responses.

The first one I used is called Select Smart. The results I got is as follows:

1. Dennis Kucinich (86%)
2. Barack Obama (84%)
3. Joseph Biden (77%)
4. Christopher Dodd (77%)
5. Hillary Clinton (76%)
6. John Edwards (72%)

Another one I used was simply called VoteMatch Quiz

Chris Dodd (75%)
Cynthia McKinney (75%)
Dennis Kucinich (70%)
Hillary Clinton (68%)
John Edwards (63%)

The My Election Choices.com website uses actual quotes on different topics and you decide which one you agree with most. I decided to reduce the amount of time I would spend on the quiz and picked only a few of the topics available. The ones I picked were Education, Environment and Energy, Foreign Policy (General), Iraq War, and Separation of Church and State/Religion. The candidates I matched up with most were (number of quotes I agreed with follow the names):

Christopher Dodd (18)
Bill Richardson (14)
Hillary Clinton (11)
Dennis Kucinich (10)
Barack Obama (10)
John Edwards (9)

Cult of Personality

Of course, to the “media” and so-called talking heads, issues really don’t matter in a primary. I tend to agree that it is all a dog and pony show because the nominees will then morph into something bland and tasteless for general consumption during the run up to the general election.

If I were a registered Democrat or Republican, it really wouldn’t matter whom I voted for in the primary. No one will find a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue. If they did then it might just be your clone. Yet, progressive friends of mine use that as an excuse not vote period. They want perfection.

The candidates sometimes go negative and trash their competitors during the primaries then the party expects everyone to fall into line behind the winning nomination. Of course they forget the other party then uses the trash from the primary against them.

The reason I stay an independent and refuse to vote in a primary is because I think the whole primary system is a sham and at tax payer expense. It is a prime example why our elections are broken and suspect now. Both parties have used their power to pass laws to protect their “machines”. Where else, like the Ohio Revised Code, can one find detailed laws on how a state central committee is formed and operated. If that doesn’t smack of communism I don’t know what does. Is it really the business of state law to decide how a party is to govern itself?

Why is that when an office becomes vacant before an election that party of the past holder can appoint a replacement? It is just one way the system is manipulated by the two parties. They appoint a replacement who then is considered an incumbent in the next election.

Ballot access laws favor the two major parties because they wrote the law. They have different requirements for current parties and make it difficult for new parties to get on the ballot. Next to being an incumbent, the party label next to one’s name is a huge advantage (also having the same last name as a past or present office holder doesn’t hurt either).

I feel that if parties want to have primaries and conventions then they should do it on their own dime – not mine. Elections should be open to anyone who wants to run and we should have preferential voting.

Then maybe we’ll see the end of the dog and pony show and get back to elections about issues.

Election reform in Ohio gets heated

November 8th will see the attempt to reform the election process in Ohio. After the many corruption incidents with in State government and the problems with the elections in 2004 that drew unwanted attention from the rest of the country and the world, a group called Reform Ohio Now formed and got 4 issues on the ballot that address the major problems with Ohio’s current system.

Of course there is an opposition group called Ohio First that has just started airing adverts on TV as we come closer to the vote.

In the ad I saw I was struck on how vague it was and the use of buzzwords to create a negative feeling about the proposed issues. It talked about “special interest groups” being behind the issues. It said if the issues passed “voters would lose their voice” and the new process “wouldn’t be accountable” to the voter. The ad said that Ohioans would “lose their voice”.

Well I wanted to get some details and went to their site to read what they have to say. Here are their words with my comments:

Argument Against Issue 2

First, the adoption of this amendment is likely to lead to a significant increase in cases of fraudulent voting in Ohio, as experienced in other states that have adopted similar proposals. The proposed amendment does not contain a reliable method to protect the integrity of votes cast early, nor does it provide adequate safeguards to ensure that only eligible and qualified voters would be able to use these procedures.

Second, this amendment is not necessary because Ohio law already contains generous absentee voting provisions. Currently, any Ohio voter with a legitimate reason for being absent on Election Day can obtain an absentee ballot. In fact, there are 16 reasons that allow absentee voting under current Ohio law, including: military service; health and physical disability issues; work related issues; being age 62 or older; or, simply that the voter expects to be absent from the county on Election Day for personal reasons.

Third, the proposed amendment does not ensure that every Ohioan will have the same opportunity to vote early. The amendment does not establish a statewide standard that must be followed for designation of times and locations for early voting. The rules governing early voting could vary widely from county to county, because the amendment gives each county Board of Elections the discretion to designate the times and locations for early voting.

Because Ohio has absentee voting and provisional ballots (where people can vote on the day of an election if they had moved and not changed their registration before the normal registration deadline), there are laws on the books to qualify such ballots. The proposed amendment doesn’t change that. All the proposed amendment adds is that people can cast ballots at 35 days before the election WITHOUT having to give a reason. The amendment doesn’t prohibit the legislature from creating more laws to qualify such ballots. The actual text to the amendment starts “Any qualified elector entitled to vote in an election…” so it is assumed such ballots will be treated like absentee and provisional ballots are now (names checked in registration and votes counted 10 days after the election etc…).

Argument Against Issue 3

The proposed amendment would change how Ohio political campaigns are funded to benefit the wealthy and labor unions, to the disadvantage of all other Ohioans.

The proposed amendment allows labor unions to funnel unlimited amounts of money into the political process through a new type of political organization that is deceptively labeled a �small donor� action committee. In addition, there would be no obligation placed on labor unions to provide full disclosure regarding the source of this money, that could even be given by non-Ohio sources.

The proposed amendment would give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates because they would be permitted to use unlimited amounts of personal money in their campaigns. However, unlike Ohio’s current law, the proposed amendment would not permit an individual running against a wealthy opponent to raise additional campaign dollars to make the election competitive.

The proposed amendment would also place drastic restrictions on the ability of all other Ohioans to raise money to combat the undue influence of the wealthy and labor unions in Ohio elections. These restrictions are designed to silence the voices of ordinary Ohioans in the elections process.

Actually there are limits to the amount of money a particular grouping can donate. The “small donor” action committee mentioned above are limited as are the most common contribution – the multi-state action committee and regular Political Action Committee (PAC). Contributions to the “small donor” section is $50 per person.

Here’s the a brief section from the actual text of the amendment:

Contributions to a Candidate for Member of the General Assembly
$500 from a political action committee (PAC) or a campaign committee
$1,000 from an individual or a multi-candidate political committee
$10,000 from a small donor action committee
$25,000 combined from all affiliated national, state, county, and local political parties

Contributions to a County or Local Political Party
$1,000 from an individual, PAC, or committee for all purposes;
$2,000 from a multi-candidate political committee for all purposes;
$5,000 from a small donor action committee for all purposes

Text of Proposed Amendments

Recently in Ohio, the limits were raised from $2,500 to $10,000. This means an individual can contribute up to $20,000 a year to a candidate. This floods the electoral system with excessive amounts of special-interest money, squeezing out and limiting the influence of the average Ohio citizen. Also major contributors get special consideration in getting state contracts. That is how Tom Noe got the state involved in his rare coin investments at the heart of a current scandal. There was also the scandal involving contracts given for the new schools program. Those contracts of course went to the largest contributors to the current administration. Amendment 3 would severely put a crimp in the usual “pay to play” system in use now.

Argument Against Issue 4

First, the amendment would remove from the control of Ohio voters the power to establish districts for the Ohio General Assembly and the U.S. Congress, by abolishing the role of elected public officials in these important tasks. The proposed amendment would place this power in the hands of a new commission that is made up of 5 political appointees. Two of the commission members would be selected by judges and the others may be chosen by lot. The members of the commission would not be required to meet any minimum level of qualifications. Once appointed, the commissioners would serve for an indefinite period of time, and would never be accountable to Ohio voters.

Second, the proposed amendment would grant the commission virtually unlimited power to spend Ohio tax dollars, with essentially no control by Ohio voters or other state leaders. No other state commission has this extraordinary spending power.

Third, the proposed amendment would remove the current protection in the Ohio constitution that prevents the dilution of your vote. The proposed amendment would also delete from the Ohio Constitution the provisions designed to prevent �gerrymandering,� and would permit the creation of legislative districts that break up communities and neighborhoods.

Finally, the proposed amendment would remove from the Ohio Constitution the authority of Ohio’s courts to review the commission’s activities. Therefore, unlike all other Ohio public officials, political subdivisions, boards, commissions, and agencies, Ohio citizens would have virtually no ability to challenge the actions of this elected commission in Ohio’s courts. The commission should not be uniquely unaccountable and placed above the law.

The members of the commission would have to be a qualified elector (a voter) of Ohio and cannot be an elected official. Two are appointed by two separate judges and those two members appoint the other two from each party and one independent person. Any qualified elector can submit a plan for redistricting and the plan adopted has to score high on the criteria stated in the amendment. The first priority is to have competitive districts and end the usual “safe seat” scam we see now.

The other important part of the amendment is that ALL the proceedings have to be conducted in open meetings and minutes have to be available to the public.

Ohio First charges that the amendment removes the authority of the court to review the commission’s activities. The actual text puts that responsibility onto the legislature as it should be and commission members can be removed from office. The Ohio Supreme Court does have a part in the process but it can’t choose a plan or force the commission to pick a particular one.

Argument Against Issue 5

First, the proposed amendment would effectively end the local control over Ohio elections that is currently exercised by our bipartisan county elections boards.

Second, the proposed amendment would create a new statewide elections board that would consist of members who are politically appointed for 9-year terms, and would never be accountable to Ohio voters.

Third, the proposed amendment would eliminate the role of Ohio’s Secretary of State in Ohio’s election system. The new statewide board of political appointees would replace our elected Secretary of State. The proponents of this amendment clearly distrust the ability of Ohio voters to choose a public official to be in charge of Ohio’s election system.

Fourth, the proposed amendment would essentially give the appointed elections board a �blank check� to spend any and all tax dollars that it desires. The proposed amendment does not explain why it is necessary to give this group of political appointees the power to spend unlimited amounts of tax dollars, without being accountable to Ohio voters or elected Ohio public officials.

Well the 88 counties in Ohio have county boards of elections that act just like the proposed state board of elections. If that model is fine for the counties then why not the state?

This independent board would take over the duties that are currently performed by the Ohio secretary of state so “local control” is not even part of the proposed amendment – that would continue as usual.

The “political appointees” Ohio First talks about are appointed by the Governor and legislature. Their inference that the board in not accountable is false. Yes they have long terms but they are still appointed by the people we vote for. This isn’t any different than how local boards are appointed and the amendment requires the state board be bi-partisan.

The state board doesn’t have a blank check. The funding must come from the legislature and the only requirement is that it be fair and reasonable – just like any agency of the state government.

Ohio First is hoping that voters will not be that informed and will fall for their scare tactics. The amendments will take the politics and the money out of governing our state and will give the voter more of a voice. It will force redistricting and elections out of the smoke filled back rooms and into the public light so we can all see how they are working.