Thursday, November 6

Election thoughts

So i voted, it was pretty easy. Bob Barr, the libertarian, was not on the ticket. I had been debating with myself on who i should vote for, but ultimately i did not feel that any of the real candidates deserved my vote, (same as 2004) so i voted for John Galt. I guess he didn't win, but it was worth a try. As i was looking at my ballot, i noticed that 2 of the candidates were listed twice. Joe "the douche bag" Courtney, and some other goofus were listed under 2 parties. They were listed as members of the democratic party, and members of the working families party or some other such nonsense. What kind of a deal is this. First off i don't know what the working families party is, except that it doesn't exist. I take it this is someone for them to have one last advertisement for themselves. In case you are aren't sure you want to vote for the democrat or the republican, it turns out that the democrat is also for working families. I don't have a problem with that, as long as their vote totals from their 2 separate parties don't stack. If their totals from either side are the highest then fine he gets elected, but he can't add his totals from 2 different parties to beat out someone else. What kind of a deal is this. I never would have voted for joe "the douche bag" courtney anyway, but i will certainly never be voting for anyone who has the gall to put himself down as a member of 2 different parties. So on to my other thoughts.

First off, it is highly unlikely than anyone will be accepting public financing again. One easy way to encourage public financing is to say that if you don't take public money, and your opponent does then he gets your share also. (i.e. instead of 85 million he gets 170) This would make the decision to skip public financing much harder. Unfortunately it is far too logical, and therefore could never be accepted. Secondly Obama was receiving massive amounts of untraceable funds over the internet. This includes both money from foreign nationals (illegal) and probably money from people exceeding their giving limits (i don't know if any concrete cases of that were confirmed.) In either case if you are going to allow untraceable online donations in amounts of $200 then you might as well not have any limitations at all. I would suggest no limits except that where you got your money must be made public knowledge. If you got 20 million dollars from the oil company, then it has to be a matter of public record, and if the public doesn't like it they can vote you out. I consider limitations on funding for elections unconstitutional as a violation of freedom of speech.

Voter fraud. There were multiple investigations into ACORN for possible voter fraud. The thing that makes no sense to me, is why are all these registrations being sent through the mail. People should be required to show up to register to vote. When they show up, you can also take a photo id, just like for a drivers licence, and that can be your voter id. Would this eliminate all concerns about fraud? certainly not, but it seems a pretty simple way to ease most of them to me.

Mandate. Some people are already talking about the sweeping nature of this election being a mandate for the democrats. The republicans were wrong in claiming a mandate in 2004, and so are the democrats now. Both of these elections have been closer than most of the elections in the past hundred years. Obama got just over the number of votes that bush got in 2004, factor in the growth in population Obama is no more popular now than bush was in 2004, only could not draw anyone.

Obviously i was not rooting for Obama, but there were state ballot issues that turned out well. washington okayed assisted suicide, which was good. Michigan legalized marijuana, and masacheusettes decriminalized it. nebraska made affirmative action illegal. I support all those initiatives. California amended their constitution to make gay marriage illegal. That will appeal to some conservatives, not me. I believe all forms of marriage between consenting adults should be legalized (polygamy/gay marriage/incest (under the stipulation that at least one person is sterilized to prevent children)) But as long as people who support gay marriage refuse to support other choices of marriage, it doesn't bother me if they don't get their way either. (i consider it completely hypocritical to support gay marriage and not support polygamy.) MA also failed to pass an elimination of their income tax which was a shame. Such a measure almost got passed in 2000, then instead they passed a measure reducing the income tax on a yearly basis, and after a couple of years the legislature refused to honor it, and stopped reducing the income tax. It was hoped that the extra outcry over the legislatures audacity would get the bill over the edge, but it got crushed instead. Various unions raised millions of dollars to oppose it, and i guess it turned out to work. Jack "the double douche bag" Murtha managed to hold onto his seat. Which was was a real shame. I would have been happy with any outcome as long as that double douche bag lost, but he managed to hold on (his constituents ought to be ashamed of themselves.)

I think i had more thoughts, but i don't remember now. In any case, obviously the election didn't go the way i had hoped, but i will choose to be optimistic, and focus on the few things that did increase people's choices, seeing as how i am one of the few truly pro-choice voters.


Blogger Aras said...

i couldn't find a single article besides your blog post on "joe the douche bag courtney." is that a new nick name for him maybe? i guess it hasn't caught on.

re: income tax in ma. "Opponents spent more than $4.5 million fighting the measure, which would have saved the average taxpayer here about $3,600 a year." how funny is that?

holy shit! this is bizarre: Among the more unusual measures on this year’s ballots was one in Florida that would repeal an old clause in the state constitution that allows legislators to bar Asian immigrants from owning land. The repeal would be symbolic, as equal protection laws would prevent lawmakers from applying the ban. With 78 percent of precincts reporting just before 11 p.m. Tuesday, the vote was close, with 52 percent voting to preserve the clause.

ain't no law 'gainst killin chinamen.

regarding assisted suicide, i made some well informed comments on rachel's blog in september, which you will find at this link. i oppose it.

true libertarianism and pro-life/anti-euthanasia stances are not mutually exclusive. libertarians champion individual liberty, so if you consider a fetus to be an individual, and you're a libertarian, you are necessarily pro-life. euthanasia is more of a gray area, but my comments on rachel's post explain why i think so.

the greatest result i can imagine of voter fraud would be to convict obama on knowingly participating in it. how outrageous would that be? america elects, then jails, first black president.

i guess in the states it's easier to be optimistic. i wouldn't say i'm keeping my bags packed, but when people ask me why i'm upset that mccain lost my top two reasons are the economy (of the world: the f&f debacle is hitting the eu and eastern europe especially) and the security of NATO countries in the face of an increasingly aggressive russia.

3:39 AM  
Blogger Trashcan said...

Indeed if i were living in the russian sphere of influence, i would have my life in such a position that i could leave in a hurry. That is to say if i were you, i would hold most of my money in american or european banks, and not buy land or anything that can't be left in a hurry. To some extent the fact that you are a US citizen protects you because even russia does take over lithuania, they probably do not want to provoke the United States, and may respect a US citizen, but i would certainly be on my toes.

As far as abortion, that is the only issue on which i have not really taken a stand. Sometimes i lean one way, sometimes i lean the other.

1:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home