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.