In Massachusetts, today (Tuesday, 9/14/2010) is pre-Election Day, so to speak: primaries. Get thee hence to the polling place designated to your location!
More interesting are the ballot initiatives which we don't get to vote on til November. Here in Mass, right-wingnut Carla Howell is again proposing a state sales tax cut, from 6.25% to 3%. Past attempts have scored an alarming number of votes, and the teabagger movement could conceivably push it over the top this year. Of course, after you watch this awesome music video, you'll probably be convinced of the idea's merit. Howell fancies herself a singer-songwriter, apparently, and recorded this hysterical tune "How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?"
Ouch.
For a rundown of the three ballot questions this year, go here:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts_2010_ballot_measures
A general guide to the Mass elections can be found at the Globe's site. Less details on the questions, but will detail all of the elections.
But basically, when it comes to the questions, vote No on all three. Do it! I told you to! There's no need for you to think about it!
As a voter enrolled neither as Democrat or Republican, I can go in and choose either of their ballots for their respective primaries. I checked out the Democrats' ballot, and became pretty disinterested; most are running unopposed. I'm thinking of taking a Republican ballot so I can vote for the craziest candidates I can find. There's a Tea Party guy running for auditor named Kamal Jain; and there's this awesome Harvard U physicist named Mike Stopa running for 3rd District US rep:
He's all for the Arizona anti-immigrant law. Meanwhile: "We have four beautiful children. At least, I think they're beautiful." Amusingly, he's married to a Japanese woman, and so his Japanese-American children look like they might be stopped and interrogated were they to actually travel to Arizona.
Sadly, we can't vote for this next guy. Greatest. Stump speech. Ever. Enter Phil Davison, who's "RUNNING FOR THE POSITION OF STARK COUNTY TREASURER!!!"
"DRASTIC TIMES REQUIRES WHAT! DRASTIC MEASURES! YES!!! WHO SAID THAT!!!"
Of course, any such video treasure demands instant remixes:
Phil Davison is Coming (Braveheart Remix)
Thus Spake Phil Davison (A Space Odyssey Remix)
History's Great Speeches (Phil Davison Remix)
PHIL DAVISON - (EPIC TRANSFORMERS THEME REMIX)
Phil Davison (FOX News Version)
And of course:
Phil Davison (Sparta Remix)
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, September 13, 2010
Monday, October 27, 2008
Am I boring you yet?
Okay, in addition to the low-key excitement I feel in Alaska giving a senate seat to the Democrats, there are some other big senate races that I've been looking at lately. The most highly-contested elections all lean heavily toward the Dems taking more Republican seats.
In Georgia, Republicans have trounced the last two elections. But this year, the Dem candidate (Jim Martin) is only 2% behind incumbent Saxby Chambliss. Of course, seeing as how Georgia has gotten an early start in disrupting peoples' right to vote, that's a big 2%. There's also the obstacle of having to run against an opponent with such a cool name.
In Kentucky, 4-term Mitch McConnell won his last re-election (in 2002) 65-35%. Somehow, his lead over the latest Dem challenger (Bruce Lunsford) has shrunk down below 4%! I'd be amazed if the seat changed hands. The polls vary widely for this one though... last week, one had him at +7%, and another had them at dead even.
In Minnesota, of course, there's Al Franken. He's split the polls with incumbent Norm Coleman. Actually, most polls put Franken ahead, but a couple lopsided ones for Coleman average them out.
When Franken first got his show on Air America Radio, I called in and spoke with him, once, in mid-2004. He was of the belief that somehow the voter suppression bullshit that plagued the 2000 election would no longer be a factor. He actually said - seriously - that congress would fix the system. I called him naive, though I used nicer words. I wonder how he feels about it these days... more importantly, I wonder how he'll feel about it if he loses this election.
Mega-Republican voting Mississippi is somehow a contest. The guy that picked up the pieces of Trent Lott's seat in the senate is named Roger Wicker, and he's got barely a lead over some guy named Ronnie Musgrave. Lott used to win his elections by 30%+. His feller senator from Mississippi is Thad Cochran, and he's had his position for 30 years now... I looked him up when I was reading about Wicker v. Musgrave, and saw that he won his last re-election in 2002, by a score of 85-15%. Christ.
In New Hampshire, ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen looks set to rid congress of the vile presence of John Sununu. They went up against each other in 2002, and she lost by 4%; now she's up by 8%.
In New Mexico, it seems a done deal that a Democrat is taking Republican Sen. Pete Domenici's seat. He didn't run for re-election, and Tom Udall is whipping Republican Steve Pearce in the polls. The other senator from NM is Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who has been wicked popular for 25 years now.
The Dems could also possibly take North Carolina, which sounds unreal. A current state senator, Kay Hagan, is actually up a point or two over Elizabeth Dole, hoping for a second term after she took over from Asshole "Jesse" Helms. Taking her out would be huge. Of course John Edwards quit the other seat in 2004, and the current guy is a Republican... I guess that seat has bobbled back and forth between parties for 30 years now.
In Oregon, Gordon Smith, Republican, has held down his chair for about 10 years. Now he's being beat by State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, but only by a little. The other seat is held by a Democrat, who also took it from a Republican 10 years ago.
Lastly, in Virginia, their big-shot 5-term Republican Senator John Warner didn't re-up again, basically handing the seat to wicked popular ex-Gov. Mark Warner, who's up by like 30%... over a Republican, in a supposedly red state. The Republican was actually Warner's predecessor in the governor's mansion, and isn't leprous or anything, but is getting so trounced. Of course, Warner's winning because of that fake, north Virginia.
There, reading I done did for my own demented enjoyment is now yours. It's heartening to see how many seats might well change hands, particularly because next to none of them involve the possibility of a Republican taking a Democrat's existing seat.
In Georgia, Republicans have trounced the last two elections. But this year, the Dem candidate (Jim Martin) is only 2% behind incumbent Saxby Chambliss. Of course, seeing as how Georgia has gotten an early start in disrupting peoples' right to vote, that's a big 2%. There's also the obstacle of having to run against an opponent with such a cool name.
In Kentucky, 4-term Mitch McConnell won his last re-election (in 2002) 65-35%. Somehow, his lead over the latest Dem challenger (Bruce Lunsford) has shrunk down below 4%! I'd be amazed if the seat changed hands. The polls vary widely for this one though... last week, one had him at +7%, and another had them at dead even.
In Minnesota, of course, there's Al Franken. He's split the polls with incumbent Norm Coleman. Actually, most polls put Franken ahead, but a couple lopsided ones for Coleman average them out.
When Franken first got his show on Air America Radio, I called in and spoke with him, once, in mid-2004. He was of the belief that somehow the voter suppression bullshit that plagued the 2000 election would no longer be a factor. He actually said - seriously - that congress would fix the system. I called him naive, though I used nicer words. I wonder how he feels about it these days... more importantly, I wonder how he'll feel about it if he loses this election.
Mega-Republican voting Mississippi is somehow a contest. The guy that picked up the pieces of Trent Lott's seat in the senate is named Roger Wicker, and he's got barely a lead over some guy named Ronnie Musgrave. Lott used to win his elections by 30%+. His feller senator from Mississippi is Thad Cochran, and he's had his position for 30 years now... I looked him up when I was reading about Wicker v. Musgrave, and saw that he won his last re-election in 2002, by a score of 85-15%. Christ.
In New Hampshire, ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen looks set to rid congress of the vile presence of John Sununu. They went up against each other in 2002, and she lost by 4%; now she's up by 8%.
In New Mexico, it seems a done deal that a Democrat is taking Republican Sen. Pete Domenici's seat. He didn't run for re-election, and Tom Udall is whipping Republican Steve Pearce in the polls. The other senator from NM is Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who has been wicked popular for 25 years now.
The Dems could also possibly take North Carolina, which sounds unreal. A current state senator, Kay Hagan, is actually up a point or two over Elizabeth Dole, hoping for a second term after she took over from Asshole "Jesse" Helms. Taking her out would be huge. Of course John Edwards quit the other seat in 2004, and the current guy is a Republican... I guess that seat has bobbled back and forth between parties for 30 years now.
In Oregon, Gordon Smith, Republican, has held down his chair for about 10 years. Now he's being beat by State House Speaker Jeff Merkley, but only by a little. The other seat is held by a Democrat, who also took it from a Republican 10 years ago.
Lastly, in Virginia, their big-shot 5-term Republican Senator John Warner didn't re-up again, basically handing the seat to wicked popular ex-Gov. Mark Warner, who's up by like 30%... over a Republican, in a supposedly red state. The Republican was actually Warner's predecessor in the governor's mansion, and isn't leprous or anything, but is getting so trounced. Of course, Warner's winning because of that fake, north Virginia.
There, reading I done did for my own demented enjoyment is now yours. It's heartening to see how many seats might well change hands, particularly because next to none of them involve the possibility of a Republican taking a Democrat's existing seat.
Ch-ching....
Late-breaking news: Sen. Ted Stevens vows to fight his conviction on federal corruption charges and says he remains a candidate for re-election.
The first senators for Alaska were Democrats, beginning at the time of initial statehood (1959). Sen. Ernest Gruening was replaced by another Democrat, Mike Gravel, at the start of 1969; while the other first senator, Bob Bartlett, was replaced by Republican Ted Stevens at the same time.
Republican Frank Murkowski - later replaced by his daughter Lisa - have held onto Gravel's seat since 1981, but for Stevens, his reign is about to end, after 38 years. He and Democrat Mark Begich (mayor of Anchorage) have been in a dead tie in the polls for his re-election, whereas Stevens had previously been re-elected by wide margins, time after time.
So, long story short: the Dems just picked up a seat in the senate, in the state that's home to the opposing party's candidate for VP, no less.
An interesting part of this story, though, is of the incoming Senator Mark Begich: his father, Nick Begich, was a representative in congress from 1970-1972, at the end of which he disappeared in a plane crash, the remains of which have never been discovered. But the Republican that he beat for his seat in congress back in 1970 was... Frank Murkowski, who as mentioned above, ended up making it as a senator in 1981.
Murkowski held his seat in the senate until he gave it to his daughter Lisa in 2002, as he had won governorship of Alaska. Which he then lost to some zero-experience wretch from his own party, named Sarah Palin. Now all that's left for Mark Begich is to steal the governorship from Palin in 2010. And uh, hand off his senate seat to someone in his family.
How the fuck is it allowed for an elected official to just pass on their job to a family member? It happens all the time, though I've no idea how or why. I guess I have more reading to do.
The first senators for Alaska were Democrats, beginning at the time of initial statehood (1959). Sen. Ernest Gruening was replaced by another Democrat, Mike Gravel, at the start of 1969; while the other first senator, Bob Bartlett, was replaced by Republican Ted Stevens at the same time.
Republican Frank Murkowski - later replaced by his daughter Lisa - have held onto Gravel's seat since 1981, but for Stevens, his reign is about to end, after 38 years. He and Democrat Mark Begich (mayor of Anchorage) have been in a dead tie in the polls for his re-election, whereas Stevens had previously been re-elected by wide margins, time after time.
So, long story short: the Dems just picked up a seat in the senate, in the state that's home to the opposing party's candidate for VP, no less.
An interesting part of this story, though, is of the incoming Senator Mark Begich: his father, Nick Begich, was a representative in congress from 1970-1972, at the end of which he disappeared in a plane crash, the remains of which have never been discovered. But the Republican that he beat for his seat in congress back in 1970 was... Frank Murkowski, who as mentioned above, ended up making it as a senator in 1981.
Murkowski held his seat in the senate until he gave it to his daughter Lisa in 2002, as he had won governorship of Alaska. Which he then lost to some zero-experience wretch from his own party, named Sarah Palin. Now all that's left for Mark Begich is to steal the governorship from Palin in 2010. And uh, hand off his senate seat to someone in his family.
How the fuck is it allowed for an elected official to just pass on their job to a family member? It happens all the time, though I've no idea how or why. I guess I have more reading to do.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Value of a Vote Under the Electoral College System
I have many current thoughts to spill here, but I'd also like to run some repeats of a small number of entries I wrote in a previous blog.
This first one is some research I did - just to satisfy my own curiosity - on the inequalities of the electoral college system by which our voting public chooses our president and vice-president... or doesn't. Just how much is your vote worth, compared to that of someone else in another state? The worst example is that of Wyoming and Florida: a vote in the former state is worth four times as much as that of a Floridian, in terms of their representation by certain numbers of electors.
Even disregarding the fraud of the 2000 election, Al Gore received more individuals' votes than Bush; yet of course, he lost on account of - besides fraud and numerous unethical practices - our unfair electoral system. And thus, as a result, our country has suffered, and the poor people of Iraq have suffered far more... but that's for a different discussion (read: rant).
One might say that the earliest example of an electoral college was the College of Cardinals (responsible for electing a new pope) in the year 1059, which still survives to this day, but I'm not quite sure as to whom they're representing. In the late Middle Ages (16th century), a college of "prince-electors" became the ones to select an emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. Our system has been in place since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, though it has been amended on two occasions: in 1804, the 12th amendment was passed, but it isn't quite relevant to this analysis; and in 1978, the District of Columbia was granted representation in the electoral college system.
A good itemization of the pros and cons of this system can be found at trusty Wikipedia; here's an excerpt:
In 2000, I actually voted for Ralph Nader, because in the case of "third parties," winning 5% of the votes in the general count qualifies them for federal funding in the next election. I didn't want Nader to win, but I wanted the Green Party (or any lefty third party) to become empowered (dream on!). Were we to have a general election in which all votes were counted equally, I would certainly have voted for Gore, and helped to save countless lives, etc.... Sorry, I really can't stop myself. What, me bitter?
This first one is some research I did - just to satisfy my own curiosity - on the inequalities of the electoral college system by which our voting public chooses our president and vice-president... or doesn't. Just how much is your vote worth, compared to that of someone else in another state? The worst example is that of Wyoming and Florida: a vote in the former state is worth four times as much as that of a Floridian, in terms of their representation by certain numbers of electors.
Even disregarding the fraud of the 2000 election, Al Gore received more individuals' votes than Bush; yet of course, he lost on account of - besides fraud and numerous unethical practices - our unfair electoral system. And thus, as a result, our country has suffered, and the poor people of Iraq have suffered far more... but that's for a different discussion (read: rant).
One might say that the earliest example of an electoral college was the College of Cardinals (responsible for electing a new pope) in the year 1059, which still survives to this day, but I'm not quite sure as to whom they're representing. In the late Middle Ages (16th century), a college of "prince-electors" became the ones to select an emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. Our system has been in place since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, though it has been amended on two occasions: in 1804, the 12th amendment was passed, but it isn't quite relevant to this analysis; and in 1978, the District of Columbia was granted representation in the electoral college system.
A good itemization of the pros and cons of this system can be found at trusty Wikipedia; here's an excerpt:
The Electoral College is intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state.This last paragraph describes a theory, but expresses it in a somewhat opinionated manner. I think that the last sentence in particular is completely false. I live in Massachusetts, a hardcore blue state; if I was interested in voting Republican (ha!), I might as well not vote at all in the presidential election. Since the Democratic candidate will always handily take Massachusetts, the votes for a Republican candidate are useless, and count for nothing.
...Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equally weighted vote, regardless of what state they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in states with small populations.
...Essentially, the Electoral College ensures that candidates, particularly in recent elections, pay attention to key 'swing-states' (those states that are not firmly rooted in either the Republican or Democratic party). It equally assures that voters in states that are not believed to be competitive will be disregarded.
In 2000, I actually voted for Ralph Nader, because in the case of "third parties," winning 5% of the votes in the general count qualifies them for federal funding in the next election. I didn't want Nader to win, but I wanted the Green Party (or any lefty third party) to become empowered (dream on!). Were we to have a general election in which all votes were counted equally, I would certainly have voted for Gore, and helped to save countless lives, etc.... Sorry, I really can't stop myself. What, me bitter?
I think that the electoral college system made good sense back when it was introduced, and in recent years has become increasingly counter-productive. One main factor in this is the great advancements of technology: candidates now have the abilities to travel great distances quickly and easily, and to reach voters everywhere via mass media. This greatly reduces the need for our obsolete system, and instead has created inequities in the value of our individual votes.
And now for the data, so you can see these inequities for yourself. I compiled this information in 2004, and so used census information from they year 2000, in which the travesty of injustice occurred. I remember calling in to Al Franken's show on Air America (liberal talk radio) at the time when they were discussing the upcoming election and the fear of fraud (often centering on the Diebold machines). He believed that Congress would make great progress in passing legislation to prevent foul play, and I of course disagreed with him. In your face, Franken!
Inequality of Votes in Presidential Elections Under the Electoral College System
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)