Why Vote?

Anyone who has not been living under a rock in the USA knows, we have an election coming up.  By this time, many people are reaching their saturation point for political advertisements and discussions.  One of my Facebook friends has gone so far as to say that continued political posts showing up on his newsfeed could affect the poster's friendship status with him.  I feel his pain (annoyance, actually, but for some people it could be approaching their pain threshold).

Even though I have not contributed much to the political discussion this cycle, I do intend to vote.  I believe in the value of voting.

Now, I can hear some of the common objections, and I'd like to answer them.

"My vote doesn't count!"  Really?  If you vote doesn't count, then why do politicians and political parties spend so much money to get your vote?  Even for those running a low budget campaign, they have to get out to knock on doors, or go to places where people gather, such as malls, parks, concerts, fairs, etc.  They put in time, effort and money to get your vote, so it must mean something to them.

"All politicians are crooks!"  That's the best reason to vote!  Here in America, you get to choose your crook!
Let's say you have to cross a bridge, but you can go on either side of the bridge, left or right.  On the right side is a crook who wants to take $500 from you, and on the left, one who wants to take $500,000.  Now let's say you are part of a group of 11 people, and you have to cross the bridge together all at the same time.  Five want to go on the right, even though the crook on that side is ugly and appears threatening.  The other five want to go on the other side because that crook is handsome and charming.  Which crook would you choose?  Would you leave that choice up to other people?  That's what you do when you don't vote.

You want more reasons to vote?  Get out your wallet or pocketbook and make a list of everything in it.  Now go over that list and put a checkmark by every item that comes from a government agency (money, driver's license, etc.).  Do the same for every item that represents something regulated by the government.  Each checkmark is a reason to vote.

A New Type of Primary Election?

Tuesday was primary election day in Oklahoma. That night I looked up the election results online, and also read the comments posted by other readers. Of course, there was the usual back-and-forth about Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative views, plus comments on open vs. closed primaries.

On the primaries issue, both sides have a point. In a closed primary, independent voters can only vote on non-partisan offices (judges) and issues (state questions, bond issues, etc.), so a candidate favored by independents could be eliminated and the independents wouldn't have a say in the matter. In an open primary, voters in one party could unfairly strengthen a weak candidate that their own party's candidate can defeat easily.

So, I was thinking, why not a new type of primary? One that allows independents to vote on party candidates, but would not allow voters in one party to vote on the candidates of the other party. I guess you would call it a semi-open primary.

Here's the way it would work:

If you are a member of a party, you get your party's ballot that lists ONLY your party's candidates, candidates for non-partisan offices and non-partisan issues. If you are an independent voter, you get a ballot that lists ALL candidates for all contested offices (including the independent candidates), and non-partisan issues. This will allow independent voters to show their approval of partisan candidates.

Independent candidates must get ten percent (10%) of the vote to continue on to the general election. This will save the cost of added names of candidates that have no real chance of winning or influencing the outcome of an election.

I know this last part will put extra pressure on independent candidates to get out and campaign early, instead of waiting until after the primaries to make a strong effort. But isn't the purpose of a primary election to eliminate candidates? Why not eliminate independent candidates early? I also think it's a fair trade-off for allowing independent voters to vote on partisan candidates.

Besides, strong independents actually tend to muddy up general elections. Remember Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996? He drew voters away from the Republican candidates those years. Democrats tend to think of Bill Clinton as their party's savior after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, but the truth is that Perot was the deciding factor. The same thing happened in the 2002 Oklahoma governor's race. Brad Henry won that year because independent Gary Richardson drew votes away from Steve Largeant. If an independent candidate is strong enough to get past the primary, then that will alert the parties that they must account for that candidate and not focus on each other. Remember Jesse "The Body" Ventura?

Will this ever become a reality? Probably not, but hey, a blog is where people can put their thoughts out there for others to see and maybe discuss. And, you never know who will read this and start a move to make it happen...

Politics, politics, politics!

This presidential election campaign is starting to wear thin, and we're still in the primary stages! Other countries don't have election cycles that run this long. Now, America is not like other countries, but if political activities and processes are to be relevant to the general population, I think it would be okay to take a lesson from some of these other countries.

The big issue in the background is that the Democrats decided not to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, and these states will not likely allow re-votes. The Democrat convention is going to be up for grabs, despite what has happened in the primaries and caucauses. So, the Senators from Illinois and NewYork will continue to snipe at each other and maipulate things as best they can to defeat each other.

Here's how I would like to see the presidential primaries go:
States that rank in the lowest 25 in population vote first, up until April 15. Then the bigger states go, and have to finish by June 15. Then the surviving candidates take off from campaigning until a week after July 4th. The national conventions have to be done by the end of August. Campaigning begins in earnest after Labor Day.

I wonder, is there a reason that Election Day comes so soon after Halloween?

Politics, again

Well, Super Tuesday was almost a week ago, and the political landscape has changed a bit. Some of the changes were not to my liking, and they are beyond my control, but I did what I could. I voted. In the long run, voting is the most significant thing anyone can do during an election. Of course, you could actively campaign for the candidates and issues you care about, but isn't the goal of your campaigning to influence the votes of others?

Many question the need to follow the issues and vote. They think it doesn't affect them. Oh, but it does! If you want proof, look no further than your own pocketbook.
Get out your wallet or pocketbook sometime, along with blank sheet of paper. Make a list of everything you find in there. Then put a checkmark by anything that is issued or regulated by any government agency. Put a second mark by those items issued by the government. Now count up the number of items and the number of check marks. Divide the number of check marks by the numer of items, and multiply that by 100. That gives you the percentage of how much you should care about politics and government policy.

Of course, some say that all politicians are crooks, and they don't deserve your vote. Well, I will say, that in America, you get to choose your crook. Let's say you are given a choice between a crook who wants $50 of you money, and another who wants $50, 000. Which one would you choose?
And that's not the most relevant aspect of this situation. The politicians are going to get elected anyway. Do you want to let someone else decide which crook takes your money?

Politics and religion

Two topics you should never discuss in bars and at family reunions. But on a blog -- they're in open season. In this presidential election cycle, I've seen more discussion of the role religion plays in politics. Here's a few of my thoughts:

Most say you shouldn't mix politics and religion. If you are talking about basing political decisions on religous affliation, I would agree. The conflict in Northern Ireland is an example of that. When it comes to political positions based on religous beliefs, how can you keep those separated?

Too many people try to make Jesus into some kind of a social or political revolutionary. Sure, He talked about taking care of the poor. But He never said anything about government doing that. He did say we would always have poor people among us. Why do some then try to eliminate poverty by political or government means? I often hear people say the government shouldn't spend money on the space program, the war on drugs, military defense, etc., that the money should be spent on the poor. Yet I never hear anyone say that candidates for political office shouldn't spend millions on TV ads, that that money should go to the poor. (I will probably add another post later, on whether Jesus is a conservative or a liberal, and go more in depth.)

Many of my fellow evangelical Christians are reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I do see most Mormon beliefs as false, so I would nver encourage any one to become a Mormon. But does that disqualify him as President? IIRC, President Taft in the early 20th cetnury was a Unitarian. Unitarians' basic beliefs differ from those of most who call themselves Christian. While Taft might not be regarded as a great or outstanding president, he is not considered to be a bad president either. He also served on the Supreme Court after his presidency, and his record as a justice is comparable to his record as president. In light of this, and considering Romney's record, his experience in government and business, and the way he conducts himself, I would have no problems with him as president. Of the candidates left in the race, he appears the most presidential to me.

Illegal Immigration - I finally get political

I skirted around politcs in my posts on Global Warming, but this time I get political. The following opinion is my own viewpoint, and even though it may resemble or coincide with the views of others, I am not merely echoing what someone else has said.

For most people, school is where they learn the basic rules of society. I'm not talking about laws or morals, but the practical guidelines that keeps society more or less functioning normally.

One of those rules is: Don't cut in line. Those that cut in line, unless they have a good reason, or are given special premission, are acting unfairly. Everyone needs to wait their turn.

Illlegal immargants, no matter which country they come from, Guatamala, Mexico, or China, are cutting in line. They are unfair to all the legal immigrants who have waited for their turn to enter the United States. They are even more unfair to those still waiting.

Yet, these illegals have the nerve to protest laws against open borders, hiring of illegals, etc., and they claim these laws are unfair! It seems to me they want us to just accept them with open arms and let them have their way with our country.

Maybe our immigration policy and procedures do need a good review to loosen things up a bit. But a whole scale amnesty is out of the question. We need stricter enforcement of current laws and more security of our borders - FIRST! Then we can talk amnesty.

Even then, the only amnesty I would support is for those who wish to become citizens. I would also have a limited enrollment period and enrollment happens only at designated processing centers. The processing centers would be given 3 months to prepare for the enrollment period. The centers would be open for limited time, where the illegals come in, give their information, and receive a card that gives them permission to stay. The cards will be only temporary. After the initial intake period, the immigrants would come back and receive a card that is good for one year. During that one year they have to start a citizenship course. Those caught with an expired card will be arrested and deported. Those without any amnesty card will be arrested and deported. If someone has an amnesty card and they are found guilty of a felony or major misdemeanor, they will be kicked out of the amnesty system.

I know this sounds like a new bureaucracy, but I would also give the entire program a limited lifespan of no more than 5 years without a chance of renewal. At the end of the enrollment period enforcement of immigration laws would be stepped up.