unmutualgrizzly.com

Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

Six days ago a fairly significant political upset occurred during a special Senate election in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican won the Senate seat previously occupied for 47 years by Sen. Ted Kennedy. The outcome of this election has stirred up a tidal wave of political analysis that threatens to drown us all in its punditry, and frankly, I’ve just been waiting for the dust to settle before weighing in.

Well, that was a waste of six days. As it turns out, there is no definitive answer as to why Republican Scott Brown won, what his win means, or what message the voters were trying to send to Washington. Did Scott brown win because he put his exact views on the table and let you know who he was, or did he win because of who he wasn’t? Did his opponent Martha Coakley lose because she ran a poor campaign, because she took the Democratic voter support for granted, or because an unlikely grassroots effort overwhelmed her (or all of the above)? Does Scott Brown’s win mean health care reform is dead, or does it just need to be different? Will this new senator and his overthrow of the 60 vote majority cause more bipartisan cooperation in Washington or will it further harden the Democrats to get done whatever they can before the 2010 midterm elections? Were the voters of Massachusetts trying to send a message that they’re unhappy with health care reform, Government bailouts for large corporations, Constitutional rights for terrorists and perceived tax hikes, or were they upset that the Democratic majority couldn’t get items from their progressive agenda passed with any haste (or at all)?

As it turns out, you don’t have to go far to find an equal number of people that will come down on either side of those and many other questions surrounding the election of Scott Brown. So I’ve decided to tell you what I do know for sure, and I think it’s every bit as important. As anyone who regularly reads my columns knows, I believe that the right to vote is probably the most sacred right we possess, and that being said, I saw many encouraging things in last Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts. First off, the voter turnout was quite high by any standard, but it was even more impressive when considering that it was a special election with only one item on the ballot, and the weather around the state was cold, snowy and wet (which can often keep people from the polls)(read more about the voter turnout here in an article by the NY Daily News). High voter turnout is always a good thing, because it means people are getting involved, and regardless of the outcome, people have made a personal investment in the direction of the country.

The number of voters who turned out is only a fraction of the reason the voters of Massachusetts deserve a Roar of Approval. The larger reason is how they voted. For anyone who doesn’t reside in Massachusetts let me tell you that getting a competitive political race is no small task. It is a state that has three registered Democrats for every registered Republican, a state where 85% of the state legislature are Democrats, a state where all 10 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are Democrats, and a state that hasn’t had a Republican U.S. Senator since 1979, and where the senate seat won by Scott Brown has be a Democrat since 1952. Taking these facts into account it’s very easy to see why this election was considered such an upset, but more than an upset it was revelatory moment. We saw that the voters aren’t stupid and they aren’t sheep. When a combination of factors that people care about converge, like a poor economy, high unemployment, health care, terrorism, and taxes, people are willing to think and vote with an independent mind. Even I am guilty of not giving the voters enough credit, accusing them (during calmer times) of just going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for either a D or an R, depending on political persuasion, without knowing all that much about the candidates, or worse, not voting at all. My previous criticism of voters may have been fair or unfair, but it clearly was not the case in Massachusetts this time around, as they went against their own political stripe in these uncertain times, and came out in droves.

In my ideal world no political parties would exist, and each candidate would have to tell you what they stand for, and what direction they think the country should go, and the voters would have to pay close attention to elections to know who to vote for, not being able to rely on traditional party affiliation. That will probably never happen, but I feel that the election in Massachusetts is probably as close as we will get, where voters looked hard at the candidates and put party politics aside, voting independently and presumably for who they thought would be the best advocate for them. I can’t lie, I never thought I’d say that about Massachusetts, and to steal a line from all those political talking heads, “If it can happen in Massachusetts it can happen anywhere”…and I hope it does.

I had a minor revelation the other day about how to choose a candidate to vote for in any given election, and I’ve got to say I was really overcomplicating things. When we look into the people that we will potentially vote for we seek out info from news outlets, we watch debates on TV, or we even listen to campaign ads, but what do we hear? If you had asked me that last week I’d have told you that every piece of available information is important, and someone that takes their right to vote seriously will digest as much data about the candidates as they can before coming to a final conclusion. Then I had an eye-opening conversation with a very wise friend of mine, regarding the upcoming special Senate election in Massachusetts on Jan 19th.

For those who don’t know, Massachusetts (where I currently reside) is having a special election on January 19th to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy. The nation has turned its eyes to this race because the crucial 60th Democratic Senate Vote (needed to push through legislation in an unobstructed fashion) hangs in the balance, and the race is closer than people expected. The election features Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley (Democrat) vs. State Senator Scott Brown (Republican). I asked my friend who he’d be voting for, and before I tell you his answer, let me tell you what provoked my question. Earlier this week the final debate between these candidates was held, and during that debate Mrs. Coakley said we should withdraw from Afghanistan because the Taliban and terrorists are no longer there, and that they’ve moved on to other countries like Yemen and Pakistan. This is the same Afghanistan where 8 CIA operatives were killed by terrorists merely 10 days earlier. Oops…

Following this debate Mrs. Coakley took a trip to Washington D.C. where she was hounded by some journalists about her statement regarding Afghanistan. At one point things got ugly and someone on Coakley’s staff pushed one of these reporters into a barrier and to the ground. Coakley was asked about the incident and said she couldn’t comment because she hadn’t seen what had happened. Unfortunately for her someone was shooting video of the incident, and she can be seen looking right at what happened (you can watch the YouTube video here, as well as a video of her comment about the Taliban and Afghanistan here). Heck, let’s pile on while we’re at it and listen to the audio from the radio program “Nightside with Dan Rea” on YouTube, where she calls Red Sox Legend Curt Schilling a Yankee Fan in an effort to discredit his endorsement of opponent Scott Brown (listen here). Clearly Attorney General Coakley has made a few political gaffs in the past two weeks, and this is what prompted me to goad my friend into telling me who he was voting for, as he is a fairly staunch progressive that usually votes for the democrat candidate.

“I’m voting for Martha Coakley, of course.” was his response to me. I asked him how he could be comfortable voting for someone who has just in the last two weeks clearly showed some serious flaws, not to mention her reputation in Massachusetts for being soft on crime, and he told me he was quite comfortable with his decision. I was a bit stunned because at the very least I expected him to either deny the facts about his candidate, or at least defend them with some form of argument, but instead he conceded all my points about Mrs. Coakley and simply told me that they didn’t matter to him. He finished by telling me, “All that matters is how they’re going to vote on key legislation once they get elected”. That was my moment of clarity, when I realized an important truth, and I thanked him for it.

I’m always writing about all the power our Representatives have to change the way we live in a moment, and how important it is to put the right people in place. After all, they can pass legislation to take more money from you, or give more back. They can ban something you love from being legal, or make something legal that was previously unavailable to law-abiding citizens. They can change the way you pay for and receive health care. They can do all these things and much more, and they can do it relatively quickly. These things can effect the very way we live from day to day, and I’m always preaching about that, so you’d think I would’ve come to this conclusion earlier. It doesn’t matter who they are. Some of them will be exposed as liars (see above), others will get caught having extra-marital affairs, still others will show their ineptitude on important issues (again see above), but in the end, when your faced with two candidates in a voting booth, the only thing that matters is how they’re going to vote once they get elected. Are they going to support the things you care about, and vote down the things you abhor?

The best part is that the most transparent thing about most candidates is how they will vote on future issues. Many of them have voting records at lower levels of government (like state and local), and almost all have their views posted right on their website, so there is little question as to which legislation they will support, and which ones they won’t. I would rather vote for a person who lies to me on occasion, makes idiotic statements, sleeps with his secretary and experimented with drugs in college, rather than someone who is a pinnacle of virtue, assuming that the former will vote to lower my taxes, keep us safe, protect my rights and liberties, downsize government and reform health care in a non-socialist way (the things I care about), and that the latter will do the opposite. In the end, if I am true to myself, don’t I have to vote this way.

2010 is here, and the most important thing that may happen this year is the mid-term elections in November. All 435 House seats are up for grabs and 36 of the 100 Senate seats are also being contested. This is an opportunity to express any discontent you may have, and force a nationwide change-of-direction, simply by casting your vote for the candidate that will best represent you. It can also be an opportunity to express your approval for a job well done, if you favor the current direction and policy-making proficiency of our national legislature. However, your vote can only have an impact when it is not cancelled out by an act of voter fraud.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of these conspiracy theorists who thinks that every election is being bought and sold behind closed doors, but cases of voter fraud are occurring at a rate that I do find discomforting. There was the famous case of ACORN in 2008, which is an activist group that was caught filing thousands of fake voter registrations in multiple states (read the CNN story from 10/10/08 here). After every election we hear stories of votes being cast by voters that are deceased, have fake names, or have since moved away. How is that possible? Well, the main problem is that only 7 states require a photo ID in order to vote and 25 of the 50 states don’t require any form of identification at all (including my home state of Massachusetts). That sounds like an open invitation for those who are inclined to defraud the system. (See the full list of voter ID requirements by State here).

Since I live in one of the states with no ID requirements, let me tell you what my voting experience is like. I go to my local polling location (usually a high school or public facility) and approach a folding table that is staffed by 2-3 very nice elderly women. They ask me for my name and address, I tell them, they then look up my name on a list and cross me off. I am handed a ballot and guided to a private voting booth. When I’m done, I insert my ballot into a machine and leave. Seems normal enough, except I could have told them I was anyone. I could have told them I was my next door neighbor, my mailman, or my uncle that recently died but is still a registered voter. As long as I know the person’s address I could drive to the different polling places all over town and vote multiple times. The worst part is that the reason I’m able to get away with it is the same reason I would have relatively little fear of being caught. It’s because no form of ID is required. I can vote as anyone I want, and after the fact how could you prove who actually voted since no photo ID was asked for. Does this seem like a problem to anyone else?

Some of you may be thinking that I’m blowing this topic a little out of proportion. After all, most elections are decided by wide margins, and even narrow margins are still thousands of votes, and although voter fraud may occur, it probably isn’t effecting the overall outcome, especially in the big national elections that matter most. I ask you to consider three things. First and foremost you should be outraged on principle, because any fraudulent vote that is cast for the opposing candidate cancels out your vote, and voting is the most sacred privilege that is bestowed upon us by our country. Knowing that there are people out there taking your vote away from you, and being able to do it with such easy should cause a violent emotional response. The second thing we must remember is that local elections (towns, cities and counties) can effect eventual state and federal elections. Most of our national elected officials started off as local officials and worked their way up, and local elections are by far the most lax in their ID procedures and are decided by much fewer votes, making voter fraud much more effective. The last thing we should remember is the amount of votes that decided the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000. Need I say more?

So what’s the solution? It’s so painfully obvious it makes you wonder why it has only been implemented by 7 states. Requirement of a government (state or federal) issued photo ID solves the problem instantly. You walk in to vote, they ask for your name and ID, you show it to them and you’re on your way. Only the correct registered voter would ever be able to vote, problem solved. What’s the argument against it? The main push-back against such a requirement is that it may disenfranchise lower-income voters who don’t have driver’s licenses and can’t afford to get the photo ID. In a sense, they would have to pay a fee in order to vote and that may prevent some people from being able to do it, and discourage others from doing it, and that would be an unlawful practice. In the U.S. we have the right to vote. We also have the freedom to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, but not without showing a photo ID (the store doesn’t take my word for it when I tell them my age). We have the freedom to own and operate motor vehicles, but not without carrying a state-issued photo ID on us at all times. Still not convinced? We have the freedom to get on an airplane and fly to anywhere in the country we want, but not without showing a photo ID and proving our identities before we even set foot on the airplane. I don’t hear any civil liberties groups screaming about poor people being “disenfranchised” from their freedom to buy a six-pack of Schlitz or catch a red-eye to Atlanta, because of the costs associated with getting a photo ID.

However, I like to think I’m a fairly generous guy, so for the sake of this article I’m going to concede the point above, because even if it stops only one person from being able to vote, such a policy would be unacceptable. In any issue involving voter’s rights or a possible infringement on a person’s ability to vote we should air on the side of caution, so I’ve got a solution. I believe that a photo ID requirement for voters should be passed on a federal level, and that acceptable photo IDs should be one of the following: 1.) A state-issued driver’s license. 2.) A state-issued photo ID. 3.) A military ID 4.) A federally-issued photo ID. However, I believe that state or federal photo IDs should be free. After all, anyone with a driver’s license has already paid to get that, so the majority of American adults would be covered. It would be in a state’s best interests for its citizens to have photo identification if they do not drive, so why not provide it for them and kill two birds with one stone. I know I’m not usually somebody who believes in more government spending, and I’m not suggesting that anyone be forced to get a photo ID, just that they would need one in order to vote. For people casting an absentee ballot, the person who collects the ballot could check the ID and sign-off on it.

Since I don’t believe in using people’s tax dollars to pay for such things, how do we fund these free IDs? I usually like the idea of cutting the billions of dollars of wasteful government spending, but let’s assume that’s not going to happen and come up with something a little more creative. Let’s start with the voting equipment itself. All those portable voting booths and machines just sit in a closet and collect dust between elections, so why not rent them out? Large companies might like to have a couple so employees can vote anonymously on company initiatives like changing health care providers or offering stock-options in the upcoming year. They could also be used for more light-hearted matters like employee surveys or voting for an “Employee of the Month” award. Private schools might like to use them for school elections and local clubs and lodges usually have elections for their officers or board of directors. Another way to generate revenue is through vanity IDs and driver’s licenses. People always seem willing to pay for ways to express their individuality, and although the standard photo ID would be free, why not give people additional options for an additional charge, like cooler background colors or a theme (tropical, retro, rock n’ roll, etc.) for their ID, just like we already do with license plates. Also, whenever an individual or organization (like ACORN) is caught filing fake voter registrations or committing some other form of voter fraud, why not levy a stiff fine against them that goes directly toward funding these IDs, and helping legally registered voters cast their ballot. These are just a few ideas to get the politicians started…

In the end, Requiring photo IDs for voting ensures that your vote counts and maintains the vital integrity of the system. The only people this new law would “disenfranchise” are illegal immigrants, the deceased, or criminals, and that’s not such a bad thing now, is it?

U.S. Senate

I was looking over some recent poll data this week, and was struck by a very odd pattern that I though was worthy of discussion. In the last 7 days alone I saw 5 polls that showed a disconnect between the views of American voters and the policies being pushed by our elected representatives. I thought I would outline these items here, and see if anyone can tell me who our “representatives” are actually representing.

Item #1: Religious displays being allowed on public lands and the celebration of religious holidays in public schools. ‘Tis the season,…unless your a government bureaucrat. Every news outlet lately seems to be reporting some story about a Fire Department being forced to take down their Christmas tree, or state employees being told that using the greeting “Merry Christmas” is a punishable offense, or a school being banned from singing Christmas carols in their holiday pageant. There was even one school that would not allow students to exchange gifts that had any connection to Santa Claus, Rudolph, christmas trees, candy canes, mistletoe, etc. and banned the use of wrapping paper that had a red and green color scheme (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried). Most of these anti-holiday policies and bans are dished out by the elected officials of local municipalities (although State and Federal entities aren’t innocent of it), usually after they receive a complaint from a singular party, and also under the threat of a lawsuit. It’s good to know that our local officials will stand up for us when one misanthrope claims their offended (God forbid). Where do the American voters stand on this? Well, I am happy to report that a Rasmussen poll conducted this week shows that “76% of adults believe religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land.” Only 13% disagreed. Even better, “Eighty-three percent (83%) believe public schools should celebrate religious holidays.” Only 14% Disagreed. (read the full Rasmussen report here). I won’t go into all the reasons that I feel the same way, but if you’d like my full opinion on this topic you can read my post “Melting Pot or Empty Pot?“. Why is it that the average American adult can read the statement “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”, as written in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and clearly see that no law prohibiting people from freely expressing their religion should be made, and that having religiously associated symbols (like Christmas Trees) displayed anywhere on public land, or displayed by a public employee does not constitute a law establishing a religion? Whereas our elected officials and legislators read this and somehow twist it into something that bans any mention of religious holidays in any place owned, operated, or even slightly funded by the government. Those poll numbers are pretty overwhelming, so I hope that our representatives get the message or get replaced.

Item #2: Health Care Reform. I won’t bore you with the details on this one either, as my views are clearly expressed in my articles, “Helath Care of Today vs. Health Care of Tomorrow” and “BS Detector: Urgency of Health Care Reform“. However I think it is worth noting that as of 12/14, “Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.” Only 40% support it, and that is the highest level of opposition found in the last six months of polling. Rasmussen also notes, “Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.” (see the full Rasmussen report here). Doesn’t it seem odd that the more our Federal legislators push this reform, and the closer it gets to passing, the more we as a nation object to it? Shouldn’t the opposite dynamic be in place?

Item #3: A second stimulus package and bailout money for states. Just this week another 446.8 Billion dollar omnibus spending bill passed the senate, and all this spending has Americans heads spinning (read the full story from Politico here). As if that wasn’t bad enough, there has also been a lot of talk on capitol hill about a financial bailout of state and local governments, which seems like the equivalent of some financially irresponsible parents giving a credit card to their even more irresponsible children. Unfortunately, the children in this example probably got their spending habits from watching their parents, if you catch my drift. A Rasmussen poll conducted on 12/08 shows that “Fifty-eight percent (58%) oppose giving bailout money to financially troubled states.” Only 22% favor this initiative (read the full Rasmussen report here). “On top of that, 56% of Americans oppose the passage of another economic stimulus package this year.” Only 33% favor it, yet the parade of spending seemingly has no end.

Item #4: Free market economy. This one shouldn’t even be up for debate, as a free market economy is what this nation was founded on, but increased government regulation on businesses, the banning or over-taxation of particular products or services that the public desires, the creation of more and more public sector jobs at the expense of private sector jobs, government-run health care, and tax-funded government bailouts of private industry are just a few examples of items that have begun to undermine our free market system. However, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of voters now say a free market economy is better than one managed by the government. Only 10% prefer an economy managed by the government” (read the full Rasmussen report here). This really doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me, but the folks on Capitol Hill seem to be marching to a different drummer, and that drummer is playing a song called “Oh what a glorious day, when the free market becomes a little less free” (or something along those lines).

Item #5: The culmination of these factors. When you add together all four of the items above, what do you get? According to Rasmussen Reports, “For the second straight week, just 30% of U.S. voters say the country is heading in the right direction”. 65% believe it is headed in the wrong direction, and that’s the highest level that number has reached during all of 2009 (read the full Rasmussen report here). So why do our politicians continue down this track? Who are they truly representing? The only logical conclusion is that they’re not representing us, but representing themselves (or the special interest groups/high-powered organizations that fund their elections). Either that, or they think they are that much smarter than the people that elected them, and no what is best for us when we don’t. Would you rather be treated like an idiot, or have someone sell out your interests for personal gain?

So what can we do about it? Well let me assure you that our democracy is not dead yet, and we, as a people, still have the power to remove individuals from office if they don’t do the job we elected them to, and our weapon is a simple vote. Vote them right on out the door. I know it seems as though these corrupt politicians are in there for life, but hope is springing up around the nation, and we need to maintain and strengthen the momentum that has begun. If you don’t believe me, let me leave you with one last Rasmussen poll that I thought was telling this week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is the primary architect of the Senate health care reform bill and has been at the forefront of the health care reform debate since day one is up for re-election in 2010. Reid is seeking a fifth term, holds the prestigious “Majority Leader” status and has already served for 24 years as a Nevada Senator, so he’s a shoe-in, right? Not at all. Rasmussen has been polling him against 3 different possible Republican opponents, and no matter who they pit him against, he is losing (read the full Rasmussen report here). In each race he trails by 4-7 percentage points, with only 2-3% undecided. This shows a great deal of fortitude on the part of the people of Nevada, and an even greater sign of what’s to come nationwide in the 2010 midterm elections, because if his seat is at stake, every incumbent’s seat is at stake. It would sure be a poor time to let your voter registration lapse…

Most political junkies were focusing heavily on the election results from Tuesday night, talking about the GOP regaining some momentum in the Governors races, or the quirky New York 23rd Congressional District Race, in which the GOP seemed to be doing a bit of in-fighting (which we wrote about here). Still others wanted to see how the Gay marriage ballot question would fare in Maine, or how the casino question would fare in Ohio. I was personally interested in all of these results, but at the end of the day i thought we should revisit a ballot initiative that had snuck under my radar back in May (and probably everyone else’s), but is certainly worthy of discussion now, and worthy of being called a “Red Seat Idea”. That is California Proposition 1F (read the details).

Proposition 1F, simply stated, says that the salaries of elected officials (including the Governor) cannot be raised during years where California has a budget deficit. I have to admit that when I read this for the first time a wave of mischievous glee washed over me, and I’m glad no one else was in the room at the time, for the laughter that slipped out would have been quite embarrassing. How utterly satisfying is this ballot question? I know it’s for all the wrong reasons that I loved the sentiment of this proposition, but so what? We voters deserve our pound of flesh every once and a while, don’t we? I had to temper my enthusiasm for the moment, and see if this ballot item had any more substantive reason for being there, besides the obvious petty satisfactions.

As most of you know California currently has the worst economic situation of any state, with a current 50 Billion (yes that’s Billion with a “B”) dollar “budget gap” as they call it, and propositions 1A-1F on the May 19, 2009 ballot were designed to allow the citizens to vote on different ways to close that budget gap. So far everything seems on the up-and-up. Obviously Proposition 1F wouldn’t save much money just by not giving raises to elected officials, but it couldn’t hurt right? Encouraging them to balance the budget would certainly help the state’s financial situation. I also enjoy the “employee” aspect of this proposal, after all our elected officials work for us and are paid with our money, so in a sense they are our employees, and we shouldn’t forget that. In these hard economic times many companies have instituted “pay freezes” until profitability improves, so why not the same for our elected officials? Any time something can be based on merit, society is better for it, because it gives people incentive to do better. Accountability for politicians (other than being able to eventually vote them out) is sorely missing in the system, but it doesn’t have to be that way, and California has taken the first step toward opening that door. But what did the voters have to say about it?

Back in May when these six propositions were voted on, all but one were voted down. The one that prevailed was Prop. 1F, and it didn’t just prevail, it was met with remarkable approval! A whopping 74.3% of the voters said “Yes” to Proposition 1F, and it didn’t lose in one single county in the entire state (see exact results here). Detractors of the measure will say that not giving out raises won’t change the way a politician votes, he’ll still vote along party lines or by his guiding beliefs. That may be true in a simplistic sense, but what about the bigger picture. Not getting a raise may not change his vote, but the overwhelming message that 74.3% of the voters sent out about the importance of balancing the budget might change a few votes, because if nothing else, most politicians do care about re-election and some even care about their constituency. In the end, wasn’t this just a way for the voters of California to say “enough is enough”? That’s a message most politicians need to hear, and in this case maybe the message got through.