Approval voting

Were coming up to primary election time here in Colorado and I am trying to learn about the candidates in "my" official party.

From what I'm told, this is the first year that "my" party is actually having a primary! And we get to vote in two races!

If you haven't guessed by now, yes, I am registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.

"Oh, no!"

How could I do that? I'm just "splitting" the vote, aren't I?

Well, no. I'm also attempting to express my personal convictions.

It fascinates me how distressing "third-party" really is both for those of us who are members as well as for people who are members of one of the two major parties. Dan Sallis, one of the Libertarian candidates in Colorado, has written an article about this issue titled Voting Libertarian is a Wasted Vote–Wrong! It's an interesting article. I don't like some of his language. (A warning for those who are easily offended.) But I think it makes a lot of sense: The candidates you vote for do NOT have to win for your vote to have an impact. When the numbers change, the major parties do take notice.

More interesting to me, however, than Sallis' article is one written by his opponent, Jaimes Brown: Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Comments on Tancredo's Entry in the Race.

In case you're not familiar with the name, Tom Tancredo was a five-time US Congressman from Colorado any one time Republican presidential candidate (2008). He made a name for himself a few years ago through his strong and outspoken positions with respect to immigration into the United States.

Brown comments:

As a Libertarian candidate for governor in Colorado, I have watched with amusement and wonder at the hand wringing that Republicans have gone through over the past two weeks with the entry of Tom Tancredo in the governor's race.

Republicans have come out of the woodwork to condemn Tancredo for "splitting the vote", being a "spoiler" or "wasting your vote". As a Libertarian, we are typically painted with those descriptions, whether it is the perceived taking of votes from Republicans or Democrats.

And . . . ?

Brown suggests a solution I have never heard of before. I am intrigued.

Approval voting allows you to vote for multiple candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins. Pretty simple. This method allows you to vote for your favorite candidate, but also vote for the other "lesser of the evils" if you think that you could prevent the worst candidates from winning.

The whole issue of Tancredo in this race would be a moot point for the Republicans, with approval voting. Plurality voting splits the vote of similar ideologies. Approval voting would encourage the nearly 50% of eligible voters who don't bother voting because the two parties do not represent them.

Can something like this work?

A while, here is what Americans for Approval Voting has to say on the subject:

Approval Voting is similar to the plurality system that is generally used in America today except for one twist: Instead of voting for just one candidate per office, Approval Voting allows you the option of voting for any number of candidates for a given office. The candidate who collects the most votes wins.

Approval Voting in effect allows you to vote up or down on every candidate in every race. The election results are therefore most easily expressed as an "Approval Rating" for each candidate.

Approval Voting in public elections has a long history going back to 12th century Venice. Its use has been growing in recent years. Several private member associations have used Approval Voting to elect officers for over 15 years and are pleased with the system. A form of Approval Voting was also used in the Security Council of the United Nations in 1996 to narrow the list of potential candidates for Secretary General.

Approval Voting has been used for municipal ballot propositions in the United States as well as for internal elections of state political parties in Pennsylvania.

Approval Voting is overwhelmingly supported by mathematicians, political scientists and other specialists in the area of elections. While no system is perfect, Approval Voting is the only easy-to-use and simple-to-explain alternative system that can be used with existing election equipment. Fortunately it has marvelous properties that will dramatically improve elections in the United States.

Check out Americans for Approval Voting and Citizens for Approval Voting for more information.

"Collateral Damage" of the PATRIOT Act

18 May 2009 UPDATE: Ooh! I hate being scammed! . . . --It appears the following story falsely charges the federal government with malfeasance in the arrest of a young man.

Thanks to Luke who brought this to my attention.

Remember how the ever-larger federal government under President Bush was going to protect us all?

See what you think about this story from Granville County, North Carolina, where a 16-year old 10th grade boy, with no police record and no record of any anti-government sympathies, was taken into custody during a late night raid on his home by 10 armed FBI agents and three local police officers in early March.

Since he was arrested under the USA PATRIOT Act, he has no rights. Nor does his mom. Maybe he will have a hearing later this month.

Maybe.

Problem is, they have kept putting off hearings for the last couple of months.



More and more, this stuff pushes me toward Libertarianism.

The Choice

So after thinking maybe I would "get it out of my system" yesterday, I bumped into this really persuasive and, at least on the surface, dispassionate, essay on Obama v. McCain. And I bit.

From the New Yorker: The Choice.

It reminded me of all Obama's good qualities . . . and McCain's weaknesses.

So I wrote to my friends on the Sonlighters Club Current Events forum:

I don't know if I mentioned it here: after Obama's acceptance speech, I thought to myself: "I can't believe I'm actually thinking and saying this, but . . . I could imagine myself voting for the man." [Note: I was able to imagine such a thing.]

But . . . but . . . but. [Things I have been blogging about and noting in other posts, here: his history (and his hidden history) is scares me deeply. I'd like to believe there is something really and truly good behind his sloganeering about change and hope, but, I sense, there is something more deeply sinister there. --Unless McCain is supposed to be believed when he seemed, virtually, to concede the election Friday and said what a fine and trustworthy person Obama is. . . . --See about 0:28 and 1:02 into the video clip.]

Then, a week (or was it "only" the next day?) after Obama's speech, Palin came along and threw a complete monkey wrench into the works.

But . . . but . . . but. [Good grief! Could McCain have reached any further down into the barrel for a more inexperienced vice presidential/potential presidential running mate? . . . And what do I think of electing a woman like her, with as needy a family as hers is, to serve in the second-highest office in the land . . . while she neglects her teenage daughters (much less her infant son)? . . . And, now that the bipartisan committee charged with discovering the facts in the case concerning her potential abuse of power has come out with a clear statement that they believe she did abuse her power and fail to rein in her husband. . . . And the whole smarmy use of state "travel expense" funds for her to stay at home in Wasilla rather than at the governor's mansion. . . .]

So . . . back to that distressing article by Mike Rosen: should I vote my conscience (the Constitution Party; notice I'd be voting for the party not the man!) . . . the man (Obama; I believe, as the New Yorker article also seems to imply, that Obama sounds a whole lot more statesmanlike and steady than does McCain . . . But I seriously question that. Is he really? What am I to make of all his past [and, apparently, at least in some instances, present] associations . . . most especially with ACORN?) . . . or the party (of the two parties that might actually win, I would like to imagine the Republicans might actually stand for better policies than the Democrats, but their record of the last 8 years and more certainly doesn't seem to offer hope in that regard!)?

I am so completely shredded on this issue.

Well, my friends at the Club didn't fail to add more fuel to my fire.

First, there was Deb who provided a single link to a series of at least 20 articles that look in-depth at Obama's proposed policies and plans . . . as well as at his past behaviors and alliances.

One of my fellow members wrote twice in reply to Deb's post and link. The first time, when she wasn't quite halfway through the series, she said the articles were "alarming."

Then, about an hour later she posted again: "I wrote [that I thought the article was] alarming. . . . I would like to change my adjective. Nightmarish. . . . Yep. Interesting, nightmarish, and definitely provocative in a soul searching way."

And I, after reading a fair quantity of the articles added my comment to the first poster's: "Good adjectives."

Another participant wrote:

To be completely honest, I don't want to have to stand before God after my time here on earth and explain to him why I voted for a man who believed in killing babies! I cannot vote for Obama for that simple reason. I need a person in the office of the President who will stand up for the rights of the unborn and who believes and says so that life begins at conception! I'm just saying....

And I replied,

Understood. And it was for that reason that I held my nose and voted for Bush (and for a bunch of other Republicans through the years).

But what did that get us?

What is it? $4 trillion worth of additional debt that, honestly, I expect will not be paid off "fair and square," but either inflated into insignificance (thus cheating the lenders and putting some people, somewhere, into such desperate straits that they and/or their children will die) or repudiated (leading, quite likely, to warfare . . . which, of course, means death). . . .

And I hear the complaints of the Democrats about the kinds of policies Bush & Company have followed that have led to other horrors. . . .

As an attempted strict constitutionalist, I don't believe the U.S. belongs in wars all over the world. On the other hand, as an attempted realist, I realize the U.S. can't simply "let the world go hang itself." But . . .

My problem with both of the major parties, however: they view government as the solution. "Hi. I'm from the government. I'm here to help you . . . fulfill my plans. That will cost you __% of your income . . . and the income of all your children and grandchildren till death do us part, thank you."

And then a fourth poster:

Not undecided and no longer torn. I can't stand either one of [the major party candidates] or their running mates. I'm done with 'em and voting for whoever else is on the ballot. If no one else is, I'm writing in. I've never felt this way before in an election. I hate that our choices stink so badly.

Yeah! I could relate!

So I wrote back:

So who will you write in?

Or will you vote for Ron Paul-endorsed Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle (Constitution Party candidates)?

Twice-divorced former Republican Bob Barr and Wayne Root (Libertarian Party candidates)? . . .

At the time of this writing, I haven't yet heard what my fellow members might be thinking.

I think I finally feel free to vote my conscience

I am so sick of the two major parties, and so sick of the lack of integrity or character on the part of the Republicans, in particular, I figure I can do no harm by voting my conscience (as I have refused to do the last two elections, due to the supposed "evil" of the Democratic Party).

Yes, I voted for George Bush both times. And what has that gotten us? More tax-and-borrow liberalism, and now, in the last two weeks, socialistic benefits for people who have dedicated themselves to acquiring the most money possible, and higher inflation and/or future misery for many people who have dedicated themselves to living frugally within their means.

I think this Time magazine article, titled
How We Became the United States of France, expresses it well:

This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.

Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. . . .

Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieus, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants orAlgerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of subprime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt. . . .

Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do. . . .

Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.

George W., as far as I can tell, has proven himself more socialistic than Franklin D. Roosevelt was. And that's saying rather a lot!

Of course, we're not about to try to elect George W. again. That's nice. But now what does John McCain have to offer?

Prior to Palin being put forward, it was only the Democrats who had an inexperienced candidate being promoted for the White House. But now the Republicans have promoted an equally inexperienced candidate and, worse, they seem unwilling to admit what a sham she is.

She is supposedly a high-minded, principled person with a heart set on eliminating government waste. Really? Must be a relatively recent conversion.

• Yes, she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. But only after she promoted it. (During her 2006 campaign for governor, Palin repeatedly expressed support for the bridge project, saying Alaska should take advantage of earmarks “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/22/06 (answer to Question #5); Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06, 11/21/06])
  
  Moreover, it was only after the issue became a national embarrassment that she decided it was a bad idea.
  
  Meanwhile,
• She was all in favor of as much federal pork as she could get her hands on for the community she served as mayor.. ($27 million in 14 projects.)
• She permitted the $25 million, 3.2-mile long, federally-funded "road to nowhere" to continue. --I guess, as long as the federal government pays (meaning, U.S. taxpayers pay) for it and the taxpayers ignore it, such expenditures are okay.
• Oh. And let us not forget her "travel expenses" incurred for staying--or, rather, going--home and/or for helping her family travel with her.
  
  "Her costs have been much lower than her Democratic predecessor's," say her apologists.
  
  Yeah. But what about honesty, accountability, ethics and integrity? Would the IRS permit private businesses to charge off these kinds of expenses as legitimate business expenses?
  
  If you heard of some private business person who was doing this, would you agree: "Yeah, that's really okay!"?
  
  I don't think so!

And then I'm supposed to take comfort that she is a quick study on foreign policy even though, by her own admission, that has never been of interest to her?

Sorry. I would be happy to do a similar "analysis" of Obama and Biden, but I have never had interest in potentially voting Democratic.

Now I have to decide whether to vote Libertarian or U.S. Constitution Party.