Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 6 - The Money Game

Rep Don Young (R-AK) is a perfect example of why campaign finance reform is so necessary in this country. According to a report in McClatchy Newspapers, about 85% [Correction: I mistakenly typed 895%. This was not intentional, and I was not being sarcastic. I meant 85%. My apologies.] of the money he raised to get re-elected came from people who did not live in Alaska. (Alaska only has one US Representative At Large). Why should any candidate for US Representative or US Senator be allowed to accept money from people who would not be constituents? There is no excuse for this, and it is unacceptable.

Let me give you a broad hypothetical. Suppose I was a multi-billionaire (many times over), and I wanted to heavily influence every Congressional race in the country. I want to see people in Congress who share my view about the licensing rights of the product I make and sell. Current law is eating into the potential for me to make billions more, and I want that to change. So I contribute the maximum amount allowable under federal law to a candidate in each and every race in the country. I will also part with several hundred million more dollars in soft money to the political parties. When the time comes to have legislation passed that would benefit me and, for the most part, me alone, to the tune of billions of dollars, how can legislators, some of whom might be voting against the best interests of their own constituents over mine, justify casting that vote? I'll tell you how. They don't, because they don't have to. They do it, I make billions, and most people never learn the truth. Why should I be able to wield that kind of influence over lawmakers who do not represent me in Congress?

How many people in Alaska knew that their sole Representative on Congress was taking $17 out of every $20 he raised from people he should care less about than the people from his state? If Alaskans liked him so much, then why did he need to raise money from people he's not supposed to be representing in Congress? As I have not looked into it, I do not know what percentage of his or her campaign funds his opponents collected from non-Alaskans, but I understand they were considered weak. If so, then why did he need so much money from outsiders? More importantly, why is this even allowed?

I know it sounds naive, but so many of our elected officials, who are supposed to be representing us, their constituents, accept money from people they won't be representing in Congress, and we all know that those political contributions are expected to be rewarded. None of them will ever admit this because it would be a crime to give back such favors in exchange for political contributions. Yet they do it, and they get away with it. And the reason they get away with it is because it's allowed. And it shouldn't be.

You want to clean up politics? You must start by banning any political contributions from non-individuals (that's means both corporations and Political Action Committees, or NAMBLA) and from people who will not be represented by that candidate in Congress. Otherwise, people you don't even know and will likely never meet will have more influence over your Representatives in both Houses of Congress than you ever will. And if they don't represent you, then you are being denied your constitutional right to a republican form of government. And that should bother you a lot.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 5 - Party Line Voting

I came across some great websites for getting information about not only past elections but past votes in Congress. One is the official House of Representatives House Clerk's website. It has links to roll call votes (mostly through Thomas) and it has links to the results of past elections of US Representatives, including the 2006 election results. What I like is the breakdown of which party got how many votes.

As I looked through the 2006 Official results, I saw some interesting things. For example, in New York State, there were an awful lot of Blank/Scanning Error votes, some on the order of 10% or more! In fact, my own Congressman, Rep John "Still The One" Hall beat incumbent Sue Kelly by fewer votes than there were uncountable ones! Out of curiosity, I compared the "spoilage" to another state's vote. In Wisconsin, they cast about two million votes statewide, and the number of spoiled votes in the Senate race was about two thousand, or about one-tenth of one percent! Something is very wrong here, and very alarming.

With paper ballot voting, there wouldn't be nearly so many counting errors, and not nearly so many votes thrown away uncounted. The fancier the technology gets, the easier it is to mess it up. What are we waiting for, mind reading technology so we just walk into a booth, pull a lever, and all our thoughts are "calculated" and "analyzed" and a vote spits out for the Republican candidate anyway? Even with a Democrat running unopposed? Don't let the fancy stuff fool you into thinking your vote will be counted. Demand paper balloting as the best insurance against Election Vote Counter Fraud.

Find and support candidates who favor a move away from electronic voting. Repeal the Help (corrupt) America('s) Vote Act (HAVA). Don't let the Democrats and Republicans continue to run this country against your best interests. GIVE 'EM THE BIRD, VOTE FOR A THIRD!

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 4 - The Party's Over

I think I understand one of the root causes of the inherent corruption within the Bush Adminsitration (BushAd). It is the practice by both political parties (The Democrats and The Republicans) of having the most senior elected official from their party be the, if nothing else, titular "head of the party". Former UN Ambassador & Resident of Earth, John Bolton, told Jon Stewart that the president is supposed to advance the interests of the people who elected him! I believe that a constitutional amendment is in order (among many others I have in mind, but that's a topic for another post, as the old folks to used to say. They may have had something else in mind when they said it, but that's not important.)

I believe that the top person in each branch of our government should, immediately upon being declared the winner of an election by the appropriate bodies charged with doing that, or confirmed for a government position in the Judiciary or the Executive Branches, resign from his or her political party, and be officially "Unaffiliated". For the record: I prefer the term "Unaffiliated" over "Independent" because there are some political parties that use the word "Independent" in their name, such as "The Independent Party". They are not unaffiliated with any political party, just the two major ones. Same for "The Independence Party", or some variant. It's either deceptive or ignorant. Deceptive if it's to make you think that no political party whatsoever will be controlling that candidate; ignorant if it's to make you think that there are only the Democrats and the Republicans from which to choose. They are not, and for quite some time have not been, your only choices at the voting booth.

Both of these major political parties have been guilty of putting loyalty to their party ahead of loyalty to their country, and to the oath they took to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States." I took an oath to do the same very thing. I took that oath very seriously, and I expect them to do the same. As a matter of fact, as there was no end date put in that oath, I still feel bound by it. And that's one of the reasons I post on this blog. But that's, yet again, a topic for another post. (I believe the expression was found in one of Shakespeare's early comedies.)

Once confirmed as the winner of the election when Congress meets to count the electoral votes, the President-Elect should immediately resign from his or her party. This is because from this point forward, the chief focus should be on what all Americans need, not just what one party wants. These are people's lives we're talking about here! It's not a damn game! If they must make decisions about what the morally correct thing to do (and it IS something we expect of our president), then they cannot be tied to the philosophy and agenda of one political party, especially if the popular vote was close, but in any event anyway.

Besides the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States should also be Unaffiliated, especially regarding leadership in the US Senate, of which he would still be the President. If 50 Senators want one person to be the leader, and 50 Senators want another, the Vice President's "former" party should not be considered the leaders. The US Senate will just have to adapt to the changes, as will the other House and the Judiciary Branch.

I believe that once chosen, the Speaker of the House, who is supposed to be leader of ALL US Representatives, should be Unaffiliated. They still have their Leaders on the Floor, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader. Why should one have the advantage of having the People's Representative favoring one party's agenda over the interests of the nation as a whole? And anyone who doesn't want the job under those circumstances just better not run for it. Simple.

Finally, once confirmed by the US Senate, the Chief Justice of the United States should also resign from his or her political party and be officially registered as Unaffiliated. The Chief Justice is exactly what the title says, Chief Justice for all Americans, not just one party. He or she must refrain from participating in any party events of their former party, unless all other former Chief Justices are also invited.

The reason I feel these changes are necessary is something little known and less often talked about, Conflict of Interest. And not merely that, the Appearance of a Conflict of Interest. Too many people in Congress put way too much emphasis on what their political party wants them to do, and not what the people they represent (not the corporations who employ people in their districts, but the people themselves) want them to do. Witness what we have now in BushAd. An undeniably business-friendly (in a more-than-just-friends way, if you catch my drift) admin who does exactly the opposite of what a vast majority of our citizens want him to do. And yet, to date, he has not even come close to giving us a single, truthful, rational, justifiable reason for the invasion of Iraq. Not one valid reason. The vast majority of what they told us turned out to be untrue, and there is ample evidence to suggest that they knew, at the time they were making them, that the things they were saying in public could not withstand the close scrutiny of illumination. And so they classified it all and have been trying to keep it out of the public domain. Not for "national security" interests, but because it would prove them to be the mendacious bunch they are.

BushAd is the epitome of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they cautioned against political parties (of the ones who did.) They are the embodiment of how bad things could get when a president and his staff try to grab unprecedented powers from the other two branches. And had the Republicans in Congress during the first six years of BushAd been doing their jobs and protecting the constitution, we would not have had The USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the illegal wiretapping program. They failed miserably in their role as the People's Government Oversight. They may also be complicit in BushAd's crimes. Time will tell.

I don't expect it to really get much better once the Demcorats take over the White House in Jan 2009 (if not sooner). I don't see them motivated enough to change the status quo. That's why we have to vote them out of office. Not the people themselves, necessarily, but all Democrats and Republicans running for federal office. If you honestly feel that your Senator or Representative has represented your true interests to your satisfaction, then try to get a third party to endorse that candidate and vote for them on that line. But do not send them back to Washington as a Democrat or Republican. Two parties really are better than one. But ten parties is way better than just two. We need diversity of opinion, not just yes-no, black-white, up-down, bi-polar governance of our lives. Not every issue that affects our lives can be simplified into "It's This, or it's the totally opposite That. There is no middle ground." Life is more nuanced than that.

GIVE 'EM THE BIRD!
VOTE FOR A THIRD!

And that will be the topic of another post.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 3 - How You Can Change Washington, DC

As I began doing more research into this subject, I found that some states provide more detailed records on election results than others, at least as far as what's available on the internets. ("It's a series of tubes!") I started with in my home state, New York, but I had hoped that I could find one central place with a link to each state's "Elections" page, and I found one here. I also came across a Non-Partisan website called Smart Voter, sponsored by The League of Women Voters. It has details for some Congressional races, but not all of them. They do refer you to other places. And then I found this, Answers.Com, which, at first glance, looks pretty good ,too. In addition, New Yorkers may want to check out this.

New York has 29 Congressional Districts. In the 2006 elections for US Representative, seven political parties ran candidates, with a few running in almost every district. They were:

• The Democratic Party (DEM), nominated 29 candidates, 23 of whom won
• The Working Families Party (WOR), nominated 26 candidates, 20 of whom won
• The Republican Party (REP), nominated 25 candidates, 6 of whom won
• The Conservative Party (CON), nominated 22 candidates, 7 of whom won
• The Independence Party (IND) (website used to be here), nominated 19 candidates, 15 of whom won
• The Libertarian Party (LIB), nominated 2 candidates, neither of whom won
• The Freedom Party (FRE) (no website could be found) nominated only one candidate, Ollie McLeanin, in the NY-11. He got 996 votes to the LIB candidate's 671. They also nominated the REP Stephen Finger, whose line got most of his votes, but lost to the DEM Yvette D. Clarke. The Freedom Party did not field a candidate in the US Senate race.)

All WOR candidates were the same as the DEM candidate in that race, and 20 of them won. All but five of the CON candidates were the same as the REP candidate, and 7 of those had won (including one who was also nominated by the DEMs instead of the REPs.) The INDs nominated 10 DEMs who won their races, 5 REPs who won their races, 3 REPS who lost their races, and 1 DEM who lost his race in a close vote. [Ironically, my district (NY-19), was one of the few in which WOR did not field a candidate for US Representative. Both CON and IND endorsed the REP candidate, Sue Kelly, but she (and her three parties) lost to DEM nominee John Hall.] Still, the voters were given the opportunity in most races to cast a vote for the very same person they would have voted for anyway, just on another party's line. This would increase that party's chances of not having to go out and get signatures to get on future ballots. This is a HUGE step toward taking back control of Congress. And this is how you can play a part.

The NY Congressional delegation consists of 23 DEMs and 6 REPs. If each of the candidates who ran as a WOR received more votes than as a DEM, we could have sent 20 WORs, 6 REPs and 3 DEMs, instead. The WORs would likely have voted with the DEMs, so it may not have made much differrence. BUT, check this out. If every candidate who ran as an IND and won went in as a member of that party, we would have sent 15 INDs, 13 DEMs, and 1 REP to Washington. And with not all INDs necessarily Liberal, it could have affected the balance of power in the House of Representatives immensely. Imagine how a similar scenario in your state involving candidates on multiple party lines could have affected the outcome of the entire 2006 elections! And all you have to do is vote for the same candidate but under a different party line, and you already effect a humongous change.

In the race for US Senate, in addition to the parties previously mentioned, there were also three other parties running a candidate to unseat incumbent Sen Hillary Clinton. They were The Green Party, and the Socialist Equality Party and the Socialist Workers Party (which you can read about here). These last two parties' nominees garnered less than half the LIB candidate's votes combined. But, if nothing else, they offered the voters another choice, an alternative to the "politics as usual"-mode of the two major political parties.

So, I recommend each of you (and everyone you know with access to the internets), check out the websites above, and begin looking at what other parties are running candidates in 2008.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 2 - Boards of Election

To aid you in finding out who besides the Democrats and Republicans are running for Congress, here are the links to each state's election information. Some additional navigation within the website may be necessary to find particular information about candidates. I tested each link before posting this, and they all appear to work correctly. If you find a link that doesn't work or that goes to the wrong page, please let me know in the comments and I will check it out and try to fix it. Remember, it's YOUR vote to cast, not their vote to take: Give 'Em The Bird, Vote For A Third!

Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third!

Like many people, I've come to the sad realization that the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have not, in general, been acting in the best interests of the people who voted them into office. But, for reasons passing understanding, even though many Americans are not simply dissatisfied, but disgusted with their Congress, they keep voting the bastards back in. They do it because they think that their own Senators and Representatives are not part of the problem. Little do they realize how much gets done outside the eye of the public. The Senate likes to talk about coming to the floor and "debating" a bill, but the truth is that the "debate" happens behind closed doors and what takes place on the Senate floor is for show. I would be truly surprised if any Senator's vote was ever changed by anything said during the floor debate portion of the show. (Same with the House of Representatives.)

Then there's campaign finance reform. Very few Members of Congress (and when I phrase it that way, I am referring to both Houses) have made any effort to change the way federal elections are financed. That's because they made it good for themselves. They rigged the system to give themselves a huge advantage over any challengers. And they didn't do that for us, they did it for themselves. The most obvious explanation is that they fear having to justify you sending them back to Congress, so they make it as difficult as possible for third party candidates to gain any foothold on the electorate. Part of the overall difficulty comes from the individual states and what they require to get on the ballot. But most of it is because of what the Democrats and Republicans have done over the years (going waaaaay back) at both the state and federal level. Well, I say it's time we changed that.

Whenever someone mentions that they might for a third party candidate, they are too often met with the attitude, "Well, if you want to waste your vote, that's your right." I don't understand that. How exactly is voting for the candidate you think will best represent you a "wasted vote"? Isn't ours supposed to be a democracy? Doesn't that mean that everyone who is allowed to vote casts their vote for the person of their choice? And the irony is that the ones who most vocally claim that by not voting for a Democrat or a Republican you are wasting your vote are............wait for it......the Democrats and Republicans! Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Well, there is something we can all do to change things, but it's gonna take courage, and lots of it. And it's a gamble because if only part of the country does it, we risk not only the possibility that the guy we want out stays in, but we might also get the guy from the other major party in there instead. Then we'd be right back to square one. What you have to do takes several steps, and you should begin at least a month or two before the primaries.

First, understand that politics is about compromise. You can't always get what you want, so you have to give a little to the other views and let them have something they want. Then the final bill will contain things that make everyone happy. Of course, it will contain things that make some people unhappy, but that's the nature of politics and I don't believe there's any way of getting around it, unless you want to give up on the whole democracy thing. Remember what George W. Bush said, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator." Is that what you'd prefer? Didn't think so.

Second, do some research on what other political parties exist in your state. Not all parties operate in every state, but some are around in almost all of them. But since we're not talking about a presidential election, we don't have to worry about whether or not the party you like can get on the ballot in all fifty states. You are only concerned about doing your job of replacing your own Democrats and Republicans.

Third, find out what each party in your state stands for. Some are limited in what they are trying to achieve (saving the whales, ending all abortions, etc.), while some are very broad in their goals (tax reform, education reform, foreign policy, etc.) Find one that would best represent what you believe in. After all, you are trying to get someone in there who will do what you want, not what everybody else you know wants. Remember, you are voting for YOUR representation, not anybody else's. In our system, we agree to let the one with the most votes get the job. (If you find a party you like but it isn't putting up a candidate, contact them and ask why. You may want to consider putting yourself up as their candidate. Why not? Sure seems like a cushy job, doesn't it? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. We're doing all this to change that.) Keep in mind that it is entirely likely that there will still be a lot of Dem's and Repub's left in Congress (because not enough voters have courage), so you'll want to figure out which of the two parties your candidate would caucus with. For example, there are conservative libertarians (Ron Paul), and there are liberal libertarians (Wayne A. Schneider). Mr. Paul would caucus with the leftover Republicans and I would caucus with the leftover Democrats. Most Americans are more libertarian than authoritarian (like the 28%-ers who still support Bush), so a libertarian candidate might, at first, appeal to both liberals and conservatives. If a libertarian candidate seems to be getting the support of everyone, you might want to try to figure out why he's getting support from the other type of libertarian than you. If you can't find a political party whose platform suits your needs, then look around for any independent candidates who have signaled one way or another that they will be in the race. Contact their campaign headquarters and learn about them. They might be the one for you.

Fourth, find out who the people trying to get that party's nomination are. This is important because you want to make sure that the candidate that party chooses will stick to that party's platform. (In my state of New York, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are strong enough to be able to get candidates on the ballot each year. So we have those alternatives.) Also, the Democratic and Republican candidate might also get the nomination of another party. If so, when it comes time to vote, vote them on the third party line. A candidate running as a Democrat and a Liberal might get more votes on the Liberal line then on the Democrat line. (To be honest, I don't know if any or all states break down a candidate's votes by party. The candidate is still entitled to all the votes from both parties, but one might get a lot more than the other.) If so, then he might have to go down to Washington as a Liberal and not a Democrat. Don't forget to formally register with that party, especially if you are currently registered as an Independent (which many of us are.) If you don't, you might not be allowed to vote in the primary for the person you want. (Rules vary by state. Contact your local Commissioner of Elections to find the rules in your state.)

Fifth, find out which candidate that party intends to put up for the next election. If they're not putting anyone up, then consider running yourself. Learn what you can about the candidate. (If it's you, then find out as much about yourself as anyone looking into your past would find out. If there's dirt, someone is likely to find it. So be prepared to answer questions about it.
Reporter: Mr. Schneider, is it true that in college you once tried to marry a mule?
Schneider: Once? No.)

Sixth, find out if that party's candidate will be invited to any debates. Some parties, other than the two major ones, have been around long enough and are strong enough to get their candidate on the ballot every year, so they would likely be invited to any debates. If they aren't being invited, ask why. (This is especially true of independent candidates.) Contact the sponsor of the debate and tell them that you would like to see your chosen candidate at the debate. You alone might not be able to make the difference (unless the person you're complaining to is a friend of yours), but many, many of you from that district calling in could change the debate sponsor's mind. Make sure you pay close attention to what your candidate says in that debate. This may help you convince others to vote for your candidate.

Seventh, Election Day! (It should be a federal holiday, but, as the old folks say, "That's a topic for another thread." Well, the ones that are hip to today's technology say that.) As you step up to the booth, take a deep breath, pull back the curtain behind you, and VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE! And if the Democratic candidate is running on another line (like the Liberal, the Green, or some other) and the Republican is running on another line (such as Conservative, Right to Life, or some other), and you like the way the way they've been representing you, then vote for them on the third party line. They'll still get your vote, but they'll get it with a message. Then sit back and hope everything turns out right. (That part's no different than any other year.)

Now, it may take a few election cycles to weed out enough Dem's and Repub's to wrest control from them, but the effort will be well worth it. The trick is to get the word out to as many people as possible. And the next time someone you know starts complaining about the politicans in Washington, remember to tell them this:
HELP SPREAD THE WORD
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD
GIVE 'EM THE BIRD
VOTE FOR A THIRD.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.