Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Ballot Access - election reform |
| 10.30.04 (1:48 pm) [edit] |
|
This is in response to a comment by [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com]juniperflux[/url] regarding Ralph Nader. Now, let me be clear- I in no way support Ralph Nader. I do, however, support the intentions of a democratic election system. Though there are certain limitations on who may run for President (must be 35, born in America), one endearing quality about our nation is that anyone capable of gaining the support and funding necessary can compete in a presidential election. Or, at least, that is how it is supposed to be. In reality, as this year's election race has shown, the Democratic and Republican Parties have a great deal of power, and this power is often wielded in attempts to deny candidates of other parties or independent candidates from contention. This is unfair. In Ralph Nader's case, his attempts to gain ballot access have resulted in lawsuits, challenges, and some small victories. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Nader and declared that he would not be granted ballot access in Pennsylvania. Nader will, however, be appearing on the ballot in 35 states, including D.C. How is it fair to the American public for a candidate for president to appear on the ballot in one state, but not another? Doesn't this place the citizens of Pennsylvania at an unfair disadvantage compared to New Yorkers because they are denied the option of voting for Ralph Nader? I can understand that some procedures need to be in place to provide measures for determining which candidates may appear on the ballot- otherwise we could have 1,000 different candidates for President. But it seems odd that a national race can be different in each state. I would think that it would make better sense to have some federal guidelines for determining ballot access, rather than making it a state-by-state issue. Generally, I prefer less federal influence in government, but when it comes to a federal campaign, I think it better serves all Americans to have national standards. It is also extremely petty that the Democrats have fought against Nader's attmepts to gain access to ballots. I can understand the fear that some who lean Democratic may vote for Nader instead, but that is only fair. If I want to vote for Nader, I should not be denied that opportunity simply because he may cause greater competition. We have all been somewhat convinced that we only have two options each election cycle and that there are only two valid political parties. They only have this power over us because we refuse to challenge it and too often simply go along with it. In the aftermath of the 2000 Election (debacle), it was clear that our system was flawed. Have there been any changes made to correct these flaws? Aside from the early voting initiative in Florida, which serves to give election officials in the state the time to correct their incompetence, nothing has been changed, and few challenges have been made to prompt election reform. But that is only to be expected- someone had to win the election, and do you think that person or his party is really going to place fixing the system that led to his election as a top priority? No- the only way things will change is if the citizens make it abundantly clear that change is necessary. This requires conviction and defiance. The Democratic and Republican Parties are becoming more and more like giant corporations with the dangerous power to control and determine our elections. The Electoral College consists of a slate of electors in each state selected by the Republican and Democratic Parties. As you know, it is the Electoral College that ultimately decides the winner. This means that, under the current system, there is a bias in the Electoral College. This is absolutely unfair and counter to democracy. All of us- Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, etc.- should stand up and defend the interests of the voters. We need to work for a reform in our electoral system, and send a message that we will not tolerate corporate dominance corrupting our democratic elections. Denying Ralph Nader ballot access does nothing other than deny the rights of each citizen to choose from all valid options- if Nader is considered a valid option in New York, why not in Pennsylvania? Giving control over our elections to a slate of electors hand-picked by the Democratic Party or by the Republican Party or Libertarian Party (if that was the case) is unfair and a blemish on our so-called democratic society. So start sending a message on November 2nd by voting for [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url], [url=http://votenader.org]Ralph Nader[/url], or [url=http://votecobb.org]David Cobb[/url]. |
| 6 Comments |
| Election 2004: Choices? |
| 10.23.04 (10:08 pm) [edit] |
|
Arguably the most important aspect of a democratic society is the assurance that its citizens are provided with [b]choices[/b] regarding how their government is run. It is assumed that we are given these choices in the form of a number of candidates competing for each particular office in a given election year. This year, we are presented with choices for President- the highest office in our nation. Or are we? I rarely cut-and-paste articles, but this is a well-written presentation of the incompetency of both men with the greatest potentiality of becoming our next President. I will post a few choice segments, and if you would like to read the rest for yourself, the link is at the bottom. [line] "President Bush has grown government more than any administration in four decades, even when you subtract for defense and homeland security spending. He and the Republican Congress have given us massive, pork-laden energy, farm subsidy, highway, and corporate tax bills. Despite his reputed stern resolve, President Bush shown no political backbone on domestic issues, save for some modest tax cuts. He gave ground on free trade, capitulated on campaign finance reform, expanded the regulatory state and passed the largest new federal entitlement since the Great Society." "The claim that President Bush made us safer in the War on Terror is also misguided. He diverted precious military intelligence, manpower, and resources away from apprehending the people who perpetrated Sept. 11 (Al Qaeda) and those who harbored them (the Taliban) to wage war with Iraq, a country that posed little if any immediate threat to our national security. Even conceding that the war made sense given the intelligence available at the time (it didn't), it's now clear that the Bush administration was woefully unprepared for post-war security. We're now enveloped in an expensive, dangerous, stagnant occupation. Our presence in Iraq is breeding new anti-American terrorists, in Iraq and across the Muslim world. The Brookings Institution estimates that the overwhelming majority of insurgent attacks in Iraq against U.S. forces are coming from newly minted, native Iraqi terrorists, not from existing Islamic extremists from other countries. Terrorist attacks across the globe have gone up, not down, since September 11." "John Kerry wouldn't be any better. Kerry's plan for Iraq — like his plans for most domestic issues — is to throw more money and resources at the problem. It's naïve to think Kerry would pull us out of Iraq. What better way to show the good government can do than to build an entire society from scratch?" "Upon getting his party's nomination, Sen. Kerry looked at an administration that grew government in nearly all areas at a rate unseen in nearly a half-century and decided to run to the left of it. He insists that the looming Social Security and Medicare crises are exaggerated, meaning that eight years of a Kerry administration would almost certainly mean younger workers can look forward to a massive hike in payroll taxes. Kerry also wants to further socialize health care. He's a little better on medicinal marijuana, but is otherwise every bit the drug warrior President Bush is." "So what to do? I'm not sure. If I were to make an endorsement, I'd recommend leaving the top line of your ballot blank. What I'd like to issue is a wake-up call. It's been awe-inspiring to watch otherwise smart people sing the praises of a guy they really don't like that much for no other reason than that they dislike the other guy more. But while Americans passionately, sometimes angrily, divide themselves into "red" and "blue" — bitterly aligning themselves behind two candidates who really aren't all that different from each other — the two major parties will continue to use campaign finance reform, the presidential debates, regulation of the airwaves, national conventions, and taxpayer funding to secure their stranglehold duopoly on American politics. Which means that instead of an exercise in freedom, Election Day is fast becoming an exercise in choosing which of two largely identical groups of politicians gets to control our lives for the next four years.' [i]Radley Balko maintains a Weblog at: http://www.TheAgitator.com.[/i] Taken from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,136114,00.html [line] While I agree with many of the assertions in this article, I would like to offer an alternate set of advice. It is rather clear that America's political process has become more and more a corporate-run enterprise, with the Democratic and Republican Parties at the helm. This is evident in the media coverage both candidates from these parties ultimately receive. There are choices in this election, and yes, the choice between George W. Bush and John Kerry is among them. However, that is not where it ends. Third party candidates need now more than ever the support of voters in order to take back America's democratic heritage. Sure, it is not entirely likley that a candidate such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party's[/url] [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url] will win the presidency this year, but that does not make a vote cast for him wasted. I believe the stakes of this year's election are high. But not because we are at war, not because we have a weak economy and have suffered a net loss of jobs over the past four years, but because the future of America is at stake. There will be little difference between a second Bush Administration and a John Kerry presidency, in my opinion. What is most important is to consider the implications continually casting a vote for the "lesser of two evils" will have on our country. Voting for someone because you despise his opponent is not productive in changing the system. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik on November 2nd because I am hopeful that we can truly and effectively alter the current cycle of American politics. The only wasted vote this year is the vote for a candidate you don't truly support. |
| 9 Comments |
| And the winner is... |
| 10.23.04 (9:28 pm) [edit] |
|
I would like to thank all of the tbloggers who participated in my [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]challenge[/url] in recent days. It served as great reassurance that there are still people willing to write about the real issues, rather than exchange meaningless attacks. It is very possible that I missed some entries, so please leave a comment if you posted yours and it isn't listed here. The following bloggers rose to the challenge and are to be credited with having blogs actually worthy of reading: :wink: [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]therealspartacus007[/url ] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]RedTigress[/url] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]mblog[/url] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]librariananguish[/url] Also, "Donald Trump," a non-blogger, submitted his responses to my questions in the form of a comment, which can be found [url=http://www.tblog.com/comments...]here[/url]. I wanted to (arbitrarily) judge these entries and award the winner with, well, absolutely nothing, but I couldn't decide whose entry was most deserving- all of you did an excellent job. So, I suggest that all readers judge for themselves by reading each of the above entries. I am also recommending that we continue on this course and post relevant blogs covering the real issues, not the hateful rhetoric. |
| 5 Comments |
| Tblog Politics Challenge answered |
| 10.22.04 (2:43 am) [edit] |
|
Well, I extended a challenge to all fellow poli-bloggers (as I believe [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] calls it) to write a rational blog on any of the following questions, without resorting to hate tactics such as name-calling or unnecessary attacks against others. Many have expressed interest, and I look forward to reading all the responses (let me know when you've posted yours so I don't miss it). So I figured it would only be fair for me to write my own. Here goes. [i]What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win?[/i] This isn't a particularly easy or simple question, and any response will be steeped in speculation. My view is that national security is likely the one issue that will determine the election for most voters. The "war on terror" has been exalted to the status of being the prime focus of our national security. This is a bit misleading. But, I'd rather not delve into my personal beliefs on the matter in this response, so I will simply explain why I think most voters will cast their ballot according to their views on national security and the "war on terror." Obviously, it is in great part because of the attacks of September 11. Having been attacked, we naturally hope to defend our nation against future attacks, as well as to retaliate. National security will be on the minds of every voter, while other, more personal issues will be secondary. President Bush has been steadily losing support in regard to the war in Iraq, but still maintains a strong lead over John Kerry on the issue of national security. This is mainly because, whether we like his policies or not, we are more aware of what President Bush will do, and the possible actions of John Kerry as president are less clear. In other words, many people support Bush not because they agree with his policies, but because they know what they are and are uncertain of Kerry's. It is obviously going to be a close (and dreadedly contested) election, but in the end, I believe Bush will unfortunately be re-elected. Kerry does have a decent shot, but I think that more voters will be concerned with our national security and applaud Bush's efforts to ensure our safety, despite the less popular actions of the President. [i]Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war?[/i] Consistency and John Kerry don't seem to go together very well, at least according to the Republicans. But, I do believe John Kerry's position on the Iraq war has been basically consistent and fairly reasonable, even though I do not really agree with him. He initially voted to give President Bush the authority to take the nation to war. This does not necessarily mean that he supported the war, only that he thought the President should be given that authority (I disagree). He also stated that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat to our security. This belief is not exclusive to the position that war with Iraq was necessary or the right course of action. In essence, my belief of John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is that he believed then and now that Saddam was a threat, the President should be given the authority to go to war, but that the war was mishandled. As far as his effectiveness as the leader in this war in Iraq, as well as the fight against terrorists, I see no reason to believe John Kerry would be any weaker or less effective than George W. Bush. I think perhaps he would be more rational about taking the nation into war, in fact. [i]Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest?[/i] Well, anyone who's ever read my blog before likely knows that I disagreed with the war in Iraq from its onset. Whether President Bush knowingly [i]lied[/i] to the public by stating that there were stockpiles of WMD and that Saddam Hussein had the intent to attack us, I simply do not know, and I would not make that assertion. So, no, I don't think that it is fair to claim that Bush purposefully misled the nation when he spoke of his belief regarding Iraq. However, I do believe that the war itself was misleading. Even had there been WMD, it was not right to invade Iraq in the manner this President chose to. It is my opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified, poorly planned, and wrongly carried out by Bush and his administration. I believe that preemption is generally a horrible policy. While at times it is necessary to be the first to take action, war should always be the last possible option, and invading another country should only be done when truly justified. It only places our own security at risk by initiating force against other nations. So there's my brief take on these questions. If you would like to provide your own take, please feel free to answer them on your own blog, or argue in the comments (just please refrain from crude and immature remarks). :wink: |
| 4 Comments |
| tblog politics: a lesson in (im)maturity |
| 10.20.04 (11:07 pm) [edit] |
|
As my loyal readers (if there are any) are well aware, I have been fairly absent from tblog for quite some time. Though I haven't been writing, I do occasionally check in on some of my favorite blogs (as well as some I have a tendency to despise). I have noticed a disgraceful trend amongst the tblog political posters, particularly in recent days. For quite some time, there has been nothing but ugly rhetoric exchanged between those on the right, those on the left, and those of us who dare disagree with either side. At times, this is okay. Arguing can be productive in political discussions. It can also be a complete distraction from the issues at hand. And this is what tblog politics has sadly become- a disgraceful distraction. Blogs created for the sole purpose of hateful bashing of another blogger are immature and ineffective in accomplishing anything other than irrelevant bickering. That's not to say that they aren't quite often entertaining or even beneficial for comic relief. To this end, I would mention one of my favorite blogs; that of the ever popular and talented [url=http://jimmytherighteous .tblo...]jimmytherighteous[/url]. The intent of his blog from its onset was to point out the errors of another blogger. And also to poke fun at him. At times, this blog has possibly crossed the line and been nothing other than a forum for insults. However, jimmytherighteous at the very least shows integrity by providing real arguments against the points others have made. This is not the case with many of the newly created hate-oriented blogs. The imitation blogs, such as CheckItQut, flipsidown, refucto, etc., are nothing but immature, unproductive assaults on others. It is ridiculous. At times, yes, they are funny. But I find it to be incredibly disgraceful for those who I know have the capability to discuss [b]important[/b] issues rationally and effectively to resort to such tactics. There is little point to a political forum in which posting is nothing other than name-calling and a seeming contest to see who can come up with the best bash against another blogger. Do you guys really have nothing better to do with yourselves than fight so immaturely with people you don't even know? If so, keep it up- I'm sure no one will read your inane arguments other than yourselves. However, if you are truly interested in promoting discussion of relevant and important topics, I urge all of you to redeem yourselves by overcoming these juvenile tactics and returning to respectful dialog and informative posts. As an exercise (and an attempt to restore some integrity to tblog politics), I would like to extend an invitation to all political bloggers to write just one blog that relies on facts, logic, and intelligence, rather than insults, immature language, and irrelevant nonsense to provide insight into your position on one of the following topics: What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win? Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war? Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest? No useless rhetoric, no name-calling, no personal attacks, just the facts, your opinion and insight. I hope that isn't too difficult. Once you've written your blog, let me know in the comments section here, and the best blog I read will have 1000 tbucks donated in their name to the charity of their choice. |
| 39 Comments |
