Voter fraud would be a real threat to our democracy. That is, if it existed.
The truth is, it hardly exists at all (let alone systemically, as some would have us believe with their accusations towards those of us who worked to register voters in our with ACORN.)
This piece nicely sums us the facts and the argument:
Why would anyone commit voter fraud? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine
Debunking any myths about voter fraud helps to pave the way towards good reforms like universal voter registration, something truly worth our time, attention, and efforts if we truly care about ensuring fair, secure, and genuinely democratic elections in this country. It would be a real step towards strengthening American democracy....and securing the American Dream.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Letter to Voinovich: Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Renewable Alternatives
Clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources are essential if we are to continue and renew the American Dream.
A recent e-newsletter from our Ohio Senator George Voinovich prompted me to send a brief email his office on the subject (text below). As part of his "legacy," he is strongly supporting (re)development of nuclear energy. In addition to addressing what would be a horrid mistake, I addressed a related issue: All of his earlier e-newsletters began with the headline "The REAL Inconvenient Truth" followed by the current budget deficit amount. I felt a need to address this misguided feature.
We'll see if a get a response from the Senator's office.
Email text:
"Two items:
1. E-Newsletter
As a recipient of the newsletter, I am glad to see that you no longer headline it with the phrase "The REAL Inconvenient Truth." I agree wholeheartedly that the budget deficit is a real problem. But there is no reason to denigrate another real problem -- global warming -- while bringing attention to the budget concern. They both need attention.
2. Nuclear Power
I hope that if the Senator supports pursuit of nuclear energy, that he also believes in folding the FULL cost of safe storage, transport and disposal of the waste, as well as the cost of adequately protecting facilities from terrorist attack (by ground or air), into the cost of the electricity to the consumer. Anything less would be an unfair subsidy to be borne by the taxpayer.
Alternatively, I would encourage the Senator to redirect his efforts towards renewable sources that do not have the ill effects of extremely dangerous radioactive waste: wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power.
Thank you.
Nathan Ruggles"
A recent e-newsletter from our Ohio Senator George Voinovich prompted me to send a brief email his office on the subject (text below). As part of his "legacy," he is strongly supporting (re)development of nuclear energy. In addition to addressing what would be a horrid mistake, I addressed a related issue: All of his earlier e-newsletters began with the headline "The REAL Inconvenient Truth" followed by the current budget deficit amount. I felt a need to address this misguided feature.
We'll see if a get a response from the Senator's office.
Email text:
"Two items:
1. E-Newsletter
As a recipient of the newsletter, I am glad to see that you no longer headline it with the phrase "The REAL Inconvenient Truth." I agree wholeheartedly that the budget deficit is a real problem. But there is no reason to denigrate another real problem -- global warming -- while bringing attention to the budget concern. They both need attention.
2. Nuclear Power
I hope that if the Senator supports pursuit of nuclear energy, that he also believes in folding the FULL cost of safe storage, transport and disposal of the waste, as well as the cost of adequately protecting facilities from terrorist attack (by ground or air), into the cost of the electricity to the consumer. Anything less would be an unfair subsidy to be borne by the taxpayer.
Alternatively, I would encourage the Senator to redirect his efforts towards renewable sources that do not have the ill effects of extremely dangerous radioactive waste: wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power.
Thank you.
Nathan Ruggles"
A Note on Third Parties: The Goal Must Be to "Spoil"!
"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
- Frederick Douglas
I have believed for some time that one of the essential reforms needed to Save Our Democracy -- and therefore the American Dream -- is a multiparty political system in this country. We are too big and diverse for being restricted to "Coke vs. Pepsi" choices at election time when so many people may demand tea, or coffee, or some other "beverage" to quench their thirst for a responsive representative democratic system.
I engaged in a recent Facebook exchange on the recent election, and the question of the impact of third party candidates was broached, them being accused of "messing up" the election (for Dems).
With all due respect, we really need to stop with the third party blame game. I have grown so weary of Dems and Dem supporters wining about third party candidates (i.e. Nader, Greens) of spoiling their time. It is borne out of a rather arrogant and elitist attitude that someone their (major) party candidates automatically "own" or are "due" the votes from people who hold certain view or values (which mean they are reinforcing one of the key problems with the existing two party system). Furthermore, they essentially are complaining at fellow voters for not voting for their Dem candidates. Well, if you want someone to vote for your preferred candidate, my first response to that is: that's is the purpose of the campaign! You have your chance to convince people that your candidate is worthy of their vote. I say, take advantage of that opportunity (and frankly, for the two major parties, this is much easier than third parties). It you can't or won't, that's your own fault. If your candidate is essentially unworthy, blame them. It is unfair to scold people for voting for candidates that they actually like, and candidates for running on values and issues that are underrepresented.
If there is blame to be cast in this electoral system, the blame falls on the Reps and Dems for continuing a system that excludes third parties when they easily could allow us to rank candidates 1, 2, 3 (and thereby eliminate "spoilers.") The truth is that third party candidates wouldn't run if the major party (candidates) actually stood up for what the people wanted. And what better way to force major parties to rethink things than to deny them a seat that they somehow think that they own.
The sad fact is that we might wish third parties candidate to be able to "compete" first, but history and facts show that they will never be able to really compete in the system as it stand today, with the rules stacked against them. Also, in "safe" races third party candidates are seen as irrelevant by both the two major parties and the media.
The rules must change. But the Reps and Dems won't change a system that serves them well. They must perceive it's in their interest to change. I see the only way that that may happen is if third party candidates "spoil" their elections enough so that they will change the election rules to prevent it (by instituting Instant Runoff/ranked preference/choice voting). It may mean short term pain, but it is in the service of reform for the long term.
I am speaking as someone who has been on both sides, actively campaigning for third party as well as Democratic candidates. My conclusion is the same. Even having served the campaign of a Dem I understand the desire to vote third party. Even after dedicating my life for a time to getting a Democratic governor and congressional rep elected. Don't get me wrong; I believed strongly in my cause. At that time I tried my best to convince everyone -- including those considering third party candidates -- to voter our way. However, in the end, I do not "blame" anyone for voting third party. If I failed to convince, that's on me. If there are legitimate criticisms of my candidate(s) from the left, I have to acknowledge them and not cast stones. Anything else on my part would be sour grapes.
One benefit of third parties on the left is that is makes the Dems listen to progressives (and counter our overall rightward slide in this country). The recent gubernatorial election is a case in point. Strickland pulled out the rug from progressives when he torpedoed the ballot initiative for sick days in Ohio. He didn't pay attention to progressive forces (who helped get him elected the first time), leaving people to turn to third party candidates, or not vote at all out of lack of enthisiasm, or outright disgust (believe me, I talked to dozens of such people at the doors of their homes as part of my campaign job.) A strong third party in Ohio on the left might have helped wake Strickland up (and save him from himself electorally.)
Historically, third parties have also served an important purpose in our democracy, of being the originators of many reforms that are eventually adopted/coopted by the two major parties (witness Social Security and other reforms from the Socialists, and others from the Populists).
If those who whine about third parties (or actively try to illegitimately torpedo their efforts, as the Dems did to Nader in Ohio in '04) would spend their time pushing their candidates to listen to progressives, and get out there trying to convince voters that their candidates are worthwhile, we'd all be a lot better off.
- Frederick Douglas
I have believed for some time that one of the essential reforms needed to Save Our Democracy -- and therefore the American Dream -- is a multiparty political system in this country. We are too big and diverse for being restricted to "Coke vs. Pepsi" choices at election time when so many people may demand tea, or coffee, or some other "beverage" to quench their thirst for a responsive representative democratic system.
I engaged in a recent Facebook exchange on the recent election, and the question of the impact of third party candidates was broached, them being accused of "messing up" the election (for Dems).
With all due respect, we really need to stop with the third party blame game. I have grown so weary of Dems and Dem supporters wining about third party candidates (i.e. Nader, Greens) of spoiling their time. It is borne out of a rather arrogant and elitist attitude that someone their (major) party candidates automatically "own" or are "due" the votes from people who hold certain view or values (which mean they are reinforcing one of the key problems with the existing two party system). Furthermore, they essentially are complaining at fellow voters for not voting for their Dem candidates. Well, if you want someone to vote for your preferred candidate, my first response to that is: that's is the purpose of the campaign! You have your chance to convince people that your candidate is worthy of their vote. I say, take advantage of that opportunity (and frankly, for the two major parties, this is much easier than third parties). It you can't or won't, that's your own fault. If your candidate is essentially unworthy, blame them. It is unfair to scold people for voting for candidates that they actually like, and candidates for running on values and issues that are underrepresented.
If there is blame to be cast in this electoral system, the blame falls on the Reps and Dems for continuing a system that excludes third parties when they easily could allow us to rank candidates 1, 2, 3 (and thereby eliminate "spoilers.") The truth is that third party candidates wouldn't run if the major party (candidates) actually stood up for what the people wanted. And what better way to force major parties to rethink things than to deny them a seat that they somehow think that they own.
The sad fact is that we might wish third parties candidate to be able to "compete" first, but history and facts show that they will never be able to really compete in the system as it stand today, with the rules stacked against them. Also, in "safe" races third party candidates are seen as irrelevant by both the two major parties and the media.
The rules must change. But the Reps and Dems won't change a system that serves them well. They must perceive it's in their interest to change. I see the only way that that may happen is if third party candidates "spoil" their elections enough so that they will change the election rules to prevent it (by instituting Instant Runoff/ranked preference/choice voting). It may mean short term pain, but it is in the service of reform for the long term.
I am speaking as someone who has been on both sides, actively campaigning for third party as well as Democratic candidates. My conclusion is the same. Even having served the campaign of a Dem I understand the desire to vote third party. Even after dedicating my life for a time to getting a Democratic governor and congressional rep elected. Don't get me wrong; I believed strongly in my cause. At that time I tried my best to convince everyone -- including those considering third party candidates -- to voter our way. However, in the end, I do not "blame" anyone for voting third party. If I failed to convince, that's on me. If there are legitimate criticisms of my candidate(s) from the left, I have to acknowledge them and not cast stones. Anything else on my part would be sour grapes.
One benefit of third parties on the left is that is makes the Dems listen to progressives (and counter our overall rightward slide in this country). The recent gubernatorial election is a case in point. Strickland pulled out the rug from progressives when he torpedoed the ballot initiative for sick days in Ohio. He didn't pay attention to progressive forces (who helped get him elected the first time), leaving people to turn to third party candidates, or not vote at all out of lack of enthisiasm, or outright disgust (believe me, I talked to dozens of such people at the doors of their homes as part of my campaign job.) A strong third party in Ohio on the left might have helped wake Strickland up (and save him from himself electorally.)
Historically, third parties have also served an important purpose in our democracy, of being the originators of many reforms that are eventually adopted/coopted by the two major parties (witness Social Security and other reforms from the Socialists, and others from the Populists).
If those who whine about third parties (or actively try to illegitimately torpedo their efforts, as the Dems did to Nader in Ohio in '04) would spend their time pushing their candidates to listen to progressives, and get out there trying to convince voters that their candidates are worthwhile, we'd all be a lot better off.
Kasich Derails Our Future
Passenger Rail would help take us into a better future in Ohio. Too bad our Governor-elect doesn't realize this:
Kasich to Strickland: Cancel all passenger rail contracts | Politics Extra
Even worse, his letter to Obama is nothing but political grandstanding. It's a poor attempt to try to cover himself from inevitable criticism for refusing $400 million from the feds, and getting in a plug on deficit reduction and highway funds. He knows that this money only can go towards high speed passenger rail projects, according to the law, the stimulus package passed by Congress. He knows that Obama can't change that. He knows that Governor elect Cuomo of New York has already asked for the funds to be sent to his state after he heard of Kasich's rejection:
http://online.wsj.com/article/APe7a07d45af0f46b9a850f2f7be2263ca.html
If this type of poor decision-making and political posturing is any foreshadowing of things to come under this new governor, we will see further cracks in the American Dream for Ohioans.
For some good info on Ohio high-speed rail:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohio-3C-Quick-Start-Passenger-Rail-Plan/134456767470?v=wall
Kasich to Strickland: Cancel all passenger rail contracts | Politics Extra
Even worse, his letter to Obama is nothing but political grandstanding. It's a poor attempt to try to cover himself from inevitable criticism for refusing $400 million from the feds, and getting in a plug on deficit reduction and highway funds. He knows that this money only can go towards high speed passenger rail projects, according to the law, the stimulus package passed by Congress. He knows that Obama can't change that. He knows that Governor elect Cuomo of New York has already asked for the funds to be sent to his state after he heard of Kasich's rejection:
http://online.wsj.com/article/APe7a07d45af0f46b9a850f2f7be2263ca.html
If this type of poor decision-making and political posturing is any foreshadowing of things to come under this new governor, we will see further cracks in the American Dream for Ohioans.
For some good info on Ohio high-speed rail:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohio-3C-Quick-Start-Passenger-Rail-Plan/134456767470?v=wall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)