One Person, One Vote

If the 2000 presidential election and the current primary season has taught us anything, it is that our current presidential election system is antequated, anachronistic, and broken: laws are enforced that stipulate the rights of certain states to hold their contests before others; each citizen gets only one day to cast their ballot, regardless of work or family commitments; the lobbying for digital voting machines threatens to wipe out the paper trail, and thus the ability to ensure a proper election; and come November, the next President of the United States will not be chosen by the people, but rather by the Electoral College.

Enter Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Caught up in the current Florida primary debacle within the Democratic Party, Sen. Nelson recognizes the serious problems and flaws within our current election system, and has come out with a plan for reform (read through his proposals here). I say that it's about time someone put some serious political capital behind this issue.

First and foremost, the Electoral College needs to be abolished. One person, one vote is the fairest system. And since this reform will require a constitutional amendment, it will be extremely difficuly to acquire. Getting the House of Representatives and the Senate to agree on a piece of legislation is no easy task, but getting two-thirds of the states to agree as well is like getting water to travel uphill. But major election reforms and amendments are not unprecedented: when the constitution was first framed, it stipulated that senators were to be selected by their repective state legislatures, not the people, and it took the 17th Amendment in 1913 to change that statute. Sen. Nelson's proposals on rotating primaries, expanded voting windows, and touch-screen voting machines are all practical, mostly refreshing ideas on an unsexy issue groaning from the weight of controversy and bordem.

It is true that when the framers formed the constitution, they didn't want the people deciding the highest ranking government officials. The framers didn't trust the people. In fact, they were downright afraid of them. But there is nothing stopping the average person today from educating themselves about the issues, and so it is time to overhaul the system, and to give the final power still withheld after almost 228 years: one person, one vote, for all elected positions.

"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all those others that have been tried."

-Winston Churchill

Delegate Games

Recently, CNN's Glenn Beck wrote:

"Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences." (Read the full article here)

Wow -- he's so right.

Shirking off responsibility and obfuscating the issues are as American as apple pie, and to be honest, part of me is glad that Florida and Michigan seem to have failed in their attempts to pull a fast one on the the other states and territories who have chosen to follow the agreed rules (I encourage you to read my February 15 entry on the issue here). And it's not about disenfranchisement; it's about acountability.

I think that state and/or federal laws that ensure a state's place as the "first in the nation" primary or causus is just plain stupid. I think that states should be able to hold their primary or caucus on any day that they chose (within the said election year), and that no law should interfere with that. But that is not the issue in this case. The issue here is that these states agreed to the rules. They agreed! If they didn't think the system was fair, and they wanted a spot in the calendar that would allow them to have more influence, then they should not have consented in the first place. And the ironic thing is that had Michigan and Florida kept to their initial primary dates, they would now be in a prime position to help decide this Democratic contest that is so close.

So, now that Hillary Clinton can't count on the support of Michigan and Florida, and since she's behind in the number of states won, the number of delegates won, and the straight popular vote, she has to start playing delegate games. This is not new, however. I know that some ignorant people are going to call me a conserative propagandist for quoting Glenn Beck, but since the damage has already been done, let's do it again, because the man can write:

"But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous. In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement."

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have taken to suggesting that there is no reason for her to get out of the race for two reasons:

First, the delegates won by Barack Obama are in most cases not legally obligated to vote for him. Therefore, they may all chose to jump ship in the end.

And second, because the voters of the 10 remaining contests deserve to have their votes counted, and their voices heard.

I agree with the second part.

A Warning From the Poughkeepsie Journal

A warning from the Poughkeepsie Journal:

"We've recently seen an attempt by someone to post comments [on blogs] with links leading to malware. The site link contains the word 'smouch" in it."

Please be cautious when clicking on any links that are in comments on this blog, especially since I don't approve comments prior to their posting.

Thanks.

Party Before Country

In one of the many Republican presidential debates that took place in 2007, there was one in which the question was posed: Will you support the eventual Republican presidential nominee, no matter who it is? Each of the candidates answered "yes," with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Mr. Paul made it clear that he would not show blind loyalty to the Republican nominee simply because they are of the same party. Talk about refreshing.

Conversely, the rest of the candidates could not stand the positions that Paul was taking, and so when they answered "yes," they were either lying, or prepared to commit the act that many politicians do: putting party before country. There is nothing worse than putting your substantive differences in opinion aside in order to support someone simply because he or she is a member of your party. There are few things more reprehensible in politics than becoming a sheep to a political party.

Recently, Congressman Paul came out and stated that he will not be supporting Sen. John McCain in the upcoming general election, due to their disagreements on several key issues, including the war in Iraq. A politician who does what he feels is best for the country and not what is best for his party? Very refreshing.

Public Versus Private

Hopefully, the 8-day-old Spitzer saga will now be completely behind us. Gov. Spitzer is gone from office, and Gov. David Patterson, a smart, well-spoken, and self-deprecating leader, has taken the rains. As I said in my last post, it is time to move on. But, I'm afraid that a revelation from the new governor will spawn a whole new pointless argument.

Yesterday, shortly after taking the oath of office, Gov. Patterson admitted to the public that he and his wife both had extramarital affairs years ago, when their marriage was on the rocks. It made the front page of the New York Post. Fantastic. I don't care.

This is the difference between public and private. A personal situation involving a public figure does not automatically make it a matter of public importance. Had Gov. Spitzer not been accused of breaking multiple federal laws, I would have argued that his personal situation was not the purview of the public -- it's the illegality of his actions that have caused the real problems.

So, let us not obsess with things that don't matter. Most of the time in politics, sex is nothing but a red herring.

It's Time To Move On

Governor Eliot Spitzer officially announced his resignation yesterday morning, effective at noon on Monday. More information is coming out about his use of the prostitution ring; supposedly 8 times in 8 months. It is a sudden, sad end to a promising political career, and a news director's dream. But it's time to move on.

While this whole debacle has been very entertaining, let us not forget the human aspects of this situation. Gov. Spitzer obviously has some personal problems to deal with, and his family has been shaken. His wife and three children have been thrown neck-deep into a world of hurt, which none of them asked for. His friends are also in a state of shock. Yesterday morning I caught The Today Show's interview of Jim Cramer, a business journalist for CNBC. The segment was primarily about this country's failing economy (remember that? How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?), but as he is a close, personal friend of Eliot Spitzer, the conversation obviously went to that topic. Mr. Cramer was visibly distressed while talking about the stumble and fall of such a close friend, and it brought to the forefront for me the human impact of this situation -- the emotions behind the stoic faces of Gov. and Mrs. Spitzer.

As I write this, news organizations around the world -- as well as a fellow Poughkeepsie Journal blogger -- are broadcasting the identity of Spitzer's rendevous, complete with pictures. Reporters have been camped out in front of this unfortunate 22-year-old's apartment building all night long, salavating for a picture or a comment, nothing more than glorified paparazzi. It disgusts me, and it is not the business of the New York, or American, public. This girl's personal life is becoming this country's entertainment. Her life has gone from zero to 100 in 0.5 seconds, and the stress and strain that will be put upon her and her family over the coming days, weeks, and months will be intense. Recovering from the storm will be no easy task either.

And the American public never misses a moment to feel morally superior to someone -- especially someone in power.

Monday is March 17th, St. Patrick's Day. Gov. Spitzer, have a drink. If I see you out, I'll buy you a round. And Ms. Dupre, if I see you out I'll buy you two, because you never asked for this situation.

It's time to move on.

The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down

I wonder what this blog is going to be about.

It all seems so improbable. A phenomenally attractive Democratic governor; a relatively young, rising star in the party; the 75% approval rating in January 2007; the high ethical standards that he expected of everyone else.

Within the next 24-48 hours, it is very likely that Gov. Eliot Spitzer will resign the office of Governor of New York State, following the revelation that he was the client of a prostitution ring, and that he is facing a possible federal indictment as a result. However, regardless of whether or not his resignation occurs, this incident marks the destructive end of a spectacular political free-fall that began as soon as Gov. Spitzer took office 14 month ago: the illegal surveillance of New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, the driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, and now this. It's a political trifecta from hell.

Should he have to resign? If it were just a matter of visiting a prostitute, I would say 'no' -- there have been other politicians who have weathered the infidelity storm, and it is even legal in certain parts of the country. However, the possible indictment may come due to the fact that Gov. Spitzer had his...friend travel from New York to Washington, DC, which is a federal crime because he's transporting a prostitute across state lines, and could face up to 20 years if convicted. Mix that with the surveillance scandal and the driver's licenses, and I don't know if he will be able to survive. Some people are speculating that he has not resigned yet in order to use his office as leverage in possible ongoing negotiations with law enforcement. Gov. Spitzer may agree to resign his office in order to escape criminal prosecution.

But the bottom line is that he should have known better -- not only for his political carrer and the State of New York, but for his family and himself. This is a man who made his name prosecuting the very element of society that will likely do him in. He should have known that he would get caught. He should have known that this stuff doesn't stay secret for long. And it just goes to show you, that you can only claim the moral high-ground if you actually live there, no matter what letter you choose to put after your name.

Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), this one's for you:

"Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down

And we went round and round

Each time t'would miss, we'd steal a kiss

And the Merry-Go-Round went

'Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah

Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!'

Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down

And it made the darndest sound

The lights went low, we both said 'Oh!'

And the Merry-Go-Round went

'Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah

Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!'

Oh what fun - a wonderful time

Finding love for only a dime

Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down

But you don't see me frown

Things turned out fine and now she's mine

Cause the the Merry-Go-Round went

'Um-pah-pah, um-pah-pah

Um-pah! Um-pah! Um-pah-pah-pah!'

Oh, the Merry-Go-Round broke down"

-D. Franklin/C. Friend

Ignorant GOP Bigots

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror."

Well, voters of Iowa's 5th congressional district, you sure did pick a winner here. The above comment was made (and later reaffirmed) over the weekend by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), about what would happen if Sen. Barack Obama were to win the presidency. I love fresh ignorant GOP bigot in the morning.

But seriously, Sen. John McCain needs to shut these people up. I don't think it's out-of-line to say that the upcoming 2008 elections will feature the Republicans as the underdogs (even the pathetic state of Congress' inactivity can't mitigate the disaster of the Bush Administration), and comments like this have the real possibility of sinking those with an "R" after their name, especially John McCain. Every time an prominent conservative makes such an absurd, baseless statement like this, John McCain is automatically put on the defensive, through no fault of his own. And he needs to be careful about how he handles himself.

This reminds me of a controversy that materialized after the 2006 election, when Keith Ellison (D-MN) became the first Muslim elected to the United States House of Representatives. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) saw it as a distressing situation and stated, "The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." The irony of this statement is that Rep. Ellison's family has been in living on this continent since the mid-1700s, years before Rep. Goode's family immigrated. Who's the immigration problem, now?

And I know that he's not in the race anymore, but since I think his disingenuous self will be back like the crab grass that wrecks the lawn every summer, I must put down Mitt Romney. During the May 3, 2007, debate, Romney was asked what he disliked most about America. His response? "Gosh. I love America. I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss for words because America for me is not just our rolling mountains and hills and streams and great cities. It's the American people." Gee, Mr. Romney, how about ignorant GOP bigots?

No Escape

Less than 36 hours until we find who wins the next round of Democratic primaries: Clinton or Obama. Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont. Exciting. Who would have thought only 4 or 5 months ago that this primary campaign would still be truckin' on March 3? I sure didn't, and most pundits didn't see it coming, either.

One of the big questions now is how long can the Clinton/Obama race go on before it begins to have a negative effect on the Democratic Party? When does the fighting for votes begin to wear on the patience of voters? There is no right or wrong answer to these, only a matter of judgement. However, I contend that even if voters are beginning to lose interest in the primary season, the hotly contested Democratic race does more good than harm (at the moment) for the Democrats by keeping the party in the spotlight.

The Democratic candidates are everywhere in the media: on TV, in print, on the internet. You cannot escape them. On the other hand, you need to seek out the Republican candidates (yes, there are still 2). Where is John McCain? Where is Mike Huckabee? Certainly not getting the free media attention that a national presidential campaign needs to succeed. Is this due to the fact that most "mainstream media" has liberal bias? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think it's simply that McCain and Huckabee aren't creating a buzz that people care about. Americans (and the media) like confrontation and challenge, so the Democrats are getting more attention. Clinton and Obama are drawing record turnout, especially from a young, multi-cultural electorate. Conversely, McCain and Huckabee are drawing an extremely low turnout, most of which comes from old, white men -- not very representative of the country. It seems like every time I watch a McCain rally, before I fall asleep from bordem, I'm able to count the number of supporters present, and I realize that I can fit more people in my car. I don't drive a school bus.

When Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican race, he stated that if he were to continue campaigning, he would "forestall the launch of a national campaign." How has that turned out so far? Not well. The Democrats are simply dominating the news cycles.