With all the talk of the stimulus package, it's hard to get a handle on it because you're not quite sure who's telling the truth. Now that the text of the bill and the numbers are trickling out, it's time to take an assessment of just what's in there.
- There was hundreds of millions of dollars set aside for contraceptives, according to George Stephanopoulos's interview with Nancy Pelosi on January 25th, and an additional $335-$400 million for battling STDs. There's something being stimulated with these proposals, but I don't think it's the economy...
- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. Because the new global economy revolves around bad performance art and crappy sculptures using Barbie doll torsos.
- $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities." Whatever they are. What makes this seemingly innocuous expenditure a bit more unsettling is that ACORN, a non-profit organization known in recent years for being found guilty of voter fraud, may be eligible for some of that money. Let this be a lesson to you, kids. If you help the Democrats cheat to win, you'll get free money!
- $6 billion for high speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas. Great. Now, Cletus won't have to surf for porn on dial-up.
- $6 billion to weatherize moderate-income homes. Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I don't own a house, but there's a bit of a leap from "winterizing a house" and "economic prosperity."
- $31 billion for construction and repair of federal buildings. Of course, if people in Washington actually did anything, I'd go for it.
- $10 billion for rail and mass transit. One, I'm guessing the trains won't run on coal, since Obama has said he wants to put them out of business. Two, as someone who has travelled on mass transit to get to work, all the spending in the world won't make it any less creepy.
- $10 billion for "science facilities", $30 billion for "transportation projects", $19 billion for "water projects", $87 billion for "help to states with Medicaid", and other big dollar amounts for non-specific projects. In Washingtonese, that means "a big pile of money that no one guards."
- $4.1 billion for "preventative care." When you compare it to the money spent to battle STDs, it seems ironic that the plan spends so little on this, but so much on diseases that mostly would have been prevented with a little preventative care.
If you want to see more, Glenn Beck's website has a nice breakdown, and I used it for my blog post on the matter. If you want to check it out, it's at http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/.
I do have to admit there are some items in the stimulus package that do relate at least somewhat to economic growth, both in the short term and the long term. That doesn't salvage the entire package, however. The fact that we're even having to see what absurd things are being proposed for funding with the stimulus package should tell you that we're being sold a bill of not-so-good goods under the guise of "helping the economy." You don't help the economy by spending money on condoms and the Clap.
The devil in the details is that many of these expenditures appear to be short-term, and for the sake of our national pocketbook, I hope they are. But I can't help but remember that government isn't in the problem-solving game. Most of the time, government involvement in a problem causes the problem to get bigger and more expensive. After all, once the problem is solved, you can't get more government money to solve it. That's one reason the Big Dig in Boston isn't done yet.
So, count me as one of the cynics when it comes to the stimulus package. For the few good things it might be able to do, it's not worth the price for all the nonsensical things it will definitely do if passed.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama Gives a Shout Out to the Moderates
Barack Obama hasn't even been in the Oval Office for a full week and already he's made a huge mistake in the eyes of many: invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh. In a statement, Obama said that Republicans would have to stop listening to Rush if they wanted to get along with the President. Naturally, Limbaugh has already responded, so the battle of words and wits will continue.
At first, I thought Obama had blundered, like he had a number of times during his first few days in office. Upon further review, however, it may be a bold calculation on his part, one that could pay political dividends if played correctly. The move was designed to attract the attention of two groups Obama needs to have on his side: the far left, and moderate Republicans. By bashing Limbaugh, the far left will stay on Obama's side, since they have a seething hatred for El Rushbo.
However, what isn't so well known is that the moderate Republicans aren't big Limbaugh fans, either. They use many of the same adjectives the Left use for Rush: divisive, hateful, mean, loud, caustic. The main reason for this is because Rush is as hard on moderate Republicans as he is on the Left, which doesn't sit well with many moderates. So, when it comes to moderate Republicans and Rush Limbaugh, it's safe to say they're not on speaking terms.
This is where it becomes a political calculation. Obama needs moderate Republicans on his side to ensure passage of items he feels he needs to get done in his first year or two. As it stands now, the House should be able to help him, but eventually the Senate will have to get involved. And in the Senate, the Democrats are a couple of seats shy of the magic number of 60. With 60 votes, the Democrats can shut off debate, effectively removing a powerful weapon the Senate Republicans have to block Obama's agenda, but the Democrats don't have 60 votes.
At least, not yet.
For the Senate Democrats to reach 60 votes, they will need some Republicans to jump ship and vote with them. And with some of the moderate Republicans in the Senate, it won't take much to nudge them over to the Democrat side. Attacking Limbaugh is a good first step.
The other aspect to consider is how safe each Republican Senate seat is and where the race for it will be held in 2010. In safe seats, Republicans will be more inclined to do what they want since they either face little to no opposition. However, if there are Senate Republicans in races they could lose in states where moderates and Leftists can do well, those Republicans will have a choice to make: stand with the GOP, or stand with Obama. With either choice, there is a risk involved. If Obama continues to ride a wave of popularity, standing with the Republicans will lead to almost certain defeat. If Obama's popularity wanes, standing with him will lead to the same result. In either case, moderate Republicans in the Senate will certainly keep their eyes on Obama's approval numbers to make their plays.
If Obama's campaign was any indication, he wants to rule from the center. To do that, he's going to need the help of moderate Republicans, and with his recent swipe at Rush Limbaugh, he might have taken a big step towards getting that help.
At first, I thought Obama had blundered, like he had a number of times during his first few days in office. Upon further review, however, it may be a bold calculation on his part, one that could pay political dividends if played correctly. The move was designed to attract the attention of two groups Obama needs to have on his side: the far left, and moderate Republicans. By bashing Limbaugh, the far left will stay on Obama's side, since they have a seething hatred for El Rushbo.
However, what isn't so well known is that the moderate Republicans aren't big Limbaugh fans, either. They use many of the same adjectives the Left use for Rush: divisive, hateful, mean, loud, caustic. The main reason for this is because Rush is as hard on moderate Republicans as he is on the Left, which doesn't sit well with many moderates. So, when it comes to moderate Republicans and Rush Limbaugh, it's safe to say they're not on speaking terms.
This is where it becomes a political calculation. Obama needs moderate Republicans on his side to ensure passage of items he feels he needs to get done in his first year or two. As it stands now, the House should be able to help him, but eventually the Senate will have to get involved. And in the Senate, the Democrats are a couple of seats shy of the magic number of 60. With 60 votes, the Democrats can shut off debate, effectively removing a powerful weapon the Senate Republicans have to block Obama's agenda, but the Democrats don't have 60 votes.
At least, not yet.
For the Senate Democrats to reach 60 votes, they will need some Republicans to jump ship and vote with them. And with some of the moderate Republicans in the Senate, it won't take much to nudge them over to the Democrat side. Attacking Limbaugh is a good first step.
The other aspect to consider is how safe each Republican Senate seat is and where the race for it will be held in 2010. In safe seats, Republicans will be more inclined to do what they want since they either face little to no opposition. However, if there are Senate Republicans in races they could lose in states where moderates and Leftists can do well, those Republicans will have a choice to make: stand with the GOP, or stand with Obama. With either choice, there is a risk involved. If Obama continues to ride a wave of popularity, standing with the Republicans will lead to almost certain defeat. If Obama's popularity wanes, standing with him will lead to the same result. In either case, moderate Republicans in the Senate will certainly keep their eyes on Obama's approval numbers to make their plays.
If Obama's campaign was any indication, he wants to rule from the center. To do that, he's going to need the help of moderate Republicans, and with his recent swipe at Rush Limbaugh, he might have taken a big step towards getting that help.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
History in the (Mis) Making?
In case you haven't heard, today was monumentally historical. A Republican, John Cornyn, showed backbone and stood up to Hillary Clinton. Seriously, the first African-American elected President was sworn in, making Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States.
Big whoop.
Yeah, I know I'm supposed to be uber-excited or uber-angry that Obama is President, but to be honest, I could care less, really. The reason is that I think the media and the Left have oversold the importance of Obama's election. I understand the historical significance of it; I got it back in November. But did we need to be reminded of it since November? I know people have low attention spans these days, but dang!
Then, there's the commercialism. As a die-hard capitalist, I can see where Obama's inauguration would be a venture to make some money, and I welcome it. But you have to admit the coins, the special magazines and newspapers, even the special concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial all reeked of excess. I'm surprised there wasn't a special Obama juicer or rotisserie cooker being hawked by Ron Popeil on sale for today only!
I'm sure there's a rational explanation for the excessive promotion of the Obama Inauguration being a historic event, but I'm at a loss to find it. However, I have come up with an irrational explanation.
Absolution.
For the past 3 or 4 decades, whites have been called on the carpets for the racism of their ancestors, and I will be the first to admit whites have screwed over blacks for a long time. Having said that, whites need to recognize as a culture that what our ancestors did is only a reflection on us if we don't learn from the sins of the past.
The problem? Too many whites still think we owe a debt to blacks for actions we didn't take. And let me tell you there are still a number of blacks who prey on this "white guilt" to get what they want and excuse any and all bad behavior in the black community. Make no mistake, white guilt helped Barack Obama win because the whites who succumbed to it were looking for absolution for sins they didn't even commit and are ashamed of.
On the other hand, people like me knew a black man would be President. It was just a matter of when. So, when it happened, I chalked it up to it being a fait accompli and let it go. So, I'm sorry that I can't get worked up over something that was bound to happen sooner or later. I just like to keep things in perspective.
And that's why I'm not caught up in the "historic day for America" sentiment as much as others. After all, eventually every sublime experience will have a letdown, and if you're so jacked up on the positives that you don't see the point at which it ends, you'll crash very hard.
And did I mention Obama hasn't even done anything yet? Getting excited about nothing isn't my idea of a good time, kids.
Big whoop.
Yeah, I know I'm supposed to be uber-excited or uber-angry that Obama is President, but to be honest, I could care less, really. The reason is that I think the media and the Left have oversold the importance of Obama's election. I understand the historical significance of it; I got it back in November. But did we need to be reminded of it since November? I know people have low attention spans these days, but dang!
Then, there's the commercialism. As a die-hard capitalist, I can see where Obama's inauguration would be a venture to make some money, and I welcome it. But you have to admit the coins, the special magazines and newspapers, even the special concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial all reeked of excess. I'm surprised there wasn't a special Obama juicer or rotisserie cooker being hawked by Ron Popeil on sale for today only!
I'm sure there's a rational explanation for the excessive promotion of the Obama Inauguration being a historic event, but I'm at a loss to find it. However, I have come up with an irrational explanation.
Absolution.
For the past 3 or 4 decades, whites have been called on the carpets for the racism of their ancestors, and I will be the first to admit whites have screwed over blacks for a long time. Having said that, whites need to recognize as a culture that what our ancestors did is only a reflection on us if we don't learn from the sins of the past.
The problem? Too many whites still think we owe a debt to blacks for actions we didn't take. And let me tell you there are still a number of blacks who prey on this "white guilt" to get what they want and excuse any and all bad behavior in the black community. Make no mistake, white guilt helped Barack Obama win because the whites who succumbed to it were looking for absolution for sins they didn't even commit and are ashamed of.
On the other hand, people like me knew a black man would be President. It was just a matter of when. So, when it happened, I chalked it up to it being a fait accompli and let it go. So, I'm sorry that I can't get worked up over something that was bound to happen sooner or later. I just like to keep things in perspective.
And that's why I'm not caught up in the "historic day for America" sentiment as much as others. After all, eventually every sublime experience will have a letdown, and if you're so jacked up on the positives that you don't see the point at which it ends, you'll crash very hard.
And did I mention Obama hasn't even done anything yet? Getting excited about nothing isn't my idea of a good time, kids.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Quick Hits
So much to talk about, so let's get rolling!
- First off, I have to tip my hat to President George W. Bush for commuting the sentences of Border Patrol officers Compean and Ramos. Should they have been imprisoned in the first place? No. Should they have gotten the sentences they did? No. Should they have gotten full pardons? Doesn't matter to Compean, Ramos, or their families. They'll be out, and I guarantee there will be people willing to hire them.
- Note to the media: Could you knock off the Obama worship? Not everything he does is noteworthy. So what if he rode a train with Joe Biden? It's not like he's walking on water and healing lepers. (Besides, that's what's planned for after his speech tomorrow.) I swear the media are turning into parents obsessed with capturing every minute of their baby's life on video.
- I'm sure you've noticed how smoothly the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama has been. Seems for all their jokes about Bush's lack of intelligence, he's smart enough to realize that petty animosity has no purpose in Presidential politics. Say what you will about the guy, he tries his best to be a class act.
- Speaking of the transition, poll numbers show that Barack Obama has the highest approval rating of any President-Elect in handling the transition into the White House. In short, people think Obama's doing a great job...doing nothing, pretty much.
- Nancy Pelosi has been talking about possibly trying members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. Yeah, now that her brilliant leadership has solved all the nation's problems, she can now focus on what America really wants. [By the way, that was sarcasm.] Seriously, who gives a rip at this point about the Bush Administration? You'd have a hard time proving war crimes outside of the Leftists Bloggers Living With Mommy And Daddy Because They Can't Hold Down A Job At The Local Mini Mart crowd, so just take some more botox injections and try to figure out how to keep John Murtha from saying something stupid.
- A lot has been made about how much money is being spent on Obama's inauguration. The actual inauguration itself is said to be at $47 million, only about $7 million less than George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration. The rest of the hundreds of millions is going into security. I don't begrudge Obama for wanting people and himself to be safe, but think of the implications for a moment. Obama is spending around $100 million for security. Maybe it's me, but if you're going to spend that much to make sure you're safe, maybe you'd be better off taking the Oath of Office, making a quick speech, and getting the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
- Want to know a great way to make an Obama supporter's head explode (figuratively, of course)? Tell him/her that you just don't care. They've invested so much emotion in him that they expect everyone to either love him or hate him. The way to short circuit that is to show complete apathy. Personally, I don't care two shakes about Obama because there is little he can do to impact me specifically as President. With that miniscule of an impact on me personally, there's no real reason for me to get worked up about what he's planning on doing or going to do. That simple doesn't compute for the Obama supporters, so they have a hard time getting their heads around it, which will give you plenty of time to make your escape.
- Now, for you Obama supporters who think we all have to get behind Obama, let me tell you forced unity just doesn't work so well. If Obama is as good as you say he is, he'll do something that will make me want to support him, and if I agree with the course of action, I'll support him without reservation. But after 8 years of you folks running down George W. Bush on things legitimate and illegitmate, you'll excuse me if I think your calls for unity ring a bit hollow.
And finally...
- Take it from me. No matter what goes wrong in your life, there's always the possibility that it can lead to something good happening.
- First off, I have to tip my hat to President George W. Bush for commuting the sentences of Border Patrol officers Compean and Ramos. Should they have been imprisoned in the first place? No. Should they have gotten the sentences they did? No. Should they have gotten full pardons? Doesn't matter to Compean, Ramos, or their families. They'll be out, and I guarantee there will be people willing to hire them.
- Note to the media: Could you knock off the Obama worship? Not everything he does is noteworthy. So what if he rode a train with Joe Biden? It's not like he's walking on water and healing lepers. (Besides, that's what's planned for after his speech tomorrow.) I swear the media are turning into parents obsessed with capturing every minute of their baby's life on video.
- I'm sure you've noticed how smoothly the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama has been. Seems for all their jokes about Bush's lack of intelligence, he's smart enough to realize that petty animosity has no purpose in Presidential politics. Say what you will about the guy, he tries his best to be a class act.
- Speaking of the transition, poll numbers show that Barack Obama has the highest approval rating of any President-Elect in handling the transition into the White House. In short, people think Obama's doing a great job...doing nothing, pretty much.
- Nancy Pelosi has been talking about possibly trying members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. Yeah, now that her brilliant leadership has solved all the nation's problems, she can now focus on what America really wants. [By the way, that was sarcasm.] Seriously, who gives a rip at this point about the Bush Administration? You'd have a hard time proving war crimes outside of the Leftists Bloggers Living With Mommy And Daddy Because They Can't Hold Down A Job At The Local Mini Mart crowd, so just take some more botox injections and try to figure out how to keep John Murtha from saying something stupid.
- A lot has been made about how much money is being spent on Obama's inauguration. The actual inauguration itself is said to be at $47 million, only about $7 million less than George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration. The rest of the hundreds of millions is going into security. I don't begrudge Obama for wanting people and himself to be safe, but think of the implications for a moment. Obama is spending around $100 million for security. Maybe it's me, but if you're going to spend that much to make sure you're safe, maybe you'd be better off taking the Oath of Office, making a quick speech, and getting the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
- Want to know a great way to make an Obama supporter's head explode (figuratively, of course)? Tell him/her that you just don't care. They've invested so much emotion in him that they expect everyone to either love him or hate him. The way to short circuit that is to show complete apathy. Personally, I don't care two shakes about Obama because there is little he can do to impact me specifically as President. With that miniscule of an impact on me personally, there's no real reason for me to get worked up about what he's planning on doing or going to do. That simple doesn't compute for the Obama supporters, so they have a hard time getting their heads around it, which will give you plenty of time to make your escape.
- Now, for you Obama supporters who think we all have to get behind Obama, let me tell you forced unity just doesn't work so well. If Obama is as good as you say he is, he'll do something that will make me want to support him, and if I agree with the course of action, I'll support him without reservation. But after 8 years of you folks running down George W. Bush on things legitimate and illegitmate, you'll excuse me if I think your calls for unity ring a bit hollow.
And finally...
- Take it from me. No matter what goes wrong in your life, there's always the possibility that it can lead to something good happening.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
A Non-Fulfilling Prophecy?
To say the media are on Barack Obama's side is like saying Renfield was a casual follower of Dracula. Since his historic election, the media have been trying to create the image of Obama as a transformative figure well before he has the keys to the White House. Some commentators have even tried to elevate him to the level of Abraham Lincoln. I can understand the hope he engenders in people, but shouldn't we wait until he actually starts the job before we slap him with a standard he may not be able to meet?
This is nothing against Obama. He's only the recipient of the glowing praise and heightened expectations of the media. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out how this tack could backfire on Obama in a big way.
When expectations are heightened in any situation, whether it be the playoff chances of the Chicago Cubs or the promise of a new Administration, there is always the possibility of failure. If expectations are raised too much, however, even marginal success can be seen as failure if that success falls short of the expectations.
In Obama's case, he's already been tapped as a transformative figure in this country. What happens if he doesn't transform that much? Granted, he has a sympathetic media on his side, but they can only offer so much cover before the people start wondering where the change is. Even some media outlets might be willing to take up the "Where's the change" banner if Obama fails to impress because conflict increases media consumer buyership. If the Republicans in Congress aren't being the bad guys, the media may turn on Obama.
The only caveat I have with this notion is that the media may treat any early Obama stumbles as being George W. Bush's fault. If this happens, combined with the inevitable "honeymoon period" that traditionally follows an incoming President, Obama may be able to ride out the storms of any early failures. But, blaming stuff on Bush won't work forever. Eventually, someone is going to point out how Obama has failed to deliver, and that may send his approval ratings spiralling downward.
Then, all the talk of "hope" and "change" won't make a bit of difference.
This is nothing against Obama. He's only the recipient of the glowing praise and heightened expectations of the media. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out how this tack could backfire on Obama in a big way.
When expectations are heightened in any situation, whether it be the playoff chances of the Chicago Cubs or the promise of a new Administration, there is always the possibility of failure. If expectations are raised too much, however, even marginal success can be seen as failure if that success falls short of the expectations.
In Obama's case, he's already been tapped as a transformative figure in this country. What happens if he doesn't transform that much? Granted, he has a sympathetic media on his side, but they can only offer so much cover before the people start wondering where the change is. Even some media outlets might be willing to take up the "Where's the change" banner if Obama fails to impress because conflict increases media consumer buyership. If the Republicans in Congress aren't being the bad guys, the media may turn on Obama.
The only caveat I have with this notion is that the media may treat any early Obama stumbles as being George W. Bush's fault. If this happens, combined with the inevitable "honeymoon period" that traditionally follows an incoming President, Obama may be able to ride out the storms of any early failures. But, blaming stuff on Bush won't work forever. Eventually, someone is going to point out how Obama has failed to deliver, and that may send his approval ratings spiralling downward.
Then, all the talk of "hope" and "change" won't make a bit of difference.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Picking Your Battles
If there's one thing I've learned from discussing politics in mixed company, it's that you have to learn to pick your battles. Not every point needs to be argued, and some issues are dragged into the political arena don't deserve to be made political.
One such issue came up recently as Marvel Comics announced an upcoming issue of The Amazing Spider-Man would feature President-Elect Barack Obama. The reason for this is because Obama collected Spider-Man comics as a child and Marvel Comics Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada thought it would be a good idea to put Obama in a comic that the President-Elect used to collect. Of course, this enraged some members of the conservative side, saying that Marvel Comics is becoming increasingly anti-American, as the company recently killed off Captain America.
Okay, everybody take a step back and take a deep breath. It's a comic book! So what if Obama is hanging out with Spider-Man. Given some of the characters that he's been known to hang out with (say, William Ayers), Spidey would be a step up. Not to mention, at the heart of Quesada's decision, there is no political motivation. Why wouldn't the company that created Spider-Man and continues to publish his exploits want to take an opportunity to recognize that the most powerful man in the world is a fan? They'd be fools if they didn't consider doing something like this.
As for the conservatives who are upset at Marvel Comics for this action, just calm down. This isn't an attempt to indoctrinate children to worshipping Obama. That's the job of the public education system. Besides, there are plenty of other issues on which Obama can be criticized. Why waste time and energy on criticizing something so ultimately insignificant? The fact Obama's thinking about starting up talks with Hamas seems to me a bit more important than Obama giving Spidey a fist bump in a comic book.
Pick your battles, folks.
One such issue came up recently as Marvel Comics announced an upcoming issue of The Amazing Spider-Man would feature President-Elect Barack Obama. The reason for this is because Obama collected Spider-Man comics as a child and Marvel Comics Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada thought it would be a good idea to put Obama in a comic that the President-Elect used to collect. Of course, this enraged some members of the conservative side, saying that Marvel Comics is becoming increasingly anti-American, as the company recently killed off Captain America.
Okay, everybody take a step back and take a deep breath. It's a comic book! So what if Obama is hanging out with Spider-Man. Given some of the characters that he's been known to hang out with (say, William Ayers), Spidey would be a step up. Not to mention, at the heart of Quesada's decision, there is no political motivation. Why wouldn't the company that created Spider-Man and continues to publish his exploits want to take an opportunity to recognize that the most powerful man in the world is a fan? They'd be fools if they didn't consider doing something like this.
As for the conservatives who are upset at Marvel Comics for this action, just calm down. This isn't an attempt to indoctrinate children to worshipping Obama. That's the job of the public education system. Besides, there are plenty of other issues on which Obama can be criticized. Why waste time and energy on criticizing something so ultimately insignificant? The fact Obama's thinking about starting up talks with Hamas seems to me a bit more important than Obama giving Spidey a fist bump in a comic book.
Pick your battles, folks.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
A Radical Solution, But One That Would Work
I've been watching the Minnesota Senate fiasco...I mean recount. If you thought the Florida recount from the 2000 election was bad, Minnesota's has the makings of a whopper. I could go into all the ways that Al Franken screwed over Norm Coleman, but I just don't have that much space in a single blog post to do it.
Instead, I want to advance an idea that will most likely get me branded as a freedom hater, but would actually reduce the likelihood of something like what happened in Florida and Minnesota from happening again. And it starts with the whole notion of "voter intent."
When there's a disputed ballot in a recount, it can be legal for the counters to factor what they believe the voter's intent was in determining who gets the vote. Most people think it's a fair way to make sure the voter's ballot gets counted, and on the surface it is. But what would you say if I told you that it can be the most unfair way to count a vote?
Hear me out on this. Our voting system is one where the privacy of the voter is highly valued. Now, who would be the only person with any degree of certainty who could verify his or her intent? The voter. Unless you're going to set up cameras in each voting booth or make it so a ballot would be able to be matched up with a particular voter (which, I'm sure, would get the ACLU up in arms fairly quickly), then there's no way for a third party to really know what the voter's intent was.
That's where guesswork comes into play. In some cases, voter intent is easy to figure out. In others, you would have to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure it out. When you leave it open to interpretation, there is always a chance the person doing the interpreting will get it wrong, and the more confusing the marking of the ballot, the more likely it will be wrong. In short, by trying to ensure a voter isn't disenfranchised, a voter could wind up disenfranchised. Ah, sweet irony.
There is something else to consider. Voters can ask for another ballot if they mess up the ballot they have. All it takes is the courage to ask a volunteer at the polling place for assistance. If you mess up your ballot and you submit it, it can be rejected. A right to vote does not equate to a right for that vote to be counted if there is something that would cause the vote to be disqualified. Combine this with the problems inherent in trying to divine a voter's intent, and you have a major headache.
And I think I might have the Tylenol. What I propose is doing away with any laws that let third parties factor what they believe to be voter intent in the counting of ballots. Just count the ballots as is, and if a voter can't figure out how to mark the ballot clearly and correctly, their vote doesn't get counted. This way may seem rather draconian, but it's a step in the right direction to ensure there is a uniform standard. No more guesswork. No more partisan observers skewing their decisions for one candidate for another. No more legal wrangling. Count the ballots where the voter intent is clear, and discard the rest.
A radical solution, yes, but one that would work. Or at least, work better than what we have in place right now.
Instead, I want to advance an idea that will most likely get me branded as a freedom hater, but would actually reduce the likelihood of something like what happened in Florida and Minnesota from happening again. And it starts with the whole notion of "voter intent."
When there's a disputed ballot in a recount, it can be legal for the counters to factor what they believe the voter's intent was in determining who gets the vote. Most people think it's a fair way to make sure the voter's ballot gets counted, and on the surface it is. But what would you say if I told you that it can be the most unfair way to count a vote?
Hear me out on this. Our voting system is one where the privacy of the voter is highly valued. Now, who would be the only person with any degree of certainty who could verify his or her intent? The voter. Unless you're going to set up cameras in each voting booth or make it so a ballot would be able to be matched up with a particular voter (which, I'm sure, would get the ACLU up in arms fairly quickly), then there's no way for a third party to really know what the voter's intent was.
That's where guesswork comes into play. In some cases, voter intent is easy to figure out. In others, you would have to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure it out. When you leave it open to interpretation, there is always a chance the person doing the interpreting will get it wrong, and the more confusing the marking of the ballot, the more likely it will be wrong. In short, by trying to ensure a voter isn't disenfranchised, a voter could wind up disenfranchised. Ah, sweet irony.
There is something else to consider. Voters can ask for another ballot if they mess up the ballot they have. All it takes is the courage to ask a volunteer at the polling place for assistance. If you mess up your ballot and you submit it, it can be rejected. A right to vote does not equate to a right for that vote to be counted if there is something that would cause the vote to be disqualified. Combine this with the problems inherent in trying to divine a voter's intent, and you have a major headache.
And I think I might have the Tylenol. What I propose is doing away with any laws that let third parties factor what they believe to be voter intent in the counting of ballots. Just count the ballots as is, and if a voter can't figure out how to mark the ballot clearly and correctly, their vote doesn't get counted. This way may seem rather draconian, but it's a step in the right direction to ensure there is a uniform standard. No more guesswork. No more partisan observers skewing their decisions for one candidate for another. No more legal wrangling. Count the ballots where the voter intent is clear, and discard the rest.
A radical solution, yes, but one that would work. Or at least, work better than what we have in place right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)