I voted, thank goodness its over.

Well I finally voted today and thank goodness I can quit thinking about it. My wife did most of the research this time around, I guess 2010 will be my turn. Actually, I hope to start the research process much earlier next time. Heck, maybe there will even be something worth running for! The great thing is that this time I went beyond just who I was voting for and begin to pick who I was voting into a certain position. That is why for some positions I felt a libertarian was a better choice or a republican or a democrat. Unfortunately I only had one place to vote for a Green party candidate on my ballot but hopefully the state party will begin the work right after the election to gain ballot access in the next election(s). ...

I'm glad it is over, for me at least. All that is left to do is wait for the results. Sure, perhaps I can change a few minds before they walk into the voting booth but at this point I don't find it too likely. Of course I did change my choice for president this morning so who knows.

One thing I grasped from the experience that I found important was the need to not vote along party lines. Voting in this country was not meant to be 'us versus them', it was created to be 'who/what do I think is best for my country/state/county/city'. With that in mind certain personal values, while important for some positions, may not even matter in other postions or it could be a bad thing. That is one reason why voting multiple parties makes sense to me. Another reason is checks and balances. Different values come together at some point, so only the most important issues will pass with ease. This keeps us from spending too much or creating too many laws just because the power is there. Finally, the best reason to vote multi party is that you get to vote for an individual. While the parties do hold quite a sway over many politicians, on the local level it doesn't seem as bad. Individuals really are just that and many( if not most ) have great dedication to their communities that can make the best candidate be someone outside of your 'chosen' party.

What do you think?

What's Your Breaking Point

With election day just a week away I thought I would ask, "What's your breaking point?" Everywhere I look, even my beloved NPR, there are only two sides to this election. While listening to NPR yesterday they had 2 people who were pro Obama and two people who were pro McCain on. Its as if there isn't anyone else to vote for. ...

The truth is, there are other people to vote for. People, by nature, don't like to rock the boat (too much) and so voting outside of the 2 main stream candidates doesn't even occur to most people. While there are some good reasons to respect both Barack Obama and John McCain, I have a feeling many people are looking at their mainstream candidates through rose colored glasses.

The economy is big. What is your candidates stand? The Iraq war is big. What plans does your candidate have? Are they inline with your ideals? There are other big issues, health care, domestic spying, drilling for oil, nuclear power, privatization, gas prices and standing behind personal principles. You may be suprised by what you see from your candidate if you actually look.

With that in mind there is a website called What's Your Breaking Point that checks your candidate versus your uncompromisable values. Check it out and see if they match. Even if you have already voted, its fairly educational.

After you are done here are some other candidates to look at:
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Ralph Nader - Independent ( with some help )
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian Party

You also might want to check out who you really match up with at glass booth.
^{The previous picture used from lifehacker without permission and does not represent my results.}

Matt Gonzalez Campaigning in San Francisco

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/1009059 w=400&h=300]
Matt Gonzalez Campaigns From the Heart of San Francisco from Polidoc on Vimeo.

Reducing voter rights

Beware, voter right are getting reduced. Of course, in many states, voters rights are limited because laws work to keep minor parties off the ballots thus taking away voter choice. And while that is a valid issue, that is not what I will be writing about today. It seems that Missouri is looking to make a (state) constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote. On the surface this makes sense, but look deeper and it has further reaching problems without much cause. ...

The article from the New York Times is a pretty good news story. It shows both sides of the story. On one side it talks about the numbers of non-citizens who may have registered to vote. That number is 624. It also gives the numbers from October 2002 to September 2005 of people indicted by the justice department for registration fraud or illegal voting. Those numbers 40, with only 21 being non-citizens. Those seem like pretty small numbers to me. What will be the financial cost to the taxpayer to ensure this level of registration checking. Most likely it is small, but you will be paying for it with your tax dollars.

How else will you be paying for it? What if you are poor, elderly or for any other reason you have difficulty providing adequate proof of citizenship. In that case you will pay for it with your right to vote. That's correct, your rights as an American get revoked so that Missouri can keep a possible 624 non-citizens from voting. How many people will that actually affect though? More numbers from the article are 38,000 and 70. 38,000 is the number of voter registration applications that have thrown out since Arizona adopted its proof of citizenship requirement in 2004. 70 is the percent of people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States. I'm understand people lie, even under oath, so let's say only half told the truth. By my calculations that is 13,300 people whose voices aren't heard so that we can stop what could be 624 people who are not citizens from voting. Of course, that is just an assumption that half of the 26,600 people were telling the truth. Maybe only a quarter told the truth( 6650 ), at least then only about 10 times as many Americans as illegal aliens are having their voices silenced through a new loophole around the 15th Amendment. Perhaps we can possibly find ways around the 19th amendment as well. Moving backwards is fun.[END Sarcasm]

If you live in Missouri, please take a stand against this amendment. Write to your state senators and congressman. If you are in another state that is thinking about this law ( Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina ) then please do the same. You will be fighting the propaganda machine against these bills but please keep in mind what these bills actually accomplish. Sure, they keep illegal immigrants off the ballots however a much greater number of honest Americans who have difficulty proving their citizenship will be affected. Those affected will be the poor, the elderly and I'm guessing a majority of those people will of groups we label as minorities.

It's our turn to fight for our rights.

Debating the Role of Minor Parties

I have always considered myself an independent. When it comes to my party affiliations it wasn't until relatively recently that I decided to choose a team to play with. After my one visit to a Democratic party meeting in my area it was clear I didn't want to be known as a democrat. After some research I chose the Green Party. But what use is it? Here's a short video made by the same people who created "An Unreasonable Man"( In fact it is from that DVDs extras ) talking about the role Minor parties play in the USA. ...

Lieberman v2.0.0.8

Being a fan of minor parties and independent candidates, especially Ralph Nader, I read and hear lots of arguments about how much better of a President Al Gore would have been as compared to George W. Bush. What people often forget is the role of Vice President in the executive branch. So it was nice to see an editorial in the New York Times all about what's new with Joe Lieberman in 2008. Most notably his devotion to Republican candidate John McCain. ...

Green Party and Nader supporters often cite that Al Gore is doing more for the environment outside of the politcal arena than he was able to do while he was Vice President. Much of that surrounds the corporate interests he was beholden to at the time.

We've seen some of the affects Dick Cheney has had on American policy, how would Lieberman have affected it? These are important questions to ask when people claim to know how much different things would be if Gore/Lieberman had won in 2000. Would they be different? Sure. What would be different? I don't know.

Nader on C-SPAN

Independent candidate Ralph Nader gave a speach at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. C-SPAN was there to capture the speech. Rather than wait for the time when it is on C-SPAN you can view it here. Just go on to the article and the speech should start immediately. ...

Throwing Votes...Away?

Today I had a political conversation with someone that shares a lot of my political views. While we were discussing how democracy is being overrun by capitalism, I started to talk about what we can do to bring the two back into balance. Since fighting for the people's rights over corporations means standing with candidates who are not mainstream he brought up the point that, unfortunately, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils otherwise you are throwing your vote away. My vehement response,"Hell no it isn't!" got a response of attempting to explain to me why it is. Since we have similar political views, he allowed me the privilege of explaining my reasoning and at the same time why voting for the lesser of two evils would be throwing my vote away. This got me thinking about the many reasons why people might think that not voting for a major party candidate is throwing your vote away. ...

Be Part of a winning team:
Many people just want to be a part of a winning team. When it comes to party politics, even minor party politics, people feel very strongly about their team. From a psychological standpoint, it is understandable. Much like sports rivalries, political party rivalries get in the way of objective thought. Many people have chosen Democrats, many have chosen Republicans and while quite a bit less many have chosen other parties such as Green, Libertarian, Reform, Constitution and oh so many more. Let us not forget all the candidate who choose not to be tied to a party but instead choose to run as Independent, Declined to state, et cetera. These differing groups are representative of the opinions of all types of Americans. It is important that as many of these voices as possible get heard. By voting for a minor party and/or individuals that share your values you give them a better chance of being seen and heard. If you vote Democrat or Republican just because they are more likely to win it just keeps these important voices away from view, unable to make any real difference. Remember that many, if not all, of the most progressive changes in the United States have started from the voices of independents and minor parties.

A Vote for X(non-evil minor candidate) is a vote for Y( the greater evil )
Then there is the reasonable argument that a vote a minor party candidate is a vote for a competing major party candidate because it takes votes away from the lesser evil major party candidate. On the surface, this argument makes sense. It makes sense, especially if you are in say the Democratic party, that someone who says they are going to vote Green or for Ralph Nader would most likely doesn't want to see a Republican in the White House so they should vote for a Democrat to make sure that doesn't happen. This really goes back to the 'Winning Team' argument. People in the Democratic party often mistake all progressives as Democrats while non-Democrat progressives often do not find the main stream Democratic party candidates as very progressive. From what I've read, many Republicans mistakenly think all conservatives are Republicans but many conservatives don't find the main stream Republican candidates conservative enough. It sounds like a whole lot of people need their voices heard, and that isn't going to happen by voting for major party candidates. Besides, a vote for a minor party candidate is only a vote for that candidate because no one else earned that vote. If you want people to rank their votes by preference, take a look at (instant) runoff voting and make it happen.

The reason to vote minor party / independent
If, like me, you were raised that America is the land of the free because of the brave this is a no brainer. Often, people hear( or read ) that statement and think of soldiers only. There is another group of brave men and women, people who stood up to the status quo to change things for the better. Think it's great that a woman has a chance at being president? Women have some brave independent souls to thank for the privilege to even vote. Think it is great that a man of color might be president? Once again, it was independent third parties( abolitionist ) who first brought the idea of ending slavery to the table( Abraham Lincoln was a Republican when that was a minor party ). Don't forget the brave independent thinkers who gave all citizens, regardless of race, the opportunity to vote and run for office. And for those of you who are thinking there is still work to be done, let me tell you, that is status quo getting in your way. I apologize to the conservatives, but being a liberal it is difficult for me to cite examples - oh yeah, Ross Perot actually got a tax and spend Democrat to balance the budget and lead us toward a budget surplus. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates( corporation run by Dems and Reps ) made sure noone heard him debate the 2nd time he ran and in doing so made it near impossible for any minor party or independent candidate to be a part of the national debates.

Voting for a minor party or independent candidate is never a wasted vote. Unless you believe in the democrats or republicans and what they stand for over any other candidate, a vote for a major candidate is a vote thrown away. You have not made them earn your vote. They can now take your vote for granted and go to work for the corporations, which they can't take for granted, instead of you. Write letters, tell them how you feel, it won't make a difference if they can count on getting elected next cycle. I am open to a major party candidate earning my vote. They have until November. Until then I currently have 3 choices, Ralph Nader, whomever the Green Party chooses and Mike Gravel; if the Libertarians choose him as their candidate.

Of course, these are only a couple reasons why people think one way or the other. Do you have another perspective? I would love to hear it. Please comment below.

A little from Kent Mesplay

Kent Mesplay seems to come across as a quieter Presidential candidate from the Green Party. When he speaks though, he comes across as very intelligent. I've liked him since the Green Party debates in January. However, being quiet, I don't hear much from him very often. So I was quite happy to see his name in an article, not as part of a list of Green Party presidential candidates but as the focus of the article. He talks about Nader running as an independent, Jesse Johnson's recent vocal endorsement from Mike Gravel and what Green's need to do to get noticed by the media. ...

Also at the end of the post is a short clip from a documentary called "Seriously Green" so that people can put a face to Kent Mesplay.

And here is a blog radio interview with Kent Mesplay as well. (So you can put a voice to the name I guess :) )

In case you missed it

I almost missed it while I was at Flex 360 in Atlanta. There has been a lot of talk about Nader officially running for President of the United States of America but you might have missed it. So I've decided to post some video of his announcement on Meet the Press. ...

As always, Nader is very intelligent and more eloquent about his political points than many.

Something else you may have missed is that Ralph Nader announced his Vice Presidential running mate yesterday.

Honestly, I was amazed at how quickly the information was on Wikipedia, that Matt Gonzalez was Ralph Nader's running mate. I don't know much about him so its time to do some research.