![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Remember how I said "There's always someone worse"?
Kerry just picked Edwards for his running mate.
Fuck.
Just to set the record straight for all the non-NC residents...
Edwards was a big trial lawyer down here who "fought for the little people"... for a big check. Pro bono? his firm never did *any* that anyone's been able to confirm.
He then ran on a platform for Senator that he'd "fight for the little people". Guess what happened? A poor voting attendance record, and then only partway through his *first term*, he essentially abdicates to run for President. He walked out on the job because something shinier was dangled in front of him... and didn't have the decency or balls to just quit and let the 'little people' of NC choose a replacement. Nope, we got stuck with a do-nothing.
In my opinion he's a fraud, a fake, and a self-serving egomaniac with not enough political experience to run for governor, much less VP.
Now he's the Dem VP nominee... and suddenly I really don't want to vote for Kerry. What if Kerry takes a bullet? This Breck Boy bubblehead and power tripping maniac could ascend to the Presidency... he'd be like Bush, without any political experience at all. Oh gooooood.
Bottom line: Edwards let down the people of NC. He's a sham. And he'll do it to the rest of country, now that he's been given a chance.
Kerry, I am so utterly disappointed in you it isn't funny. You went for glitz over substance, and turned the Democratic nomination into a soccer-mom-vote popularity contest. Shame on you. You had my vote locked in until this... but now?
How's Nader looking? *sigh*
Fuck.
Just to set the record straight for all the non-NC residents...
Edwards was a big trial lawyer down here who "fought for the little people"... for a big check. Pro bono? his firm never did *any* that anyone's been able to confirm.
He then ran on a platform for Senator that he'd "fight for the little people". Guess what happened? A poor voting attendance record, and then only partway through his *first term*, he essentially abdicates to run for President. He walked out on the job because something shinier was dangled in front of him... and didn't have the decency or balls to just quit and let the 'little people' of NC choose a replacement. Nope, we got stuck with a do-nothing.
In my opinion he's a fraud, a fake, and a self-serving egomaniac with not enough political experience to run for governor, much less VP.
Now he's the Dem VP nominee... and suddenly I really don't want to vote for Kerry. What if Kerry takes a bullet? This Breck Boy bubblehead and power tripping maniac could ascend to the Presidency... he'd be like Bush, without any political experience at all. Oh gooooood.
Bottom line: Edwards let down the people of NC. He's a sham. And he'll do it to the rest of country, now that he's been given a chance.
Kerry, I am so utterly disappointed in you it isn't funny. You went for glitz over substance, and turned the Democratic nomination into a soccer-mom-vote popularity contest. Shame on you. You had my vote locked in until this... but now?
How's Nader looking? *sigh*
Voting mechanisms.
"First second third"... exactly. Scientific American ran a fascinating article on voting processes a few months ago. April, I think. It used the 2000 US Presidential Election of a prime example of how *NOT* to have people vote... it does one of the poorest jobs of reflecting people's rankings. (The other was the last French Presidential election, when the NeoNazi (LePin?) almost won from out of nowhere.)
Tiered voting allows for rankings - as it is, a far left Socialist and a moderate Democrat with fiscally conservative leanings both end up voting precisely the same way - which means that everyone loses their voice to some degree. It also means there are *NO* 'wasted votes'. We could a dozen candidates, and votes would be distributed as the voter saw fit. The kicker? It's really frickin' easy. "Who's your first choice? Who's your second choice?" and so on. If you don't like anybody left in the field at all, you simply don't vote for them at all. Assume there are 10 candidates. Your first pick gets 10 points. Your second pick gets 9. Your third, 8. And so on. Anyone you don't pick at *all*, get 0 points, meaning you give them no clout, period. *NO* vote is wasted.
Instead, we have this idiotic system that is geared directly for the mass marketing wonks to take advantage of, and run us all right into the gutter. Whoo.
Electoral College:
Thank you for seeing the EC has a purpose - most people I talk about this with think it's somehow evil, and in the way of a popular vote approach. *shudder* If we had a simple popular vote, the seven largest cities in the US would decide each election, the rest of us would be statistically insignificant. Great thought, eh?
Right now each state gives the full EC ballots to the popular vote winner in that state... which is just bizarre. I have an alternative:
Each state has a number of EC ballots equal to their total number of Congress seats: 2 for the Senate, and N for the House, based on their population. The N House seats are voted on by district already. I say we leverage this for the EC... each district has a popular vote for their single EC ballot, and then the two remaining EC ballots (representing the Senate seats) are given to the *overall* state popular vote.
This splits each state up into smaller pieces, each of which can vote independently of the others, and have equal representation, yet there is still a unified voice of the state in the remaining two ballots.
It makes the EC closer to the popular vote, while protecting the interests of smaller population areas. Having lived in both rural and urban areas, their needs are simply different, and often at odds - allowing the urban populace to push often short-sighted legislation through by sheer weight results in more harm than good to rural areas in most cases. Everyone's out for their own short-term interests, instead of seeing a larger view.
Of course, with tiered voting, the EC may simply be a redundancy, since the outcome ranking of the election will more closely the reflect the varied wishes of the general population.
Now for a fun one: bring back the original approach that winner got Presidency, and 1st runner up got Veep? I rather like. Might lead to gridlock, would certainly lead to more discussion and discourse during each term instead of these wild swings of the pendulum we currently have that just enforce the polarization of the political rhetoric.
Re: Voting mechanisms.
Someone, at some point, did some study for which I have absolutely no citation that says that gridlock is best for the economy. The less congress does, the better.
Re: Voting mechanisms.