VOTE!

[desh]

I just came back from voting.

There was one office for which no one was running. I wrote in myself. I figure it's a novel way to look for a job, if nothing else. We'll see if anything happens.

Never before have I voted in an election in which the ballot issue is the most important. Philadelphia's democratic machine has been running overtime lately, with a recent corruption trial, an even more recent resigning of a city councilman due to corruption charges, and just a general stench of pay-to-play (a fancy term for bribery, I suppose) all around the city. The ballot question in Philadelphia is a complicatedly-worded thing about reducing the possibility for future pay-to-play arrangements. Voting YES on that felt better than most candidates I've voted for in the past. (Excepting myself, of course.)

Go vote! I don't care where you live. If there are elections being held today, they're important. (Especially in New Jersey and Ohio, among other states.) Go, go, go!

Comments

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

Oh, as an aside to my Kaine rant, there's one issue on the CA ballot that I think deserves to win, but sadly probably won't. Ahhhnold put this out as one of four major issues he pushed for this ballot, but I think it's much more important as a national rather than a simply California issue. He wants to take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the state legislature and put it in the hands of retired judges. Yes, you heard right - no more gerrymandering. No more "Texas Democrats playing hookie", no more Jim Gerlach's (R-PA06), and what's even better, no more "solid Republican majority". Ever wonder why the map looks so skewed towards the Red states, but when viewed in shades of purple, it looks much more evenly distributed? That's gerrymandering at work, folks.

However, Nancy Pelosi and other CA Dems are working against Arnold's measure (well, against all of them) for pretty much political reasons. Not because it may well lead to more Democrats in the U.S. House from CA - which it might - but because it will endanger their "safe districts" that they've set up for themselves. That's pretty much true in almost every big state - for every contested district, you've got two or more "safe districts" which were carved for the explicit purpose of using demographics to safeguard incumbents. That right there is the death of representative democracy - using our own groupings against us. Anyone remember when term limits were being discussed? Anyone remember its wide rejection among lawmakers? Fucking incumbents.

Of course, similar measures in Ohio and Florida are being opposed by the respective state Republicans, so it's more an "Incumbents vs. the Public Good" rather than "Elephants vs. Donkeys", though party issues do play into it quite a bit.

--Jeff

[desh]

Yeah, this measure in particular is why I said Ohio was a biggie today. (I figured that it might have a chance there, since GWB won the state last year and since their Republican party is currently in shambles, but perhaps not.) And there's a group that DKos has been pushing a lot that advocates a change in redistricting laws in Ohio: Reform Ohio Now. (See issue #4 there. (And Jeff, I know you probably know this; this is also for other people reading these comments.))

I haven't felt like posting a big rant about gerrymandering. At least, not since my last one. Suffice it to say, there are few political things I feel more strongly about than eliminating this partisan redistricting crap.

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

I don't see how you CAN get to any other issues without first going through election reform. Face it - politicians (like Tom DeLay) are still circumventing McCain-Feingold with campaign finance, partisanship and the extremists on both the left and the right are gaining because of skewed "safe districts", and campaigning on the issues is becoming a thing of the past. Election reform is needed NOW, before we do anything else. How can you expect us to, say, protect the right to an abortion, which 56% of Americans SUPPORT, if a majority of our representatives in Congress don't support it? How can a moderate voice prevail when they are drowned out by the screaming of the extremes and the ignorant? How can we be expected to make an intelligent choice when our own candidates tell us half-truths and lies? I'm sure there are tons of issues that are very important in the here and now (Katrina rebuilding, abortion, Social Security, taxes, deficits, etc.), but this isn't just "one of those issues democracies were designed to handle" - this IS our Democracy, Desh. I won't see us give up long term stability for short term gains.

Which is what pisses me off so much about Virginia, California, Ohio, and practically fucking everywhere. In VA, there's a lying fucktard Republican candidate who wants to plunge the state back into debt, and he's able to be as popular as he is because he's using underhanded attack tactics that, in my opinion, smack of libel. In California, the "Progressive" party is trying to kill a truly progressive measure, simply because it was put forth by an opponent they're trying to humiliate. In Ohio, they're one of the most corrupt state governments in history, yet they still retain control because they hold the monopoly on "values issues" (see the irony?). The very foundations of our Republic are rotting. It is our job to first shore up the foundation before we can address other projects.

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

Yowza... I am a bit militant today. In my defense, it hasn't been all that good a day - but I apologize for taking out some of my pent up aggression in your blog comments. Thank you kindly for the opportunity to do a little venting!

--Jeff

[desh]

Any time. Vote for me, and I'll let you do it again!

[desh]

I completely agree with everything you say here, except for the fact that you seem to be implying that I disagree.

[jdcohen.livejournal.com]

Hehe, well, isn't my face fed. This:

"Suffice it to say, there are few political things I feel more strongly about than eliminating this partisan redistricting crap."

Is not the same as this:

"Suffice it to say, there are [a] few political things I feel more strongly about than eliminating this partisan redistricting crap."

I read the latter, rather than the former. Seeing red and all that. Carry on!

--Jeff