Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Housewife's Top 5 Political Sites


So you just realized that elections are less than two weeks away and you still don't know who to vote for. Maybe you're a procrastinator or maybe you simply find all the contradictory information confusing. Well, I'd like to offer some assistance. Below you will find a linked list of my top 5 sites for election season, all of which I used to assist in the making of my own decision. If you find them as helpful as I did then please share them with you're friends as well. There is no reason to flip a coin, you can become an informed voter in far less time then you think. Good luck and happy voting!

1.     www.isidewith.com
This is the site of my favorite presidential election quiz. While I don’t recommend using this site to make your big decision, I do recommend using it as a jumping point to your research. Just remember to rate how much each issue actually matters to as you answer the questions. When you are done you will be given a percentage rating for each of the top six presidential candidates. Use the information as you wish. Me, I decided to do more research on my top three

A must see. This is where you go to see who’s receiving funding and from where. Why does this matter? Well, if a person/organization donates money to a politician it’s usually because they believe that the politician will push through legislation that benefits the donator. Since large sums are often involved its pretty safe for you to share their assumption. It’s a good idea to make sure that your best interest are in line with theirs.

3.     www.factcheck.org
Politicians aren’t exactly known for their straightforward and unbiased answers to questions but this site can help you find the truth (if there is any) in their words. Among other things the site has articles analyzing all three of the presidential debates for false or misleading statements. The only downside of the site is its lack of coverage on 3rd party candidates, which I suppose is a side effect of the overall lack of media coverage on them.

This was my go to site for information about the other things I might find on my ballot. It’s fairly easy to use. Just click on the ballot measure link located on the left side of the home screen. From here you can scroll down the list of dates to November and then through an alphabetical list of states until you find your own. As an absentee voter, I was not completely up to date on all of the issues on the ballot and being able to research them before I voted helped me make a more informed decision.

This site has a wealth of information.  My favorite part is a search bar that allows you to use your zip code to access all of your candidates, their biographies voting records, issue position etc.  

Monday, October 22, 2012

My "Wasted" Vote


Tonight I will vote (absentee ballot) and when I do I will cast my vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate.  I initially decided to vote this way after realizing that I was trying to decide which major party candidate I liked less. The thought disturbed me. Is this what the founders had in mind, decade after decade of presidents who we disliked less? I didn’t think so, and therefore I began to do some research, determined to find a candidate that I could actually believe in (even if it meant I would have to write a name in). I was surprised to find that there were more active presidential candidates then I had initially realized.  I did some reading and some fact checking and then I chose the candidate I really believed had the best record/platform.  In truth this process was both easier and more rewarding then I thought it would be.  
Unfortunately, while I was pleasantly surprised to find a candidate I liked, it was far less pleasant to experience people’s reaction to my decision. According to many, I might as well not vote if I intended to vote 3rd party. Both online and off I have met with a mix of negative reactions ranging from the conclusion that I was naive to the conclusion that I was stupid. It was these reactions, which have led me to write this particular piece defending my decision. The following is not meant to sway you away from a candidate you believe in, however, if like myself you not sure you can believe in what the democrats and republicans are selling, then I encourage you not to give in but to stand up.  If you are part of what I believe to be a silent majority then the following arguments are for you.

1.     Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.  In recent years I have heard (and I acknowledge have even said) “I am voting for the lesser of two evils” far more than I am comfortable with. The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that the result is still evil. Sure we may slow the rate at which our country heads down the wrong path but we’re still on the wrong path.  From here on out I do not vote for evil. 
2.    Voting “against the other guy” is a less productive form of protest.  So you don’t like either candidate.  Still, you figure you have to choose A or B and you surely don’t want A to get elected so you choose B. Let me explain why this form of protest voting is ineffective. First, by voting against A instead of for a candidate you want, you unintentionally tell B (and his party) that you are happy with the job he is doing. This means that in elections to come you will be provided with the same sort of choices. Don’t reinforce poor politics by voting “against” the candidate you most dislike. It is far more effective to vote for a candidate you believe in, even if they haven’t a hope in hell of winning. When third party candidates start receiving enough votes to pull from the Democrats and the Republicans both parties sit up and take notice. If they wish to continue to win they have to find a way to take back some of those third party votes. This generally means adopting some of the 3rd party's platform on issues that pulled your vote in the first place. This in the long run only serves to make both parties better. More importantly it serves to keep the party you are most in agreement with informed of your desires as a citizen. 
3.    Stop The Spiral of Silence.  “The Spiral of Silence” refers to a political science/mass communication theory that seeks to explain in part how public opinion is formed. The theory was originally introduced by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in 1974 and continues to be used today in a variety of studies. In the simplest terms that theory tells us that people who believe that their opinions are in the minority are less likely to express those opinions publicly out of fear of isolation. As a result of this silence the “perceived” distance between public opinion and personal opinion grows thus increasing the number of people who remain silent. I believe that we are witnessing a silencing spiral in our current political system.  As the two major parties move ever further away from each other on major issues, those of us somewhere in the middle become less and less vocal and therefore encourage further movement to the left or the right. Voting 3rd party allows those pushed into silence to make their opinions public and in doing so turn the spiral around. As more of us speak out, more of us will feel empowered to add our voice and end silence.
4.    If this is “winning” I would rather lose. By far the most common argument I heard against third party voting was the “they can’t win” argument. It goes like this: Since a 3rd party candidate has little chance of winning you are better off voting for the candidate who most closely resembles your ideals.  In part this argument relies on your disliking one candidate more than the other. Both major parties hope that you are so concerned about the other party’s choice that you will vote for their piss poor excuse of a candidate rather than risk tilting the vote in favor of the other guy. I will not bore you by restating my argument against this kind of protest voting but I will ask you to consider this: Is this what winning looks like? We have been falling victim to this line of reasoning for decades and what has it gotten us? Furthermore, would you accept such reasoning in other areas of your life? Should we just get rid of all of the sports teams that don’t rank 1st or 2nd  leaving only the top two contenders to duke it out? Seems to me the only people benefitting from such a proposal are the top two teams. What about the rest of us. Personally, I would rather lose than stop fighting.

Let me close by saying that I believe in democracy and I am personally tired of the self-serving government that we the people have helped to create. This year I will “waste” my vote on a losing candidate, secure in the knowledge that that I am backing my conscience and not just a projected winner. I hope that no matter your politics you too take this opportunity to review the performance of your elected officials and tell them loud and clear what it is you really want. In the words of John Quincy Adams “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Please feel free to leave your comments, questions and concerns below.
Mohandas K. Gandhi

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The GOP, Marriage, and Constitutional Rights



According to their published 2012 platform the GOP believes in “restoring a constitutional government” so do I, however, they try to tie a constitutional act defining marriage into this “belief in a constitutional government”. WHAT! Listen up GOP I have read the constitution many times over and while it does provide for the creation of amendments (Article V), The Bill of Rights (you know those first 10 amendments without which the constitution would have never been ratified… thank you Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia), provide for my religious freedom (amendment I). If an amendment defining marriage isn’t an amendment infringing on my religious freedom I don’t know what is. Please give me one good reason why there should be an amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual act aside from the fact that you don’t agree with homosexuality on a personal/religious level… haven’t got one? Then back off! They also go on to say that they consider our states to be “the laboratories of democracy from which the people propel our nation forward, solving local and state problems through local and state innovations.” Well if that’s the case then why bother, let the states handle it as they see fit.  The only truly republican argument here should be that this is a state issue (According to the 10th amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”). Of course this argument is a tough one to defend.
I myself previously held that the issue of homosexual marriage was a state issue. I believed that the people of each state should be allowed to decide how they felt about this for themselves and vote accordingly.  After much research, discussion and thought on this issue however, I have changed my previous position. It appears to me that this issue is unarguably one of “equal rights” so the question is “Do current state laws concerning marriage deny a portion of the population its 14th amendment rights?” I believe that the answer is yes. Why am I allowed the benefits and protections of marriage (or adversely the limits and dangers) while another portion of the population is denied this? Since I have yet to hear any arguments against homosexual marriage that are not based solidly in personal religious/moral beliefs and since we each have the right to believe as we choose, it seems clear to me that there is no reason for this infringement.
I know that at this very moment somebody is trying to make the erroneous argument that allowing homosexual marriage would mean also having to allow people to marry animals etc. “Where does it stop!” they are a wailing. Please spare me the dramatics. It stops among consenting adults. Animals can’t say, “I do” therefore they don’t. This is also the reason 8 year olds can’t get married or complain about job discrimination (your ridiculous example deserves an equally ridiculous example). I admit that the allowance of homosexual marriage opens us up to all kinds of changes and new (real) problems to solve (i.e. how might this effect the current social security system) but I have faith that we can work through it all.

Please feel free to leave your comments, questions and concerns below.
Mohandas K. Gandhi