The SoapBoxers

Obama

We are past the 100 day mark in Barack Obama’s presidency. The country continues to find itself in a recession. The housing market slides further downward, and more Americans find themselves unemployed.  Detroit finds itself at the epicenter, with Chrysler filing for chapter 11 (reorganization) bankruptcy and GM taking drastic steps of its own – planning to shut down 16 of its 21 plants for 9 weeks during the summer and also planning to buy out 40% of its franchise agreements.

The country is divided on the job that the administration is doing. On Saturday, billionaire Warren Buffet said that he felt the government was taking the right steps to move out of the recession, although Buffett was not sure what the immediate future might hold.  On the other side, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh continues to criticize the vast majority of moves that the Obama administration makes.

The central them that I have observed, however, is that the discussion of the administration has been centering on the policies they are implementing or intending to implement.  The fact that our president is African-American – something that were were constantly reminded of during the election – appears to be completely lost in the melee.  For that, I am pleased.  I feel that this does not diminish the importance of this step in our country’s history, but instead enhances it.  I optimistically believe that we are judging the president on his merits (or perceived merits) with little regard to the color of his skin.

On an Obama tangent, singer LaShell Griffin, who sang for Obama on the campaign trail, is giving free concerts.  Griffin asks that concertgoers donate to the homeless instead.  I know absolutely nothing about this woman, but that sounds pretty cool.

Arlen Specter

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania turned a few heads by switching parties and becoming a Democrat.  Specter had actually been a Democrat in long-ago days, but had been a Republican since 1966.  Assuming that Al Franken eventually prevails in the Minnesota senate race, and furthing assuming that all Democrats follow party lines on cloture votes, the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority, as 60 Senators can invoke cloture to end debate on a bill and force a vote.

The wife of a co-worker was quite disappointed in Specter, saying that this should not be allowed, as people had voted for him as a Republican, and were now getting a Democrat instead.  I am an unaffiliated voter, and would hope that people would have voted for Specter based on his stance on the issues, rather than simply his party (although I realize that this is hopelessly optimistic).

So, why did Specter switch parties?  Most likely, because he was afraid of losing a primary contest to Pat Toomey, who is considerably more conservative.  Pennsylvania has been trending more democratic lately, and his views are moderate enough to win as a Democrat but probably not conservative enough to win as  Republican.

Jim Bunning

In news that is likely to make Republicans happy, Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning (a former Major League pitcher who threw two no-hitters, including a Father’s Day perfect game) appears to retiring at the end of his term, choosing to support Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the Republican Primary.  Bunning has exhibited some erratic behavior in recent years, and the GOP leadership has been trying to get him to agree not to run in 2010 for fear of losing the seat that Bunning narrowly defended in the 2004 election.  He had responded by threatening to step down immediately (which would allow Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (a Democrat)  to appoint his replacement.  Beshear would likely have appointed a Democrat.  It appears that Bunning has decided to take the high road.

Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp,  former MVP of the American Football league and longtime congressman from New York, has died of cancer at the age of 78.  Kemp was a long shot to ever have a meaningful football career, being drafted in the 17th round of the NFL draft and being cut by several other teams before landing with the Buffalo Bills of the AFL (a league that competed with the NFL before they eventually merged).  He led the Bills to titles in 1964 and 1965.  After retiring from football, he ran for congress.  He served 9 terms in the House of Representatives before serving as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H.W. Bush.  Kemp ran unsuccessfully for president in 1988 and vice president (with Bob Dole) in 1996.  For further information on the interesting life of Jack Kemp, check out his Wikipedia page.

For those of you who are paying attention, I am going to swap the news and sports days.  News will be on Mondays, Sports on Tuesday.

Minnesota Senate

I have already lampooned this situation once, but this election continues to be contested.  Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by 312 votes.  Coleman is very likely to appeal to the Minnesota supreme court, and if he loses there, the US Supreme Court (although I’m not sure why the SCOTUS would hear a case that appears to be fundamentally a state issue).

I’m not going to put one party at fault.  If Franken was 312 votes behind, it is likely that he would be following the same steps.  However, as months and possibly years go by as this election is sorted out, Minnesota will be have only one US Senator.  It would be beneficial for the citizens of Minnesota if a quick solution could be hammered out, although I am not sure what that solution would be.

Palin / Johnston

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, the father of her child, recently broke up.  Certainly that is unfortunate.  What is even worse is that the Johnstons and Palins have been taking pot shots at each other in the media.  Come on, folks, let’s keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors.

Gay Marriage

Last week, the supreme court in my home state of Iowa struck down a legislative ban on gay marriage.  Iowa is the first state outside of New England to legalize gay marriage.  Republicans in the legislature would like to add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which would invalidate the Court’s opinion that the existing law was unconstitutional).  This is not likely to happen for a while, though.  Such an bill would have to be passed in two consecutive sessions of the legislature before being place on the ballot.  The majority leaders seem to not be interested in pursuing such a course of action.

In Vermont, the legislature legalized gay marriage.  This is the first instance of a legislature, rather than a state court, legalizing gay marriage.  The bill had broad support in the legislature, as they needed to override a gubernatorial veto.

I personally applaud these decision.s  Many people say that this will tear apart the fabric of traditional marriage.  I disagree.  Divorce and domestic violence are the problems that are tearing apart the fabric of traditional marriage.  I have come to believe that sexual orientation is largely a biological issue.  I do not believe that the vast majority of gays choose that orientation.  If it was a matter of choice, why would people choose a path that is filled with so much hatred and so many obstacles?  Recent polls show that public support for gay marriage and civil unions is on the rise; I feel that it is a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in all states (although it may taken a few more decades).

On Thursday, I was fighting a virus and trying to get some much needed sleep.  Thursday morning,  my sleep was disrupted three times by the phone.  The first call was from my dentist’s office, which had not received the message I had left the previous night, informing them that I needed to cancel my appointment.  I was OK with this disruption, as it was a legitimate call.  

The other two disruptions were from telemarketers, and I was not OK with those disruptions.

The first call was from some company promising to lower my credit card interest rate.  I have repeatedly asked these scammers not to call back and told them they are in violation of the “Do Not Call” list.  However, their business must be very profitable and allow them to easily pay the FCC fines, as they continue to call back.  How do I know that they are not affiliated with one of my credit cards?  One time in the past, I asked which bank they were affiliated with.  After evasive answers (“We represent Mastercard and Visa”) they were unable to name a specific issuing bank. 

The next call was from congressman Steve King of Iowa’s 5th congressional district.  Steve’s robocall wanted me to participate in a survey.  I didn’t stay on the line to determine what the survey was actually about.  I have a pretty good guess, though, and if I am correct, it is an issue on which I do not agree with Steve.

The more disturbing aspect of the call, however, is that fact that I am not in Steve’s district.  I am not even close to being in Steve’s district.  I am really not sure why he would waste his resources calling me.  I’m curious how Steve’s constituents would react if they knew that he was using the resources of their district to make annoying telemarketing calls to voters whom he does not represent, instead of focusing those resources on something that could help his district?  I’d bet that some of them would accurately deem this to be wasteful government spending.

Friday featured a lovely call from a lady who seemed quite clueless about the “Do not call” list.  She said that I wasn’t on their list, but that she would add us.  When I clarified that the DNC list was a list maintained by the federal government, she proceeded to treat ME like the idiot, asking what part of her comment I didn’t understand.  My further attempts to educate her were cut off when she hung up.  Seriously, we don’t actually have telemarketers who are unaware of the DNC list, do we?  Not surprisingly, no information was available via call ID.

What can we do about telemarketing calls?  First, I would eliminate the computerized “robocalls”.  Either pay to have someone staff the phone lines (creating jobs) or don’t bother making the call.

Second, force politicians to abide by the “Do Not Call” list, or create some other way to allow voters to opt out of these calls.  Political calls are the worst sort of telemarketing calls; why should they be exempt?

Note that some states have taken positive steps toward these two goals.  More states must follow.

Finally, I am in favor of charging telemarketers a fee for each unsolicited call they make (even those that are not forbidden by the “Do Not Call” list).  This fee would be credited to the account of the phone number that is called.  This would be a nice way to compensate people for the annoyance of the call.  If telemarketers feel that this would make their business unprofitable, then perhaps they could spend some effort targeting their audience more affectively, rather than using a “shotgun” approach.

Gerrymandering

There will be gubernatorial elections in 38 states in 2009 and 2010. This is causing great happiness or sorrow among hard core party members, depending on the situation.

Why the big fuss?

In 2010, states will redraw district lines as a result of the census. Some states will lose members of the US House of Representatives, other will gain members, and some will simply redraw lines to balance the number of residents in each district.

Sounds incredibly straightforward and boring, huh?

Unfortunately, there is a lot of politics inside the art of redrawing the lines. If the governor is from the same party as the party that controls the state legislature, they can basically redraw the lines in any manner they see fit, and there’s not much the minority party can do.

The key is to consolidate the constituents of your opponent into as few districts as possibly. Let’s take an example state that has 100 voters and 10 congressional districts. 60 are party A, 40 are party B. If the voters are equally dispersed among the districts, party A would win 6-4 in every district and thus all of the states representatives in the US House would be from party A.

Let’s mix those voters up bit.

District 1: 10 A, 0 B
District 2: 10 A, 0 B
District 3: 10 A, 0 B
District 4: 6 A, 4 B
District 5: 4 A, 6 B
District 6: 4 A, 6 B
District 7: 4 A, 6 B
District 8: 4 A, 6 B
District 9: 4 A, 6 B
District 10: 4 A, 6 B

By pushing half of the party A voters into districts 1-3, party B created a situation where they hold an advantage in 6 of the 10 districts!

Obviously, in the real word, it isn’t quite that blatant. But politicians do draw some funny looking districts in an attempt to minimize the impact of the opponents.  The name Gerrymander is in “honor” of Elbridge Gerry who served as governor of Massachusetts from 1810-1812.  Some of the districts drawn during his tenure resembled a salamander.  Gerry + salamander = gerrymander.

I loathe this practice nearly as much as I hate filibusters. I don’t know if there is a perfect solution, but I would propose creating a bipartisan commission to draw the boundaries – half of the members would be from each party. They would be forced to agree on a compromise (which, in theory, should be a map that is fair to both parties).

And if they refuse to agree? They would not be allowed to hold the next scheduled house race until the situation was resolved. A situation could be created where a state did not have representation for a period of time. Can you imagine the impact if a state like Texas or California was unable to seat representatives? My hope would be that the fear of backlash from voters would be enough to force a compromise.

The whole situation with the Illinois governor makes me wonder … when a member of congress leaves his/her seat for a better job (President, Vice President, cabinet, etc) why don’t we simply let them pick their successor?

After all, if I voted for Senator X, I want a person who very closely fits Senator X’s profile to fill that role. Who better to make such a decision that Senator X. If the governor is from the opposing party and selects someone from that party, I might get the exact opposite of Senator X – definitely not what I wanted when I voted.

Of course, there would need to be an exception for situations where a person resigns in disgrace – and a way to split hairs of what is or is not disgrace.

[Note: this is intended to be a humorous parody of the relatively short delay in declaring a winner in the Oregon senate race. It is not intended to be an accurate representation of the state’s election process.]

As we trot toward the festivities of Thanksgiving, the diligent election workers in the state of Oregon continue their thankless job of counting the votes. We expect a winner to be declared in the senate race any day now.

TCO caught up with Joe Saycanusi of the Oregon Secretary of State’s office.

TCO: Joe – Do you mind if I call you Joe? It is now 2 weeks past election day and we’re still waiting for a winner in the Merkley/Smith Senate race. What, exactly, is causing the delay?

JS: Well, TCO, we are experiencing multiple issues. As you know, all voting in Oregon is done through the mail. This year, we have had a bit of a West Nile epidemic, and this has really put a strain on the herd.

TCO: Er, what’s that? Do you mean that the mail in Oregon is actually delivered via pony express?

JS: Of course. What else would we use? Oxen are strong, but they’re pretty slow. We had a second health issue as well – several of the horses came down with constipation. Believe me, when a horse is waiting to take a crap, you’re just going to have to wait it out. Really, I don’t see what the big fuss is all about. The new congress doesn’t start work for a while yet. As long as we’ve declared a winner by then, everything is cool.

TCO: Well, Joe, that’s very fascinating. Thank you for enlightening us.

TCO: We were also cable to catch up with a precinct captain in Multnomah County. We are pleased to speak to John Morgan.

TCO: Captain Morgan – how are you feeling this morning?

CM: Aye, a bit hung over, to be honest. We’ve been doing this bloody counting for umpteen days now. It’s enough to drive you a bit mad after a while, so I went on a bit of a bender last night.

TCO: I believe that you had a bit of a problem with some votes in one of your precincts. Can you explain what happened?

CM: Well, the middle of last week, our cleaning people came in at night to scrub the place down. Unfortunately, when our counters got in the next morning, they discovered an absolute tragedy. Our permanent record of the vote counting had been destroyed – the blackboard was scrubbed clean! Even worse, the ballots had been thrown out with the trash!

TCO: Wow. That’s horrible. Yet, you are expecting to have complete results …

CM: I know what you’re thinking. No, we didn’t just make up some numbers. We grabbed our boots and headed out to the dump. After two days in the dump, we recovered every single ballot. Then we went work, removing chewing gum and taco sauce from the ballots. It was hard work, but I am confident that every single vote has been tallied correctly.

TCO: Wow, that’s quite the ballot tale, captain Morgan. That’s it for this installment of the news. Join us next time as we oversee the counting of ballots in the Alaska senate race.

This is geared more toward moderates rather than partisan voters.

Let’s say that you care about five issues (listed in order of importance)

Issue 1: Candidate A agrees with you. 90% of congress is on your side.
Issue 2: Candidate A agrees with you. 80% of congress is on your side.
Issue 3: Candidate B agrees with you. 50% of congress is on your side.
Issue 4: Candidate A agrees with you. 30% of congress is on your side.
Issue 5: Candidate A agrees with you. 20% of congress is on your side.

Who should you vote for? Candidate A, right? After all, candidate A agrees with you on four of your five most important issues, including the two that are most near and dear to your heart.

Wrong. You should vote for candidate B.

Issues 1 and 2 are safe, since congress overwhelmingly agrees with you. Conversely, issues 4 and 5 are hopeless for you at this point in time, as they simply don’t have enough support. The one issue where your vote makes the largest difference is issue 3 – which is teetering on the brink of having enough congressional support.

Keep this in mind the next time you vote. Which issues are teetering on the brink?

Did you stay away from the polls because you didn’t think your vote counted? One effect of the apathy caused by the electoral college is the down-ticket effect. If you are a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California, you are correct that your presidential vote would not have swung the state. However, your vote may have changed the results of local races – and this can also have an impact on you. In my state, a candidate in one race currently holds a lead of 6 votes.

If you don’t like the electoral college, there is a way to fix it. Contrary to popular belief, a state does not need to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. The state has complete control over how their votes are awarded.

There is currently an effort underway to functionally abolish the electoral college. A number of states have formed an agreement to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. This will only occur once enough states have joined to ensure 270 electoral votes (meaning that if a candidate won the popular vote and had this bloc of states give him/her their electoral votes, he/she would achieve an automatic electoral college majority.. Until then, the states will continue to assign electoral votes via the current method.

Read more at this web site:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

Contact your state legislators regarding this.