A public service announcement from el sicómoro...
 

In case you've been hiding under a rock, tomorrow is Election Day in the United States. Every congressman is up for re-election, as well as many senators and governors. (And if you live in Nevada, you can vote in favor of allowing people to carry up to 3 ounces of pot...not for medicinal purposes, or any silly shit like that...for YOU to smoke! You lucky bastards!)

I don't give a rat's ass if you support republicans, democrats, the communists...whatever. Get your sorry ass over to the polling place tomorrow, and VOTE! (And if you live in MN, but haven't registered yet, you can still do so tomorrow.)

Mid-term elections are generally sleepers in terms of attendance. But this is important...EVERY election is important. You're helping to decide what path the US government is going to follow for the next 2 years. There could be new Federal judge appointments, Supreme Court justice appointments, tax cuts or hikes, etc.

And if you didn't happen to notice the presidential election 2 years ago...EVERY vote counts.

So go vote. Tomorrow. Punch those chad-type cards firmly if your precinct uses them. Make sure you're reading the ballot correctly. Don't get confused by the flashing lights on the voting machine (as I did during the primaries earlier this year).

Thank you. :)

You know how some people actually put Mickey Mouse down as a write-in candidate?

What would happen if Mickey Mouse actually won?

Would the capital move to Anaheim?

Would we all have to wear mouse ears every day?

Who would be the VP? Donald Duck or Goofy?

A contrarian position:

If you don't know who the candidates are, please don't vote.

If you got ALL your information about the candidates from TV commercials, please don't vote.

If you intend to vote the major party line, casting votes for candidates you're not familiar with, please don't vote.

UT was a Libertarian; now he's a Contrarian.

He's for whatever the person he's talkin' to is against. ;)

He won't agree with me on this, of course.

What? You mean TV doesn't give all the information I need? ;)

Nonononono!!! That's libertarian, not Libertarian. :)

It's more funny if they're both Capitalized.

One fuckin' good reason to vote Libertarian
 

... and if you're an Okie, don't fergit to keep yer culture alive by votin' to keep cockfightin' legal.

Remember, cockfighting is OK.

http://images.zwire.com/local/Z/Zwir...ACF6781405.jpg

James Reamy, who lives west of Ada, is a fifth-generation cockfighter. His great-great-grandfather brought fighting roosters from Ireland when he immigrated to the United States.

Why bother? He already controls Rep. Hollings (D, Disney)

Who?

Friz Hollings...who's so identified with entertainment industry issues that the hardware component enabling TCAP/Palladium is called "the Fritz Chip"
<blockquote><i>
Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., is at it again. Although he represents South Carolina, Hollings is sometimes known as the "Senator from Disney" because of his eagerness to support the interests of the motion picture and record industries and their lobbying arms, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Record Industry Association of America.

Hollings’ loyalty to Big Entertainment — which favored him with contributions of nearly $300,000 in the past election cycle — was manifested last fall by his championing of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, which would mandate the inclusion of copy-protection in every digital device and every computer operating system...
</i></blockquote>

see also: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46671,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47296,00.html
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

and definately catch the flash version of Lawrence Lessig's presntation at:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

SSSCA gave rise to CBTPA:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/

Nah, you're all ate up there Tony. You don't have to be informed on all the issues to know who you want to vote for. Even if I didn't know all the Republicans running for office here personally, I could still vote party line and be pretty sure that my views were being represented better than if I didn't vote at all.

It doesn't matter why people vote the way they do. Candidates will try to persuade people based on what those people think is important, whether it's issues or a catchy little jingle.

If voting were only done by people thoroughly informed about the races, we would have a very small minority making decisions for the rest of us. Wanting to be informed about the races is a personal decision; that doesn't mean it should be a litmus test for whether people vote in the first place.

I changed people's votes today because I walked them from their car with an umbrella in the rain. Hey, if that's what they think is important in someone holding public office, then they have every right to vote that way.

It looks like the Republicans have complete control over America now. Well, that's just great. Way to go, people!. We Arkansans did our part. What the hell happened to the rest of you?

We were busy not fucking our sisters. :)

You may well be right Tob. I'm just bitter because my state rep (John Lawless) is a total S.O.B., and he won yesterday by 300 votes, and it cannot be explained by anything other than mindless button-pushing and Rendell coattails.

This despite the Republicans running a decent alternative, a woman even, and sending out four very high-quality pieces informing everyone exactly what a total S.O.B. this guy is.

But I don't even have a sister!!

This is a clear case of discrimination. I think I should get $1,000,000 to help me through my emotional suffering.

I generally vote Democratic, yet voted for my state rep, who is a Republican...and this sorta ties into what Tob mentioned in his post. Dennis O'Brien seems like a decent enough guy, and things are fine in the far Northeast...of course, it didn't hurt that he had no opponents either. :) But truth be told, the primary reason I voted for him was b/c he helped Rho in battling the Unemployment Claims bureau earlier this year.

I do think that people should know who the candidates are before you vote, but at the same time, I agree with Tob on this:

and this:

That being said, I think we'd all be better off if there was less negative campaigning. I'd rather hear a candidate say, "Here's what I want to do" or "Here's where I stand on this" (and this is what I liked about Ken Krawchuk...he lays it out nice and neat). I'm tired of the whole "Bob Jones doesn't care about America...in 1980, he threw puppies off his 4th floor balcony" shit.

In my opinion, this <i>is</i> what happens. Most of the people who vote are old timers. Have you seen the issues politicians put up on their webpages? It's all things that old people care about. They're pretty much picking our politicians for us, because they're the only ones who vote.

Welp, since the next election will have new rules, perhaps the next election will be more issues-oriented, and the voters can signal exactly what they want in a clear way that results in responsive government.

*snort*

On the other hand, maybe I take it all back. Maybe it's better if the government isn't so damn responsive.

We have a fast-growing elderly population...one that will swell with the retirement of the baby boomers. Of course those issues are going to take center stage.

A new manifesto on the elections is forthcoming...

The last result I saw this morning had Crahalla ahead by 60 votes. She was at our polling place, and we had the opportunity to talk with her for a while. I hope you're wrong about Lawless winning. Lemme go check again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov-06-2002 03:45 PM Eastern Standard Time

PA State House District 150
Precincts Reporting: 24 Of 24 100%
<pre>
Winner Candidate Party Incumbent Votes Vote %
X Jacqueline Crahalla Republican 8,702 50%
John Lawless Democrat X 8,639 50%
</pre>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've confirmed this at the county website and the Philly Inquirer sites, as well as at kywonline.com . Are you seeing something different reported somewhere else, Tony? I have a congratulations letter all set to mail...

Wow. I don't know what happened, but the department of state website had Lawless losing as of noon today, a trend that had been on all night. Now he's lost by about 80.

Well ok then! I take it back! The voters are sensible.

Not always-- they elected Rendell. :-)

Tony, you STILL bitter over Lawless? Well, hopefully those results will cheer you up...unless he calls up 30 lawyers and demands a recount in selected precincts. :)

As far as the gubernatorial election, it's my opinion that the best man won, but I might...might...be biased. :)

On a serious tip, usually, I find myself picking the "least worst." And granted there was some mud-slinging (which went incredibly quiet about 3 weeks ago), but overall, I found the 3 main candidates to be relatively decent folk...which seems to be a rarity these days.

Still. Recently Mr. Lawless was involved in a routine traffic stop, and he pulled a "Don't you know who I am" on the trooper, and it turned into a Minor Incident.

You know, the legislative nonsense I could almost write off as just throwing a wrench into the system. But I have a zero-tolerance policy this kind of power-play nonsense.

We may be better off, but negative campaigns win elections. People say they're sick of negativity, but the fact is that those negative ads do have an impact, and that's why they're used. They have to be done right -- poorly-designed negative campaigns can easily backfire -- but they do bring home results.

It's a standard formula. Start out building name recognition and telling people why you're qualified. And raising money. Then, near the end, you spend that money by attacking the other guy. Especially if you're running against an incumbent; you have to give people a reason to change.

And when was the last time Republicans controlled the entire government? 1910 or something like that? How many cumulative years in the past century did Democrats control it? At least several dozen?

If the United States is a desolate, barren, smoldering wasteland in 2004, with gestapo police on every corner and mandatory right-wing propaganda played from PA systems in all government buildings, then you can say "I told you so."

Don't mind him. He's from Arkansas.

:)

Actually, if things get to that point you won't be *able* to say "I told you so". It will be prohibited. :-)

It's my vague understanding that every time one party has completely controlled the government, vast, unwise, and sweeping changes were made. That's really what the much ballyhoo'd "checks and balances" system is supposed to prevent, but I can't see how it could work very well if one party controls everything. It's not about Republicans vs. Democrats. I just don't want a king.

Tob, to answer your question:

Full Democratic Control (1903-2002): 32
Full Republican Control (1903-2002): 20

(Source, along with my own figures for 2001 and 2002)

Juju, the checks and balances can still work. The Supreme Court at this point can go either way in determining the constitutionality of laws (depending on the mood of the moderates). And the Republicans do not have enough Senators to override a veto, unless Democrats join them.

But the bottom line is quite simple: The Republicans have two years to make their case. The Democrats had the same opportunity in 1992...and blew it. My own personal opinion is that the Dems will take back one thing in 2004...most likely the Senate. In the last 30 years, only Carter has had the party trifecta for a full term.