Teresa Heinz-Kerry

As a matter of perspective, I went to the Tides Foundation to get an idea of its true size. Atoyot's original post starting the this thread notes that Teresa Heinz-Kerry donate "over 4 million" in the period from 1995-2001 (average $667,000). On page 8 of the Tides Foundation 25 year history, there is a graph of their annual grants. In the year 2000 alone the Tides gave over $50 million in grants. T H-K's contribution, while significant to you and me, are just a small potatoes to something as large as Tides. At first glance, in reading Atoyot's posting, it gave the impression that Tides was just a cover organization. On closer reading this was not implied but still seems that it was worded in a way to allow such assumptions.

Just my observation,

Jon

 

This country is so polarized, that neither side will consider objectively any statements that don't support their position. All the campaign ads are negative and statements about Bush are hateful as opposed to being critical. I'm very discouraged.

 

If I thought that all that stuff about Mrs. Kerry was true, I'd be strongly tempted to vote for her husband, in the hopes that she'd have an influence on him.

As it is, I'm still undecided. Bush is a moron who transformed the largest (?) surplus in history into the largest national debt in history, and, worse yet, transformed nearly-universal world sympathy with the USA into nearly-universal world contempt. And even more disgusting, he asserts that, on his accusation alone, a person can be deprived of any right to legal due process.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that Kerry is any better, except that he's not a moron.

Of course, thanks to the winner-take-all electoral college system, my vote cannot influence the outcome of the election. And that's how our politicians, from the founding to the present, wanted it.

 

THK

Regardless of one's political stripe, I still find the most outrageous fact is the low voter turnout rate. I believe according to UN stats that Sweden has the highest voter turnout at about 85%. We have to be able to beat Sweden. Jeesh! We are all Prius owners, sure would be nice if we encouraged everyone we knew to vote.
Its very simple, if you vote you have the right to voice your opinion; if you couldnt take the time, didnt bother or just plain didnt vote, then shut the :cussing: up!


:mrgreen:

 

Bill is absolutely right!!! Get involved....vote...work for a candidate...do SOMETHING. Nothing gets me madder than the person who bitches about stuff but does nothing to help change things. This is not just in the political arena but in all things - ie. personal health, relationships, work conditions, etc. Prius people - of all political outlooks - are people working toward change. They have taken a step to do something. Please carry that good action forward and work toward change in other areas that concern you.

 

Not voting can be the result of apathy. But not voting can also be a positive expression of the perfectly legitimate view that our electoral system is nothing more than window dressing for an un-democratic system.

Many people hold the view that, since elections are determined by plurality, rather than by majority, and since it requires hundreds of millions of dollars just to get name recognition, the voters have no real choices.

You may feel that Kerry vs. Bush is a real choice, and that is a valid opinion. But there are many who feel that the differences between them are negligible, and that to vote at all gives legitimacy to an undemocratic and illigitimate system, and this, too, is a valid opinion. We have the right to vote in this country, but we also have the right not to vote.

I take a middle road: I have voted for protest candidates in every presidential election since I became old enough to vote, because there has never been a candidate that I could vote for without becoming seriously ill. (I have not yet decided whether to vote for Kerry this time, just because Bush is so utterly vile, or to cast a protest vote again, because I am not convinced that they're all that much different.)

Now, a genuinely democratic system would count the popular votes, and if no candidate got 50% plus one, then there would have to be another election. We are told that would be too expensive. Too expensive????????? So expensive that we're better off with a president that the majority cannot stomach?

Because if we did it that way, you can bet that half of those non-voters would go to the polls and write in their mother-in-law just to deny a majority to either of the so-and-so's from the two big parties.

Well, the system is what it is, and the best you can do if you believe that both parties stink is to refrain from voting at all, so the world can see that the majority of elligible voters opposed both candidates.

If you like one candidate or another, make your argument for your candidate and urge people to vote. But recognize that not voting is as much a legitimate expression of an honest political opinion as is voting.

Lots of non-voters are active in their communities and work outside the political arena to make the world a better place. They are responsible and productive citizens and they have a perfect right to their opinion, that voting is a sham.

And as for people who really just don't care one way or another, do you really think someone who has no opinion should vote? I'd say the most irresponsible behavior imaginable would be to vote at random, eeny-meeny-miny-mo. Now that frightens me!

 

Agree with Daniel, Don't know if it gets tallied that way, but if I do not find a suitable candidate in a particular category I leave that category blank. But, I always go to the polls to vote!!! Just my way of saying I care to vote, just don't have confidence in the candidates offered.

 

Boiled down, I think the three main points are:

• Do the research, and make informed votes -- nationally and locally. (It's a lot easier to read up on candidates' positions these days, with most newspapers being at least partially on-line.)
• Don't expect to find candidates who are "perfect". Democracy == compromise. And hey -- compromise is NOT a dirty word. It's one of the great things about this country.
  [*]That said, vote in the primaries. That's your best opportunity to get a candidate who's closer to your point-of-view. (Plus, the primary ballot guide is usually pretty entertaining -- includes statements from some very, ummm, interesting people.)

 

Re: THK

Bill -- I'm with you!

Signed: A socially liberal, fiscally conservative Democrat.

 

Well, you can't make a silk purse from a so...

Err... let me rephrase that. :mrgreen:

I think that'd be a challenge for anyone.

 

Thoughts on how to improve the electoral process. not necessarily mutually exclusive more of a mix and match. And nothing on how to actually implement any changes.

1) Proportional representation. Party a with x percent of the vote gets x percent of the seats.

2) Rather than an either/or system. Rank ordering a number of candidates. Every election cycle, it seems, Scientific American publishes an article about the pitfalls of the current system and a number of potential remedies.

3) Attach either incentives or fines for showing up at the polls or not. Take your choice.

4) Allow more than a single work day (usually Tuesday) to vote.


That is all I can remember. Any other suggestions? Anyone want to vote on making this a separate thread?? :wink: And when at the polls, I do compromise but there truly are times when no candidate is palatable

 

:iagree

An excellent clarification -- thank you.

 

Electoral voting systems

Most of these ideas exist in some form or another, somewhere in the world, so they're not unknown quantities:

Several European countries use Single Transferable vote and/or Proportional Representation (your 2 and 1 above). IIRC, the European Parliament itself is elected using those principles (although I think there's a rounding of the proportions, as it takes the form of a Party List system). Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Australia, and possibly other countries, has compulsory voting with fines for non-attendance (they do, of course, provide a "none of the candidates" option, but you do have to show up and actively select it).

I don't know of any countries that have in-person voting on more than one day (here in the UK, it's usually on a Thursday), but postal voting is being strongly promoted here, and that enables voting if you're unavailable on ballot day. (In Britain, postal votes have been available as long as I can remember, but this year there was a trial of all-postal voting in some areas, with no polling stations at all).

 

It seems to me that some countries (maybe in Latin America?) do have two-day voting. And many countries vote on a weekend rather than a workday.

I would dearly love to see "None of the above" as a ballot option, combined with the requirement that a candidate get an absolute majority (rather than merely a plurality) to win. This would sometimes lead to run-off elections, or new elections entirely (though instant run-off could help) but would be worth it.

Imagine a run-off between Bush and "None of the above" after the fiasco of 2000! We'd have been able to start over with fresh candidates and maybe not have wound up with a president who is a moron.

Here is a (complicated) suggestion:

You rate the candidates on your ballot (1, 2, 3, etc.) but you may leave any candidate blank if you choose. This is like the instant run-off proposal, where your vote drops down to your second or third choice as your first choice(s) is/are eliminated. But any candidate you leave blank gets a "No" vote. At the end of the day, a candidate cannot be elected if he/she has more No votes than numbered votes. If no candidate gets an absolute majority, then all are disqualified, and a new election must be held with all new candidates. A small price to pay for real democracy.

The advantage of this is that (unlike our present system!) the voters would be able to reject all the candidates chosen by the parties. At present, even the primary system is so skewed, and so dependent on Big Money, that the voters have no real say in who the candidates will be.

Of course, that's why we'll never see the above system.

 

Daniel,

Appreciate the tweak of the rank order system. Our current voting system has existed for 2 centuries. While for the most part it has been a relatively robust system, and irregardless of the poor voter turnout issue, it does have its flaws. While not all change is good, experience does provide a lot to learn from. As earlier noted, Scientific American, during several recent major election cycles has published mathematical analyses of various voting systems, pointing out the weaknesses of our current system. Is there any reason we should not try and address those weaknesses as new knowledge comes to light?