Sen Nelson's Right On!

Sen Bill Nelson of Florida unveiled a sensible plan on the floor of the Senate today to upgrade our election processes. His plan will provide for six regional primary election days, all between March and June. Election dates will rotate between the regions every presidential year, so eventually every state will be part of the early-voting region.

The two-year presidential race we've seen this time is ridiculous by most people's standards of tolerance. There is no real advantage for a race to take such time. In fact, it disadvantages voters. Last year we should have been focusing on local races. Instead of learning about local candidates all we heard in the news were updates about presidential candidates. Many letters to editors complained about that throughout the year.

The only advantage to early caucus and primary dates is that those states receive news coverage and a little notoriety for being early. Yes, some local businesses make money as campaigns trail through their towns. That doesn't include very many towns and businesses, and those campaigns would trail through those towns regardless of when the elections were held. Results in early-voting states rarely have any bearing on the eventual outcomes of elections, so where's the real advantage to the people?

Nelson also proposed grants to states to help develop internet voting systems, as well as systems to allow everyone to vote by absentee ballot. I'm not sure I agree with that last one. There are many disabled voters, traveling business people, and members of the armed forces that cannot get to their polls on election days. I agree that these people should be allowed absentee voting.

Millions more every year, though, are simply too lazy to rise from their easy chairs to exercise their right to vote. They probably comprise 96% of those continually complaining about the government they refuse to be part of! If they're too lazy to inconvenience themselves only twice a year to vote, do you really believe they'll be willing to think through major issues and cast wise ballots? In addition, there would be a lot of wiggle room for fraud in an open absentee ballot system. It would also place considerable increased burden on local and county election workers who already work on election days for less than minimum wage.

Sen Nelson also proposes abolishing the antiquated electoral college. In his words, "The goal is simple: one person, one vote". Currently if a candidate wins the majority of citizens' votes in a state the Congressmen of that state should cast their ballots in the electoral college for that winner. Nationally, the candidate that receives the most electoral college votes is deemed the winner, even if their opponent received the majority of citizens' votes. In 2000 Al Gore won the most popular votes, but Bush received the most electoral college votes. The people's voice was overridden by the electoral college.

Congressmen are not legally bound to cast their electoral college votes according to the people's wishes. I suppose our founding fathers wanted to assure they could override citizens' choice if they had real grievances with the winning candidate. As though their voice was more important than that of the populace. Abolishing the electoral college would require legislation separate from the bulk of Nelson's proposal, as it would require a Constitutional change.

All in all, I give Sen Nelson a hearty, "Hoorah!", for taking this bull by the horns.

McCain - A Moral Obligation?

On the campaign stump today in California John McCain said he thinks we have a moral obligation to remain in Iraq. He previously declared we should stay there until we have achieved victory.

As to achieving victory, I remember Bush claiming victory many moons ago from an American aircraft carrier. If we haven't really achieved victory yet then it's only because Republicans kept moving the goal line. Hey, Haliburton and other major Republican contributors are making too much money there. Why quit now, right?

Regarding the issue of our moral obligation, there was a time when I agreed that we needed to stay in Iraq. We gave them almost two years to develop a constitution. It took our forefathers only a couple months, and they had no examples to follow. We've allowed them five years to build a reasonably sound government structure. Our founding leaders had that in place before Georgie (with aid of the French) beat the Redcoats.

We can train a soldier for sixteen weeks, throw him into battle, and he can compete with the best anywhere in the world. Iraqis have had five years to develop a strong police and military force. They don't even have to raise capital to buy their equipment. U.S. taxpayers are giving it all to them, to the detriment of our own economy and military. I've often wondered if they're stupid, lazy, or do they just not care enough?

Now Republicans claim we must stay in Iraq until they have a strong economy. They had a stronger economy before GW came along. It only takes three to six months to open a corner "mom and pop" shop here in the U.S. It shouldn't take them that long, since, again, the U.S. taxpayers are paying for the assistance the government allows them to start businesses.

I'm assuming all the above is true, since I learned it from our government spokespersons. And we all know they wouldn't lie to us. No, Mr. McCain, we have given the Iraqis more than ample time. We have paid our moral obligations to them in full. The only reasons for remaining there any longer are so staff officers can secure further promotions and your party's large contributors can secure billions more in profits.