Merit-bound Alley

Below are two quotes taken from the comments on DWAs wonderful post about HB177:

Tyler Nixon says:

I must hand it to Allan Loudell. He probingly eviscerates these two legislators for having no logical or even rational arguments to support this major change to Delaware’s election structure. The rambling, dodgy non-responses in these interviews, not to mention the apparent cluelessness of what their own legislation will do, is testament to how HB 177 is a pure power play against democracy and civil rights by “major” party elites.

According to cursory testimony before the House Administration Committee (translate : “fast track” committee) the bill was written by Richard Forsten, the Del. GOP Parliamentarian, and Betsy Daniello, the daughter of the Del. Democratic Party chair. If this is not an example of blatant self-interest and insiders gaming the system at the expense of civil rights, I don’t know what is.

These two interviews are also full of cutesy little “game theory” catch phrases, as if these are sufficient or even appropriate justifications for HB 177 : “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”, “elections are not double elimination tournaments”, blah blah blah.

No, elections are not double elimination tournaments. They are not tournaments at all, Senator Copeland. They are the people’s only direct voice in choosing our government. They should not be manipulated with such a paternalistic, petty, and cavalier attitude.

Further, the bill and its sponsors seem to be hysterically focused on the non-existent situation in which a candidate loses a major party primary and then somehow becomes the candidate for another party. This is a red herrring. You have to file in July for an office and be nominated by a minor party before the major party primary. No one can run off after losing a primary and suddenly grab another party’s nomination.

These sponsors completely ignore the real world situations of major party candidates being nominated by another party long before their party’s primary. They also ignore the reality of uncontested major party candidates who have been nominated by another party. These are real scenarios and the rights of the candidates and “minor” parties are taken away in these situations by HB 177, just so the major parties can control how other parties do business.

Our Constitution mandates elections to be “free and equal”. The so-called “major” parties’ hierarchies are willing to betray this in a vindictive effort to respond to the blowback they are getting from their internal hierarchies’ machinations and manipulations.

The mere avenue of crossover candidacies is itself a needed balance against the reality of how the hierarchies of both major parties have gamed the process and flouted fairness on fundamental levels.

The Delaware election code begins : “The purpose of this title is to assure the people’s right to free and equal elections, as guaranteed by our state Constitution. To that end, the full exercise of that right demands that the people be afforded the means to form political parties, nominate candidates and cast ballots for whomever they choose.”

This is fine until they add this (unconstitutional) premise, that proceeds to nullify the previous statement :

“At the same time, however, lengthy ballots which list a profusion of political parties and unaffiliated candidates, many of which are not serious contenders and lack even a modicum of community support, tend to create voter confusion and to clog the election machinery.”

This little addition is totally unconstitutional, as is the the use of the voter registration system to create a party affiliation tracking system to segregate “minor” political parties for lesser treatment. Now with HB177 the “major” party controllers want to tighten their grip with this sweeping legislation to take away the political free speech rights both of candidates and entire masses of citizens who have come together as a political party.

The Delaware Constitution very specifically limits voter registration to the sole purpose of determining voter eligibility - NOT to promote the interests of the two major parties or create a two-tier system of election rights.

Article V § 4. Registration of voters; days for registration; application to strike name from list; appeals; registration as prerequisite for voting.

Section 4. The General Assembly shall enact uniform laws for the registration of voters in this State entitled to vote under this Article, which registration shall be conclusive evidence to the election officers of the right of every person so registered to vote at any General Election while his or her name shall remain on the list of registered voters, and who is not at the time disqualified under the provisions of Section 3 of this Article; and no person shall vote at such General Election whose name does not at that time appear in said list of registered voters.

HB 177 opens a huge constitutional and legal can of worms that these legislators may be better to think twice about. I welcome this fight. It is high time the election system serves the people and not the desired status quo and unearned advantages of the two major parties’ elites.

Ballot reform that eliminates the structuring of our ballot around political party slates is long overdue. Some states list no party affiliations on their ballots - you have to be smarter than just a blindly partisan switch-puller for a tidy little party slate, all set up for you like we have in Delaware.

The ballot should be a grid around two things : the office and the candidates for that office. IF party affiliation is listed at all, it should be under the candidates’ names. Voters should not have to go scanning across a field of blank boxes to find all the candidates for an office, just so that political parties can have our ballots used as subliminal advertising, with top billing going to the D’s and then the R’s.

HELP DEFEAT HB 177. It is an assault on civil rights and democracy.

Mike Protack says:

This bill is #199 on my list what I care about. #198 is the price of bannanas. #200 is the price of apricots.

Get my drift?

I have two questions for you, my faithful reader:

1. Can you define a) the dedicated public servant and b) the airline pilot
2. Which of these two gentlemen is running for public office?

See, question 1 is not too tough. It shows who has a command of election law and who flies airplanes.

Question 2 is a little bit more difficult. See, it may seem that a guy like Tyler, who works his ass off on a daily basis for the public good and is able to intelligently discuss just about every issue that you can throw at him is not the one who has announced that he is running for Governor! No, it’s Mr. Protack, whose contribution to a discussion about a bill that will significantly change DE election law is (again):

This bill is #199 on my list what I care about. #198 is the price of bannanas. #200 is the price of apricots.

Get my drift?

Who would you want serving us in our government?

Discuss.

It comes as no surprise that this article on CNN compliments of the AP has reared its ugly head. According to the article, candidates for the 2008 election are being more open and “honest” about their religious beliefs. Let’s quote Barack Obama, 2006:

Last year, Obama chastised fellow Democrats for failing to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,” and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoers.

“Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters,” he said.

No one can dispute that faith, and lack thereof, has relevance to a person’s personal life, but does that mean that we have to understand a candidates views in context of their faith? For instance, if a candidate is against the death penalty, does it really matter whether they came to that view because of faith or reason, or is it more important that this candidate will fight for his stance on the issue? What the Democrats are learning is that they have to pander to religious people who are more likely to rubber stamp a candidate because s/he shares the same religion, rather than actually researching their views on any one subject that isn’t covered ad nauseum by the press.

Compare Obama’s plea for openness to Mitt Romney’s quote:

“I don’t think that a person who’s running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs think is immoral or not immoral”

This comes from the man who tried so mightily to revoke the rights of the GLBT community to marry last year. Were those actions completely irrelevant to his faith? I seriously doubt it. However, the more interesting point is that, while Obama want to display his faith, Romney would like to sweep his under the carpet. Why do you think this is? Is it because “46 percent of those polled by Gallup in March had a negative opinion of the religion”? Yes. Obviously, yes!

No matter how important religion may be to the American people, you folks of faith must realize that the candidates are simply using that to get votes. That’s why Democrats, traditionally more secular in their handling of public affairs, are suddenly publicly embracing their faith. That’s also why Romney is now using the secular word and glossing over his unpopular faith in his public communication.

Faithful America, you are being manipulated. Here’s some advice from your Friendly Neighborhood Humanist: when the candidates discuss policy and issues, listen to what they say and compare it to how you want the country to be run, because in the end, this is what will affect our lives. When the candidates talk about god, turn a deaf ear, because they are using your beliefs to generate votes.

We have all seen how religion can affect an election. Bush’s bullshit “Compassionate Conservatism” won him two. Look at him now: no plan for a war that god told him to make, and an approval rating lower than his IQ (which is 31), and what will be a legacy of incompetence, torture, and death. A candidate who says she is a woman of faith is no more trustworthy than any other candidate, because, and this could come as a shock, they may be lying. Each of these candidates want your vote, and that’s pretty much all they are going for at this point. They want you to rubber stamp them based on “their faith”. They are also human and vulnerable to the same same faults that everyone else is, regardless of what they proclaim about their faith.

Faithful America, I’m begging you. Please ignore the candidates that shout “Jesus!” to the rafters. Please take their claims of faith with a grain of salt. Please research the issues and come to a reasoned decision on an acceptable candidate.

Please don’t let another W  happen.

No, I didn’t typo LSD, though the Church of the Latter Day Saints is pretty trippy on its own. Likely due to Mitt Romney being in town, I have had two visits from the Mormons in as many weeks. Doesn’t sounds like much until I also mention that the previous total was NONE, probably due to the fact that there is No Soliciting in my neighborhood, according to this sign I saw.

Now, I’ve had visits from the Mormons at other residences, and they were the typical pushy, trying to get into the house bastards. Sorry if anyone takes offense at that, but it’s true. Also, I’m not really sorry. The folks that stopped by last week dropped off their sci-fi/fantasy pamphlet, but left immediately when I told them I had company. I really did, but probably would have lied if I didn’t. The ones that stopped by this morning dropped off a single piece of paper and didn’t even ask to come in.

Let me say good on ya, Mormons! It warms my heart that you have become less pushy and weird. Now, once you stop selling your religion completely, you’ll have a permanent fond home in my heart!