A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Monday, October 13, 2008 Diana Hsieh’s 2008 Voting Recommendations By Diana Hsieh @ 12:25 AM Note: You also can download a two-page PDF version of this voting guide. The Presidential Race With respect to the presidential election, I'll likely abstain for the reasons similar to those given in Craig Biddle's essay McBama vs. America. Given the Republican Party's dangerous entanglement with fundamentalist Christianity, I will not vote for Republican candidates. (For my detailed reasons, see my 2006 essay Why I'm Voting for the Democrats.) However, McCain is particularly revolting. So if I vote for anyone, I'll vote for Obama. He's beyond awful, but I have some reason to hope that he'll be ineffectual. Plus, the Republicans might grow some cajones as the opposition party. Colorado's Senate Race With respect to Colorado's Senate race between Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall, I plan to vote for Udall. Again, part of my reason is my unwillingness to vote for any Republican. To do so is to hasten the transformation of America into a "Christian nation," and I do not wish to live in such a place. In particular, Republican Bob Schaffer is an ardent opponent of all abortion because it's contrary to God's will. In contrast, Udall has offered a wonderfully strong statement in support of the separation of church and state. Of course, many of Udall's views are downright awful. Although he voted against the bailout twice, he's no advocate of free markets or limited government. However, Republicans are no better on that score: federal spending rose a whopping 68% under President Bush. Also, Bob Schaffer advocates a "refereed private sector" -- i.e. an economy controlled and managed by politicians and bureaucrats. He even supports antitrust lawsuits against health insurance companies. Despite the vocal claims of his advocates, he is no friend of capitalism. Colorado's Ballot Measures Colorado has an insane number of measures on the ballot this year. In my view, the two most important are Amendment 48 -- which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- and Amendment 59 -- which would permanently raise taxes. Please, vote NO on both measures. Here are my recommendations on all the measures: Amendment 46: Colorado Civil Rights Initiative: A46 would prohibit the government from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Diana says: Yes. Governments ought not discriminate on the basis of irrelevant factors like race and sex. Amendment 47: Right to Work initiative: A47 would prohibit requiring an employee to join and pay any dues or fees to a labor union as a condition of employment. Diana says: No. It is a violation of contract and property rights to prohibit businesses from voluntarily agreeing with unions to only hire only union employees. Amendment 48: Definition of Personhood: A48 would define the term "person" to "include any human being from the moment of fertilization," thereby granting all the rights of persons to embryos and fetuses. Diana says: NO NO NO NO! A person is not created at conception but rather born. This measure would outlaw nearly all abortion, ban the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD, and impose police controls on pregnant women. For more, see the Coalition for Secular Government's information on Amendment 48. Amendment 49: Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative: A49 would prohibit union dues from being automatically deducted from the paychecks of public employees by limiting the allowed deductions. Diana says: Yes. Although this measure should not be a constitutional amendment, taxpayers are within their rights to manage the terms of government employment. Currently, union withholdings often go strait to pro-union political campaigns seeking to violate our rights. Government employees will retain their right and ability to fund any group through their own bank account. For more, see John Caldera's damn funny video. Amendment 50: Limited Gaming Initiative: A50 would allow residents of gaming towns to vote to extend casino hours, add games, and increase the bet limit to $100--with most of the resulting tax revenue going to community colleges. Diana says: Yes. Limitations on gambling are a paternalistic violation of rights, and this measure would loosen some of them. While gaming regulations shouldn't be part of our constitution, A50 only amends existing constitutional provisions. Also, the additional tax revenue will be used for government education, but that seems inevitable in our current political climate. Amendment 51: Sales Tax for Developmentally Disabled Initiative: A51 would increase the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3.0% in 2009 then to 3.1% in 2010 to fund services for disabled people. It would prohibit any reduction in funding for such programs. Diana says: NO! This tax hike is not just welfare-statist but downright altruistic. Moreover, the constitution should not limit the legislature in its budget allocations. Amendment 52: Severance Tax & Transportation Initiative: A52 would require the legislature to spend a portion of state severance taxes on highway projects. Diana says: No. The use of tax revenue should be determined by the legislature, not by the constitution. Amendment 54: Clean Government Initiative: A54 would limit the campaign contributions of certain government contractors and labor groups. Diana says: No. Campaign finance laws are unjust restrictions on freedom of speech. They ought to be repealed, not extended. Amendment 58: Severance Tax Initiative: A58 would increase the amount of state severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies, primarily by eliminating an existing tax credit. The additional revenue would fund college scholarships, wildlife habitat, renewable energy projects, etc. Diana says: NO! This measure is populism at its worst. It is a tax hike against an unpopular but vital industry for the sake of illegitimate government funding of schooling. Amendment 59: Savings Account for Education Initiative: A59 would eliminate TABOR rebates, spending the that tax revenue on P-12 education, eliminating the required inflationary increase for P-12 education spending, and setting aside money in a new savings account for P-12 education. Diana says: NO NO NO! This measure would be a permanent tax hike to enable more irresponsible spending by politicians. See the web site of Vote No on 59. Referendum L: Candidate requirements: Ref L would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21. Diana says: Yes. Adults should be able to serve in the legislature. Referendum M: Obsolete constitutional provisions: Ref M would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about land value increases. Diana says: Yes. Obsolete provisions should be repealed. Referendum N: Obsolete constitutional provisions: Ref N would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor. Diana says: Yes. Obsolete provisions should be repealed. Referendum O: Initiative Process: Ref O would increase the requirements for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot by requiring more total signatures, with 8% to be gathered from each congressional district. The requirements for statutory initiatives would be lessened. Diana says: Yes. Amending the Colorado constitution should not be the state sport. Those attempting to do so should have to show that their measure has substantial and broad support from across the state. That's all folks! Labels: Election, Politics Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 5:44:54 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net To me, the danger with Obama is that he is intelligent and thus is capable of understanding a well-reasoned argument, but has chosen a statist path. Another danger is that I'm not sure what his reaction would be to a terrorist attack, should one occur during his presidency (I think we can guess what McCain's reaction would be). I'm reluctantly supporting him on the grounds that he'll actually attempt to govern as a run-of-the-mill Cook County Democrat, meaning he'll be focused more on the plunders and trappings of office than on actually passing an agenda. I also think he is likely to be ineffective since the downturn in the economy is likely to occupy most of his first two years in office. We'll see if the Republicans regroup around their more rational constituencies rather than the fundamentalist ones they had been relying upon in the past.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 6:08:14 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Steve D'Ippolito I agree with most of these. I for some reason didn't notice the lettered provisions. I'll want to check on M; it may be a sneak property tax increase. (I don't trust legislatively-referred initiatives any further than I can throw the state capitol building.) My strongest difference is on 47--I figure businesses only agree to be union shops anyway because the unions, using the monopoly power (to say nothing of the fact that they get away with the initiation of force in other ways) they are wrongly given by the government, *blackmail* the businesses into doing so. Although it would be better to remove those powers; that needs to be done at the federal level and at least this is a stopgap. Lesser disagreements: If a gun were put to my head in the voting booth, and I were forced to choose between McCain and Obama, I'd probably pick McCain. I suspect Obama is one of those leftists who, when push comes to shove, will decide America would not be worth defending because it's our fault "they" (whichever "they" is in question) have good reason to hate us--basically a Chomski-ite foreign policy. This is vastly worse than the limp-wrist we-don't-dare-attack-a-religion-but-at-least-we'll-do-something approach that Bush has taken--bad as that is. There is some hope for better from McCain. I have not given the senate, or any lower race, any thought whatsoever as in all seriousness I simply plan to abstain from voting for any candidate. (It also doesn't help that I don't pay much attention to local news whatsoever.) Based *solely* on what you have presented here, I would be more willing to vote for Udall than for Obama. In general my complaint with regard to the Supreme Court (which the Senate affects) is that basically, a conservative justice might undo a lot of the odious crap the court has pushed of late (such as Kelo), might prevent the Fairness Doctrine, but they would also likely undo Roe v. Wade. Hell of a choice.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 6:20:23 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: brian0918 E-mail: my handle, through gmail Can I get a suggestion? My state has a ballot measure that is supposed to protect property rights, although they may just be co-opting that language for their benefit. Vote yes or no? http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Issue_3_%282008%29
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 6:38:21 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: 777 "To do so is to hasten the transformation of America into a "Christian nation," and I do not wish to live in such a place." and to vote democrat is to hasten the transformation of the US into a socialist and possibly islamic nation, if terrorism increases. I really don't think secular communism is a better alternative. I don't give a damn which it is, and don't see why anyone would, unless they just have a visceral distaste for sacrifice in the name of God rather than for humanity. I will vote for those that demand altruism the least. I will vote for those that respect the constitution the most and who would make it impossible to impose a theocracy or socialism.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:25:45 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Steve said, "My strongest difference is on 47--I figure businesses only agree to be union shops anyway because the unions, using the monopoly power (to say nothing of the fact that they get away with the initiation of force in other ways) they are wrongly given by the government, *blackmail* the businesses into doing so. Although it would be better to remove those powers; that needs to be done at the federal level and at least this is a stopgap." Yes, existing pro-union laws are gross violations of contract rights. However, advocates of liberty should not attempt to "correct" those violations by violating rights in another way. The system should not be tinkered with, it should be eliminated. Yet tinkering is exactly what conservatives do -- and that's why we are so burdened with a crazy array of bad laws. BTW, I'm not alone on this issue. Ayn Rand opposed these kind of "right to work" laws. (I'll try to find the quote later. It wasn't in a regular essay, but a sidebar in _The Objectivist Newsletter_, if I recall correctly.)
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 7:58:56 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: 777 http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/09/into-abyss.html
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 8:27:38 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Andrew Dalton E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com I agree with Diana on the issue of unions. The solution to unjust laws is to repeal those laws, not to attempt a set of new, countervailing regulations to make things more "fair."
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 9:01:50 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Jared Seehafer E-mail: jared(at)seehafer.net Diana, Do you disagree, then, that despite the fact that Obama is abysmal in so many ways, that he is measurably better than McCain? If so, I don't think you have the luxury of abstention, particularly given the fact that Colorado is a swing state in this election. "None of the above" is unfortunately not a realistic outcome. If it isn't Obama, then it will be McCain. JS
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 9:15:56 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Jared -- I do think that McCain is likely to do much more damage than Obama. I do want Obama to win. The only question for me is whether I can be more effective as a political activist by openly refusing to vote for either candidate.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 9:33:32 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Jared Seehafer E-mail: jared(at)seehafer.net If you vote for a candidate, and explicitly identify that it is not an endorsement of said candidate, but a rejection of his opponent, how does that harm your ability to engage in political activism? I think the culture recognizes that there's such a thing as a voter that is not happy with either candidate and votes for the lesser of two evils (the disaffected Hillary supporters are an example, though I don't endorse their reasoning). If anything, I think support of Obama demonstrates your commitment to fighting religion's influence in the culture. I'm voting for a man who, if he got his way, would effectively cripple my industry (I work in medical devices). Now I don't think Obama will get his way with health care for a number of reasons, but even if I thought he could I would still vote for him... and then do my damnedest to make sure he couldn't accomplish anything. I plan on being passionately for Obama until November 4th, and then passionately against him afterwards.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 9:37:11 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Kathleen E-mail: blondielawyer(at)gmail.com Diana: What are your thoughts on the likelihood of Obama, with a Democratic Congress, establishing socialized healthcare within his first two years in office? While I understand the Objectivist arguments for voting Obama (or at least not voting McCain), the possibility of another federal entitlement program really concerns me -- especially because it's close to impossible to eliminate one.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 10:41:51 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: Paul Revere The choice of who to vote for really isn't important, statistically speaking. Objectivists (and even the better libertarians) aren't a large enough voting bloc to wield any power through the numbers game, let alone any single one of us casting a vote one way or the other. Diana thinks the right way: how many other people can I influence by my actions, long-term? It's a choice between making a statement to a possibly large group of people, or throwing another insignificant number into an ocean of mathematics. The situation changes as you move down from the national level to smaller and smaller population sizes, though. The work of a political activist is so much more effective than he who casts a vote and thinks he's done his part, it's incomparable. If you want to affect this election then you need to get involved in Diana's kind of work, viz. getting the right people excited about getting even more of the right people excited in broader and broader circles. Spreading ideas. You're running out of time for this particular Presidency, but the best time to start for ANY election, no matter how distant, is yesterday. The nation has been sliding down a loose cliff and now it's in freefall, yet I don't think most of you realize how little time we have to do so much work. The '08 election is small beans! But I am curious about why you're abstaining, Diana. I thought that the people you're most trying to reach were non-evangelical Republicans? They're very passionate about the republic and the responsibility of a citizen to safeguard it by being active in the system, even if they're going through a lot of crap right now with "their" former party turning into what it is today. I think you risk your credibility among them if you don't cast a vote, while going for Obama gives you a shoe-in to talk about the ways in which the original ideals of the Republican party are better served through voting Democratic (an attention-getter, for one); e.g., discouraging the evangelical element by punishment in elections. Do you see something more valuable in abstention that I don't?
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 10:51:26 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: kittie What are your reasons for thinking Obama will be ineffectual? Do you think there will be a Republican majority in congress? If there is not, I think he will be able to do whatever he wants. If McCain is elected and there is a Democrat congress, I think he will "reach across the aisle" and proceed with socialism.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 11:21:42 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Folks, I know that I didn't explain much about my voting choices, and I really don't have time to say more about them. (The dissertation isn't just calling; it's yelling at me.) Sorry about that -- but I hope that others will chime in.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 12:38:08 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: Clint URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com I too am curious as to reasons why O! will be "ineffective". A Dem majority (and possibly a larger one), a complicit media actively campaigning for him now and will only continue after the election, and the last 40 years of progressive education primes the landscape for expansion of healthcare as well as host of other programs (increases in taxes as he's detailed, decreases in speech a la fairness doctrines (he's already using "truth squads" and "action alerts" to shut down debate, do you think that will stop?)). He thinks judges should rule not based on the constitution (and 70% of his supporters agree), and may very well get to choose two or three justices. While Socialism is a "dead-end" historically speaking, the Progressive movement in the US is really working overtime to ease it in, just as Alinsky and others have advocated, and Obama is the figurehead of that movement. Many people can be convinced that socialism if "done right" will work here. Plus with a charismatic figure to look and sound pretty, who can be troubled by the content. The "halo effect" in action.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 15:33:16 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Ted Coxhead E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk Diana, in your long essay of October 2006 "Why I'm Voting for the Democrats", you quote Dr Peikoff approvingly as saying: Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad." Both Dr Peikoff's statement and your own detailed essay had an enormous impact on me and clarified many issues concerning the primacy of philosophy over politics at this time. You now say that you will most likely abstain, but if you vote for anyone it will be Obama. You say in a comment here: I do want Obama to win. The only question for me is whether I can be more effective as a political activist by openly refusing to vote for either candidate. I understand that your work load is very heavy, but I would appreciate it if you would return to this subject in detail when you have time. I have no vote in an American election, but I have found the discussions amongst Objectivists about who to vote for or whether to abstain, amongst the most illuminating since I started studying Objectivism. I still remain convinced of Dr Peikoff's position (and yours then)and argued it to the best of my limited ability on another blog. It seems to me, that if as you say, you do want Obama to win, you should vote for him. I can't see how such a vote, explained as clearly as it is in your long essay (at which time you were prepared to vote for Mrs Clinton), would be detrimental to your activism.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 16:07:36 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: Ken Barclay E-mail: kenb123(at)hughes.net URL: http://adhoc.thinkertothinker.com kittie said, "What are your reasons for thinking Obama will be ineffectual?" Diana, pushed for time, said, "...I hope that others will chime in." I would never presume to speak for Diana. For myself, I think that Obama is enough of a second hander that he will be influenced by whatever political wind is prevailing at the moment. There will be advisers, Cabinet members, Democratic leaders in Congress, etc., etc., all pushing and pulling in different policy directions. Obama has shown that he has no fixed direction of his own. McCain, though, has an agenda. He has shown himself as anti-free speech, anti-business, and pro-extreme altruism. McCain will push his agenda hard. Obama will continue to ...fluctuate. Since both candidates are hopeless on individual rights and proper defense of the country, I, too hope for an Obama win. --Ken
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 16:42:58 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: kittie Obama has shown himself to be pretty determined to be anti- free speech in his campaign with "truth squads" and with the accusation of racism in response to any criticism. I also think that the community organizing group, ACORN, he was with and other leftists in congress had an agenda for destroying the economy so that socialism can fix it. I don't think he's not focused, and if he's not, the people around him certainly are. I think we're screwed either way if we don't get a republican majority that will fight against either president. I'm getting pretty freaked out. Bush is a socialist. McCain is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. we have a tyrannical congress that does not listen to us. I think I will move to Italy.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 18:09:37 mst Comment ID: #19 Name: Harold I'm with kitty in this respect. I see his fluctuations more as political in terms of getting elected. But once he's there, well... that's a different story isn't it? Who will stop him? I think there is enough on him to know how he feels about business and "shared economic prosperity". Lol, there's nowhere to turn. mauritius.net
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 18:44:37 mst Comment ID: #20 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Ted -- You're certainly right that, if I do want Obama to win, I ought to vote for him. I've only been moving in that direction -- as opposed to hating the thought of either candidate winning -- since the bailout. However, I'm not completely and totally decided. So that explains why my views are a bit muddled at present. They'll get clearer over the next week or two, I imagine.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 18:50:02 mst Comment ID: #21 Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Here's why I think it is very possible that Obama will be ineffective, even with so-called filibuster-proof majorities in Congress. Look at Illinois. Democrats hold all statewide offices, and have majorities in both houses of the general assembly. Almost nothing actually gets passed, since government is corrupt to the point of paralysis. For two years in a row we've set records for the longest time to pass a budget. Obama has never been able to exert much influence even in Illinois, so I doubt very seriously he'd have much influence over Congressional Democrats. If anything, McCain would have more influence, since he has more seniority in the Senate.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 21:03:11 mst Comment ID: #22 Name: William H. Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/ Actually, much of what you say about Udall could be said with equal justice about Obama. His economic program is at best profoundly flawed. However, he's comparatively strong on separation of church and state and on (noneconomic) aspects of constitutional government. Let me offer you a couple of relevant quotations: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality." (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ ; presented June 28, 2006 to a religious conference, which makes it unlikely that he was "telling them what they want to hear") "If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.' . . . We don't always catch the right person. We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president. The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting. Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years." (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/obama_to_pali ... ; in a speech given September 8 responding to a comment by Sarah Palin) Given the shaky record of the Republicans on constitutional rights and separation of powers over the past decade or more, I would much rather have Obama in office, and nominating Supreme Court justices. He seems less likely to produce a court that will just rubber stamp any abuse of power the President or Congress comes up with. And the President's impact on the Supreme Court is likely to be more lasting than anything else he does.
	Monday, October 13, 2008 at 21:16:14 mst Comment ID: #23 Name: Doug H. E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com URL: http:/ When one votes "yes" on 50, certainly one ends up with a better short-term outcome, but more controls still exist in that area --- so the principle of individual rights has not been understood or implemented. What kind of message does that really send to government bureaucrats responsible for proposing gambling regulation in the first place, whom will be responsible for more of the same in other areas? Does it communicate to them that citizens only differ on "how much" something should be controlled by government, rather than if it ought to be controlled at all? I wonder if there is a point at which voting for such initiatives constitute the perpetuation of regulatory back-and-forth conflict.
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 1:01:35 mst Comment ID: #24 Name: Doug H. E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com Hmm, some of my phrasing above is not accurate since in the USA amendments as such are the result of petitioners, right? I am somewhat unfamiliar since we don't have these same package deals when we vote in Canada.
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 4:37:06 mst Comment ID: #25 Name: O. Rettinger E-mail: spamtrap505(at)gmail.com I would like to politely suggest you vote third party instead. In this day of a particularly apathetic society, "not voting" does not send a noble message of disenchantment with the system, it sends a message of "I forgot it was tuesday." I don't even care which third party you vote for. (I've voted for the Libertarians in the last 4 elections, but can't say I'm exceedingly fond of Bob Barr.) In the end though, it's really irrelevant. The goal is to send the message of "I dislike your candidates enough to go to the polls anyway just to cast a vote for someone else" to both major parties.
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 6:55:12 mst Comment ID: #26 Name: Steve D'Ippolito Doug H: "Hmm, some of my phrasing above is not accurate since in the USA amendments as such are the result of petitioners, right? I am somewhat unfamiliar since we don't have these same package deals when we vote in Canada." These amendments are to the constitution of the state of Colorado only. Most states have either a referendum (the legislature proposes a measure and people vote on it) or initiative (private individuals get a petition signed, it appears on the ballot) process, or both. Federal constitutional amendments must be originated by Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the states. (Optionally there is provision for the states to call a new constitutional convention, but that convention would be able to do anything it felt like (it would not be limited to whatever issue it was that inspired the states to call it) and would be downright *scary* in today's political climate. It would be like using a grenade to kill that pesky housefly.) In essence the states have no real way to reign in the Federal Government when it oversteps its bounds since no constitutional amendment can happen without the consent of the federal government. The state governments gave up their last real check on federal power when senators ceased to be chosen by state governments and became directly elected. (17th amendment, if I recall correctly.) Civics classes love to discuss the checks and balances *within* the federal government but now omit that it was the intention of the founders to have checks and balances between the state and federal levels as well.
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 13:36:39 mst Comment ID: #27 Name: Doug H. E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com Thanks Steve. I know these are state amendments, I guess I worded things vaguely. That's all very interesting tho. I don't think I see the tangible difference between direct election and being chosen by state government. It is only the people of a particular state that vote in that case, so wouldn't they just elect those who were already representative of their current state government? I'm not sure I understand. Can you give me an example of how things might have turned out differently for a particular state had there been appointments?
	Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 17:00:28 mst Comment ID: #28 Name: Steve D'Ippolito I probably should not have brought that bit about the US senate up, it's off topic. But in essence the state governments of late have been required, by federal mandate, to spend money on certain programs. (This is referred to as an "unfunded mandate.") It's a way for the Federal goverment to shift some of the costs of the welfare state to the state governments. Those mandates most likely would not have passed congress if the individual senators had to answer to state legislatures, rather than the electorate of the state.
	Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 22:32:51 mst Comment ID: #29 Name: Greg Zeigerson (Zigory) E-mail: zigory(at)comcast.net URL: http://www.zigory.blogspot.com Diana, in regard to never voting for Republicans because you don't want to live in a "Christian Nation," perhaps in your area there are no primarily-secular Republicans, but in the Northeast they exist. I suspect there are some in other areas too. For example, the 2008 Republican candidates for House and Senate in my district of New Jersey (Leonard Lance and Dick Zimmer) are both pro-choice, relatively secular politicians (and I voted for them) and Leonard Lance actually won the House seat, which is quite an achievement in this Democratic state. Needless to say, many of New York's Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani are primarily secular, and Arlen Specter is another example from PA. Is your long-range goal in not voting for any Republicans, and presumably hoping we all do the same, to diminish the GOP's power and success down to nothing, until they start from scratch or are replaced by a new party? The danger in that coming true, is the harm the Democrats can do if there is no opposition. My answer is to only vote for the secular, small-government Republicans, and always push for separation of church and state. In 2006, Republicans were still the majority in Congress. Since then, they have been the minority, and after the 2008 election they have clearly "toppled" from power in the House and Senate, as Dr. Peikoff sought in 2006. At this point, I think it is okay to vote for the better GOP-ers as long as you consistently vote against the theocratic ones.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 4 plus 0 equals 3848927692597193692