Democratic Presidential Debate

I was disappointed with the debate last night, it wasn't the rousing, confidence building show I was hoping it was going to be. Sharpton and Kucinich were basically the one note long shots that they are, Edwards struggled to distinguish himself from Kerry, and Kerry merely plodded along in a workable manner. Nothing really excited me.

Kucinich was a joke. He constantly attempted to get the other candidates to sign on to his policies, which he had to know they were not going to do. So he just ended up looking desperate. I like a lot of his policies, but the vast majority of Americans do not. He cannot win, and we have to win.

Sharpton was the comic relief, and he did get in some major zingers, however his constant reminders that he was just there to get delegates for the convention made him look like he is conceding the race.

Of course the real theme of the night was could Edwards present himself as a viable alternative to Kerry, and could he do it in such an amazing way that he would reverse the momentum of the process. Unfortunately I think he failed at that. In a very non-Edwards manner, he was not clear in his answers, and he often seemed to avoid answering the questions. In all fairness to Edwards, he was in a very difficult position. He has to give voters a reason to vote for him instead of Kerry, while simultaneously trying to not make Kerry look bad. It is an almost impossible line to walk, and he failed last night. I have been a supporter for Edwards, so I was disappointed, but unless he pulls out an amazing performance on Sunday's debate, he is done.

Kerry was much better than the last debate. He was willing to be nailed down on positions, which is very non-Kerry. He gave succinct well thought out responses, and I think he came off the winner in the debate. The best part of his performance though was his insistence that we not get dragged down into the Republican's agenda. His reminding the panel that Bush wants us to be talking about Gay marriage, when the real issues in our country are jobs and health care, was a brilliant stroke. The Republicans are desperately trying to start the culture war over the gay marriage issue, and unfortunately I think they are going to succeed, and the issue and the amendment are going to end up the major focus of this election, however the Dems shouldn't let them get there without a fight.

One final comment, Larry King. I think I can safely say that he should not be involved in these debates. He brought up inconsequential questions (what about an amendment to allow foreign born presidents) and made inappropriate comments (Isn't that just socialism Mr Kucinich?). I was unimpressed with his performance last night.

Preference Voting (extra info)

Looks like Preference Voting is used more than I thought in the U.S., although it is more often called Instant Runoff Voting. It works in basically the same way. The Center for Voting and Democracy is a strong advocate of this, and their page on IRV is here.

Apparently many states and jurisdictions are already using it, so the hope would be that it would expand to the National level.

Third Party Candidates and Preferential Voting

The news that Ralph Nader is running again has of course sent shock waves through the Democrats. Recent history has shown that third party candidates generally hurt the party that they are most closely aligned to. Nader and the Greens in 2000 is of course the most obvious example, but the same could be said of Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and many others. Because they tend to attract people from the side of the spectrum they support, it generally means that their candidacies actually end up hurting their causes.

The reason for this is the winner take all nature of our election process, especially at a Presidential level. There is, however, a solution to this issue that could allow third party candidates to run, make an impact, but not hurt their own causes. This is Preferential Voting.

Preferential voting is used currently in Australian elections, and it works well in maintaining strong and viable alternate parties. It works in this way:

Instead of voting for just one candidate, you place the candidates in order of preference. So for our example, let us use a candidate from each of these parties, the Greens, the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians. When I come up to vote, I would not just vote for the candidate I like, but I would put all candidates in order of preference. For example:

Democrats 1
Greens 2
Libertarians 3
Republicans 4

Then when it comes time to count the vote, there are a number of rounds. The first round counts the first preference of every voter. The results might be something like this:

D 45%
G 4%
L 6%
R 45%


If one of the candidates had achieved a majority in the first round (50%) then the counting would be over, and that candidate the winner. However in this example, no-one has yet achieved a majority, so we go to the second round. In the second round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. We then take the second preference votes of those voters, and apply them to the other candidates. In this example the Greens were the lowest vote getters, so lets assume that of that 4%, the Democrats received 75% of the 2nd preferences, and the Republicans 25%. That means 3 extra percent is added to the Democrats, and 1 extra percent to the Republicans. Here are the results of the second round:

D 48%
G Eliminated
L 6%
R 46%

Since no-one has still obtained a majority, then we need to go one more round. So the Libertarian candidate is eliminated, and their second preference votes are counted. Let's assume that the Libertarians give only 1% to the Democrats, and 5% to the Republicans. The third round results are as follows:

D 49%
G Eliminated
L Eliminated
R 51%

Since the Republican candidate now has a majority, the voting stops. If a majority has still not been reached, then the third preferences would be counted as well, and so on, until a majority is reached.

So why do it this way? Well the main reason is that it allows for viable alternate party candidates. I can vote for Nader if I really want to, and simply put in the Democratic candidate as my second preference. I know Nader won't win, but I want to keep third parties viable, and I want to make a statement. Because I have put in the Democrat as my second preference, I know that I will still make sure that the Republican will not obtain an advantage by my voting for Nader. My ultimate vote will go to the Democrat, which is my preference over the Republican.

Both major parties are of course nervous about this kind of change, since they obviously fear the rise of third parties. However it is really to their advantage to make sure that voters can still have their say, and not harm the party that is most closely aligned to them. It works well in Australia, and could work here.

Here is a link to the Australian Electoral Commission web site page explaining the system.

Now all we need to do is adopt another Australian electoral innovation, compulsory voting.

Pentagon Global Warming report predicts end of the world by 2020!!!

Ok, not quite, but this is an interesting story. According to the Guardian (a British left wing paper -- Click here for article) as well as a number of other news outlets are all reporting about a new report out from the Pentagon that predicts that Global warming will soon be a major security issue, and could become an increasing threat to peace and lives. Yes, I said the Pentagon. Not Greenpeace, or some radical environmental group. The Pentagon.

This report was initially commissioned by Andrew Marshall, a highly respected and placed analyst at the Pentagon, and the report was subsequently covered up for months, until it was finally leaked to news media recently. The report of course is extremely embarrassing for the President, since his Administration has pretty much denied the existence of Global Warming, and even on those occasions where they have indicated some acceptance of the issue, they have downplayed the effects. His policies have contributed to the problem, including less regulation on power plants, automobile manufacturers, the Kyoto Global Climate treaty etc.

So what is the Pentagon saying will happen? Get ready for this:

"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions"

"major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."

"By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war."

That war is why the Pentagon is concerned. They believe that the mass climate changes will force people to desperation, and wars will be inevitable. It is easy to go nuclear when you have no water to drink.

The thing that is amazing to me about this report is that it is more radical that even most crazed environmentalists would support. Very few of them are predicting this level of a problem this soon. Yet this report is coming from the Pentagon. Is this for real? Will the Pentagon deny that this is their position? How will Bush handle this. It is a very interesting situation.

If the Pentagon does stick by its assessment, then Bush has a very damaging situation on his hands, one that will probably make it very difficult for him to obtain re-election considering his environmental record. We will have to watch as this story unfolds.

Layoffs today and more outsourcing!

Great day today at work. The office I work in just announced that over 50% of the people in my office are being layed off today. It wasn't a surprise, since we have all been waiting for the shoe to drop since our company was absorbed by another a year ago. I have my job, but there are many who no longer do.

At the same time, I am involved in a major tech project, that will keep me busy for the next 6 months. To assist with the project our company has outsourced a lot of the coding and configuration work to India. So as of today, I have a number of new Indian co-workers.

How is that for synergy!

This is a perfect example of the future. If you work in a job that can be done remotely, you will have to compete with anyone in the world who can do your job. Add that to all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the last 20 years, and you get an idea of the difficulties facing the American worker. Many of those manufacturing layoffs were told to get retrained, that the layoffs were just part of the business cycle, and that they should train for high demand jobs. During the 90's many of them trained for technology jobs. Now those jobs are going overseas as well. So where do they train now?

This is a serious question. It is not just technology jobs that are having difficulties. Any white collar job that can be done remotely is at risk. A good example is in today's Seattle Times. Apparently this year up to 200,000 U.S. tax returns will be prepared in India, using Indian accountants. (click here for the link) Why? Well it is simple. An Indian accountant makes around $250 to $300 a month, while an American accountant makes $3000 to $4000 a month. When you add in benefits, you can see that the cost difference is enourmous. Accountancy firms are all claiming that they are forced to outsource the work, because if they don't they can't compete. Compete with who? The other firms outsourcing the work.

Add into this issue another problem that is quickly growing. Bush is planning on pushing his new guest worker program. This program will remove limits on the numbers of foreign workers brought into the U.S. each year. The only limitation will be that the companies will have to offer the jobs to U.S. workers first, and then if no American wants the job they can offer it overseas.

Sounds reasonable at first, but you have to remember that it is very easy to make a job unattractive to an American. Reduce wages, reduce benefits, etc, and it can be very easy to ensure that no American will want the job, so the company can offer it overseas. This will result in negative wage pressure for Americans, as they begin to have to accept the lower wages, because that is all that is being offered.

So if you are in a manufacturing inductry, your job is probably already overseas, and if it isn't yet, will be soon. If you are in a white collar job which can be done remotely, it will be outsourced overseas. If you are in a white collar job that has to be done locally, then you will be competing with overseas applicants who want a chance to come to the U.S., and you wages will quickly drop.

This is not an anti immigration screed. I repeat, I am not against foreigners or people who are struggling and genuinely need good quality jobs in poor countries. This is a reality, however the question has to be asked. Is this the best way to deal with this issue. Corporations are going to make a killing, and the middle class in America is quickly going to disappear. Unfortunately there are very few industries that will be unaffected, because the negative wage pressure will be widespread. I can see a very hard 20 to 30 years ahead of us.

So what do we do? We need to control the process. We need to educate Americans on the issue. We need to hold corporations accountable. We need to push for open accountability laws, so people know where the jobs are going. We need to have strong regulations in place to stop corporations from doing this in excess. We need to penalize companies who move their headquarters overseas to avoid taxes. We need to come up with some good solid alternatives fast.

Otherwise our kids will enter the workforce where they compete with every person around the world. In the long run that can be a good thing. In the short run it can be disastrous. We need to protect American workers.

Bush is So Excited, Nader is in!!!

In considering the 2000 election, the argument is that if ralph Nader had not run for President then the majority of votes that went to him would have gone to Gore. I believe that there is a lot of validity to that argument, and that means that Nader voters really shot themselves in the foot. While they disliked Gore, Bush has obviously been an even greater threat to the issues they hold dear.

Well the whole stupid issue is here again. Nader announced today that he will be running for President in 2004 as an independent. I am sure that Bush couldn't be more pleased. In our current political process, a third party candidate always tends to hurt the candidate they are closest to in Presidential elections. Many progressives have even expressed a desire that Buchanan would run in 2004. The idea is that he would siphon off votes from the right, and of course it also applies on the left with Ralph.

I believe Gore would likely be President today if Nader had not run in 2000, or had thrown his support behind Al Gore. (although who knows, the supreme court might have declared martial law!!!) :) Only the most closed minded Nader supporter would try and say that the country would have been as bad off if Gore was in power rather than Bush. Environmental policy under Bush has been disastrous, and Gore has always been a supporter of strong environmental regulation.

So now here is the big question. If I am a Nader voter, am I willing to risk another four years of Bush in Power? Because if I vote for Nader, I am only making that more likely. I understand the idea behind a protest vote, however this is not the time. This election will again be extremely close. The country is divided unlike any time in the past. The difference between winning and losing will be very small. The country cannot afford another 4 years of Bush.

Nader voters, don't be self destructive.

Skilling of Enron fame finally indicted!

This is good news, although why did it take so long? Of course it will only really be valueable if he is actually convicted. Someone from that company needs to actually be punished for what they did. It was not an accident. There was forthought and malfeasance, and someone was doing it. Someone needs to be held accountable.

The big story though is that "Kenny Boy" Lay has still not been indicted. Not surprising, considering his long history with the President, but you would think that someone would be kicking up a stink about this. He should be held accountable for his actions as well.

Here is the link

MSNBC agrees Edwards was big winner

MSNBC has a good article on this issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302299/

"as Bill Clinton showed in New Hampshire 12 years ago, a strong second place can also be a win—as long as you beat expectations. John Edwards leaves Wisconsin with a new lease of life, especially from the fundraisers who must bankroll a nationwide, two-week race towards Super Tuesday’s primaries."

I still maintain that this is good for the democratic party. The longer we have the free publicity, and the interest of the base and the general public, the better positioned we are. Especially with Edwards, who is running an overall positive campaign.

Edwards, Kerry and Dean

We are one day out from the Wisconsin primary, and things are looking very interesting. The big story of course is that Edwards did so well; he won, even if the actual vote counts don't show it. His team has been quoted today saying that he is now the guy with the momentum, and they are right, but I am not sure if it will be enough. He has such a short time between now and Super Tuesday, and he hasn't go the money or the resources to take full advantage of that day. He may win 1 or 2 states, but obviously that will probably not be enough.

The real winner though is the Democratic party. The conventional wisdom is that the shortened primary season was designed to bring out a front runner early, however I am not necessarily sure if that is a good thing. The free media exposure, the debates, the interest that has been shown around the country in the process, all that is good for the party, and the eventual nominee. If Kerry had won convincingly yesterday, I believe that the race would be all but over, and the attention would be lost. However Edward's strong showing means that the interest will last at least two more weeks, a lifetime in electoral politics. This only benefits the party.

Edwards has wanted a 2 man race, and now he has it, and it will be interesting to see what he does with it. I like him as a candidate a lot, and wish he had done better over the process, but I think he can still have a positive impact on the process.

Dean of course is now history, at least in the current race. However he and many of his supporters are talking about beginning a movement, and this is a good thing. Whatever the conventional punditry has to say about Dean, and his cyber supporters, he has managed to ignite passion in many on the progressive side of the country. This is a great thing, and he needs to be commended for that. Hopefully he will be able to turn it into a sustainable movement that can impact the process for many years to come. I don't think we have seen the last of Howard Dean.

The Beginning

Welcome to my blog.

Let me introduce myself. I am an average guy. I have a wife, kids, a dog, a job that I hate, and an overwhelming desire to see Bush removed from the Whitehouse.

I am not a pundit. I am not an intellectual. I am not an activist. I have never attended a rally. I have never run for office. I am not a journalist, a talking head, a technocrat, a politico, a radical or a zealot. I am religious, but open minded. I am progressive. I am a Liberal. I believe in the right of every American to have a fair start in life. I believe that every American has the right to decent health care. I believe that every American has the right to have a decent education. I believe that what is good for corporations is not always what is good for America. I believe that money has corrupted our political process, and has brought us to the point where democracy is almost out of our reach.

I believe that the United States of America is a country with incredible potential. We live in the wealthiest country in the world, full of highly educated and motivated individuals, ready and willing to make our country great. I believe that our country should be the shining beacon on the hill, not the feared country we are quickly becoming.

I believe that the greatness of our country is in its potential, and I believe that together we can achieve its potential. We do that by empowering every American to give their fullest to our country, by ensuring that every American has the opportunity and tools to do so. I believe that our country is great, and that it can be even greater. I believe that it is not only a dream, but it can be a reality.