Ballot Reasoning, 2012

What does it mean to vote? A vote is your voice in the democratic system of government. It may not be a very loud voice in the grand scheme of things, but you show your opinion of government by voting a certain way. Do you approve of Candidate A? Vote for Candidate A. Do you disapprove of Candidate B? Vote for anybody but Candidate B.

However, it is very disheartening this election cycle to see how many people are confused by the act of voting. This year, we have been assaulted by they news media telling us that there are no other candidates. According to them, only Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are running for the office of president.

They want you to think that your vote belongs to either the Democrat candidate or the Republican candidate. Whether it was Ron Paul's efforts to claim the Republican nominations, or the general candidacies of Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson, or a handful of other candidates, including former TV mom Roseanne Barr, the majority of news sites have done everything within their power to control the narrative that this race comes down to just two people.

"But a vote for a third party is a wasted vote," say millions of people. But that is the quintessential definition of begging the question.

Person A: "If you vote 3rd party you are wasting your vote."
Person B: "Why are you wasting your vote?"
Person A: "Because a 3rd party candidate will never win."
Person B: "Why will a 3rd party candidate never win?"
Person A: "Because if you vote for one you are wasting your vote."

Millions of voters are trapped every year in this circular logic that there are only two people to choose between, and they often summarize their choice by saying they are voting for the "lesser of two evils." I say, "Why vote for evil at all?" Even in the few elections where there are only two candidates on the ballot (or even one unopposed candidate) you have the choice to choose no one and say "Piss off!" to a screwed up system. I encourage everyone who is fed up with elections full of perennially bad candidates to stand up and make a choice:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

All right, on to the ballot picks! Here are the ballots that I have for district 43: 1 2 3

PRESIDENT
Gary Johnson/James Gray (Libertarian party)

This campaign did not get a lot of love from the media, although they admittedly did get a little more notice than the Justice Party, Constitution Party, or Objectivist Party. There are a few things that I don't like from this campaign, namely the idea of a Fair Tax, like a national sales tax. The biggest problem with a Fair Tax at the moment is that the 16th Amendment still allows Congress to take a direct income tax from the citizens. Unless the 16th Amendment is constitutionally repealed there would be too much taxation power available to the federal government.

Fortunately, I think the Fair Tax is more of a party platform, and not necessarily something that he would push for in office. It is great to have a candidate who has actual leadership experience to look to when evaluating them for president, and Johnson's two successful terms as governor of New Mexico were amazing from a small government standpoint. He vetoed over 700 bills and left office with a budget surplus, all while cutting taxes as well. Like I said, it's nice to have an actual record to look at, something 2008's Barack Obama didn't have and 2012's Obama wished he didn't.

The two major party candidates are basically clones of each other. Everything has been pretty awful under Obama: the war on drugs continues with no improvements; the economy is still struggling and shows little signs of getting much better; we still have a ton of troops in the middle east and our citizens are being killed by enemy forces and this administration. All of that being said, Romney may only improve the economy a little, and even that is up for major debate. None of the other areas are in Romney's favor, and on some his rhetoric is making him sound worse (foreign policy).

UNITED STATES SENATOR
Bill Gaylor (no party affiliation)

I have been lambasted by advertisements in the central Florida area for both Connie Mack and Bill Nelson, the Republican and Democrat candidates, respectively. Bill Nelson wants to save Medicare and  Social Security for grandma and grandpa. Connie Mack wants to save Social Security and Medicare for grandpa and grandma. Neither wants to admit that both programs are unsustainable as is, and have been declared as nothing more than another tax by the Supreme Court. So that means there is nothing owed to people who have been paying into it their whole lives; the money just goes into the general coffers as soon as it is deducted from our paychecks. In addition to that, Social Security is actual a terrible rate of return even if you want to be of the mindset that you are getting back what you put in. It is a direct "Rob Peter to pay Paul" tax.

Gaylor looked like the candidate most in line with what I believe in, and I especially like the line about establishing a rule that a constitutional basis for a bill must be cited before it is considered. Chris Borgia kind of turned me off with his "Score Voting" idea, although I have said that a single negative vote (with the person the closest to zero votes winning) would bet better than a single positive vote.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 9, STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 14, STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 50, PROPERTY APPRAISER, TAX COLLECTOR, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
No vote made for any candidate.

For the first three races, there are only a two candidates running in each race: a Republican and a Democrat. For the three races concerning actual representation for government, I think it is wrong that there are no other candidates on the ballot. Not necessarily wrong as in "not right", but wrong as in "more candidates from more parties should be gunning for these positions". So it is a vote to abstain from endorsing either of these candidates and the parties that they represent.

For the latter three categories, I think it is wrong (as in "not right") that these are even elected positions, and they certainly should not be positions held by partisan politics. So again I will choose not to endorse party affiliated candidates for posts that shouldn't even be subject to elections (and an argument could even be made that they should not be public offices in the case of property appraiser).

CLERK OF COURTS, SHERIFF
Write-in Aaron Brand

See the explanation for the last set of things, but I disagree with the notion of non-representation positions being subject to public election, as well as races being influenced by party affiliation. Therefore I am writing in my own name as I am confident that I could do a better job than any of those bozos. Plus, Lydia Gardner is running unopposed for Clerk of Courts which is baloney.

SUPREME COURT JUDGES
Vote "NO" to retain

Judges should not get comfortable with the idea of tenure or a permanent position.

CIRCUIT JUDGE 9 in DISTRICT 7
Letty Marques

FLORIDA STATE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS, CHARTER AMENDMENTS
"YES" on 1, "NO" on everything else

Amendment 1 is basically just the state of Florida's swipe at Obamacare, but even so, I will take it. The amendment says that a person or company cannot be compelled by law to purchase, obtain, or offer medical coverage. This could actually end up being a step towards eliminating employer-based health insurance plans, which may in the end result in better policy options through increased competition in the insurance market.

The NO vote on all other amendments comes from the idea that most actions will likely raise taxes. An exemption for veterans on their property taxes or a homestead exemption for non-homesteaded houses will likely just raise the amount of taxes other people have to pay. I do like that Amendment 4 attempts to keep property assessments valued at the just value and not an inflated value, but there are still ways for them to increase taxes and they limit the amount that taxes can be decreased.

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
Ultimately, a vote is a personal act. One's political persuasions can be made public if they choose, as I am doing now. However one votes though, it is not wasted if it is made with conviction. Make sure you are voting for causes and people you believe in, and not just "for evil".

Election Day Picks Part B

This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.

This post will deal strictly with the ballot initiatives, and mostly the state-wide amendments. A good non-partisan website to look at for the amendments is Collins Center. I am referencing all of my write-ups to this website. I encourage you to watch the 1-2 minute videos that summarize each of the amendments.

If you have a question on how I would vote concerning something else on the ballot, feel free to ask.

No.1 Constitutional Amendment
Repeal of Campain [sic] Financing Reform

Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
YES

Aside from the misspelled word, which hopefully is fixed on the official ballot--otherwise that could mean the REAL Campaign Finance Law won't be repealed--this is an easy pick for me. Campaign financing is a "noble" fix to what is really a non-problem. You see, for every big spending political juggernaut in Florida, there are plenty more little upstarts who just can't get their message out due to a lack of funds. The state of Florida will give these (typically third-party) politicians money to run their campaign. But of course there's a catch: you have to agree to certain spending limits on your campaign.

So if someone uses the public funds to generate some grass-roots momentum, and then in turn begins to raise their own money, they are locked into certain spending limits because they took the public money. Campaign finance laws essentially come down to an infringement on freedom of speech, as odd as that may sound. Because you are given public funds, the government then tries to tell you how much money you can spend on what is essentially getting your message out (your speech).

Repealing this law is a double whammy. It reduces government spending which would in turn eliminate the restrictions on campaign spending.

No. 2 Constitutional Amendment
Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit for Deployed Military Personnel

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
NO

Don't think that a NO vote here hurts the servicemen. They already receive at least one homestead property tax. This would just be an additional benefit to them. It can be hard to vote against something that seems to benefit our troops, who do so much for our country. But servicemen aren't the only ones working in this terrible economy, and they're also not the only ones who could use a tax break.

I am very much against favoritism in legislation, and this amendment screams favoritism. If we make exceptions here, then it just opens the door for more exceptions down the road. Voting no won't take away anything from the people who have been stationed outside the U.S. It will just keep them from getting ANOTHER tax break.

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment
Referenda Required for Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
NO

This amendment is the brainchild of a group that wants to give power back to the people. They are tired of elected officials getting cozy with developers and abusing the system, resulting in increased cost, unmet time tables, and in severe cases seizure of private property. However, it is also an example of treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

If the problem is crony capitalism (government in bed with businesses) then the solution should be a form of pushing competition. This can be done by creating a comprehensive bidding system, and if the winning bid goes over the budget they proposed then they are liable for all additional costs; the tax-payer should not be footing the bill.

Government officials, love 'em or hate 'em, are elected to do these things so that we don't have to. Despite the noble intentions of the amendment's backers, a group called "Hometown Democracy," we put these people in positions of authority so that we don't have to go to the polls every time a change is made in a development plan. There's no definitive evidence on how much this amendment would cost/save taxpayers, but the way I see it is that additional ballot measures every voting cycle would inevitably result in the "need" to create a new bureaucratic office to handle these special elections.

Proponents are for Amendment 4 because they claim it puts power back into the hands of the people. But in reality it substitutes one sort of cronyism for another: the developers are now unseated by the voter who may not like a tree in the park across the street being taken out to build a new public bathroom. Like I said before, the best way to protect against these abuses are to create a competitive market for developers and not lock a city into long contracts with a particular company.

Nos. 5 and 6 Constitutional Amendments
Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative (5)/Congressional (6) Redistricting

Legislative/Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
YES

Both of these are the saying the same thing, but one applies to redistricting for U.S. Congressional districts and the other to the Florida state legislature. Part of my confusion concerning Amendments 5 and 6 was that I already thought there was something that prevented gerrymandering, or the act of drawing district lines in odd shapes (like a salamander) to favor a certain political party.

I have some misgivings about these amendments because of the emphasis that districts "shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process..." I didn't realize anyone was denying them the vote; as though we were living before the 1960s again. I think the concern is that in some districts with large minority populations, minority candidates or candidates favoring minority positions rarely run or are elected. There's no telling that with these amendments anything different will occur, though.

The opponent's position, however, is even weaker. Despite Florida having more registered Democrats than Republicans, the state typically votes Republicans into office. Therefore, the Republicans usually get to redraw the district lines. Essentially the opposition point-of-view is "vote NO on 5 and 6 so we can keep favoring Republicans." If that's how you think, then by all means vote that way. But I think you should look at some of the current districts we have and see the ridiculous shapes that they claim are fairly distributed: District 27 stretches across the entire state, District 11 includes only a tiny portion of south St. Petersburg, and District 3 starts in Pine Hills, Orlando and goes north all the way to Jacksonville, taking a huge portion of central Florida with it.

No. 8 Constitutional Amendment
Revision of the Class Size Requirement for Public Schools

The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
YES

I had to do a double-take on this one. My first instinct was "NO," because I thought smaller classes were more conducive to learning and I thought that if the school budget was having trouble meeting needs, cuts could be made in other areas. But it turns out that a Harvard study was done on Florida based on the 2002 law that mandated the smaller class sizes, and they found no discernible differences between scores prior to and scores after. Another thing is that the new amendment would change the class size maximum to the class size average in a school.

So three classes at an elementary school, A, B, and C, under the current law have 17, 18, and 18 students respectively. Two new students transfer into the school and are put in class A, and one student transfers out of the school and class B. The current law would require a student to be moved from class A to class B to keep the maximum at 18 each. But the new amendment would allow things to remain as is because the overall average in the school is still 18 students in each class. The only problem that would arise is if the new maximum of 21 is breached, but then things are treated the same as before and a new teacher is hired and class is created.

The other thing is that an estimated $18.7 billion have been spent trying to meet the class size requirements from the 2002 law. And schools are still not close to meeting the standards by the 2011 deadline. In addition, money is saved overall by not needing to build as many additional schools.

The bottom line is the kids shouldn't suffer but neither should the taxpayer, which is exactly what's happening in this instance. Don't let teachers try to persuade you that it's "FOR TEH CHILDRENZ" and a vote for 8 is a vote against kids (although you're welcome to think that if you don't like kids). It's simply about trying to control government spending so that these kids will have a state to live in when they graduate.

Nonbinding Statewide Advisory Referendum

In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the federal government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?
YES

If a family has to live under a budget, why shouldn't the government? The thing about this ballot item is that it is only asking if there should be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So in other words a YES vote will only get the ball rolling. But I still think it's a push in the right direction. For the same reason's Proposition 19 in California is getting the discussion going on decriminalizing marijuana, this kind of vote will make people consider the unrestrained spending that Congress has been forcing on us for decades.


I hope my synopses help you decide one way or the other on how to vote on November 2nd. The most important part is that you take an interest in your community, your state, and your country and vote on what you think best benefits that which you hold dear. Let's hit the polls hard, people, and let the government know what is important to us.

Election Day Picks Part 1

This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.

Let's get started, shall we?

United States Senator
Alexander Andrew Snitker
I think there's a good theme in Florida's U.S. Senate race this year. Six out of 10 of the candidates listed on the ballot consider themselves Constitutionalists or small-government conservatives. That says that at least in Florida there is a feeling that government is out of control, and a lot of people have taken up that call.

The reason I like Snitker over all other candidates is that I just think he is the most devoted to shrinking government. I don't even dignify Meek with a thought in this race because he probably won't even get a majority of the Democrat votes. Crist is an opportunist who would throw his own mother aside if it got him into a higher office. I like a lot of what Marco Rubio has done as Speaker of the House in Florida, and his stances on property rights and education reform sit highly with me. But some of his other views like being unerringly pro-Israel are kind of a turn-off for me. It's okay to view Israel as a friend and potential ally, but I don't like the idea that we're on the hook for any danger they put themselves in. Israel, after all, is the Lord's nation; they should be able to handle themselves. (They have multiple times in the past)

Of the third party candidates, Snitker and Bernie DeCastro had the most similar views to my own who also looked a little more legit than the candidates that remind me of the hobo under the bypass warning about the dangers of radio waves. I like Snitker's campaign promises to abolish the Department of Education and the IRS and instead enact a FairTax to collect from everyone within the country, citizens and aliens alike. DeCastro is also in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment (direct income tax) which would result in more money in an individual's pocket.

I suppose Snitker gets the vote for me because he is a former Marine and therefore knows the folly of our current foreign policy. A strong military is necessary, but I believe America should first and foremost be a defensive nation. DeCastro makes a play for the Monroe Doctrine, but in my mind that was the first instance of us setting actual foreign policy on the notion that we should police the world, whether nearby in the Caribbean or across the world in Iraq. Our military presence overseas is a huge drain on our economy, and so much money could be saved by removing ourselves from the hundreds of bases we have in foreign lands.

Representative in Congress 24th Congressional District
Sandra "Sandy" Adams

Sandy Adams supports a flat tax rate that could eventually eliminate the need for the IRS (pipe dream I know, but it's nice in theory). I think low taxes are important for jump-starting the economy and keeping it going. But it is just part of the solution; huge slashes in spending (and not slashes in the budget from last year's, but actually cutting and killing wasteful programs) are needed to reduce the size of government, free up capital for businesses, and overall get our country back in to fiscal security.

Because all economic bills start in the House of Representatives, this is potentially a more important choice--given the state of the union--than the Senate race. Believe it or not, Suzanne Kosmas and Sandy Adams are very similar on a lot of the issues, such as NASA, small business support, and energy policy. But their voting records tell a bigger tale.

Kosmas voted to give $40B to green schools. I don't think schools should be funded on whether or not they are ecologically stable. Kosmas also voted to enforce against anti-gay hate crimes. I've laid out my stance on legislating against hate crimes before. And she also voted for the massive expenditures known as the 2009 stimulus and TARP.

Sandy Adams isn't perfect though, either. While she did vote to privatize toll roads and voted to continue to allow the teaching of evolution in schools, she also voted against certain gambling measures, which generate a lot of money for the public school system (so much so that schools are often underfunded by state sources).

It's actually unfortunate that only two candidates are running in this election, as it turns certain issues which aren't so black and white into pretty polarizing topics. A third or even fourth candidate would have helped to draw the lines a bit more clearly.

Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Undecided still... sorry

This is the most difficult to vote for because there are so many candidates and so little known about them (at least by me). While he won't get my vote, I do like C.C. Reed's candidacy, who says we should change "Politics" to "PEOPLE-tics." Unfortunately, he also has the ridiculously expensive idea of "provid[ing] available personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (including holidays) to address taxpayers' concerns and issues." There's also Josue Larose who was the Chairman of the United States Billionaires Federal Political Action Committee.

Farid Khavari sounds like he makes sense until you see some of his extremely expensive ideas like free higher education for all students in Florida, and solarizing the entire state. Daniel Imperato has a lot of experience in promoting businesses but he doesn't have any other information about how he stands on additional issues.

Michael E. Arth (Earth?) is an interesting case. For every sane idea (like decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them) he has THREE insane ideas (like "taxes are the price of admission to live in civilized society" and abortion can be used as a last resort to overpopulation concerns). Still, I love his un-Politically Correct writings. John Wayne Smith is a libertarian candidate, and unfortunately as someone else said, his website looks like what you would expect from a libertarian candidate. Still, I think he speaks his mind about a lot of the topics and takes the same stance I do on most issues. On healthcare, for instance, he says this: "Most people think that this system needs to be overhauled when in fact it doesn't; it simply needs to get the government out of the business to begin with."

Peter Allen looks like he's trying to appeal to everyone with his candidacy, since he's all over the place on the issues. He says healthcare should be provided for all Floridians, but they should also be able to purchase whatever healthcare they want. His website is also in dire need of an editor: "Decriminalize the use and procession of small amounts of Marijuana. [emphasis mine]"

Neither Alex Sink nor Rick Scott look promising. Scott is embattled in cases that pin him as either an idiot for not knowing what happened with his company or as a mastermind that scammed millions in Medicaid. Sink talks the talk when it comes to fiscal conservatism, but as Chief Financial Officer the state lost billions. Sink does seem better on civil liberties like equal rights for gays, and Scott comes off as an idiot saying that children are better off "if they're raised by a married couple."

This election is a doozy, that's for sure. If I had to pick one now, I'd probably go with Smith, who has a very Ron Paul vibe to him. But it will probably end up being a GTD (game time decision).

Attorney General
Pam Bondi

My vote for Attorney General is going to someone who I believe will follow in Bill McCollum's footsteps and continue the federal lawsuit on Obamacare. The individual mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is unconstitutional, and any attempt to knock down that massive piece of semi-aborted legislation is an A+ in my book. So that essentially knocks the Democrat Dan Gelber out of the race.

Pam Bondi has a few things going for her. She's pretty hot, and she's the owner of Beethoven. She is a prosecutor and claims to want to crackdown on Medicare fraud cases. So anyone who wants to stick it to old folks scamming the system is Aces in my book as well. She is willing to take the challenge to Obamacare as far as she can as well.

Jim Lewis comes across a lot like Pam Bondi at first--minus the attractive face and giant dog--but he says one of his goals is to "urge our Florida law schools to reduce enrollment by 25% for the next 4 years" because of an overpopulation of lawyers and too many civil litigation cases. Since my goal is to become a criminal defense attorney in the very near future, this does not sit well with me. There's also the fact that Lewis would have no actual authority to propose such an idea, making him slightly absurd.

Chief Financial Officer
Independent candidate. Ken Mazzie or Tom Stearns

When I hear Chief Financial Officer, it sounds like a glorified name for Treasurer. Like the kind the chess club has. Well apparently even that is giving the position too much credit. But this job is about money, and partisan politics should have no place in this position. So that's why I am voting one of the two independents, and more likely Mazzie since he is a Certified Public Accountant, not a career politician, and knows how to handle money.

Commissioner of Agriculture
Thad Hamilton

I'm sad to see badass Charles Bronson not running again. This is another one of those positions where I just can't comprehend why a political affiliation is necessary. Not that I thought there were any "issues" involved in being Plant Commish, but Scott Maddox has a section for them on his site but nothing listed. Ira Chester looks like a cute but angry grandfather. I'm going with Hamilton because he seems to have the most experience in agriculture, whatever that means exactly. Plus, I don't think I've voted for any black people yet.

State Senator, 24th Senatorial District
Toss up. Steve Edmonds or Thad Altman

Both candidates support measures I like and talk about both in detail. Education reform in the way of merit-pay and school choice vouchers have the most potential. Despite currently living and voting in east central Florida, I am not a big fan of NASA. That is not to say that I don't support the space program. I just don't like government in our country trying to monopolize the space exploration industry. More competition and tax break incentives to bring contractors to the Space Coast are a plus and both candidates are for that.

Member Canaveral Port Authority, Districts 3, 4, 5
No vote

My feeling on these types of positions is that they should not be the voter's choice. 1) There is no reason that someone for the position of Port Authority member should have a party affiliation. You're either for protecting the port and interests of the community, or you're not. B) We elect officials to handle these kinds of appointments so that we don't have to worry about them. While I don't think the system will change anytime soon, I can't vote for any of these candidates knowing they are only using the position as a stepping stone for future office.

Shall Justice/Judge ______________________ be retained in office?
No

I vote "NO" on all of these because I am not a fan of long incumbencies, especially for the judicial branch. Also, these judges and justices are such a low level that any decision they make has the potential to be appealed and overturned, thereby essentially making who is actually appointed unimportant.

Circuit Court Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 3
Jessica Recksiedler

When you get down this far, the candidates' websites are pretty basic. I suppose I chose Recksiedler because of a little snippet on her homepage that said she knew she wanted to become a lawyer because of a project on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence she did in 7th grade.

Member School Board, District 1
Robert Jordan

Not just because he is the author of one of the best fantasy series of all time, but because he knows things and has a tie. Also, Krupp was my principal in high school, and I really didn't like my high school.

[In writing this, I saw how many officials are elected and it is absurd. I thought we elected certain people (i.e. mayor, city council, state legislature) so that we didn't have to elect all of these other petty positions. Makes me think the people we elect do even less than I originally thought.]

Most importantly, it is our responsibility as citizens to educate ourselves before we vote. A good website to check on voting records is Project Vote Smart. But as voters we can only do so much. The people we elect should be held to a high level of responsibility to uphold the mandate passed on to them by the people who elected them.

I will offer my takes on the ballot initiatives and amendments over the weekend.

Adventures in Voter Registration

The other day I heard a news report that really frightened me. It wasn't about terrorism or some global disaster. The report said voter registration had closed for the state of Florida.

I thought, You have got to be kidding me!?! It's still a month before the elections!!

And therein lies one of the bigger problems with our system. In only a few states can you register to vote on Election Day.
And even then the polls are typically open from 7 AM to 7 PM. What about the people who work the graveyard shift? Or the people who have to work multiple jobs to get by? Yes, employers are supposed to give time off to employees to exercise their right to vote, but when every dollar (and therefore every hour you work) counts, many people would not feel the trade-off is worth it.

I think we should adopt a 24-hour Election Day. We don't need the early voting system we have, although we should keep the absentee ballot system, as that benefits troops stationed overseas as well as U.S. citizens living abroad. But we call the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November Election Day, not "Election 12-hour shift", or "Election Half-day." Spend the government allotted campaign money on something that's worth it, like staffing polling locations for a full 24-hour day. And then allow people to register to vote at specific polling locations. With everything going digital, it shouldn't be difficult to set up a system to check if a person is registered or not already, and then allow that person to vote. This early registration nonsense keeps a lot of people who are maybe unable to make it to the Clerk of Courts office during business hours to register from voting in the elections (and on key ballot initiatives) every November.

Anyway, fortunately for me I was already registered from the 2008 Presidential Elections and only had to fill out a change of address form. The following is the conversation that took place when I handed over my revised information.

Voter Registration Lady (VRL): You previously lived at 2350 River Park Circle?
Me (Me): Yep, that's the one. I thought I was going to be moved back to Orlando by then, but things haven't quite worked out yet, so I'm still in Titusville.
VRL: Oh, your sex and race information are currently unlisted. If you could just fill in the rest of this section here... (hands me back my form)
Me: Well, it said that information wasn't required.
VRL: You would just like to leave it blank, then?
Me: Yes, please... Well, can I write down inaccurate information (like that I'm a black Eskimo woman)?
VRL: No, you can't.
Me: Okay, blank is fine then.
VRL: Wow. You were a member of the Real Food Party in the last election.
Me: Yeah. That one seemed the least ridiculous.
VRL: (laughing) Well you're the first person I've met that was registered with that party. I didn't think they even had a candidate in anything.
Me: Actually, they had a guy running for president, but I don't think he made the final ballot.
VRL: Really?
Me: Yeah. The only reason I joined the Real Food Party is because when I registered to vote last time they said I couldn't join the Birthday Party.
VRL: (laughing) You're a funny one.
Me: I turned in my registration form with the Birthday Party written under "Party Affiliation" and they said they handed it right back and said I couldn't do that. So I had to go look up which parties were legit and this one made the most sense.
(I looked down at a stack of pamphlets, including the "Proposed Constitutional Amendments" handbook and picked one up)
Me: Is it okay if I take this?
VRL: Oh sure. They're there to help you understand what some of the ballot items are.
Me: These things can be hard to understand sometimes. Like Amendment 5 and 6 are the same, and Amendment 7 was proposed but then got struck down by the courts, but it's pretty much the same anyway.
VRL: You seem to understand a lot more than most people do.
Me: Well I'm hoping to be a lawyer, so I kinda have to understand some of this stuff.
VRL: (laughing) If you're going to be a lawyer you are going to have to join a real party.
Me: Why?! That's the last thing I want to do! The real parties make even less sense than the Real Food Party!

(After looking at the handbook for a minute)
VRL: Here's a receipt of your changes, if you could just look over them to make sure the information is correct. You'll also receive your card and registration in the mail.
Me: Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day.
VRL: Thank you, you too! It was a pleasure meeting you.

No joke. That is how my conversation with the Voting Registration Lady went from the time I handed over my form. And it brings up some interesting questions, like why are race and sex important questions for registering to vote? Why is there such a strict adherence to what party everyone belongs to? And what will it take to establish the Birthday Party?

My platform: Once a year, every man, woman, child, and old person shall have a birthday! Vote Aaron Brand, Birthday Party, on November 2nd!

In Your Eagerness, Please Plan Ahead

It's done. The unfathomable has happened. Jesus wept. Okay that last part is a bit of an exaggeration, but the year long debate seems to be at an end, and the House of Representatives has passed the Senate version of the health care reform and sent it on its (I can only assume) merry way to the Oval Office. So what now?

"Cherish the moment.....party's over in November..." says one commenter. Hell yeah!!
"Those Democrats signed their death wish. There is little chance they will get re-elected." Yeah, okay. Alright.
"The Democrats had better be ready for a blood bath at the polls! I can hardly wait..." Wait... WHAT???

It's great to see so many people charged up over this situation, and if they can hang on to that enthusiasm until November, then even better. (Typically, that isn't the case, although there are precedents) But voters need to come to terms with why the incumbents (specifically Democrats in this case) need to be voted out in the next set of elections.

Much of the outrage towards the House of Representatives right now is directed towards these 219 Democrats. And rightly so. They have enacted one of the most overbearing pieces of social legislation in our country's 234 year history. FDR wanted to establish more social welfare than just the Social Security Act, but most of his legislation was struck down as unconstitutional. That being the first major socialized health care legislation passed by the United States Congress, the second came about twenty years later with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965. This established the program now known as Medicare. Medicare was the first real attempt at single-payer health care in the United States (which was something that was left out of the just passed legislation), albeit for only a designated group of people. But that still wasn't far-reaching enough, as evidenced by the continued fight over the years by such stalwarts as the late Ted Kennedy.

So now we have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This legislation extends coverage to 31 million (give or take) uninsured Americans, through government vouchers and insurer tax subsidies. It prohibits denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It only "[a]llows premium rates to vary only by individual or family coverage, rating area, age, or tobacco use." So far, it doesn't sound too objectionable.

The problem has always been the money. The bill "impose[s] an excise tax of 40% of the excess benefit from certain high cost employer-sponsored health coverage." There are numerous other penalties and taxes for failure to comply with the new codes, or even by simply crunching the numbers wrong. Oh by the way, did you know that the bill "impose[s] a 10% excise tax on any amount paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1, 2010." So all you northerners who can't enjoy the Florida sunshine year round, think about that the next time you want to go get a tan.

One of the grossest liberties taken by the writers of this bill is to "Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014." Should an individual fail to do so, the bill "[i]mposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship." Not only are individuals required by government mandate to purchase something they may have no interest in buying, but the penalty doesn't even affect all citizens equally, which flies in the face of the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the law means one group should not be less punishable than another.

But perhaps the biggest outrage to this entire healthcare overhaul stems back to the birth of the Tea Party movement, for it was they who were fed up with the growth of government and out of control budgets. The Patient Protection Act is estimated to cost about $940 billion ($940,000,000,000) over the next 10 years. But that's okay, says the Democrats in Congress, because the plan will also reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over those same ten years, and up to $2.1 trillion ($2,100,000,000,000) in the decade after that. Oh great, then. Why are we arguing against this again?

Well, it could have something to do with the fact that most of the taxes proposed to handle the increased spending don't take effect for at least another 4 years, even though the bill itself starts up later this year. A large part of the budget for the bill takes into account proposed taxes that aren't even declared yet, but have simply been talked about. As Donald Marron, a former CBO manager writes:

"In order to make the long-term budget impacts look better while limiting political opposition in the near term, the original Senate bill adopted a strategy in which many of the most promising savings measures—e.g., reductions in Medicare payment rates and an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans—would ramp up substantially in later years... The Cadillac tax, for example, has been essentially gutted over the next ten years, but is designed to grow rapidly in the decade after that. That helps the second decade look good, budget-wise. But it raises an obvious question: Will future presidents and Congresses try to back out of these budget savings, just as President Obama and the current Congress want to back out of paying for more than $300 billion in Medicare spending for physicians?"

Do we really trust Congress to vote to increase taxes further as time reveals that this health reform costs way more than everyone originally thought?

So what is the point of this long-winded recap of the health care bill? My point is, when it comes to the November elections, remember why you want to vote out the incumbents, but more importantly, remember why you hated what they did. Do you really want to see them kicked out of office because they are Democrats, or because they voted for an unpopular piece of legislation? Or do you want to vote them out because they seemed to have little regard for the country's future by increasing the amount of money we spend and growing the government even further?

If you are like me, than you care about shrinking government and the deficit, and limiting spending until we get our house back in order. Think about the issues and which candidate represents them best. Look for the candidate who has freedom at the top of his priorities. And when you go to the polls over the next eight months for the primaries, and then for the general election in November, remember this: The Democrats voted on March 21, 2010 to increase entitlement programs and spending in our country to a level that had never been seen. But, they aren't the only ones who know how to grow government and increase spending.

New Election Process

For the record, this is not out of anger at who won the Presidential election, or any other election for that matter. It is simply a new idea to encourage people to actually vote, and voices to be heard.

Here's an idea: every year there is a national election--meaning House representatives, senators, or presidents get elected--the number of representatives should be redrawn. The United States Constitution states that the number of representatives a state has be relative to the state's population, and the number of electors for the Electoral College be equal to the total of senators and representatives. This was incredibly noble and insightful of the founding fathers to give voice to all states equally but also reward the states with bigger populations.

Unfortunately, now that universal suffrage exists and everyone has the right to vote (or not), the novelty of voting is starting to wear off. Sure maybe someone can show me a statistic where there were "RECORD NUMBERS OF VOTERS" this year, but it is still far from 100% of eligible voters.

So what I propose is this the following. State representatives should not be directly tied to state population, but to voter turnout from the previous election. So states like California and New York, which are the two most populated states in the Union, need to have high voter turnouts to retain their high number of representatives and electors. States like Wyoming or Rhode Island could see a quick rise in their representation with high voter turnouts.

Not only would this create more advocacy for voting, it would reward the states where the voters actually seem to care. "What's that? You don't like our policies. What are you going to do, vote us out?" to which the public responds "YES!!" and is rewarded for the next election by choosing even more better (read more better; not more-better) representatives.

But who am I kidding. There is no way this could pass as a constitutional amendment. To many Capitol Hill fatcats would lose their cushy lifestyles. We could always try to propose nation-wide conventions for ratifying such an amendment. But when people don't even come out to vote for president why the hell would they come out to vote about how to vote for president.

Voting Sucks

There is of course, the obvious reason, that my vote being 1 out of roughly 200 million it is completely insignificant

No, the reason voting sucks is a more personal one. Let us say, hypothetically, that a college-aged individual who has had a friend from a foreign country, we'll say Japan, stay with him for two weeks awoke at 5:30 AM to drive said friend to the airport. And let us also assume this individual did not receive enough sleep and is feeling under the weather. So after dropping his Japanese friend at the airport, the individual sees that by the time he gets back home, the polls will be open. So being an upstanding citizen who cares about the future of this country, he makes his way to his specified polling location.

Now it's just after 7 AM when our hypothetical subject arrives, so a line has already formed. This slightly upsets our man, because he had intended on getting a little more sleep before going to work. Nevertheless, he exits his car and lines up. Let it be known that our individual is in no means rude, and if someone asks him a question directly he will answer with a polite, albeit short, response. But what becomes unnecessary is the woman 2 spots in front of our subject, who laughs after everything she says, and the man 5 spots ahead, who feels it is perfectly normal to interject his opinion or witty one-liner into every one's conversation within a fifteen meter radius.

Generally when you have the phrase "laughs at whatever he/she says", it is understood that this person never says anything funny.

So to sum it up, voting sucks because the people one is forced to stand in line with are idiots who can't just keep quiet and move forward in silence. Hypothetically speaking of course.

I Favor the Best Candidate

I am not unbiased. I already hate Barack Obama. I hate John McCain a little less. I am going to vote for neither person however. I will either vote for a 3rd party candidate (I like Bob Barr's economic policy ideas) or I will use my democratic right to abstain from voting for president.

I don't like what McCain stands for. He claims to be a maverick, separating himself from typical Republicans. I don't know if that means he will sell out some of the social ideals to which I subscribe to appease the liberal half or just try to differ on a few policies that the Bush administration has enacted.

I disagree almost fully with all of Obama's platforms. Besides the fact that he chose Biden as his running mate, a man who can't even answer honest questions without becoming upset, as seen in this interview with Orlando reporter Barbara West. I like the fact that a reporter is finally asking the candidates honest questions.

The problem with trying to ask legitimate questions (which would never happen during a debate, a time when the voters need to see the true side of candidates) is that people think it is a personal attack on them. They are incapable of separating themselves from the ideals or beliefs or policies they stand behind. They view everything as an ad hominem line of questioning.

That's why Republicans view all questions about McCain's service as unpatriotic. It's why most questions about Barack Obama's leadership capabilities are called racist. Candidates need to be asked real questions, and start giving real answers, so that Americans know how they will act during a situation, not in the office when everything is handled for them by aides.