We wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and we’ve done so.  Sadly, we’ve brought much of our own democratic failings as a society of voters with us.

Just over half of Iraq’s 15 million registered voters cast ballots in weekend provincial elections, with turnout as low as 40% in at least one province, but Iraqi and international officials insisted Sunday that they were satisfied with the participation.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker characterized the turnout as “large” and Iraq’s top election official called it “the most important election to take place since the fall” of Saddam Hussein. However, turnout failed to reach the 73% predicted by a recent government poll of 4,570 Iraqis.

What accounts for the low turn out?

• Distrust of the Candidates
• Confusion over redistricting
• Lack of feeling that each vote really counts

Sound familiar?  It should, it’s the reason our country usually gives for low voter turn out.  So, I guess we’ve done well in bringing some of our values over to Iraq.  But that’s alright, on the plus side, it was viewed as a safe and secure day of voting, not to mention that there were very few complaints of fraud committed during the voting process.

So it’s not all bad news.  If anything, it’s more like indifferent news.  So, yay for that.

There’s one thing to have low voter turn out… and it’s another thing when there’s practically NO voter turnout. So what’s a Democracy to do?

[Israel] Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit says he is concerned that low voter turnout rates in Tuesday’s municipal elections will prompt distorted results.

“When people do not come out and vote, they make other elements, which they do not want, gain strength,” the minister said, about an hour and a half before polling stations were scheduled to close.

At the time, the turnout rate in Jerusalem stood at 36%, compared to 30% in Tel Aviv and 33% in Haifa

[...]

“We are far off our objective,” Sheetrit said. “This is simply a case of irresponsibility when people fail to fulfill their duty to vote…I have seen declining turnout rates over the years. This is dangerous indifference, and perhaps the time has come to consider sanctions against those who fail to vote. We need to think about fining those who do not vote.”

It’s true that when people don’t vote, the Democratic process is completely distorted.  But wouldn’t punishing people for not voting sort of defeat the whole purpose of “Democratic freedom”?

[source:  Ynet]

Everyone’s got an opinion on this, well… except the people who have never heard of it until just this very moment.  So if you happen to catch this before you go to vote, here’s some info on the pros and cons of the proposition for a Constitutional Convention in Illinois.

pros- — Term limits and/or recall votes. There is no limit on how many times governors, other statewide officers, state representatives or senators can run for re-election, and no provision for removing an officeholder before his or her term expires unless he or she is convicted of a felony. Con-con advocate John Bambenek states that “far too many politicians rule ‘for life’ without any real means for the voters to make them responsive to their needs.”– Clarifying or limiting the authority of the governor to call special sessions. Blagojevich has called more than 40 special sessions since taking office in 2003, more than all of his predecessors under the 1970 constitution combined. Most have not resulted in any legislative action.

– Graduated income tax rates (the current constitution mandates flat rates for all individuals and corporations regardless of income).

– A stronger mandate for the state, rather than local property tax payers, to bear the majority of the cost of public education. Illinois schools’ dependence on local property taxes has led to large funding disparities between wealthy suburban school districts and poor urban or rural districts.

– Limits on the governor’s amendatory veto power. The current constitution allows the governor to veto entire bills, remove or reduce line items in appropriation bills, or make changes in the wording of any bill. Legislators must then decide whether to accept the governor’s changes, muster enough votes to override them, or allow the entire bill to die. Blagojevich has used this power to effectively rewrite entire bills against the wishes of the General Assembly.

– Changes in the redistricting process which follows each federal census. The 1970 constitution provides for revised Congressional and legislative districts to be drawn up by an 8-member commission evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. If they cannot agree on a map (and they never have) a ninth member is chosen by random drawing. The result, inevitably, is a map designed by the political party with whom the tiebreaking member is affiliated. District boundaries are in some cases wildly gerrymandered to insure the dominance of a particular party.

cons- — Potential cost. The 1970 convention lasted nine months and cost more than $14 million, equivalent to more than $80 million today. The expense is difficult to justify when the state is closing parks and other facilities and making severe program cuts because of budget shortfalls.

– Constitutional provisions guaranteeing the pensions of current state employees and retirees could be scrapped in an attempt to relieve the state of a looming future financial burden caused, in large part, by intentional under-funding of the pension systems.

– Special interest groups may use the convention as a platform to battle over hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage, gun control, abortion and the death penalty. The death penalty was an issue during the 1970 convention, and an amendment that would have abolished it was submitted to voters separately from the main constitution. It was rejected. (A new con-con could also allow a separate vote on the most controversial measures so as not to imperil the entire document.)

– The time and effort devoted to a con-con would distract officeholders and the public from more urgent public needs such as education, transportation and healthcare. But con-con backers argue that urgent public needs have been neglected for years anyway and a convention could not make the situation any worse.

– A con-con would “create an atmosphere of uncertainty” that would discourage businesses from coming to or remaining in the state, since they would not know what kind of tax or regulation structure they would face in the future.

– State government’s lack of action is not the fault of the “system”, but of the people currently in office. The solution is to vote for the right people, not change a basically sound system.

So there you go, a few things to consider.  Click on the link in the thread for a little more information.  Voting is good, informed voting is even better.

How are soldiers stationed overseas voting?

The blunt answer is that most soldiers deployed overseas aren’t voting at all.

Many soldiers simply feel preoccupied with other things. Like, say, getting killed in a war zone:

Car bombs rather than Obama, making it home rather than McCain dominate the talk among many U.S. Soldiers in Iraq’s deadliest city during the final countdown to America’s presidential election.

Dangers, distance from home and the dawn-to-dark effort in an alien environment push U.S. politics into a corner for many Soldiers – especially in combat outposts where television and the Internet are not readily available.

“Regardless of who wins the election, we are going to be here 15 months. And our mission is not going to be fundamentally affected, at least in the short term,” said Capt. Justin Davis Harper after returning from a patrol into the northern city of Mosul’s most violent zone.

But even those deployed soldiers who still wish to cast their ballot aren’t getting an opportunity to because of beurocratic red tape:

The voting process for troops overseas has been criticized as overly bureaucratic, antiquated and flawed.

Soldiers must request by mail an absentee ballot from the local election district where they last lived. Then they are sent a paper ballot to fill out and mail back. Some Soldiers said they never got ballots.

[...]

“It’s cool to be able to vote out here and not miss out on what others at home are doing,” said Morton, adding that he sent in his request for an absentee ballot six months ago but only received it last week.

The number of absentee military ballots applied for that ultimately get counted is consistently low. In the last federal election, only about 30 percent of overseas military ballots were tallied, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission and the Pew Center on the States.

Most deployed soldiers (which are estimated to be well over 200,000 troops in several different countries) may not cast a vote but for those that will (including soldiers and veterans in the United States) their votes will be heavily favored for McCain.

How are soldiers stationed in the United States voting?

McCains extensive military experience rings loudest with military personnel who see a candidate that can sympathize with their needs greater than a candidate with zero military experience.

But there’s a catch in this election. The military has a large minority base in African-Americans and latinos who favor Barack Obama heavily.

A poll conducted by The Military Times surveyed 80,000 military subscribers in September.  The outcome show a vast majority of service members favor McCain over Obama by a 3-1 margin.

Pay attention to the votes when divided by race though.  It shows a whopping 79% of black military voters favoring Obama while all other categories show McCain firmly in the lead with military voters.

Check out the raw data here [pdf] to see a complete listing of how the U.S. military will vote.

So, really I should be out Halloween partying with my friends, but sadly I have drill this weekend which entails waking up before the butt crack of dawn for a 3-or-so hour drive to the armory, so instead I’m just about to call it a night… but before I do- there’s something gnawing on my mind.

There’s a record number of early/absentee votes pouring in this election, more than was projected, which is leading to an even bigger projection of how many people will be voting altogether.  Groovy, lots of votes means more of the American public getting involved in the system that requires their involvement to even function a quarter of the way it’s supposed to…

But at the same time, I know there’s many people who are abusing the early voting procedure just so they can vote now instead of on Election Day.  Why?  I dunno, guess it seemed a good idea at the time.  The one thing I can’t help but wonder though, is whether or not they’re going to help or hinder the very causes and Candidates that they’re supporting.  Somehow I can’t get around the concern that somehow this abundance of early voters is going to be used to skew the Election in one direction or another, because we all know it’s not like our Gov’t has ever botched vote counting before.

Not to mention if all the polls about the early votes seem to be pointing strongly in favor of one Candidate over another (granted no one will be officially releasing those results until the first set of posted results on Election Day, but right now it seems to be mostly Democrats who participated in the early voting and one would have to assume they’re backing Obama) it makes you wonder if undecideds will go with the flow of the majority, or act in a more reactionary way and go against the majority when it comes time for them to make their vote…

I don’t know, it’s just something that was rattling around in my pre-sleep contemplations.  Election season really needs to end so I can go back to dreaming about girls…

I’ve always taken pride in seeing both sides of the coin. In recent years I’ve considered myself more center-left than just straight-up liberal. Not all Republicans scared me. Neither did all Democrats. I have the gift of hearing both arguments and standing by the side the made more sense; not by the side that I was “supposed” to stand by.

I mean really, our motto here at Patriot Missive might as well be “All politicians are full of shit”, as Skitz M. Jones so rightfully says.

But I can’t deny the energy I feel from Obama. I can’t deny the logic and sense he brings to the table.

After watching this Presidential race from start to finish, I can’t deny that at this point with only 5 days before the general election I am 100% behind Barack Obama.

“I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me; it’s about you.

It’s about you.

For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, “Enough,” to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.

You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.”

-Acceptance speech of Barack Obama August 28th, 2008

Proposition 8.  Never heard of it?  With all the other news that’s been so heavily on the minds of the American public these days (economic failure, gas prices suddenly being low again, multiple wars, Presidential Elections, World Series, football season, etc…) it’s not surprising if it’s gone undetected by your radar.  But in California religious conservatives seem to have little else on their minds.

Prop 8 is an amendment to be voted on next month that would undo the California Supreme Court verdict that approved same sex marriages.

Conservative religious leaders from across the country are pouring time, talent and millions of dollars into the state in support of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. They are hoping to reverse a California Supreme Court ruling in May that gave same-sex couples permission to marry, resulting in thousands of exultant same-sex weddings.

Similar marriage amendments are on the ballot next month in Arizona and Florida. But religious conservatives have cast the campaign in California as the decisive last stand, warning in stunningly apocalyptic terms of dire consequences to the entire nation if Proposition 8 does not pass.

California, they say, sets cultural trends for the rest of the country and even the world. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become entrenched there, they warn, there will be no going back.

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

The propaganda being spread by the pro-8 crowd includes statements that “churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued and lose their tax-exempt status. Ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality. Parents will have no right to prevent their children from being taught in school about same-sex marriage”, none of which of course is true.  Just as no such things occurred when people started living together before marriage, or when couples first started getting divorced, or when following those divorces people started remarrying (and then divorcing and remarrying any number of times after that) all things that could be argued to be detrimental to the “sanctity of marriage” all things that religious figures have been free to accept or belittle of their own accord, without government interference.

Just because same sex marriages are being permitted, doesn’t mean every church would have to do them- that would be against freedom of religion.  There are plenty of churches that are willing to hold the ceremonies and recognise the marriages within the realm of their religious scope, and to deny them that right is also against freedom of religion.  Or how about those who don’t do it up all churchy and just have a justice of the peace confirm the marriage?  Religion isn’t even involved then.

There are even some who claim that this vote is more important than the Presidential Elections.  Of course they are primarily of the gloom and doom “it’s the end of the world as we know it if we allow this to continue” set.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

Sadly it’s not just Californians who are debating the issue.  Nope, anti-gay activists are being imported from all over the globe to try to swing voters to their side.

(T)he “Yes on 8” campaign has brought over from Sweden a pastor named Ake Green, who a few years ago was sentenced to a month in prison under Sweden’s law banning hate speech, because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality. Mr. Green’s testimony was featured in a 90-minute “Yes on 8” satellite simulcast that was recently downlinked to 170 churches throughout the state.

“He is a symbol of what is ahead,” said the Rev. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego area, a leading organizer of the “Yes” ranks.

Both sides recognize that this could be a dangerously close vote, and it’s entirely possible that Prop 8 could pass.  I for one (and recognize that I really have little personal stake in this, being that I am a heterosexual male) hope that this doesn’t pass.  To continue to deny the place of homosexuals in our country’s culture, and even further- to deny them the same basic civil rights that we all hold, to deny the ability for two loving consenting adults to have their relationship recognized both socially and legally is one of the more reprehensible trends that is sadly still prevailent in our society.

The evangelical windbags are right about one thing though, California is a trend setter in American Culture, and with that in mind I suppose now there are two events now in which I’ll be keeping an eye on the results to see where voters hearts and minds really rest.

Is the push for Florida paying off for Obama?

A new poll commissioned by researchers at New York University reveals that American Jews favor Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama over his Republic rival, John McCain, by a 67 – 33 percent margin.

The survey, which sampled the opinions of over 3,000 respondents – half of them being Jewish – also found that Jews as an ethnic group will support Obama by almost 30 percent more than other white, non-Hispanic voters.

[haaretz]

Shirah over at unbossed.com wrote a brilliant post called “I am a conservative, and that’s why I am voting Democratic”.  It deserves a link from us:

When it comes to traditional conservative values, I top the charts. I am fiscally conservative. I am concerned about my community and involved in its improvement. I care for my family, and I take care of my family. I attend my house of worship regularly and read and study the Bible. I am also a strong supporter of a culture of life. For all these reasons I support the Democratic Party. If you also subscribe to these values, I hope you will too.

My values are those of true conservatives who remember that the root word there is based on conserving. Those who call themselves conservatives now have left those root values far behind.

Read the full post here.

Yeah, it’s true, we’ve had several posts about the $700 billion bailout plan on this site and I’m expecting to post several more in the future.  Why?  First because it’s THAT huge for the American economy. Second because it’s drastically effecting my exchange rate in Israel and I need my hummus.  (Let’s be honest here.  The closer to home this thing hits, the more we pay attention.)

Everyone was all excited for this damn thing to pass so that we could finally start walking on the road to financial healing.  But why didn’t Congress pass it bill?

Politicker gives an interesting theory as to why the majority voted no:

There are 41 incumbent House members on Politicker.com’s The Pindell Report of the nation’s most competitive House races. Of that group 31 voted against the bailout, possibly proof that that a yes vote might be politically toxic just a little over a month from Election Day. Of the four House members running for the Senate only Maine’s Tom Allen voted for in favor.

Ok, so it’s because the politicians don’t want to make a mistake that would jeopardize their reelection. Because who wants to vote for the guy who had a hand in the bankruptcy of the United States?

Let’s be sure that we acknowledge that there are MANY reasons besides reelection that effected the vote:

Even Congressional leaders admitted on the House floor that this was less than a perfect bill for any member. Conservatives said the bill would was basically socialism. Liberals said the bill didn’t do enough to protect the Middle Class.

The bill simply doesn’t sit well with most Congressional leaders; both Liberals and Conservatives.  Maybe it takes a crisis like this to finally create bipartisan leadership.

See also Anatomy of the Bailout Breakdown from Time.