Progressive Wednesday

Fixing Elections (in a Good Way)

Problem:

As the polls closed on Election Day 2004, I watched the state-by-state results eek in from the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Columbus with a thousand other volunteers, including Jerry Springer, the former mayor of Cincinnati, and Eric, who'd road-raged his way down from Rochester, New York, in his rusty and rust-colored – ˜86 Monte Carlo, to lend a hand for the final few days. I bit my nails to the quick and pulled and twisted at my goatee. The news seemed grim.

And so, the war would rage on. And the poor would increasingly fight it. And our broken health care system would cause more bankruptcies. And monolithic business would rule instead of wise environmental stewardship. And I felt too guilty to sleep. But it was that night, and deep into the morning, that Eric and I came up with the idea of Progressive Wednesday, a new way to empower people when there weren't elections, and hell, even when there were. And it was that night we decided that helping to fix the election process would be at the top of our Wednesday list.

Two weeks later, I attended a public hearing with sworn testimony by Franklin County residents reporting voter suppression, fraud, and the inequitable distribution of voting machines in both poor and predominately African-American districts, which made 2004 Ohio seem a little too much like 1960 Mississippi.

Since I'm not a Democrat, I now deeply question why I didn't just support a so-called “third-party– candidate like Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, or David Cobb, the Green candidate. But my experience helped me question, even more, the process by which we select our elected officials and the ways we decide whom to give our vote. I imagine I'm not alone.

- – – – -

Make Progress:

We'll definitely be returning to this topic time and time again, because it's intensely complicated and similarly significant to not just our rights as Americans, but to what we value as a human right. What follows, then, is a beginning. Consider the starter's pistol fired.

• Bookmark
• Call
• Write
• Read
• Wear

Photo thanks to this voter.

Bookmark:

It's a little bit difficult to describe Project Vote Smart in 304 words, but here goes:

• This non-profit uses oodles of volunteers (from the right and the left) to examine “voting records, campaign contributions, public statements, biographical data (including their work history) and evaluations of them generated by over 100 competing special interest groups.–
• In addition, they “test each candidate’s willingness to provide citizens with their positions on the issues they will most likely face if elected through the National Political Awareness Test.– In other words, they see if candidates will openly, directly explain what they stand for — a tall order in some instances.
• You can also use Project Vote Smart to learn about judges, congressional legislation, voter registration, polling locales, ballot measures, and lots and lots of accurate et cetera.
• The Project also offers up a Voter's Self-Defense Manual, a must-read for progressives of any political ilk. The booklet can be downloaded as an Acrobat file, or you can order one by giving them a jingle: 1-888-868-3762.
• They are truly bipartisan: “No one can join the Project’s board without a political opposite.– And whose served on the board? Carter, Ford, Dukakis, McCain, McGovern, and Goldwater, to name a few.
• They don't take cash money from special interests. To quote: “We do not accept contributions from any corporations, labor unions, or other organizations that lobby, support or oppose candidates or issues.” The money comes only in the form of donations by individuals (70%) and philanthropic foundation grants (30%). Plus, 83% of their funds go directly into their programs and content.
• U.S. News and World Report has this to say: “Project Vote Smart would make the Founders weep with joy.– The New York Times pointed out that the Project kicks so much tail that “even the Federal Government recommends it.–
• This service — this wonderful, wonderful service — is completely free.

Want to read more? Go check it out for yourself. Then bookmark it. You'll want it down the road: we guarantee it.

We'd also like to ask you to give some love in the form of greenbacks to this incredibly worthy, dare we say essential (okay, we dare), this essential cause. Even if giving means three bucks. Here's the beauty of your generosity: not only do you help out this organization whose sole purpose is to help you as a voter, but your gift is tax-deductible, and you can choose how the money is spent. So give a little and have them spend it wisely.

But remember to bookmark it, baby, remember to bookmark it.

.

Call:

This sucker might come as a shock, but the Constitution does not guarantee American citizens the right to vote.

We'll give you a second to reread that sentence. Okay, now that we've got your attention we'll give you all the support we need to prove it to you. In the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, the Court ruled: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.– We think, well, we think this is a load of crap, and not cute little rabbit pellets– ¦ no, we're talking a dump truck full of nasty elephant waste.

We'd like you to take five minutes right now, immediately after reading this, and call your Senators (take a peek and make sure your boss ain't lingering around). Just click this sentence to find a list of all the Senators with phone numbers for each. Here's what we'd recommend saying:

• “I'm a voter from [name your state], and I'm outraged that there's no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing my right to vote. If Senator [last name] wants my vote the next time [he or she] is up for reelection, then [he or she] will introduce or support legislation that would guarantee this basic American right.–

Be sure to thank them for their time.

If such an Amendment existed, folks could sue states for voter fraud, suppression, a lack of equal protection, and faulty machines or a lack of functioning ones. There are 7,800 different election jurisdictions. This adds a lot of variables. If there was a Constitutional Amendment, there could be a universal voting system for all elections. Fairness. That's what we're talking about here. Accountability. Equality. A more perfect union.

.

Write:

Even though we're far, far away from the next national elections, we think it’s more apropos to deal with this topic well before November, which is, of course, National Pomegranate Month.

Okay, here's the main idea of our letter-to-the-editor campaign: Our fellow Americans, Election Day should be a national holiday.

Now, it's hard to argue with a day off (though we're sure the workaholics out there could give it a shot). But we think for the sake of the U.S. of A., voters deserve a greater opportunity to choose what goes down.

Here are some talking points for ya to use and morph and personalize and localize to your heart's content:

• Election Day is an excellent way to emphasize the importance of community.
• As a holiday, we'd be reaffirming the cultural significance of voting.
• Voting was a central catalyst behind the founding of the country.
• Voter turnout in the United State for presidential elections ranks 65th in the world. Democracy deserves better. Common sense dictates that a holiday would raise voter turnout.
• Most workers paid hourly can't afford to take time off work to vote.
• Polls in some states close as early as 7 p.m., further limiting turnout.
• Long lines wouldn't seem as daunting since folks wouldn't need to hustle back to work.
• Election Day is already a holiday in Puerto Rico.

Here's a link to the newspapers throughout the country to help you find the address and specific requirements to the daily “Extra, extra, read all about it!” in your community. You can always check out our How to Read Newspapers tool. Also, you might want to take a gander at our How to Write Letters to the Editor tool, both in brief and in full.

Photo courtesy of this literate picture-clicker.

Read:

Adopting Election Day as a national holiday and banging out a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote seem like two it's-about-time steps in the right direction.

There's got to be more we can do to help out so-called “third parties– and their very qualified candidates. Third parties deserve a greater voice in our country, and having more voices, more opinions, and options seems incredibly American to us. Two-party domination seems a bit archaic, a bit undemocratic.

There are several suggestions out there for ways to change the ways we vote and the ways third party candidates get treated on ballots. These ideas include:

• Fusion voting.
• Instant run-off voting.
• Popular voting.
• Range voting.

We'll be returning to the topic of election fixes in the future, and we're curious what your thoughts are about each of the various options. After you read about each, let us know what you think by leaving a comment or by contacting us. Let us know which you prefer, which you have questions about. Your comments will help us decide which ones to support down ye ole road. So, thanks in advance.

.

Wear:

Okay, this one's easy enough. We'd like to encourage you to plunk down a few bucks, snag yourself this t-shirt, and wear it around all year long (taking it off occasionally to shower, make the love, and maybe even wash it here and there). Sport it when you head to the grocery, the gym, the Grand Canyon. (Speaking of the Grand Canyon– ¦.)

This is a way to send an honest and constant message. Plus the word “vote– is bad-ass as Mr. T and drop-dead gorgeous as Rita Hayworth. Since you're reading Progressive Wednesday, we're confident you're a little bit of both, too.

You’d think we were under attack this… very… second.

I’m done watching the Presidential debates. It’s not that I don’t care who wins, ’cause I do. I’m actually a bit obsessed with politics, even though we shy away from politicians on Progressive Wednesday. In fact, I’ll probably end up working on a campaign for a third party candidate. If I do, for the sake of full disclosure, I’ll let you know who and maybe even why. But here’s why I’m done with the debates: most of these folks are blow-hards and wannabes who’d have you and I believe that if we don’t watch our backs, well, the terrorists are gonna get us, and if we don’t elect them, well, then we’re not really watching our backs.

The problem with this ridiculous argument is two-fold:

1. Superman they ain’t. Superman kicks serious tail. I know Superman, and none of them are Superman.
2. They’d all like it if we kept this on the down-low, but here goes: you don’t need to be afraid of terrorism.

I’d say that the proof is in the pudding, but I don’t really dig on pudding. I’m a cheesecake kind of guy, so, for the sake of this argument, the proof’s in the cheesecake.

According to the Global Terrorism Database, which is connected to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, between September 12, 2001 and January 1, 2005, exactly five Americans died on U.S. soil as a result of terrorist attacks.

In other words, my sisters and brothers, terrorism isn’t really something we ought to be fearing during our daily lives. Consider some of these comparative statistics:

• 66 Americans die every year from lightning strikes (Source: The U.S. National Weather Service).
• 17,000 Americans die every year from unintentionally falling. (Source: National Safety Council).
• 36,000 Americans die every year from the flu (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

So put the golf clubs away when the cumulonimbus clouds come calling. Double-check your ladders, and help your octogenarian grandmother down the porch steps. Maybe consider a flu shot, or, I don’t know, washing your hands on occasion. For crying out loud, 11 people died in 2003 because of fireworks.

One last thing on terrorism, because I know folks might be thinking, Well, Mr. Zambito, what about 9/11? First, please, call me Matt. Second, I care deeply about the the tragedy of 9/11, because 2,356 people died, because it filled us with a gut-wrenching feeling of the unknown. That date and the images from that day will always remind us of a huge loss of innocent human life, and what can result from a tremendous act of cowardly, unprovoked violence. But just consider for a moment that about 3,000 people die every month from the flu. That’s a tragedy, too, and an easily preventable one at that.

What I’m getting at is that we needn’t fret thinking that the terrorists are going to “follow us home.” Odds are, even if they do (which they don’t seem to be doing), we’ll be safe because the vast majority of terrorist attacks result in zero fatalities. And if we demanded that our government spent more of our money and resources protecting our borders, our ports, our food and water sources, and increasing our global intelligence, well, then we’d be all the safer.

(Please Note: If you’re planning on serving me cheesecake (hint, hint), hold the cherries, okay?)

Photo by this dessert lover.

156.

On Wednesday May 30, we wrote about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Since that day 156 servicemen and servicewomen have lost their lives.

So what can you do?

We'd like you to take three minutes out of your day and call your representative in Congress. They've only got a two-year shelf-life so you're guaranteed that they'll be a little more concerned about losing their sweet gig than your Senators. If you're not sure who your representative is, first go to the U.S. Postal Service to find your full 9-digit zip code, then head on over to Project Vote Smart and find out the name of your lucky representative. If you click on their name, you'll find their contact information.

And what would we like you to tell them? Here’s a little script to make your life that much easier:

I'm a registered voter in Representative [Congressperson's Last Name] district. Every day [he/she] doesn’t introduce or sign onto legislation mandating a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Representative [Congressperson's Last Name] is telling me overtly, not tacitly, that [he/she] approves of our occupation of Iraq. This was a so-called “war– built on lies and waged without regard for innocent lives with a staggering price tag to taxpayers like me. If Representative [Congressperson's Last Name] hopes to receive my vote in two years, [he/she] will promptly propose new legislation that will de-authorize our obscene occupation of Iraq. Congress authorized the invasion under the War Powers Act and that authorization can be revoked. Representative [Congressperson's Name] should not wait and let more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis die.

That’s it. That’s one thing we can all do to try to bring our valiant and victimized troops home.

Keeping the Great Lakes great

A few months ago, Clergyman Charlie told us about the effort by the New York State Legislature to prevent waste disposal sites from opening up in regions where that waste could leak into Lake Ontario. The bill passed last year in both houses, only to be vetoed by governor Pataki.

But there's a new Governor in The Empire State, and Elliot Spitzer ran for office touting himself as a friend of the environment. The bill was immediately reintroduced in the Assembly and passed with only 11 votes against. It took some encouragement from his constituents (thanks to all those who wrote or called), but Senator Maziarz has finally reintroduced the same bill in the New York State Senate. Not surprisingly, the bill passed the Senate unanimously.

It stands to reason that this law, which in its official language “prohibits the siting of a disposal facility in a location with potential to discharge into the Great Lakes system,– would be signed into law by Governor Spitzer.

But I'm not willing to take the chance that “big money– won't step in and “persuade– the governor use his veto pen. I ask you to join me in contacting the Governor's office to let him know that this piece of legislation is important to us. You can do so via email by clicking here, or write or call him the old-fashioned way with this address and phone number:

This is not a left-right, conservative-liberal, red-blue, or Democrat-Republican issue; it's supported strongly from both sides of the isle, and it has to be solved at the government level. So contact Governor Spitzer and tell him to make sure the Great Lakes are a lot cleaner for our children than they were for us.

Thanks for the picture go to this lake-dweller

A traffic jam on the Information Superhighway

In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act into law, establishing the system of high-speed roads to go between the states. The idea had begun in 1921 and had been hatched from a need for quicker deployment and movement for our nation's military, to boost the automobile business, to make it easier. In other words, our federal government had the foresight and the usefulness to spend a little money in order to improve our country.

Those same benefits could be, and to some extent have been, greatly enhanced again today by another highway system: the Information Superhighway. As the Care2 Campaign so eloquently put it:

High speed Internet means more than smooth web videos or fast downloads. Advanced high capacity communications networks can increase democratic and civic participation, improve the delivery of health care, education, job training, public safety and other vital services.

The problem is that, like with so many other things, the United States lags behind the rest of the developed world. We pay much higher prices for Internet services that offer half the speed and reliability of those in other nations, and many rural areas around the US of A don't even have access, regardless of how much they would be willing to pay.

The Care2 Campaign has put together a petition to tell Congress to get off their 9,600 bps-asses and catch up to the rest of the world. It is vital that these services be available to every American if we are to keep pace with the rest of the world. They have almost 11,000 electronic “John Hancocks,– but that's still short of their goal of 15,000.

So, if you have a high-speed Internet connection, zoom on over to the petition's website. If you don't, then definitely dial your way to the site; it's you who stands to benefit the most. Well, you and every American who needs better health care, a more level global business playing field, a better education for their children– ¦ you get the idea.

Photo taken by this traveler.

30 miles per gallon is not fuel efficient

I'm not insensitive to the economic impact that high gas prices have on the lower and middle-income Americans. In the last several years, the amount that we must pay to get from point A to point B has not just increased, but tripled, putting a big hurt on the average family. But I would be dishonest if I didn't say that I believe that $4 per gallon gasoline would be the best thing that could happen to America.

Like so many other issues in this country, we go back and forth with empty rhetoric rather than having an intelligent discussion. Seeing the upside to high gas prices doesn't mean I want Americans to suffer any more than being pro-choice means that I like abortions. I'm more interested in solving the problem with intelligent policy than simply saying what I'm for or against and then doing nothing about it.

There are a lot of ways to deaden the impact of high gas prices. One of the quickest ways would be for the United States government to raise CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy).

According to the Almanac of Policy Issues, the current fuel efficiency standards are 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for light trucks and SUVs. Despite several attempts to raise it, it has been that way since 1975. There is now a movement to raise it to 35 mpg. The average American family will spend $3,200 this year on gas. The increase in CAFE standards would save the Smiths, Leones, and Gorzynskis over 500 smackers.

Care 2 Action has started a petition to the auto industry to raise those standards. It will save Americans money, help stop funding terrorists in the Middle East, and reduce greenhouse gasses. It’s time we climbed out of the basement when it comes to fuel efficiency around the world.

They've already had nearly 11,000 economically, politically, and environmentally friendly signatures on it; let's add a bunch from the Progressive Wednesday community.

Choosing booze responsibly.

Okay, as social libertarians, we believe that one of the most important purposes of the government is to protect civil liberties. Amongst those liberties, we believe, is the right to consume alcohol. The current laws in all 50 state prevent adults under the age of 21 from purchasing alcohol. I say “purchasing” because the parents of adults and children under the age of 21 are permitted to serve their own offspring alcohol. Also, I mention that we’re talking about state laws, because there is no national law preventing adults under the age of 21 from purchasing or consuming alcohol.

I keep hammering on the word “adult” for a reason. Our culture has clearly decided that at age 18 Americans are adults. By the time an American is 18, she or he can legally:

1. Own a gun.
2. Rent a car.
3. Join the military.
4. Vote for any elected office.
5. Run for school board.
6. Gamble.
7. Buy cigarettes.
8. Get married.
9. Adopt a child.
10. Drive a car.
11. Sign a binding contract.
12. Own a business.
13. Serve on a jury.

The logic of allowing 18-year-olds to do all of the aforementioned, and not allow them to consume alcohol seems like the not-so-perfect reasoning of a four-year-old. “Why don’t you want to eat your spinach?” you ask your wee one. And your kid answers, much like the state governments, “Because.”

Okay, we’ll grant that our various governments give “reasons,” but these are easily dissected with information besides those I’ve already given. To see for yourself, check out this link and this link. The only real reason behind these state laws is The National Minimum Drinking Age Act. And why did this federal act make the states kowtow? Because if a state didn’t change the drinking age to 21, they lose “10% of annual federal highway funding.” So, essentially, the federal government, which should be protecting our civil liberties, twisted the arms of the states because they thought it would reduce drunk driving and binge drinking.

All this is to say that we wholeheartedly agree with a new campaign called “Choose Responsibly.” This organization proposes:

Allowing states to pilot alcohol education programs for 18-to-20 year-olds who are out of high school and then issue so-called “drinking licenses” to young people who successfully complete the course.

As John M. McCardell Jr., former president of Middlebury College and founder of Choose Responsibly, puts it: “If binge drinking has never been worse, why do we think legal age 21 has been successful?”

Educating young adults, instead of irrationally penalizing young adults, seems far, far closer to the kinds of freedoms we ought to expect in our country.