Category: Politics

Romney’s Failure

Republican Party apologists are working hard to find anybody to blame for Tuesday’s results besides the Republican Party. As usual the first target of Republican anger are the people who voted for third-party candidates. This accusation is absurd since Romney lost by more than the total of third-party votes:

Could he have picked up more Electoral College votes in other battleground states had there been no third-party candidates? In Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia and Illinois, third-party candidates were active — campaigning on a variety of issues, including the legalization of marijuana, which was approved by Colorado and Washington State voters.

However, third-party candidates drew only small percentages of the vote in those states.

In Virginia, it had been feared that former U.S. Senator Virgil Goode’s Constitutional Party candidacy would leach off enough conservative votes to give the state’s Electoral College votes to Obama. However, Obama won the state’s 13 Electoral College ballots by 54,924 votes. Only 51,802 Virginians voted for all of the third-party candidates combined — close, but not enough to matter.

What about the other states that went for Obama? Had there been no third-party candidates, would there have been 35 more Electoral College votes to put Romney over the top?

In California, the President won by 59.2 percent with 5,554,499 votes. Romney garnered only 3,613,339 votes. If he’d had every one of the Third Party candidates’ 219,425 votes, it would have made no difference. The same is true in all of the “battleground” states as well as smaller states which went for Obama: Oregon, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Delaware and Minnesota.

Had every third-party voter voted for Romney instead Obama would still be president. What’s even more absurd is that Romney apologists somehow expect independent minded individuals to support a candidate that wasn’t liked by his own party. Romney received less votes than John McCain, who was also disliked by much of the Republican Party base:

As the national vote total began to solidify last night, one question on the minds of Republicans was: Where are the missing voters? Last night it looked like Mitt Romney had received something like 10 to 15 percent fewer votes than John McCain had in 2008, even though his percentage of the overall vote was at least two points higher.

I think this fact is the most telling piece of information regarding Romney’s loss. Even though Obama’s approval rating during his term as president is below 50% Romney wasn’t able to get enough votes to win. While a majority of the American public doesn’t approve of Obama they approve of Romney even less. Neither Republican voters or the American public liked Romney enough to vote for him.

Third-party voters didn’t sink the Republican Party, the Republican Party sank the Republican Party. They selected a candidate that wasn’t liked by their own base and expected to win the election. Here’s a pro tip for the Republican Party in the future: if your own voter base doesn’t like a candidate nobody else will either.

Tuesday’s Lesson

Tuesday’s election was the inevitable result of a series of bad moves on behalf of the Republican Party (GOP). Their first mistake was how they nominated Romney. Instead of following the rules and procedures created and voted on at the Republican National Convention (RNC) the GOP decided to pull out all of the stops and actually cheat to ensure Romney’s nomination. Cheating at the RNC wasn’t even necessary since the GOP cheated in several states to ensure Romney had enough delegates to win the nomination. What the GOP’s complete disregard for their own rules did was disenfranchise Ron Paul’s supporters, which effectively turned them against the GOP. Paul’s supporters aren’t a majority within the GOP but they are a large enough voting block that pissing them off was not going to end well.

After giving Romney and his vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan the nomination on a silver platter the GOP failed to control either candidate. Both politicians made performed publicity stunts that ended up making them look bad in the public’s eye. There was also the fact that the Republican base was adamant about repealing Obamacare, which Romney failed to promise. When you fail to promise your voter base what they want they’re not going to be inclined to come out and support you. The GOP lost the presidential race because they nominated a guy that their own base didn’t like. You can’t expect to win an election by nominating a guy your own party members hate.

Problems didn’t stop for the GOP at the presidential race. Many of their endorsed candidates made extremely stupid public statements. Between Todd Akin’s claim that women seldom become pregnant from “legitimate” rape to Jon Hubbad and Loy Mauch’s defense of slavery to Richard Mourdock’s claim that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift from God to Charles Fuqua’s advocacy of the death penalty for unruly children the Democratic Party had a lot of ammunition to use against the GOP. How did the GOP expect to win any major elections when a notable number of their endorsed candidates were running around the country spouting off things that were extremely offensive to a good number of people?

The GOP’s stupidity didn’t wasn’t restricted to the national level. Here in Minnesota the state GOP was hard at working sowing the seeds of their own defeat. Knowing that most people only show up to the polls for the presidential election and that their presidential candidate wasn’t going to fire up their voting base they took a gamble. Two constitutional amendments were put forward by the GOP controlled legislative body. One amendment would have implemented voter ID requirements in Minnesota while the other one would have made gay marriages more illegal. Both amendments were a ploy to get voters to the voting booths and it backfired. The state Democratic Party was able to use the amendments to fire up their voting base. In addition to the amendments the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization within the GOP that claims to support gay rights, stabbed the gay community in the back. I’m sure that encouraged members of the gay community that were in the Log Cabin Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates. With so many Democratic voters at the polls the state GOP got slaughtered.

I also want to take a moment to address the Senate race. Klobuchar was up for reelection and the GOP fielded Kurt Bills against her. Kurt Bills claimed to be a liberty candidate, a claim that was proven to be false when he switched his presidential endorsement from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney. Not satisfied that switching his endorsement would piss off enough liberty voters within the Republican Party Bills also made a public statement against all third-party voters. Minnesota’s liberty movement is fairly strong so alienating them can be costly, especially when the state is already strongly Democratic to begin with.

Tuesday had a valable lesson for the GOP. Alienating as many people as possible is not a good political strategy. Between a presidential candidate hated by the GOP’s voter base, endorsed candidates running around spouting offensive statements, and taking every opportunity to move against the gay community and their supporters the GOP sealed their fate. They got exactly what was coming to them. Frankly, after the RNC, I was hoping to see a little revenge during the election. I attended the Republican Party party in Bloomington, Minnesota just so I could watch the spirits of hardcore GOP supporters get crushed in real time. It felt good seeing what happened to my friends in the liberty movement happen to the neoconservatives. Vengeance was had by the liberty movement and all they had to do was stand by the sidelines and watch the GOP hang itself. To those of you who actively worked to surpress the liberty movement in the GOP I hope you enjoy the next four years because they are years of your making.

Although I’m Ashamed to Admit it I Voted

But I’m not ashamed of who I voted for:

I took that picture before I filled in “No” for both of the amendments, which were the only other things I voted on.

With how much I criticize voting and democracy some people are likely curious to know why I voted. Although I didn’t want to contribute any votes to candidates I did want to vote against the amendments. Since I couldn’t decide whether or not I wanted to vote I did what any sane person would do in my situation and consulted Thor. It was raining off and on yesterday so I asked the great thunder god to send me a sign: if it was raining when I arrived at my precinct I would take that as a sign from Thor that he didn’t want me to participate in the vote and if the skys were clear I would take that as a sign from Thor that he did want me to participate in the vote. When I arrive the skys were clear so I went in.

Another question some people may have is why I chose to write-in Vermin Supreme instead of cast a vote for Gary Johnson. I did discuss the fact that I liked Gary Johnson when I met him and that I hoped he’d get close to his desired five percent of the popular vote, so why didn’t I give him a vote? Because I didn’t want to participate in any candidate races.

Look I like Gary Johnson and of all the “serious” candidates running I believe he would be the least evil. Still I have no desire to elect a master and writing in Vermin Supreme gave me that option. In Minnesota write-in votes don’t qualify unless a candidate fills out the appropriate paperwork. To my knowledge Vermin Supreme didn’t fill out that paperwork so my vote for him won’t be counted. He’s also a fellow anarchist so I didn’t feel bad giving him a nod (not to mention that he delivered the lulz).

Even though I feel slightly dirty for participating in the election I accomplished my goals. One vote was cast against each of the constitutional amendments and I contributed nothing to any candidate. There’s always a method to my madness. Hopefully we won’t have to deal with constitutional amendments like this during the next election so I can avoid participating without any nagging feeling whatsoever.

My Election Predictions

Since today is Master Selection Day I’ve decided to do my best to predict the outcome of today’s election. I predict that Goldman Sachs will win. While it’s impossible to predict the future with certainty I feel secure in making this prediction since Goldman Sachs as been major campaign contributors to both Obama and Romney. Considering this fact it’s not too much of a stretch to predict either candidate will further Goldman Sach’s goals as payment for the company’s generous campaign contributes.

Beyond Goldman Sach’s victory I also predict that the warfare welfare system will remain intact. Once again both candidates have affirmed their support for continuing the wars America is currently embroiled in and starting new wars as the need arrises. Iran is a likely target for invasion during the next presidential term as Obama and Romney have both expressed interest in bombing the men, women, and children living in that country. Both candidates have also expressed interest in entering more wars including sending military support to Syrian rebels.

The Federal Reserve has nothing to worry about. Neither candidate has expressed even minor interest in either auditing or ending the Federal Reserve. Bankers throughout the United States can rest easy knowing that the easily expanded inflationary money supply will continue on regardless of which presidential candidate wins. In fact it’s likely that the Federal Reserve will continue to print more money under the guise of quantitative easing.

Civil liberties will continue to be stripped from the people. Obama and Romney have continued to beat the war on terror drum which has become a euphemism for eliminating civil liberties. Along with direct attacks against civil liberties both presidential candidates have expressed interest in expanding the police state, against under the guise of the war on terror. Prisons should continue to be overcrowded as nonviolent individuals are locked away for simply disobeying the state’s decrees.

In other words things will continue as they have been for four more years. Nothing will change, the economy won’t improve, liberty won’t be expanded, and noninterventionist policies will not become the status quo. It’s all a big game of chess and we the people are the pawns.

Anyways let me end on a high note by wishing you all a very enjoyable Master Selection Day!

Consider Guy Fawkes and Our Current Situation

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
I see of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Today is the 5th of November, known as Guy Fawkes Night in Britain. In 1605 a man by the name of Guido Fawkes was captured hauling gunpowder under the House of Lords in a plot to assassinate King James I. Members of the Gunpowder Treason planned to replace the Protestant monarchy with a Catholic monarchy, effectively returning England to a time before the Church of England was separated from the Catholic Church.

There are similarities between that time and today. The beginning of the Gunpowder Treason goes back to 1534 when Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Catholic Church in order to annul is marriage (the Catholic Church wouldn’t approve Henry’s divorce so they were no longer politically convenient). Part of the separation included the issuance of the Act of Supremacy of 1534, which established the monarch as the head of the Church of England and the monarchy. Before the Act of Supremacy was issued the Pope was in charge of the Catholic Church, and by extension the Church of England, whereas the monarch was the head of the monarchy. With the separation of church and state eliminated the monarchs of England moved to eliminate competition to the religion they now controlled.

In 1559, under the reign of Elizabeth I, a second Act of Supremacy was issued that mandated anybody taking public office in England swear and oath to recognize the monarchy as the supreme head of the Church and state. Failing to swear such an oath would result in charges of treason, which ended with a death sentence. To further ensure all competition to the Church of England was greatly reduced Parliament also issued the Act of Uniformity. The Act of Uniformity made weekly worship at the Church of England compulsory. Failure to attend weekly service would result in the issuance of a fine.

The stage was set for a Catholic rebellion, which is what the Gunpowder Treason of 1605 was about. Conspirators in the plot hoped to restore Papal control over the Church of England by removing the Protestant monarch and replacing him with a Catholic one.

Like Guy Fawkes, we live under a totalitarian state. Groups labeled as subversive are repressed just as Catholics were repressed after the first Act of Supremacy was issued. Things are also notably different because the repression isn’t based on religious beliefs, instead repression is based on statism. People standing against the state are actively targeted by the state. Anybody advocating liberty is prevented from obtaining any real power by the currently established state. Political parties that are unwilling to tow the current establishment party line are actively prevented from participating in presidential debates and from receiving federal campaign funds. People who are not Republicans or Democrats are treated as second class individuals just as Catholics were after the Church of England split from Rome.

The more things change the more they stay the same. History is littered with power hungry individuals suppressing any potential competition. Today, like in the time of Guy Fawkes, we live under a system that attempts to eliminate state competition. We can’t vote our way out of this. Any gain we make through the political system, if any gain is even possible, will be temporary at best. The only way to achieve liberty will be to eliminate the state itself. So long as we grant a monopoly on violence to individuals and groups we will be subjecting ourselves to their whims. This is why I advocate anarchism, it is the only way to break the cycle of power hungry individuals suppressing all competition to their reign. Remember, remember, the 5th of November for it has lessons that are applicable even today.

Tomorrow is Master Selection Day

I want to remind my fellow slaves that tomorrow is Master Selection Day. Our masters are so benevolent that they allow use to choose new masters periodically. There are numerous races to consider from the presidency to congressional representatives to city councils. Whoever a majority of slaves vote for will become the master of his or her particular fiefdom. So don’t forget to vote because not voting could imply that you find the American government illegitimate and your friends will think you hate freedom and democracy!

I should also ask you to support my master of choice. While conditions seems unfavorable at the moment I can ensure you that selecting the other master will leads to even worse conditions for use slaves. Therefore you must vote for my preferred master for the sake of this country.

Funding the GOP Stupid Train

The Republican Party has decided to dump their money into their stupid train. Remember Mourdock? He’s the Republican candidate who said pregnancies resulting from rape were gifts from God. After making an incredibly idiotic statement like that you would think the Republican Party would have separated themselves from the man faster than they separated themselves from Todd “women seldom become pregnant from legitimate rate” Akins (of course Rand Paul swooped in to help Akin’s campaign). Instead they’re dumping millions into the man’s campaign:

Republicans are spending big to salvage Richard Mourdock’s candidacy in the aftermath of his comments on rape and pregnancy that have imperiled GOP hopes of taking back the Senate majority.

About $4 million is being spent across the airwaves in the final week of the campaign to bolster Mourdock, from the likes of well-known Republican groups like American Crossroads, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Club for Growth. And that comes as both sides acknowledge that Mourdock has taken a hit in the polls since his comments. Democrats are now more confident than ever that their candidate, Rep. Joe Donnelly, is poised to pull off one of the biggest upsets of the cycle.

Why is the Republican Party wasting its money on this guy? Oh, that’s right, it’s because they’re piss poor money managers. If the Republican Party had a brain it would withhold any further money from Mourdock as a lesson to the rest of its candidates to keep their offensives statements to themselves during campaign season.

How Can One Hold Political Party Values

How many times have you heard somebody say they hold Republican or Democratic Party values? I hear people claiming their political philosophy is based on party values alarmingly often. Party values make for a poor political philosophy because they are subject to change every four years. Unless your political philosophy is literally obedience to a party there is no way to claim to believe in party values while remaining philosophically consistent.

Consider the 2012 Democratic Party platform, which changed drastically from 2008’s platform. In the time span between 2008 and 2012 somebody claiming they support Democratic Party values would have been claiming to stand in favor of ending indefinite detention, repealing the PATRIOT Act, closing Guantanamo Bay, stopping racial profiling, and ending the use of torture on military prisoners. After the Democratic National Convention in 2012 those same people would no longer be claiming such stances.

The Republican Party fairs no better. Consider the party’s change in stated beliefs regarding global warming climate change global climate disruption climate change and renewable energy. Somebody claiming to support Republican Party values in 2008 would have been stating support for finding a market solution to combat climate change and a commitment to issuing tax credits for the promotion of developing renewable energy. That same person after 2012 would be claiming to oppose the entire concept of climate change and believing in a very vague concept of promoting renewable energy.

Claiming you support Republican or Democratic ideals is as good as saying nothing at all. Party platforms can and do change every four years at national conventions. For four years the Republican Party could stand for repealing all gun control laws only to change four years later to supporting the enforcement of current gun control laws. The Democratic Party could stand for ending all foreign wars American is currently engaged in for four years only to change their stance and support continuing those wars after a national convention. That’s why basing one’s political philosophy on party ideals can only lead to inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment

Political organizations are spending their money for the final push before the election. Television screens are alive with political advertisements, newspapers are filled with pages of propaganda, and billboards across the country are urging you to vote one way or another. In Minnesota we’re being assaulted with advertisements asking us to vote yes or no on two constitutional amendments. These amendments have consumed a great deal of time for the politically active members living in this state, even though they’re really just scams meant to get the Democratic and Republican voter bases out to the polls.

Of the two amendments I find the one that would require voters to present state issued photo identification when voting to be the most interesting. Unlike the amendment that would make the state’s prohibition against same-sex marriages constitutional, which is nothing more than further legislating religious dogma, the voter identification amendment is a potential solution to a potential problem. Both the problem and the solution are only potentials because no reliable study has been performed to determine if the cost of implementing voter identification outweighs the cost. To this point all arguments for and against this amendment are hypothetical. Those who support the amendment claim that it will fight voter fraud but haven’t demonstrated that voter fraud is a significant problem and those who oppose the amendment claim it will disenfranchise specific voting blocks (which can’t actually be demonstrated until the amendment is passed so I give them a bit of a break). Security, like anything else that requires the use of resources, needs to undergo cost-benefit analysis.

In order to perform a cost-benefit analysis we need to identify the threat. Voter identification legislation is meant to combat the threat of individuals claiming they’re somebody else in order to cast additional votes. How many cases of such fraud have occurred in Minnesota? I’ve seen no conclusive studies indicating such a number, just vague statements claiming it’s a rampant problem. Nationwide the rate of voter impersonation is statistically nonexistent:

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

.00000013 percent of votes cast nationwide were demonstrated to be cases of voter impersonation. That number is so statistically insignificant as to be entirely irrelevant. Unless Minnesota greatly bucks the national trend voter impersonation isn’t a notable problem here. Considering the likely insignificant nature of the problem how much would it cost to implement a voter identification system? According to the only study I’ve found on the subject the cost it is estimated that a voter identification program would be $68.5 million in the first year [PDF].

Is it really worth spending $68.5 million in the first year on something that hasn’t even been proven to be a problem? Personally I don’t think it’s a good idea to spend a single dime on something that hasn’t been proven to be a problem.