Okay, so to be honest, I really meant to update sooner. However, Condi is going to have to wait a bit I'm afraid because other shorter comments (I think) are demanding attention.
Today's commentary is in regards to a lovely (accurate) article by the NYT (New York Times)...link is below and the title is "Influx of Voters Likely to Test New Machines."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/21voting.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
My first response - a candid one - is "no kidding," or if you prefer, "really, you don't say?"
Okay so beyond that. There are several very concerning points raised in the article.
1) Millions of new voters + many new (and untried) machines = problem. Now I'm not a math person, really ask anyone who knows me, but that's a fairly straightforward and concerning equation. New voters, a very good thing indeed, and new machines are not necessarily bad, but there are so many possible areas where a significant meltdown could occur that I'm skeptical. It is also true I'm not always an optimist, but even optimists should probably admit there is some potential for real concern.
2) 11 states will use new machines, 55% of voters will use the paper ballot and optical scan as opposed to touch screens, a national shift is occuring here. I see the problem with touch screens certainly, but aren't paper ballots sometimes confusing?
3) Poll workers, or as you're probably already thinking "lack thereof." Yes, a major issue, but as far as resolving it. Forgive me for being "radical" here, yes radical, make ELECTION DAY a frekin' national holiday. God forbid, I mean we have it to celebrate famous people. Okay, so some stores are open, very true, what about just half a day open or close. In fact it could be a county level, a city level or something as such.
For example, Martin Luther King...the man had "a dream" and if honored appropriately we could all go vote :) at some point.
Fancy that...I mean actually having time to go vote. The argument against, people would go fishing instead, commune with nature, spend time with the kids (not a bad thing).
4) Another problem raised, having enough ballots. Now that is a problem, because if you don't have enough ballots, then people can't vote. Pretty concerning. There's not a whole lot to say on this problem, just at least they realize there are more people registering to vote. The question "will the system work for each voter....and can the system handle the load of voters." It varies by state of course, and polling station. While it is exciting for lots of new voters to be out and about, it's good to pre-empt them, if you know what I mean. Yeah it's called planning ahead, something that some aspects of our government don't do a fairly impressive job of. cough cough*
5) Voter identification, will all new registered voters be on the lists and in databases? One thing you or any voting citizen should do, (or shouldn't) is wait until the last minute to check up on things. I'm going to try and be a responsible citizen and make sure my paperwork (absentee) is all set before school. Maybe that's an obvious choice of action, but it is my first presidential election and I'm so excited already that I can barely stand it. I won't get to the convention in August in Denver (sadly I have other committments, ones that I'm equally excited about). But if this was a Star Trek universe I would be going back and forth believe me.
The bottom line is that already Americans are ready to turn out and vote. Maybe in some states, your vote is not the deciding one, in fact collective action offers reasons why people won't vote. However, it's not always about that, if you can, why not participate in a democracy? We're far from perfect, but there are many people (including friends of mine in London) who remember times in their own countries where voting was not really present, or if it is, it's far from legitimate. For others, at home women can't vote. Shame on us women if we don't go vote. Sort of, I mean there is no rule that you have to vote, and there shouldn't be. There should be no voting incentives either. It is a choice, and when I say that I mean it. If you don't want to you are exercising a democratic right NOT to vote (but do it anyway :)
It's a historic election, and I sincerely hope I will get/keep my act together this fall to create my own personal online commentary that I will have years later remembering (and I will post mini Midd updates also as excuses for why I can't post every day :)
Until next time....
Monday, 21 July 2008
Monday, 14 July 2008
Condi's New Realism
Condi Rice is a smart woman, for all that I disagree with her politics or hate that she works for a man I truly lack any sort of respect for. I cannot deny she sees things as they are, although sometimes I think she might be optimistic, or unwilling to see more than one side, she is still pragmatic. Her recent essay in Foreign Affairs provides a great deal to chew on and thus as we reach a time where transitions to a new way of American life are potentially arriving, it is worth considering what an article in the economist from mid march concluded: American Foreign Policy cannot do a 180 even if Obama takes the presidency, it just won't happen. There is too much at stake, so while it may bring about a change in attitude from the rest of the world, that hope shouldn't be squandered.
So moving on to, Condi's piece. To agree, or disagree, that is the question?
First she starts off by discussing power and distribution noting logically that globalization has created even greater divisions and left weaker states struggling. They are also at the mercy of the larger ones who have a greater voice of power in the international arena. Therefore she states it is our national interest to make sure that states can follow through with their own sovereign responsibilities and thus concludes with the importance of democratic nation building. While there is logic here, I would like to note briefly from what I've learned: the gaps in globalization and the creation of instability within some state economies is largely the result of new liberalism, trade policies pushed by the IMF where the US is a key player and decision maker in strategies used. Joseph Stiglitz calls it "western hypocrisy" and he's right; if we continue to push policies that countries are not prepared to handle(and I am not an econ person so specifics are beyond me, but essentially rapidly opening borders for trade weakens a country's ability to control flows of capital and if investors leave in a hurry the economy can collapse - more or less - I think), then how can we remove ourself from blame entirely and simply use it to justify pushing for democracy?
Marriage of realism and idealism, the strength of our values, those which MUST continue to guide us. Some of her own perceptions, and they are shared within the US mindset. Well, unfortunately we don't share them so mundanely with the rest of the world, they see the horrors of our bullying, the suspicion of our true end-game and many question our workaholic and power driven policies. It is true perhaps that we are not necessarily devilish in nature, rather we are - as my advisor and others write - an empire of the willing. We want to spread our values and our beliefs, we believe we have that right, but do others?
Condi distinguishes between common values and common interests. Russia and China are connected to us more through common interests than values. This point was highlighted recently by the new Russian president as he called for an end to American dominance, no matter how much common interest we share with Russia, I can't imagine how "well" that went over in the White House. How dare Russia assume our era of dominance is ending? Well in truth, maybe it is not, and Russia is still struggling to maintain their own stability economically, but they have oil. We'll still share common interests with them, even as we shake our head and criticize their so called democracy. With China it is the same thing, we have values, but we have interests and more often than not they seem to overlap.
Whew, okay I'm tired of thinking and typing so part II of Condi critique will be up soon enough. Oh and I recommend www.electoral-vote.com for those of you interested in keeping up to date about the electoral breakdown for '08.
Cheers
So moving on to, Condi's piece. To agree, or disagree, that is the question?
First she starts off by discussing power and distribution noting logically that globalization has created even greater divisions and left weaker states struggling. They are also at the mercy of the larger ones who have a greater voice of power in the international arena. Therefore she states it is our national interest to make sure that states can follow through with their own sovereign responsibilities and thus concludes with the importance of democratic nation building. While there is logic here, I would like to note briefly from what I've learned: the gaps in globalization and the creation of instability within some state economies is largely the result of new liberalism, trade policies pushed by the IMF where the US is a key player and decision maker in strategies used. Joseph Stiglitz calls it "western hypocrisy" and he's right; if we continue to push policies that countries are not prepared to handle(and I am not an econ person so specifics are beyond me, but essentially rapidly opening borders for trade weakens a country's ability to control flows of capital and if investors leave in a hurry the economy can collapse - more or less - I think), then how can we remove ourself from blame entirely and simply use it to justify pushing for democracy?
Marriage of realism and idealism, the strength of our values, those which MUST continue to guide us. Some of her own perceptions, and they are shared within the US mindset. Well, unfortunately we don't share them so mundanely with the rest of the world, they see the horrors of our bullying, the suspicion of our true end-game and many question our workaholic and power driven policies. It is true perhaps that we are not necessarily devilish in nature, rather we are - as my advisor and others write - an empire of the willing. We want to spread our values and our beliefs, we believe we have that right, but do others?
Condi distinguishes between common values and common interests. Russia and China are connected to us more through common interests than values. This point was highlighted recently by the new Russian president as he called for an end to American dominance, no matter how much common interest we share with Russia, I can't imagine how "well" that went over in the White House. How dare Russia assume our era of dominance is ending? Well in truth, maybe it is not, and Russia is still struggling to maintain their own stability economically, but they have oil. We'll still share common interests with them, even as we shake our head and criticize their so called democracy. With China it is the same thing, we have values, but we have interests and more often than not they seem to overlap.
Whew, okay I'm tired of thinking and typing so part II of Condi critique will be up soon enough. Oh and I recommend www.electoral-vote.com for those of you interested in keeping up to date about the electoral breakdown for '08.
Cheers
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Post London
So I will be posting more pictures and stories from my european travels on the london blog and as well as some post london thoughts. However, into the fall, I'll be doing mostly random commentary on political events, and world events of course, as they occur. I'll put some tidbits about life at Middlebury in as well and from those you can tell how vastly different my lives are (england and US...).
Happy summer.
Happy summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)