 | Math and Voting Awareness - MTV News Report This is our entry into the Math and Voting Awareness contest. We had a lot of fun making this and did our best to convey a message about math and voting with humor. The idea was that a college is using a preferential voting method where the voters could rank the five nominess from first to last. The methods of voting talked about are: Plurality Plurality with Run Off Plurality with Sequential Elimination The Copeland Method and The Borda Count |
 | FPTV ep. 8: Electoral Reform - Majority Whim vs. Reason It is expected that, on May 15, 2007, Ontario's Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform will recommend replacing Ontario's Single Member Plurality (SMP or "First Past the Post") electoral system with the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. If it does so, Ontario will hold a referendum on October 10, 2007, to decide whether or not to replace Ontario's SMP system with the MMP system. The key difference between the two electoral systems is that the SMP tends to yield single-party majority governments, whereas the MMP tends to create minority governments. In this episode of FPTV, Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever explains to Ontario's Select Committee on Electoral Reform that minority governments exclude the possibility of rational and exclude ethics from the law-making process. Only a majority government, submits McKeever, allows a government to make laws according to what is right rather than just according to what is merely popular. NOTE: the Select Committee was comprised of elected members of the provincial legislature and held its hearings in 2005. On the basis of its report, the government set up Ontario's Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. |
 | The Electoral College or National Popular Vote Bills Representative Colleen Meyer discusses the Electoral College with Representative Gene Ward. The Electoral College has been serving American politics for more than 200 years. But recently, due to a close election for the U.S. Presidency, some people at both the local and national level have been advocating a change in the way we elect our Presidents. So here we go again! House leadership has again introduced a bill (HB 3013) that will take away the advantage that a small state like Hawaii has over big states. It was introduced by the same person who chairs the Judiciary Committee (Rep. Tommy Waters). It has already passed a second reading with the Republican caucus voting "no," but it has one more floor vote before it goes over to the Senate and Governor Lingle for signature. This bill is another misinformed attempt to enable the winner of the presidential election to be determined by national popular vote rather than the Electoral College. The bill adds a new section to Chapter 14, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to enact agreement that allows member states to determine the winner of a presidential election by "national popular vote." (HB3013 HD1) Our founding fathers knew better. They understood the nuances of political contests, particularly the importance of small states and the possible tyranny of large states overwhelming national presidential elections. They understood especially how small states could be affected if only the popular voted counted. For example if one voted in Hawaii's 2004 presidential election, it was a likely vote for John Kerry, but under the proposed new system, your vote would have gone to George W. Bush. Likewise if someone in Hawaii's 1988 presidential election voted for Michael Dukakis the vote would have only counted for Bush (Senior), and in Hawaii 1968 presidential election between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon, a vote for Humphrey would have become a vote for Nixon. Is this the kind of 'kapakahi' results we want in Hawaii? The best description in understanding the Electoral College is a sports analogy. In baseball's World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become the World Series champion, it is the team that wins the most games who becomes the winner of the series. So no matter how many runs (votes) you get, you still have to win the most games (state ballots). No one calls the World Series unfair just because the team that got the most runs loses, right? It is all about the games, just like in politics it is all about the states. Another downside for our nation with a proposed plurality ballot would be that "urban America," particularly the large states on the east coast (e.g. New York) and west coast (e.g. California) will be the dominant player at the expense of "rural America." Stated differently, imagine the urban core of Honolulu deciding for the entire state of Hawaii who should be our next governor and you can see how this allows a national advantage of large states and large cities to dominate. I believe the values of farmers and small town Americans are just as important (if not more important) as big city values and voters, so the Electoral College is the best way to filter for these differences. The current Electoral College strengthens the status of minority groups, because the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state's electoral votes or none of them. It enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system that protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of small states and minorities; and it maintains the federal system of government and representation. Each state is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Representatives, plus its two senators, so Hawai`i has four electoral votes. All states have at least three electoral votes, no matter how small they are. Hawaii needs more tax relief for our over-burdened families, expanding access to quality healthcare while reversing the financial problems plaguing our doctors and hospitals, developing more transitional shelters and affordable housing while fixing potholes, harbors and airports; we do not need some national agenda about a grudge match to distract us from the tasks at hand. As the smallest state in the nation, it does not seem strategically wise to give up our comparative advantage offered us by the Electoral College. House Bill 3013 HD1 asks us to do this. Last year a similar bill was vetoed by Governor Lingle. The only thing left to say about this bill is: "Mahalo for your veto, Governor, get your pen ready for this year too. |
 | Blue Vs Red The 2nd American Civil War Trailer 21st Century America is dangerously polarized. On Freedom's side and fighting for the Constitution are the Blue States, rebelling against the imposed "new world order" and "slavery" of the Corporate Elite controlled Red States. Is the American Experiment over? Will the Constitution be restored to all freedom loving men or will the Privitized Red Army of the Dominion States of America tramble the country from sea to shining sea? Only time will tell. (this is the preview trailer for a thirteen webisode series.) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." AmericanNoteBook: The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." It is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, though U.S. citizens residing in the territories are excluded from voting for federal officials. The government is regulated by a system of checks and balances defined by the United States Constitution, which serves as the country's supreme legal document and as a social contract for the people of the United States. In the American federalist system, citizens are usually subject to three levels of government, federal, state, and local; the local government's duties are commonly split between county and municipal governments. In almost all cases, executive and legislative officials are elected by a plurality vote of citizens by district. There is no proportional representation at the federal level, and it is very rare at lower levels. Federal and state judicial and cabinet officials are typically nominated by the executive branch and approved by the legislature, although some state judges and officials are elected by popular vote. Politics in the United States have operated under a two-party system for virtually all of the country's history. For elective offices at all levels, state-administered primary elections are held to choose the major party nominees for subsequent general elections. Since the general election of 1856, the two dominant parties have been the Democratic Party, founded in 1824 (though its roots trace back to 1792), and the Republican Party, founded in 1854. Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered "center-right" or conservative and the Democratic Party is considered "center-left" or liberal, but members of both parties have a wide range of views. In an August 2007 poll, 36% of Americans described themselves as "conservative," 34% as "moderate," and 25% as "liberal." On the other hand, a plurality of adults, 35.9%, identify as Democrats, 32.9% as independents, and 31.3% as Republicans. The states of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and West Coast are relatively liberal-leaning—they are known in political parlance as "blue states." The "red states" of the South and the Rocky Mountains lean conservative. Poltical demographic sources: The Associated Press Poll Conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs/Project #81-5681-13. Ipsos Public Affairs (2007-08-08). ^ Number of Democrats Falls to New Low, Republicans Decline Too. Rasmussen Reports (2007-08-01). |
 | not mott, not mott not mott vote no in retention election Retention - Cmn Pleas - Mott Total Times Counted 16887/39040 43.3 % Total Votes 16456 YES 5801 35.25% NO 10655 64.75% CANTON - A former Bradford County commissioner and a retired attorney share the chairmanship of a new organization formed to oppose county Judge John C. Mott's bid for retention to a third term in the Nov. 6 general election. The organization, called "Committee to Oppose Mott," is chaired by William T. McNett of Canton, a former chairman of the Bradford County commissioners, and Robert Murphy of North Towanda, the retired attorney. Richard J. Segur, a Canton business leader, is the treasurer. In a statement released Wednesday by McNett, the group said, "The Committee to Oppose Mott was formed by a group of ordinary citizens, residents and taxpayers of Bradford County who strongly believe that John Mott's retention as a judge would not be in the best interests of the county." McNett said the formal committee was an outgrowth of two recent meetings attended by 35-40 people. The statement also said: "It is the opinion of the committee that a judge should be one whose public and personal life is such an unquestionable example of integrity and moral soundness that he can sit in judgment of his fellow man. It is also the opinion of the committee that John Mott is not such a man." McNett said the committee intended to act as though it were Mott's opponent. In a retention election, voters are asked to vote either "yes" or "no" on whether the judge should serve a 10-year term. Mott had the option of running for retention or for re-election. To be retained, the judge must receive 50 percent of the vote, plus one. If he had opted for re-election, others could have filed to run against him and the winner would need only a plurality of the votes cast to win. According to the new group's prepared statement: "It should be noted that when a sitting judge chooses to run for retention rather than election, he gains a tremendous advantage because there can be no individual to oppose him and present an opportunity for comparison by the voters. "Hence, the purpose of the committee is to raise valid questions on the suitability of John Mott to remain in this prestigious office, such as an opponent might raise." In the interview, McNett said the committee's activities would include sending out fliers and printing and distributing signs. In addition, he said, the group anticipates challenging the judge to a debate. Efforts to obtain a response from Judge Mott were not successful Wednesday afternoon. A detailed message was left with his office staff, who said he was in a meeting and unavailable. The judge had not returned the call by 10 p.m. The judge has come under increasing criticism in the wake of his wife, Brenda's, late-2005 conviction on four felony counts for embezzling in excess of $520,000 from the Canton Borough Authority, where she was bookkeeper and office manager. The authority maintains the community's water and sewer systems. The judge was not charged with any crime and the state attorney general's office, which prosecuted the case, said only Mrs. Mott was involved in stealing the money over a six-year period. The Motts live in Canton. Mrs. Mott served a minimum nine-month jail term, during which she had work-release privileges, and is now free. She is making restitution from what has been described as akin to a minimum-wage position. The borough authority has filed a civil suit and is in the process of trying to force Mrs. Mott to provide more detailed answers to what happened to the money she admitted stealing. She has refused to answer, saying she has a Fifth Amendment right to do so. The judge, in the recent past, has said his retention campaign should be focused solely on his record as a judge - which he said was highly regarded - not on what his wife had done. Sentiment against Judge Mott appears to be particularly strong in his home community and the committee is opening an office there, according to McNett. However, the committee "is not a Canton-only group," he said, mentioning participants from other areas. "We invite people from all corners of the county to join us because all of them will be impacted by the outcome of this election," he said. "We want to make sure the entire county has the opportunity to participate." The group has registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Elections, according to the statement, which also said contributions "to further the efforts of the committee" may be made payable to "Committee to Oppose Mott" and mailed to Box 33, Canton, Pa. 17724. William Mcnett Tel.: (570) 673-3628 |
 | Objections To Democracy (And a Comparison To Markets) Is Noam Chomsky correct in the rather bold assertion that "democratic" states are more representative of and accountable to "the people" than "private institutions" and markets? Of course not, given a sensible institutional analysis of how the democratic state actually works, compared to how markets tend to work. |
 | Win-At-Any-Cost Clintons Play The Race Card Like a malignant cancer, the Clintons keep lingering in politics, damaging everything they touch. Now it's Hillary's turn. Will America actually vote Democrat in '08? (Democrats don't rely on legitimate votes, as they were exposed in the Florida Democrat-vote-fraud of '04.) Will America actually vote a woman as President? Will America actually vote a "third term" for the corrupt Clintons? The Clintons are at it again in this political analysis from Fox News (edited for brevity): LIBERAL HOST: "On Monday night, Senator Clinton slammed Senator Obama for his past association with [Tony] Resco [who has been indicted on Federal corruption charges]." ... ANALYST: "Alan, I want to talk about what I think is fundamentally going on here. ... the Clintons are setting up Obama by deliberately merchandising the race issue. And the way they're doing it is that Bill is going into South Carolina and campaigning hard for the black vote, door-to-door in the black community. He knows he's not going to win the black vote. He knows Hillary is going to lose South Carolina to Obama. That's why Hillary isn't campaigning there herself. And the reason that he's there is that he wants to draw attention to the fact that the black are voting for Obama, so that the racial backlash causes the whites to vote for Hillary, and she wins Florida and Super Tuesday." ... LIBERAL HOST: "The Clintons aren't playing racial politics. It's the people who want to act as if they are and using that against them, are the ones who are injecting race into this." ... ANALYST: "Alan, you're amazing." ... ANALYST: "They know that the only way to win this election is to inject racial polarization. And right now, Obama's winning the black vote 67-to-17. Hillary's winning the white vote 42-to-24. And they understand that if they can expand that white plurality, with 3/4's of the vote being white, they're going to win. And that's what they're doing." |
 | DNC Deification Leads to McCain Title says it all. If the DNC still cares about winning rather than whining, they'll count ALL the votes, seat FL and MI as-is, and enable Senator Clinton to lead us to victory. Senator Obama is incapable of the wide plurality of support he, the DNC, and the Media claim. The polls, the voters, and the electoral map provide the evidence. Deification of Obama in lieu of vetting has driven away many core Dems. They will not fall in line for him. After so many Presidential losses, the Party has to learn its lesson, and stop straying from core values. Count Every Vote: http://hillaryresponders.com/counteveryvote No affiliation, but I definitely agree with their cause. The song, Demon Seed, by NIN is licensed under a creative commons attribution non-commercial share alike license. http://theslip.nin.com/ |
 | Brenda Mott and Judge Mott add comments at: http://www.keystonepolitics.com/ Brenda Mott stole at least 500,000 bucks and her husband seems to think it is ok. In fact the IRS seems to think it is ok. the IRS is only interested in people making money honestly.CANTON - A former Bradford County commissioner and a retired attorney share the chairmanship of a new organization formed to oppose county Judge John C. Mott's bid for retention to a third term in the Nov. 6 general election. The organization, called "Committee to Oppose Mott," is chaired by William T. McNett of Canton, a former chairman of the Bradford County commissioners, and Robert Murphy of North Towanda, the retired attorney. Richard J. Segur, a Canton business leader, is the treasurer. In a statement released Wednesday by McNett, the group said, "The Committee to Oppose Mott was formed by a group of ordinary citizens, residents and taxpayers of Bradford County who strongly believe that John Mott's retention as a judge would not be in the best interests of the county." McNett said the formal committee was an outgrowth of two recent meetings attended by 35-40 people. The statement also said: "It is the opinion of the committee that a judge should be one whose public and personal life is such an unquestionable example of integrity and moral soundness that he can sit in judgment of his fellow man. It is also the opinion of the committee that John Mott is not such a man." McNett said the committee intended to act as though it were Mott's opponent. In a retention election, voters are asked to vote either "yes" or "no" on whether the judge should serve a 10-year term. Mott had the option of running for retention or for re-election. To be retained, the judge must receive 50 percent of the vote, plus one. If he had opted for re-election, others could have filed to run against him and the winner would need only a plurality of the votes cast to win. According to the new group's prepared statement: "It should be noted that when a sitting judge chooses to run for retention rather than election, he gains a tremendous advantage because there can be no individual to oppose him and present an opportunity for comparison by the voters. "Hence, the purpose of the committee is to raise valid questions on the suitability of John Mott to remain in this prestigious office, such as an opponent might raise." In the interview, McNett said the committee's activities would include sending out fliers and printing and distributing signs. In addition, he said, the group anticipates challenging the judge to a debate. Efforts to obtain a response from Judge Mott were not successful Wednesday afternoon. A detailed message was left with his office staff, who said he was in a meeting and unavailable. The judge had not returned the call by 10 p.m. The judge has come under increasing criticism in the wake of his wife, Brenda's, late-2005 conviction on four felony counts for embezzling in excess of $520,000 from the Canton Borough Authority, where she was bookkeeper and office manager. The authority maintains the community's water and sewer systems. The judge was not charged with any crime and the state attorney general's office, which prosecuted the case, said only Mrs. Mott was involved in stealing the money over a six-year period. The Motts live in Canton. Mrs. Mott served a minimum nine-month jail term, during which she had work-release privileges, and is now free. She is making restitution from what has been described as akin to a minimum-wage position. The borough authority has filed a civil suit and is in the process of trying to force Mrs. Mott to provide more detailed answers to what happened to the money she admitted stealing. She has refused to answer, saying she has a Fifth Amendment right to do so. The judge, in the recent past, has said his retention campaign should be focused solely on his record as a judge - which he said was highly regarded - not on what his wife had done. Sentiment against Judge Mott appears to be particularly strong in his home community and the committee is opening an office there, according to McNett. However, the committee "is not a Canton-only group," he said, mentioning participants from other areas. "We invite people from all corners of the county to join us because all of them will be impacted by the outcome of this election," he said. "We want to make sure the entire county has the opportunity to participate." The group has registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Elections, according to the statement, which also said contributions "to further the efforts of the committee" may be made payable to "Committee to Oppose Mott" and mailed to Box 33, Canton, Pa. 17724. William Mcnett Tel.: (570) 673-3628 |
 | A YWTimes Take: Why are we executing a man who didn't kill? FreeKenneth.com Kenneth Foster Jr. is set to be executed in Texas later this month despite never committing murder. When Foster was 19, he and three friends decided to commit two armed robberies. But on the drive home, one of the three friends -- Mauricio Brown -- exited the car and shot and killed Michael LaHood. In the face of testimony that there had been no discussion among the men in the car that they were going to rob or shoot LaHood before Brown committed the murder, Foster was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Texas jury. The conviction and death sentence is due to an obscure state law known as the "law of parties" which disintegrates the line between the perpetrator of a crime and an accomplice. Because Foster was driving the car, he was tried with Brown and both men were convicted and sentenced to die. Brown's death sentence was carried out last year when he was executed by lethal injection. Foster is set to meet the same fate on August 30. Several law professors said the death penalty for Foster represents "extraordinarily severe punitive consequences," with legal precedent normally dictating more lenient consequences. In order for Foster's life to be spared he will have to have his death sentence recommended for commutation by five of the seven members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole. If that happens, the final decision is then placed in the hands of Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry, a firm believer in the death penalty, has carried out more executions than any other governor in history. Since assuming office in December 2000, Perry has presided over 159 executions thus far. That breaks the record of 152 set by President Bush during his approximately six years in office as Texas governor. Texas executes more people each year than any other state. Last year, 24 of America's 54 executions were carried out there. In 2007, 19 executions have taken place in Texas, and another 11 are planned. Governor Perry claims that he is carrying out the will of the people, but Perry gained a second term in office in 2006 by receiving only 39 percent of the vote—making him the first governor to be elected by a plurality less than 40 percent since 1861. Perry's campaigns have been mainly based on his tough stance on crime, but when one takes a step back to look at the most recent election results, the conclusion is obvious: the majority of Texas voters do not necessarily agree with his approach to capital punishment. Governor Perry is so determined to use death as the ultimate means of justice that he vetoed a 2001 bill that would have outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded even as many states, such as Florida -- then governed by Jeb Bush -- were easily passing similar legislation into law. Regardless of how one feels about the death penalty, or Texas' lethal-injection happy approach to it, it would be tough to accept the execution of Foster—a man who never physically committed murder. Texas is the only state where a person may be executed if a murder he or she did not anticipate or plan occurs during the course of another crime they committed. Foster's attorney, Keith Hampton has exhausted all legal recourse, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—the final decision now simply lies with the Board of Pardons and Paroles' recommendation and Governor Perry. The board will issue a decision on August 28, two days before Foster is to be put to death. Although all legal options have been exhausted, there is plenty more that can be done. If you feel that Foster should not be executed, please visit the website dedicated to saving his life at FreeKenneth.com. Once there you will find all the relevant links to contact Governor Perry to apply a little political pressure to the man that thinks he is acting on the will of the people. The importance of this issue transcends borders, so even if you do not live in Texas, feel free to make your voice heard. Please spread the word and help save Kenneth Foster. For more in-depth coverage of this, and the world's other top headlines, visit YWTimes.com FreeKenneth.com |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
