Archive for September, 2012

How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 5

HowObamaGetsReElectedIn2012_Part5   <== PDF version

Now that the respective nominating conventions are over, it is safe for the mainstream media to start the traditional mantra “the Democrats are running unopposed”.  Governor Romney’s odd rhetorical missteps haven‘t helped his cause.  While there continue to be debates about the merits of one poll as against others, the fact remains that media will continuously seek ways to help the Democrats get elected or re-elected.  This year is no different.

The next phase of the Presidential race is the series of joint press conferences, laughingly referred to as “debates”.   The paid Democratic operatives/moderators will of course make 90-second speeches about the evils of “predatory capitalism”, then follow up with a question to Governor Romney demanding he explain in 15 seconds why he hates the working class so much, and does he feel bad about all those defenseless foreign workers he exploited when Bain Capital invested in Chinese companies while laying off American workers.  President Obama, on the other hand will be faced with “tough” questions such as “Do you like ice cream, and if so, what is your favorite flavor?”  Mr. Obama can then re-assure us that he likes vanilla and chocolate equally, and that anyone who says differently is a right-wing race-baiter.

But that is not Mr. Romney’s biggest problem.  As I alluded to in an earlier edition of this series, Mr. Romney’s main problem is that he is unable or unwilling to lay out a consistent set of policies (translation: ones that do not directly contradict the policies announced during the nominating campaign).  His secondary problem is that he appears to be weak and vacillating in describing the things that differentiate him from Mr. Obama.  He will no doubt come fully armed with every variety of gentlemanly wet noodles to match up against Mr. Obama’s Chicago-style ideological gunfight.  It will be a hostile environment, but Mr. Romney should emphasize the significant differences between Mr. Obama and himself, and ignore the rudeness of the Democratic Party’s hand-picked audience.

The first of these is the basic difference in their experience.  The difference between Mr. Romney, businessman, and Mr. Obama, community organizer, that that a businessman can read numbers.  Mr. Obama seems unfazed by consistently high unemployment and the $6 trillion addition to the national debt.  Mr. Obama has claimed that the private sector is doing well; proving that he believes 8% unemployment (14% true unemployment) is evidence of a successful economic policy.  Mr. Romney can say that while he might be a dumb businessman, he at least knows that the present course cannot be sustained because the numbers suggest the middle class is shrinking and the debt will further reduce future economic opportunity.

Secondly, Mr. Romney, businessman, knows the importance of keeping track of the competition, which requires monitoring of trends and activities in the industries, looking out for both opportunities and risks.  On the other hand, one can prepare a daily Presidential Security Brief, but you can’t make Mr. Obama read it.  Perhaps if Mr. Obama had been paying attention, the fiasco in Libya could have been averted.  Mr. Romney can say that he may be another out-of-touch CEO, but he at least knows enough to listen to the advice and threat assessments made by his expert subordinates.

Speaking of the fiasco in Libya, Mr. Obama insisted for ten days that the killing of four American employees was the work of a mob angry about a video.  Let me get this straight: Mr. Obama, who claims to be familiar with the Moslem religion, and shows respect for all religions equally, believes that regular Moslems engaging in a peaceful protest will spontaneously invade a consulate, kill people, and burn it to the ground?  Peaceful Moslems went berserk over a video?  If Mr. Obama believes that, then he must also believe we are at war with all of Islam, not just the radical lunatic fringe.  Here is the third difference: Mr. Romney can say that he may be a white-guy Mormon, but he at least knows that we are in a shooting war with only a small contingent of Islamic retards, not the entire faith.

The Bolshevik communists ran a dictatorship in the Soviet Union for over seventy years.  During that time, the official price of bread was fixed at 10 kopecks (100 kopecks to a ruble).  The plan was that the dictatorship, founded on the centrally planned economic theory of Karl Marx, would provide bread for all citizens at 10 kopecks.  There was only one small problem: even with the entire agricultural workforce consigned to slave labor under collective top-down management, and with every other available resource (including the army) enlisted to aid with harvest and production, the dictatorship could not produce bread for 10 kopecks.  Hence, for over seventy years, the official price remained unchanged, but there was never any available to buy except on May Day, the dictator’s birthday, and other important economic milestone anniversaries.  Mr. Obama’s health care plan will turn into the same thing: health care is getting “cheaper”, except that premiums are actually going up now.  When Obamacare comes into its full fruition, health care will be “free”, except you won’t be able to get a doctor’s appointment because they’ve all been forced out of business, not being able to provide the service for the price the government dictates.  Here is the fourth difference: Mr. Romney can say that he might be a rich profit-taker, but he at least knows that everything of value must have a price, and that price is best regulated by free competition, not by top-down central planning as was bread in theSoviet Union.

Mr. Romney, even with all his other weaknesses, does have some significant advantages compared to Mr. Obama.  I am doubtful he will find the will to bring them up and defend them against the sneering media.  If he doesn’t, he will lose by allowing the Democrats and their media allies to frame the debate.

Tags: ,
Posted in Economics, elections | No Comments »

The Extent of Election Fraud

TheExtentOfElectionFraud   <– pdf version

It’s election time again, and as usual the two main Parties are riling up their base by claiming the other Party is attempting to steal the election.  The Republicans are whimpering that too many voters are ineligible, and are passing laws in some states requiring voters to show an ID despite the fact that there is no evidence as yet that such fraud has tilted an election result.  If the Democrats were smart (which they’re not) they would use their large monetary assets to provide people with the means to obtain whatever legitimate ID is required; this would open up other doors to full participation in the society.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are whimpering about the manipulation of voting hours in some states, claiming that closing the polls early or regulating early voting somehow deprives poor people on welfare of their voting rights, even though the pressing schedule of a welfare recipient on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is no different than any other Tuesday. If the Republicans were smart (which they’re not), they would keep the polls open until midnight on Election Day and give the working people extra time to cast their ballot.

Those arguments are about being able to cast a ballot.  But I have a more fundamental problem with our election system, one that has bothered me for a long time, and which neither main Party has ever chosen to discuss.  That is: how do you, the voter, know that your vote has even been counted after you cast your ballot?   Every ballot is numbered and associated with a precinct.  Those ballots are supposedly collected and counted, usually by machine.  Although the ballots are numbered, and the list of those who voted is collected at the polling place, there is no feedback by which a voter can prove to themselves that their vote was actually counted.  The two main Parties, who control the counting of ballots, insist that we blindly trust them on this.

We now have the technology to implement a verification system to prove to every voter that his ballot was indeed counted.  We the people should demand that the ballots be re-engineered such that each voter obtains a numbered receipt for his ballot, and that within three days of the election, the entire vote tally shall be publicly accessible, and indexed by ballot receipt number (and precinct, district etc.).  Each voter should be able to enter in his receipt number, and verify that his ballot was accepted and that the preferences he chose were correctly interpreted.  Only then will each interested voter be able to ensure that his ballot was received; and any discrepancy may be challenged by presenting the original ballot receipt.  This is the first step required to gauge the true extent of any election fraud.

The preceding receipt method is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate that a voter’s ballot was actually counted.  Although the voter may verify that his ballot was accepted, it would not in and of itself allow the voter to determine if his ballot was actually included in the vote totals.  The voter would require the capability to observe all the ballots in one place, and verify that the total thereof, including his, came to the same value as the reported total for each race (an example is for the election commission to arrange all the ballots in a spreadsheet and allow each user to independently verify the totals).  There is another way: every voter should vote for himself in at least one race on the ballot.  Surely, every ballot contains one race in which a candidate is running unopposed, or a race for an office that is unfamiliar, or one for which the voter does not care about the outcome.  Every voter should choose one such race on the ballot and vote for himself.  If every ballot is counted, as the Parties continue to tell us, and every vote accounted for, the official returns should reflect the names of every voter; granted, they would be spread around various races.  If the voter, armed with his receipt, found his name listed in the race for which he wrote in his own name, he may be reasonably certain that the rest of the votes he cast on that ballot were included in the other totals.  There is no way to guarantee it of course, but the probability that his other votes were counted is much higher than with any other simple system.

Posted in elections | No Comments »