Grab hold of the political moment.
Image: iStockphoto
The U.S. appears headed for a bumper crop of 2008 presidential candidates, most of which know they can't possibly win the nomination, let alone ever be hailed as the chief. So why do they toss in their hats? Many say it's to ensure the national debate includes their ideas for improving America.
On that basis, I figured it was time I stop being coy and jump in too. I therefore declare my candidacy for president of the United States and, if elected, here's my agenda:
1. Apologize to the world and get out of Iraq immediately. If the oil companies want their wells protected, let them hire the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are currently the victims of our invasion and inept occupation to become security guards. Save over $100 billion a year.
2. While the recent U.S. House bill to reduce about $14 billion of oil subsidies is laudable, I would eliminate the other $100 billion too. Combined with my first point, that gives us $200 billion a year to work with on other priorities.
3. Apologize to the families of the 100,000 people who die prematurely in the U.S. each year from disease related to completely preventable petroleum air pollution (and the 6.5 million Americans who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases) for public policies that allow such legalized assaults. Use half of the $200 billion to provide health insurance to the 45 million Americans who have none, so at least everyone will get health care. It doesn't really matter if people are poor, slackers, or illegal immigrants. It costs us far more than $100 billion a year to deal with the illnesses of the uninsured, providing expensive reactive health care mostly in emergency rooms instead of more affordable proactive health care in a doctor's office.
4. Use $20 billion a year to replace every diesel mass-transit and school bus in the nation that emits more pollution than the cleanest engines on the market today. Then tackle the oldest, dirtiest trucks and locomotives. Replace these vehicles with ones that run on the cleanest fuels available, which today are biofuels, natural gas, and hydrogen. This program will not only reduce a significant percentage of the life-threatening air pollution that grips our cities, it will stimulate investors to build a nationwide fueling infrastructure for clean fuels. It will also cut greenhouse gases. And I would consider insisting that the replacement vehicles be mostly American-made, thus renewing the U.S. auto industry and its workforce.
5. Use the rest of the money to offer a four-day (32-hour) work week to any government employee willing to volunteer one day a week for public service, and encourage other employers to do likewise, with an emphasis on volunteering in local schools. People could make their communities better, safer places to live, and reduce crowding on freeways (reducing air pollution and lost productivity for everyone).
Would any or all of these measures improve your everyday life? Better health care, less pollution and disease, thousands of new jobs, less traffic -- I suspect that would make a difference worth voting for. I have solutions for global warming, illegal immigration, foreign affairs, and the erosion of our education and justice systems too, but I'll save those for the rubber-chicken dinner circuit. In the meantime, look for me in New Hampshire and Iowa perfecting my baby-kissing techniques.
And if you think you can do better, why not tell the world by declaring your candidacy and setting out a platform of your own?
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
Hal Hardy Posted 3:40 pm
16 Feb 2007
As I thank him, I also excuse my tongue, stuck, permanently in the side of my cheek with my mouth wide open for too long. To not say something would be remise. As well as all Mr. Tamminen's solid proposals there is a duty of each individual, running or not. So hopefully with no offense intended I contribute:
I would go greener and leaner! I think Mr. Tamminen has good ideas but lets look as closely as he does and try to find the best solution.
We can have an economy built on building more, and more. And "We the People" can subsidize more research into alternative fuels, green building, corn, or bowel movements: All lucrative and worth while.
But, government spending is more than subsidies and investments. Where does all that money come from anyway? Where does it go? I'm not against spending but spending more never helped to solve my financial problems.
Give me a day off, without pay, and see where I volunteer: I will be volunteering for freedom from my economy. Plus, there are people wanting to work more than 40 hours per week. Odd? Yes! But…that is America. Work hard, play hard. I get it. And I like it.
Give me the job of making the rules and seeing that they (oil companies, eventually corn farmers, solar and wind energy providers, green companies) get regulated. Business will love it. Maybe I can even start a business that helps explain regulation to laymen!
But what about the so called values? Do contribute to our economy. Make it what you want. It can be efficient and clean. Useful and lean.
My best "shot":
Buildings and roofs built from bullet proof glass? With solar panels behind them and gutters that catch, direct and store all that water! It sounds radical but is it really crazy? We will have solved the two or three biggest problems facing the U.S. Terrorism, water shortages, and energy sources, as well as creating short term production and job creation (Business likey), community even? Direct current (DC) energy could be freely available if our sidewalks and walls were made with this concoction. That means freely availabe, if not simply free, electricity for phones, computers…and cars?
If you want to build, build me a safe place. I'm tired of oil in my asphalt, oil in my water, and oil in my car, too. Give me a bike and a solar panel. Maybe a train to ride and a car to show off a little.
Our Veterans will need employment, as well as those who are looking for jobs designing and creating. Build us cities made from strong glass, clear and stable like we want our selves to be. Like our government would like to be able to be, and like our children will want to see. Don't build in another factory. I believe.
Candidates can have, and usually do have good intentions. Smart, doable policies and proposals. But it is up to the individual people that make up this country, and world, to decide how money will be spent, and life, lived in the future. Post Bush, in 1/20/09 we will be in a new time. And from now on, on September 1st, I will celebrate the freedom that was known before terrorism, after terrorism. I will thank my mind for the freedom to protect and adapt. I will assess the dangers that face US and everyone as I do for myself. We must celebrate life and beauty and freedom. Cherish it, don't bury it. Look at it and learn from it.
It is a brave new world and One not to be played with. So take it back, and then let it go, by understanding the problems to the solutions.
And look closely at the world you want to build, because it will be the world you construct that you will live and die in.
Here's to newness, my grandmother's favorite part of the United States Constitution: A peaceful transition from one leader to the next.
Permalink
geobeck Posted 3:12 am
17 Feb 2007
Instead of converting all diesel engines to emerging, expensive, not ready for prime time technologies, ask an engineer about ways to clean up existing technologies. Start by replacing every diesel engine older than about 1995 with a new diesel engine.
And while you're at it, replace gasoline engines with diesel. Why would you want to do that? Because with significantly better fuel economy from diesel, you produce less CO2 per mile than a gasoline engine.
Having said that, there is a place for biodiesel, even with its current expense. As sulfur gets removed from regular diesel fuel, the lubricity of the fuel is diminished. Biodiesel is an effective lubricant, so it can be combined with petro diesel the same way that ethanol is combined with gasoline.
With intelligent engineering, petro diesel can be every bit as environmentally sound as biodiesel. Let hydrogen wait until the coal-fired power plants are gone, and until storage problems have been solved (hydrazine cells are a step in the right direction, but are still problematic).
(See Wikipedia for more information on diesel.)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:39 am
17 Feb 2007
Plank # 1:
Do everything else the Bush Administration has been doing without changes.
4 more years!
BTW -- what's with all the Old School HTML tags -- I haven't used those since 1996! What's next...will you bring back the <BLINK> tag ?!
Permalink
Andre Posted 6:39 am
17 Feb 2007
billion gallons of ethanol from the 250 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) we create each
and every year.
We could convert medical toxic wastes, industrial and industrial hazardous wastes, contaminated soils, oily sludges, plastics, used tires and batteries, construction waste and sewage to fuel or synthesis gas and an inert, unleachable glassy slag with nothing left to bury. Instead of millions of tons per year, we are talking about billions of tons of these wastes.
Convert all wastes we make each and every year and we would not have to import foreign fuels. This makes too much sense to do, I suppose. Also
it wouldn't be politically practical as farmers would have to give up their subsidies.
The proven technology is plasma gasification, which approaches being a universal solvent by using temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun to convert materials to their basic elements, leaving nothing left to be buried. Gee, wouldn't
that be grand for our environment. No trash to biodegrade into methane, which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Also, we wouldn't have chemicals leaching from landfills, reaching out fingers of filth to contaminate our ground water.
The gas from plasma gasification can be used to make green electricity or ethanol. If electricity
condensation of steam at a world-scale plant will produce 7,900,000 gallons of distilled water per day and from seawater.
Why don't we use what we have to solve our problems? I suppose it's not politically profitable to do so. Many special interests (read campaign contributors) would get hurt if the national administration and congress serve the public rather than special interests.
Permalink
tplante Posted 9:12 am
17 Feb 2007
Good luck.
Permalink
newscloud Posted 10:56 am
17 Feb 2007
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:11 pm
18 Feb 2007
I'm afraid, though, that some of your points are a bit naive, meaning I doubt you'd make it in politics (this can be counted as a compliment if you like). However, I think your point 5 is a good idea, though it would be interesting to see which would be considered the lesser of two evils by government employees: working an extra day and not having to bother about anyone else, or getting a free day and having to spend it helping other people. Maybe I'm just cynical.
As I'm not from the U.S., I'd like to think the U.S. elections won't affect me, but I realise that's a hopeless thought. So, if I was eligible, I'd certainly vote for you, or at any rate for some of those policies, most importantly for the country to stop shovelling cash down drains, to get its nose out of other countries' affairs, and to use its world influence for something positive (such as cleaning up the air and the water?) rather than for encouraging wars.
Permalink
SunWave Posted 12:16 pm
20 Feb 2007
Our very survival depends on following the lead established by our allies in this energy reduction race. Only widespead parallel Distributed Renewable Energy Installations can accomplish this Macro Economic transformation in the time scale necessary to prevent disaster. He notes that the Macroeconomic benefits are multiple, but that the microeconomic impacts are not good for all parties.
He recommends a portfolio of several renewable sources of energy and is shooting for 100 percent displacement of traditional Fossil based energy sources for Germany because germany is not going to wait around to see what happens if they do not lead. The sun he notes will be shining for another 5 to 7 billion years if we are here or not. I did not buy the book, but I should have.
What a great country we live in, when a world leader in energy and political transformation comes to Boulder to speak to a couple hundred interested individuals.
ENERGY AUTONOMY
THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CASE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
February 20, 2007
1:30 - 3:30 pm, Old Main Auditorium
University of Colorado, Boulder
For 200 years industrial civilization has relied on the combustion of abundant and cheap carbon fuels. But continued reliance has had perilous consequences. On the one hand there is the insecurity of relying on the world's most unstable region - the Middle East - compounded by the imminence of peak oil, growing scarcity and mounting prices. On the other, the potentially cataclysmic consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels, as the evidence of accelerating climate change shows.
Yet there is a solution: to make the transition to renewable sources of energy and distributed, decentralized energy generation. It is a model that has been proven, technologically, commercially and politically, as Scheer comprehensively demonstrates here. The alternative of a return to nuclear power - again being widely advocated - he shows to be compromised and illusory.
The advantages of renewable energy are so clear and so overwhelming that resistance to them needs diagnosis - which Scheer also provides, showing why and how entrenched interests oppose the transition and what must be done to overcome these obstacles.
Biography: Dr. Hermann Scheer is a member of the German Parliament, President of EUROSOLAR, the European Association for Renewable Energy, and General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy. He devoted the greatest part of his political and scientific life to the replacement of nuclear and fossil fuels with environmentally sound energy sources. In the German Parliament, the German Renewable Energy Feed-in-Tariff-Law, the new Federal Building Law (prioritising Renewable Energies) and the Tax-Free-Law for Biofuels are based on his initiatives. These laws became the most successful Renewable Energy industrial promotion and application worldwide.
Dr. Scheer has received numerous awards including the World Wind Energy Award, the World Prize on Bio-Energy and the World Solar Prize as well as the Alternative Nobel Prize. In 2002 Time Magazine recognized him as one of five `Heroes for the Green Century'.
His previous books include The Solar Economy (2002) and A Solar Manifesto (1994).
This talk is free and open to the public. Dr. Scheer's book, "Energy Autonomy", will be for sale starting at 1:00 pm in front of the Old Main Auditorium. The cost of the book is $20.00 (includes tax). Only checks or cash are acceptable. Please make checks out to University of Colorado. For more information: http://ei.colorado.edu/.
Cosponsored by The Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory and The University of Colorado Energy Initiative.
Permalink
stuflash Posted 4:33 pm
20 Feb 2007
I agree with Terry. Apologize to the Iraqi people, commit to US reparations, and start trying to extricate this country from being the world's policeman (and a rather brutal one at that). Along those lines, endorse a UN sponsored regional peace conference to resolve the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (Some suggested proposals - a) a federated Republic of Iraq, with oil revenues distributed among the various provinces based solely on their population size; b) regional disarmament [including EVERYONE, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.], coupled to a promise that all US [and Western European and other outside countries] forces will be permanently withdrawn from the entire region.)
Totally revise US foreign policy as follows: a) no more military aid to ANYONE; b) humanitarian and development aid to countries based on need through UN agencies, with no US strings attached; c) a new US policy favoring allowing every country the right of self-determination, based on popular plebescite, on what kind of government it wants; d) no more US interference with any country's internal affairs; e) a commitment to take international disputes to the UN, rather than attempt unilateral action; f) agree to have the US participate in the World Court; g) have the US ratify the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Announce a policy of phased demilitarization of the country. Included in that would be the unilateral reduction in the size of the U.S. military to make it comparable to those of other major world powers. Follow that up with a proposal for phased reductions, through internationally supervised treaties, in all countries' military forced. Unilateral action by the U.S. to reduce nuclear stockpiles to a size comparable to that of Russian stockpiles, followed by phased and policed reductions in the stockpiles of all nuclear powers.
Establish a national single-payer healthcare system, modeled loosely after the Canadian system.
Establish public financing for all federal elections, along the lines of the systems already put in place in Maine and Arizona. Propose a constitutional amendment allowing reasonable limitations on "independent" campaign expenditures in elections and providing for a one week campaign-free "cooling off" period just prior to the election. Eliminate the Electoral College and replace it by a national popular vote for the presidency.
Make combatting global warming the number one national priority. That includes: a) establishing new gas mileage standards for all vehicles, with those standards to be ratchetted up on an annual basis; b) establish a national institute of climate and energy research, with all research coming out of the institute freely available in the public domain. Major research areas would include: alternative power sources, with an emphasis on renewable carbon-free sources, study of ways of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, etc.; c) establish a national carbon tax, with the proceeds to be used both to fund energy research and to assist in decreasing the societal disruption caused by reducing energy use
Establish a National Institute of Environmental Research to study how American society is impacting the environment, how the US can have a smaller "environmental footprint" on the world, and what can be done to undo some of the environmental damage that has already been done.
Agree to undo NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements, and replace them by trade agreements that require participating countries to respect uniform environmental, labor, and human rights standards.
I think that's enough for four years' worth. I'm sure I could come up with some other ideas for a second term.
Permalink
mlbooz Posted 11:00 pm
20 Feb 2007
Permalink
bailsout Posted 7:36 am
21 Feb 2007
country that supports sports in the schools. Maybe our test scores would go up if students were
not missing classes due to sports. If a politico wanted to promise his voters a reduction in taxes, how much could be reduced by eliminating all of the sports in the schools. As part of a Green platform think of the savings in transportation just for sports.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 7:38 am
21 Feb 2007
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 8:45 am
21 Feb 2007
1.Institute IRV, (instant run-off voting), for all state and federal elections, so that all the political parties have a serious chance to participate. Also, consider instituting some form of proportional representation.
2.Insist that the military, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies comply with federal laws designed to protect public and environmental health. At present, they can set these regulations aside with the wave of a hand, (or so it seems to me). Protecting the country must include safeguarding its wild creatures and wild places.
Permalink
cfrkeepr Posted 11:45 am
26 Feb 2007
Bouty
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:33 am
28 Feb 2007
Your heart is in the right place. I just thought that you might not know that your agenda will only cause pain and maybe even exacerbate the climatic problems.
Crucial to any action to remediate a problem is a correct analysis of the problem and then the debate about how to fix it can start.
Yes I know 100000000 scientists world over state that global climate change is due to greenhouse gases.... this is obvious, we can factually measure the slow increase of carbon dioxide etc...
BUT, yes you guessed it, they are ALL WRONG.
Why they have overlooked the sea, is an enigma for me, but they have
so I will just alert you to some facts
Here is my standard form
>> Global Climate Change is not due to greenhouse gases, but is due to an ubiquitous micro layer of anthropogenic petroleum oil overlaying all the waters of the world.
This micro layer is inhibiting evaporation of sea water, leading to less cloud formation, which then mimics global warming through a clear sky phenomena.
There is no way out of this problem unless we act now.
The Northern Hemisphere is decoupled from the Southern Hemisphere, BUT
all research is Northern hemisphere oriented.
The great land masses in the Northern Hemisphere will take a while to be dried.
Complicating the picture in the Northern hemisphere is the inflow of fresh water ice melt which overlays the salt water leading to slightly
increased water evaporation in some areas of the Northern hemisphere.
Consequently marginally greater rainfall may be seen in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Southern Hemisphere should be the laboratory, for in this region the consequences of the inhibition of the evaporation rates by the sea
water oil micro layer can be fully correlated to water evaporation and cloud cover. And this is obvious now in places such as Australia. The
Northern hemisphere has a while before Global Drought hits the Northern Hemisphere hard.
I wish to warn you that trying to remove the greenhouse gases will be very dangerous.
The Earth is on an artificial knife edge, teetering towards a massive Ice Age.
To undo what mankind has done is going to take a whole world effort, BUT the undoing must be carried out in the correct order.
What information you may think you can rely on that is drawn from past palaeoclimatology is next to totally (misleading even) useless. The
Global Climate Change is an entirely unnatural event.
There is no room for even a slight miscalculation. There are many remedial measures we can take, but these must be fully considered and based upon a sound understanding of the anthropogenic predicament this world finds itself in.
From a continuing analysis see
http://omegafour.com/forum/
Please use this information responsibly
PS Coal use MUST be continued, and even increased since the so called greenhouse gases are somewhat protective in this case. The oil layer on the sea must be removed and further inflows of oil prevented. It is only then that the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere should be lowered.
Yours
John Caley >>
I know it is unwise to believe me without proof but there is evidence for what I claim, drawn from NASA and from ALL marine micro layer biologist's reports.
two quotes
>> Data from visual observations (about 100,000) and chemical analyses of marine water samples (several thousands) from all regions of the world's oceans were analyzed. The presence of dissolved and emulsified oil hydrocarbons in surface waters in concentrations of up to several µg/l (and in regions of increased petroleum pollution - up to several mg/l) was revealed everywhere. >>>
>> Over 700 million gallons of oil is estimated to be released into the environment per year.
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_ ...
Permalink
ash0283 Posted 2:56 am
02 Mar 2007
Secondly
Your platform, though I suspect quite tongue in cheek, is thought provoking. I doubt much of this would stand up, as much as I would love to actually have it work. I also have to agree with someone's comment about making Global warming a national priority. It amazes me that there are still people out there that keep saying that it doesn't exist. We must do something about it... before the problem spirals completely out of control. The earth will fix herself, but in doing so, it may completely destroy us.
On another note. I find that an extremely important point that we, as one of the most powerful nations in the world, should try and explore is the devastation of land and habitats. At one point in time humans were able to coexist with every other living thing on this planet, I only wish we could try to do that again...
But, overall, Terry your positions are like a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to think I was one of the only people who really thought that though if we have to change drastically it may be a bumpy time for a while, but the outcomes are incredible. We must evolve... technology is constantly advancing, why aren't we using it to try and save ourselves.
Permalink
BetterandBetter Posted 10:39 am
06 Mar 2007
Custom Super Homes will change the Building Industry ! Fire,Hurricane,Sound,Water,Bullet Proof ! and so much more ! http://www.themoneymanual.com/better Global Opportunity <>< Like buying a Mercedes Sl for a VW price !
http://www.kingdomgrant.org/better American & Canadian Christian Churches only <><
Rev. Dennis B. Drake President/CEO www.BetterandBetterTechnologies.com A Clean Green Nevada Corporation .
FYI : This July 10th 2007 is Energy Independence Day in North America <>< Brought to you by International Tesla Electric Company <>< The World will be Blown Away ! ! Be a part of Human History being made that day <><
And Proud Charter Member of National Union of American Families <>< http://www.nuaf.org Jesse Epps Founder <><
Las Vegas Viet-Nam Marine Vet " Better and Better Every Day in Every Way is the Only Way to Be ! Don't you Agree ? "
702-944-0376. One old two-stroke motor scooter in Beijing puts more pollution
into the atmosphere than a dozen or more new automobiles on the Los
Angeles freeway. And because the vehicles are ubiquitous--there are an estimated 50 million to 100 million two-stroke two- and three-wheelers throughout South Asia--the pollution from these bikes is equal to as much as 5 billion midsize automobiles. To put this into perspective, automobile emissions are nearly 1000 times lower, even though each automobile on the road is operated up to 1000 times longer than each two-stroke engine.
Two-stroke engines are less fuel efficient and pollute more than 4-stroke engines. For example, a personal watercraft that uses a 70-horsepower, two-stroke outboard motor, emits the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution in one hour as the engine of a new car would if it were driven 8,000 kilometers.
Lawnmowers Did you know that a conventional gasoline lawnmower pollutes as much in an hour as 100 modern cars ! http://www.preignitioncc.com/better
Permalink
BetterandBetter Posted 10:48 am
06 Mar 2007
Custom Super Homes will change the Building Industry ! Fire,Hurricane,Sound,Water,Bullet Proof ! and so much more ! http://www.themoneymanual.com/better Global Opportunity <>< Like buying a Mercedes Sl for a VW price !
http://www.kingdomgrant.org/better American & Canadian Christian Churches only <><
Rev. Dennis B. Drake President/CEO www.BetterandBetterTechnologies.com A Clean Green Nevada Corporation .
FYI : This July 10th 2007 is Energy Independence Day in North America <>< Brought to you by International Tesla Electric Company <>< The World will be Blown Away ! ! Be a part of Human History being made that day <><
And Proud Charter Member of National Union of American Families <>< http://www.nuaf.org Jesse Epps Founder <><
Las Vegas Viet-Nam Marine Vet " Better and Better Every Day in Every Way is the Only Way to Be ! Don't you Agree ? "
702-944-0376
PS : The Worlds Worst Polluter is 2 cycle engines Just look at these stats !
The Little Engine That Could, Maybe
Two-stroke engines are the cockroaches of the motorized world. You see
them--and hear them and smell them--in products ranging from leaf blowers
and lawn mowers in Beverly Hills to chain saws in Sweden to motorboats in
Bolivia to millions of little motor scooters in China, India, and the
Pacific Rim. While four-stroke automobile engines get most of the
attention from regulators who set emissions standards, the little
two-bangers have a greater impact on global pollution because there are so
many of them and because they are noisy and noisome and less fuel
efficient. One old two-stroke motor scooter in Beijing puts more pollution
into the atmosphere than a dozen or more new automobiles on the Los
Angeles freeway. And because the vehicles are ubiquitous--there are an estimated 50 million to 100 million two-stroke two- and three-wheelers throughout South Asia--the pollution from these bikes is equal to as much as 5 billion midsize automobiles. On streets choked with tricycles, the air above is choked with smog. The World Bank estimates that air pollution from Philippine two-stroke engines accounts for as many as 2,000 premature deaths a year. To put this into perspective, automobile emissions are nearly 1000 times lower, even though each automobile on the road is operated up to 1000 times longer than each two-stroke engine.
Two-stroke engines are less fuel efficient and pollute more than 4-stroke engines. For example, a personal watercraft that uses a 70-horsepower, two-stroke outboard motor, emits the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution in one hour as the engine of a new car would if it were driven 8,000 kilometers.
Lawnmowers Did you know that a conventional gasoline lawnmower pollutes as much in an hour as 100 modern cars ! http://www.preignitioncc.com/better
Permalink
statusquobuster Posted 5:28 am
07 Mar 2007
Joel S. Hirschhorn
American: So you mean that if you Australians don't vote, you get a fine?
Australian: Yeah, and when you Americans don't vote you get George W. Bush.
As surely as politicians lie, citizen apathy produces democracy atrophy. Much more than a right - in a democracy voting is an irrevocable civic duty. No mental gymnastics can help you jump over this ugly reality: Voter turnout over all American elections averages markedly less than half of eligible voters. This disgrace must be fixed.
These are my proposed solutions: We should make voting mandatory, give voters the option of "none of the above," make Election Day a national holiday, provide same day registration everywhere, and lower the voting age to 16.
No one reform is a panacea. But together these five reforms can dramatically re-energize voting in America. They could be placed in one constitutional amendment and ratified by the states in time for the 2008 presidential election. Limiting public support, however, is an elitist mindset among people with political power, wealth and intellectual arrogance. They wrongly dismiss large numbers of citizens for their lack of education or political involvement. Electoral reforms can create a culture of voting that ultimately produces a more informed public.
Mandatory Voting
This is not a crazy, radical idea. Hold your reaction on what probably is a new idea for you. Over 30 countries have compulsory voting. Violating the law usually merits something akin to a parking fine, but it still works. When Australia adopted it in 1924 turnouts increased from under 50 percent to a consistent 90-plus percent. Conversely, when the Netherlands eliminated compulsory voting in 1970 voting turnouts plunged from 90 percent to less than 50 percent. Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting. Research found that people living in countries with compulsory voting are roughly twice as likely to believe that their government is responsive to the public's needs and 2.8 times as likely to vote as compared to citizens in countries without compulsory voting. Is compulsory voting inconsistent with personal freedom? No! We have compulsory education, jury duty, and taxes that are more onerous than voting periodically. And all people have to do is turn out to vote. What they do with their secret ballot is up to them.
Counting Dissatisfaction
When people can officially say with their ballot that none of the candidates is acceptable, it makes compulsory voting more palatable. In turn, it can increase voting for ballot initiatives and measures. And it is better than lesser-evil voting that has become all too common, because of the two-party duopoly's stranglehold on our political system. It is beats so-called "Mickey Mouse" voting, whereby people write in frivolous names. Nevada offers the None of the Above option, though the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins. Yet protest votes are counted, sending a message to parties and politicians.
Election Day Holiday
Standing in a long line to vote often loses out to being at work or doing other things typical of work and school days. Long commute times add to peoples' time poverty. On a holiday, voting would be more evenly spread out throughout the day and could be held at more places. It would be easier to recruit the best qualified poll workers and government costs would be reduced because of shorter hours. A national holiday also sends an important message: Voting is critically important and something to be celebrated. Opinion surveys have found that 60 percent or more favor making Election Day a holiday. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform made a strong case for this action. Like others, the commission backed moving Veterans' Day to coincide with Election Day. The holiday might be called Veterans' Democracy Election Day. Most Western democracies hold elections on either holidays or weekends. In Puerto Rico people are given the day off and voter turnouts are typically over 80 percent. Early and absentee voting attack some problems. But a national holiday that celebrates the sacred duty of voting by all eligible voters makes more sense. Voting should become more of a social, community activity, bringing Americans together, rather than something done as quickly as possible to get it over with.
Same Day Registration
At least 30 percent of eligible voters do not vote because they are not registered. It makes no sense to make registration onerous. It should be done automatically once voter rolls are established and once citizens show up the first time to vote and present residence and citizenship qualifications, as required. Same day registration has been used successfully in some states for about 30 years. Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Montana, Connecticut, and Wyoming use this approach. North Dakota abandoned registration entirely in 1951. Five of these states have the highest voter turnout in the country. When Montana used it for the first time in 2006, voter turnout jumped from the usual 50 percent to 70 percent. With more same day registration it is appropriate to have more safeguards against all forms of voter fraud, especially registering non-citizens.
Youthful Citizens
We place no upper age restriction on voting, even though some elderly people have reduced mental capabilities, and are often taken advantage of by get-out-the-vote efforts of the two major parties. Our political system is deciding the future for our younger citizens. On fairness alone, balancing a large over-50 voting bloc with younger citizens is justified. Youths age 16 to 18 pay substantial taxes, are often treated as adults in criminal cases, have definite interests impacted by public policy, and in some states can marry and obtain a driver's license. Being in high school is an advantage, because there is more stability and time to build a habit of voting. Considering our Information Age, lowering the age to 16 makes perfect sense. What happens between ages 16 and 18 to make younger citizens more qualified to vote? Nothing. There is a movement to register 16 year olds, but making them wait until 18 to vote is plain silly. New, younger voters can help make voting a patriotic family activity on the new national holiday.
Countries using this lower age include Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Isle of Man, and movements for doing so are strong in Britain, Canada and many more. In Germany, a greater proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds voted than those aged 18 to 35 - and twice as many as those in their later 20s - in municipal elections in Hanover. In local elections in Vienna, Austria, 59 percent of 16- to 18-year-olds cast a ballot, about the same as other age groups. Rather than starting wars to spread democracy, America could lead a global surge in voter entitlement. This is what populism is all about.
A Constitutional Necessity
Voting is the heart of a healthy democracy. With our persistent low voter turnout, the heart of American democracy is barely beating. The decline of American democracy is both a cause and consequence of low voter turnout. Low voter turnout makes a mockery of representative democracy. Most politicians get elected with - at best - not much more than 25 percent of eligible voters. This may explain why bought-and-paid-for politicians mostly represent corporate and other special interests. Hefty political contributions by less than 1 percent of adults trump voting.
Face facts. Incremental and piecemeal attempts at electoral reforms have failed. Why? Because those in power do not want across-the-board high voter turnout. Shame on them. And shame on us for letting Democrats and Republicans get away with using costly means to get out their base supporters. This perpetuates divisive partisan politics that entertain and anger Americans rather than serve them - 70 percent of whom are centrists.
Now is the time for one bold constitutional amendment that can grab public attention and move the nation forward. If Congress is too cowardly to propose the amendment, then we need two-thirds of state legislatures to request an Article V Convention for this purpose; to learn more about this never-used constitutional right go to http://www.foavc.org.
Let us begin by urging members of Congress and 2008 presidential candidates to take a public stand on electoral reforms. Will Democrats and Republicans walk the talk of cooperation for the good of the nation?
Abraham Lincoln spoke of government "of the people, by the people and for the people." If you really believe in these words, then speak out to increase voter turnout to resuscitate America's half-dead democracy.
[Check out the author's new book at ]http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Permalink
jer45 Posted 9:23 am
13 Mar 2007
And estimates for the final cost - - if there is finality - - of $2 trillion.
Let's keep making the international/domestic connections.
I blogged on this a bit at http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/
specifically:
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/03/four- ...
Permalink
geep Posted 1:59 am
14 Mar 2007
The problem is political will with any soloution, and that assumes there is a soloution. It may well already be to late. angelsofwrath.com
Permalink
Catmoves Posted 12:43 pm
16 May 2007
Bullet proof glass roofs? I'm not an architect, but I would guess the support for this kind of roof, plus the solar panels, would mean an entirely new kind of construction. And the cost would be astronomical.
I refer the other parts of your post to the late John F. Kennedy:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
Permalink
Catmoves Posted 12:56 pm
16 May 2007
Permalink