For and Against -- just a few

 I'm FOR the Green Amendment which means I'm for protecting our environment -- You don't shit where you eat.  Regardless of what you think, we won't exist much longer unless we clean up and protect our air, water and soil.  That means sacrifice.

I'm FOR the protection of wildlife.

I'm AGAINST corporate money in our elections -- any amount of money.  One person, one vote.  Corporate money means that corporate management gets extra votes.

I'm FOR public schools and public libraries.  

I'm FOR standards, in almost everything.  Establish agencies that create those standards and keep them up-to-date.

I'm FOR National Parks and Forests.  There are many things more important than making money.

I'm FOR consequences.  I'm also FOR forgiveness and recognition of reform.  So, I'm FOR minimum sentences for most crimes including misdemeanors.  I don't believe that punishment deters but I think criminals have to pay for their crimes.  Crimes against children, elders, the disabled, the homeless, animals and other groups that may have difficulty protecting themselves should have more severe consequences.

I'm AGAINST corporate ownership of residential property.

I'm AGAINST foreign ownership of residential property.

I'm FOR limits on ownership of residential property.  I haven't worked out details but an individual should not be able to own more residential property than they can live in.  Maybe once a quarter, so 4 residences or one property per offspring, so if there are 6 kids, 8 properties; one for each living parent and each living child.  But, the property has to become the child's when 25.

I'm FOR term limits for federal elected officials.  Maybe 3 7 year terms; that's 21 years of service; a career, total, not switching positions.  And, I'm FOR a Citizen's recall mechanism whereby Citizens can petition for removal; not just constituency but Citizen's from everywhere because most elected officials sit on committees that affect the entire country.

I'm FOR exile as a sentence for elected officials who commit high crimes and misdemeanors and treason; permanent exile.

I'm FOR the death penalty for crimes against children and other groups with shaky protections and for particularly gruesome crimes.  Acknowledging that punishment does not deter crime but death removes the worst criminals from existence and prevents them from future crimes.

I'm FOR Universal Healthcare with a comprehensive roster of coverage that cannot be denied.  The base of funds would be a combination of employer, patient and public funds.

I'm FOR limiting wealth by taxing income - and assets - above a certain level.  We've seen the result of extreme wealth preventing Citizens from having more and influencing those without ethics.

I'm FOR defining a basic decent American life and preventing anything from preventing that from developing.

I'm FOR limiting welfare and other public assistance by time, amount and criteria.  More on that later.

I'm FOR immigration with a clear, well-defined process, criteria and assistance including steps for assimilations

I'm FOR strict laws, criteria and consequences for coyotes and other for-profit facilitators of illegal immigration.

I'm FOR changes in the oaths of office for federal elected officials and daily repetitions of their responsibilities.  A pledge of allegiance to the flag is, clearly, insufficient.

I'm FOR minimum national income tax that cannot be eliminated by any means.  If you're a Citizen, you need to contribute to funds to run things.  However:

I'm also FOR exemptions of the minimum national income tax for everyone under the age of 18 and over the age of 65, permanently.  A child and a senior can become wealthy without paying into the tax base unless or until their circumstances change.

I'm also FOR the acceptance of the tax burden of family members by other family members and tax reform to follow those exchanges.

I am also FOR holding parents and adult children of family members who are unable to care for themselves responsible for up to half of the expenses of their family members; the rest of us are not entirely responsible for their family members. 

You can use the Contact form at the very bottom for comments, if you don't have a Google account which is required by their selfish comment form.

This Will Be An Unpopular Post

and will probably surprise some people.

We are quickly approaching elections and some people have voted already.  I enjoy the ritual of going to the polls, in person, on election day which used to be a holiday but maybe only in California where I lived so long.

I have been getting voluminous texts, emails and phone calls related to the elections, mostly from democrats but also from republicans.  I'm neither and I'm not interested in what they have to say because none of them have been saying anything for a long time that I find useful or decent.

They both spend all their time discrediting each other and name calling and asking for money.

I thought common sense and decency are that we need to get money out of our elections.  I don't see that happening anytime soon.  Politicians are, for the most part, not creative thinkers.  Since 2 parties dominate, they mostly preach party line which means they aren't thinking at all.

I worked in public service/employment most of my adult life, in multiple communities in 4 states.  The real work of governance is with the paid staff who make everything happen but politics has been interfering with that for decades.

But, this post is not about that but about elections and about one thought that I have that would change everything.  One party should NOT control the entire government.

I get texts and calls from everywhere in the country assuming that I'm a democrat.

BTW, I intentionally do not capitalize the parties because I don't they either of them deserve the distinction.

Our government is for the entire country and ALL Americans.  Our elections have devolved into a contest between 2 ideologies neither of which intends to work for the entire country and ALL Americans.  That's not Democracy, nor is it decent, nor is it right, nor is it Constitutional.

All Americans deserve everything our Constitution grants us but many in our government, on both sides, want to divide us.

I, personally, don't care, at all, about either party.  Neither has done anything for me in decades.  The government used to work for all of us as much as is possible.  That hasn't been happening for a long time because the 2 parties has been working against each other; fear mongering and hate mongering.

While I may not agree with what some Americans think or want, I think they and I should both be able to live as we want without hurting anyone else.  I don't care that there are red states and blue states.  People should be allowed to vote however they want even if I disagree with them.  Yes, I'm aware that some of them don't think I should be allowed to vote as I want.  They don't have the same ethics that I have.  That's where our Constitution and Laws come in.

I only recently discovered that the secret ballot is not part of our Constitution but is part of State's Law.  It's a safe guard against the infantile, hateful retaliation that some "people" might inflict on others.

I don't care what people in Texas want, or in Virginia or Florida or Oregon or Mississippi; I don't live there.  

I'm quite liberal about most things but conservative about some things. As I've been saying, I think we all should have as much as we want as possible as long as we each understand that applies to each individual.  There should never be anything, other than do no harm, that forces anyone to live the same as everyone else.

I don't think it's good that a party controls our government.  I think, once we're out of this mess, that we need to ensure that a single party not have control.  I think we need to have new amendments to reduce the influence of political parties among other safe guards to a diversified government.

I don't think the democrats are our saviors.  I think the republicans have been taken over by hateful old men who want to control everybody else but not themselves.  I think both have succumbed to big money and can't be trusted.

So vote however you want but I'm not going to live according to what you want and our Constitution allows each of us to live as much as possible as we each want.

I'm a person before I'm anything else and I'm neither a democrat nor a republican and NEVER will be again.

My "Liberal" Stances

 Many people would consider me liberal.  I am, sometimes, about most things; I think.

Here's what I think about some things:

• I'm OK with taxes but I think they should come back to me in services.  85% of our taxes should be spent to make life better, more pleasant, for us.  Pooling resources to have the best.

• I'm OK with the death penalty, not to deter other crimes but to eliminate violent criminals who pose a danger to society.

• Medical insurance companies are NOT healthcare providers, they are financial businesses and should be non-profit.

• Healthcare corporations must be non-profit and regulated to control the structure of salaries of actual healthcare professionals compared to corporate support staff, including the CEOs.

• Term limits for all elected officials are necessary.

• There need to be more available mechanisms to recall and remove elected officials.

• Salaries for elected officials must be ballot items, not self-determined.

• Campaign contributions must be limited and political campaigns highly regulated.

• Crimes against children are capital crimes.

• Labor laws need to be reviewed and revised.

• It must be one of the functions of Congress to review, update and revise, on a regular basis, all laws.

• The focus of government is on the Citizens, not money or corporations or processes.

• Federal laws are necessary to create uniformity in some things because the American people are mobile and want to expect that uniformity.

• Exile must become a legal optional consequence for treason.

• The welfare of mentally ill, intellectually challenged, physically challenged and the homeless is the joint responsibility of families, the Citizenry and the various levels of government.

• Education, of all kinds, is a public responsibility.

• Infrastructure includes:  roads, bridges, railroads, sewers, water supply, the electrical grid, the communications gride (cable, etc.), the Internet, satellite grid, air traffic grid, and more.

• Public lands and their use must be protected and preserved.

• Regulations are necessary because most homo sapiens are selfish, infantile and unthinking.

• While the country cannot be, intelligently, called a community, it is shared by everyone living here and government must protect and promote that idea.

• Wealth, when it interferes with egality and democracy, must be limited.

• The Green Amendment must become reality.  Our environment is where we live.  Only a fool or an idiot can think that we can continue to trash our environment or ignore it and live.

• Sacrifices are sometimes necessary to live a sensible, decent life.

• Change is the nature of the universe and life.

• Those who insist on controlling the lives of others except according to law are problems that must have legal consequences.

• Corporations and foreigners should not be allowed to own residential properties.

• The interests of all American Citizens must be considered in designing legislation; in other words, non-partisan.

• Opposing political viewpoints must propose compromises and solutions not just criticisms.

• Legislation must be single purpose only and clearly state the purpose, consequences, enforcement mechanisms and intended outcomes.

• Corporations are NOT citizens but are composed of Citizens who already have a vote do not need additional influence over government.  Citizens United is a con and must be overturned.

• Legislation may not limit the choices of  American Citizens (rescinding Roe v Wade).

• Americans, regardless of gender, race, origin, religion, age,  sexual orientation, political persuasion are equal under the law and have the same rights, responsibilities and obligations.

• Elected officials must recuse themselves from decision making concerning anything through which they may personally benefit.

• Stock trading and other investment activities by elected officials must be highly regulated.

• All elected officials must provide full disclosure of their finances and may be subject to financial constraints.

• Public laws apply to all Americans, including all elected officials.

• The Christian Bible in any of its versions is not the law of the United States.

• Political parties may propose candidates for the election of various positions but their platforms and stances do not address the interests of all Citizens or of the entire country.  Therefore, control of elections and all campaign finance must be controlled by independent, non-partisan agencies.

• We contribute fiscally and in many other ways to other countries and agencies because it makes the world and better, friendlier, safer place.

...so many more to come.

Ranked Choice Voting - RCV

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) is a simple upgrade to the way we vote. 

I've been interested in it since I became a registered unaffiliated Independent voter.  I hate political parties; they are one of the problems with our government.  Elections are NOT about winning.  Our government is supposed to represent EVERYONE, not just the majority.

Because we currently have majority wins voting and the Electoral College, we have already seen that despite a candidate winning the popular vote, a different candidate can win the election.  I don't think that's a good thing.

How does it work?

Once all votes are in, counting the votes may be done in a series of rounds if there is not a clear majority winner in the first count.

Imagine there are 6 candidates for U.S. Senator:  Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian, and 2 non-partisan Independents.  Using the first letter of each:

R -- John

D -- Marsha

G -- Phyllis

L -- Tom

I-1 -- Henry

I-2 -- Phil

Each voter ranks the candidates in order of their personal preference.

Voter A:  1.  Marsha, 2. Phyllis, 3. Henry, 4. Phil, 5. Tom, 6. John

Voter B:  1.  John, 2. Tom, 3. Henry, 4. Marsha, 5. Phil, 6. Phyllis

Voter C:  1. Phyllis, 2. Marsha, 3. Henry, 4. Phil, 5. John, 6. Tom

Imagine there were 200 votes and these were the results in the 1st count:  Nobody got a majority, 50% or 100 of the votes:  John and Marsha each got 30% of the #1 votes or 60 votes each.  Henry got 20% or 40 votes, Phyllis got 15% or 30 votes, Phil got 4% or 8 votes and Tom got 1% or 2 votes for a total of 100% of the 200 votes for their 1st choice.

Tom got the least votes of all the candidates; Tom is eliminated from the next count and his 2  votes are distributed to the candidate the voter selected as their 2nd choice; one going to John and one to Phil.  

The votes are recounted. This ranks John with 61 votes, Marsha with 60 votes, Henry with 40 votes, Phyllis with 30 votes and Phil with 9 votes.  

This recount eliminates Phil from the next count and his 9 votes are redistributed to the voters' next choice being:  Marsha got 3 and now is at 63 votes, John got 3 and now has 64 votes, Henry got 2 and now has 42 votes and Phyllis got 1 and now has 31 votes.  Phyllis is now eliminated and her votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the voters' preferences; being: 11 to Marsha now having 74 votes, 10 to John now having 74 votes and 10 to Henry now having 52 votes.

Nobody yet has a majority of the votes:  The next count might decide the winner.  Henry is now eliminated from the count and his 52 votes are redistributed to the voters' next choice, being:  John gets 27 of Henry's votes reaching 101 votes and Marsha gets 25 reaching 99 votes, meaning John wins the election.

I'm not entirely sure that my math is accurate in all this but this is the gist of how RCV works.  If, on the first count somebody gets a majority, the election is over and there's a winner.  Each count eliminates the candidate with the least votes and their votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to each voter's choices and a recount is done until one candidate reaches a majority.

It's possible for each voter to rank all the candidates or only those they like. It still means that there are 200 votes and some candidates get 0 votes at the beginning.  It means that voters who only vote for a single party can still do so and it means that voters who are like more than one candidate can distribute their votes to give each of those candidates a chance to be elected.

RCV means that Independent candidates have a better chance of getting 2nd or 3rd place votes and winning elections, especially in local elections.

Candidates will fare better in elections if they become more concerned with ALL the voters rather than just those of their party.

There are variations to this scheme.

I didn't find the Wikipedia article very helpful in describing the counts but it does show the states that now have this methodology.  I got the information for the counts from Voter Choice New Jersey.