It's important to learn the right lessons from elections. In 2008, the Democrats thought they learned the American people wanted Liberalism at any cost. They delivered, and then took massive losses in 2010. Though some Democrats have learned the lesson of 2010, they are poised to elect Nancy Pelosi as their leader in the house. This suggests the majority of the caucus has not learned.
In 2008, some Republicans thought they learned the American people wanted more Conservative candidates. They went out and found them. Some of them were trounced for various reasons, depending on who you ask. If you ask the GOP establishment, it was most certainly not their fault. Naturally. It was the "tea party" and their support of candidates in the primaries "too conservative" for the general election. The "tea party", on the other hand, blames the GOP establishment for not supporting the candidates who had been chosen by the primaries.
The GOP needs to learn both lessons. The "tea parties" should involve themselves in the organizations of a party. Any party. Or form their own party and offer fusion nominations. Just get into a party somewhere. It's all well and good sitting around complaining, but the decisions are made and the money starts flowing well before the primary election is fought. The parties. Check them out. BECOME the establishment. (I especially recommend checking out the Libertarian Party) You may also consider looking into candidates that don't make it easy for the other party to stereotype you and mobilize their voters against you. The conservative/liberal dichotomy is becoming so familiar that no one is listening anymore. You're only talking to yourselves.
The establishment needs to stop taking their base for granted. You have to either tell them the truth, or stick your neck out and accomplish something. Talking out of both sides of your mouth isn't going to cut it anymore. Also, if you're going to have primaries, paid for by tax dollars, you should probably not stick your foot in your mouth and talk a bunch of trash about the candidates. One of them might end up being your nominee.
***
Ok, that's my unsolicited advice for the incumbent parties. Now, what are the lessons to be taken from the Alternative Parties' performance in the 2010 Delaware General Elections?
First of all, it helps to have the word "Independent" in the name of your party. There's a party called the "Independent Party of Delaware", which is usually referred to as the "IPoD". This is a political party. A party of "Independents". Since most Americans understand politics to consist of "Left", "Right", and "Independent", this party makes total sense and its size and election performance come as no surprise. Nevertheless, I would be surprised to find most members of the IPoD are even aware they're in a party. I'm even more certain that most of the people who voted for an IPoD candidate would be very surprised to learn that they were voting for the nominee of a political party and not an "Unaffiliated" candidate.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Branding of a party label is an important part of politics, unfortunately, so a working relationship with a well recognized and overall positive brand is a good thing. Fortunately, the Libertarian Party in Delaware and the IPoD have a developing relationship and we look forward to extensive cooperation in future elections. It is more important to accustom people to voting for alternative parties than it is to stand on minor differences between platforms.
I was privileged to have been offered a fusion nomination by the IPoD in this election cycle, and I look forward to further collaboration with the IPoD in the future. Thank you for your support!
Unfortunately, I also learned that any effort to develop the organization, brand, and ultimately vote counts of Alternative Parties will be a long and challenging road. Despite my campaign, I only received 6.1% of the vote. This was not even enough to claim credit for "spoiling" the election. First and foremost, I believe the Libertarian Party must take as a lesson from this result that the organizational apparatus of the party MUST be a priority. We must find a way to maintain the participation, interest, and support of our members even when they cannot attend meetings. We must find a way to engage the communities we endeavor to serve and create a solid base for future elections.
I believe a key strategy in achieving this goal will be a focus on particular neighborhoods to essentially conduct our own census of voters, discussing libertarian issues and how the Libertarian Party works and benefits the community. By targeting specific neighborhoods, the success rate can be directly measured in election results and achieve milestones by moving even a single election district into the "win" column.
Also, controversially, I believe we must adopt more flexibility in our strategies for contesting elections. As a party much smaller, less well funded, and less organized than the incumbent parties, we must not confine ourselves to contesting elections on their terms using strategies that they have perfected. We must be willing to divide and conquer. We must be willing to interfere in their primaries by fusing with one of the candidates. We must be willing to divide their loyalties by nominating members of their party with notoriety to run on our ballot line. We must be willing to mobilize their own membership to revolt against them. We must be willing to send our own candidates into the lion's den of incumbent party primaries and support them in every way possible from without and within. We can do this to them because they are large and unwieldy, with many independents and libertarians registered to participate in a closed primary. We must be unconventional, unpredictable, and unimpeachable.
The election is only a small part of the game, and winning isn't everything.
The growth and maintenance of the Libertarian Party and other alternative parties will not be neglected. The incumbent parties may become a vehicle for libertarian ideas, but as they establish credibility and the Libertarian Party grows in stature for supporting these developments, we can develop into a political party worthy of the principles that animate us.
Go to the Kent County Libertarian Party website.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Future.
A more detailed discussion of this year's election result will be forthcoming, but a lot of the immediate focus will move, for obvious reasons, to the Kent County Libertarian Party rather than the 32nd District Election itself. Since I live in the 32nd, I'm sure the county party's development will focus here and in the immediately surrounding area, but most of the updates I write for the time being will be posted on the Kent County Libertarian Party Forums. It is an open forum, encourages discussion of all kinds, and is open to anyone. Please look around, register, post, whatever.
Definitely read A Vision for the Kent County Libertarian Party with some of my more general and immediate thoughts on the future. Also follow the Kent County Libertarian Party Facebook page, the party's events, and attend our next meeting/fundraiser.
Thanks for all of your support and assistance...and votes.
Definitely read A Vision for the Kent County Libertarian Party with some of my more general and immediate thoughts on the future. Also follow the Kent County Libertarian Party Facebook page, the party's events, and attend our next meeting/fundraiser.
Thanks for all of your support and assistance...and votes.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Jobs, Negativity, and Party Control
I talk to a lot of people. Most of them aren't involved or even really interested in politics. They want to know how their bills are going to get paid and if they'll get work. I tell them the truth. I can't give you work. What I CAN do, is create an environment conducive to business, so someone else can put you to work without jumping through endless hoops and cutting through miles of red tape to do it.
Although "Dover" isn't one of the examples given in the video, I've attended Kent County Levy Court public sessions and Dover City Council sessions. I've seen first hand some of the red tape an entrepreneur needs to cut through to get the job done.
The owners of the Lakeland Mobile Home Park in the 32nd District are maintaining a couple of outdated lots with old infrastructure and non-standard homes. Rather than spend a ton of money upgrading this infrastructure, replacing the homes, or leaving the area to blight and deteriorating property values, the owner decided they wanted to redevelop the front of the park to serve a commercial purpose. That is, to create jobs.
What they COULD have done, perfectly within the bounds of the law, is raise the lot rent to an exorbitant amount and indirectly forced the residents out of their homes. Instead, they developed a TWENTY YEAR, that's 2-0 year plan to gradually move the residents to other parks, other parts of the Lakeland Park, or wherever the residents chose to go. They also offered to pay part of the cost of relocating, up to a certain amount. Sounds super reasonable, right?
One of the Levy Court Commissioners voted against the plan. Even those that voted in favor of it spent about an HOUR grilling one of the developer's representatives about the details. All of this so they could re-zone the property, that belonged to the developer anyway, so they could do with it as they please, and create jobs for the Dover area.
In another example, the Dover City Council was asked to consider the rezoning of another property from Manufacturing to a certain kind of Commercial property. This would have limited the number of employees that could have worked on the property, but removed a great deal of the licensing and development requirements to occupy what was, at the time, a vacant lot.
Hmmm...destroy a community through rent increases, leave the area to blight, or do the right thing by the residents and create jobs for the Dover area. No brainer. Quit wasting the man's time and money.
Hmmm...rezone a property so it can be occupied and...guess what? Create jobs? Or don't, leave it unoccupied, and create nothing. Also a no brainer.
These are just TWO specific examples of government interfering with the private sector as they try to find the most efficient use of their assets and ultimately create work opportunities for those in the Dover area. What are these people doing? Why are we reelecting petty tyrants who get off on getting in the way? Why do business owners FUND the campaigns of the politicians who will only obstruct their operations?
That is my promise to the 32nd District. I will not get in the way. I will get out of the way. Beyond that, I will serve my constituents by standing up for their property rights, and their right to create jobs and develop the community whenever someone is standing in their way. I won't demand "campaign contributions" in exchange for my services either. I'll just do it. Because it's the right thing to do by them and the right thing to do by the 32nd District.
***
The negativity continues. Almost every day, my parents, who live in the 32nd District and whose address is listed as the official address for my campaign, receive some nasty piece of mail or another attacking one of my opponents. I don't know what they hope to accomplish. I'm pretty sure my parents are voting for me...
The mail attacking the incumbent is anonymous. It's not coming from me, and I doubt the incumbent would attack himself, so I bet I know where it's coming from. I've also seen a mailer attacking my Republican opponents. I will give credit to the incumbent. At least he put his name on his attack. Good job. I guess.
The people I talk to are fed up with this too. Why do the incumbent party politicians always resort to attacks? Don't they feel strong enough in their own convictions to stand by themselves? Must they always invoke fear of "the other" in order to gain votes? I don't know what of this nasty mail is true and what is not. What I do know is that I am telling you about me, and what I believe. If you support it, I hope I will earn your support on the 2nd of November. If the nastiness is true, well, I guess be thankful that I am not either of them.
***
Finally, before I end what is quickly becoming a very long article, I saw an editorial today in the Dover Post by a friend of mine, Mr. Dick Cook. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Cook and he has proven a wellspring of good advice throughout the course of this campaign. I must, however, disagree with him on the subject of his editorial. He says that this election, and every election, is about deciding "which" party will control the legislative agenda.
Anyone who's been paying attention to my articles, statements, and outright rants over the course of this campaign knows that I find the very concept of any ONE party controlling the legislative agenda abhorrent and a source of the problems facing the state and the nation. This is the primary reason I have refused to commit to caucusing with either Democrats or Republicans if I am fortunate enough to be elected, and why Brent Wangen has done the same.
I will INSIST on a consensus candidate for leadership positions within the Delaware State House, and Brent would do this also. We have all seen what happens when we elect the "most senior" party hack politician to Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, or whatever. They've been there the longest because they have the safest, most effectively gerrymandered district. They have the most insular, and extreme constituents.
A consensus candidate, not owned by any one party, would not suffer from these weaknesses. They would allow members of either party or no party to offer amendments. They would allow all bills worthy of consideration to face an up or down vote of the entire body. They would not seek to schedule votes to aggravate the most extreme and dangerous passions of the people in the lead up to election day to drive turnout of their base. They would seek to unify us around common sense solutions to our problems. They would seek to satisfy the vast majority of the population which does not closely identify with either party. They would hold all members, from all parties, accountable to the ethical and procedural rules without showing favoritism to members of their own party. If they didn't, the independent legislators would swing away from them and demand new leadership. It wouldn't take two years and a new election to throw the bums out.
In a two-party system, elections are indeed about which party will control the agenda, but they need not be. Vote for alternative party candidates and change the status quo. If the voters don't do it, the politicians certainly won't.
Although "Dover" isn't one of the examples given in the video, I've attended Kent County Levy Court public sessions and Dover City Council sessions. I've seen first hand some of the red tape an entrepreneur needs to cut through to get the job done.
The owners of the Lakeland Mobile Home Park in the 32nd District are maintaining a couple of outdated lots with old infrastructure and non-standard homes. Rather than spend a ton of money upgrading this infrastructure, replacing the homes, or leaving the area to blight and deteriorating property values, the owner decided they wanted to redevelop the front of the park to serve a commercial purpose. That is, to create jobs.
What they COULD have done, perfectly within the bounds of the law, is raise the lot rent to an exorbitant amount and indirectly forced the residents out of their homes. Instead, they developed a TWENTY YEAR, that's 2-0 year plan to gradually move the residents to other parks, other parts of the Lakeland Park, or wherever the residents chose to go. They also offered to pay part of the cost of relocating, up to a certain amount. Sounds super reasonable, right?
One of the Levy Court Commissioners voted against the plan. Even those that voted in favor of it spent about an HOUR grilling one of the developer's representatives about the details. All of this so they could re-zone the property, that belonged to the developer anyway, so they could do with it as they please, and create jobs for the Dover area.
In another example, the Dover City Council was asked to consider the rezoning of another property from Manufacturing to a certain kind of Commercial property. This would have limited the number of employees that could have worked on the property, but removed a great deal of the licensing and development requirements to occupy what was, at the time, a vacant lot.
Hmmm...destroy a community through rent increases, leave the area to blight, or do the right thing by the residents and create jobs for the Dover area. No brainer. Quit wasting the man's time and money.
Hmmm...rezone a property so it can be occupied and...guess what? Create jobs? Or don't, leave it unoccupied, and create nothing. Also a no brainer.
These are just TWO specific examples of government interfering with the private sector as they try to find the most efficient use of their assets and ultimately create work opportunities for those in the Dover area. What are these people doing? Why are we reelecting petty tyrants who get off on getting in the way? Why do business owners FUND the campaigns of the politicians who will only obstruct their operations?
That is my promise to the 32nd District. I will not get in the way. I will get out of the way. Beyond that, I will serve my constituents by standing up for their property rights, and their right to create jobs and develop the community whenever someone is standing in their way. I won't demand "campaign contributions" in exchange for my services either. I'll just do it. Because it's the right thing to do by them and the right thing to do by the 32nd District.
***
The negativity continues. Almost every day, my parents, who live in the 32nd District and whose address is listed as the official address for my campaign, receive some nasty piece of mail or another attacking one of my opponents. I don't know what they hope to accomplish. I'm pretty sure my parents are voting for me...
The mail attacking the incumbent is anonymous. It's not coming from me, and I doubt the incumbent would attack himself, so I bet I know where it's coming from. I've also seen a mailer attacking my Republican opponents. I will give credit to the incumbent. At least he put his name on his attack. Good job. I guess.
The people I talk to are fed up with this too. Why do the incumbent party politicians always resort to attacks? Don't they feel strong enough in their own convictions to stand by themselves? Must they always invoke fear of "the other" in order to gain votes? I don't know what of this nasty mail is true and what is not. What I do know is that I am telling you about me, and what I believe. If you support it, I hope I will earn your support on the 2nd of November. If the nastiness is true, well, I guess be thankful that I am not either of them.
***
Finally, before I end what is quickly becoming a very long article, I saw an editorial today in the Dover Post by a friend of mine, Mr. Dick Cook. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Cook and he has proven a wellspring of good advice throughout the course of this campaign. I must, however, disagree with him on the subject of his editorial. He says that this election, and every election, is about deciding "which" party will control the legislative agenda.
Anyone who's been paying attention to my articles, statements, and outright rants over the course of this campaign knows that I find the very concept of any ONE party controlling the legislative agenda abhorrent and a source of the problems facing the state and the nation. This is the primary reason I have refused to commit to caucusing with either Democrats or Republicans if I am fortunate enough to be elected, and why Brent Wangen has done the same.
I will INSIST on a consensus candidate for leadership positions within the Delaware State House, and Brent would do this also. We have all seen what happens when we elect the "most senior" party hack politician to Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, or whatever. They've been there the longest because they have the safest, most effectively gerrymandered district. They have the most insular, and extreme constituents.
A consensus candidate, not owned by any one party, would not suffer from these weaknesses. They would allow members of either party or no party to offer amendments. They would allow all bills worthy of consideration to face an up or down vote of the entire body. They would not seek to schedule votes to aggravate the most extreme and dangerous passions of the people in the lead up to election day to drive turnout of their base. They would seek to unify us around common sense solutions to our problems. They would seek to satisfy the vast majority of the population which does not closely identify with either party. They would hold all members, from all parties, accountable to the ethical and procedural rules without showing favoritism to members of their own party. If they didn't, the independent legislators would swing away from them and demand new leadership. It wouldn't take two years and a new election to throw the bums out.
In a two-party system, elections are indeed about which party will control the agenda, but they need not be. Vote for alternative party candidates and change the status quo. If the voters don't do it, the politicians certainly won't.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Just the Facts, ma'am.
It was 2005. I was a junior at the University of Delaware. For those of you who attended UD or have been there at all recently, you know parking is a problem. It was a big problem for me...largely of my own making.
I had more than a few unpaid parking tickets.
Eventually, they caught up with me, and booted my car.
It was homecoming weekend. I was impatient. I was arrogant. That's just who I am, but I certainly wouldn't do this again. What I did, was take the boots off. Turns out, it's not really that difficult. All you have to do is let some of the air out of your tires, use something like...say...a soda bottle to protect the tire, and pry the boot off. You won't damage the boot, but you will have to replace the air in your tires.
Here's where I screwed up. I put the boots in my car to return them to the police station up the road. If I hadn't, and just left them on the side of the road to rust, this whole incident would have inevitably played out differently. But I did, and I headed up to the Newark Police Department. Unfortunately, there was no air in my tires. So I stopped to remedy that. While I was stopped, just as I finished, two cars from the Newark PD pulled over at the same gas station and demanded that I open my trunk. Turns out, someone had seen me remove the boots, and called the 5-0.
I knew what they were after. I could have asserted my rights or played a similar game, but I didn't bother. I opened the trunk and let fate take its course. They saw the boots, and put on the bracelets. They said I was "stealing" the car boots. Because apparently there's a huge market for locked boots.
Side note. I worked as a delivery driver for Wings to Go on Main St. in Newark. Since the Newark Police Department occupied itself with arresting kids for "stealing" car boots instead of prosecuting criminals, a number of the other drivers had been robbed. One of them had her car stolen. For this reason I was carrying an extensible police baton in my car, near the driver's seat.
Now, when I was arrested, I was not in the car. I was outside the car, refilling my tires. During the search of my vehicle, the baton was found, partially obscured under my seat. When I was charged, a felony charge of carrying a concealed deadly weapon was added to the misdemeanor charge of theft under $1000. I was eventually released later that day on a bond of $1500, which I did not have to pay. If I had failed to appear in court, I would have, but I did...so it didn't matter.
When I appeared in court, I had no attorney. I was a poor college student...I couldn't afford one. So I filled out the paperwork and got myself a public defender. Now comes the "Preliminary Hearing". At this phase in the proceedings, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence to move on to the arraignment phase. The arraignment is the part where you actually plead "guilty" or "not guilty". We hadn't gotten that far yet. My public defender recommended that I waive my right to a preliminary hearing, as they are usually formalities that are upheld by the judge. By now I was feeling a lot more ornery and like I was being mistreated by a petty and vengeful Newark Police Department. The judge agreed, as far as the felony charge went.
"He wasn't carrying it, it wasn't concealed, and it wasn't a deadly weapon. Charge dismissed." Those were her exact words. I remember them vividly. I was pretty happy. The theft charge was better substantiated as it really was a question of "what I would do next". Whether I was actually returning them to the police or taking them to my buddy who fences locked car boots for tons of cash. Note to the literal: This friend does not exist.
So I had to come back a few weeks later for an arraignment. My public defender, once again, recommended that I forgo my rights and plead guilty in exchange for "Probation Before Judgment". This meant I would pay a bunch of money and be on probation for a few months, then the charge would be expunged and not entered as a conviction on my criminal record. I didn't have a bunch of money, I certainly didn't want to give what I had to the state, and I didn't have any intention of keeping the car boots or selling them to buy Ramen noodles. I dug in. I told them I was going to plead "not guilty" and demand a trial before a jury of my peers.
The prosecutor balked. He didn't think his case was that strong, because seriously, kids...who steals car boots? That's just ridiculous. He decided not to prosecute and dropped the case.
There's no shady deal. No buyoff. No dirty tricks. Just an innocent man, demanding his rights, and finding justice.
Any questions?
I had more than a few unpaid parking tickets.
Eventually, they caught up with me, and booted my car.
It was homecoming weekend. I was impatient. I was arrogant. That's just who I am, but I certainly wouldn't do this again. What I did, was take the boots off. Turns out, it's not really that difficult. All you have to do is let some of the air out of your tires, use something like...say...a soda bottle to protect the tire, and pry the boot off. You won't damage the boot, but you will have to replace the air in your tires.
Here's where I screwed up. I put the boots in my car to return them to the police station up the road. If I hadn't, and just left them on the side of the road to rust, this whole incident would have inevitably played out differently. But I did, and I headed up to the Newark Police Department. Unfortunately, there was no air in my tires. So I stopped to remedy that. While I was stopped, just as I finished, two cars from the Newark PD pulled over at the same gas station and demanded that I open my trunk. Turns out, someone had seen me remove the boots, and called the 5-0.
I knew what they were after. I could have asserted my rights or played a similar game, but I didn't bother. I opened the trunk and let fate take its course. They saw the boots, and put on the bracelets. They said I was "stealing" the car boots. Because apparently there's a huge market for locked boots.
Side note. I worked as a delivery driver for Wings to Go on Main St. in Newark. Since the Newark Police Department occupied itself with arresting kids for "stealing" car boots instead of prosecuting criminals, a number of the other drivers had been robbed. One of them had her car stolen. For this reason I was carrying an extensible police baton in my car, near the driver's seat.
Now, when I was arrested, I was not in the car. I was outside the car, refilling my tires. During the search of my vehicle, the baton was found, partially obscured under my seat. When I was charged, a felony charge of carrying a concealed deadly weapon was added to the misdemeanor charge of theft under $1000. I was eventually released later that day on a bond of $1500, which I did not have to pay. If I had failed to appear in court, I would have, but I did...so it didn't matter.
When I appeared in court, I had no attorney. I was a poor college student...I couldn't afford one. So I filled out the paperwork and got myself a public defender. Now comes the "Preliminary Hearing". At this phase in the proceedings, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence to move on to the arraignment phase. The arraignment is the part where you actually plead "guilty" or "not guilty". We hadn't gotten that far yet. My public defender recommended that I waive my right to a preliminary hearing, as they are usually formalities that are upheld by the judge. By now I was feeling a lot more ornery and like I was being mistreated by a petty and vengeful Newark Police Department. The judge agreed, as far as the felony charge went.
"He wasn't carrying it, it wasn't concealed, and it wasn't a deadly weapon. Charge dismissed." Those were her exact words. I remember them vividly. I was pretty happy. The theft charge was better substantiated as it really was a question of "what I would do next". Whether I was actually returning them to the police or taking them to my buddy who fences locked car boots for tons of cash. Note to the literal: This friend does not exist.
So I had to come back a few weeks later for an arraignment. My public defender, once again, recommended that I forgo my rights and plead guilty in exchange for "Probation Before Judgment". This meant I would pay a bunch of money and be on probation for a few months, then the charge would be expunged and not entered as a conviction on my criminal record. I didn't have a bunch of money, I certainly didn't want to give what I had to the state, and I didn't have any intention of keeping the car boots or selling them to buy Ramen noodles. I dug in. I told them I was going to plead "not guilty" and demand a trial before a jury of my peers.
The prosecutor balked. He didn't think his case was that strong, because seriously, kids...who steals car boots? That's just ridiculous. He decided not to prosecute and dropped the case.
There's no shady deal. No buyoff. No dirty tricks. Just an innocent man, demanding his rights, and finding justice.
Any questions?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Politics of Fear.
I am a Libertarian. We don't have a huge organization in the state of Delaware. We have no incumbent politicians. The party has less than $2000 to its name.
All we have, is justice and liberty.
These aren't popular concepts with the two-party monopoly. They have money. Lots of it. They've paid off bloggers, radio hosts, and teenagers on Facebook to spread their message and try to convince people they've "changed". Seems to me like they're still buying people off. Seems to me like they're still holding their agendas before the Constitution and before the rights and freedoms of the people they claim to serve.
The most egregious thing they are doing this election cycle, is silencing dissent. I can't tell you how many people I've spoken with or that my campaign has spoken with who support me but admit that they can't say so publicly. Some of them are even getting into "trouble" with the two-party establishment for mentioning me.
This is shameful.
The only option remaining is for the people of the 32nd District to rise up and declare that they will not be told who to vote for. They will not be silenced. They will demand their freedoms and set an example for the rest of Delaware and the rest of the United States.
I hope they will exercise that option. Please, don't feed the animals.
All we have, is justice and liberty.
These aren't popular concepts with the two-party monopoly. They have money. Lots of it. They've paid off bloggers, radio hosts, and teenagers on Facebook to spread their message and try to convince people they've "changed". Seems to me like they're still buying people off. Seems to me like they're still holding their agendas before the Constitution and before the rights and freedoms of the people they claim to serve.
The most egregious thing they are doing this election cycle, is silencing dissent. I can't tell you how many people I've spoken with or that my campaign has spoken with who support me but admit that they can't say so publicly. Some of them are even getting into "trouble" with the two-party establishment for mentioning me.
This is shameful.
The only option remaining is for the people of the 32nd District to rise up and declare that they will not be told who to vote for. They will not be silenced. They will demand their freedoms and set an example for the rest of Delaware and the rest of the United States.
I hope they will exercise that option. Please, don't feed the animals.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Anonymous Attacks, Dirty Tricks, and Empty Threats
As the last days of this election cycle pass by, agonizingly slowly, you can't watch TV or listen to the radio without hearing an attack ad. You can't go to your mailbox without getting a piece of nasty hate mail about this or that politician. You probably can't even answer your phone.
The worst part, in my mind, about most of these ads is that they don't come from anyone. The mail is anonymous. The ad is paid for by some shadowy group or another. You can usually assume the nasty stuff is from "the other guy" since most elections are two-way races.
But some aren't.
If you get nasty mail about anyone in the 32nd District, I can promise you I didn't send it. Even if I did, I'd have the guts to put my name on it. I've even gotten nasty letters addressed to me personally. I don't know what they hoped to accomplish, but anonymous mail from a coward does not intimidate me.
To be perfectly frank, I can't afford to send out a new piece of mail every week telling you what a scumbag my opponent(s) are. I have better things to do than to send nasty-grams to my opponents. The only mail I'm sending out is a single post card to as many people as I could on a 5000 piece run. It's just the front of my flyer, shown above. I can only hope enough people look at it, come to the website, and like what they see.
It's also easy to spread lies about the other guy. Most of what you read or see in the media about the 32nd District race is true. Most of the stories, if they do mention the 32nd District, manage to forget I'm in the election, but other than that, they're true. Some of what gets posted on the websites and Facebook pages of the candidates, on the other hand...not so much. I don't think I've said anything controversial, but I know for a fact that at least one of my opponents has posted an outright lie on their Facebook page. If you say, during a political campaign, that a candidate has acknowledged they're going to lose, that candidate's supporters may not bother to participate in the election. Let me state, unequivocally, again, I have NOT acknowledged anything about the final result of this election. The election isn't over until November 2nd. No polls are being conducted. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know what the result will be.
In addition to the anonymous attacks and dirty tricks, I have also been threatened with criminal charges for telling people I was running. Those of you who have been following my campaign from the beginning no doubt remember this video:
Obviously, the threat was ridiculous, and was supposed to intimidate me into backing off.
I'm sick of this stuff. It's the reason I couldn't associate myself with the "official" Republican or Democratic parties and insisted on running as a Libertarian. Sure, I filed in the primaries, but I did that to go AROUND the "official" party and appeal directly to the voters of the 32nd District.
If you're sick of nasty, dishonest, disgusting political ploys, please...vote for me on November 2nd and send the incumbent parties a message that nonsense like this doesn't work, and doesn't appeal to the voters of the 32nd District. I think you deserve better, and I hope you'll vote for it.
The worst part, in my mind, about most of these ads is that they don't come from anyone. The mail is anonymous. The ad is paid for by some shadowy group or another. You can usually assume the nasty stuff is from "the other guy" since most elections are two-way races.
But some aren't.
If you get nasty mail about anyone in the 32nd District, I can promise you I didn't send it. Even if I did, I'd have the guts to put my name on it. I've even gotten nasty letters addressed to me personally. I don't know what they hoped to accomplish, but anonymous mail from a coward does not intimidate me.
To be perfectly frank, I can't afford to send out a new piece of mail every week telling you what a scumbag my opponent(s) are. I have better things to do than to send nasty-grams to my opponents. The only mail I'm sending out is a single post card to as many people as I could on a 5000 piece run. It's just the front of my flyer, shown above. I can only hope enough people look at it, come to the website, and like what they see.
It's also easy to spread lies about the other guy. Most of what you read or see in the media about the 32nd District race is true. Most of the stories, if they do mention the 32nd District, manage to forget I'm in the election, but other than that, they're true. Some of what gets posted on the websites and Facebook pages of the candidates, on the other hand...not so much. I don't think I've said anything controversial, but I know for a fact that at least one of my opponents has posted an outright lie on their Facebook page. If you say, during a political campaign, that a candidate has acknowledged they're going to lose, that candidate's supporters may not bother to participate in the election. Let me state, unequivocally, again, I have NOT acknowledged anything about the final result of this election. The election isn't over until November 2nd. No polls are being conducted. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know what the result will be.
In addition to the anonymous attacks and dirty tricks, I have also been threatened with criminal charges for telling people I was running. Those of you who have been following my campaign from the beginning no doubt remember this video:
Obviously, the threat was ridiculous, and was supposed to intimidate me into backing off.
I'm sick of this stuff. It's the reason I couldn't associate myself with the "official" Republican or Democratic parties and insisted on running as a Libertarian. Sure, I filed in the primaries, but I did that to go AROUND the "official" party and appeal directly to the voters of the 32nd District.
If you're sick of nasty, dishonest, disgusting political ploys, please...vote for me on November 2nd and send the incumbent parties a message that nonsense like this doesn't work, and doesn't appeal to the voters of the 32nd District. I think you deserve better, and I hope you'll vote for it.
It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over...
It has come to my attention that someone thinks I've acknowledged my upcoming loss in this election. That's ridiculous. I've acknowledged I have a built in weakness in that I have no organizational, financial, or political backing from any incumbent politicians. I've acknowledged that even if I do lose, I will have made a big dent. I've acknowledged that this will not be the last election I participate in no matter what happens. I have NEVER said I know I'm going to lose and I'm giving up. That is absolutely not true and anyone who says otherwise is lying, stupid, or both.
The votes don't get counted until after the polls close. The 32nd District has never seen a 3-way race in recent history, or possibly ever. As far as I'm aware, no one is polling to try and guess what the result will be in this district. It ain't over 'til it's over...
Please offer any support you can. There's a big donate button
<==== Right over there.
My phone number and email address are ^ up there. Please call or email me and ask what you can do to help. Please donate. Please tell your friends. Please "Like" my Facebook page and suggest it to others. PLEASE VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2ND!
The votes don't get counted until after the polls close. The 32nd District has never seen a 3-way race in recent history, or possibly ever. As far as I'm aware, no one is polling to try and guess what the result will be in this district. It ain't over 'til it's over...
Please offer any support you can. There's a big donate button
<==== Right over there.
My phone number and email address are ^ up there. Please call or email me and ask what you can do to help. Please donate. Please tell your friends. Please "Like" my Facebook page and suggest it to others. PLEASE VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2ND!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
On Compromise and Moderation.
My dad likes to share a quote from Mark Steyn about compromise. He says if you take a scoop of ice cream, and a scoop of dog s**t and mix them together, the mixture just tastes like dog s**t. This is supposed to mean that liberals and conservatives can't compromise, because liberals want to destroy America or some such nonsense. I suppose it works just as well for liberals in their belief that conservatives are knuckle-dragging throwbacks to an era of discrimination. Likewise, Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I agree with both of these quotes, but I disagree that they mean liberals and conservatives can't come together and agree on solutions to the country's myriad problems. For the record, I also disagree with the idea that liberals want to destroy America, or that conservatives are knuckle-dragging throwbacks.
Liberals favor a big government, according to the understanding in the conservative zeitgeist. Conservatives favor a big government too, if you listen to liberals. Each camp thinks the opposite about themselves.
They're both right.
The question is on which issues? Conservatives favor a government just small enough to fit in your bedroom, according to a popular saying on the left. While they are in favor of economic deregulation and lower taxes, they are vehemently opposed to treating homosexuals and other minorities equally, and allowing people to make their own decisions about what they do with their own bodies. Liberals are just the opposite. They are against deregulation and reduced taxation, but are in favor of personal liberty and equality before the law.
The compromise is to take the best of both worlds. Why not reduce taxes, regulations, AND allow people to make their own decisions about their own lives? Why not have a GENUINELY small government? That's called libertarianism.
Vote Libertarian on November 2nd!
I agree with both of these quotes, but I disagree that they mean liberals and conservatives can't come together and agree on solutions to the country's myriad problems. For the record, I also disagree with the idea that liberals want to destroy America, or that conservatives are knuckle-dragging throwbacks.
Liberals favor a big government, according to the understanding in the conservative zeitgeist. Conservatives favor a big government too, if you listen to liberals. Each camp thinks the opposite about themselves.
They're both right.
The question is on which issues? Conservatives favor a government just small enough to fit in your bedroom, according to a popular saying on the left. While they are in favor of economic deregulation and lower taxes, they are vehemently opposed to treating homosexuals and other minorities equally, and allowing people to make their own decisions about what they do with their own bodies. Liberals are just the opposite. They are against deregulation and reduced taxation, but are in favor of personal liberty and equality before the law.
The compromise is to take the best of both worlds. Why not reduce taxes, regulations, AND allow people to make their own decisions about their own lives? Why not have a GENUINELY small government? That's called libertarianism.
Vote Libertarian on November 2nd!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Campaign Finances, Free Speech, and Buying Your Vote.
I've had two conversations today on the same subject. The subject was the recent US Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns. Each of the two people I was talking to began with the premise that this decision was a bad thing and only aggravated the tendency of money to matter more than principles in elections for public office. While I agree that money should not be the factor that determines the winner of an election (otherwise I'd lose), I do not agree that corporations should be prohibited from spending whatever they want to try to influence an election. The primary reason why is Freedom of Speech. Corporations represent their shareholders in the same way that trade unions represent their workers. Trade unions have always had free reign to fund political campaigns, so I think it is only fair that their bosses be given the same accommodation. Free Speech is the better, more principled argument, but the practical effects of a balance of terror also make sense to me.
That being said, I do not think that money should have such an outsized influence on politics. This is not the fault of the politicians or of their wealthy financiers. It is the fault of the voters. Watch me as I make a huge "political mistake" right after another. First, I'm going to hold voters to task for allowing themselves to be bought, then I'm going to mention the names of my opponents...twice.
Campaign finance reports are public. The FEC requires Federal candidates to report all of their donations and expenses at regular intervals once they reach a certain threshold. Brent Wangen, the Libertarian candidate for the US House of Representatives, has been filing his reports this entire election cycle in the interests of transparency and OVER-disclosure, though he has only recently met the threshold requiring him to do so. Delaware state candidates must file these reports annually, as well as 30 and 8 days before a primary election if they're participating, and then at the same intervals before a general election. These reports are required if the office pays more than $1000 or if more than $2000 is raised during the election cycle. Obviously, I have filed my first report already as we are less than 30 days out.
My opponents have also filed theirs:
Brad Bennett
Beth B Miller
Have you read them? Do you know who has bought and paid for the candidates seeking to represent you in the Delaware House of Representatives? If a candidate is bankrolled by party organizations, incumbent politicians, trade associations, and PACs, who do you think they'll call first when they are deciding how to vote? If a candidate's website doesn't allow comments, doesn't include regular updates of their own thoughts, and doesn't provide direct contact information, how much do you think they care what you think?
Brad Bennett's website
Beth B Miller's website
On the other hand, if a candidate not only accepts comments on their website and Facebook page, but publishes updates regularly without running it through an extensive staff of party hacks, and lists his direct email address and phone number, how likely are you to be able to bend their ear? If a candidate gets funding from his parents, his grandma, a college buddy, and then an assortment of small dollar contributions dropped in a can at open forum campaign events, along with a hefty sum of his own money, who do you think he'll answer to?
If a candidate is relying on a statewide turnout machine from an incumbent party like the Democrats or Republicans, who will they ingratiate themselves to at every opportunity? If the candidate is instead relying on walking his district and talking to constituents, begging them to consider an alternative choice, answering questions until you're ready to kick him off your doorstep, and asking you personally to come out to vote, does that candidate have the same divided allegiances?
I'm done yelling at you now, my dear voters. Please promptly forget the names of the candidates opposing me I dared to name above.
will mcvay
Do not forget the party machines who have been corrupting and controlling your legislators for the last 150 years. Do not forget who will always take your calls and do everything possible to answer your questions. Do not forget who is one of you trying to get by compared to who lives in a disconnected fantasy world where a tribal party label trumps a neighborly relationship. Do not forget to vote on November 2nd.
will mcvay
Thank you. Don't mind the subliminal messages. will mcvay
That being said, I do not think that money should have such an outsized influence on politics. This is not the fault of the politicians or of their wealthy financiers. It is the fault of the voters. Watch me as I make a huge "political mistake" right after another. First, I'm going to hold voters to task for allowing themselves to be bought, then I'm going to mention the names of my opponents...twice.
Campaign finance reports are public. The FEC requires Federal candidates to report all of their donations and expenses at regular intervals once they reach a certain threshold. Brent Wangen, the Libertarian candidate for the US House of Representatives, has been filing his reports this entire election cycle in the interests of transparency and OVER-disclosure, though he has only recently met the threshold requiring him to do so. Delaware state candidates must file these reports annually, as well as 30 and 8 days before a primary election if they're participating, and then at the same intervals before a general election. These reports are required if the office pays more than $1000 or if more than $2000 is raised during the election cycle. Obviously, I have filed my first report already as we are less than 30 days out.
My opponents have also filed theirs:
Brad Bennett
Beth B Miller
Have you read them? Do you know who has bought and paid for the candidates seeking to represent you in the Delaware House of Representatives? If a candidate is bankrolled by party organizations, incumbent politicians, trade associations, and PACs, who do you think they'll call first when they are deciding how to vote? If a candidate's website doesn't allow comments, doesn't include regular updates of their own thoughts, and doesn't provide direct contact information, how much do you think they care what you think?
Brad Bennett's website
Beth B Miller's website
On the other hand, if a candidate not only accepts comments on their website and Facebook page, but publishes updates regularly without running it through an extensive staff of party hacks, and lists his direct email address and phone number, how likely are you to be able to bend their ear? If a candidate gets funding from his parents, his grandma, a college buddy, and then an assortment of small dollar contributions dropped in a can at open forum campaign events, along with a hefty sum of his own money, who do you think he'll answer to?
If a candidate is relying on a statewide turnout machine from an incumbent party like the Democrats or Republicans, who will they ingratiate themselves to at every opportunity? If the candidate is instead relying on walking his district and talking to constituents, begging them to consider an alternative choice, answering questions until you're ready to kick him off your doorstep, and asking you personally to come out to vote, does that candidate have the same divided allegiances?
I'm done yelling at you now, my dear voters. Please promptly forget the names of the candidates opposing me I dared to name above.
will mcvay
Do not forget the party machines who have been corrupting and controlling your legislators for the last 150 years. Do not forget who will always take your calls and do everything possible to answer your questions. Do not forget who is one of you trying to get by compared to who lives in a disconnected fantasy world where a tribal party label trumps a neighborly relationship. Do not forget to vote on November 2nd.
will mcvay
Thank you. Don't mind the subliminal messages. will mcvay
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Marxist and the Witch - Elevating the Tone of Politics
Delaware is in the national spotlight following the upset primary victory of Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in the Republican Party. Leading up to the primary, many Republican voters were deeply upset with Mike Castle's voting record with respect to a number of issues from Financial Reform to Cap 'n' Trade. Mike Castle also refused, repeatedly, to meet his primary opponent in a debate, either considering her beneath him or too much of a threat to face in an uncontrolled forum. Either way the anti-incumbent mood sweeping the country and the fire of conservative activists was too much for the Delaware state GOP machine backing him.
Democratic candidate Chris Coons did not have a primary challenger. The Delaware state GOP's endorsement of Mike Castle was supposed to be enough to make Castle a shoo-in for the Republican nomination, and there was widespread speculation that Coons was a sacrificial lamb to allow Castle an easy general election win. The primary result has clearly changed that calculation if it was ever the case.
Now, the race is a madhouse. Videos have surfaced of a much younger and presumably much more naive Christine O'Donnell speaking out against everything from masturbation to evolution, admitting to associating with "witches", and declaring that mice were being bred with human brains. Coons authored a paper in college in which he admitted to being a "bearded Marxist" and Harry Reid has said Coons is his "pet".
Given the anti-incumbent mood and Harry Reid's complete lack of popularity, I have NO idea why he would think it's a good political strategy to refer to anyone he wants to have any success in an election in so disrespectful and domineering a fashion as to call them his "pet". Nevertheless, this is not something Coons said himself but something a clearly out-of-touch politician said about him. It also turns out that Marx himself had a beard so qualifying any "Marxist" as bearded may be redundant!
All of this is terribly exciting, but you'll notice the one thing that has not come up yet in this elaborate discussion of the Delaware US Senate election is anything issue related of any kind. Members of the O'Donnell campaign are bragging that they will soon "come out of the gate swinging" to "portray her opponent...as a Marxist elitist" while the Democratic machine has come out in force using O'Donnell as a foil to raise money across the country in light of these 10-15 year old videos.
Lost in all the name calling are the issues important to the people of Delaware and any coherent presentation of how either candidate will defend the Constitutional rights of Delaware and its citizens from Washington. I may only be speaking for myself, but I don't much care what Chris Coons wrote in college. I'd be surprised if anything I wrote in college still existed outside a few rotting pages in a landfill somewhere. I've also met Christine O'Donnell in person and heard her express support for libertarian-Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky as well as endorsing state sovereignty with respect to the "War on Drugs". These positions do not seem to align with the expressed views of the anti-masturbation evolution doubter from these videos. I also don't see anything wrong with exploring other religions whether it's Buddhism, Wicca, Sikhism, or Atheism.
Therefore this history does not concern me. What concerns me is that both candidates are trying to manipulate me with name calling and cheap attacks. What concerns me is that neither candidate is talking about the importance of holding the Federal government accountable to its Constitutional boundaries. What concerns me is that while the media has a feeding frenzy over all of this nonsense, the one serious candidate in the election who is not trying to manipulate me and is advocating the Constitution above any partisan agenda is being ignored and excluded from "non-partisan" debates. I am fortunate to know Jim Rash and my direct involvement in Delaware's electoral politics has made me keenly aware of his candidacy for the Delaware US Senate seat and the principles he advocates.
While the Democratic and Republican candidates tear each other down and appeal to the most extreme elements of their base, I hope that all OTHER Delawareans will join me in voting for Jim Rash and show the incumbent parties that we are tired of bickering, name calling, and mindless partisanship.
www.jimrash.com
Democratic candidate Chris Coons did not have a primary challenger. The Delaware state GOP's endorsement of Mike Castle was supposed to be enough to make Castle a shoo-in for the Republican nomination, and there was widespread speculation that Coons was a sacrificial lamb to allow Castle an easy general election win. The primary result has clearly changed that calculation if it was ever the case.
Now, the race is a madhouse. Videos have surfaced of a much younger and presumably much more naive Christine O'Donnell speaking out against everything from masturbation to evolution, admitting to associating with "witches", and declaring that mice were being bred with human brains. Coons authored a paper in college in which he admitted to being a "bearded Marxist" and Harry Reid has said Coons is his "pet".
Given the anti-incumbent mood and Harry Reid's complete lack of popularity, I have NO idea why he would think it's a good political strategy to refer to anyone he wants to have any success in an election in so disrespectful and domineering a fashion as to call them his "pet". Nevertheless, this is not something Coons said himself but something a clearly out-of-touch politician said about him. It also turns out that Marx himself had a beard so qualifying any "Marxist" as bearded may be redundant!
All of this is terribly exciting, but you'll notice the one thing that has not come up yet in this elaborate discussion of the Delaware US Senate election is anything issue related of any kind. Members of the O'Donnell campaign are bragging that they will soon "come out of the gate swinging" to "portray her opponent...as a Marxist elitist" while the Democratic machine has come out in force using O'Donnell as a foil to raise money across the country in light of these 10-15 year old videos.
Lost in all the name calling are the issues important to the people of Delaware and any coherent presentation of how either candidate will defend the Constitutional rights of Delaware and its citizens from Washington. I may only be speaking for myself, but I don't much care what Chris Coons wrote in college. I'd be surprised if anything I wrote in college still existed outside a few rotting pages in a landfill somewhere. I've also met Christine O'Donnell in person and heard her express support for libertarian-Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky as well as endorsing state sovereignty with respect to the "War on Drugs". These positions do not seem to align with the expressed views of the anti-masturbation evolution doubter from these videos. I also don't see anything wrong with exploring other religions whether it's Buddhism, Wicca, Sikhism, or Atheism.
Therefore this history does not concern me. What concerns me is that both candidates are trying to manipulate me with name calling and cheap attacks. What concerns me is that neither candidate is talking about the importance of holding the Federal government accountable to its Constitutional boundaries. What concerns me is that while the media has a feeding frenzy over all of this nonsense, the one serious candidate in the election who is not trying to manipulate me and is advocating the Constitution above any partisan agenda is being ignored and excluded from "non-partisan" debates. I am fortunate to know Jim Rash and my direct involvement in Delaware's electoral politics has made me keenly aware of his candidacy for the Delaware US Senate seat and the principles he advocates.
While the Democratic and Republican candidates tear each other down and appeal to the most extreme elements of their base, I hope that all OTHER Delawareans will join me in voting for Jim Rash and show the incumbent parties that we are tired of bickering, name calling, and mindless partisanship.
www.jimrash.com
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Spoilers and Wasted Votes
So often on the campaign trail, voters sympathize with my message and agree with the policies I would advocate from the state legislature if I am elected, but they insist that a Libertarian candidate cannot win and alternative party candidates merely act as "spoilers" for the D/R incumbent party politicians.
The premise is that there are only two sides to any one issue, that there is a fixed number of people who will vote, and this election is the only election that matters.
I'm very tired of hearing this. I'm very tired of voters in a free country giving up and voting for a candidate they don't fully support because they don't think the candidate they do support can win. Let me tell you why.
Most importantly, Libertarians are not Ross Perot. We are not Ralph Nader.
Libertarians are most simplistically described as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. This means that Libertarian politicians can appeal to both Republicans AND Democrats. We are against big government. We are against increased taxes. We are against heavy-handed regulations. We are ALSO anti-war, anti-discrimination, against corporate welfare, and against subsidizing the tyranny of the many foreign governments the US Government props up with your tax dollars. We have a genuine "bipartisan" appeal.
Here's the other big difference. We MEAN it. Republicans campaign on smaller government and lower taxes. Some taxes are reduced, many of which benefit the super-rich more than the average taxpayer. Government, however, is ALWAYS expanded. Even Ronald Reagan, the exemplar of conservative values, grew government and the federal deficit while he was president. A Republican president, George W. Bush, passed TARP and began the auto bailouts. A Republican congress passed Medicare Part D. Republicans say one thing...and do another.
The same is true of Democrats. They campaign on ending the war, ending discrimination against homosexuals and immigrants, and protecting the environment. Once elected, the wars continue, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not repealed, civil unions are not encouraged, and immigration issues are left to fester. The environment becomes an excuse for a massive subsidy to financial institutions through opaque and ridiculous schemes like "Cap 'n' Trade" which do very little to address the very real environmental concerns citizens face.
Libertarians have an instinctual abhorrence of government. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." SOME Libertarians will take that to the extreme and demand privatization of police and roads. Most just aim to stop digging the big-government, big-spending hole we've dug for ourselves and begin moving the country in the opposite direction towards more freedom and smaller government. Not only will we reduce taxes, we will spread the burden equitably to ensure that every voter is also a taxpayer with a stake in the size and influence of government. We won't just campaign on eliminating wasteful government programs. We will vote, alone if necessary, to eliminate these programs and others not in conformance with the US or state constitutions. We won't just campaign on ending discrimination, we will vote, alone if necessary, to end it in a responsible way. We don't just campaign on ending the wars. We VOTE for ending the wars.
The point of all this is that many voters are so disgusted with the grandstanding, exaggerations, and outright lies of the incumbent parties that they have given up on the political process. Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, they turn their back on evil all together and don't encourage either of them with their vote. This means that by offering a principled alternative to the D/R monopoly, we can mobilize voters that would otherwise stay home. I am a perfect example of this. I did not vote in the general election of 2008 for president. I did not believe Obama was genuine in his campaign for a "post-partisan" future. I don't think he really understood why "small government" was important. I voted for him in the Democratic primary because Hillary Clinton didn't even go through the motions, but I did not follow through in the general election. I tried to defend John McCain as a small-government conservative because he refused to jump headfirst into the culture wars of the Republican Party. I gave up when he expressed his support for TARP and the Federal government's actions to artificially prop up the housing bubble. His support for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech through the McCain-Feingold Act were another sore spot.
If Libertarian candidate Brent Wangen were not running for the US House of Representatives, I would not vote in that election either. The Democratic and Republican candidates for that position are both big-government, unprincipled party hacks that I have no interest in encouraging. The Libertarian Party has the ability to bring the 60-70% of Americans who don't bother to vote out to the polls, because we offer a clear alternative to the failed policies of the "left" and the "right", and we don't have an elaborate party machine that we REALLY have to answer to once the campaign is over. We only have our conscience, and our constituents.
Finally, even if we don't win, many of the debate venues adhere to an arbitrary standard that any candidate whose party did not receive at least 10% of the vote cannot participate. This is a self-perpetuating cycle whereby no one votes for Libertarians because they've never heard of us, and they've never heard of us because no one votes for us. Voting for a Libertarian, even if the candidate loses, has the potential push our candidates past that 10% threshold. Once that happens, there aren't any more excuses for excluding our legitimate candidates from the debate and the D/R incumbents will have to answer for their intrusive, big-government agendas. These votes also demonstrate a constituency concerned with protecting liberty that will influence the incumbent parties to reshape their message and their organization so they can mobilize those votes for themselves.
Vote Libertarian. It is not a wasted vote, and we are not spoilers. We can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. We mobilize voters too disgusted with either incumbent party to encourage them. Even a losing Libertarian campaign can shape future elections. Vote Libertarian, and make a difference.
The premise is that there are only two sides to any one issue, that there is a fixed number of people who will vote, and this election is the only election that matters.
I'm very tired of hearing this. I'm very tired of voters in a free country giving up and voting for a candidate they don't fully support because they don't think the candidate they do support can win. Let me tell you why.
Most importantly, Libertarians are not Ross Perot. We are not Ralph Nader.
Libertarians are most simplistically described as fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. This means that Libertarian politicians can appeal to both Republicans AND Democrats. We are against big government. We are against increased taxes. We are against heavy-handed regulations. We are ALSO anti-war, anti-discrimination, against corporate welfare, and against subsidizing the tyranny of the many foreign governments the US Government props up with your tax dollars. We have a genuine "bipartisan" appeal.
Here's the other big difference. We MEAN it. Republicans campaign on smaller government and lower taxes. Some taxes are reduced, many of which benefit the super-rich more than the average taxpayer. Government, however, is ALWAYS expanded. Even Ronald Reagan, the exemplar of conservative values, grew government and the federal deficit while he was president. A Republican president, George W. Bush, passed TARP and began the auto bailouts. A Republican congress passed Medicare Part D. Republicans say one thing...and do another.
The same is true of Democrats. They campaign on ending the war, ending discrimination against homosexuals and immigrants, and protecting the environment. Once elected, the wars continue, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not repealed, civil unions are not encouraged, and immigration issues are left to fester. The environment becomes an excuse for a massive subsidy to financial institutions through opaque and ridiculous schemes like "Cap 'n' Trade" which do very little to address the very real environmental concerns citizens face.
Libertarians have an instinctual abhorrence of government. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." SOME Libertarians will take that to the extreme and demand privatization of police and roads. Most just aim to stop digging the big-government, big-spending hole we've dug for ourselves and begin moving the country in the opposite direction towards more freedom and smaller government. Not only will we reduce taxes, we will spread the burden equitably to ensure that every voter is also a taxpayer with a stake in the size and influence of government. We won't just campaign on eliminating wasteful government programs. We will vote, alone if necessary, to eliminate these programs and others not in conformance with the US or state constitutions. We won't just campaign on ending discrimination, we will vote, alone if necessary, to end it in a responsible way. We don't just campaign on ending the wars. We VOTE for ending the wars.
The point of all this is that many voters are so disgusted with the grandstanding, exaggerations, and outright lies of the incumbent parties that they have given up on the political process. Rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, they turn their back on evil all together and don't encourage either of them with their vote. This means that by offering a principled alternative to the D/R monopoly, we can mobilize voters that would otherwise stay home. I am a perfect example of this. I did not vote in the general election of 2008 for president. I did not believe Obama was genuine in his campaign for a "post-partisan" future. I don't think he really understood why "small government" was important. I voted for him in the Democratic primary because Hillary Clinton didn't even go through the motions, but I did not follow through in the general election. I tried to defend John McCain as a small-government conservative because he refused to jump headfirst into the culture wars of the Republican Party. I gave up when he expressed his support for TARP and the Federal government's actions to artificially prop up the housing bubble. His support for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech through the McCain-Feingold Act were another sore spot.
If Libertarian candidate Brent Wangen were not running for the US House of Representatives, I would not vote in that election either. The Democratic and Republican candidates for that position are both big-government, unprincipled party hacks that I have no interest in encouraging. The Libertarian Party has the ability to bring the 60-70% of Americans who don't bother to vote out to the polls, because we offer a clear alternative to the failed policies of the "left" and the "right", and we don't have an elaborate party machine that we REALLY have to answer to once the campaign is over. We only have our conscience, and our constituents.
Finally, even if we don't win, many of the debate venues adhere to an arbitrary standard that any candidate whose party did not receive at least 10% of the vote cannot participate. This is a self-perpetuating cycle whereby no one votes for Libertarians because they've never heard of us, and they've never heard of us because no one votes for us. Voting for a Libertarian, even if the candidate loses, has the potential push our candidates past that 10% threshold. Once that happens, there aren't any more excuses for excluding our legitimate candidates from the debate and the D/R incumbents will have to answer for their intrusive, big-government agendas. These votes also demonstrate a constituency concerned with protecting liberty that will influence the incumbent parties to reshape their message and their organization so they can mobilize those votes for themselves.
Vote Libertarian. It is not a wasted vote, and we are not spoilers. We can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. We mobilize voters too disgusted with either incumbent party to encourage them. Even a losing Libertarian campaign can shape future elections. Vote Libertarian, and make a difference.
Monday, September 20, 2010
So About That Update...
Based on President Obama's eagerness to insert himself in the debate over the Cordoba Initiative mosque near Ground Zero, I had planned to write a piece detailing my thoughts on this issue. I reconsidered based on the fact that Obama has no business involving himself in this debate, and neither do I. This is an issue for New York and New York City to handle. I do think that we need to hurry up and rebuild something on Ground Zero itself that will dwarf anything Imam Rauf could build.
That's all I really want to say on that subject. I hope New York and New York City is able to resolve this in a manner amenable to their sensitivities, even if they conflict with those of their respective governments'.
I AM posting an update now though on a few different topics.
Obviously, the primaries in Delaware are over. Due to circumstances which have been detailed in previous posts, I was not a candidate in either primary despite the right of Delaware party members to nominate a candidate of their choosing. Luckily, I am still the nominated Libertarian Party candidate and I have been privileged to receive the nomination of the Independent Party of Delaware as well. Whatever Judge Vaughn may think, it is clear that a candidate can have at least two parties...as long as the Democratic/Republican monopoly parties aren't one of them...
The point is that I'm still on the ballot, I'm still in the race, I'm still campaigning, and with your help I can still win.
For what it's worth, I am also continuing to work with Libertarian US House of Representatives candidate Brent Wangen through the Delaware Supreme Court to clarify the law for the future. Clearly it is too late for the party members in Delaware to select Brent or myself as their nominee, but with a little luck and the cooperation of the Delaware Supreme Court, that is an option that they will have next election cycle.
The Superior Court hearing for this case demonstrated the true character of the incumbent party organizations. The Democratic and Republican party leadership came together without hesitation to guarantee that their membership can only select their favored choices. The Republican Party did a phenomenal job of further emphasizing that true character in their constant slams on Christine O'Donnell. They could not find a way to manipulate the law into removing her from the ballot, but they were both capable and willing of going on record trashing one of their primary candidates, who is now their nominee. The voters of the Republican Party saw through the sham erected by their party leaders and chose the better candidate. I would have preferred for Jim Rash to have the honor of ending Mike Castle's political career, but at least someone did.
That hasn't ended the ire of the Republican Party. Even now, after Ms. O'Donnell has WON the primary and is the official nominee of the Republican Party. Mike Castle is still refusing to endorse her. Tom Ross, the Delaware Republican Party's state chair, has offered lukewarm support at best after previously saying that she "could not be elected dogcatcher". While Delaware does not elect its dogcatchers and Tom Ross may yet be proven right regarding Ms. O'Donnell's candidacy for the US Senate, she is the Republican nominee and the Republican party should support her or shut up. Anything else is not serving the will of the members who elected her as their nominee in the primary. Karl Rove and other national figures have also jumped on that bandwagon. The National Republican Senate Committee has made the maximum donation to her campaign and offered this lukewarm endorsement of her candidacy.
Finally, these topics and others were discussed on the new BlogTalkRadio show I am hosting. We've done two episodes so far and look forward to continue broadcasting each Monday at 6pm eastern time. I have other stuff to do so I may occasionally have to cancel an episode or reschedule, but this website or my Facebook page should carry updates when necessary.
I'm still attending political events, especially Libertarian Party events. If you want to meet me, ask me questions, or just berate me (hopefully you don't!) please come out and find me at these events, call into the show next week, call or email me directly...anything!
Thanks for reading!
That's all I really want to say on that subject. I hope New York and New York City is able to resolve this in a manner amenable to their sensitivities, even if they conflict with those of their respective governments'.
I AM posting an update now though on a few different topics.
Obviously, the primaries in Delaware are over. Due to circumstances which have been detailed in previous posts, I was not a candidate in either primary despite the right of Delaware party members to nominate a candidate of their choosing. Luckily, I am still the nominated Libertarian Party candidate and I have been privileged to receive the nomination of the Independent Party of Delaware as well. Whatever Judge Vaughn may think, it is clear that a candidate can have at least two parties...as long as the Democratic/Republican monopoly parties aren't one of them...
The point is that I'm still on the ballot, I'm still in the race, I'm still campaigning, and with your help I can still win.
For what it's worth, I am also continuing to work with Libertarian US House of Representatives candidate Brent Wangen through the Delaware Supreme Court to clarify the law for the future. Clearly it is too late for the party members in Delaware to select Brent or myself as their nominee, but with a little luck and the cooperation of the Delaware Supreme Court, that is an option that they will have next election cycle.
The Superior Court hearing for this case demonstrated the true character of the incumbent party organizations. The Democratic and Republican party leadership came together without hesitation to guarantee that their membership can only select their favored choices. The Republican Party did a phenomenal job of further emphasizing that true character in their constant slams on Christine O'Donnell. They could not find a way to manipulate the law into removing her from the ballot, but they were both capable and willing of going on record trashing one of their primary candidates, who is now their nominee. The voters of the Republican Party saw through the sham erected by their party leaders and chose the better candidate. I would have preferred for Jim Rash to have the honor of ending Mike Castle's political career, but at least someone did.
That hasn't ended the ire of the Republican Party. Even now, after Ms. O'Donnell has WON the primary and is the official nominee of the Republican Party. Mike Castle is still refusing to endorse her. Tom Ross, the Delaware Republican Party's state chair, has offered lukewarm support at best after previously saying that she "could not be elected dogcatcher". While Delaware does not elect its dogcatchers and Tom Ross may yet be proven right regarding Ms. O'Donnell's candidacy for the US Senate, she is the Republican nominee and the Republican party should support her or shut up. Anything else is not serving the will of the members who elected her as their nominee in the primary. Karl Rove and other national figures have also jumped on that bandwagon. The National Republican Senate Committee has made the maximum donation to her campaign and offered this lukewarm endorsement of her candidacy.
Finally, these topics and others were discussed on the new BlogTalkRadio show I am hosting. We've done two episodes so far and look forward to continue broadcasting each Monday at 6pm eastern time. I have other stuff to do so I may occasionally have to cancel an episode or reschedule, but this website or my Facebook page should carry updates when necessary.
I'm still attending political events, especially Libertarian Party events. If you want to meet me, ask me questions, or just berate me (hopefully you don't!) please come out and find me at these events, call into the show next week, call or email me directly...anything!
Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Updates, Updates, Updates...
I may have been removed from the D/R primary ballots, but I am STILL ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. The incumbent parties may want to deny their members a choice with respect to who they nominate, but they cannot deny the voters of Delaware a choice for the US House of Representative, or the 32nd District a choice for who will represent them in the State House of Representatives. I encourage all Delaware voters to vote for alternative party candidates and send BOTH incumbent parties a message.
In the meantime, Brent Wangen and I are continuing to fight for the rights of all parties and their members. We have filed a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court, contesting the Superior Court ruling that a candidate may only have "One Party". We recognize that a voter may only belong to one party, but we believe that one voter should be free to nominate a candidate from any party as long as they follow the statutory process for selecting that nominee, whether it be a convention or a primary.
To force this issue, I have sought and received the nominations of both the Independent Party of Delaware and the Constitution Party of Delaware. Unfortunately, the Constitution Party is still short of the required number of registered members to appear on the ballot, but I dared the State of Delaware to tell either of these proud parties who they could or could not nominate, and they seem to have backed down because I am currently listed as both the Independent and Libertarian candidate for the 32nd District race.
I'd ask why it's OK for the IPoD and not for the D/R monopoly, but I already know the answer.
Keep attending political events around Delaware, and you're sure to spot me. Keep checking this website, because I'm already planning another update which I hope I will get posted before the weekend. Thanks!
In the meantime, Brent Wangen and I are continuing to fight for the rights of all parties and their members. We have filed a notice of appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court, contesting the Superior Court ruling that a candidate may only have "One Party". We recognize that a voter may only belong to one party, but we believe that one voter should be free to nominate a candidate from any party as long as they follow the statutory process for selecting that nominee, whether it be a convention or a primary.
To force this issue, I have sought and received the nominations of both the Independent Party of Delaware and the Constitution Party of Delaware. Unfortunately, the Constitution Party is still short of the required number of registered members to appear on the ballot, but I dared the State of Delaware to tell either of these proud parties who they could or could not nominate, and they seem to have backed down because I am currently listed as both the Independent and Libertarian candidate for the 32nd District race.
I'd ask why it's OK for the IPoD and not for the D/R monopoly, but I already know the answer.
Keep attending political events around Delaware, and you're sure to spot me. Keep checking this website, because I'm already planning another update which I hope I will get posted before the weekend. Thanks!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
End of Fusion?
Following the Superior Court ruling in my recent action, the judge's opinion seems to indicate that any candidate for any political office can have only one party. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will be the end of fusion candidacies in Delaware and will force the members of every political party to limit their nominations to members of their own party, regardless of their preferences. This action is as big of a threat to the so-called "minor" parties as HB245, which increased the required number of registered voters to double the previous requirement for ballot access.
We believe that this opinion is deeply flawed as Delaware has historically allowed fusion candidacies. A number of examples were cited in our arguments, just from 2008. The difference in this case is that this time the candidates of a minor party attempted to fuse with one of the major parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans filed motions to intervene in our case, jointly. Just when you thought the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on anything, they have demonstrated that they do very much agree on continuing their monopoly on political power in the State of Delaware.
This cannot be allowed to stand.
We are in the process of reaching out to all of the other parties in the State of Delaware and encouraging them to support an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and have this decision overturned. If you are interested in helping, please contact me via email at mcvay.will@gmail.com. We are also seeking and accepting donations to help cover our filing fees in the Supreme Court, which amount to $480. I will periodically update this posting to reflect the remaining funds yet to be raised.
Please help support the freedom of members of all parties to nominate a candidate of their choice instead of allowing the established two-party committees to remove candidates from their primary ballot through the rulings of an activist judge.
We believe that this opinion is deeply flawed as Delaware has historically allowed fusion candidacies. A number of examples were cited in our arguments, just from 2008. The difference in this case is that this time the candidates of a minor party attempted to fuse with one of the major parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans filed motions to intervene in our case, jointly. Just when you thought the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on anything, they have demonstrated that they do very much agree on continuing their monopoly on political power in the State of Delaware.
This cannot be allowed to stand.
We are in the process of reaching out to all of the other parties in the State of Delaware and encouraging them to support an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and have this decision overturned. If you are interested in helping, please contact me via email at mcvay.will@gmail.com. We are also seeking and accepting donations to help cover our filing fees in the Supreme Court, which amount to $480. I will periodically update this posting to reflect the remaining funds yet to be raised.
Please help support the freedom of members of all parties to nominate a candidate of their choice instead of allowing the established two-party committees to remove candidates from their primary ballot through the rulings of an activist judge.
Arguments Before the Court
Thank you your honor.
First, I’d like to apologize to the court for the emergency nature of my petition filing, but as you are aware, there is a deadline to be met for the printing and mailing of absentee ballots in the upcoming primary election. This means that the matter takes on some added urgency if a favorable finding from your honor is to offer any real redress.
I filed for the Republican and Democratic primaries on the 6th of July, almost two weeks ago, and a full week prior to the filing deadline. Despite this, I only became aware of my removal from the ballot last Wednesday thanks to the media and the newspaper articles published on the subject. While the Department of Elections did send a certified letter informing me of this development, it did not arrive until well after I had filed with the Chancery Court and about an hour before that hearing was scheduled. Luckily I followed up on the media reports and contacted the Department of Elections and the State Attorney General’s office on my own. I shudder to think of what the result would have been if I had not taken the initiative and instead relied upon the State of Delaware to act in a timely manner in so grave a situation.
I also apologize to this court for the amateur manner in which my case is being presented. Neither my campaign nor the Libertarian Party has the resources to hire a team of attorneys to represent our interests, so I have no option but to represent myself. I am not an attorney, I am a software engineer. I’ve seen lawyers in the movies, so I think I can at least make a credible and coherent enough case in real life. Clearly the attorneys presenting on behalf of the defendant leave me outgunned.
I am a registered Libertarian, and I am active in the Libertarian Party’s small but growing organization. I have made no secret of this fact and declare it with the utmost pride. I have been duly nominated by the Kent County and Delaware State Libertarian Parties to contest the 32nd District Representative election. I believe that the libertarian message has great appeal beyond what our limited registration numbers suggest. I believe that this appeal resonates not just with independent and unaffiliated voters, but also with members of the public who have registered with the Democratic and Republican parties, whether they have done so out of genuine affection for those parties or simply to participate in the State of Delaware’s closed primary system.
In consideration of this appeal, I filed to contest the Democratic and Republican primary elections, which were otherwise uncontested. I filed the appropriate forms and delivered the appropriate payments to the Kent County Department of Election. Copies of these filings have been filed with the court as Exhibit A. Following these filings, the Defendant included me on a list of primary election candidates available through their website. They also removed the Democratic and Republican party-endorsed candidates in these primaries from the general election listing which they had been previously entitled to as uncontested nominees.
Over a week after these events, I learned through the media that my filings had now been rejected and that a letter from the Department of Elections had been sent. This letter has been presented to the court as Exhibit B.
In this letter, the defendant admits to acting at the behest of the Democratic and Republican Party committees. The defendant cites the parties’ assertion that I was not and have never been “affiliated” with their parties. The first paragraph of the letter was devoted solely to this purpose. The remainder of the letter indicated that due to my lack of “affiliation” I was therefore ineligible to contest their primary.
Their assertion that I am not and was never “affiliated” with these parties is patently false, as I have not only been registered as a member of both of these parties in the past, but I have also worked extensively with candidates from both parties, attended meetings organized by both parties, and conducted comprehensive outreach via electronic media to the voters represented by both parties. The parties’ assertion, despite its falsehood, is nevertheless irrelevant.
There is no supporting language in the applicable chapters of the Delaware State Code indicating that a candidate in the primary elections must be “affiliated” or registered to the party whose primary the candidate is contesting. In the Delaware Superior Court case, which I will be referring to often, of the Democratic Party of the State of Delaware v. the Department of Elections of New Castle County, et al., No. 94C-08-227, the Honorable Judge Henry DuPont Ridgely ruled that a candidate’s party registration was not relevant to the primaries in which they can participate. He wrote in his opinion under section IV, “Nowhere in these statutes is there any explicit requirement that a candidate be registered to vote in the party for whose nomination he or she seeks.” Furthermore, Judge Ridgely found that, “The right of a person to be a candidate for public office is a fundamental one that should be restricted only by clear constitutional or statutory language.” He goes on to quote an earlier ruling stating, “[A]ny question or doubts of eligibility of a candidate should be resolved in favor of the candidate.” Most importantly, Judge Ridgely states unequivocally that, “Under Delaware’s present statutory scheme, it is for the eligible voters of a party to ultimately decide whether the candidate should be the nominee of their political party notwithstanding her present registration…” That is all I am asking this court to do, to ensure that the party members of the 32nd District are given the opportunity to select their own nominee without interference from the party machines.
The defendant’s defense will no doubt rely a great deal on a sixteen year old 1994 Attorney General’s opinion, written in part by this defendant’s attorney, picking apart the language in Chapter 31 of Title 15 and finding a new excuse to exclude candidates, after the aforementioned court case, decided only weeks earlier, destroyed their original excuse.
Much is made of the use of the singular case when referring to a “political party” vs. “political parties”. The AG’s opinion uses this out-of-context citation to make an unsupported leap of logic in asserting that a candidate may only run as the nominee of a single party. Not only is this assertion another attempt to, again in the words of Judge Ridgely, “read words into the statute restricting candidacy which are not there,” but this facet of the AG’s opinion has been repeatedly and conveniently ignored in the recent past by the numerous other fusion candidates presented to the voters of Delaware under multiple parties’ nominations. These candidates include, from the Department of Elections own website listing election results, just for 2008, Karen Weldin Stewart of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for Insurance Commissioner, Tyler Patrick Nixon of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, Dennis E. Williams of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Terry R. Spence of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Jesse Priester IV of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, William A. Oberle Jr. of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Vincent A. Lofink of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, and Jerry L. Semper of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative. JUST IN 2008! Granted these candidates were registered to the major parties and then sought the support of the smaller parties, but that is due to the statutory differences in the mechanism for selecting nominees in each party. Is the defendant asserting that a fusion candidacy is only legal if the major parties are using the good name of the minor parties, but not if a minor party is trying to influence the direction of a major party? Is this double-standard supported by the law? I have certainly not seen it, and it is not the role of the State to play favorites and defend the major parties from their own members.
Not only does this new excuse fail to pass statutory muster, but the AG’s opinion furthermore conflicts directly with the ruling of Judge Ridgely by again raising the issue of, “their respective political party.” The AG’s opinion asserts that the phrase refers to the candidates registered party rather than the party whose primary they are contesting. Judge Ridgely’s words are again prescient when he declares in part IV, “the references to the candidate’s respective political party in §3106 merely mean the party the candidate has identified as her own on the Notice of Candidacy.”
The remainder of this opinion continues to focus on the issue of party affiliation with respect to the specific question presented to the Attorney General’s office in 1994, and has no bearing on the language included in the law or the interpretation in Judge Ridgely’s opinion. The AG’s entire opinion brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare’s MacBeth in that, “It is a tale…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The defendant may also argue that allowing a Libertarian to participate in the primaries will create “confusion” or “chaos”. Due to my clear identification as a Libertarian and proud declaration as such to anyone who will listen, this argument is insulting to the intelligence of 32nd District voters. What they really mean is that it will create “chaos” and “confusion” within the party organizations as they may nominate a candidate who does not answer to them, but instead answers to the candidate’s own constituents. It is not the responsibility of the state to protect the established interests of any political party. Are they not satisfied to have more money, more lawyers, more name recognition, a longer history, and a state sponsored primary process? Have they so little faith in their chosen candidates that they cannot allow an outsider to ask their membership for a nomination? I recognize that I have a disadvantage not only in the general election as a Libertarian, but also in each party’s primary. What motivates the major parties to fight such an insignificant threat, rather than simply accepting a significant filing fee, enjoying the additional funds, and laughing at my expense, all the way to the bank?
When considering the meaning of any law, and Chapter 31 of Title 15 included, it is important to consider legislative intent. There could also be an argument, that whatever the precise language of Title 15, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware did not intend to enable fusion candidacies in drafting Title 15. Not only does Judge Ridgely again offer a relevant opinion, namely that, “If public policy arguments favor a different statutory scheme, that is a decision for the General Assembly, not this Court,” but the General Assembly did in fact consider a different statutory scheme when it considered HB177 under the 144th General Assembly in 2007. Under HB177, Chapter 31 and Chapter 33 of Title 15 would have been amended to require that no candidate be nominated by any party unless the candidate was a registered member in that same party. The synopsis of HB177 also declared that the explicit purpose of the bill was to abolish fusion candidacies. The fact that this bill was introduced indicates recognition by the General Assembly that fusion candidacies were legal, and the fact that this bill was defeated indicates a legislative intent to maintain the option of fusion candidacies in the future.
Your honor, the decision by the defendant to remove my name from the primary ballot and reject my Candidate Filing Form is not supported by the applicable statutory law, or the case law. Instead it is supported only by the opinion of a Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General is a partisan political position, and based on the admission of the defendant in her letter presented as Exhibit B, I was only removed from the ballot following identical complaints from the Democratic and Republican establishments, despite meeting the statutory requirements. They expressed their willingness to take this issue to court. I wish they had. Instead, the Attorney General’s office bent to the will of the major parties rather than following the letter, spirit, and established precedent of the law. In doing so they gave compromised legal direction to the Department of Elections.
To paraphrase Judge Ridgely, it isn’t the role of the court to substitute its opinion, or the Attorney General’s opinion, for that of the General Assembly. I firmly believe that the sovereign authority of the State of Delaware should not be compromised by coercive threats of legal action from establishment interests. It is the role of the State to protect all citizens equally before the law. That the major parties need only threaten legal action when I must take legal action demonstrates that the State of Delaware, and specifically the Attorney General’s office, responsible for providing unbiased legal opinions to the Department of Elections, answers to special interests before it answers to the rule of law and the people of Delaware.
First, I’d like to apologize to the court for the emergency nature of my petition filing, but as you are aware, there is a deadline to be met for the printing and mailing of absentee ballots in the upcoming primary election. This means that the matter takes on some added urgency if a favorable finding from your honor is to offer any real redress.
I filed for the Republican and Democratic primaries on the 6th of July, almost two weeks ago, and a full week prior to the filing deadline. Despite this, I only became aware of my removal from the ballot last Wednesday thanks to the media and the newspaper articles published on the subject. While the Department of Elections did send a certified letter informing me of this development, it did not arrive until well after I had filed with the Chancery Court and about an hour before that hearing was scheduled. Luckily I followed up on the media reports and contacted the Department of Elections and the State Attorney General’s office on my own. I shudder to think of what the result would have been if I had not taken the initiative and instead relied upon the State of Delaware to act in a timely manner in so grave a situation.
I also apologize to this court for the amateur manner in which my case is being presented. Neither my campaign nor the Libertarian Party has the resources to hire a team of attorneys to represent our interests, so I have no option but to represent myself. I am not an attorney, I am a software engineer. I’ve seen lawyers in the movies, so I think I can at least make a credible and coherent enough case in real life. Clearly the attorneys presenting on behalf of the defendant leave me outgunned.
I am a registered Libertarian, and I am active in the Libertarian Party’s small but growing organization. I have made no secret of this fact and declare it with the utmost pride. I have been duly nominated by the Kent County and Delaware State Libertarian Parties to contest the 32nd District Representative election. I believe that the libertarian message has great appeal beyond what our limited registration numbers suggest. I believe that this appeal resonates not just with independent and unaffiliated voters, but also with members of the public who have registered with the Democratic and Republican parties, whether they have done so out of genuine affection for those parties or simply to participate in the State of Delaware’s closed primary system.
In consideration of this appeal, I filed to contest the Democratic and Republican primary elections, which were otherwise uncontested. I filed the appropriate forms and delivered the appropriate payments to the Kent County Department of Election. Copies of these filings have been filed with the court as Exhibit A. Following these filings, the Defendant included me on a list of primary election candidates available through their website. They also removed the Democratic and Republican party-endorsed candidates in these primaries from the general election listing which they had been previously entitled to as uncontested nominees.
Over a week after these events, I learned through the media that my filings had now been rejected and that a letter from the Department of Elections had been sent. This letter has been presented to the court as Exhibit B.
In this letter, the defendant admits to acting at the behest of the Democratic and Republican Party committees. The defendant cites the parties’ assertion that I was not and have never been “affiliated” with their parties. The first paragraph of the letter was devoted solely to this purpose. The remainder of the letter indicated that due to my lack of “affiliation” I was therefore ineligible to contest their primary.
Their assertion that I am not and was never “affiliated” with these parties is patently false, as I have not only been registered as a member of both of these parties in the past, but I have also worked extensively with candidates from both parties, attended meetings organized by both parties, and conducted comprehensive outreach via electronic media to the voters represented by both parties. The parties’ assertion, despite its falsehood, is nevertheless irrelevant.
There is no supporting language in the applicable chapters of the Delaware State Code indicating that a candidate in the primary elections must be “affiliated” or registered to the party whose primary the candidate is contesting. In the Delaware Superior Court case, which I will be referring to often, of the Democratic Party of the State of Delaware v. the Department of Elections of New Castle County, et al., No. 94C-08-227, the Honorable Judge Henry DuPont Ridgely ruled that a candidate’s party registration was not relevant to the primaries in which they can participate. He wrote in his opinion under section IV, “Nowhere in these statutes is there any explicit requirement that a candidate be registered to vote in the party for whose nomination he or she seeks.” Furthermore, Judge Ridgely found that, “The right of a person to be a candidate for public office is a fundamental one that should be restricted only by clear constitutional or statutory language.” He goes on to quote an earlier ruling stating, “[A]ny question or doubts of eligibility of a candidate should be resolved in favor of the candidate.” Most importantly, Judge Ridgely states unequivocally that, “Under Delaware’s present statutory scheme, it is for the eligible voters of a party to ultimately decide whether the candidate should be the nominee of their political party notwithstanding her present registration…” That is all I am asking this court to do, to ensure that the party members of the 32nd District are given the opportunity to select their own nominee without interference from the party machines.
The defendant’s defense will no doubt rely a great deal on a sixteen year old 1994 Attorney General’s opinion, written in part by this defendant’s attorney, picking apart the language in Chapter 31 of Title 15 and finding a new excuse to exclude candidates, after the aforementioned court case, decided only weeks earlier, destroyed their original excuse.
Much is made of the use of the singular case when referring to a “political party” vs. “political parties”. The AG’s opinion uses this out-of-context citation to make an unsupported leap of logic in asserting that a candidate may only run as the nominee of a single party. Not only is this assertion another attempt to, again in the words of Judge Ridgely, “read words into the statute restricting candidacy which are not there,” but this facet of the AG’s opinion has been repeatedly and conveniently ignored in the recent past by the numerous other fusion candidates presented to the voters of Delaware under multiple parties’ nominations. These candidates include, from the Department of Elections own website listing election results, just for 2008, Karen Weldin Stewart of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for Insurance Commissioner, Tyler Patrick Nixon of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, Dennis E. Williams of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Terry R. Spence of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Jesse Priester IV of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, William A. Oberle Jr. of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Vincent A. Lofink of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, and Jerry L. Semper of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative. JUST IN 2008! Granted these candidates were registered to the major parties and then sought the support of the smaller parties, but that is due to the statutory differences in the mechanism for selecting nominees in each party. Is the defendant asserting that a fusion candidacy is only legal if the major parties are using the good name of the minor parties, but not if a minor party is trying to influence the direction of a major party? Is this double-standard supported by the law? I have certainly not seen it, and it is not the role of the State to play favorites and defend the major parties from their own members.
Not only does this new excuse fail to pass statutory muster, but the AG’s opinion furthermore conflicts directly with the ruling of Judge Ridgely by again raising the issue of, “their respective political party.” The AG’s opinion asserts that the phrase refers to the candidates registered party rather than the party whose primary they are contesting. Judge Ridgely’s words are again prescient when he declares in part IV, “the references to the candidate’s respective political party in §3106 merely mean the party the candidate has identified as her own on the Notice of Candidacy.”
The remainder of this opinion continues to focus on the issue of party affiliation with respect to the specific question presented to the Attorney General’s office in 1994, and has no bearing on the language included in the law or the interpretation in Judge Ridgely’s opinion. The AG’s entire opinion brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare’s MacBeth in that, “It is a tale…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The defendant may also argue that allowing a Libertarian to participate in the primaries will create “confusion” or “chaos”. Due to my clear identification as a Libertarian and proud declaration as such to anyone who will listen, this argument is insulting to the intelligence of 32nd District voters. What they really mean is that it will create “chaos” and “confusion” within the party organizations as they may nominate a candidate who does not answer to them, but instead answers to the candidate’s own constituents. It is not the responsibility of the state to protect the established interests of any political party. Are they not satisfied to have more money, more lawyers, more name recognition, a longer history, and a state sponsored primary process? Have they so little faith in their chosen candidates that they cannot allow an outsider to ask their membership for a nomination? I recognize that I have a disadvantage not only in the general election as a Libertarian, but also in each party’s primary. What motivates the major parties to fight such an insignificant threat, rather than simply accepting a significant filing fee, enjoying the additional funds, and laughing at my expense, all the way to the bank?
When considering the meaning of any law, and Chapter 31 of Title 15 included, it is important to consider legislative intent. There could also be an argument, that whatever the precise language of Title 15, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware did not intend to enable fusion candidacies in drafting Title 15. Not only does Judge Ridgely again offer a relevant opinion, namely that, “If public policy arguments favor a different statutory scheme, that is a decision for the General Assembly, not this Court,” but the General Assembly did in fact consider a different statutory scheme when it considered HB177 under the 144th General Assembly in 2007. Under HB177, Chapter 31 and Chapter 33 of Title 15 would have been amended to require that no candidate be nominated by any party unless the candidate was a registered member in that same party. The synopsis of HB177 also declared that the explicit purpose of the bill was to abolish fusion candidacies. The fact that this bill was introduced indicates recognition by the General Assembly that fusion candidacies were legal, and the fact that this bill was defeated indicates a legislative intent to maintain the option of fusion candidacies in the future.
Your honor, the decision by the defendant to remove my name from the primary ballot and reject my Candidate Filing Form is not supported by the applicable statutory law, or the case law. Instead it is supported only by the opinion of a Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General is a partisan political position, and based on the admission of the defendant in her letter presented as Exhibit B, I was only removed from the ballot following identical complaints from the Democratic and Republican establishments, despite meeting the statutory requirements. They expressed their willingness to take this issue to court. I wish they had. Instead, the Attorney General’s office bent to the will of the major parties rather than following the letter, spirit, and established precedent of the law. In doing so they gave compromised legal direction to the Department of Elections.
To paraphrase Judge Ridgely, it isn’t the role of the court to substitute its opinion, or the Attorney General’s opinion, for that of the General Assembly. I firmly believe that the sovereign authority of the State of Delaware should not be compromised by coercive threats of legal action from establishment interests. It is the role of the State to protect all citizens equally before the law. That the major parties need only threaten legal action when I must take legal action demonstrates that the State of Delaware, and specifically the Attorney General’s office, responsible for providing unbiased legal opinions to the Department of Elections, answers to special interests before it answers to the rule of law and the people of Delaware.
Monopoly Wins.
I am deeply disappointed in the outcome of this hearing, but the judge has made his ruling and I do not believe I have the resources to appeal this decision or continue this fight. Too much time, money, and energy have already been spent fighting this election campaign in the courts rather than in the 32nd District. We will at the very least look into the process of appealing this decision. Despite the fact that the fundamental right of party members to nominate who they choose has been denied, I hope that members of all parties will follow my candidacy and consider voting for me and other Libertarians, like Brent Wangen, Matt Flebbe, Scott Gesty, and all of the principled candidates we have nominated for this November. This campaign is far from over and I am still the Libertarian Party’s nominee. I look forward to continuing that campaign on behalf of the sovereignty of the State of Delaware and its citizens. This matter has been very educational for me and has elevated a few new issues as priorities for my campaign.
I have been forced to spend $600 of my limited funds in a futile attempt to simply enforce the law as it is written. These funds were spent just because the law is so muddled and unclear that it is impossible for a layman to discover the appropriate remedy when his rights are violated without the assistance of a highly trained attorney. I will fight to ensure that all laws passed by the Delaware General Assembly are plainly written and impossible to twist to the benefit of special interests that may have an undue influence on the agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing them. I will also fight to ensure that any citizen of Delaware whose rights are compromised have a plain, simple, and affordable remedy available to them.
There has been a great deal of speculation that following this incident, the next General Assembly will move quickly to pass legislation clearly preventing fusion candidacies. I believe that not only did our case rest on solid legal grounds, but also on the fundamental right of the membership of any party to nominate a candidate they support regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation. To force the members of a party to nominate another member of that party forces them to choose from a more limited range of options when some other candidate may have more support within the local community. If I am elected, I will be a strong and steady voice in support of this fundamental right of all members of all parties and in support of clearly permitting fusion candidacies.
Finally, this experience has reaffirmed my commitment to breaking down the monopoly of power maintained by the Democratic and Republican Parties. It is clear from these events that despite their highly theatrical disagreements over how to divide the spoils of big government, they are fundamentally agreed that government should be large and should exclude the average citizens that that government is intended to represent with their consent. If I am elected, I will not only prove that their time has passed, but I will fight to improve upon that progress by further dismantling the laws and policies which protect their monopoly.
I would also like to make perfectly clear that I have no reason to believe that either of my opponents were involved in this despicable exercise to deny the voters of the 32nd District their legitimate choice. One of my opponents even contacted me to wish me luck in my hearing. It is the two-party establishment that is solely responsible for this travesty of justice. I look forward to continuing my campaign in the 32nd District instead of in the courts, based on the issues facing the state instead of the Machiavellian machinations of the major party establishments.
Thank you.
I have been forced to spend $600 of my limited funds in a futile attempt to simply enforce the law as it is written. These funds were spent just because the law is so muddled and unclear that it is impossible for a layman to discover the appropriate remedy when his rights are violated without the assistance of a highly trained attorney. I will fight to ensure that all laws passed by the Delaware General Assembly are plainly written and impossible to twist to the benefit of special interests that may have an undue influence on the agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing them. I will also fight to ensure that any citizen of Delaware whose rights are compromised have a plain, simple, and affordable remedy available to them.
There has been a great deal of speculation that following this incident, the next General Assembly will move quickly to pass legislation clearly preventing fusion candidacies. I believe that not only did our case rest on solid legal grounds, but also on the fundamental right of the membership of any party to nominate a candidate they support regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation. To force the members of a party to nominate another member of that party forces them to choose from a more limited range of options when some other candidate may have more support within the local community. If I am elected, I will be a strong and steady voice in support of this fundamental right of all members of all parties and in support of clearly permitting fusion candidacies.
Finally, this experience has reaffirmed my commitment to breaking down the monopoly of power maintained by the Democratic and Republican Parties. It is clear from these events that despite their highly theatrical disagreements over how to divide the spoils of big government, they are fundamentally agreed that government should be large and should exclude the average citizens that that government is intended to represent with their consent. If I am elected, I will not only prove that their time has passed, but I will fight to improve upon that progress by further dismantling the laws and policies which protect their monopoly.
I would also like to make perfectly clear that I have no reason to believe that either of my opponents were involved in this despicable exercise to deny the voters of the 32nd District their legitimate choice. One of my opponents even contacted me to wish me luck in my hearing. It is the two-party establishment that is solely responsible for this travesty of justice. I look forward to continuing my campaign in the 32nd District instead of in the courts, based on the issues facing the state instead of the Machiavellian machinations of the major party establishments.
Thank you.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Jurisdiction?
I am disappointed that the two-party run legal system has become so convoluted and confusing that it is impossible for an average citizen of average means to protect their rights in an affordable and straightforward manner. Acting on advice that I had been given, the source of which I am unable to reveal for fear of unwarranted retribution from the two-party establishment against him, I filed in the Court of Chancery. Vice-Chancellor Noble has determined that this was not the proper venue for this matter. I must now wait for a new hearing in the Superior Court where I remain confident that this issue will be satisfactorily resolved. I am concerned, however, that it will not be resolved soon enough to protect the free-choice of those of our citizens serving overseas or otherwise unable to come directly to the polling place and therefore voting by absentee ballot.
I hope you will all continue to follow this topic and attend my upcoming hearing at the Superior Court. It has been scheduled for 12pm tomorrow, Tuesday the 20th of July.
I hope you will all be able to attend, thank you.
I hope you will all continue to follow this topic and attend my upcoming hearing at the Superior Court. It has been scheduled for 12pm tomorrow, Tuesday the 20th of July.
I hope you will all be able to attend, thank you.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
July 20th, Kent County Libertarian Party Meeting
Our next Kent County Libertarian Party meeting and fundraiser will be on the 20th of July, 7:00pm, at the Uno in Dover. The last fundraiser resulted in $130 from Uno and $65.20 in additional donations! (I don't know who put two dimes in there!) Please attend if you are able, as we will be voting on the proposed bylaws of the Kent County Libertarian Party as well as the Executive Committee members. We will also have Jack Peterman, who is contesting the Republican primary in the 33rd Representative District as well as George Phillips who is contesting the Republican primary in the 29th Representative District in attendance to present BRIEF remarks and take questions. I will also be available to discuss fusion candidacies and any questions or concerns on that topic. I look forward to seeing you there!
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Libertarian Party of Delaware.
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Libertarian Party of Delaware.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Intimidation.
I've been running all over Dover today trying to figure out why I was taken off of the ballot and how I can get the State of Delaware to follow its own laws rather than the whims of the Democratic and Republican parties.
It seems that the Democratic and Republican parties colluded to remove me from the ballot by threatening to take the Department of Elections to court if they did not. Why they only have to threaten the State when I must in fact spend the $380 filing fee and actually take the State to court, I don't know. Nevertheless, the paperwork has been filed, the exorbitant fee has been paid, and the hearing is scheduled for Monday, the 19th of July at 2:00pm. According to Deputy Attorney General Anne Woolfolk, attorney for the Department of Elections, the Democratic and Republican parties are likely to present a case also.
This is shaping up to be me, without a lawyer because the court costs were expensive enough, arguing that the State of Delaware should follow its own laws with the State Attorney General's Office and however many lawyers the Ds and Rs decide to send after me...I guess we'll see if the law runs Delaware or if the D/R duopoly does.
Please come to the courthouse if you can to show your support or just to enjoy the spectacle!
Facebook for Event Details
It seems that the Democratic and Republican parties colluded to remove me from the ballot by threatening to take the Department of Elections to court if they did not. Why they only have to threaten the State when I must in fact spend the $380 filing fee and actually take the State to court, I don't know. Nevertheless, the paperwork has been filed, the exorbitant fee has been paid, and the hearing is scheduled for Monday, the 19th of July at 2:00pm. According to Deputy Attorney General Anne Woolfolk, attorney for the Department of Elections, the Democratic and Republican parties are likely to present a case also.
This is shaping up to be me, without a lawyer because the court costs were expensive enough, arguing that the State of Delaware should follow its own laws with the State Attorney General's Office and however many lawyers the Ds and Rs decide to send after me...I guess we'll see if the law runs Delaware or if the D/R duopoly does.
Please come to the courthouse if you can to show your support or just to enjoy the spectacle!
Facebook for Event Details
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Unwelcome.
The Democratic and Republican parties do not support an open political dialogue. They do not support a free exchange of ideas. They do not support offering the members of their party a choice in who they will nominate for political office.
While I was at work today, the State Department of Elections website was updated, removing Brent Wangen and myself from the primaries we had filed and paid for. Celia Cohen is indicating that the cause was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1994 that a candidate not "involved" with the party they file with can be disqualified from the primary ballot. I have attended Republican meetings, been turned away from Democratic meetings due to my party registration, and been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. But none of that matters.
The opinion is not supported by the Delaware Code governing elections. Ms. Cohen even mentions a court decision allowing a candidate uninvolved in the party's activities to compete for its nomination. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the law. I believe that I have followed the proper procedures and met the appropriate qualifications to be listed on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots. I believe that the Democratic and Republican voters of the 32nd District should have more choices than those presented to them by the entrenched political interests of a two party system.
I am exploring every option to ensure that the 32nd District is presented the choices it is entitled to under the duly enacted laws of the State of Delaware. I will appreciate any support you can offer and gladly answer any questions on this or any other subject.
302-670-1971.
Previous Comments
While I was at work today, the State Department of Elections website was updated, removing Brent Wangen and myself from the primaries we had filed and paid for. Celia Cohen is indicating that the cause was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1994 that a candidate not "involved" with the party they file with can be disqualified from the primary ballot. I have attended Republican meetings, been turned away from Democratic meetings due to my party registration, and been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. But none of that matters.
The opinion is not supported by the Delaware Code governing elections. Ms. Cohen even mentions a court decision allowing a candidate uninvolved in the party's activities to compete for its nomination. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the law. I believe that I have followed the proper procedures and met the appropriate qualifications to be listed on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots. I believe that the Democratic and Republican voters of the 32nd District should have more choices than those presented to them by the entrenched political interests of a two party system.
I am exploring every option to ensure that the 32nd District is presented the choices it is entitled to under the duly enacted laws of the State of Delaware. I will appreciate any support you can offer and gladly answer any questions on this or any other subject.
302-670-1971.
Previous Comments
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Filed for the Democratic and Republican Primaries
I have filed for the Democratic and Republican primaries. I hope to offer the small-l libertarians registered in the Democratic and Republican parties the opportunity to create a Unity Candidate for 2010 and to support the philosophies of freedom, constitutional government, and state sovereignty which have been lacking from our government. I'd appreciate all of your support on September 14th during the primary elections, and on November 2nd during the general election.
Filing fees are expensive! I also love donations! Thanks!
What the media is saying:
Fusion Candidate Poll
News Journal Blog
Delaware Politics
Monday, June 21, 2010
Lies, Damn Lies, and the National Popular Vote
Some attention is being paid in Delaware to the National Popular Vote, which is being promoted by NationalPopularVote.com. It has passed the House of Representatives as HB198 and is currently before the Senate Executive Committee. With any luck it will stay there, but between the wall of text comments left on a press release mentioning the bill and the calls placed on behalf of the bill by Advantage Research it is clear that a great deal of money is being spent on a classic example of Groucho Marx political problem solving:
(UPDATE: HB198 Has passed the Senate Executive Committee.)
Proponents correctly argue that the "Winner Take All" system is ineffective at spreading candidate attention during presidential races, as states such as Delaware are considered "safe" and offer no benefit to the expenditure of limited campaign resources. They offer as a remedy an interstate compact whereby at least as many states as can constitute 270 electoral votes agree to follow the lead of a national popular vote and offer all of their electoral votes to that candidate regardless of their local voting totals.
Since the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral vote to a president who proved to be highly controversial, the electoral college has seemed an opaque and anachronistic mechanism for selecting the leader of our nation. In order to understand its value, it is important first to consider the nature of our Constitutional Federal Government.
The Federal Government is an organization created by the original 13 states following the Revolutionary War and the inability of the Articles of Confederation to adequately provide for the prosperity of the newly independent states. The Constitution delegated some of the powers the states held as sovereign entities to the Federal Government, so as to provide for common defense and what was essentially a free trade union. One of the ways the states preserved their independence was by charging their state governments with choosing the electors who would select the president.
The president was never intended to be the powerful leader of the American people he has become today. He was intended to be the Commander in Chief of the military, when under federal authority, but otherwise only to serve as the executive of the laws passed by congress to carry out the Federal Government's limited constitutional responsibilities. Article II, Section 1 empowers state legislatures to select their electors in any manner which they see fit. Proponents of a National Popular Vote assert that the "Winner Take All" system used by many states does not offer any incentive for candidates to campaign in more than a few states, but fail to mention the numerous alternatives to a National Popular Vote which would have a much greater impact on an individual state's influence in presidential elections.
The Constitution guarantees that each state will have a minimum amount of influence in the electoral college based on the minimum number of representatives and senators from that state. In Delaware, this means we control 3/535 or about 0.5% of the electoral college votes but only 885122/309558000 or about 0.28% of the popular vote. I believe that rather than surrendering much of our limited influence on presidential elections by acquiescing to a National Popular Vote, we should instead seek out new and creative ways of exercising the greater influence of our electoral college as an example to other states of our sovereignty and out respect for the intentions of our founding fathers.
Alternatives include proportional representation, county representation, or even the random selection of registered voters to encourage civic participation and engagement with the political processes of the state.
Please contact your senators and inform them of your opposition to HB198 and the National Popular Vote!
Senate Membership
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
(UPDATE: HB198 Has passed the Senate Executive Committee.)
Proponents correctly argue that the "Winner Take All" system is ineffective at spreading candidate attention during presidential races, as states such as Delaware are considered "safe" and offer no benefit to the expenditure of limited campaign resources. They offer as a remedy an interstate compact whereby at least as many states as can constitute 270 electoral votes agree to follow the lead of a national popular vote and offer all of their electoral votes to that candidate regardless of their local voting totals.
Since the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral vote to a president who proved to be highly controversial, the electoral college has seemed an opaque and anachronistic mechanism for selecting the leader of our nation. In order to understand its value, it is important first to consider the nature of our Constitutional Federal Government.
The Federal Government is an organization created by the original 13 states following the Revolutionary War and the inability of the Articles of Confederation to adequately provide for the prosperity of the newly independent states. The Constitution delegated some of the powers the states held as sovereign entities to the Federal Government, so as to provide for common defense and what was essentially a free trade union. One of the ways the states preserved their independence was by charging their state governments with choosing the electors who would select the president.
The president was never intended to be the powerful leader of the American people he has become today. He was intended to be the Commander in Chief of the military, when under federal authority, but otherwise only to serve as the executive of the laws passed by congress to carry out the Federal Government's limited constitutional responsibilities. Article II, Section 1 empowers state legislatures to select their electors in any manner which they see fit. Proponents of a National Popular Vote assert that the "Winner Take All" system used by many states does not offer any incentive for candidates to campaign in more than a few states, but fail to mention the numerous alternatives to a National Popular Vote which would have a much greater impact on an individual state's influence in presidential elections.
The Constitution guarantees that each state will have a minimum amount of influence in the electoral college based on the minimum number of representatives and senators from that state. In Delaware, this means we control 3/535 or about 0.5% of the electoral college votes but only 885122/309558000 or about 0.28% of the popular vote. I believe that rather than surrendering much of our limited influence on presidential elections by acquiescing to a National Popular Vote, we should instead seek out new and creative ways of exercising the greater influence of our electoral college as an example to other states of our sovereignty and out respect for the intentions of our founding fathers.
Alternatives include proportional representation, county representation, or even the random selection of registered voters to encourage civic participation and engagement with the political processes of the state.
Please contact your senators and inform them of your opposition to HB198 and the National Popular Vote!
Senate Membership
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Kent County Libertarian Party, June Press Release
Continuing the recent trend, the turnout at the Kent County Libertarian Party meeting for June grew from our May total of around 20 people to more than 30. Please help us to continue this astonishing growth by telling your friends, coworkers, and neighbors about our meetings and the opportunity they provide each resident of Kent County to become more involved in their local political process and to hold our elected officials accountable to their constituents instead of their favorite special interests.
By far the most pressing of the items discussed at the June meeting was the bylaws draft for the Kent County Libertarian Party. Included in these bylaws are a transparent and open process for spending the money raised on behalf of the Kent County Libertarians. The bylaws also codify a typical agenda for the monthly meetings and lay a solid groundwork for establishing similarly open and transparent processes for carrying out all of the activities of the County Party. These bylaws will be ratified, and the nominated Executive Committee members, Richard Bieker, Jeff Munn, and Richard Cook will be confirmed at the next monthly meeting on July 20th. Please review these bylaws on the forums, offer any suggestions or questions, and prepare to vote on the 20th.
http://tinyurl.com/kcdeLibsBylaws
Much of the meeting's agenda was booked up with Guest Speakers. We were privileged to have three candidates in attendance. Norman Wood, the Democratic candidate for Kent County Sheriff came and gave a brief presentation on his plans should he be elected. He addressed the lack of arresting authority held by the Kent County Sheriff and discussed the need to update their communications technology to avoid interfering with cell phone transmissions, among other issues. Ron Poliquin, a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 31st State Representative District came and discussed his record of fighting for taxpayers against the establishment and some of his plans for saving money on a state level before taking questions from the audience. Christine O'Donnell, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the US Senate was also present and offered her views on the current state of our country and the steps she believes are necessary to remedy them. While she was eager to appeal to those in attendance currently registered in the Republican Party, she was also respectful of the Libertarian Party's candidate for US Senate, Jim Rash.
The candidate presentations went on longer than expected and unfortunately crowded out some other items on the agenda for the month, but Tim Pancoast was still able to make an informative presentation on the changes being considered to the Delaware History Curriculum. Under the veneer of providing "balance", a commission of union leaders has been assembled to modify the curriculum. Tim and the assembled membership of the Kent County Libertarian Party wonder what balance can be offered without the inclusion of business leaders, economists, and historians on this panel. Tim also discussed a new initiative to expand the school breakfast program using a one-time injection of stimulus dollars from the federal government. In addition to further expanding the role of the schools in raising our children at the expense of the parents' relationship, this program demonstrates the short-term thinking and big-spending tendencies of a government taking advantage of a short-term increase in revenues with no thought or planning for the future after these funds are no longer available. Tim encouraged everyone assembled to get in contact with their legislators to voice their concerns on these changes.
Jesse McVay was also able to make a presentation on HB198, the National Popular Vote bill currently before the Senate Executive Committee. This bill has been promoted heavily by organizations outside of Delaware through the Advantage Research Corporation under misleading pretenses. Without further information available to their staff, Advantage Research has been portraying HB198 as an effective mechanism for expanding Delaware's influence in the presidential process by effectively abolishing the electoral college. Rather than the 0.5% influence Delaware holds by virtue of its 3 electoral votes, the National Popular Vote would reduce Delaware's influence to approximately 0.2% in proportion with Delaware's share of the national population. Jesse encouraged all members of the Kent County Libertarian Party to contact their legislators and voice their opposition to this bill as well as warn them of the deceptive manner in which it is being promoted by its supporters.
Please remember that the next monthly meeting will be held on July 20th at the same time and place. Please contact Will McVay, the Kent County Chair, with any suggestions or questions for the next meeting or any other issues.
Thank you for your supporting the Kent County Libertarian Party!
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Delaware Libertarian Party
mcvay.will@gmail.com
302-670-1971
By far the most pressing of the items discussed at the June meeting was the bylaws draft for the Kent County Libertarian Party. Included in these bylaws are a transparent and open process for spending the money raised on behalf of the Kent County Libertarians. The bylaws also codify a typical agenda for the monthly meetings and lay a solid groundwork for establishing similarly open and transparent processes for carrying out all of the activities of the County Party. These bylaws will be ratified, and the nominated Executive Committee members, Richard Bieker, Jeff Munn, and Richard Cook will be confirmed at the next monthly meeting on July 20th. Please review these bylaws on the forums, offer any suggestions or questions, and prepare to vote on the 20th.
http://tinyurl.com/kcdeLibsBylaws
Much of the meeting's agenda was booked up with Guest Speakers. We were privileged to have three candidates in attendance. Norman Wood, the Democratic candidate for Kent County Sheriff came and gave a brief presentation on his plans should he be elected. He addressed the lack of arresting authority held by the Kent County Sheriff and discussed the need to update their communications technology to avoid interfering with cell phone transmissions, among other issues. Ron Poliquin, a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 31st State Representative District came and discussed his record of fighting for taxpayers against the establishment and some of his plans for saving money on a state level before taking questions from the audience. Christine O'Donnell, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the US Senate was also present and offered her views on the current state of our country and the steps she believes are necessary to remedy them. While she was eager to appeal to those in attendance currently registered in the Republican Party, she was also respectful of the Libertarian Party's candidate for US Senate, Jim Rash.
The candidate presentations went on longer than expected and unfortunately crowded out some other items on the agenda for the month, but Tim Pancoast was still able to make an informative presentation on the changes being considered to the Delaware History Curriculum. Under the veneer of providing "balance", a commission of union leaders has been assembled to modify the curriculum. Tim and the assembled membership of the Kent County Libertarian Party wonder what balance can be offered without the inclusion of business leaders, economists, and historians on this panel. Tim also discussed a new initiative to expand the school breakfast program using a one-time injection of stimulus dollars from the federal government. In addition to further expanding the role of the schools in raising our children at the expense of the parents' relationship, this program demonstrates the short-term thinking and big-spending tendencies of a government taking advantage of a short-term increase in revenues with no thought or planning for the future after these funds are no longer available. Tim encouraged everyone assembled to get in contact with their legislators to voice their concerns on these changes.
Jesse McVay was also able to make a presentation on HB198, the National Popular Vote bill currently before the Senate Executive Committee. This bill has been promoted heavily by organizations outside of Delaware through the Advantage Research Corporation under misleading pretenses. Without further information available to their staff, Advantage Research has been portraying HB198 as an effective mechanism for expanding Delaware's influence in the presidential process by effectively abolishing the electoral college. Rather than the 0.5% influence Delaware holds by virtue of its 3 electoral votes, the National Popular Vote would reduce Delaware's influence to approximately 0.2% in proportion with Delaware's share of the national population. Jesse encouraged all members of the Kent County Libertarian Party to contact their legislators and voice their opposition to this bill as well as warn them of the deceptive manner in which it is being promoted by its supporters.
Please remember that the next monthly meeting will be held on July 20th at the same time and place. Please contact Will McVay, the Kent County Chair, with any suggestions or questions for the next meeting or any other issues.
Thank you for your supporting the Kent County Libertarian Party!
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Delaware Libertarian Party
mcvay.will@gmail.com
302-670-1971
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A Real Change in Congress
Reposted from Brent Wangen's Blog.
Let us not forget that those of us that are upset with the current state of the United States have two parties to blame. Flipping the switch to a burnt out light bulb does nothing to illuminate a dark room. We must change the bulb! Our current bulb was extinguished almost one hundred and fifty years ago, and our nation has been kept in the dark by a failed two party system. Time to put in a new bulb; it is time for a return to the principles that illuminated this great nation at its birth. Limited Federal Government operating within the confines of the Constitution is the answer to today’s problems.
Our legislative branch was set up with two houses, the House of Representatives (the voice of the people “to” the Federal Government) and the Senate (the voice of the States “to” the Federal Government). In 1913 the States voice was removed by the 17th amendment to the Constitution, and States have lost their voice to protect States rights. The Senate has the power to do two very important things; confirmations of Supreme Court Justices and cabinet officials, and ratifying treaties. Ask yourself this question; why were these powers given to the Senate? Answer: As representatives for the States they would ensure that States rights were adhered to and that the Federal Government would not overstep its boundaries set by the 9th and 10 amendments. Alas today we have Representatives and Senators that no longer believe they are representatives “to” the Federal Government but “of” the Federal Government.
I urge you to seek out ‘NEW’ blood, people not tainted by party politics, people that understand the Constitution and want to follow it. Do not follow the parties that push for “Elite” or “Insiders” as their parties’ candidates. Delaware has, throughout history, been a first in many ways. Delaware was the first to declare independence from England, and the first state to ratify the Constitution for the United States. Now in 2010 Delaware has a chance to be the first once again by electing a third party candidate and sending a message to the rest of the U.S., that message: the Constitution is the Solution!
Let us not forget that those of us that are upset with the current state of the United States have two parties to blame. Flipping the switch to a burnt out light bulb does nothing to illuminate a dark room. We must change the bulb! Our current bulb was extinguished almost one hundred and fifty years ago, and our nation has been kept in the dark by a failed two party system. Time to put in a new bulb; it is time for a return to the principles that illuminated this great nation at its birth. Limited Federal Government operating within the confines of the Constitution is the answer to today’s problems.
Our legislative branch was set up with two houses, the House of Representatives (the voice of the people “to” the Federal Government) and the Senate (the voice of the States “to” the Federal Government). In 1913 the States voice was removed by the 17th amendment to the Constitution, and States have lost their voice to protect States rights. The Senate has the power to do two very important things; confirmations of Supreme Court Justices and cabinet officials, and ratifying treaties. Ask yourself this question; why were these powers given to the Senate? Answer: As representatives for the States they would ensure that States rights were adhered to and that the Federal Government would not overstep its boundaries set by the 9th and 10 amendments. Alas today we have Representatives and Senators that no longer believe they are representatives “to” the Federal Government but “of” the Federal Government.
I urge you to seek out ‘NEW’ blood, people not tainted by party politics, people that understand the Constitution and want to follow it. Do not follow the parties that push for “Elite” or “Insiders” as their parties’ candidates. Delaware has, throughout history, been a first in many ways. Delaware was the first to declare independence from England, and the first state to ratify the Constitution for the United States. Now in 2010 Delaware has a chance to be the first once again by electing a third party candidate and sending a message to the rest of the U.S., that message: the Constitution is the Solution!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Libertatrian Party Takes Off in Delaware
Three months ago, there was no Kent County Chair of the Delaware Libertarian Party. Three months ago, there were only three or four people at the most coming to the monthly Kent County Libertarian meetings at the Touchdown Lounge in south Dover. Three months ago, there had never been more than one or two candidates fighting a quixotic campaign against the Democratic and Republican dominance of the Delaware political scene.
But this year is not like every other year. This year, Democrats in Washington have expanded the budget and scope of the US Government to unprecedented levels. This year, the Republican party is fractured by eight years of George W. Bush and a similarly out of control level of government spending and interference in the everyday lives of US citizens and Delaware residents.
This year, the Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement, is exploding.
Now, the Kent County Libertarian meetings have grown too large for the single room in the Touchdown Lounge which we used to meet in. We have established a county level party finance committee with the State of Delaware and opened a bank account to handle fundraising and support for Kent County candidates. We are inviting candidates from every party to come to our meetings and try to convince us that they are worthy of the Libertarian vote.
We are also running our own candidates. We've been called spoilers. We've been told we don't stand a chance of winning and only detract from the (insert party name) party's chances, or that we're "stealing" their votes. The votes belong to the people. John Quincy Adams said that you should, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." We will show the two parties the votes they are missing out on. We will show them the government we want. We will show them the politicians we want. And they will listen, or they will lose.
We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this, anymore!
If you're mad too, then look into the Delaware Libertarian Party and the candidates that we have nominated for public office in the state of Delaware. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got. Do something different, and vote for freedom. Thank you.
The Delaware Libertarians have nominated the following candidates for the 2010:
Jim Rash for US Senate: http://www.jimrash.com/
Brent Wangen for US House: http://www.wangen2010.com/
Matthew Flebbe for DE House District #6: http://www.flebbefordelaware.com/
Scott Gesty for DE House District #7: http://www.gesty4statehouse.com/
James Christina for DE House District #12
George Barnett for DE House District #15
Will McVay for DE House District #32: http://wmcvay-de32.blogspot.com/
Joseph O'Leary for New Castle Sheriff
Jesse McVay for Kent County Recorder of Deeds
Timothy Webb for Kent County Levy Court District #2
National Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/
Libertarian Party of Delaware: http://www.de.lp.org/about
Kent County Libertarian Party Forums: http://kcdelibs.forumotion.com/forum.htm
But this year is not like every other year. This year, Democrats in Washington have expanded the budget and scope of the US Government to unprecedented levels. This year, the Republican party is fractured by eight years of George W. Bush and a similarly out of control level of government spending and interference in the everyday lives of US citizens and Delaware residents.
This year, the Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement, is exploding.
Now, the Kent County Libertarian meetings have grown too large for the single room in the Touchdown Lounge which we used to meet in. We have established a county level party finance committee with the State of Delaware and opened a bank account to handle fundraising and support for Kent County candidates. We are inviting candidates from every party to come to our meetings and try to convince us that they are worthy of the Libertarian vote.
We are also running our own candidates. We've been called spoilers. We've been told we don't stand a chance of winning and only detract from the (insert party name) party's chances, or that we're "stealing" their votes. The votes belong to the people. John Quincy Adams said that you should, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." We will show the two parties the votes they are missing out on. We will show them the government we want. We will show them the politicians we want. And they will listen, or they will lose.
We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this, anymore!
If you're mad too, then look into the Delaware Libertarian Party and the candidates that we have nominated for public office in the state of Delaware. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got. Do something different, and vote for freedom. Thank you.
The Delaware Libertarians have nominated the following candidates for the 2010:
Jim Rash for US Senate: http://www.jimrash.com/
Brent Wangen for US House: http://www.wangen2010.com/
Matthew Flebbe for DE House District #6: http://www.flebbefordelaware.com/
Scott Gesty for DE House District #7: http://www.gesty4statehouse.com/
James Christina for DE House District #12
George Barnett for DE House District #15
Will McVay for DE House District #32: http://wmcvay-de32.blogspot.com/
Joseph O'Leary for New Castle Sheriff
Jesse McVay for Kent County Recorder of Deeds
Timothy Webb for Kent County Levy Court District #2
National Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/
Libertarian Party of Delaware: http://www.de.lp.org/about
Kent County Libertarian Party Forums: http://kcdelibs.forumotion.com/forum.htm
Monday, June 7, 2010
California's TopTwo Ballot Initiative: Possibly The Most Frightening Assault on Liberty in Our Lifetime
This Tuesday, June 8, California voters will decide on Proposition 14, a ballot measure commonly referred to as Top Two. The proposition calls for a single, open primary in which all candidates compete regardless of party affiliation, and all voters are eligible to cast a ballot. Then, only the top two vote getters compete in the general election. Proponents of Proposition 14 claim it will reduce partisanship, and increase voter participation. Opponents dispute those claims citing results in Louisiana and Washington state where Top Two systems have been in effect.
Clearly, the worst feature of Proposition 14 is one that its advocates fail to mention at all. If only the top two candidates go on to compete in the general election, third party candidates will essentially be eliminated from general elections. This proposal does not reform the election process as it claims. It undermines it by reducing choice. It may arguably expand primary participation, but only at a cost of extinguishing healthy, democratic competition in the general election; the one that counts.
The driving force behind this ballot initiative is collusion between the two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. It is a shady deal with the goal of stifling debate and cementing the power of the major parties. It is a shameful attempt to muzzle the potential voices of real change so that only the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum views of the major parties can be heard in the debate.
What are they afraid of? If they have better ideas, why try to stifle competition? The answer is they worry that the public has had enough of business as usual. Instead of competing fairly on an open field of ideas, they want to stack the deck in their favor.
And since incumbent politicians are responsible for Prop 14, they get to write the ballot summary that goes out to potential voters. Here's how those politicians, greedily pursuing their own self interest, have described the ballot proposal:
What they do tell you sounds pretty good on the surface. What they don't tell you constitutes the greatest threat to our liberties and the democratic system that I have seen in my lifetime. This has got to be the most egregious example of Orwellian Doublespeak I have ever heard.
I urge those of you in California to vote NO on Proposition 14. For those of you who are not Californians, beware. What has been proposed in California could be coming to your state next.
For more information, go to StopTopTwo.Org, or go to ballotpedia.org.
Jess McVay
Clearly, the worst feature of Proposition 14 is one that its advocates fail to mention at all. If only the top two candidates go on to compete in the general election, third party candidates will essentially be eliminated from general elections. This proposal does not reform the election process as it claims. It undermines it by reducing choice. It may arguably expand primary participation, but only at a cost of extinguishing healthy, democratic competition in the general election; the one that counts.
The driving force behind this ballot initiative is collusion between the two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. It is a shady deal with the goal of stifling debate and cementing the power of the major parties. It is a shameful attempt to muzzle the potential voices of real change so that only the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum views of the major parties can be heard in the debate.
What are they afraid of? If they have better ideas, why try to stifle competition? The answer is they worry that the public has had enough of business as usual. Instead of competing fairly on an open field of ideas, they want to stack the deck in their favor.
And since incumbent politicians are responsible for Prop 14, they get to write the ballot summary that goes out to potential voters. Here's how those politicians, greedily pursuing their own self interest, have described the ballot proposal:
Ballot title and label: "Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections." Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Official summary: Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections. Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot. Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.
What they do tell you sounds pretty good on the surface. What they don't tell you constitutes the greatest threat to our liberties and the democratic system that I have seen in my lifetime. This has got to be the most egregious example of Orwellian Doublespeak I have ever heard.
I urge those of you in California to vote NO on Proposition 14. For those of you who are not Californians, beware. What has been proposed in California could be coming to your state next.
For more information, go to StopTopTwo.Org, or go to ballotpedia.org.
Jess McVay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)