Voting should be more than a once-in-a-lifetime experience

It looks like the 2020 election will have one of the highest turnouts ever. If this is the first election you've participated in, thank you for being a responsible citizen. But please don't consider this a one-shot.

Every year you, dear citizen, have the opportunity to make equally important decisions. Yes, national leaders steer the country as a whole. But what impacts all of us most is what happens locally. 

Concerned about taxes? Then vote to decide who will set the state tax rates, the county tax rates, and perhaps your town or municipality tax rates. 

The President doesn't determine if the town sewer system's going to get that much-needed repair -- the town council does. And they decide who gets to do it -- be it a competent contractor or incompetent inlaw. 

And remember -- the appointed officials in your local government are selected by your elected ones. So if you don't the job your planning commission is doing, express your displeasure in your vote for the officials that hired them.

Case in point. Our local board of supervisors met in person for their August meeting. It made headlines. "Orange County investigated by health officials after unmasked supervisors hold first meeting in pandemic era."

Our fearless -- no, make that feckless -- leaders.

Our local leaders all walked into the room, through the doors with "masks required" signs, and sat down -- all without masks. They conducted their business and did grip-and-grin photos to present citations and awards -- all without masks. 

When interviewed, one supervisor said it was a "personal decision" not to wear a mask.

Fine. 

I will make a personal decision myself the next time my supervisor comes up for reelection. 

So for all you first-time (or first-in-a-long-time voters), good on you. If you truly care about democracy, I'll see you again at the polls next year.

Why vote? There are still reasons

Negativeland
In my election day post, I framed one of our local races in various ways -- ways that went beyond party identity. The results are in. The voters in our district decided money matters. It turns out that a half a million dollars from another state does make a difference.

They also decided that relentless negative ad campaigns work very well. We can look forward to more of those in future elections.

Voting still matters
The county I live in has about 24,000 registered voters. Around 11,000 voted yesterday. I think 44% turnout is pretty darned good. But was it enough?

There was a challenger for the position of Commonwealth Attorney (equivalent to a District Attorney). Both lawyers were well-regarded in the community and well-qualified for the post. The incumbent retained the position 5,546 votes to 5,518. In other words, by a margin of 28 votes.

Don't think your vote matters? 13,744 registered voters didn't show up yesterday. Out of that number, a minimum of 29 could have changed the outcome. And you can too -- but only if you vote.

Why vote? Pick a reason

If you vote strictly for a political party, then this post doesn't matter. Whether you support the Republicans or the Democrats, loyalty to your party probably isn't affected by debates, facts about the candidates or the issues (pro or con), or anything else.

In our little corner of Virginia, there's a very interesting race going on. And if voting for one party or the other doesn't appeal, you can cast a ballot for other reasons.

Let's get up to speed

Nick Freitas (R) is the incumbent member of the Virginia House of Delegates for our area. Political newcomer Ann Ridgeway (D) is also running for the seat.

The Freitas campaign failed to meet filing deadlines. Consequently, their candidate isn't on the ballot. It looked like Ridgeway was a shoo-in.

Then Illinois shipping mogul Richard Uihlein donated $500,000 to Freitas to mount a write-in campaign. And that money's been put to work. There are banners everywhere encouraging the write-in, as well as almost-daily mailings and -- of course -- TV, radio, and social media ads.

Anyone's race?

Only voters who are truly energized will make the effort to write in Freitas' name. Indifferent voters won't make the effort. And the name has to be spelled correctly to count. Again, not a problem for diehard Freitas supports, familiar with their candidate. Less-informed voters might make a spelling error. 

Turnout is traditionally low for a non-Presidential election. And that means every vote has an even greater impact on the results. It can also be an opportunity for a vote to say something. 

Money in politics

How do you feel about money in politics? In this race, someone in another state has dumped a half a million dollars into our local race to ensure its outcome. Freitas has almost $600,000+ in his war chest; Ridgeway about $120,000. Does that automatically guarantee a win for Freitas?

You can frame the contest as a referendum on outside influence. Do we want to keep local politics local, or do we want the best government money can buy?

Negative campaigning

It's common to express distaste for negative ads. But campaigns keep running them because they work. In this race, the write-in campaign has been exclusively negative. Ridgeway has kept her campaign focused on her own positions, barely mentioning the other candidate.

So if you feel strongly about this issue, here's your chance to say no to negative campaigning.

Why I'm voting

There are many ways to think about voting. For me, the most important way is as a civic duty. I'm a citizen of this country, and it is my responsibility to help select the makeup of our government. That means I need to do my homework on the candidates and the issues. I believe I should be making informed decisions in the voting booth. 

I know not everyone feels this way, and many will simply skip the whole process. That's a mistake. Because whether you vote or not, you will be governed by the laws the elected enact. You will be paying the taxes the elected levy. And you will be feeling the consequences of the decisions and policies (good or bad) of those elected.

If you vote strictly by party, none of this matters. But perhaps it should.

Election Day - More than a Wave

Same time next year?

Every election day I write basically the same post. That is, it's not just important to vote in the big contests. It's important to vote every election.

Because the politicians who can impact your daily life aren't always in Washington. Sometimes, they're at the state capitol. Sometimes, they're governing your county, your city, or your town.

Suppose the party you like takes control of the Federal Government -- but the other party has control of the State House. You can bet that there will be lots of roadblocks to Federal mandates, and perhaps even some countering state laws as well.

What if your town council is mostly made up of folks who have the opposite political view as you? Get ready for new ordinances, taxes, and/or fees you won't like.

We just had a big fight over the Supreme Court nominee. If you had strong opinions about, you should know that many states elect their judges. Sit out an off-year election, and a member of the party you don't like could end up sitting on your state supreme court, appellate court, trial court, or (in some cases), even probate court.

The rulings in those courts will affect you and your community, and perhaps more directly than those of the Supreme Court.

Many law enforcement officials are elected. Some are quite competent, others are just political hacks. How qualified do you want the person in charge of public safety (and your personal security) to be?

This election is important. But don't vote and think it's over until 2020. Every election matters. Because every election shapes some aspect of our government -- local, state, federal.

When it comes to freedom, we should all sweat the small stuff. Because that's where the erosion starts.

Think globally, vote locally

This off-cycle is on!

Normally, a non-Presidential election is considered unimportant. The turnout's proportional to the level of the candidates. Senate races bring out more voters than Board of Supervisor elections; gubernatorial contests have more participants than a sheriff's race. But it's all a fraction of the turnout for a national election.

This year (at least in Virginia), the state-wide races are being framed as a referendum. The President has personally endorsed some of the candidates running in the state. So if you vote for that candidate, it can be seen as a vote of support for the President, and vice-versa.

A matter of scale

That referendum concept might motivate some folks who have strong feelings for or against the President -- especially those who normally pass on the "unimportant" races.

But really -- every election is important. Because the results of every election affect your daily life. The county board of supervisors won't change what's happening in Washington. But they can approve that new strip mall to be built next to your house.

A town council won't influence State Department policy, but they could drain your community's coffers through cronyism.

Everyone rails against the IRS. But meal taxes, utility taxes, property taxes, vehicle taxes, business license fees, and many other such costs are determined at the local, regional and state levels. The people you help to elect to all levels of local government have a big say in your daily life through laws, ordinances, taxes, and fees.

Deciding not to choose is still a decision

If you choose to sit out this election? Then you help the side you're against. You've deprived the side you agree with of your support.

Don't like either side? Sure, I get that. It's not a perfect world. But remember, you're not voting black or white, but rather light gray vs. dark gray. You can sit this one out if you like, but know that you're going to get gray, regardless. Would you like it lighter or darker?

I choose to choose

There's another reason why every election is important. The results are what politicians use to gauge the will of the people. And that determines their actions going forward.

If 10% of the eligible voters turn out, and 85% vote the same way, it's considered a landslide. Clearly, everybody wants this candidate and his/her policies.

So policy is set on feedback from 85% of 10%. To plug in some numbers, if a district has 1,000 voters on the rolls, only 100 show up to vote, and 85 vote the same way. That Mandate of the People comes from 85 individuals out of a group of 1,000.

Do the other 900 agree with those 85 or do they think more like the 15? Doesn't matter. They didn't vote.

Every election is important. I consider it my civic duty to participate -- every time.

Baldo Resists

The comics section of the daily newspaper is an interesting place. Most days, humorous strips are just that -- humorous. One expects Doonesbury to include political commentary in the mix. But other comic creators occasionally do more than simply entertain.

I found the following sequence from Baldo (Feb. 14-17, 2017) especially powerful*.  Baldo's creative team, Hector Cantú and Carlos Castellanos have occasionally shared their thoughts on Latino and minority issues before in Baldo.

But not like this.

For many, the election of Donald Trump  (on both sides of the aisle) signaled a cultural shift. Criticism and dissent would not be tolerated, especially from minorities.

The strips from 2/14-2/16 form a three-part story. Part 1: the vocal dissident disappears. Part 2: the strip goes dark (and silent). Part 3: the clearly rattled lead characters return with safe, "government-approved" humor.

Point made.

The fourth sequence provides a more nuanced coda. Billy is a minor recurring character who feels he's the victim of reverse discrimination. Real-world Billys perceived the election as a sign that their side was on the rise. And they could finally tell those people exactly what they thought of them.

In Baldo, this shift is represented by the return of Billy, "sent to keep an eye on things." He's always on the lookout for foreign threats. And (in the strip) he always misidentifies them -- as in this strip. Maybe that's why the sequence didn't have the seal of approval from the FBMC.

*I know not everyone shares my political views, and so I'm sure not everyone will agree with that statement. As long as we can all disagree with respect, I'm cool with that.

Beyond Voting

As usual, I voted today. This election is supposed to have a large turnout, yet will still be decided by the minority of eligible voters. There have been plenty of exhortations to persuade those who choose not to vote to participate -- I'm not adding my voice to that chorus.

An occasion to vote

All parties worked hard to get out the vote this time around. I wondered, though, about all those new registrants. Were these people who just turned 18 or just became citizens and were eligible to vote for the first time? Perhaps there were some, but I think rather the majority were people who had been eligible for years but simply hadn't bothered to vote in past elections. 

Sure, this one was important. But it shouldn't be a special occasion.

More than one choice

I'm sure most folks walked into the polls already knowing which presidential ticket they'd vote for. But what about the rest of the ballot? In my state, for example, there was a House of Representatives seat up for election. Sure, one could just vote for the party and not think about it. 

But is the party choice automatically the best advocate for the district? I prefer to take it on a case by case basis. We've been well served by members of both parties. What they had in common was that they knew and understood the needs of their constituents and served as advocates for their districts.

More than one issue

On my ballot were two state constitutional amendments. They were both carefully crafted with seemingly unending strings of subordinate clauses to obscured their true intent. Here's one of the questions we voted on today -- and this is the wording on the ballot:

Should Article I of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to prohibit any agreement or combination between an employer and a labor union or labor organization whereby (i) nonmembers of the union or organization are denied the right to work for the employer, (ii) membership to the union or organization is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or (iii) the union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any such enterprise?

Any idea of what a yes or no vote would do? 

Only if you were familiar with the Constitution of Virginia, and the Commonwealth's current right to work statutes. The defeat or passage of this amendment can have consequences for the state -- and perhaps not the one the voter would want. 

In my opinion, my civic duty isn't just to show up and vote. Rather, it's to show up having done my homework so that I know what I'm voting for (or against).

More than one election

To all the folks who turned out this year to vote, I'd like to extend an invitation -- let's do it again next year. There's more to participatory democracy than just picking a president. Every election is important, and your participation is vital. 

You can help decide who represents you in the Senate and in the House. You can help decide who represents you at the state capital. You can help decide who the governor will be. Depending on where you are, you can help decide who your local sheriff will be, what judges will sit on your benches, who will run your school board, who will be mayor of your town, who will prosecute criminals, and who will govern your county, borough, or township. 

And those are the elected officials who can really impact your everyday life. And if you don't show up to vote, then someone else will decide for you. Maybe even me. 

So please -- same time, next year.

Beyond Voting

As usual, I voted today. This election is supposed to have a large turnout, yet will still be decided by the minority of eligible voters. There have been plenty of exortations to persuade those who choose not to vote to participate -- I'm not adding my voice to that chorus.

An occasion to vote

All parties worked hard to get out the vote this time around. I wondered, though, about all those new registrants. Were these people who just turned 18 or just became citizens and were eligible to vote for the first time? Perhaps there were some, but I think rather the marjority were people who had been eligible for years but simply hadn't bothered to vote in past elections. 

Sure, this one was important. But it shouldn't be a special occasion.

More than one choice

I'm sure most folks walked into the polls already knowing which presidential ticket they'd vote for. But what about the rest of the ballot? In my state, for example, there was a House of Representatives seat up for election. Sure, one could just vote the party and not think about it. 

But is the party choice automatically the best advocate for the district? I prefer to take it on a case by case basis. We've been well served by members of both parties. What they had in common was that they knew and understood the needs of their constituents and served as advocates for their districts.

More than one issue

On my ballot were two state constitutional amendments. They were both carefully crafted with seemingly unending strings of subordinate clauses to obscured their true intent. Here's one of the questions we voted on today -- and this is the wording on the ballot:

Should Article I of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to prohibit any agreement or combination between an employer and a labor union or labor organization whereby (i) nonmembers of the union or organization are denied the right to work for the employer, (ii) membership to the union or organization is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or (iii) the union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any such enterprise?

Any idea of what a yes or no vote would do? 

Only if you were familiar with the Constitution of Virginia, and the Commonwealth's current right to work statutes. The defeat or passage of this amendment can have consequences for the state -- and perhaps not the one the voter would want. 

In my opinion, my civic duty isn't just to show up and vote. Rather, it's to show up having done my homework so that I know what I'm voting for (or against).

More than one election

To all the folks who turned out this year to vote, I'd like to extend an invitation -- let's do it again next year. There's more to participatory democracy than just picking a president. Every election is important, and your participation is vital. 

You can help decide who represents you in the Senate and in the House. You can help decide who represents you at the state capital. You can help decide who the governer will be. Depending on where you are, you can help decide who your local sheriff will be, what judges will sit on your benches, who will run your school board, who will be mayor of your town, who will prosecute criminals, and who will govern your county, borough, or township. 

And those are the elected officials who can really impact your everyday life. And if you don't show up to vote, then someone else will decide for you. Maybe even me. 

So please -- same time, next year.

Voters in action -- and inaction

Miss Liberty wants to know where you were today.

Yesterday I shared my reasons why local elections are important. Now that the results are in, let's see what happened.

The county I live in currently has a population of about 35,026, with 27,355 of them over eighteen (that is, eligible to vote). The rolls have 22,724 registered voters, which is about 83% of all those who could register.Of that figure, 20,724 are active registered voters, or about 75% of the eligible voting population.

So how many showed up to make the important decisions?

8,155; about 29% of all those eligible to vote, and about 39% of active registered voters. There were really only four races that were contested. A lot of candidates ran unopposed -- but that's a subject for a different post.

7,186 voters decided who the sheriff of the county should be. So a little over one quarter of the people who could decide did decide. And their decision will affect the makeup and effectiveness of the county's law enforcement -- which pretty much affects everyone.

1,540 voters chose a county supervisor. I don't have the numbers for each of the five districts, but assuming even voter distribution, 25%-28% of those that could decide did decide. And their decision affects what taxes and tax rates the county sets, and what county services get funded.

7,219 voters chose a state senator. About a quarter of the voters who could decide did decide on the person to represent the area at the state level, vote on state laws and taxes, help or hinder state funds flowing into the county, and decide which state services get funded and at what level.

The biggest turnout was for the Soil and Water Conversation District director. That the 8,155 total. What does the SWC do? It provides water management assistance for farmers (we're still fairly rural), oversees natural resource management and local conservation. It reviews site plans for erosion and sediment control and storm water management.

Virtually all the potable water in our county comes from the river, or from aquifers. Build a development without taking drainage into account, and you can destroy a neighborhood's water supply. Be careless about industrial waste, and you make river water unsafe for those downstream. And whether developments have proper drainage or if a plant's waste is safe depends in part on the decisions of the SWC.

It's no wonder the directorship got the most voter participation. All the grandstanding in Washington doesn't have the same direct impact as a kitchen tap that discharges brown sludge -- or worse -- nothing at all. And yet two thirds of the potential voters passed on making that decision.

It's funny. If you had a group of four people and one said, "I'm going to make all the decisions," the other three would protest. Same if there were a group of 16 and four people said theirs were the only opinions that counted. That's basically what happened today -- on a slightly larger scale. And there wasn't a murmur.

So to all the voters who decided to sit this one out, I can only say this: Hope you're happy with my decisions -- because you, like me, are going to have to live with them for a while.

Voting local -- enlightened self-interest

Friends of mine who are far more active politically than I am usually get discouraged this time of year. As they canvas the area, trying to get out the vote, they hear the same thing over and over: "I only vote in the presidential elections -- local elections aren't that important."

I wonder what they would say if asked to vote on their property tax rate. Since that's a local and not a national matter, would they pass on participating? I think not.

Here's an organizational chart published by the boards of supervisors for the county I live in. (click on image to enlarge)

Think about the issues you care most about, and look at how much the action of local officials can have an effect.

Education:

We have an elected school board. They decide how the public schools will be run. They ultimately have the power improve the quality of education in the county, or run it into the ground. The Board of Supervisors sets the budget, so they determine how much funding the county libraries receive. And they also appoint the library board. So if you have strong opinions about the role of a public library and what books and materials should -- or shouldn't -- be available to the public, the supervisors appoint the people who will decide that.

Public Safety:

We elect the county sheriff, who in turn hires (or fires) the officers and staff of the department. Only in movies and TV shows can a law enforcement agency devote 100% of its staff to every case. So decisions have to be made. What crimes does the sheriff consider most important, and best use of his resources? Is vagrancy more important than domestic violence? Traffic control more important than breaking and entering? The voters get to decide what direction the department takes when they vote.

Economic Growth and Development:

The Board so Supervisors appoints people to the Planning Commission, the Economic Development Authority, and the Zoning Board. Do you want every acre of land covered with homes, or would you prefer strip mall? Want opportunities for folks (maybe even you) to get a decent job in your own county? These are the people who decide what property gets developed, what goes on it, and what kind of businesses move into your county.

Public Funding:

The Board of Supervisors sets the budget for the county. So all the local public services -- parks and recreations, sewer and water, trash collection and disposal, animal shelter, social services, public education, fire, rescue, and police departments -- get what funds the Board allocates to them.

So if you think the animal shelter is important, better make sure the supervisor you elect agrees. Otherwise, that's one less voice for funding the shelter during the budget talks.

Taxes:

And one thing more: how do you feel about taxes? A good portion of that county budget is funded by locally raised taxes. Like your real estate and personal property tax. Like the rates for water and sewer. Like the dumping fees at the land fill. Like the fees for business licenses. And so on.

So if you live someplace where emergency services are never needed, sidewalks and roads never require maintenance, there's no personal property or real estate taxes, utilities are free and children are born with a college-level education, then there's no need for you to vote in a local election.

I live in a different world, so I'll be voting tomorrow. It's my civic duty as a citizen. And because the decisions of these local officials have such a big impact on my daily life, it's also enlightened self-interest.

Why Vote? Well if you have to ask...

Today I voted. With the exception of the very first election I was eligible to vote in, I haven't missed a one. I've cast my votes not just for presidents, but for senators, representatives, state legislators, county administrators, local law enforcement officials, mayors, town councilpersons, and more. I'm very proud of my long years of voter participation,

My sister is equally proud of the fact.that she's never voted. After all, she says, they're all crooks.

Well, perhaps it may seem like Hobson's Choice -- pick the crook or don't -- but there's a little more to it than that. At worst, it's more a matter of degree. Would you rather be attacked by 50 duck-sized horses, or 50 horse-sized ducks? Most people seem to have an opinion on that one!

So even if the choice isn't between two (or more) of the most qualified candidates for the position,  there's still real choice. When it comes to crooks, do you prefer the bank robber or the shoplifter? "None of the above," isn't an option, so which do you prefer?

When you choose not to vote at all, you're really saying "I'll let someone else decide." Unlike organizations that use Robert's Rules of Order, there are no quorums in our elections. If only three out of 3,000 registered voters show up to vote, then majority rules, and a candidate is elected. (If only two people show up to vote, then there might need to be a run-off, ) If only one shows up, then it's a landslide.

You're non-participation doesn't keep the crooks out. If you think that there are only crooks on the ballot, then know that at least one will get it. "No" isn't an option -- only the choice between the lesser of two evils. So if you feel you really at all the candidates are crooks, then I encourage you to chose that lesser evil by voting. 

Because if you don't, then I get to decide. And I may have a different opinion than you.

Why I voted -- and you should, too

Off-year elections traditionally have low turn outs. And that's too bad. Because most people don't understand that all elections are important -- especially the local ones. This year here in the Old Dominion we're electing a governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

So what? So, if you live in Virginia, these three leaders can have a great impact on your life. The governor and attorney general can set the tone for state government, deciding what laws to enact (or enforce), what tax initiatives to enact (or repeal), what programs and services get funded or defunded, and a variety of other things that directly impact everyday life.

A lot of attention is focused on the federal government, but a lot of what really concerns most citizens can be impacted by state, regional, and local officials. But because most people choose to sit out the "unimportant" elections, it means that those officials are selected by a much smaller pool.

Here's how the numbers break down for the county I live in:

Total population: 33,481
Total number of registered voters (2012) 21,830 total; 20,733 active.

So about 62% of the population votes. In other words, in a group of 3 people, 1 person gets to make the decision.

In the 2012 Presidential election, 16,118 people voted. That's 73% of the total who were registered, and 48% of the general population. In other words, in a group of 2 people, 1 made the decision and the other had to live with it.

In 2011, there weren't any big seats up for grabs, although our county's Commonwealth Attorney position was.  8,765 people decided who would get that job. That's about 40% of the registered voters, and 26% of the population. In other words, out of a group of 25 people, 1 person got to pick.

Now imagine yourself in a committee or a gathering of some kind with 25 people. A decision is put to the group, and one person stands up and said "I'll decide." Chances are you (and the other 23) would demand to know who died and made them king (or queen).

Well, if you choose not to vote, you did. And sometimes the small minority that actually turns out  makes decisions that run counter to the majority. But if the majority stays home, that's just too bad.

Not many people turned out to elect our county's Commonwealth Attorney. But that's the person who prosecutes criminals, decides which laws to strictly enforce and which require a more pragmatic approach. That's the person who cuts deals with defendants -- or decides not to. In other words, it's a person who has a direct impact on the safety of my home and family. I am not leaving that decision to somebody else!

Although I always encourage everyone to be good citizens, in a way I don't mind the way things are. I always vote, so I'm that one guy who gets to decide for the other 24. And in situations like that, it's good to be the king.

Being a good citizen

"Poor officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote."

-Tarheel Ward, 1970s

A friend of mine posted this today. It's a quote from her high school history teacher. I think it just about sums things up nicely.

As is my custom, I voted early in the morning. I think of it as the most important thing I do today.

And I'll think it 's the most important thing I'll do on Election Day next year, when the elections are all local, and ton Election Day the year after that when we'll have some state-level decisions to make.

In my opinion, the folks who only vote in the presidential election are like the people who only come to church on Christmas and Easter. Yes, it's better to some participation rather than none, but by only showing up for the big events, you miss what the experience is really all about. And you miss the chance to make decisions that immediately effect your life.

I'm a good citizen who voted.

How about you?

Voting Local and Keeping My Own Council

Today is election day in our town, and turnout's expected to be low -- really low. First, the only decision on the ballot is which two people to elect to replace openings on the town council. Second, it's raining, which always tends to discourage those with an under-developed sense of civic responsibility.

It's too bad that more of my fellow citizens won't be participating in this election, because in many ways it's one of the most important. There's no real money for being on town council -- most do it out of a desire to make a difference in their community. And that difference can be substantial. Road repair, trash pickup, and general infrastructure maintenance all happen (or not) at the direction of the town council.

Is there money in the budget to fund another town police officer? Council decides.

What should the town real estate tax rate be? Council decides.

Should there be a meal tax, and if so, how much? Council decides.

How much money and effort should go into economic development? What can the town do to attract and keep businesses? Ultimately, the council decides.

In essence, the quality of life for each and every person living in the town is affected by the policies and decisions of the town council.

And interestingly enough, the party affiliations that so critical on the national level don't really count for much on the local level. Probably because the issues facing the town are very far removed from the national debate. There's no real issue about runaway government -- the town's budget has always been so modest that it never could support an inflated bureaucracy. Sweeping social changes simply can't happen at the local level -- they're beyond the scope of the town council's authority (not that any member has ever expressed an interest in doing so).                    

But the primary reason these local elections are so important is that this is where the effects of national and statewide polices are felt -- and dealt with. Mandates (usually unfunded) from Washington and Richmond force the town to take on projects it hadn't budgeted for, or take over funding for services it doesn't have the tax base to support. And trying to cover the gap between what's mandated and what the town needs to do to stay healthy is a real challenge.

How should the town meet that challenge? That's up to the town council. And the makeup of that council is up to the citizens.

At least, the few who turn out on a rainy Tuesday in May.

SOPA - Read it and weep

There's not much I can add to the Stop Online Piracy Act protest that hasn't been said better elsewhere. I would, though, encourage you to read the bill for yourself. There are many interpretations of what it says, and some of those interpretations are filtered through what the writer thinks it says.

So here's a link to the published version of the bill, H.R. 3261.IH.

My objections aren't to the intent of the legislation -- protecting intellectual property -- but the tools given for that protection. I'm especially concerned that there's no provision for due process. If you're accused of having infringing content on your site, then down it comes and we'll sort out the details later.

Let's move that concept offline.  I don't like you, so I tell the police that you have stolen property in your home. The police have a number of options, such as checking on the credibility of the report, doing some discreet investigating, or doing some active investigating. In other words, acting under the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

If SOPA guidelines were used, the police would just show up at your home and begin a search -- without a warrant. They would not tell you why they were there or what they were looking for, nor what prompted their visit in the first place. And if  they received a second or third complaint, then you would probably be arrested, although a trial may or may not be at the end of the process (arrest is enough).

It's a recipe for censorship. Under SOPA, it's very easy to register a complaint. The consequences to the accused are dire, and recourse is limited.

So if I don't like you as a person, I could get your blog taken down by simply turning you in for having infringing material. You've been careful? How about that comment I posted using Bart Simpson as an avatar? According to SOPA any infringing content taints the whole site. Don't think that's fair? Well, there's precedent. Employees of Viacom fed YouTube videos posing as individuals -- then Viacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement.

Or like Viacom, if I don't like your business, then I can make sure you have infringing content and get your site taken down. And if I can get the government to do it, then even better -- it might stay down a year or more, which would cripple (if not kill) your business.

Or, if I don't like your political party....

Don't think that's likely? Well, one of the sponsors of SOPA  Senator Lamar Smith, just happens to have some infringing material on his website. So his site could fall prey to the very penalties he's pushing for.


One more thing: the folks behind this,the  RIAA and MPAA have a model in mind when they helped draft this legislation.

As Chris Dodd, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America said, "When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites." (from Variety)


Yes, let's manage the Internet like China does for its citizens. Now there's a chilling thought.

Election day -- elect to participate

Election day across the country, and historically it will have the smallest turnout of voters. The reason is, of course, because the candidates are all running for state and local offices, andmany consider them not important enough to go to the polls for.

And that's a shame for two reasons:

1) Voting is a right that has been hard-won and shouldn't be treated casually. Throughout our history the right to vote has been extended to a wider group of our citizens, but not with struggle and conflict. There's a good chance without those struggles, unless you're a white male over 21 and hold a title to some land, you wouldn't be allowed to vote. A lot of people fought hard to give you the right to vote -- some who didn't live to have the right conferred on them.

2) Local elections are just as important -- if not more so -- than national elections. Remember, these are the people who will govern your town, your county, or your state.

They'll decide what the rates for water and electricity will be. They'll determine when and how often trash pick up will occur, and what it will cost. They'll set the tax rates for your property, and decide whether to impose meal taxes. They'll set the fees for county stickers, building permits and dog tags. They'll decide whether that big box store will be built in your neighborhood or elsewhere. They'll figure out how well (or  how poorly) to fund your police department.

In other words, your local officials will have a major impact on your daily life. You've been given an opportunity to help choose the people who'll be making those decisions. Will you take it?

I did. And if you don't like my choices, please feel free to disagree with me -- at the ballot box. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it.

Peering into the Mouth of the Congressional Cannon

This is a continuation of the yesterday's post about H.R. 1076, the bill to kill NPR. Interestingly enough, the Republicans who rushed this to the floor broke one of their own promises (and on purpose, I suspect). Remember how they vowed that they would make the text of every bill public for three business days to allow public scrutiny and feedback? Why the rush, boys? I usually only skirt the rules if I know I'm doing something sketchy.

Despite not being available for public scrutiny for 72 hours, the text was finally posted today I had a chance to look at the actual bill and it's even stranger than I first thought. Here's the meat of it:

To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO AND RADIO CONTENT ACQUISITION

(a) IN GENERAL
- No Federal funds may be made
(1) to an organization that is incorporated as of the date of the enactment of this Act for each of the purposes described in subsection (c), or to any successor organization

(2) for payment of dues to an organization described in paragraph (1); or(3) for the acquisition of radio programs (including programs to be distributed or disseminated over the Internet) by or for the use of a radio broadcast station that is a public broadcast station (as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act)

b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
1) OTHER PURPOSES
- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit the making available of Federal funds to any entity, including an entity that engages in the payment described in such paragraph (2) or the acquisition described in such paragraph (3), for purposes other than such payment or acquisition

(2) RADIO CONTENT ACQUISITION BY BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS OR DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY- Subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to apply to the acquisition of radio programs by the Broadcasting Board of Governors or the Defense Media Activity.

OK, so they plugged the Internet loophole I mentioned yesterday. But what if NPR switched to straight video/TV production? Not covered. Now the bill further defines what funds can't be used for, and do so by basically paraphrasing NPR's articles of incorporation! (Just so there's no confusion).

Now some analysists think that this bill specifically targets NPR while allowing funding to go to the other providers like PRI and APM. i think the reasoning is that the list of disallowed funding purposes "for each of the purposes described in subsection (c)." That could mean only organizations who do all of the proscribed activities, not just a few. But I'm not so sure. What if it's interpreted as "any?"

The disallowed activities, for example, include:

"To establish and maintain one or more service or services for the production, duplication, promotion and circulation of radio programs on tape, cassettes, records or any other means or mechanism suitable for noncommercial educational trnasmission and broadcast thereof."

That pretty much defines the activity of every syndicator and producer both large and small.

And what about this disallowed purpose for funding?

"To lease, purchase, acquire and own, to order, have, use and controct for, and to otherwise obtain, arrange for and provide technical equipment and facilities for the production, recording and distribution of radio programs for broadcast over noncommerical educational radio stations, networks and systems."

Well, parts of that cover every station in the system. So if Federal funding can't be used for program creation or acquisition, or equipment maintenance/upgrades, I guess that leaves only salaries. Does that mean public radio employees will be able to make a living wage thanks to an act of Congress?

Now there's an unintended consequence!

BTW - Section B, subsection 2 exempts Voice of America and military broadcast service from this ban. So does that mean VOA and the DoD would become NPR's biggest customers? Just wondering...

Democracy Inaction

As I've mentioned before, I've been following the Twitter feeds of my elected officials (those that tweet, that is). Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) has really picked up the pace with his Twitter feed. I've been getting something from him every day and then some.

While he -- or most likely his staff -- have got the broadcasting part of Twitter down, they don't seem to do so much with the conversational part. Early on I did receive a response to my reply of one of his tweets, but not recently.

And that's a shame. Because while Twitter isn't the be-all-end-all of communication (or even social networking), it can be an effective way to have an ongoing conversation with constituents. I admit I don't share a lot of Rep. Cantor's views, but I try to be respectful in my conversations. But, alas, we don't seem to talk anymore. Here's our conversation over the past two days.

 GOPWhip: Take note: Members who vote "yes" on the rule for Dems' Tax Bill are voting to raise taxes & kill jobs. I'm voting "no."
10:51am, Dec 02

  RalphGraves: @gopwhip Just curious: is there *any* legislation you'll vote "yes" to? I understand what you're against. I don't know what you're for.  
10:58am, Dec 02 

[No reponse]

--------------------------------


 GOPWhip: GOP majority must take incremental but significant steps to earn back public trust on fiscal issues starting w/common-sense spending cuts  
2:16pm, Dec 03 

 RalphGraves: @gopwhip This might be a good place to start. What about the Tea Party Caucus taking $1 billion in earmarks? http://ht.ly/3jCvK


[No response]


Gee whiz. Even the equivalent of the form letter would be nice. Something along the lines of "Thank you for your tweet.We value your opinion."


*Sigh*


I guess sometimes it's hard to hear the voices outside the echo chamber.

But I remain hopeful.

Re-TOOT

You may recall the little dust-up in the Town of Orange concerning the use of the town's public transport system to transport students to a private Christian school -- an agreement made by the former town manager without the knowledge of most of the town council.

Well, according to the Fredricksburg Free-Lance Star, the story gets even better. In the most recent council meeting,

Greg McGowen, transit manager with Virginia Regional Transit, the nonprofit owner and operator of the bus system in Orange and many other localities told council members that former Town Manager John Bailey had told him the council would agree to the bus being used by students because members had children who attended the school.

None of the council members have children in the school, and Bailey did not consult the council about the arrangement.

The council fired Bailey Sept. 20.

The town council voted to discontinue the service at the end of the December, but as mayor, Chuck Mason said, "The issue was that the bus was being taken away from the people it was meant to help. But we left the door open for the school to come back with an alternative, such as buying or renting a bus."

Which, in my opinion, is what should have been the arrangement from the start.

Election Day Fallout

Now that the election's over (and my head's had a chance to clear), I'd like to talk about an unfortunate side-effect of the process (and no, this isn't about actual results). I'd like to know if others acorss the country experienced something similar this election cycle.

I live in the 7th District of Virginia, where our House of Representatives race was between Eric Cantor (R), Rick Waugh, (D), and Floyd Bayne (I). Comcast, our local cable provider is located in the next town over, also located in the 7th District.

The biggest city in the area is Charlottesville, which is located in the 5th District. That was the battle ground of both parties, where Tom Perriello (D) fought to keep his seat against Richard Hurt (R). In addition to both local campaigns taking out ads, both national parties did so too, as well as many special interest groups, political actuion committees, and even some asstro-turf movements.

Our local cable provider uses the Charlottesville stations for its ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox feeds. Which meant I saw back-to-back-to-back-to back political ads for/against Perriello or Hurt. I didn't mind too much -- all of those ads were just part of what was being broadcast in Charlottesville.

Now the local Comcast provider, like others throughout the country, has the option of preempting ads on the cable channels to insert locally produced commercials. I expected to see some ads from either the Cantor or Waugh campaigns on those channels. No dice. All available slots were taken up with Perrirello and Hurt ads. So even on Scy-Fi, AMC, the Food Network, and TNT I was subjected to two or three of these 5th District ads at a time.

I never did see any ads for the candidates running in my district. And since our local news comes from Charlottesville, I never heard anything about the 7th District campaign on any station that Comcast provided.

Of course, I did my own research through the Internet, and tried to use other news sources from Richmond to find out what was going on. But I wonder: how many people still rely almost exclusively on TV for their information. And how many ented the polls in my district and saw the roster of candidates for the first time?

Did it make a difference in the results? Probably not. Cantor was pretty much a shoe-in. But would the race have been closer? Hard to say. The only information Comcast chose to give me was for a race I had no vote in. Now how does that serve the local customer?