What Kind Of Change Did You Vote For?

Did you vote for change? Will it be the right change? Lets first take a look at the change over the last 4 years. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? You may be surprised. Let's see what CNN reported (kind of).

This was first brought to my attention by Glenn Beck's Newsletter, but I wanted to check it out for myself. So I dug into the source info and what was asserted was substantiated in the data. Here is what was affirmed.

"...Noel Sheppard is an author from Newsbusters and he looked at the exit polls. And remember, you know, are you better off. The failed policies of the past. Here are the exit polls. 'The percentage of poor voters showed a huge decrease in 2004 while the percentage of folks making over 200,000 doubled, doubled.' [Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters] ...Add it up. When you look at it from an income perspective, voters did pretty well over the last four years. You wouldn't think that, would you?" by Glenn Beck, 2008-11-05, on talk radio.

Now, lets take a look at the numbers that CNN reported.

Consolidated CNN Exit Poll Results

	2004	2008	Change
Under $15,000	8%	6%	25% ↓
$ 15- 30,000	15%	12%	20% ↓
$ 30- 50,000	22%	19%	14% ↓
$ 50- 75,000	23%	21%	9% ↓
$ 75-100,000	14%	15%	7% ↑
$100-150,000	11%	14%	27% ↑
$150-200,000	4%	6%	50% ↑
$200,000+	3%	6%	100% ↑

The number of folks in the lower income brackets shrank and the number of folks in the higher income brackets increased, both significantly. This data affirms that we got richer over the last four years. Who'd want to change that? Obama said he does. If this is what he calls "failed economic policies," then it stands to reason that Obama considers economic policies a success if we got poorer. I guess we now know what "change" we have to look forward for the next 4 years.

Hold onto your wallets folks. They are about to get a lot thinner -- if he "succeeds".

Sources
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-polls-show-huge-increase-incomes-04-will-media-care
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-poll-media-shocker-conservatives-still-outnumber-liberals
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Campaign's Next Move?

I read an interesting post by a colleague of mine. I appreciate it when another citizen lays out what they think with reasons that are not purely emotional. I have no use for purely emotional diatribes that dilute a real, useful discussion. His is not one of them. His post does make me think of the differences between the campaigns and how the electorate views them.

Before I get into it, I think it is useful to read my general viewpoint. Not surprisingly, I take issue with some of the facts in my colleagues post. It is common in today's political discourse, but many times it is because the candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior. Well, let's take them one at a time.

Barack Obama, a young centrist Democrat...

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books by Obama's own hand place him on the left (or far left) in terms of the spectrum of the country. If Obama were a centrist, the following would not be true.

• The far-left and the left have been swooning over him.
• DNC and Obama's fundraising have hit record levels which generally comes mostly from the left and far-left.

Now if my colleague is far left of Obama, then I would accept his characterization of Obama as "centrist" relative to himself, but not the country. I would agree that his message has been centrist of late, but I would have to ignore the last 10 years of his discourses in favor of the last few weeks. Sorry, but that would be stupid.

John McCain, a fairly non-ideological 72-year-old Republican who has decided to give up on his centrist inclinations and run far to the right.

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books authored by McCain's place him on the center-right in terms of the spectrum of the country. If McCain were running to the right, the following would not be true.

• The right, much less the far-right, has not embraced him.
• RNC and McCain fundraising has been down considerably which usually comes mostly from the right and far-right.
• McCain selected a right (or far-right) running mate to shore up party support and excite the Republican base.

Now if my colleague is far enough left of Obama to characterize him as a "centrist", then I would accept his characterization of McCain as "far right" relative to himself, but not the country.

Palin is wildly inexperienced ...

I was completely surprised that the politically savvy Democratic Party stepped into that one. Anyone with more than half a lobe would recognize that you'd be digging two graves if that argument gained traction -- the second one being for Obama.

Never-the-less, if the criteria is presidential experience, the only ones that have that are either dead or ineligible. If the criteria is executive experience then compare

• 2 or more years city council, 6 years mayoral and 21 months governor experience

with

• 8 years of state senatorial and 3 years federal senatorial experience, which most of the latter has been spent on the campaign trail.

His board experience would qualify, but 1 day every quarter for 2 years wouldn't fill a thimble.

... (and so is being kept from the press) ...

Tell Charles Gibson on 20/20 who interviewed her less than a week after the RNC Convention and aired on 9/12 that he is not part of the press.

... and most of her claims to be anti-corruption are complete lies.

The political record (through elections and resignations) and criminal record (through guilty pleas) says differently.

McCain's plans have been the most nutzoid right-wing proposals: end employer-paid health care, ...

Well, I am more knowledgeable on the health care issue than most voters, but still that statement in inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. I will address this in another post.

... permanent bases in Iraq, ...

I cannot get a solid news source to confirm this assertion. So this is either an extrapolation from a McCain statement clearly taken out of context about "100-years in Iraq" which has already been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org at least; or a guilt by association about a story regarding the Bush administration that has been repeatedly denied and subsequently unsubstantiated.

... tax cuts for the rich, ...

If you mean not allowing the current tax cuts to expire, granted.

... and head-in-the-sand about energy.

The statement is too general to confirm or deny.

Well, until we can get the facts straight, any policy discussion cannot be tied back to the candidates available to us. As asserted in a previous post, the campaigns and media make it harder, not easier, to get the straight facts. Until then, I am limited to discussions of prioritized principles that would guide policies that I would support in a candidate.

Sources

• Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
• Project Vote Smart: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. - Voting Record
• ADA 2007 Congressional Voting Record Inside
• Anticorruption whistle-blower takes Alaska's top job
• Meet 'Sarah Barracuda'

Our Electorate

From what I hear about our electorate, I am unlike most of the electorate. I watch politics outside of the election cycle from multiple sources. I do this not because I am a junkie. Rather, I do this because I want to be informed about those who have potential power over my life and the lives of my family. It does not make me an expert, but I hope it makes me more credible than most.

The candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior (not comprehensive):

1. Most of the electorate does not pay attention to politics until 60-90 days before the election, which itself may be driven more by increased coverage than actual interest. These voters are at an informational disadvantage and are consequently more susceptible to manipulation, particularly by the media on which campaigns rely. I have seen this way too much and it saddens me because we the people are hurt. Imagine a business where 80% of the officers only pay attention to what the employees are doing 4-6 weeks out of the year. That is our country.


2. Most of the electorate are loyal to a party brand, half of which are because of party identity instead of actual policies. They will support that party even if the policy proposals are contrary to their personal values.


3. Some voters use selective listening. They latch onto what they want to hear over everything that is being said. Because of this tendency, scatter-shot policy positions (flip-flops) can work to some degree.


4. The electorate is limited to a two party system -- either-or. I will expand on this in another post.

Our electorate has changed a lot over our countries history. Much of it for the better; some of it not so much.

IcQ Questions:

1. What are some other characteristics of our electorate?
2. If these are the characterics of our electorate, does it make sense that campaigns do what they do? What are the consequences, potential or actual, to the quality of government we will have?
3. How can we as an electorate mitigate the adverse consequences?

I'd like to hear your ideas.

Electronic Elections

We Vote Electronically Everyday
As a technologist, I am astonished by the issues raised about electronic voting systems. We vote (purchase) many times a day, every day, from a plethora of candidates (products and services) from numerous parties (businesses) using electronic voting systems (registers). The system processes hundreds of millions of transactions and tens of trillions of dollars in tangible assets daily with an efficiency and accuracy that is astounding. Yet we trust the abacus (punch-card) more?

I will demonstrate that such an attitude is unfounded. I do not intend this to be technologically exhaustive.

Compromised?
Opponents assert that a hacker could compromise an elections system with ease. This assertion seems plausible enough on the surface with all the precautions that we have to take at work and at home to protect our systems from intruders. However, let me remind you that the main reason precautions are necessary is the Internet.

A system can only be compromised from an access point. To access the system, the proper equipment, protocols, and authentication are needed. Barriers to fraudulently accessing the system are an isolated network, strong authentication standards, encryption, access point preregistration, etc.

Presuming access is accomplished, an understanding of the system is required. Data will have to be changed in all areas where it is used and stored to prevent the raising of self-auditing exceptions within the system.

It is my understanding that on the most popular systems, there is no network. The system's electronic ballots begin blank and are created by the elections officials, making them different from precinct to precinct. The voting stations are standalone. The voting stations store the accumulated ballots in an encrypted table on the voting station and on a removable storage device (RSD), like a jumpdrive. When voting is completed, the RSD is removed and plugged into the tallying system for precinct-level tallying. When all RSDs have been tallied, the results are sent by the elections officials to the county by whatever process they use.

Disenfranchised?
Opponents assert that seniors are able to use punch-card systems that they may have used at most 20-30 times in their lifetime, depending on when the system was introduced, but are befuddled by systems that are like the ones that they have used hundreds of thousands of times in their lifetime. I don't buy it!