Review of Election 2012: A California Perspective

Well you can say that on November 6th 2012 we had another historic election.   Our first US black president was reelected.  Our first major party Mormon candidate did not win the election.

One way or the other many things occurred in the election that beg to be analysed.

Due to the fact that we have an electoral college system only about 10 states were in play.  What that means is that only these 10 states were close enough in the polling that no one could predict which way the would go there.  Places like Utah are in general so conservative that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican candidate will win there from now till well "Hell freezes over"; basically forever.




Many people complain that the electoral system needs to be removed and that the popular vote needs to be put in place.  There are visible down falls to each of these systems.  Many complain that "safe" states are only used as piggy banks by the candidates.  While others mention that small states like New Hampshire get attention not normally given a small state due to the fact it is in play.  The reverse might occur if you have a popular vote scheme.
States like California, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, and New York could determine everything.   Places like Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan etc with larger populations would become the second tier places to court.  You would sure have a lot more movement around the nation.  But, you can guarantee that states with small populations like Rhode Island, Maine, the Dakotas, Montana etc would be left out all together.  Why spend time going after 1 million votes when you can run some ads in Los Angeles and cover 5 million people.  Simple economics, and critical mass.
It might be better to do an electoral college based on the the popular vote in each state.  Thus Wyoming with  3 electoral votes would have handed them out as follows - 2 for Romney, 1 for Obama.  Colorado with 9 would have been as follows - 5 for Obama and 4 for Romney.  Why?  Near ties and odd numbers gives the extra to the winner.  Wisconsin with 10 would have been 6 for Obama and 4 to Romney or something along those lines.
Something to thin about.

So what are my opinions on the election.  Several of the so called swing states - Ohio for example had a vote spread of around 100,000.  That is dang close in my opinion.  If you check out the map of Ohio you see that Mitt Romney won most of the less populated counties, and Obama got just a few counties though the ones with more population.   It vary well could have gone either way.  There are about a half dozen states that the spread of fairly small.  This means that had the turn out been lower likely you'd have gotten a Republican president.  Though it all depends on where things are lower in turn out.  Sadly, this is one of the worse things about our system.
You have multiple steps to getting a vote as a presidential candidate.  First the eligible person has to register, and then they have to actually bother to vote the day of the election or send in their vote via mail if applicable.  So most people that vote are fairly informed and are making an effort.  The lazy bum, uninterested person with little or no knowledge of the facts is not likely to even go out and vote let alone register to vote.  It's the semi-informed people that get swayed by advertising and propaganda that turn into the dangerous voter.  That can swing an election and do so sometimes based on emotions, lies, and other poppycock.

The election out here in California is a classic example of the semi-informed being lead astray by lies, and the like in ever kind of perceivable of propaganda.

I'm including a link to a few of the bad ones.

So if you watched each these ads you get both sides of the picture.  Somebody has to be lying since both sides can't be right in the end, right?  That is where things get a little choppy.  You end up with so many mixed messages and poppycock.  That forces you go go and read the real language of the proposition.  Then you open your eyes.  But, mister semi-informed will not really bother to go and read the actual language.  He'll start believing the ads if he is given enough of them.  Or become a little more confused and vote no since that usually leaves things with the status quo.

it's easy to see why people get confused.  It's also does not help that the actual propositions are written in such a way as to be confusing.  I actually did some digging on Prop 37 the genetic engineered food act.  Not to clear in the language that the NO or Yes guys were right.  In those cases it is better to leave it alone.
Who knows what the semi-informed voted.  Bottom line is that the proposition did not pass.



Beyond the typical proposition with all the associated lies and distortions we had two competing tax measures.  Both were to fix the budget cuts that have been laid on the schools over the last several years as California has struggled with the effects of the recession.  One planned on boosting the sales tax 1/4 ¢ and hit up those making more them $250,000 for more income tax.  The other main claim was that the money would go more directly to the schools (K-12) and it would hit everyone with an income tax increase.
Here are the final results

Proposition 30 - Increase Education Tax

Jerry Brown's Tax Increase.

100% reporting

Option	Votes	Pct.
✓ Yes	4,967,039	53.9%
No	4,251,558	46.1%

Proposition 38 - Increase Tax K-12

Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase.

100% reporting

Option	Votes	Pct.
✘ No	6,509,127	72.3%
Yes	2,493,398	27.7%

Do you see how one went down in flames and the other passed by a small margin.  One might wonder why.  I think the analysis I heard on KFIAM640.com would sum it up best.
In essence it states - "We are willing to have someone else foot the bill but, when it comes to effecting us we say 'NO Thanks'."
People don't mind taking that guy seen as rich that lives in another city far away up north.  It's not their money so why not force that guy to pay his fair share.  The old fair share argument.

That 'Fair Share' argument has come up a lot during this election.
What is a fair share?  It likely will be different to the guy making minimum wage compared to the small business owner.




Could this visual example of "Fair Share" logic be where we are heading as a country.   We do have an exuberant number of people dependent on the government.  From Health Insurance, to social security to Food Stamps.  Likely that 47% statement by Romney is not that far from inaccurate.  However, not all those benefiting from the government vote for the party more associated with handouts.   It all depends on why your getting the benefit.

But, are we turning ourselves in to a bunch of lazy bums.  Those that feel they are entitled no matter how hard they work.  That the successful must pay their ever growing  'Fair Share'.  We have to stem this tide of thinking.  We have to rise above and make this country great once again.  Get out of this entitlement feeling and go back to the get the job done sentiment of the farming days.
We also have to find more common ground and things we can build on.  Not the stuff we can not agree upon.

I like the way the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints put it.

First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Congratulate President on Election Win

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Voting Styles

I'd like to talk about 2 alternating voting styles.  I'm not talking about political parties or the like.  I'm talking about the 2 styles that are voluntary voting and required voting.

Voluntary voting is what we practice in the United States.  A person decides to register and then also has to decide they want to vote in particular election.  Small local off season elections get very little turn out.  Couple it with a national election for president and you get a wider, better turn out.  However, better turn out can be only 30% of the registered voters and the number of registered voters among those that are eligible can be as low as 30% in some places.  This is compounded with a bunch of people in the country illegally that can throw the numbers off as well and don't forget those that are ineligible since they are convicted felons.


The other system is Compulsory Voting.  This method is practiced in Brasil for one and other parts of the world.  They require everyone up until a certain age to vote.  Those that are older have the option I believe at age 65 or the like.  This includes all the illiterate persons as well.   Since they are requiring all sectors and regions of the population to vote they have developed a fairly accurate and speedy system for vote tabulation.  A Sunday vote has a declared victory in just days not weeks like occurred in the United States 2000 presidential election.

So which is better?  You'll see that certain things have had to be put in place for the elections in Brasil to have them work better.  One is the need to put a picture next to each candidate.  This resolves the issue with the illiterate people.  However, that also means who ever put more propaganda out with a candidates picture could likely win.  Also there is some standardization required in the voting devices.  Unlike the United States, you have to  have a consistent, quick and accurate method to tally the vote.
However, the compulsory system also means you have tons of uninformed, possibly "bribed" persons voting(more on this later).  So is it better to have a small but informed electorate voting or open it up for everyone include a bunch of people that have no clue on the candidates position, track record, or the like?


The reality is some where in the middle would be best.
It has been said that some candidates "bride" people to vote for them in elections in Brasil.  How?  They go around to poor uninformed neighborhoods and hand out food or other stuff and in the end pay for a vote.  Who knows if this really works but, I'll bet it would sure help sway a person in the end.  I can't say this is wide spread or even common.  But I'll bet it has happened.

Don't we have the same thing here?  Imagine a senator up for reelection.  He helped to get some pork barrel legislation through that brought $100 in federal funding to his small state. Now he may threaten that due to a lose of seniority etc that fund will not be present in the future.  Similar thing different arena.

Both system of voting also have a ton of propaganda.  TV ads, mailers and the like.  Sometimes for local elections you have almost nothing on a candidate.  Even the title of the persons occupation can be misleading.  It's ever so hard to become an informed voter.  So maybe having a ton of other uninformed voters in the pool might help.


Final verdict.  Like a quick vote tally with accuracy that does not usually have to have a recount.  Like the fact that a larger portion of the population participates in the process, including making things more accessable to the disadvantaged.

Don't like the "bribe" element that exists in elections.  The inability at times to be an "informed" voter, and the inability to identify the candidates and what you might really be getting.


So as we head into the election season be glad for what you have.  It could be worse.

Buaidh - NO- Bas

Salmon of Knowledge

What more fitting topic to start off this blog then with a bit on the Salmon of Knowledge from none other than Fionn MacCumhail (Finn MacCool).  Both have a prudent connection to the content that will follow here: Ancestors and Wisdom.

UI's Celtic Mythology - Finn MacCool

"Finn MacCool, sometimes called Finn Mac Cumaill or Fionn MacCumal, was the leader of the Fianna, or Fenians, the select band of warriors which guarded the High King of Ireland. His father, Cumal, a previous leader of the Fenians, was killed by Goll, a Fenian warrior. Cumal had eloped with a girl named Hurna and her father urged Goll to avenge this dishonour. Goll slew Cumal, but later Cumal's son Finn was born and brought up secretly. One of his tutors was the druid Finegas, who lived beside the River Boyne and caught the Salmon of Knowledge. He gave the fish to his pupil to cook, but Finn burnt his thumb on the flesh and in sucking it obtained wisdom."
Graphic and text provided by United Irelander



Most if not all the "Tales or Legends" about Finn are considered just that.  Legends and myth.
Why is he considered so "Legendary" while Cuchulainn is not?  A good question for another day.  Stay tuned I may just try to answer that without rambling to much.

So classic is the tale of the salmon of knowledge.  Due to the burnt finger all he has to do is suck or gnaw on his thumb to gain wisdom.  With this insight he is able to get  out of just about all his sticky spots.

However, I have to say for someone to be able to chew their thumb down to the bone and gain wisdom is far fetched.  But is not wisdom what everyone is seeking?  This is what causes so much trouble with the tales of Finn.  You have heroic deeds by someone that live in say 100 A.D. to 400 A.D.  mixed together with far fetched stories alike

Want more on Finn MacCool?  I found a good read in Morgan Llywelyn's book by the same name.

Morgan Llywelyn's Finn MacCool 5 Stars

It's historical fiction just like the rest of the stuff she writes.  Highly recommend this author.  Sometimes I'll get lucky and find a paragraph or page in some book on Irish history, or mythology.  Never nearly as much as Cuchulainn.  At this time I will not recommend any other books.  Look for something in the future when I review some of the stories of Finn.

So long for Now.

Buaidh - NO - Bas