Republicans/Libertarians, party of British Petroleum, not American people

[Valley Oak]

Hardball with Chris Matthews

Let's see how much money BP donates to Republican candidates this November so that they can continue to get away with murder. And see how BP buys the US Senate and House of Reps. After all, the conservative US Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited campaign donations by corporations, both foreign and domestic.

Perhaps after this November we will need to rename our country the "United States of British Petroleum & Associates" (associates like the Bush family, and other petroleum interests).

And when we get another petroleum president (like father and son Bush), we can expect to continue spilling our children's blood in the interests of petroleum in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

[LenInSebastopol]

In all honesty I do not know the answer to this:
Is there a way to find out how much BP gave to individual folks that ran last term?

[cotatikid]

We have already got another petroleum prez! If Obomba wasn't a witting tool of BP, and the other major players, the "big swinging dicks" in the Corporatocracy, he would have never been allowed to participate in presidential politics. He would have been marginalized, trivialized and demonized like Kucinich or Nader!

Those who voted for this scallawag are beginning to realize that they have been bamboozled again. The "hopium" is not providing the facile escape from reality the way it was easily able to before the inauguration.

Legions of progressives, Independents and Democrats, who thought they heard "change", are now discerning that the word was actually, "chains"!

Of course there are differences between the Demonics and the Repugnants, otherwise they wouldn't be able to fool almost everyone!

[Clancy]

You are correct, and our fellow progressives and democrats are as resistant to hearing this as Bush's supporters were to hearing the truth about Bush.

Down deep, we're all still fervently hoping that the noble America we were lead to believe in from grade school on still exists, despite all evidence to the contrary.

We have already got another petroleum prez!

[Clancy]

In all honesty I do not know the answer to this:
Is there a way to find out how much BP gave to individual folks that ran last term?

You're going to love this
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

[podfish]

no need to wait. You're describing the status quo as it has been for a while. I can't say it's surprising, but it's depressing, to hear a lot of the attitudes expressed by everyone from national politicians to local politicians to local residents. The inertia of everyone's way of life is so extreme that I'm starting to think this will end up having about the same effect on policy as the Ixtoc blowout or the oil embargo of the 70s. The money from the oil business is so big that it either corrupts directly, or to give politicians the benefit of the doubt, seems so essential to our economy that no-one will risk any serious changes. The range of people screaming about just the moratorium on drilling that Obama's imposed is amazing - the locals need their jobs, the local businesses need their cash-flow, the megacorps are just going to move more equipment overseas..... This is why 'big opportunities' get missed. Same as with the banking business a little while ago, and with the oil business repeatedly since it started.

Hardball with Chris Matthews

Let's see how much money BP donates to Republican candidates this November And see how BP buys the US Senate and House of Reps. And when we get another petroleum president (like father and son Bush), we can expect to continue spilling our children's blood in the interests of petroleum in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

[Hotspring 44]

no need to wait.

For what?

[Hotspring 44]

Oh, after re-reading that post I think I get it.

For what?

[LenInSebastopol]

Down deep, we're all still fervently hoping that the noble America we were lead to believe in from grade school on still exists, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Down deep, at this point, we will never find a noble American politician. It is up to US to be that person and elect folks of character, really.
It matters little what party they "belong" to, IMO. We have to be 'that guy'.

[LenInSebastopol]

You're going to love this
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

You are right, I did enjoy it, but in my cynical dotage I did find it not so....provocative anymore. Rather de rigueur for all current politicians, no?
All tolled, what $77K among friends, eh? And it's not the principle, as we are writing of politicians!

[Clancy]

You are right, I did enjoy it, but in my cynical dotage I did find it not so....provocative anymore. Rather de rigueur for all current politicians, no?
All tolled, what $77K among friends, eh? And it's not the principle, as we are writing of politicians!

The 77k is just the tip of the iceburg, as the article says, BP spent $15.9 million last year alone on lobbyists — trying to influence energy policy. How does one business spend $16 million on lobbyists?

Down deep, at this point, we will never find a noble American politician. It is up to US to be that person and elect folks of character, really.
It matters little what party they "belong" to, IMO. We have to be 'that guy'.

Be what guy? Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president.

[Hotspring 44]

The 77k is just the tip of the iceburg, as the article says, BP spent $15.9 million last year alone on lobbyists — trying to influence energy policy. How does one business spend $16 million on lobbyists?

Be what guy? Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president.

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

[Clancy]

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

[LenInSebastopol]

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

First, we never had a democracy. Why that internet rumor is so strong is almost beyond me to figure out. Where does one learn that? And why do folks continue to promulgate that?

[Clancy]

First, we never had a democracy. Why that internet rumor is so strong is almost beyond me to figure out. Where does one learn that? And why do folks continue to promulgate that?

It's instilled in us from birth and perpetually advertised.

You yourself just said that we need to "elect folks of character".

[Hotspring 44]

...Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

What about the railroad crony's in the 1800s? Oh yeah, they were actually in office then.

I wonder if, instead of calling it getting "railroaded", we could call it getting tared, greased, oil-rolled, or (?).

[LenInSebastopol]

It's instilled in us from birth and perpetually advertised.

Yeah, folks lie to us from the git-go, but then why continue when we are adults? It ain't a democracy. Period!

IYou yourself just said that we need to "elect folks of character".

No contradiction there. We do vote and send folks to represent us.
I suppose you are saying WE have no character or virtues like integrity, honesty, thrift, loyalty, discernment, accountability, fortitude, liberability, meekness, resoluteness moderation, even chastity? And so we vote in greedy whores? You may be on to something there!
I'll get back to you!

[Valley Oak]

We need to change from a two party system to proportional representation and a multiparty system, perhaps with a 5% threshold. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post and single member districts.

Admittedly, achieving this will be difficult and long in the coming.

Do you have any suggestions on how or we can do to effectively change that, or do you believe it is a hopeless situation?

[Clancy]

...I suppose you are saying WE have no character or virtues like integrity, honesty, thrift, loyalty, discernment, accountability, fortitude, liberability, meekness, resoluteness moderation, even chastity? And so we vote in greedy whores? You may be on to something there!
I'll get back to you!

As you know, that's not what I said at all. I said;

"Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president."

You either grossly misunderstood, or you intentionally twisted what I said.

In either case, you consistently display a pitiful lack of intellectual integrity, and I'm going back to ignoring you.

[Hotspring 44]

That is answer to the the what,. But anyone have good ideas on hows to do that?

We need to change from a two party system to proportional representation and a multiparty system, perhaps with a 5% threshold. We need to eliminate first-past-the-post and single member districts.

Admittedly, achieving this will be difficult and long in the coming.

[Valley Oak]

That is answer to the the what,. But anyone have good ideas on hows to do that?

That is the perfect question, Hotspring!

I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)(Californians for Electoral Reform), which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We have helped to implement legislative reform on the electoral process in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Diego, Davis, and other areas. The focus of our efforts has been Instant Run-off voting (IRV, Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However, IRV, specifically, is applicable to single member districts or other types of single seat races, which is ultimately not the real goal but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Your excellent question reminds me of when I attended a public presentation at Sonoma State University given by political scientist, Michael Parenti (Michael Parenti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Someone in the audience, during question time, asked him what a person could do to make a difference. Parenti's response was quite simply that it is far more productive to work with others (such as a focused organization or a group of people) than to work alone. It is assumed that there are clear exceptions to this but as a general rule of thumb, your progress is almost always multiplied many times if you cooperate with others towards a common goal. You just need to find an organization out there and regarding electoral reform, and there are many. All you have to do is google the subject your interested in, hopefully in your area, and you should come up with more groups than you can shake a stick at.

The feat of electoral reform is a steep climb. You will have more luck trying to climb Mount Everest. Any substantial reform will take decades so you will have to work hard and not expect any big rewards for years, which is more sacrifice than what most people can tolerate. Susan B. Anthony died before she saw women win the Constitutional right to vote in 1920. Anthony was 86 years old when she died in 1906. But the posthumous victory 14 years later was due in large part to her life's work and others like her.

Nonetheless, CfER has had many victories, as I mentioned in the first paragraph. We got a bill passed in the California State Senate and Assembly, which made it to Governor Schwarzenegger and got vetoed by him. But even that was a victory for one of our efforts to come so close to statewide reform. The next governor of California might sign our bill the next time we get it to his or her desk.

Furthermore, electoral reform must take place first in local governments, then the state, and finally, the nation. That will take decades. As you can see, we have already had success in several local jurisdictions. After several years, millions of Californians will have had first hand experience with IRV and talking about it won’t seem so obscure to Sacramento politicians and the state’s electorate. But first we need to get reform implemented in more local governments. Meanwhile, we can keep knocking on the doors of our representatives in Sacramento for statewide reform.

Did I answer your question? Anymore questions?

Edward

[Hotspring 44]

I like your answer.

I read the Wikipedia article. I only see one (somewhat major) flaw in that design otherwise, I think it is excellent.
That flaw is there is no vote against somebody.
I think each voter should have one first-place preference and one no vote. Then I think the rest of the aforementioned preferential system would work in a fair and equitable way. But without that no vote, somebody that you absolutely detest could actually use your vote to get elected, therefore because of that, I don't think that voters would go for that in the first place to initiate a system without the no vote.

That is the perfect question, Hotspring!

I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)(Californians for Electoral Reform), which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We have helped to implement legislative reform on the electoral process in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Diego, Davis, and other areas. The focus of our efforts has been Instant Run-off voting (IRV, Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However, IRV, specifically, is applicable to single member districts or other types of single seat races, which is ultimately not the real goal but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Your excellent question reminds me of when I attended a public presentation at Sonoma State University given by political scientist, Michael Parenti (Michael Parenti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Someone in the audience, during question time, asked him what a person could do to make a difference. Parenti's response was quite simply that it is far more productive to work with others (such as a focused organization or a group of people) than to work alone. It is assumed that there are clear exceptions to this but as a general rule of thumb, your progress is almost always multiplied many times if you cooperate with others towards a common goal. You just need to find an organization out there and regarding electoral reform, and there are many. All you have to do is google the subject your interested in, hopefully in your area, and you should come up with more groups than you can shake a stick at.

The feat of electoral reform is a steep climb. You will have more luck trying to climb Mount Everest. Any substantial reform will take decades so you will have to work hard and not expect any big rewards for years, which is more sacrifice than what most people can tolerate. Susan B. Anthony died before she saw women win the Constitutional right to vote in 1920. Anthony was 86 years old when she died in 1906. But the posthumous victory 14 years later was due in large part to her life's work and others like her.

Nonetheless, CfER has had many victories, as I mentioned in the first paragraph. We got a bill passed in the California State Senate and Assembly, which made it to Governor Schwarzenegger’s and got vetoed by him. But even that was a victory for one of our efforts to come so close to statewide reform. The next governor of California might sign our bill the next time we get it to his or her desk.

Furthermore, electoral reform must take place first in local governments, then the state, and finally, the nation. That will take decades. As you can see, we have already had success in several local jurisdictions. After several years, millions of Californians will have had first hand experience with IRV and talking about it won’t seem so obscure to Sacramento politicians and the state’s electorate. But first we need to get reform implemented in more local governments. Meanwhile, we can keep knocking on the doors of our representatives in Sacramento for statewide reform.

Did I answer your question? Anymore questions?

Edward

[Valley Oak]

There are a few observations:

With preference voting (IRV or Ranked Choice Voting, etc), your vote cannot go to anyone unless you rank that person with a number (the number indicates your level of preference for any given candidate). If you don't rank a candidate, let's say George Bush, then Bushy boy cannot get your vote. You simply leave the box next to his name empty. That's it.

If there are 5 candidates running for the same seat, let's say, Mr. X, Mr. Y, Ms. Z, Ms. A, and Ms. T, you can rank each one with a number according your preference. Let's say you like Ms. T the most and Ms. A as the next best candidate. You write a number '1' next to Ms. T and the number '2' next to Ms. A.

Let's say you cannot stand the sight of Mr. X, Mr. Y, or Ms. Z. You simply don't write anything at all and your vote does not go to them. If your 1st and 2nd choices don't win then your vote disappears. No one gets your vote. But if either Ms. T or Ms. A won the contest then that means that your vote helped them win (conversely, without your vote, it is quite possible that the winner would not have won, but this happens only in contests within small organizations, such as a nonprofit voting for its board members, etc).

Keep in mind that this is for a single seat, such as POTUS, governor, mayor, or a congressional seat (e.g. Woolsey's district, etc). Not to be confused with more complex voting systems where, for example, a voter must elect 5 people out of a group of, let's say, 12 candidates, in which case, a 'cumulative voting' method would be used (Cumulative voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Another observation is that what your are talking about reminds me of NOTA (None of the above). This is like a dead horse that has been beaten mercilessly into the ground for ages. I remember attending the Green Party of Sonoma County meetings in downtown Santa Rosa several years ago and it was a sore subject because most folks found no value in including NOTA as an option in a list of candidates for internal party elections. I was not part of the lengthy meetings where NOTA was hashed out and rehashed but I did come to learn about it and NOTA was dropped as an acceptable "option" on voting for candidates. The Green Party officially endorses proportional representation and IRV but does not support NOTA. Apparently, only a minority wanted NOTA.

The other observation I have is that a negative vote, voting against someone, reminds me of when Pagan coven votes on admitting a new coven member, all of the coven brothers and sisters vote yes or no on that candidate. From what I understand, though, the election must be unanimous. A coven is like a family. That is the only example that I am recalling right now where negative votes are counted against a candidate. In any case, voting for someone you like in an election for public office has the same effect as voting against someone you don't like. But if you don't like anyone, then we are back at the NOTA debate.

I think the best possible solution is to have write-in candidates, like they have had in the past in San Francisco. That's how Tom Amiano became prominent in an election contest some years ago, can't remember which one it was exactly. But I think that write-in candidates offer a much better solution than NOTA.

I'll be honest, I think there is an excruciatingly absurd element in NOTA, because among other things, it implies that we can have no one elected as a result, and well...I don't know. I suppose that we could entertain situations where that might be desirable or if someone has a nihilist attitude and hates all politics no matter what then that's what they would prefer. But I don't think it's a very serious or viable approach to government.

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combinations of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote? Or one positive vote and 3 detest votes? Etc?

Did I miss anything or did I cover all of the points?

I like your answer.

I read the Wikipedia article. I only see one (somewhat major) flaw in that design otherwise, I think it is excellent.
That flaw is there is no vote against somebody.
I think each voter should have one first-place preference and one no vote. Then I think the rest of the aforementioned preferential system would work in a fair and equitable way. But without that no vote, somebody that you absolutely detest could actually use your vote to get elected, therefore because of that, I don't think that voters would go for that in the first place to initiate a system without the no vote.

[LenInSebastopol]

As you know, that's not what I said at all. I said;
"Millions of people with character vote every election cycle and it's painfully obvious, their character is irrelevant. My integrity (or lack of) has no influence whatsoever on this two-party charade. Any threat to the corporate status quo has zero chance of becoming president."
You either grossly misunderstood, or you intentionally twisted what I said.
In either case, you consistently display a pitiful lack of intellectual integrity, and I'm going back to ignoring you.

Well, I thought I had my tongue firmly in cheek when I wrote that and assumed you got that. I did not mean to be so subtle; sorry. Lack of good humor on our parts.
Now go back to the 'ignore' fan club and write on.

[Hotspring 44]

There are a few observations:

With preference voting (IRV or Ranked Choice Voting, etc), your vote cannot go to anyone unless you rank that person with a number (the number indicates your level of preference for any given candidate). If you don't rank a candidate, let's say George Bush, then Bushy boy cannot get your vote. You simply leave the box next to his name empty. That's it.

If there are 5 candidates running for the same seat, let's say, Mr. X, Mr. Y, Ms. Z, Ms. A, and Ms. T, you can rank each one with a number according your preference. Let's say you like Ms. T the most and Ms. A as the next best candidate. You write a number '1' next to Ms. T and the number '2' next to Ms. A.

Let's say you cannot stand the sight of Mr. X, Mr. Y, or Ms. Z. You simply don't write anything at all and your vote does not go to them. If your 1st and 2nd choices don't win then your vote disappears. No one gets your vote. But if either Ms. T or Ms. A won the contest then that means that your vote helped them win (conversely, without your vote, it is quite possible that the winner would not have won, but this happens only in contests within small organizations, such as a nonprofit voting for its board members, etc).

Keep in mind that this is for a single seat, such as POTUS, governor, mayor, or a congressional seat (e.g. Woolsey's district, etc). Not to be confused with more complex voting systems where, for example, a voter must elect 5 people out of a group of, let's say, 12 candidates, in which case, a 'cumulative voting' method would be used (Cumulative voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Another observation is that what your are talking about reminds me of NOTA (None of the above). This is like a dead horse that has been beaten mercilessly into the ground for ages. I remember attending the Green Party of Sonoma County meetings in downtown Santa Rosa several years ago and it was a sore subject because most folks found no value in including NOTA as an option in a list of candidates for internal party elections. I was not part of the lengthy meetings where NOTA was hashed out and rehashed but I did come to learn about it and NOTA was dropped as an acceptable "option" on voting for candidates. The Green Party officially endorses proportional representation and IRV but does not support NOTA. Apparently, only a minority wanted NOTA.

The other observation I have is that a negative vote, voting against someone, reminds me of when Pagan coven votes on admitting a new coven member, all of the coven brothers and sisters vote yes or no on that candidate. From what I understand, though, the election must be unanimous. A coven is like a family. That is the only example that I am recalling right now where negative votes are counted against a candidate. In any case, voting for someone you like in an election for public office has the same effect as voting against someone you don't like. But if you don't like anyone, then we are back at the NOTA debate.

I think the best possible solution is to have write-in candidates, like they have had in the past in San Francisco. That's how Tom Amiano became prominent in an election contest some years ago, can't remember which one it was exactly. But I think that write-in candidates offer a much better solution than NOTA.

I'll be honest, I think there is an excruciatingly absurd element in NOTA, because among other things, it implies that we can have no one elected as a result, and well...I don't know. I suppose that we could entertain situations where that might be desirable or if someone has a nihilist attitude and hates all politics no matter what then that's what they would prefer. But I don't think it's a very serious or viable approach to government.

There are a couple of issues here. 1- is (that) I was not aware of the method that one can simply not put any preference in a square (on ballot) for a candidate and it would in essence automatically be a negative (non) vote and that your vote would definitely in no way be construed as voting for the candidate/s that you left without a number choice for on the ballot.
If that is (definitely) so then a specific negative vote would not be necessary and that may indeed actually be better than only 1 negative vote however, I would question whether or not people who just vote only for one and leave the rest blank; I guess staunch partisanship individuals would do that, but most people (hopefully) are not that staunch.

BTW, in the not so distant past, there was rumor that none of your votes for anything would count and your ballot would in essence be thrown away if you left any part whatsoever of the ballot unmarked (un-voted); that included all candidates, all judges, all local positions, all, including even the initiatives and propositions. That is another thing that I am not even sure about the (continued) existence of today as we speak.

2- The NOTA was a remedy for your ballot not being counted at all, whereas if you didn't completely fill the ballot and there was not any write-in space for a (pre-approved registered) candidate available, at least there was a space for a none of the above (NOTA).
That was one of the main reasons for none of the above but because now there is a space for a write-in candidate, The point for NOTA may be unnecessary.

To be cautionary and more specific, there was a time and maybe it (the somewhat obscure law) in the books still exists I don't know for sure about that... (but) ...voting for anybody that was other than a pre-approved write in candidate was basically throwing your vote (and potentially the whole ballot with everything and everybody else that you voted for in it) away because they would not even consider a candidate for certain political offices unless that candidate was registered as a candidate for that office for that voting cycle; and furthermore that (in doing so) could invalidate your whole ballot. That is why none of the above (NOTA) was so important because if (50% +1) people felt that they were getting railroaded at least, in theory there would have to be another special election held for the office. Presumably with (at least one) different candidate on the ballot.

Finally, why stop with one positive vote and one negative vote (for the candidate that a voter detests)? How about different combination of positive and negative votes? How about everyone have one positive vote, one neutral vote, and one negative vote, and one absolutely horrified vote, and finally, one fall on your knees with adoration vote? Or one positive vote and 3 detest votes? Etc?

Your sarcasm is not helping much here but it is a bit entertaining.

Did I miss anything or did I cover all of the points?

I think (even with your sarcasm) you covered pretty well.

[Sara S]

And the first twinge of these death throes was when Richard Nixon was elected President...

It's definitely hopeless as long as the vast majority of Americans are unaware that our two-party system has been hijacked. Especially now that corporations, for the first time, can spend unlimited amounts of money on the puppets of their choice. Our democracy is dead.

[LenInSebastopol]

And the first twinge of these death throes was when Richard Nixon was elected President...

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

[Valley Oak]

I officially nominate Lenin to the Wacco list of high ranking trolls.

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

[BabelTower99thFloor]

Give the dead a break, why don't cha? If you reallly want to get there, try Andrew Jackson being the first twinge.
Stupidity coupled with hatred is a deadly disease. Geesh!

It's not surprising that you can't defend Nixon, his crimes are indefensible.

But the fact that you can't articulate a defense of Nixon does not give you the right to call her stupid and hateful.

Why your perpetually obnoxious and antagonistic posts are tolerated here is a mystery to me. I thought this is supposed to be a forum for "conscious" and "progressive" people.

[Valley Oak]

Excellent point.

I reported Lenin's post to the list admin. You can do the same, if you wish. He won't listen to anyone else other than the moderators, certainly not to you and me.

It's not surprising that you can't defend Nixon, his crimes are indefensible.

But the fact that you can't articulate a defense of Nixon does not give you the right to call her stupid and hateful.

Why your perpetually obnoxious and antagonistic posts are tolerated here is a mystery to me. I thought this is supposed to be a forum for "conscious" and "progressive" people.