(no subject)

For anyone with even a feeble interest in American politics, today is the day most anticipated in the political season -- at roughly 7pm tonight, in each timezone in turn, all the political ads will end.

It should be an interesting outcome. I'm a libertarian who thinks the Libertarian Party is a bunch of nuts. By their very nature, libertarians don't organize, so the ones that do run for office are as ideologically "pure" as Pelosi or Gingrich (radio host Neal Boortz is a good example). That's all we need in congress right now is more rhetoric.

However, to a government minimalist like myself, the next best thing to an aisle full of moderate libertarians is complete and total gridlock in Congress. Other than rare instances of accidental effectiveness, there are very few people who don't shudder at the phrase: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." If politicians are too busy arguing, then their fingers are kept from poking and prodding our everyday lives. Therefore, a Congress as close to evenly divided as possible would possibly do the most social and fiscal good -- because it would be unable to do anything at all.

My particular choices for today are limited, however. Dave Weldon (R) is my current representative and the favorite in my district. He's a doctor, not a lawyer, and helped start a rock band called the Second Amendments (with a democrat guitarist, yet) who will play for overseas troops this Christmas. The Democrat running against him, Bob Bowman, has given speeches, even this year, that not only did the Bush administration know that the planes were going to hit the towers on 9/11, they actively suppressed the fighter interceptors to allow the planes to hit (thus, allowing the Bushies to launch their nefarious agenda). Politically, I agree and disagree with issues with both candidates. When there isn't a huge political rapport with my issues, I have to vote for who I feel is the better person.

Then in the Senate, we have a pretty standard Democrat with Bill Nelson, who was actually launched into space while a sitting representative. My politics and his don't mesh too much, and normally, I don't mind kicking out incumbents, most especially a lawyer. But he's only been a senator for one term (I prefer term limits of 12 years for senators), and of all people, Katherine Harris is running against him. Most pollsters feel Nelson's job is not in danger.

Locally, we will most likely have an openly-closeted gay Republican governor. With all the recent forced uncloseting of Republicans lately, it will be interesting to see how Charlie Crist handles gay issues. It's not a huge issue during the election as both he and his Democratic opponent are against gay marriage (Jim Davis wants the senior citizen vote), but gay culture and tourism is high in this state and both approve of gay civil unions.

Since almost all candidates are Democrat or Republican, with the odd Libertarians being ...well... odd, I rarely mesh completely with any politician. So my voting philosophy tends to be other characteristics:
* If it's a multi-term incumbent, kick him/her out.
* If it's a choice between a lawyer and a different profession, drop the lawyer
* Which one is less of a nut?
* Which one will cause the most gridlock and, thus, do the least damage?

It'll be a weird day. And why did you just read all of this?

(no subject)

The second part of our Florida ballot was proposed constitutional amendments.

Back history -- Florida has a very easy method of adding amendments to the Florida Constitution. Lawmakers can submit amendments to the Florida voters, but citizens can as well, as long as the correct petitions, signatures, etc are done. Unlike the US Constitution, if Florida amendments are repealed, they are struck from the constitution, so back-and-forth issues like the US Prohibition don't further clutter up a cluttered document. A simple 50% majority vote by citizens (66% if there is a new tax or fee involved) will add the amendment to the constitution.

These amendments have been used to get around stalling by Florida lawmakers. When conservationists wanted to stop gillnetting in Florida waters, the fishing lobby held up any laws against it and threatened lawsuits. An amendment was proposed as an end-run around the legislature, and we now have an honest-to-god amendment in the Florida constitution prohibiting gillnetting in Florida waters (out to 3 miles on the Atlantic side and 9 miles in the Gulf of Mexico). Since the gillnet ban is in the constitution, it's lawsuit-proof, as it is, by definition, constitutional. Florida fish have been doing well ever since, BTW.

However, the Legislature doesn't really like this. So, every now and then, there's a new amendment to modify the rules. One of today's proposed amendments was raising the percentage of voter majority from 50% to 60% (with 66% still being needed for approval of new taxes/fees) on proposed amendments. Ironically, if 51% of Florida voters approve this, it will go into the constitution and, thus, will invalidate any future 51% amendment approvals.

I'm torn on this. As much as I love the gillnet ban, the freaking constitution isn't really the place to regulate commercial fishing. On the other hand, I really don't mind having a way to bypass lawmakers if they're just rubberstamping lobbies. Lawmakers point out the 2000/2004 high-speed rail amendment as a symptom that the process is broken: in 2000, voters approved a constitutional amendment that the state should provide high-speed rail between all major cities. By 2004, most people realized that it was impossible to fund such a system (Florida is very, very long and narrow), so another amendment was proposed to repeal the previous one. That one passed, too, so there is no longer a constitutionally-required high-speed rail system. I dunno -- to me, it seems like the process worked just fine. So, until the lawmakers prove that they ignore lobbyists, I don't mind this one being kept around.

Another amendment was backlash from Kelo. The US Supreme Court held that communities can use Eminent Domain to seize private property for the public good, even if the "public good" is defined as razing low-income housing to put in a shopping mall (more taxes=more public good). Florida, happily, has introduced a proposed amendment prohibiting land seized by ED to be given to private individuals or developers. All seized land must be used by the state. There's an escape clause that there can be exceptions by 3/5ths legislative vote, but it's better than nothing.

The rest of the amendments are typical stuff. There's a good one limiting how the legislature can use money. The usual homestead tax exemptions for seniors or handicapped (and as much as I disapprove providing benefits to any arbitrarily defined "group", I don't mind limiting taxes). Plus, one about shunting some of the Tobacco settlement money to actual tobacco education instead of whatever else lawmakers are allowed to spend it on.