Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Friday, November 9, 2012

Lemming Tracks: Puerto Rico, Statehood, and Getting a Grip

As far as the Lemming is concerned, if folks living in Puerto Rico think it's a good idea to become a state, instead of a territory: that's fine. If they don't, also fine. Being a state seems to make sense: but the Lemming lives a few thousand miles away from Puerto Rico, and that's another topic.

Voting, Puerto Rico, and Congress

"Puerto Rico wants to become the 51st state of the US"
BBC News (November 7, 2012)

"Voters in Puerto Rico have supported a non-binding referendum to become a full US state.

"The measure will require approval from the US Congress, but President Barack Obama has said he will respect the vote.

"The island is currently a US territory, which uses the dollar and whose citizens travel on US passports.

"But it does not return senators to the US Congress and is represented in Washington by a non-voting delegate.

"Almost 80% of the island's electorate took part in the referendum, the fourth in the past 45 years...."

The Lemming figured it was only a matter of time before most Puerto Ricans got used to the idea of having equal status with the existing 50 states.

There's also the matter of folks from the 48 contiguous states, plus Hawaii and Alaska, getting used to the idea that Americans don't need to look like Archie Bunker. More topics.

When news about the statehood referendum came out, the Lemming also figured that it was only a matter of time before someone found a dark lining to this silver cloud. It didn't take long.

An associate professor says the referendum vote is wrong, because Puerto Ricans don't want statehood.

They're Not Supposed to Want That?

"Puerto Rico Statehood Experts Challenge Results"
Christina Ng, ABC News blog (November 8, 2012)

"A vote in Puerto Rico over the island’s status as a U.S. territory has triggered a fierce debate over whether a majority voted to become the 51st state.

"The island territory has been debating the issue for decades and pro-statehood politicians are celebrating Tuesday's vote claiming it was the first time in 45 years that Puerto Ricans have voted for statehood.

"Others, however, are challenging that conclusion and argue that the vote indicates opposition to statehood.

" 'Puerto Ricans in general are just dissatisfied with the current government,' Yarimar Bonilla, a Rutgers University assistant professor of anthropology and Caribbean studies, told ABCNews.com...."

Maybe an associate professor is right, and all those Puerto Ricans didn't know what they really want. Then again, maybe Puerto Ricans aren't quite as unaware as they're supposed to be.

This isn't 1893, Puerto Rico isn't Hawaii, and that's another boatload of topics.

Passports? What Passports?

"Important Travel Information on Puerto Rico"
Travel.State.gov, U.S. Department of State (undated)

"Inaccurate press reports about travel between Puerto Rico and mainland United States

"Contrary to a number of inaccurate press reports stemming from a July 16, 2012 article that misquoted a State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs official, there is no passport requirement for U.S. citizens for direct travel between the mainland United States and U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands...."

Sometimes reporters get it right. Sometimes they don't. Deadlines, assumptions, and creative editors, may be factors in news media's relationship with reality.

The Lemming's opined about news, and what folks expect, in another blog:

"...In the wake of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, up to somewhere after Watergate, reporters were taken quite seriously. The brave reporter, on a quest for Truth, became a stock character in movies. I've discussed stereotypes and movies before....

"...When Richard T. Heffron needed intrepid heroes for a movie about a conspiracy by robots to take over the world, "reporters" filled the bill neatly. That was in 1976.

"Like I've said before, change happens. A few years after "Futureworld", another creative team gave us a somewhat different view of reporters...."
(A Catholic Citizen in America (April 27, 2012))

And that's - what else? - yet another topic.

Vaguely-related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 6, 2012

Lemming Tracks: States Provide Voter Information (and email addresses - EEEEK!)

If you registered to vote in one of these states, and put your email address on the voter registration form, you'll probably be spammed:
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Missouri
  • Oregon
  • New Jersey
  • Rhode Island
  • Wisconsin
    (FoxNews.com)
The government in these states decided to sell email addresses they'd collected during voter registration. Don't worry, though: they didn't sell to just anybody. Only the 'better' sort could buy your address.

States Sell Contact Lists: Legal, Yes; Smart, Dubious

"Move over robo-calls, states sell email addresses for campaigns to reach voters"
Kathleen Foster, FoxNews.com (February 6, 2011)

"If your email inbox starts overflowing with messages from political campaigns this election season, it could be because your state sold you out.

"A Fox News study has found 19 states plus the District of Columbia, now ask for an email address on voter registration cards. In nine of those states, email addresses from the cards are then sold to political parties, organizing groups, lawmakers and campaigns who can use them to send unsolicited emails.

"If it were a Viagra ad, it be considered a crime in some states. But a political message, that's all perfectly legal.

"The CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing) law enacted in 2003 puts restrictions on commercial mass emailing, but not on political mass emailing. Politicians can 'spam' and do. Political messages of any kind, including electronic, are protected free speech under the First Amendment...."

Here's where it gets interesting.

On the one hand, folks who cooperatively gave their email addresses to (some) state governments will be getting a whole lot of more-or-less coherent campaign stuff in their inbox. Assuming that their spam filters don't deal with it first. That could be annoying.

On the other hand, these spam lists are fairly well-focused. The only folks affected are those who:
  • State residents
    • Who registered to vote
      • Presumably have some interest in who
        • Runs
        • Wins
    • Wanted to give their email address
  • Politicos and their ilk
    • Political
      • Parties
      • Organizing groups
      • Lawmakers
      • Campaigns
People who vote presumably want to know something about the candidates they'll support, and the issues they'll support or condemn. That's the idea, anyway: and that's another topic.

Voters could reasonably be expected to be interested in what politicos and their marketing people have to say. Int a way, selling email lists is no more an 'invasion of privacy' than providing a list of names and addresses.

The difference is that it's a whole lot easier, faster, and cheaper, to email than to call or drop envelopes into the United States postal system. That can mean more efficient communication: or massive accumulations of drivel. So much depends on whether the folks sending emails have common sense.

What If the Government Wouldn't Share?

"...'Political communications are not spam. Political communications are a demonstration of free speech in America,' said Stuart Shapiro, president of iConstituent, a Washington, D.C.-based firm which uses state-generated email lists to send messages on behalf of clients on all sides of the political spectrum.

" 'There is a tenet in government that is based on communicating with our constituents, and email is one of the most effective ways to do it,' Shapiro said. 'People look forward to it and want it.'

" 'Politicians love the fact that their perceived freedom of speech is more important than voters' privacy,' said Shaun Dakin, president and CEO of The National Political Do Not Contact Registry, a non-profit voters' rights advocacy group based in Falls Church, Va...."

"Political communications are not spam" is true, to a point. Provided that the states sell lists to all political parties, and keep the cost low enough so that all but the best-funded are excluded. Then there's the potential for excluding parties and candidates who aren't sufficiently green, patriotic, or diverse.

"Privacy," and Getting a Grip

"...Like phone numbers, email addresses are not required to register to vote anywhere in the United States. Giving the information is optional, but that may not be clear to the average voter.

" 'I think this is really one of those untold stories. It's all going on behind the scenes,' said Kim Alexander, president of The California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit organization which produced the study "Voter Privacy in the Digital Age.'..."

Since the Lemming lives in a small town, "privacy" in the sense of anonymity isn't a factor. Like the old gag says, 'if you can't remember where you were today, ask someone: they'll know.' The Lemming loves it here: but folks who want to be part of a faceless crowd probably wouldn't like it. And that's yet another topic.

A key point here is that states aren't demanding email addresses as a voting requirement. That, in the Lemming's opinion, would be as bad an idea as the old pre-civil-rights voter registration requirements that kept the 'wrong sort' away from elections.

And 'not clear to the average voter?' The Lemming suspects that The Masses are nowhere near as stupid, ignorant, or irresponsible, as the establishment believes we are. Yet more topics.

These states ask for email addresses on voter registration forms:
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • District of Columbia
  • Delaware
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Maryland
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • New Jersey
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Tennessee
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming
    (FoxNews.com)

Opting Out/Confirming and Common Sense

"...Receivers of political emails do have the right to opt-out from lists -- they just can't do it in one click. Instead, they must do it with every email they receive, clicking on an "unsubscribe" link, if the email has one or by replying to the sender with 'Remove Me' request.

"Shapiro says few people actually do this.

" 'iConstituent, last year, probably mailed more than a billion email records out throughout all of America for Congress for various other legislators and we have a very, very low unsubscribe rate. It is well under one-tenth of 1 percent.'..."

It's interesting that under 0.1% of folks respond to those "unsubscribe" notices. It may mean that folks on the voter email lists like getting the messages. Or it may mean that they've learned not to respond to such things.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Lemming learned by experience to ignore and delete unwanted email. That was when some outfits were collecting lists of working email addresses by sending to all more-or-less likely possible combinations of name ("local") and domain. Folks who clicked on the 'unsubscribe' link, or sent a 'don't bother me' email back, had confirmed that the email address was in use. And that whoever used it read their email. Spam by the bucket would follow.

Ah, the 'good old days.' Yet again more topics.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Taking Pictures and Making Recordings Around Polling Places

"Documenting Your Vote"
Citizen Law Project.

A pretty good guide for how to not get in trouble around polling places. In a way, it's just common sense:

"Guidelines for Avoiding Legal Trouble
1. Follow the Rules"

This page seems like a pretty good place to start checking what is, and isn't acceptable in your state. It includes a chart that outlines which states have what rules.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Net Neutrality, Google, Washington, DC, and Choice

This, I'm not apathetic about.

About Net Neutrality, on the Net

There are two pieces of American legislation, one in the House, one in the Senate, that could affect how the Internet works in America.

I think these bills are important.

But, I'm not convinced that conventional wisdom is right: that the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" will, if passed, protect us from 'Big Telephone' and maintain Net Neutrality.

Odds are that if you heard that dissenting view expressed, it was described negatively, by someone who wants Washington, DC, to protect you from 'Big Telephone.'

My impression of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" was very positive, until I noticed how many people and organizations were talking about it in glowing, and rather vague, terms.

That got me curious, so I did a little checking around:
  • "A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:"
    Google (2008)
    • "The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called 'net neutrality' – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
    • "In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
    • "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay...."
  • " 'Net neutrality' war comes to fore"
    International Herald-Tribune (September 26, 2007)
    • "NEW YORK: Saying it had the right to block 'controversial or unsavory' text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon's cellular network available for a text-message program.
    • "The other leading wireless carriers accepted the program, which allows people to ask to receive text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.
    • "Text messaging is a growing political force in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters...."
  • "Frequently Asked Questions"
    SaveTheInternet.com (undated)
    • "What is this about?
      "When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose.
      "What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality.
    • "What is Network Neutrality?
      Network Neutrality -- or "Net Neutrality" for short -- is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
      "Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
      "Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service....
  • "H.R.5353
    Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008    "
    Open Congress
    • "To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes...."
  • "CCAGW Opposes Internet Freedom Preservation Act"
    IP Communications (May 7, 2008)
    • "The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is reportedly opposing H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held hearings on this act yesterday.
      "CCAGW president Tom Schatz that anytime Congress attempts to protect anything, it usually means more regulation, less competition, less consumer choice, and higher costs.
    • "He said the market for high-speed Internet services should remain open to competition without government interference.
    • "H.R. 5353 inserts net neutrality principles into the 1934 Telecommunications Act and defines broadband policy. Although H.R. 5353 adds heavy-handed government regulation and oversight, it ignores the fact that consumers have more Internet choices than ever before. Today, cable, satellite and wireless broadband providers are competing head-to-head for customers. In a bid to beat competition they are providing better services at lower prices...."
I'm not urging you to call your representatives and support this bill, or saying that you should tell them to block it. I haven't made up my own mind about this.

But I'm dubious about this well-intentioned effort to save us from our Internet Service Providers.

For starters, one of the biggest proponents of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" is Google. I like Google, as a search engine, and I've heard that they provide excellent customer service.

However, Google's record on freedom of speech and censorship isn't all that unblemished. Remember Google's accommodation of the Chinese leaders' requirements, back in 2006?

I think that much of the decision, about whether or not to support the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" will boil down to a matter of preference. Who do you want to have control of which Internet service provider you use, and what that provider can do for you:
  • You, and millions of other people like you, choosing which of an array of competing providers you use
  • The politicos and bureaucrats in Washington, deciding which provider will show you what information
When you've made up your mind, Here are some 'contact Congress' pages:

Names of the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008"

Official
To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.
Short
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008
Popular
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.
(From Open Congress)
Where the bills are in Congress:

House of Representatives



Senate

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 4, 2008

The Bobble Head Party: An Idea Whose Time has Come?

As an American citizen, I've got mixed feelings about the 2008 elections. Although I make an effort to stay informed, and vote regularly, I'm
  • Not always impressed by either of the major American political parties
  • Frequently underwhelmed by the shenanigans of our leaders on Capitol Hill
  • Firmly believe that if a hundred million people really believe in a stupid idea: It's still a stupid idea
Today, after a night punctuated by clean-up in one of the family's bedrooms, and with a cold coming on, I had a thought.

The following political party doesn't exist, but maybe it should.

The Bobble Head party: These people with a simple solution to ending malfeasance and tomfoolery in Washington.

They propose to replace all members of the American Congress, House and Senate, with bobble head dolls: and place a lava lamp on the desk of the Oval Office.

The Bobble Head party's main talking points are that the bobble heads couldn't possibly foul up as much as our leaders can, and would cost much less to maintain.

Under the Bobble Head plan, elections would determine which faces would go on each doll, and what color the lava lamp would be for the next four years.
The quantity, and quality, of nonsense during election years being what it is, this disclaimer may be necessary: This post is a joke.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, January 18, 2008

Simian Suffrage Suffers: Judge Refuses Right to Sue

These news items are funny, in a weird way. There's also something serious going on here.

"Texas appeals court: Monkeys, chimps can't sue" "The Dallas Morning News" (January 18, 2008)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) say that nine chimpanzees and monkeys at Primarily Primates sanctuary in Texas didn't have good living conditions. Then the case gets interesting: PETA says that the primates should sue.

Not that someone should sue on their behalf: that the chimps and monkeys themselves should sue.

A Texas appeals wouldn't play along, so now PETA may appeal to a higher court.

It can get weirder. And I don't mean the possibility that the Supreme Court might open the door to lawsuits by chimps (which just happen to be handled by the wild side of animal rights groups).

I think it's only a matter of time before a charismatic chimp will be presented as a simian Frederick Douglass.

"Monkey see, monkeys sue to be called a 'person'" "Oakland Tribune" (May 5, 2007)

Austrian chimp Matthew Hiasl Pan's lawyer said that he's a person, legally. "Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights," is how Eberhart Theuer, lawyer for the Vienna "Association Against Animal Factories" said.

The case didn't go well. For the chimp's backers, anyway:

"Take a Closer Look. It's a Chimp, Dude" "KTAR.com The Valley's Home Page" (January 15, 2008)

"The Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories sought to have him declared a person and petitioned to be appointed Matthew's trustee.

"But the high court upheld a September ruling by a judge in the town of Wiener Neustadt rejecting the petition, the group said Tuesday."

I've been hearing and reading serious proposals for extending suffrage to animals for over twenty years now. Given the capacity for people to make daft decisions, I think it's quite possible that we'll have to have chimp-friendly voting booths in the not-too-distant future.

Not that many changes need to be made. A minute-long video by Black Box Voting shows Baxter the chimp hacking a Diebold touch-screen voting machine system. Diebold says that the video was staged, and their machines are okay.

The point is, chimps should be able to handle the voting process: physically.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

See How the Candidates Score

"Candidate Calculator Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Agrees With You"

This sounds like a good idea: "You will be scored based upon how well you match the current views of each of the 2008 presidential candidates." Actually, they're showing how well the candidates match your views.

It sure beats voting for the candidate with the best hair.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory