Saddam, Iraq, and the election

Saddam and the election

Bush is already trying to capitalize on Saddam's conviction, and the election gamesmanship is on. Bush is right that Saddam's death sentance is a milestone. Harry Reid is right that Saddam's conviction won't significantly change conditions in Iraq. How all this will play in the election remains to be seen. Democrats have worked hard to make this election about the War in Iraq, and Saddam's conviction will dominate the news until after the election, so this good news, any good news, from Iraq should work in Republicans' favor. In these tight races, every extra vote is important. It has to be a good sign for Republicans when the story from the Christian Science Monitor jumps to the top of Google news.
Impact on elections
What happens next in Saddam's case
The Vatican and international point of view
Election status

Republicans are just starting to respond to polls

As is always the case, conservatives are starting to get interested right before the election, and the polls are swinging toward the Republicans. It happens every two years, conservatives ignore the polls until the last few days, Democrats predict victory, and suddenly the polls shift right, right before the election when more conservatives respond. Democrats know this, but they're already prepared to cry foul on the election results. Funny they don't mention all the illegal immigrants, dead people, and double registered people Democrats count on each election. That's the real reason Democrats are against voter ID laws.
PEW report with data showing Republicans are closing

Rant about government and voting machines

The paperless voting machines are a perfect example of how noisy, partisan activists enable both parties to take more power from the people. After Democrats were unable to steal the 2000 election through the courts, leftist activists mounted a campaign to remove the hanging chad problem (anybody who can't make sure their ballot has no hanging chads shouldn't have their vote counted anyway - it's an improper ballot, therefore the person who cast it isn't smart enough to vote) by using electronic voting machines. Republicans saw a chance to grab power and funded election districts across the country to buy voting machines. But there was no provision in the funding to require a paper trail for votes. So instead of the highly reliable and proven punch machines, we have electronic voting machines that are programmed on the day of elections that are essentially black boxes to everybody but a few government workers and employees of the manufacturer. This new government power makes voters obsolete. As corrupt as government is, and as human as those workers are, elections will be manipulated, and the perpetrators will get away with it. Sure, they could be manipulated with paper ballots too, but there was always the paper trail and potential witnesses. The ballots could be observed by anybody. Not so with paperless voting machines.

Once again the federal government took our freedom. They should have stayed out of it. Freedom is always the right answer. Voting regulations belong to the state and voting precincts, but the feds made a power grab. As long as the feds had stayed out of it, no precinct would have been able to get away with paperless voting machines. Local pressure would have made sure of that. But now that the feds are involved, it's almost impossible to successfully lobby for a paper trail. The Democrats claim they would change this, but I don't believe them. They want the power just as much as the Republicans.

Effects of gerrymandering

The accomplice press keeps pointing out that election dynamics are different in this age of heavily gerrymandered districts. They correctly point out that it's much harder for an opposing candidate to win in the "safer" districts the parties have set up. What they don't point out is the larger issue - gerrymandering reduces the power of independents and all the voters. In closely contested districts, small differences in the independent vote determined winners. In safe, heavily gerrymandered, districts, it takes a significant difference in the independent vote to overcome the favorite. Gerrymandering is more about reducing the power of independents to influence the two party system than it is to gain advantage over the other party. Changes to make a district safe for Republicans make the other affected districts better for Democrats. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Gerrymandering also reduces the magnitude of changes that can occur in Congress each election. More districts are safe, so fewer districts are in play, further limiting the power of the people to effect change in the government. Gerrymandering is empowering the two parties at the expense of independents, empowering government at the expense of the people, and entrenching the bitter partisanship now dominating government.