Abortion and the 2008 election - results

The Presidential election was not the only thing that was decided in the elections on November 4th. Across the nation several states debated one of the more controversial issues in America since at least the 1970’s. Abortion.

The issue at hand in Colorado, South Dakota, and California essentially was the banning of abortion in all forms. As of 12pm I can say that in Colorado and South Dakota the ballot initiatives were soundly defeated. But California was still up in the air.

In Colorado the question for voters was

Defining “person” as at the moment of fertilization

This was defeated with a resounding 73% of no votes. So in Colorado, and as a legal example for the moment in the nation, life still begins at birth.

In South Dakota the question to voters was

Ban abortion except in the case of rape and/or the endangerment of the health of the mother [ie she will die otherwise]

Voters in this less dense than average state also rallied together for a 55% no vote. Obviously voters there feel that there are other reasons and circumstances that need to be included in any consideration of abortion.

But in California one of the most debated issues was on the ballot

Waiting period and notify parents of a minor prior to an abortion

As I stated that as of midnight this had not been resolved. This does not ban abortions, for minors or anyone else, but it is felt by some to overly restrict access to abortions. Effectively it achieves the same end as a ban. Considering how liberal California is on many issues this could go in any direction.

But overall no real headway has been made in the debate on abortion. It is still legal, and many find fault with the degree – or existence – that this medical procedure is used to.

With the election of a Democratic Congress, and an extremely liberal Democratic President who will likely replace at least 1 or 3 Supreme Court Justices there seems no question that nationally abortion will be here to stay. At least for 1 more year on a state by state level.

Do you agree with those votes? How would you voted on the California ballot?

Delegates, Electoral College, and your vote

**part ogf the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign**

So as the political parties work closer to deciding who will be their nominee a renewed call is circulating for a modified system for deciding the winner of the Presidential election. As is too well known, the popular vote in the nation does not decide who is President. The most notable example of this has to be the election of 2000, with Al Gore eventually winning the popular vote and losing the election.

The question of why the general vote does not decide the winner can be summed up in possibly it’s biggest detraction. Were there to be a straightforward vote, candidates would focus the predominance of their attention and campaigning to states with large populations. Thus New York, California and others would be huge targets, while states like Montana and the Dakotas would be virtually ignored. That would take away the importance of these states in the election cycle. Considering the numbers in New York City alone, which the state of Illinois matches in population, the disparity becomes clear.

Thus the electoral college attempts to balance the field, giving more weight to the less populous parts of the nation. Though it fails as well. Many like myself are annoyed with the fact that the popular vote does not directly influence who gets to be President, and that candidates are more concerned with the mathematics of a win versus the public.

But there is a solution proposed that might answer this dilemma. It’s not perfect, and again bigger states take more precedence, but that’s not a new thing. The plan is called the National Popular Vote.

“…the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state — basically the same system used now.”

Now that plan is far from perfect but doesn’t it sound better than what we have now? Doesn’t it place the candidates more in a direct accountability to the voters? Wouldn’t it reflect the sentiment of the nation more accurately?

Some want to focus on the weaknesses and potential delays of the proposed system. That if there was a need for a recount in an especially close race, it would have to be done nationally and that this is impractical today. Of course if such a system were to be employed we would need far better technology to record each vote, thus making it easy to recount as well. And upgrading the voting system from the sometimes overly archaic punch tab machines that evoke the hi-tech and cutting edge of 1950’s technology.

At least this much is known right now. The current voting system is faulty at every level from the individual voting machines up to the Electoral College. No one likes the system as it exists. And efforts to patch the worst aspects of the system are currently failing miserably.

Something needs to be done, and sadly it will not be in time for the 2008 election. But until it does get fixed, or at least replaced with a system that is closer to an accurate representation of the voice of the people, you at least know what is going on.

No matter the failures remember this, 118,599 total votes decided which way the electoral vote of Ohio would go in 2004. That’s just 1 extra person for every 100 in that state. Just 1. Imagine if just 1 extra person per 100 in the nation made their voice heard.

Now imagine that you are that person stepping up and making sure that America makes the best choice possible. That’s how powerful your vote is. Use it, it’s your Constitutional Right.