Vakkotaur

It's been amusing to see the various polls disagree with each other. I expect each one weights things differently and has a different sample-space (adults? registered voters? likely voters?). It's even more amusing to hear the various analysts and media types trying to make sense of apparently conflicting numbers. I wonder if, the evening of November 2nd, it will be like four years ago with jumping the gun in a contest to be the first to call the election or if it will be like two years ago with everyone being careful and wanting to actually have the right stuff to report. I expect the first, I hope for the second.

Meanwhile the news here in Minnesota is that the Independence Party will appear on the ballot this fall. There was doubt due to an obscure and rather clumsy election law that required the top (primary) vote-getter of a party to get at least 10% of the votes someone in his party got in the last general election. It's even clumsier than I just put it. Even the state attorney general figured it wasn't constitutional, and said so to the state Supreme Court, which agreed. This was fast-tracked as the ballots had to be finalized by very early October so that absentee ballots can be printed. The result is that the minor parties should have an easier time of appearing on the ballot.

One of the problems was that the Minnesota primary is almost useless, so few bother to vote in it. Both the Republican and the DFL (Democrats) party do the caucus thing in Minnesota, so the major parties aren't a reason to go the primary. Also, the primary is after the conventions, so it would hardly matter even with the caucuses. With only minor parties on the primary for anything statewide, it should be no wonder that few bother. I recall that one of the major parties tried to change to a caucus in Wisconsin (to avoid the open primaries there) and got voter apathy as a result. They went back to taking the primary seriously after that.

And there is the debate scheduled for Thursday in Florida. Four hurricanes and now this. Filibuster Cartoons summed it up well.

So now another judge has stalled the national Do Not Call list. This time it's a claim about the first amendment and free speech issues. I find that rather silly as the list is opt-in and people can decide for themselves if they want their number(s) listed or not. The first amendment says people can speak, but it does not say that anyone is obligated to listen. This looks like a property rights issue to me. My phone, my rules. Sure, the callers pay for the call, but that doesn't compensate the called for the interruption and the loss of utility of the phone service for which they pay. Caller ID should not be the necessity it sadly seems to have become.

But going back to the speech objection, it comes from the loopholes that were left in the DNC list. Pollsters can still call. Charities can still call. Political campaign calls are still permitted. And that's the problem, it seems. One type of speech appears to be limited and regulated while other types are not. The solution is to close off the loopholes and make no distinction between commercial calls and the others. The end result would be the DNC list everyone (except those who live to annoy others) wanted in the first place.

I'm not going to bet on it, but it was interesting to see congress react with amazing speed recently to pass a bill that made it clear "Yes, we damn well meant for this to happen!" So there is some pressure there and it is being felt. As for calling the judge, while perhaps somewhat amusing, it's a waste of time and effort. Seems to me it'd be better to call congressmen and senators and point out the desired solution: Close the loopholes and make a truly effective DNC list.