February 5: My First National Vote (sort of)

It is February 5, 2008 today, and right before I left for work, I went down to my local precinct's polling station and voted. This is a historic and momentous event for me because today marked the first time I have ever exercised my most basic civic privilege as a citizen of the United States of America, as far as participating in the federal election process. (This despite the fact that I strongly believe that the election process is totally f**ked up with so many layers fault. But more on that later.)











Truth be told, I actually voted for the first time back in November 7, 2006. But the ballot was for all things local. I could have voted on a national level back in 2004, but unfortunately, due to delays in paperwork processing (specifically my FBI and CIA background checks), my verbal approval for citizenship wasn't given until some time in the middle of October of 2004. This was a problem for a couple reasons:
1) Verbal congratulations on the part of the INS Officer does not indicate I am a citizen on that date, but that I had to wait until I attend and complete the next available Naturalization Oath Ceremony,
2) The Naturalization Oath Ceremonies for October and November were full, so I had to wait till December which was well past the November 2 election date, and
3) Even if the October Naturalization Oath Ceremony was available, apparently there is a law that bars you from voting if you have not registered to vote by 30 days before Election Day.

So yeah, I am excited that I took my first step towards voting in a national election process. And this time around it matters more, because when it was Walker Bush versus John Kerry, I thought it would be bad for either one to take office. Well, technically, somebody like John Kerry might still be an inch better than Walker Bush. But that's beside the point.

Even though it was exciting that I participated in the beginnings of a national presidential election process, I was quite unhappy with the modern primary/caucus process. Before the 1970's, each state's major political party (which is only the Democrats or Republicans) had their own internal process of selecting a party nominee to compete in the presidential race. Then Iowa simply had to mess that up for the rest of the country. They basically included regular folks in the party nominee nomination. Actually, this is all fine, but if you're going to involve people outside the party members, then the national parties should have dictated that the caucuses and primaries be held on the same day for all states.

But nooo... The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee had to dictate each and every state party on when they can have their primary or caucus held. Think of a national headquarter that controls each state's regional office. So because of this staggered system, they have created a giant monster.

First, because of this staggering system, small states like Iowa and New Hampshire got the privilege to shape up the nominee lineup. If a candidate did not get the party nomination from one of those early states, he may be compelled to drop out of the race. Why? Because the national media covers Iowa and New Hampshire with such ferocity that it in fact persuades voters in other states! Just imagine a headline like this on national morning news of January 4, 2008: "Edwards came in second in the Iowa Democratic Caucus!" Now imagine a headline like this on national morning news of January 9, 2008: "Edwards came in third in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary!" You got to believe that such headlines will subconsciously plant in the minds of other voters in the remaining states that maybe John Edwards is a loser! Heck, even this mental game plays into each and every candidate's minds as each caucus and primary continues day after day!

Sure, you can argue that each nominee have hired professional pollsters that will gauge potential voters in other states, but how aren't such polls on later states more of a measurement on the effects of the results from the first few caucuses and primaries rather than a measurement of whether voters will want to vote for him because of his beliefs and ideas?

If all states are forced to have their primaries and caucuses on the same day, we wouldn't have all these candidates dropping out, like John Edwards from the Democratic Party. For example, because of the staggering process, John Edwards decided to drop out on January 30 based on just a few early caucuses and primaries, right before the huge 24 state primaries and caucuses! And California, a big state with a huge number of delegates, has not even been decided on!!! If every state has their primaries and caucuses on the same day, and assuming that John Edwards won California with the same results of the current primaries and caucuses that occurred before February 5, 2008, there is a pretty good chance that he might still be in the race! But because he voluntarily dropped out, now California and Illinois have less candidates to nominate for the presidential race!

To me, that is all a crock of sh*t. After studying each major candidate's stand on issues and proposed policies, I have come to agree most with Chris Dodd. But because he had dropped out on January 3, 2008 right after losing the Iowa Caucus, I now can't get a chance to even nominate him in Illinois! Based on the extensive issues and positions each candidate stood in, here is my order of how much I agree with each candidate:
FIRST: Chris Dodd
SECOND: (tied) John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich
THIRD: Joe Bidden
FOURTH: Hillary Clinton
FIFTH: Mike Gravel
SIXTH: (tied) Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

But thanks to both Iowa and New Hampshire, they have single handedly eliminated my top nominee! And this morning, I had to choose between the remaining candidates of Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Barack Obama. All of whom I agreed the least with when it comes to issues and proposed policies!

So yes, I was happy that I voted today, but at the same time had a bittersweet feeling with the process. Much like how much I hate Lake Shore Drive because of the many pot holes it has, but I am forced to drive on it because I had no other choice. Dammit!!!

If you would like to see which candidate you most agree with, feel free to check out my spreadsheets for both the Democratic candidates and Republican candidates.

Basically, for each issue or policy, you highlight the box in green if you agree with the candidate's position 100%. If you totally disagree, you highlight the box in red. If you're indifferent to the position or cannot agree with everything a candidate proposes, you highlight it in yellow. (For example, I may agree with the position of having a single payer healthcare system, but I may disagree with how a specific candidate wants to fund such policy. In that case it would be yellow.) Then you tally up all the greens, and weigh it against the tally of the reds, and use the tally of the yellows as a deciding point. This is so much more accurate than those stupid websites like votechooser.com, because they only select a few issues, and over-generalize a candidate's position.

Have fun with it! You might even be surprised to see who you agree with the most! (The spreadsheets are compiled from CNN.com's profiles of each candidate.)