Illinois: Who should I vote for – OR – Ballot access

Being registered in Illinois where Obama won the Senate race by a 30-point margin (and lost in my home county by the same), there seems to be next to zero chance that the state will vote Republican for the first time since Reagan. As such, I’d be throwing my vote away if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican. The only goal I can hope to reach with my senatorial and presidential votes is to help ensure future ballot access for a third party or two. Disregarding certain joke candidates and the rather scary Socialists and Constitution types, should I be voting for crazy tree huggers or crazy capitalists?

The old hippy lady runnin’ on the Green ticket for the Senate seems a little, well, odd. Is the party dead in Illinois? Is the Libertarian party any more or less likely to lose ballot access than the Greens in the near future? Should I split the vote and go for a lib Presidential candidate and a Green in the Senate?

Please keep in mind that I don’t give the slightest bit of a hoot about any of the following when formulating a response:

  • Abortion
  • Gun ownership

And I do care rather a lot (obviously) about consumer, privacy, and fair use rights. I’d love to see the borders opened up to substantially higher numbers of immigrants, and I wish to see barriers to international trade continue to be chopped away. I’d like to see poverty abated in the third world, and feel that the problem in the United States is miniscule in comparison. Obviously neither the Greens nor the Libs are a good fit, but neither are the (D)s and (R)s. Any thoughts?

Shoot…

http://badbarr2008.com/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080606/0136491330.shtml

The libs aren’t even running a libertarian (small L) this year? So which of these three folk who want to strip away my fair use rights am I supposed to vote for again? Bad year for IP counter-reform. Bad year for privacy rights. Bad year for consumer rights. Bad year for folk who’d like to survive doing business with the police. (By the way, here’s a good free read.)

Now both mainstream candidates want to break out everyone’s favorite dead horse, instead of dealing with timely national issues in which it’s possible to enact real, meaningful change? This when American workers and employers are already struggling to meet increasing demands for stringent privacy policies in the global marketplace?

Bad campaign year all around.

Running with the first draft, eh?

Just a quick note – I just saw the much anticipated Hillary Clinton speech, and I must say, that was the most unprofessional, poorly written mess of a speech I’ve seen in a long time. Everyone’s hero Mike Gravel could have done better.

Did anyone else notice how it turned from a concession speech to a self-serving 2012 campaign rally after the first 5 minutes? Did anyone else notice the frequency with which she strayed off topic? Did anyone else notice how she was bringing up tiny little tidbits about a fellow who died in Alabama without any real context, expecting everyone to be fully versed in Alabamian party maneuvering?

With the frequent topic changes and the incoherent language (how did the incoherent “No way, no how, No McCain” get a standing ovation?), this speech was structured in a way that one must imagine only an intern’s first draft of a State of the Union can best.

Transcript: NYTimes

Update: Saw the second half of the speech again, and, though the language was still rather jilted and infantile, it was a great deal more focused than the introduction. Guess I oughta make a partial redaction.

Biden’s anti-privacy, anti-personal rights stance on technology getting some press

Joe Biden’s pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

I’ll be shocked if this news breaks outside of technical circles, but at least there’s some vibrant discussion on CNet, /., et al about this man’s frequent attempts to do substantial damage to our basic fundamental human right to privacy. Any chance at all that the Republicans might do less damage?

Big, big problems a-comin’ (Aka Rick Boucher for President)

Obama’s choice of veep is far from comforting. An active opponent of our basic fair use priveleges, Senator Joe Biden introduced and actively promoted legislation that would have criminalized far more than the already-rather-wretched Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1996. The “bill would [have? – is it dead?] make it a federal felony to try and trick certain types of devices into playing your music or running your computer program. Breaking this law–even if it’s to share music by your own garage band–could land you in prison for up to five years. And that’s not counting the civil penalties of up to $25,000 per offense.” Aren’t Democrats supposed to be gung-ho for consumer rights? May this man’s vision never be implemented – The last thing any knowledgeable consumer wants is crippled hardware that, to hack/fix would be a criminal act.

The law could have conceivably outlawed or prevented development of any number of unendorsed/unsigned applications for a number of different devices:

  • Rockbox – Open Source Jukebox – Firmware replacement for iPods et al
  • All the iPhone/iPod Touch jailbreaks
  • Ports of Linux to myriad architectures – Xboxes, Dreamcasts, Gamecubes, Wiis, etc, etc (to say nothing of XBMC)

Actively undermining consumer rights, creative fair use, and open source development sure as hell ain’t change I can believe in.

Now if only the Republicans were any better. *le sigh* – I guess I might just end up throwing my vote away on a third party candidate again – Biden’s worse than Bush, Kerry, and Gore combined in this respect. (Update: Lawrence Lessig might not write off McCain too quickly.)

Related articles:

Donating to the Republicans or Democrats? Offset the damage done by donating an equal amount to the Electronic Frontier Foundation