Bush

This is a recurring theme throughout my blog, along with Star Wars rants, self depreciating comments and really really poor/bad jokes. Make me wonder why people actually bother to read. Probably the same reason I write. Procrastination.

According to this site, Bush has overtaken Kerry in terms of electoral college votes. This more accurately predicts the winner as the US presidential system doesn't use an direct voting system. Which is, to say the least, suck. But, as we all know, polls are pretty worthless and probably do more to influence voters rather than reflect their beliefs. Bush's popularity will probably increase during the RNC, but hopefully it will come back down.

There are some interesting details in the graphic of the site above. Bush has 142 'strong' ec votes to Kerry's 109. Kerry has 107 'weak' ec votes to Bush's 40... and Bush has 98 'barely' ec votes to Kerry's 26. 16 ec votes are exactly even. So, other than stating that Bush has a larger base of staunch Republican states to work with, the election could sill theoretically go either way.

In practice, however....
There are a number of things about this election and the candidates that would scare me if I registered anything more than a cynical apathy over the upcoming election. First and foremost are the candidates. Bush and Cheney are about as attractive as, well, Bush and Cheney. Kerry is largely uninspiring and his only real attraction is that he is not Bush. I admire his conduct and bravery in Vietnam, and the courage it took to stand up against Vietnam when he returned. He's certainly paying for that now. It would have been far better for him to dodge the draft aka Bush and Clinton and flit about the countryside. His changes of heart and mind are irritating. Then again, Bush has recently caused a few laughs by stating that the war on terror is unwinnable (surprised?) and then clarifying that the other day by stating that 'unwinnable' actually meant 'winnable'. A bit like the election. Edwards is an enigma. He's got that good ol' boy Southern Charm, which should help, but little in the way of experience. At least he comes from the honest profession. He is on record as saying he is against free trade because it harms US interests. Bush is similar telling steel workers that he's responsible for tariff rises in steel, but demanding open markets for American products on the world stage. That same old hypocrisy that will exist regardless of who ultimately becomes president.

Yes, the Democrat ticket is better environmentally and will generate some foreign sympathy - particularly in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas. I wonder who Tony B. wants to win. But I still have a sinking feeling that it's like choosing between cancer and a coronary.

Even if Kerry has more people vote for him than Bush, I still think Bush will become president again for the reasons listed below.

1a) Diebold Voting Machines. A Maryland judge ruled today that the Diebold Voting Machines are actually more accurate than paper ballots and will be optional in the November elections. 20% of California will use the machines to cast their votes, perhaps influenced by the Governorship of the T-1000. There are a number of concerns over the safety of the Diebold machines - such as the potentiality for voter fraud and vote manipulation.

1b) The Bush Campaign engaged in actions which can only be described in a public forum as being 'undemocratic' during the last election. The same people are involved this time.

1a) + 1b) = Bush president 2005.

2) Florida. Jeb is still in power. Florida has 27 EC votes and is perceived as one of the most crucial states to win. Currently leaning toward Bush.

3)US Supreme Court is stacked in favour of the Republicans. There are 6 republicans to 3 democrats. One of the republicans is the very scary Antonin Scalia, who is not only an extremely conservative republican, but a good mate of Cheney. To be fair to the court they did invalidate the administration's Guantanamo stance. Any Bush appeal to the Supreme court, however, will probably go his way.

4) Kerry. The Democrats nominated him not because they believed in him, but because they thought he had the best chance of winning. There is a difference between the two.

5) Nader. While I hope his run will inspire democrats to actually get out and vote, there is the danger that he would siphon off votes that would otherwise remove Bush. If anyone who likes Nader but dislikes Bush more actually votes for Nader instead of Kerry in vital state then they probably deserve Bush.

6) Voter turnout. At the last election 70% of the eligible population were registered to vote. 82% of registered voters voted. 60% of the total eligible population voted. In Britain the 2001 elections were marred by an extremely low turnout (and the re-election of Tony) - 59.1% - that was down from 71.6% in 1997. 2001 was the lowest voter turnout in Britain since 1918. The US 60% was actually an increase from the 58% in 1996. In New Zealand voter turnout in the 2001 elections was 77%, which is reasonable for a country where voting is not compulsory (unlike Australia, for instance). So the statements that assert the US 2004 election will be an extremely close election ignore the 40% of eligible Americans who probably won't bother voting. A small election turnout will favour Bush.

Damn Thesis.