2010 Election

This particular election is looking downright disturbing at the moment. Even if fringe candidates like Sharron Angle, Ken Buck or worse yet Christine O'Donnell (just to name a few of the more extreme candidates for Senate – the House has even more of these types) don't actually win, the mere idea that they could come close makes me wonder about the basic sense of much of the electorate. That any sizable number of people could swallow some of the outrageous stances taken by some of these people is scary. Of course the campaigns have also featured some very negative campaigning. Both sides have been guilty here; much as I don't want to see Rand Paul win, for example, I don't support attacking him for joining an irreverent club in college (all religions should be open to mockery, including Christianity and Islam, and it certainly shouldn't be necessary to be a Christian to get elected – interestingly enough, Chris Matthews, part of the supposedly "left-wing" media, apparently asked Paul's opponent, Conway, some pointed questions to that effect). But for all the faults of the Democrats, given the attitude the Republicans have been displaying recently (particularly the rabid right-wingers), it'll be a disaster for the US – and, given America's still substantial power and influence, for the world as well – if the latter win control of Congress. [Incidentally, I came across a website that fact-checks statements by politicians in both major parties – though whether a particular statement is true is one thing; whether it's really important is another.]

Unfortunately there's little I can do about any of this now. All I can do is fill out my own ballot as best I can. Here again it's mostly a lost cause, as I'm stuck with voting in Texas, which is even more hopelessly conservative than most other states (though there are a few that are worse). I hope that may change in the future, but for at least the next few elections, the Republicans can be expected to dominate statewide races; in fact if the Democrats can avoid a sweep they'll have done well. Even my congressional district has been gerrymandered to be solidly Republican (at least in some other areas of Texas, Democrats can get elected to Congress or the state legislature). Nevertheless, I will vote just to show that not everyone is enamored of the usual conservative rhetoric that dominates the state. The following are my views of the major races on my ballot following a bit of research into the candidates and their views. I probably won't vote on all the local races since I don't have time to do enough research and I'm not familiar enough with local issues (better not to vote on particular race if you know nothing at all about the candidates than to vote in a blind partisan manner). But I believe that it's important that people make an effort to vote, including doing the necessary homework, even if their candidates don't have a chance of winning. Even casting a blank ballot (essentially voting "none of the above") is better than not voting at all.


US House of Representatives, District 32
Grier Raggio (D)
The Libertarian candidate, Myers, actually is fairly sensible on many points, but like all libertarians, he has an excessive faith in the free market and its ability to solve problems, so while his positions on drugs and subsidies to oil and coal companies are spot on, his position on health care, for instance, is completely backward. Raggio, the Democratic candidate, has good (though not always very detailed) positions on pretty much all the issues they were asked about (including health care, alternative energy, carbon emissions and immigration). Though he's less bold and forthright than Myers on some issues, overall his views accord best with my own. The incumbent, Sessions, on the other hand, has pretty much nothing going for him at all. So Raggio gets my vote.

Texas Governor
Bill White (D)
Deb Shafto (Grn)
Deb Shafto, the Green candidate, is in many ways the best. Certainly I like what she has to say on the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire about renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the little she had space to say about education sounded good to, except maybe the part about longer school days. Her much longer responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire show that she's a serious candidate. I agree with the majority of her stances, including on the environment, energy, taxes, and the problems with the death penalty, so on the issues she comes out on top. On the other hand, Bill White, the Democrat, seems okay on most issues, and more importantly, he has a real chance to beat the incumbent Perry, who is hopelessly right-wing. So while I'd really like to vote for Shafto, I may end up going with White just in order to beat Perry. But certainly I'd urge anyone who for whatever reason didn't like White to give Shafto their vote.
Additional note: I looked up some accounts of the debate between the candidates, which Perry refused to attend (obviously he doesn't think the voters need to hear from him or get a chance to make any comparisons). Shafto's responses were the ones I agreed with most; White seemed overly cautious and unwilling to commit himself (he declined to rate Obama's performance, for example). The Libertarian, Glass, had some good one-liners, but she also showed that she's a extreme right-wing T bagger-type Libertarian, rather than the standard Libertarians who are at least anti-war and pro-legalization (of cannabis). She did say she'd sign a bill legalizing medical marijuana but didn't seem enthusiastic about it, while she's apparently rabidly anti-immigrant and absurdly said Obama was the "worst president ever". She also said Ayn Rand is her favorite philosopher. An obvious nut. But between Shafto and White, it's harder to decide than ever. If Perry weren't so terrible, I'd feel less hesitation about not voting for the candidate who has a chance to beat him. On the other hand, I also like the idea of voting for a candidate I really agree with on a lot of things, plus supporting a decent liberal third party (which the Libertarians clearly aren't). Still a toss up.

Texas Lieutenant Governor
Linda Chavez-Thompson (D)
Once again, the choice is between the Green candidate and the Democratic candidate. In this race it theoretically should be easier to choose the Green, Gonzales, as I have no particular reason to expect that the race will be as close as it will be for governor (most polls focus only on the governor's race, but one analysis I found said the incumbent Republican is heavily favored in this race). But judging from her responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Chavez-Thompson is a strong candidate, while Gonzales seems to be the weakest of the Green candidates for statewide office. It doesn't help that his writing is poor. So with some reluctance (as a general principle, I'd really like to be able to vote for more Green candidates), I think I'll probably have to go with Chavez-Thompson in this race.

Texas Attorney General
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (D)
The Democrat, Radnofsky, gives decent responses on most issues, and while the Libertarian seems slightly better than the Republican incumbent, he's still a Libertarian (and his response to the Dallas Morning News question on EPA standards is typical Libertarian fringe nuttiness – whereas Radnofsky's response is excellent). So I definitely plan to vote Radnofsky in this race.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Edward Lindsay (Grn)
Since there's no Democrat in this race, I'll certainly vote for Lindsay, the Green. He doesn't talk much about the environment (of course the office he's running for doesn't really deal with environmental issues directly) but he seems okay (and when asked why he's running as a Green, he states that their platform, including promotion of a clean environment, accords with his philosophy), and perhaps more importantly, in the absence of a Democratic candidate, he's the Greens' best chance at getting 5% of the vote in a statewide race. If he does get that much, the Greens will have automatic ballot access in the next state election, rather than having to go through the petition process. As Texans (and Americans) need a good third party option in the future, I would urge all sensible Texas voters to give Lindsay their votes.

Texas Commissioner of General Land Office
Hector Uribe (D)
Uribe, the Democratic candidate, has some good things to say on land use, renewable energy, and conservation, so he gets my vote.

Texas Commissioner of Agriculture
Hank Gilbert (D)
Gilbert's emphasis on the importance of climate change is enough to win my support. The Libertarian seems somewhat better than the Republican incumbent (and I like his support for hemp cultivation), but not good enough to take a chance on.

Texas Railroad Commissioner
Jeff Weems (D)
Art Browning (Grn)
This one is another difficult choice. Again, all other things being equal, I'd prefer to vote for the Green candidate, as I'd like to see the Green party become a real force in US politics. Browning, the Green candidate, seems alright from his responses to the brief Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire and the information on the Texas Green Party website. Unfortunately, he didn't respond to the more extensive Dallas Morning News questionnaire, so I still don't know a lot about his views. Weems, the Democratic candidate, seems to know his stuff. His statement that he would "be outspoken in advocating an expansion of wind and solar power" and his strong statement on global warming are points in his favor. Also, he seems to have a good chance of winning (perhaps even a better one than White has). The Dallas Morning News was enthusiastic in their endorsement of him (not that I agree with them on all or even many of their endorsements), and his opponent is not an incumbent, the incumbent having lost in the primary. So at the moment I'm leaning toward Weems, though it's a tough call.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 3
Jim Sharp (D)
Even aside from the need to bring a little balance to a court that is all Republican, judging from his responses to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, Sharp, the Democrat (and a sitting Appeals Court judge), seems like a very solid candidate, so he gets my vote.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 5
Bill Moody (D)
The situation in this race is almost identical to the Place 3 race, except that the Democrat, Moody, is a district court judge; in any event, he looks like the best choice.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 9
Blake Bailey (D)
While the responses given by Bailey, the Democratic candidate in this race (and an attorney), are a little more abbreviated and thus slightly less convincing than those of the other Democrats running for Supreme Court, there's nothing particularly objectionable in his views. The Republican incumbent, on the other hand, when asked to name a judge she admires, named Antonin Scalia. So it's Bailey in this race.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 2 & Pl. 5
These races have no Democratic (or Green) candidates, so the choice is between Libertarians and Republicans. I am generally wary of Libertarians, as some of them are simply far right "t bag" types, like their candidate for Texas governor or worse yet the Koch brothers. However, some of them emphasize the civil libery aspect of Libertarianism, and so are more palatable than most Republicans. These two strike me as more this type. Both of them have problems with the death penalty, and the one in the Pl. 5 race also makes a strong statement on the importance of mercy (though he does make some typical Libertarian comments about big government as well). The Republican candidates didn't reply to the Dallas Morning News questionnaire, and the one running in Pl. 2 didn't even bother with the Vote411/League of Women Voters questionnaire. So if I vote at all in these races, it'll be for the Libertarians.

Court Of Criminal Appeals, Pl. 6
In this case there is a Democratic candidate, and the Libertarian didn't respond to either of the questionnaires, so he's out. The Democrat doesn't really give me all that much to go on as he – and the Republican as well – decline to answer the death penalty question on the (admittedly reasonable) grounds that they may hear death penalty questions, and neither acknowledges that the court is particularly "tough on crime" (though the Republican is more defensive about it). Still, the Democrat's remarks on mercy are good (the Republican's are okay but more vague) and his reasons for running as a Democrat sound good. I haven't decided if I'll vote on this one, but if I do it'll be for the Democrat.

State Board of Education, Dist. 12
This race is also between a Libertarian and a Republican. Both are somewhat critical of the current board. Neither is quite specific enough in their criticism to show exactly where they stand on some of the current board's more idiotic moves, though the Libertarian makes the point that the board should not try to casually overrule the work of educators and experts. The Republican does suggest that maybe the board should be made up of educators, which is not unreasonable. He is also less fond of the idea of charter schools (the Libertarian is a supporter), making the reasonable argument that it would make more sense to improve the regular public schools (though as charter schools do have some virtues, I have mixed feelings on this issue myself). So while this is an important race, I may simply abstain on this one, though I might go with the Libertarian.

Texas House, District 115
Not much of a choice here. No Democrats (or Greens) running, so we're left with a Libertarian and the Republican incumbent. The incumbent sounds pretty bad, as he supports Arizona's absurd immigration law and supports Texas' lax air pollution standards over the EPA's more stringent standards. The Libertarian didn't respond to the Dallas Morning News candidate questionnaire, so he's an unknown (though if he's a typical Libertarian, he'll be great on a few issues and nutty on a lot of others). Still, it's tempting to vote for him just as a vote against the incumbent.

These are all the races I'm likely to vote on, except for a few local referendums (basically alcohol sales should be legal, but city park land shouldn't be sold unless there are assurances it won't be turned into just another housing or shopping development). Frankly I'll be happy if even one or two of the people I vote for actually wins, but in any case I will have done my civic duty.