2012 US Elections

As many people around the world and everyone in the US who is not an infant, senile or in a coma are surely aware, the United States is holding elections for President and a vast number of other offices, not to mention various referendums and propositions, next week. In fact, the election has already started, as early voting has been underway for some time, with Barack Obama already having become the first sitting US President to take advantage of early voting. While at this point there is still reason to hope that the extremists will not take over completely, it could still go either way. There is still a distinct possibility that Mitt Romney could edge out Obama for the presidency, and given the number of extremely close Senate races, the majority of them for seats currently held by Democrats, it is also quite possible that the Republicans will win a Senate majority. If the American electorate was both sensible and well-informed, neither of those things would be even a remote possibility. Unfortunately, much of the electorate can’t be bothered to look at the issues in any depth, so they end up relying on the flood of bullshit coming out of their televisions – and their various personal biases and uninformed ideas about reality – to make their decisions. Of course both of the major parties are guilty of using distorted and downright false attack ads, but the Republicans have a lot more of them, paid for by the giant corporations and right-wing billionaires who love them so much, and their candidates by and large have positions on most issues that would be laughable if there wasn’t a very substantial danger that they’ll soon be in a position to carry them out.

As I am voting in Texas, there is little chance that any of my preferred candidates will win (Obama may win nationally, but he’s not going to win in Texas). Nevertheless, I intend to fill out my ballot at least as far as the major races are concerned, though I will probably not vote on local races where I know nothing about the candidates. I have done a bit of research on the bigger races on my ballot and will note my conclusions below. Some of my major sources are candidate questionnaires prepared by the Dallas News and Vote 411, though the latter is much shorter and so less useful. I’ve found conflicting information about whether I’m in US Congressional District 24 or 32, so I have included my thoughts on both races. As a general note, I should mention that the Green Party, the third party that I like the best, seems to have a somewhat mixed set of candidates in that some, like presidential candidate Jill Stein and US Senate candidate David Collins are making a real effort, while others don’t seem to be campaigning much or at all (at least they have failed to fill out candidate questionnaires or set up websites or even blogs – actual websites would probably be cost prohibitive). In the latter cases, if there is another halfway decent candidate (usually a Democrat), they'll get my vote over the Green. Annoyingly, the best Green candidates are in races where the Democrat is not too bad (e.g. the Presidential race), and some of the least active ones seem to be races where there are no other good choices.

US President
Barack Obama (Dem)
Jill Stein (Green)
Rocky Anderson (Justice)
Gary Johnson (Lib)
Mitt Romney (Rep)
Virgil Goode (Constitution)

This, of course, is the big race this year. Though there are quite a few candidates running for the office, only incumbent President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney have a realistic chance of winning. Romney’s positions on almost every issue of importance – including the environment, budget policy (including tax policy), corporate influence, banking reform, immigration and gay marriage – are terrible, so it would be an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world if he wins. If I was voting in a swing state (of course there shouldn’t be such things, but that’s another issue), there’s no question I’d be voting for Obama. Since I’m not (Romney is unfortunately sure to win in Texas), I have given some thought to other candidates. One interesting way for voters to check out the views of a wider variety of candidates and compare them to their own is through various candidate match quizzes online. These are not always completely reliable, as in some cases their methods of determining a candidate’s stance are a bit debatable. Also, there are some issues where I have not made up my mind, or my position is too nuanced to fit the options given. With those caveats in mind, here are my results from a few such sites, with the first striking me as the most accurate:

http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
Jill Stein 95%
Rocky Anderson 82%
Barack Obama 81%
Mitt Romney 17%

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004491
Jill Stein 100%
Barack Obama 84%
Gary Johnson 53%
Virgil Goode 23%
Mitt Romney 13%

http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz/Quiz2012.asp?quiz=Pres2012
Rocky Anderson 75%
Jill Stein 73%
Barack Obama 58%
Gary Johnson 35%
Mitt Romney 8%
Virgil Goode 5%

Of more significant third party candidates, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party is a right-winger little better than Romney. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee, seems to emphasize the individual freedom, anti-war side of libertarianism, but like most libertarians he would do little or nothing good on important issues like climate change and restraining corporate power. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, on the other hand, have good stances on a majority of issues and are worthy options for those in safe (or hopeless) states who want to send Obama a message.

I like a lot of what Obama has done in his first term, and I recognize that on many issues his hands were tied by an uncooperative Congress or other circumstances. But I do think he should have been a lot firmer on many issues, and I have major disagreements with some things that have been done by those under him, such as the DEA’s handling of marijuana issues, the deportation of undocumented immigrants (though his recent executive order helps partly make up for this), or the treatment of Bradley Manning. His record on the environment has been mixed: the improved fuel efficiency standards are great and there has been some effort to encourage alternative energy, but his record on Keystone is mixed and I think he could have made a green economy a much bigger priority. I have also been annoyed by some of his campaign’s efforts to portray him as friendly to fossil fuels.

Since I’m not in a swing state, my disagreements with Obama would be more likely to cause me to cast a protest vote against him in favor of a candidate like Jill Stein whose positions more closely match my own if it weren’t for the vitriol and absurd falsehoods with which he has been attacked by the right-wing in America. The more I see of that sort of thing, the more it makes me want to vote for him to express my disagreement with these extremists. Perhaps my best options would be to swap votes with a Stein supporter in a swing state, which I will do if I find someone to swap with. If I can’t, I could still go either way between Obama and Stein, though I'm leaning a bit more toward Obama in order to boost his popular vote total against the inevitable aspersions that the Obama haters will cast on his legitimacy if he should win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote (even without having a questionably close vote in an individual state like Bush in Florida in 2000). [Update: I have reached an agreement with Calla Rowell in Florida to swap votes; she'll vote for Obama and I'll vote for Stein. I should note that this has not only been ruled legal by the courts, I see it as perfectly ethical. After all, I am not voting for anyone who I would not have at least strongly considered voting for anyway, and I am able to indirectly help the other candidate I considered voting for. It's really a win-win option in this sort of situation. Of course, if I had overwhelmingly preferred one of the two, I wouldn't have considered vote swapping in the first place.]

US Senator
Paul Sadler (Dem) – Good on environment, budget, immigration, but a little vague on many issues, seems a bit hawkish, praised Kay Bailey Hutchinson
David Collins (Green) – Serious Green candidate, good on most issues
Ted Cruz (Rep) – Typical right-wing Republican, terrible on virtually every issue
John Jay Myers (Lib) – Typical libertarian, poor on environment (not quite a climate change denier, but close)

For me, this race is much like the presidential one. If I thought Sadler had a good chance to win, I’d definitely be voting for him. Since he probably doesn’t (a scary thought, considering how bad Cruz is), I have to at least consider Collins as a slightly closer match to my own views, and to send a message to the Democratic Party in general that they need to address some issues, particularly environmental ones, more seriously than they often do. At this point, I could go either way on this one.

US Representative District 24
Tim Rusk (Dem) – Good on environment, immigration, taxes, Social Security
Kenny Marchant (Rep) – Typical right-wing Republican, terrible on virtually every issue
John Stathas (Lib) – Typical libertarian, bad on environment (climate change denier); there's a picture of him on one election site wearing a flak jacket and toting some kind of assault weapon, which makes him look like a complete nut job

This is an easy choice; Tim Rusk is by far the best candidate.

US Representative District 32
Katherine Savers McGovern (Dem) – Good on environment, immigration, taxes, women’s issues
Pete Sessions (Rep) – Typical right-wing Republican, terrible on virtually every issue, doesn’t directly deny climate change but effectively not much better than a denier
Seth Hollist (Lib) – Typical libertarian, bad on most issues except drug policy, also doesn’t directly deny climate change but effectively not much better than a denier

Another easy choice; Katherine Savers McGovern is far and away the best candidate.

Railroad Commissioner
Chris Kennedy (Green) – (Only shown on Vote 411) Supporter of alternative energy
Dale Henry (Dem) – Supports wind and solar and calls for measures to ensure energy extraction is done safely but also wants to “drill, drill, drill”, borderline climate change denier
Christi Craddick (Rep) – Climate change denier, though she makes nods to renewable energy and environmental protection, believes campaign contributions to be protected by the First Amendment, admires Margaret Thatcher
Vivekananda Wall (Lib) – Acknowledges climate change but won’t specify any action, other responses vague

I was certain this race would be very close, I’d have to at least consider voting for Dale Henry, as he is better than Craddick. However, it’s been years since a Democrat won a statewide race in Texas. What’s more, I dislike the tendency for Democrats to try to win in Texas by tilting to the right. It’s particularly bad for an office like Railroad Commissioner, where what is needed is someone who will make the environment a priority and not let the fossil fuel industry always get its way. Chris Kennedy doesn’t seem to be doing a lot of campaigning, but I’m probably going to vote for him to show my support for having a Green on the Railroad Commission and send a message to the Democrats to choose candidates with real environmental credentials.

Railroad Commissioner
Josh Wendel (Green) – No response to questionnaire
Barry Smitherman (Rep) – Climate change denier, extremely pro-fossil fuels
Jaime Perez (Lib) – Not a climate change denier, wants oil and gas industry to encourage alternative energy, favors eliminating subsidies, but also wants to “aggressively” exploit traditional energy (oil and coal)

Given that there are no Democrats running and there is a Green candidate, this would normally be an easy choice. However, Jamie Perez seems better than most Libertarian candidates, and Josh Wendel doesn’t seem to be campaigning at all (at least the other Green running for Railroad Commissioner responded to the Vote 411 questionnaire). I’m still more likely to vote Green because I support the principles the party stands for and I’d like to see them get 5% on at least one statewide race to ensure future ballot access. However, I’m not too happy that they don’t seem to be trying in this race, while Perez seems to be making at least some effort to attract support from environmentalists. I will probably have to do a bit more research on this one. If I can find some evidence that Wendel is actually campaigning, I’ll vote for him. If I find something new about Perez I don’t like so much or even if I find nothing more at all, I’ll also vote for the Green. But if I don’t find any sign that Wendel is campaigning, and I find more reasons to support Perez, it’s possible I may end up voting for Perez instead. [Update (Oct. 31, 2012): Having taken a look at Perez's website, he seems a bit wacky with his railing against the "Monetarchy". While his wackiness seems a lot better than that of many other Libertarians (see John Stathas above), a faceless Green still seems like a better choice.]

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 2
RS Roberto Koeisch (Lib) – Responses brief and vague
Don Willett (Rep) – Somewhat more reasonable sounding than most Republicans (e.g., arguing that the perception of pro-business tilt on the court is due to business-friendly Legislature), but a self-professed conservative who quotes Scalia and Roberts

Just based on his responses to the questionnaire Willett seems slightly less awful than some other Republicans, but his references to Scalia and Roberts are not encouraging. I certainly won’t vote for Willett, but to vote against him I need a decent alternative. Unfortunately, Koeisch doesn’t inspire much confidence. I may just skip this one.

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 4
Charles Waterbury (Green) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire), wants court to favor individuals over corporations
Tom Oxford (Lib) – Not pro-business, named liberal Texas judge William Wayne Justice as a judge he admired, otherwise information limited
John Devine (Rep) – No response to questionnaire

Tom Oxford seems slightly better than most Libertarians and if it were only him and the Republican, I’d probably vote for him. But since the Green candidate Charles Waterbury is on the ballot and he did at least respond to one of the candidate questionnaires (and gave good responses), I’ll probably vote Green on this one.

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6
Michele Petty (Dem) – Good responses to questionnaire, attacks pro-business decisions
Jim Chisolm (Green) – Not listed (No response on Vote 411)
Nathan Hecht (Rep) – Flatly denies pro-business bias
Mark Ash (Lib) – No response to questionnaire

If John Chisolm, the Green candidate, was actively campaigning I’d have to give him at least a little consideration. But he doesn’t seem to be, and the Democrat Michele Petty looks pretty good. So I think Petty will get my vote in this race.

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals
Keith Hampton (Dem) – Most responses seem good if vague, unwilling to comment on death penalty since the issue may be heard by the court, highly critical of Keller’s controversial refusal to grant a plea for an hour’s extension for filing an appeal, thereby resulting in the execution of a death row inmate
Lance Stott (Lib) – No response to questionnaire
Sharon Keller (Rep) – No response to questionnaire, ruled against new trials in two controversial case, was charged with ethics violations over the case cited above though ultimately not punished

This one isn’t too difficult. Hampton looks at least okay, whereas Keller is awful (the only thing I know about Stott is that he’s a Libertarian; not exactly a positive). I’ll definitely go with Hampton on this one.

Member, State Board of Education, District 11
Jason Darr (Lib) – No response to questionnaire
Patricia Hardy (Rep) – No response to questionnaire, took slightly more moderate stances on evolution, Islam and Thomas Jefferson disputes than some extremist members of the board, but was the one responsible for the idiotic banning of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See based on an email from a fellow board member

While Hardy is not one of the worst members of the awful Texas State Board of Education, that’s merely a relative thing. If I can find anything positive about the Libertarian Jason Darr, I’ll vote for him. Otherwise I’ll probably have to skip this one, though I might still vote for Darr to send a message about my irritation with the idiocy of the board over the past few years, which Hardy has take at least a little of the blame for.


On additional election related note, this is a little disturbing, especially when combined with the various Republican efforts to suppress voting. We’ll just have to hope it’s not so close that these things will be able to tip the scales.

A Major Discovery: A Planet in the Alpha Centauri System

A major astronomical discovery was announced in the past few days, one that was not all that widely reported (or at least I didn't see a lot of reports on it). A team of astronomers announced that they had discovered a planet in orbit around Alpha Centauri B, one of the three stars in the Alpha Centauri system. The stars of Alpha Centauri, at a distance of 4.3 light years, are the closest stars to us other than the Sun itself. What's more, the two main stars, Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B are very similar to the Sun, so a planet orbiting at the right distance from either of them might very well be habitable. The recently discovered planet is certainly not habitable by life as we know it, as it orbits far to close to its star and so is probably hot enough to melt rock. But where there's one planet, there may be more. The prospect of habitable planets around one or both of these relatively close, Sun-like stars is very exciting.

Alpha Centauri A is a yellow star of the same spectral class as the Sun, though it is very slightly hotter and more massive. Alpha Centauri B is a little cooler and less massive than the Sun, and is orange in color. These two stars orbit each other at a distance at a distance ranging from that between the Sun and Saturn to that between the Sun and Pluto. A third star, a small, cool red dwarf named Proxima Centauri, appears to orbit the other two at a great distance (it is somewhat closer to us, and so is the closest star other than the Sun). The planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B, designated Alpha Centauri Bb, is slightly larger than Earth (making it the smallest planet yet discovered orbiting a normal star other than our Sun) and orbits the star in only a little over 3 days, as compared with 88 days for Mercury in our solar system and 365+ days for Earth. Since it is so close to Alpha Centauri B, it is certainly very hot, probably several times as hot as Venus, which has surface temperatures of over 400 degrees Celsius. If there is a habitable planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B, it would have to be much further out. It is even possible that both Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B have habitable planets, which would be an exciting prospect. If such planets do exist, we may discover them within the next decade or two, or even sooner, though it is easier to detect planets that are very close to their stars with our current technology.

However, even if we do discover planets in the habitable zones of Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B, it will take further advances before we will be able to look for indications that life exists on them (such as the presence of molecules that are unlikely to produced by non-organic processes). Supposing that we do find signs of life on a planet in the Alpha Centauri system a few decades from now. What then? The obvious answer would be to go and visit them, or at least send a probe to explore them. But while Alpha Centauri is relatively close, the key word here is "relatively". Even the closest stars are still incredibly distant. It takes light 4.3 years to reach them from the Sun traveling at 300,000 km per second, while light from the Sun reaches the Earth in only 8 minutes and reaches Pluto in about 5 hours. Our current rockets can't reach even 1% of light speed, so it would take them thousands of years to get to Alpha Centauri. While propulsion systems have been proposed that might get us up to a few percentage points of light speed, it will take quite a bit of work, including further technological advances and lots of money, to actually build them. So it's not likely that we will be able to visit Alpha Centauri anytime soon. But if habitable planets are actually discovered there, especially ones with signs of life, it might provide the incentive needed for humanity to undertake the long-range project of trying to get to them. This discovery may be the first step along that road.

Here's an infographic providing more information on Alpha Centauri and the newly discovered planet.