American Movie Classics'(AMC's) Madmen is great television. Madmen's quality equals HBO's and Showtime's, which puts it a cut above today's Hollywood movies.
Madmen stars Jon Hamm as Don Draper. It is about an advertising agency in the golden age of television, the late 1950s and early 1960s. The name "Draper" alludes to draping or deceiving, and we are reminded of the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, whom Dorothy exposes behind the drapes of the control room. Like the Wizard, Draper's job is to create illusion. One of the story lines is that Draper's firm represents the Nixon campaign pro bono in the 1960 election, the first that television influenced.
Before watching Madmen it would be useful to read a history of consumerism. One is William Leach'sLand of Desire: Merchants, Power and the Rise of a New American Culture and another is Gary Cross's All Consuming Century. Both books provide rich perspective on the dynamic of consumerism and its implications for culture. Leach goes into an extended analysis of the Wizard of Oz.
Following amusement parks, Wannamaker's department store decorations, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and L. Frank Baum's ideas (Baum, besides being an author, was an early expert about window displays), advertising has been the basis of consumerism. That is, one of the characteristics of consumerism is the creation of imaginative imagery about consumption. Thus, New York and several other large cities became the centers not only of art, culture, theater and television, but more importantly of imagery about consumption that created today's global culture. Such imagery would be unnecessary or unimportant were it truthful. The association of consumerism and advertising suggests that deception is at consumerism's root.
There is an inherent conflict. To be possible, consumerism requires advances in technology. In turn, technology depends on uncovering of the truth, discovery of fundamental principles and a relentless willingness to let old modes, business methods and social constructs die. Schumpeter called this creative destruction. But stimulation of consumption relies on creating an image, one that is often false, romantic or misleading.
At the same time the left is a romantic movement that itself is a reflection of consumer society and advertising. The left manufactures political ideas that are romantic but have as little truth or reality as the mountain stream in a Newport cigarettes ad. The left claims to oppose the deception inherent in commercialization, but does so through "draping" and deception that parallel commercialization. To the left, ideology plays the role that advertising plays to consumerism. The left substitutes lies about a romanticized past and a fictional claim to ethical belief. It deceptively claims that the past is the future.
Thus, the left claims that centralized economic planning (monarchy) is economically superior to markets, a lie. The left claims that government power and regulation, much like the power of kings, is more humane than limited government and private enterprise, which is a lie. The left claims that monetary expansion, which favors the wealthy over the poor, is necessary to help the poor, which is also a lie.
Hence, the dialogue of twentieth century America* was largely between a conservative, market-based view which depends on the truth and technology for its foundations, but furthers its ends through lies and mass media; and a left-wing view whose ideology is itself a lie. Both modern conservatism and left/liberal ideology depend on groupthink. Both rely on the mass media. Both focus on the trivial. Both advocate policies whose effects are the reverse of what they claim. It may be said that in the twentieth century the Sophists triumphed and that the Sophists now dominate our most retrograde institutions, such as universities.
The Republicans claim to be for less government, then when elected expand government. The Democrats claim to be for the poor, but create massive inner city slums, urban ghettos that isolate racial minorities and the poor. As well, the Democrats' educational policies, via left-wing institutions like NCATE, cripple the poor by enfeebling them educationally; and they and the left attack private institutions such as Wal-Mart that benefit the poor economically.
Were it not for the left, the role of intellectual would in part be the one that L. Frank Baum assigned to Dorothy: lifting the drapes from the Wizard's control room, and exposing him for the fraud that he is. That is the tradition of Thorstein Veblen as well as the Austrian economists. But the academy fell prey to ideology, and has adopted rigid, ideological deception, commitment to elitism and attacks on the poor, for instance, through attacking Wal-Mart and through favoring the Federal Reserve Bank, low interest rates and inflation. Universties themselves are a state supported system that encourages class stratification, alienation of the average person and economic isolation of the talented poor. Universities are institutions who demonize the average person, humanity, in the name of an inept elite that produces nothing and whose main purpose is to institutionalize itself.
Doug Ross @ Journal lists "Hillary's Top Ten Fabrications". These include her claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary although she was born five years before he climbed Mt. Everest; her failure to disclose profits from Whitewater; and her description of abortion as a "tragic choice".**
It is not surprising that Hillary is a liar. Nor would it be surprising that the Republicans are equally liars. The groupthink; lack of vision; fixation on trivia; emotional outrage about superficial issues and ignoring the fundamental issues such as special interest group influence; corruption of the democratic process through gerrymandering and related processes; misleading disclosure in areas like government operations and inflation; monetary expansion and the corruption of the dollar; claiming to be for less government when you are for more government (such is the history of Rudy Giuliani) all suggest that Republicans and Democrats have similar stakes in equivalent forms of corruption. Both are parties of liars.
It is increasingly important that competition be introduced into the political system. "Voters for None of the Above" offers a mainstream alternative. I discuss NOTA here.
*In Europe, with the exception of Britain, the chief ideologies of the twentieth century were mainly variants of the left, to include fascism, Nazism, communism and today's dirigisme.
**Concerning the abortion issue, William Saletan of Slate writes:
"...against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom...'There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.'...Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears...Admit the goal is zero, and people will rethink birth control. 'Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies'..."
But Clinton's argument, which transfers the moral concern about abortion into a discussion of abortion as a quality process, a quality target that needs to be minimized, is itself a form of draping.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Phil Orenstein Opposes NOTA and I Respond
Phil Orenstein writes of NOTA:
>"Mitchell,
"I am of two minds on this and I hesitated for a while to respond, but at least I owe you an explanation as a friend. While I understand and fully respect your commitment to ensuring the opportunity for a protest vote, I feel the "lesser of two evils" philosophy should remain the prevailing principle in elections. To take this to it's logical conclusion in the politics of the possible, I feel the presidential campaign would come down to a Clinton-Giuliani choice and any voter educated enough to grasp the real issues and the outright corruption of politics who would be a NOTA voter, would be one less vote for Giuliani, since I believe votes for Clinton come from the uniformed and brainwashed and 6-pack Joes of our country while votes for Giuliani would be from the more informed voters. That said, I deplore the corruption, deceit authoritarianism and utter lack of capable leadership today and especially the spineless Republican party which is now in the process of imploding, especially at the local level (i.e. Queens and NY State), and I understand the rationale for your proposal. In my other mind I would have to say, that many of the apathetic voters who don't show up at the polls, averaging 50% or more in many elections, who are turned off by the corruption and deceit in politics, might be convinced to participate in our democracy, if a protest vote could be registered. However my first mind now prevails as long as I continue to use the email signature below and still fighting for reform in the Republican Party, to which many of my friends and co-workers just shake their heads thinking I'm still tilting at windmills."
My reply to Phil:
1. The ability to offer true consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Voters do this now by remaining absent from the polls. I think it is worthwhile to permit those who want to participate in American democracy but have become convinced of its vacuity to voice their concern explicitly. At present, their views are unnecessarily suppressed by the absence of a "None of the above" (NOTA) option. NOTA increases the degree of choice, and the Republicans and Democrats fear it because neither party offers a meaningful alternative. Since democracy and utilitarianism means maximizing choice, inclusion of NOTA is the most democratic and utilitarian approach.
2. Disenfranchisement and disengagement is true on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't believe that NOTA would affect one candidate more than any other by very much. Many on the left as well as the right do not feel represented.
3. The two parties have more similarities than differences. For instance, I do not see Giuliani as significantly different from Clinton. In New York City, Giuliani failed to reduce the extent of government; catered to city's public sector unions; and oversaw a slight increase in the city's budget when adjusted for inflation. It is true that he is better on several key issues such as Iraq, health care and marginally on trade (although I don't believe that Giuliani has publicly stated that he would eliminate the sugar and other agricultural tariffs that are a national disgrace and that President Bush and the Republicans have supported).* However, these differences do not reflect a fundamental vision that is different from Hillary Clinton's.
4. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton address many of the key issues facing the nation. These include monetary depreciation and inflation, which no major candidate has chosen to discuss; special interest influence in Washington; excess government and regulation, to which both Giuliani and Clinton have been a party; the massive budget deficit that the Republicans have generated; the decline in public morality, most specifically the something-for-nothing mindset that has increasingly influenced Americans of all social positions and all ideological segments and motivated their support for the two political parties; the deterioration of the education system; the breakdown in the structure of democracy, to include gerrymandering and the increased ratio of population to congressional representation which serves politicians and special interests but not the electorate; and the steadfast resistance to clear financial information's being made available to the public through the Government Accounting Standards Board.
5. Neither Democrats nor Republicans propose a vision that reflects an underlying belief in liberty, in transparency, or in limited government. Although my personal opinion is that Giuliani is better than Clinton on issues like health care, Iraq and trade, both Clinton and Giuliani lack vision.
6. It is not clear that Giuliani's or Clinton's positions would translate into actual policy. President Bush did not tell the country that he favored big government. The differences between the parties are typically distorted by misrepresentation, special interest pandering and opportunism. There is no reason to believe that a President Giuliani would stand up to the health care lobby any more than President Bush stood up to the agricultural lobby.
7. Part of the ability of the candidates to mislead the public results from lack of choice. Such choice would be enhanced by NOTA
*See discussion on slickdeals.net:
The libertarian Cato Institute writes of ADM: The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
Do you want to know who makes HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)? It's Archer Daniels Midland. Do you want to know who pays for HFCS? That's you and I, in the form of the taxes we pay to the U.S. Government. The government spent $41.9 billion on corn subsidies from 1995 to 2004, a trough of money at which ADM gladly ate. ADM buys 12 percent of the nation's corn at a heavily subsidized price from farmers, and turns it into high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol.
>"Mitchell,
"I am of two minds on this and I hesitated for a while to respond, but at least I owe you an explanation as a friend. While I understand and fully respect your commitment to ensuring the opportunity for a protest vote, I feel the "lesser of two evils" philosophy should remain the prevailing principle in elections. To take this to it's logical conclusion in the politics of the possible, I feel the presidential campaign would come down to a Clinton-Giuliani choice and any voter educated enough to grasp the real issues and the outright corruption of politics who would be a NOTA voter, would be one less vote for Giuliani, since I believe votes for Clinton come from the uniformed and brainwashed and 6-pack Joes of our country while votes for Giuliani would be from the more informed voters. That said, I deplore the corruption, deceit authoritarianism and utter lack of capable leadership today and especially the spineless Republican party which is now in the process of imploding, especially at the local level (i.e. Queens and NY State), and I understand the rationale for your proposal. In my other mind I would have to say, that many of the apathetic voters who don't show up at the polls, averaging 50% or more in many elections, who are turned off by the corruption and deceit in politics, might be convinced to participate in our democracy, if a protest vote could be registered. However my first mind now prevails as long as I continue to use the email signature below and still fighting for reform in the Republican Party, to which many of my friends and co-workers just shake their heads thinking I'm still tilting at windmills."
My reply to Phil:
1. The ability to offer true consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Voters do this now by remaining absent from the polls. I think it is worthwhile to permit those who want to participate in American democracy but have become convinced of its vacuity to voice their concern explicitly. At present, their views are unnecessarily suppressed by the absence of a "None of the above" (NOTA) option. NOTA increases the degree of choice, and the Republicans and Democrats fear it because neither party offers a meaningful alternative. Since democracy and utilitarianism means maximizing choice, inclusion of NOTA is the most democratic and utilitarian approach.
2. Disenfranchisement and disengagement is true on all sides of the political spectrum. I don't believe that NOTA would affect one candidate more than any other by very much. Many on the left as well as the right do not feel represented.
3. The two parties have more similarities than differences. For instance, I do not see Giuliani as significantly different from Clinton. In New York City, Giuliani failed to reduce the extent of government; catered to city's public sector unions; and oversaw a slight increase in the city's budget when adjusted for inflation. It is true that he is better on several key issues such as Iraq, health care and marginally on trade (although I don't believe that Giuliani has publicly stated that he would eliminate the sugar and other agricultural tariffs that are a national disgrace and that President Bush and the Republicans have supported).* However, these differences do not reflect a fundamental vision that is different from Hillary Clinton's.
4. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton address many of the key issues facing the nation. These include monetary depreciation and inflation, which no major candidate has chosen to discuss; special interest influence in Washington; excess government and regulation, to which both Giuliani and Clinton have been a party; the massive budget deficit that the Republicans have generated; the decline in public morality, most specifically the something-for-nothing mindset that has increasingly influenced Americans of all social positions and all ideological segments and motivated their support for the two political parties; the deterioration of the education system; the breakdown in the structure of democracy, to include gerrymandering and the increased ratio of population to congressional representation which serves politicians and special interests but not the electorate; and the steadfast resistance to clear financial information's being made available to the public through the Government Accounting Standards Board.
5. Neither Democrats nor Republicans propose a vision that reflects an underlying belief in liberty, in transparency, or in limited government. Although my personal opinion is that Giuliani is better than Clinton on issues like health care, Iraq and trade, both Clinton and Giuliani lack vision.
6. It is not clear that Giuliani's or Clinton's positions would translate into actual policy. President Bush did not tell the country that he favored big government. The differences between the parties are typically distorted by misrepresentation, special interest pandering and opportunism. There is no reason to believe that a President Giuliani would stand up to the health care lobby any more than President Bush stood up to the agricultural lobby.
7. Part of the ability of the candidates to mislead the public results from lack of choice. Such choice would be enhanced by NOTA
*See discussion on slickdeals.net:
The libertarian Cato Institute writes of ADM: The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30
Do you want to know who makes HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)? It's Archer Daniels Midland. Do you want to know who pays for HFCS? That's you and I, in the form of the taxes we pay to the U.S. Government. The government spent $41.9 billion on corn subsidies from 1995 to 2004, a trough of money at which ADM gladly ate. ADM buys 12 percent of the nation's corn at a heavily subsidized price from farmers, and turns it into high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Hillary Clinton Shines Shoes
In 2005 President Bush proposed the establishment of 401-k type stock investment accounts for Social Security. The idea came under attack from the Democrats and was stopped. At the time, the stock market was coming off its 2002 lows. Now, the stock market is reaching new highs. It is therefore curious that the Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton, would choose to propose the very same idea during this presidential primary season. I wonder if there is some kind of financial manipulation lurking behind Clinton's proposal.
In an October 11 editorial, the New York Sun points out that Hillary Clinton opposed establishing Social Security investment accounts two years ago but now she is proposing "private accounts" (separate from Social Security) for all Americans. The Sun editorializes
"Given, this isn't giving workers back the money the government is taking in Social Security taxes as President Bush (and most of the Republican candidates for president) would do, but the accounts — even as add-ons to Social Security — are a huge victory in principle for the Bush view."
I find the Clinton proposal odd for several reasons. First, since 1982 I have been putting previously $2,000, now $5,000 (I believe $4,500 if you're under 50) into Individual Retirement Accounts. The idea was created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Paul J. Yakoboski of the Employee Benefit Research Institute notes that:
"The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) extended the availability of IRAs to all workers, including those with pension coverage. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA '86) retained tax-deductible IRAs for those who did not participate in an employment-based retirement plan (and if married, whose spouse did not participate in such a plan), but restricted the tax deduction among those with a retirement plan to individuals with incomes below specified levels. In addition, TRA '86 added two new categories of IRA contributions: nondeductible contributions, which accumulate tax free until distributed, and partially deductible contributions, which are deductible up to a maximum amount less than the $2,000 maximum otherwise allowable."
Hence, there is absolutely nothing new about retirement accounts for anyone. They are currently available to anyone and everyone, and if you don't have a 401(k) or pension plan, they are tax deductible. It is true that the $4,500 limit is a low percentage of income for anyone earning over $65,000. But there also is such a thing as a SERP, self-employed retirement plan, which serves high earners. As the financially savvy know, Roth IRAs also are available to those who earn less than $150,000. It's not clear to me that the Clinton proposal is more than vacuous, which makes me suspicious. Hillary has to know that IRAs exist, so why would she make this proposal now?
Perhaps Hillary aims to improve benefits for those earning over $65,000 (this is not clear from the Sun article) and doesn't want to say so, but any extensions of the IRA concept will probably have next to no effect on private savings, so this idea would also be vacuous. USA Weekend Magazine pointed out in 2004 when the IRA limits were raised:
>"Even though retirement planning tops the list of Americans' money concerns, astonishingly few people contribute to individual retirement accounts -- a mere 6% of eligible Americans, according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office."
Given the small interest in IRAs, what help would extending the IRA concept be? High earners likely save anyway and, more so, typically have access to either a 401(k) (with limits that might bother those earning over $100,000) or a SERP. SERPs have high limits.
An intriguing question that comes to mind is why Hillary would make a proposal which may be a first step toward permitting private accounts in social security at this point in time.
Quoteland.com attributes the following quote to Bernard Baruch, the Wall Street tycoon, in 1929:
"When beggars and shoeshine boys, barbers and beauticians can tell you how to get rich it is time to remind yourself that there is no more dangerous illusion than the belief that one can get something for nothing"
Incidentally, Quoteland also attributes Baruch with the statement "Bears don't live on Park Avenue" (which may explain why I live in West Shokan).
In 2005 the stock market was coming off its 2002 lows. In 2007 the market is at or nearing all-time highs, especially if you have been investing in gold stocks as I have (Randgold (GOLD) courtesy of Howard S. Katz has had a tremendous run and I am breaking out my cigars and champagne.)
The question to ponder is why Hillary would begin to speak about expanding stock market accounts just when the market is reaching all time highs; the dollar is reaching all time lows; inflation is going from very warm to hot; the Chinese are beginning to sell dollars, portending increased inflation; and public awareness of monetary expansion, which has been going on since the 1980s, will result in political pressure to limit monetary expansion aka Fed counterfeiting aka raising the Fed Funds interest rate. That is, inflation will stimulate a declining stock market (the stock market goes up and down because of Fed interest rate policy, i.e., whether the Fed is counterfeiting many new dollars or just a few) because inflation causes public pressure to stop the Fed's counterfeiting; the Fed will then raise interest rates; and the stock market will then decline. Since 1981 the Fed has been counterfeiting many new dollars, which it calls "lowering the Federal Funds rate", and which Howard S. Katz calls "counterfeiting". With increasing inflation, now that the Chinese are tiring of giving billionaire hedge fund managers in the U.S. large welfare subsidies, the risk of a stock market collapse is increasing.
All this makes me wonder why Hillary would begin to think about encouraging small investor interest in the stock market at this point in time.
Several bloggers such as Captain's Quarter's , Cao's blog as well as talk radio have been discussing a nexus between Hillary and speculator George Soros. Whether Soros or others on Wall Street have an interest in seeing an exogenous shock to stimulate stock prices just as the fundamentals are working toward a weakening stock market is a question that deserves some scrutiny.
Another question is what will be the effects, both in terms of actual economic redistribution and in terms of psychology, of the Bush/Clinton proposals to expand stock ownership. The Fed does one thing, increase the money supply. This in turn has two effects: (1)make the rich richer by boosting the stock market because of lower interest rates and (2) make the poor poorer by causing inflation. There is probably some tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in fact. There is also probably a different tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in peoples' minds. The two are likely different. If someone has a $100,000 stock account they may be worse off from the net effect of lower interest rates and the higher price of grapefruit, but the higher stock account may be more salient or apparent to them, and they may see themselves as better off. It would not be a far stretch to imagine that Hillary's proposal is linked to the idea of encouraging this kind of wealth illusion, which would have the effect of moderating but not fundamentally changing the effects of Fed policy.
In an October 11 editorial, the New York Sun points out that Hillary Clinton opposed establishing Social Security investment accounts two years ago but now she is proposing "private accounts" (separate from Social Security) for all Americans. The Sun editorializes
"Given, this isn't giving workers back the money the government is taking in Social Security taxes as President Bush (and most of the Republican candidates for president) would do, but the accounts — even as add-ons to Social Security — are a huge victory in principle for the Bush view."
I find the Clinton proposal odd for several reasons. First, since 1982 I have been putting previously $2,000, now $5,000 (I believe $4,500 if you're under 50) into Individual Retirement Accounts. The idea was created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Paul J. Yakoboski of the Employee Benefit Research Institute notes that:
"The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) extended the availability of IRAs to all workers, including those with pension coverage. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA '86) retained tax-deductible IRAs for those who did not participate in an employment-based retirement plan (and if married, whose spouse did not participate in such a plan), but restricted the tax deduction among those with a retirement plan to individuals with incomes below specified levels. In addition, TRA '86 added two new categories of IRA contributions: nondeductible contributions, which accumulate tax free until distributed, and partially deductible contributions, which are deductible up to a maximum amount less than the $2,000 maximum otherwise allowable."
Hence, there is absolutely nothing new about retirement accounts for anyone. They are currently available to anyone and everyone, and if you don't have a 401(k) or pension plan, they are tax deductible. It is true that the $4,500 limit is a low percentage of income for anyone earning over $65,000. But there also is such a thing as a SERP, self-employed retirement plan, which serves high earners. As the financially savvy know, Roth IRAs also are available to those who earn less than $150,000. It's not clear to me that the Clinton proposal is more than vacuous, which makes me suspicious. Hillary has to know that IRAs exist, so why would she make this proposal now?
Perhaps Hillary aims to improve benefits for those earning over $65,000 (this is not clear from the Sun article) and doesn't want to say so, but any extensions of the IRA concept will probably have next to no effect on private savings, so this idea would also be vacuous. USA Weekend Magazine pointed out in 2004 when the IRA limits were raised:
>"Even though retirement planning tops the list of Americans' money concerns, astonishingly few people contribute to individual retirement accounts -- a mere 6% of eligible Americans, according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office."
Given the small interest in IRAs, what help would extending the IRA concept be? High earners likely save anyway and, more so, typically have access to either a 401(k) (with limits that might bother those earning over $100,000) or a SERP. SERPs have high limits.
An intriguing question that comes to mind is why Hillary would make a proposal which may be a first step toward permitting private accounts in social security at this point in time.
Quoteland.com attributes the following quote to Bernard Baruch, the Wall Street tycoon, in 1929:
"When beggars and shoeshine boys, barbers and beauticians can tell you how to get rich it is time to remind yourself that there is no more dangerous illusion than the belief that one can get something for nothing"
Incidentally, Quoteland also attributes Baruch with the statement "Bears don't live on Park Avenue" (which may explain why I live in West Shokan).
In 2005 the stock market was coming off its 2002 lows. In 2007 the market is at or nearing all-time highs, especially if you have been investing in gold stocks as I have (Randgold (GOLD) courtesy of Howard S. Katz has had a tremendous run and I am breaking out my cigars and champagne.)
The question to ponder is why Hillary would begin to speak about expanding stock market accounts just when the market is reaching all time highs; the dollar is reaching all time lows; inflation is going from very warm to hot; the Chinese are beginning to sell dollars, portending increased inflation; and public awareness of monetary expansion, which has been going on since the 1980s, will result in political pressure to limit monetary expansion aka Fed counterfeiting aka raising the Fed Funds interest rate. That is, inflation will stimulate a declining stock market (the stock market goes up and down because of Fed interest rate policy, i.e., whether the Fed is counterfeiting many new dollars or just a few) because inflation causes public pressure to stop the Fed's counterfeiting; the Fed will then raise interest rates; and the stock market will then decline. Since 1981 the Fed has been counterfeiting many new dollars, which it calls "lowering the Federal Funds rate", and which Howard S. Katz calls "counterfeiting". With increasing inflation, now that the Chinese are tiring of giving billionaire hedge fund managers in the U.S. large welfare subsidies, the risk of a stock market collapse is increasing.
All this makes me wonder why Hillary would begin to think about encouraging small investor interest in the stock market at this point in time.
Several bloggers such as Captain's Quarter's , Cao's blog as well as talk radio have been discussing a nexus between Hillary and speculator George Soros. Whether Soros or others on Wall Street have an interest in seeing an exogenous shock to stimulate stock prices just as the fundamentals are working toward a weakening stock market is a question that deserves some scrutiny.
Another question is what will be the effects, both in terms of actual economic redistribution and in terms of psychology, of the Bush/Clinton proposals to expand stock ownership. The Fed does one thing, increase the money supply. This in turn has two effects: (1)make the rich richer by boosting the stock market because of lower interest rates and (2) make the poor poorer by causing inflation. There is probably some tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in fact. There is also probably a different tipping point at which effect (1) becomes outweighed by effect (2) in peoples' minds. The two are likely different. If someone has a $100,000 stock account they may be worse off from the net effect of lower interest rates and the higher price of grapefruit, but the higher stock account may be more salient or apparent to them, and they may see themselves as better off. It would not be a far stretch to imagine that Hillary's proposal is linked to the idea of encouraging this kind of wealth illusion, which would have the effect of moderating but not fundamentally changing the effects of Fed policy.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Proposed NOTA Bill for New York State
I will propose the following amendment to add article 18 to Chapter 17 of the Consolidated Laws (Election Law) I base this on Bill White's proposal in Massachusetts:
IN ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
Introduced by
Dated
AN ACT REGULATING ELECTION BALLOTS TO PROVIDE FOR A VOTER CONSENT “NONE OF THE ABOVE” OPTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Whereas government should secure the consent of the governed;
Whereas all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent;
Whereas voters are sometimes presented with such choices on the ballot that none of the listed candidates for an office is acceptable, but voters are unable to withhold their consent to such elections to office;
Whereas voter turnout has been in decline and it is in the public interest to stimulate voter turnout;
Whereas the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it and to do so requires the public's ability to withhold consent;
Therefore, to insure the legitimate consent of voters by enabling them to withhold their consent to elections to office;
Be it enacted by the New York State Assembly and New York State Senate as follows:
The Consolidated Laws are hereby amended by adding the following the following Article 18 to Chapter Seventeen of the New York State Consolidated Laws (Election Law)
Section 1. (a) None of the Above ("NOTA") on the ballot.
On all ballots electing a candidate to office there shall appear, after the list of candidates for each office, a votable line identified with the words “None of the Above; For a New Election”.
(b) A voter may choose to vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” instead of voting for a candidate. If a voter may vote for multiple candidates for an office, a vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” counts as one vote. Votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” shall be counted and reported as are votes for listed candidates.
(c) When a candidate receives fewer votes than NOTA. Any candidate for office who receives fewer votes than the votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall not be elected.
(d) NOTA election
In any election where no candidate is elected to an office because of votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election”, a None of the Above election ("NOTA election") shall be held to fill that office not less than sixty (60) days and not more than eighty (80) days after the prior election.
(e) Election of the President of the United States
In elections to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States and their electors, “Prefer None of the Above” shall appear after the list of candidates. Voters may choose to vote both for NOTA as well as for a candidate. Votes cast for “Prefer None of the Above” shall be counted and reported in the same manner as are votes for listed candidates, but shall not otherwise affect the election outcome.
Section 2. (a) Statement about NOTA options.
The New York State Board of Elections shall prepare a statement titled “Your Voter Consent Ballot Options:”, to be displayed, along with any other materials determined by the New York State Board of Elections, so it is legible to voters at the polling place prior to voting as well as within each voting enclosure, indicating the options available to the voter. For example, such a statement might contain the following:
"Your Voter Consent Ballot Options: YOU MAY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE OR “None of the Above; For a New Election”.
O Candidate A
O Candidate B
O None of the Above; For a New Election"
Section 3-1. Temporary appointment to offices and assignment of duties. Temporary appointment to offices, pending NOTA elections and an elected candidate taking office, required to execute the duties of an office, may be made by the Governor; or by majority vote of the town council for town-wide elections; city or common council for city-wide elections; or county legislature for county-wide elections ("appropriate authority") provided the person so appointed is either the office’s current incumbent or if there is no incumbent would be otherwise eligible for election to that office. Temporary appointment to the office of Governor shall be by majority vote of the Court of Appeals. No temporary appointment under this provision shall be made to the offices of County Legislator, City Council, State Assembly, State Senator, United States Representative, or United States
Senator.
3-2. If no appointment is made by the day before expiration of an office’s current term, the office’s incumbent is appointed by default.
Section 4. Campaign finance reporting.
(a) Candidates in a NOTA election must conform to the same, or equivalent, campaign financing and reporting requirements as a candidate for that office in a general election.
(b) Campaign financing and reporting for activities related to the issue of voters voting for “None of the Above; For a New Election”, or for “Prefer None of the Above”, shall have the same, or equivalent, requirements as equivalent elections. All such requirements shall be subject to those changes necessary, as determined by the New York State Board of Elections, to adjust for the varying election dates and campaign durations of NOTA elections, provided such changes adhere to the original intent of those requirements and avoid unreasonable burden to election participants.
Section 5. Nomination of candidates
(a) Any person who is eligible for nomination as a candidate in the general election for an office shall be eligible for nomination as a candidate in a NOTA election for that office, provided the person did not receive, as a listed candidate in a prior election for the same office and term, fewer votes than those cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” the office.
(b) All candidates for office in NOTA elections shall be nominated to be listed on the ballot either by nominating petition, or by receiving a requisite number of write-in votes in the prior election for that office.
Section 6. (a) Nomination by petition; eligibility to sign petitions; collecting signatures at polling places. The nomination period for a NOTA election shall commence on the day of the prior election. The nomination period shall continue for fourteen (14) days after the results of the prior election for that office are announced.
(b) Voters eligible to vote in the NOTA election for an office are eligible to sign, once for each nomination, one or more nominating petitions for one or more candidates for that office during the nomination period. Signatures for nominating petitions may be gathered at polling places on election day, provided they are gathered in one, or two if required, Petition Areas that shall be reserved at each polling place for such purpose, and in such a manner as to provide easy access for voters wishing to sign such petitions or not, and in such a manner that voters shall pass by those collecting nominating signatures before and after voting.
(c) Any person collecting nominating signatures at a polling place for one or more petitions, hereinafter referred to as Collector, must be registered to vote at that polling place. A Collector may assist in the gathering of signatures for any Nominating Petition. No signed petition may be removed from a Petition Area, except, after the polls close, by the New York State Board of Elections.
(d) The Collector shall be seated in a chair behind a table, provided at no cost to the Collector, upon which such petitions shall be placed and kept while collecting signatures. The Collector shall not speak to, or otherwise communicate with, any voter, and shall display no sign except, optionally, one reading “Nominating Petition: ”, where shall be the name of the office for which the petition is being gathered, using letters no greater than three inches in height and affixed to the table in such a manner as to be visible to passing voters. The number of Collectors in each Petition Area shall be no more than two (2) per one (1) or more petition sheets with the same Candidate and Party designation. A petition may be brought into and left unattended in the Petition Area by any person.
(e) The Petition Area shall be part to the polling place, and any person failing to conform to its requirements shall be considered a disorderly person.
Section 7. Nomination by write-in
(a) An unlisted write-in candidate in the prior election may be nominated to be listed as a candidate for an office in the following NOTA election by receiving write-in votes equal to at least ten percent of the total votes cast for the office in the current election. Such candidates shall submit to the New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority by the last day of the nomination period, a completed nominating petition, containing no filled in signature lines, with an attached affirmation by the candidate, stating the candidate received the requisite write-in votes for that office in the prior election. Unlisted write-in candidates who do not receive the number of write-in votes needed for nomination may seek nomination by petition.
(b) Signature verification; number of signatures required; submitting petitions
The authority responsible for signature verification for nominations for a office in the election shall be responsible for verifying the signatures on the nominating petitions for a NOTA election are valid and of the requisite number within fourteen (14) days after the end of the nomination period.
(c) The number of valid signatures under the same party designation required for nomination by petition shall be the same for all candidates for the same office and shall be: either equal to the number of the most signatures required for a general election nomination for the office, divided by number of days in the general election nomination period, and then multiplied by number of days in the current nomination period, and then divided by three (3); or, equal to twenty (20), whichever is greater.
(d) Each original nominating petition sheet shall be submitted to the offices of the same verifying authority as for general elections, within three (3) days after the end of the nomination period.
Section 8. Multiple nominations of a candidate
(a) In NOTA elections, if a candidate has been separately nominated with different political party designations, the candidate shall appear on the ballot separately for each such nomination. The same political party designation may not appear with more candidates for an office than the number of positions to be elected to that office. The party designation of either “No Party” or “Write-In” shall be allowed once each for a candidate so nominated.
Section 9. Nomination notification and acceptance
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority shall have delivered to each nominee, within three (3) days of the nominee qualifying for the nomination, a Nomination Notification, notifying the nominee of the nomination, along with other materials determined by the New York State Board of Elections. The nominee shall respond to the Nomination Notification within five (5) days by returning the Nomination Acceptance, as determined by the New York State Board of Elections or other notifying authority, to the offices of the notifying authority. Failure to respond shall be deemed an acceptance of the nomination.
Section 10. Candidate Statement; requirements and limitations; qualifying for distribution
(a) To assist the voters in assessing candidates for office in NOTA elections, the New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall distribute candidate statements by mail to the electorate at least seven (7) days before the election at no cost to the candidates.
(b) When a candidate submits a Nomination Acceptance for an office, the candidate may also submit a Candidate Statement for distribution, which shall be subject to the following requirements and limitations: required to be a black and white statement, consisting only of spaces, letters, punctuation marks, and numeric or other textual notation, contained within both sides of a single 8.5 x 11 inch white paper sheet, and, optionally, one photograph of the candidate from the neck up no greater than 3 x 3 inches, for the purpose of allowing the candidate to communicate with the voters; and, shall be limited to identifying the candidate, and, optionally, describing the candidate’s qualifications for office, party affiliations, proposed policies, and contact information; limited to one per candidate, even if the candidate receives multiple nominations for an office; and, shall contain no solicitation for funds nor refer to other candidates. The requirements and limitations of the Candidate Statement must be met, in the opinion of the New York State Board of Elections, in order to qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement
(c) Across the top inch of the first page of every Candidate Statement shall be the Statement Header. The Statement Header shall be blank except for the state seal and the words, in large font, “Candidate Statement of for ”, where shall be the name of the candidate as it shall appear on the ballot and shall be the name of the office as it shall appear on the ballot; and then, in a smaller font, “Prepared by the candidate and distributed to voters without cost to the candidate by the Office of the New York State Board of Elections.”; and then, a line at the lower boundary of the Statement Header; and, anywhere within the Statement Header, any other content determined by the New York State Board of Elections. At Nomination Notification, the candidate shall receive sample Candidate Statements and an assigned Statement Header from the New York State Board of Elections that the candidate is required to use as the Statement Header for any Candidate Statement the candidate submits.
(c) The area of the Candidate Statement apart from the Statement Header is the Candidate Content determined by the candidate. The New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority shall take care to distribute Candidate Content as submitted, except as follows: The appropriate authority shall review Candidate Statements submitted to them to insure they qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement. The appropriate authority shall have delivered to the New York State Board of Elections all Candidate Statements, along with their Candidate Instructions, if any, for final review, within three (3) days of receipt, along with a an opinion by the appropriate authority, defined by the New York State Board of Elections, indicating whether the Candidate Statement meets the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement.
(d) If, in the opinion of the Town Clerk, a Candidate Statement does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, the Town Clerk Opinion shall include an explanation of the nonconformance, along with a proposed Deletion Notification to make the Candidate Statement conformant, and any other relevant document. Before submitting the Town Clerk Opinion to the New York State Board of Elections, the Town Clerk may contact the candidate directly to verbally suggest changes to the Candidate Statement to make it conformant. If the candidate then submits one or more revised drafts, the Town Clerk shall submit the last such draft as the Candidate Statement, retaining prior drafts as part of the Candidate Statement’s record.
(e) Should the New York State Board of Elections determine a Candidate Statement does not qualify for distribution because it does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, then the New York State Board of Elections shall have delivered to the candidate, within ten (10) days of the submission of the Candidate Statement by the candidate, a Deletion Notification, defined by the New York State Board of Elections, which shall include a copy of the Candidate Statement to show the deletions needed to bring the statement into compliance and a letter stating the reasons for those deletions. The New York State Board of Elections, or representative, shall meet with the candidate at the offices of the New York State Board of Elections, upon the candidate’s request, within two (2) days of receipt of a request for such a meeting, to review the Candidate Statement with the candidate’s representatives. The candidate shall have delivered to the New York State Board of Elections within five (5) days of the receipt of the Deletion Notification or within two (2) days after such meeting, whichever is later: the candidate’s response to the Deletion Notification; and/or a corrected Candidate Statement; and/or a Candidate Instruction, to be defined by the New York State Board of Elections, in the event of a non qualifying Candidate Statement, instructing the New York State Board of Elections either to withdraw the Candidate Statement completely or to distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions indicated by the Deletion Notification.
(f) Changes to the Candidate Content by the New York State Board of Elections shall be by deletion only, using methods to be established in advance of the election by the New York State Board of Elections so as to be obvious to voters which parts of the Candidate Content were deleted. Should the candidate fail to provide an acceptable, corrected Candidate Statement and fail to provide Candidate Instructions for such an event, the New York State Board of Elections shall distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions specified in the Deletion Notification. The New York State Board of Elections shall make available at its offices to any person, within one day of a written request, copies of any original Candidate Statement as well as associated Town Clerk Opinion, corrected Candidate Statement, Deletion Notification, and Candidate Instruction, and other related documents during the election campaign and for ten (10) years after the election.
Whenever possible, all Candidate Statements for the same office shall be assembled into a single ballot pamphlet for distribution. Reference copies of the Candidate Statements shall be made available at polling places for voter use.
Section 11. Confirming nominations
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall confirm by Party Confirmation, as defined by the New York State Board of Elections, with the governing body of the designated political party, that the party accepts the party designation on the ballot for a candidate. If the party designation
of the nomination is not accepted by the governing body of the party within ten (10) days of notification, or if the authority of the governing body is determined by the New York State Board of Elections to be in dispute, then the candidate shall be listed with a “No Party” party designation. Write-in nominations shall be designated as “Write-In”, or with any other political party designation acceptable to both the candidate and the governing body of the political party.
Section 12. Ballot determination; election date determination
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall determine the date, offices, and candidate lists for NOTA elections, and shall announce such determinations, whenever possible, at least thirty days in advance of the date set for the NOTA election.
(b) The New York State Board of Elections shall insure, whenever possible, various NOTA Elections take place throughout the state on the same day.
Section 13. Counting votes; recounts
(a) In cases of multiple listings of a candidate for an office, the number of votes cast for each such listing of a candidate shall be counted and reported separately; however, the sum of all votes for a candidate for an office shall be used in determining the candidate’s vote for election to the office.
(b) A qualified write-in candidate who receives more votes than any listed candidate, and more votes than any other write-in candidate, and more votes than “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall be elected.
(c) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall conduct a recount of any election where the number votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” would require, or would allow a candidate to request, a recount if that number of votes had been cast for a candidate, and otherwise act on behalf of voters who cast votes for “None of the Above; For a New Election.” Delegation of this duty to the New York State Board of Elections shall in no way limit voters, who affirm they voted for “None of the Above; For a New Election” in an election, from also acting on behalf of themselves and other such voters.
Section 14. Failure to nominate
(a) Should no candidate qualify for nomination for an office in a NOTA Election, the office shall appear on the ballot with no listed candidate with only the “None of the Above; For a New Election” line.
Section 15. Nominating Petition Description
(a) The nominating petitions shall consist of 8.5 x 11 inch white paper with the first printed title line reading “NOTA Election Nominating Petition”;
The next printed line shall state: “To be signed only by voters eligible to vote for the office.”;
(b) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “For the office of: ”, followed immediately by the title the office, as it appears on the ballot, for which the candidate is to be nominated; and, followed immediately by the text “ for ”; and, followed by the jurisdiction of the office;
(c) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Nominating: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal name and, optionally, in quotes, an informal name, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
(d) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Whose legal address is: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal address, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
(e) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Political Party: ”, followed immediately by the name of the political party, as it is intended to appear on the ballot. “No Party” is permitted. “Write-In” is permitted for candidates nominated by write-in votes; and, “For the Town or City:”, followed immediately by the name of the election district where the signers below must be registered to vote.
The next printed line shall identify the appropriate columns for voters to fill out with the words “Voter’s Name (print)”; “Street Address”; “Signature”; “Date”;
There shall follow sixteen (16) thin, straight lines, indicating the space for the voter to make a nomination.
Section 17. Conflicting provisions
The provisions of this act shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of any other law.
Section 18. Severability
The provisions of this act are severable, and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
Section 19. Effective date
The provisions of this act shall take effect two (2) years after enactment
IN ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
Introduced by
Dated
AN ACT REGULATING ELECTION BALLOTS TO PROVIDE FOR A VOTER CONSENT “NONE OF THE ABOVE” OPTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Whereas government should secure the consent of the governed;
Whereas all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent;
Whereas voters are sometimes presented with such choices on the ballot that none of the listed candidates for an office is acceptable, but voters are unable to withhold their consent to such elections to office;
Whereas voter turnout has been in decline and it is in the public interest to stimulate voter turnout;
Whereas the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it and to do so requires the public's ability to withhold consent;
Therefore, to insure the legitimate consent of voters by enabling them to withhold their consent to elections to office;
Be it enacted by the New York State Assembly and New York State Senate as follows:
The Consolidated Laws are hereby amended by adding the following the following Article 18 to Chapter Seventeen of the New York State Consolidated Laws (Election Law)
Section 1. (a) None of the Above ("NOTA") on the ballot.
On all ballots electing a candidate to office there shall appear, after the list of candidates for each office, a votable line identified with the words “None of the Above; For a New Election”.
(b) A voter may choose to vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” instead of voting for a candidate. If a voter may vote for multiple candidates for an office, a vote for “None of the Above; For a New Election” counts as one vote. Votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” shall be counted and reported as are votes for listed candidates.
(c) When a candidate receives fewer votes than NOTA. Any candidate for office who receives fewer votes than the votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall not be elected.
(d) NOTA election
In any election where no candidate is elected to an office because of votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election”, a None of the Above election ("NOTA election") shall be held to fill that office not less than sixty (60) days and not more than eighty (80) days after the prior election.
(e) Election of the President of the United States
In elections to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States and their electors, “Prefer None of the Above” shall appear after the list of candidates. Voters may choose to vote both for NOTA as well as for a candidate. Votes cast for “Prefer None of the Above” shall be counted and reported in the same manner as are votes for listed candidates, but shall not otherwise affect the election outcome.
Section 2. (a) Statement about NOTA options.
The New York State Board of Elections shall prepare a statement titled “Your Voter Consent Ballot Options:”, to be displayed, along with any other materials determined by the New York State Board of Elections, so it is legible to voters at the polling place prior to voting as well as within each voting enclosure, indicating the options available to the voter. For example, such a statement might contain the following:
"Your Voter Consent Ballot Options: YOU MAY VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE OR “None of the Above; For a New Election”.
O Candidate A
O Candidate B
O None of the Above; For a New Election"
Section 3-1. Temporary appointment to offices and assignment of duties. Temporary appointment to offices, pending NOTA elections and an elected candidate taking office, required to execute the duties of an office, may be made by the Governor; or by majority vote of the town council for town-wide elections; city or common council for city-wide elections; or county legislature for county-wide elections ("appropriate authority") provided the person so appointed is either the office’s current incumbent or if there is no incumbent would be otherwise eligible for election to that office. Temporary appointment to the office of Governor shall be by majority vote of the Court of Appeals. No temporary appointment under this provision shall be made to the offices of County Legislator, City Council, State Assembly, State Senator, United States Representative, or United States
Senator.
3-2. If no appointment is made by the day before expiration of an office’s current term, the office’s incumbent is appointed by default.
Section 4. Campaign finance reporting.
(a) Candidates in a NOTA election must conform to the same, or equivalent, campaign financing and reporting requirements as a candidate for that office in a general election.
(b) Campaign financing and reporting for activities related to the issue of voters voting for “None of the Above; For a New Election”, or for “Prefer None of the Above”, shall have the same, or equivalent, requirements as equivalent elections. All such requirements shall be subject to those changes necessary, as determined by the New York State Board of Elections, to adjust for the varying election dates and campaign durations of NOTA elections, provided such changes adhere to the original intent of those requirements and avoid unreasonable burden to election participants.
Section 5. Nomination of candidates
(a) Any person who is eligible for nomination as a candidate in the general election for an office shall be eligible for nomination as a candidate in a NOTA election for that office, provided the person did not receive, as a listed candidate in a prior election for the same office and term, fewer votes than those cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” the office.
(b) All candidates for office in NOTA elections shall be nominated to be listed on the ballot either by nominating petition, or by receiving a requisite number of write-in votes in the prior election for that office.
Section 6. (a) Nomination by petition; eligibility to sign petitions; collecting signatures at polling places. The nomination period for a NOTA election shall commence on the day of the prior election. The nomination period shall continue for fourteen (14) days after the results of the prior election for that office are announced.
(b) Voters eligible to vote in the NOTA election for an office are eligible to sign, once for each nomination, one or more nominating petitions for one or more candidates for that office during the nomination period. Signatures for nominating petitions may be gathered at polling places on election day, provided they are gathered in one, or two if required, Petition Areas that shall be reserved at each polling place for such purpose, and in such a manner as to provide easy access for voters wishing to sign such petitions or not, and in such a manner that voters shall pass by those collecting nominating signatures before and after voting.
(c) Any person collecting nominating signatures at a polling place for one or more petitions, hereinafter referred to as Collector, must be registered to vote at that polling place. A Collector may assist in the gathering of signatures for any Nominating Petition. No signed petition may be removed from a Petition Area, except, after the polls close, by the New York State Board of Elections.
(d) The Collector shall be seated in a chair behind a table, provided at no cost to the Collector, upon which such petitions shall be placed and kept while collecting signatures. The Collector shall not speak to, or otherwise communicate with, any voter, and shall display no sign except, optionally, one reading “Nominating Petition: ”, where shall be the name of the office for which the petition is being gathered, using letters no greater than three inches in height and affixed to the table in such a manner as to be visible to passing voters. The number of Collectors in each Petition Area shall be no more than two (2) per one (1) or more petition sheets with the same Candidate and Party designation. A petition may be brought into and left unattended in the Petition Area by any person.
(e) The Petition Area shall be part to the polling place, and any person failing to conform to its requirements shall be considered a disorderly person.
Section 7. Nomination by write-in
(a) An unlisted write-in candidate in the prior election may be nominated to be listed as a candidate for an office in the following NOTA election by receiving write-in votes equal to at least ten percent of the total votes cast for the office in the current election. Such candidates shall submit to the New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority by the last day of the nomination period, a completed nominating petition, containing no filled in signature lines, with an attached affirmation by the candidate, stating the candidate received the requisite write-in votes for that office in the prior election. Unlisted write-in candidates who do not receive the number of write-in votes needed for nomination may seek nomination by petition.
(b) Signature verification; number of signatures required; submitting petitions
The authority responsible for signature verification for nominations for a office in the election shall be responsible for verifying the signatures on the nominating petitions for a NOTA election are valid and of the requisite number within fourteen (14) days after the end of the nomination period.
(c) The number of valid signatures under the same party designation required for nomination by petition shall be the same for all candidates for the same office and shall be: either equal to the number of the most signatures required for a general election nomination for the office, divided by number of days in the general election nomination period, and then multiplied by number of days in the current nomination period, and then divided by three (3); or, equal to twenty (20), whichever is greater.
(d) Each original nominating petition sheet shall be submitted to the offices of the same verifying authority as for general elections, within three (3) days after the end of the nomination period.
Section 8. Multiple nominations of a candidate
(a) In NOTA elections, if a candidate has been separately nominated with different political party designations, the candidate shall appear on the ballot separately for each such nomination. The same political party designation may not appear with more candidates for an office than the number of positions to be elected to that office. The party designation of either “No Party” or “Write-In” shall be allowed once each for a candidate so nominated.
Section 9. Nomination notification and acceptance
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority shall have delivered to each nominee, within three (3) days of the nominee qualifying for the nomination, a Nomination Notification, notifying the nominee of the nomination, along with other materials determined by the New York State Board of Elections. The nominee shall respond to the Nomination Notification within five (5) days by returning the Nomination Acceptance, as determined by the New York State Board of Elections or other notifying authority, to the offices of the notifying authority. Failure to respond shall be deemed an acceptance of the nomination.
Section 10. Candidate Statement; requirements and limitations; qualifying for distribution
(a) To assist the voters in assessing candidates for office in NOTA elections, the New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall distribute candidate statements by mail to the electorate at least seven (7) days before the election at no cost to the candidates.
(b) When a candidate submits a Nomination Acceptance for an office, the candidate may also submit a Candidate Statement for distribution, which shall be subject to the following requirements and limitations: required to be a black and white statement, consisting only of spaces, letters, punctuation marks, and numeric or other textual notation, contained within both sides of a single 8.5 x 11 inch white paper sheet, and, optionally, one photograph of the candidate from the neck up no greater than 3 x 3 inches, for the purpose of allowing the candidate to communicate with the voters; and, shall be limited to identifying the candidate, and, optionally, describing the candidate’s qualifications for office, party affiliations, proposed policies, and contact information; limited to one per candidate, even if the candidate receives multiple nominations for an office; and, shall contain no solicitation for funds nor refer to other candidates. The requirements and limitations of the Candidate Statement must be met, in the opinion of the New York State Board of Elections, in order to qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement
(c) Across the top inch of the first page of every Candidate Statement shall be the Statement Header. The Statement Header shall be blank except for the state seal and the words, in large font, “Candidate Statement of for ”, where shall be the name of the candidate as it shall appear on the ballot and shall be the name of the office as it shall appear on the ballot; and then, in a smaller font, “Prepared by the candidate and distributed to voters without cost to the candidate by the Office of the New York State Board of Elections.”; and then, a line at the lower boundary of the Statement Header; and, anywhere within the Statement Header, any other content determined by the New York State Board of Elections. At Nomination Notification, the candidate shall receive sample Candidate Statements and an assigned Statement Header from the New York State Board of Elections that the candidate is required to use as the Statement Header for any Candidate Statement the candidate submits.
(c) The area of the Candidate Statement apart from the Statement Header is the Candidate Content determined by the candidate. The New York State Board of Elections or the appropriate authority shall take care to distribute Candidate Content as submitted, except as follows: The appropriate authority shall review Candidate Statements submitted to them to insure they qualify for distribution as a Candidate Statement. The appropriate authority shall have delivered to the New York State Board of Elections all Candidate Statements, along with their Candidate Instructions, if any, for final review, within three (3) days of receipt, along with a an opinion by the appropriate authority, defined by the New York State Board of Elections, indicating whether the Candidate Statement meets the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement.
(d) If, in the opinion of the Town Clerk, a Candidate Statement does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, the Town Clerk Opinion shall include an explanation of the nonconformance, along with a proposed Deletion Notification to make the Candidate Statement conformant, and any other relevant document. Before submitting the Town Clerk Opinion to the New York State Board of Elections, the Town Clerk may contact the candidate directly to verbally suggest changes to the Candidate Statement to make it conformant. If the candidate then submits one or more revised drafts, the Town Clerk shall submit the last such draft as the Candidate Statement, retaining prior drafts as part of the Candidate Statement’s record.
(e) Should the New York State Board of Elections determine a Candidate Statement does not qualify for distribution because it does not meet the requirements and limits of a Candidate Statement, then the New York State Board of Elections shall have delivered to the candidate, within ten (10) days of the submission of the Candidate Statement by the candidate, a Deletion Notification, defined by the New York State Board of Elections, which shall include a copy of the Candidate Statement to show the deletions needed to bring the statement into compliance and a letter stating the reasons for those deletions. The New York State Board of Elections, or representative, shall meet with the candidate at the offices of the New York State Board of Elections, upon the candidate’s request, within two (2) days of receipt of a request for such a meeting, to review the Candidate Statement with the candidate’s representatives. The candidate shall have delivered to the New York State Board of Elections within five (5) days of the receipt of the Deletion Notification or within two (2) days after such meeting, whichever is later: the candidate’s response to the Deletion Notification; and/or a corrected Candidate Statement; and/or a Candidate Instruction, to be defined by the New York State Board of Elections, in the event of a non qualifying Candidate Statement, instructing the New York State Board of Elections either to withdraw the Candidate Statement completely or to distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions indicated by the Deletion Notification.
(f) Changes to the Candidate Content by the New York State Board of Elections shall be by deletion only, using methods to be established in advance of the election by the New York State Board of Elections so as to be obvious to voters which parts of the Candidate Content were deleted. Should the candidate fail to provide an acceptable, corrected Candidate Statement and fail to provide Candidate Instructions for such an event, the New York State Board of Elections shall distribute the original Candidate Statement with the deletions specified in the Deletion Notification. The New York State Board of Elections shall make available at its offices to any person, within one day of a written request, copies of any original Candidate Statement as well as associated Town Clerk Opinion, corrected Candidate Statement, Deletion Notification, and Candidate Instruction, and other related documents during the election campaign and for ten (10) years after the election.
Whenever possible, all Candidate Statements for the same office shall be assembled into a single ballot pamphlet for distribution. Reference copies of the Candidate Statements shall be made available at polling places for voter use.
Section 11. Confirming nominations
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall confirm by Party Confirmation, as defined by the New York State Board of Elections, with the governing body of the designated political party, that the party accepts the party designation on the ballot for a candidate. If the party designation
of the nomination is not accepted by the governing body of the party within ten (10) days of notification, or if the authority of the governing body is determined by the New York State Board of Elections to be in dispute, then the candidate shall be listed with a “No Party” party designation. Write-in nominations shall be designated as “Write-In”, or with any other political party designation acceptable to both the candidate and the governing body of the political party.
Section 12. Ballot determination; election date determination
(a) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall determine the date, offices, and candidate lists for NOTA elections, and shall announce such determinations, whenever possible, at least thirty days in advance of the date set for the NOTA election.
(b) The New York State Board of Elections shall insure, whenever possible, various NOTA Elections take place throughout the state on the same day.
Section 13. Counting votes; recounts
(a) In cases of multiple listings of a candidate for an office, the number of votes cast for each such listing of a candidate shall be counted and reported separately; however, the sum of all votes for a candidate for an office shall be used in determining the candidate’s vote for election to the office.
(b) A qualified write-in candidate who receives more votes than any listed candidate, and more votes than any other write-in candidate, and more votes than “None of the Above; For a New Election” for that office shall be elected.
(c) The New York State Board of Elections or appropriate authority shall conduct a recount of any election where the number votes cast for “None of the Above; For a New Election” would require, or would allow a candidate to request, a recount if that number of votes had been cast for a candidate, and otherwise act on behalf of voters who cast votes for “None of the Above; For a New Election.” Delegation of this duty to the New York State Board of Elections shall in no way limit voters, who affirm they voted for “None of the Above; For a New Election” in an election, from also acting on behalf of themselves and other such voters.
Section 14. Failure to nominate
(a) Should no candidate qualify for nomination for an office in a NOTA Election, the office shall appear on the ballot with no listed candidate with only the “None of the Above; For a New Election” line.
Section 15. Nominating Petition Description
(a) The nominating petitions shall consist of 8.5 x 11 inch white paper with the first printed title line reading “NOTA Election Nominating Petition”;
The next printed line shall state: “To be signed only by voters eligible to vote for the office.”;
(b) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “For the office of: ”, followed immediately by the title the office, as it appears on the ballot, for which the candidate is to be nominated; and, followed immediately by the text “ for ”; and, followed by the jurisdiction of the office;
(c) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Nominating: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal name and, optionally, in quotes, an informal name, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
(d) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Whose legal address is: ”, followed immediately by the candidate’s legal address, as it is intended to appear on the ballot;
(e) The next printed line of the petition shall state: “Political Party: ”, followed immediately by the name of the political party, as it is intended to appear on the ballot. “No Party” is permitted. “Write-In” is permitted for candidates nominated by write-in votes; and, “For the Town or City:”, followed immediately by the name of the election district where the signers below must be registered to vote.
The next printed line shall identify the appropriate columns for voters to fill out with the words “Voter’s Name (print)”; “Street Address”; “Signature”; “Date”;
There shall follow sixteen (16) thin, straight lines, indicating the space for the voter to make a nomination.
Section 17. Conflicting provisions
The provisions of this act shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of any other law.
Section 18. Severability
The provisions of this act are severable, and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
Section 19. Effective date
The provisions of this act shall take effect two (2) years after enactment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
