If the geeks decided

TechCrunch is running an online primary based on candidates' high technology views. The current standings reinforce my previous post on the 2008 Presidential Race, with the addition of Kucinich as the front-runner on the Democratic side. Too bad this could never be.

You're what?

I was quite disturbed tonight to read the political views of a close friend of mine, another Ron Paul supporter, a lover of God, but a misguided conservative on a quest to attack liberalism.

Why are you a conservative? Because of your religion? Let me clear up your misconceptions about liberals and show you what a liberal you truly are:

Alternative Fuels: You want us to be energy independent, and agree that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has put us in a bad economical position. That's a liberal point of view.

Capital Punishment: Your belief in the Lord causes you to question the typical conservative view here.

Censorship: You think it's the parents job to protect the children.

Bush/Cheney: You're tired of secret societies maintaining the status quo. That's so far off in left field!

Electoral College: You would like to see it abolished.

Flag Burning: You don't think it hurts anyone.

Foreign Policy: You don't see Islam as a moral threat and support philanthropy overseas in developing nations.

Global Warming: You consider yourself a "greenist" and support recycling.

Globalization: You're against RFID implants and national driver licenses.

Healthcare: You question what the government knows about the needs of the citizen.

Illegal Immigration: You support the children.

Marijuana Legalization: You don't support harsh punishments.

Social Security: You want to see it someday.

Stem Cell Research: You're not against it.

Taxes: Against the personal income tax.

The Constitution: You think we should follow it.

These are all stances that modern liberals rally for. Granted, there were several other issues that you do hold a conservative position on, but I believe you're supporting the wrong camp if your religion is really guiding you here. I encourage you to take a step back and think Independently about everything. You admit that you're not a Republican even though you're registered as one, and you're certainly not a Democrat, so what are you?

Such are the limitations of our two party society. Anyone thinking "outside of the box" and taking into consideration multiple view points on many different issues, resulting in a mix of conservative and liberal beliefs, is left with only two choices come election time: go with one half of your beliefs, or go with the other. Which half is more important that given year? Such a voter is rarely given the chance to support someone who personifies all of their beliefs. And that's why (ignoring the Electoral College for a moment) you see middle class America causing so much turnover in our political system. Every fourteen years or so the majority in the Congress changes hands, the voters are made empty promises, and after a decade or so of little progress it changes hands again. The polarization is what is causing America to fall behind in the world of democracies that it started: we fixed the systems for everyone else but left our own broken democracy in place unexamined.

What are your thoughts? Can the two party system succeed in modern society, should third parties be introduced to the mix, or should parties be abolished all together, allowing individual politicians to stand out in the crowd based on their merit alone? Comment below.

Calling it early: The Four Person Race to the White House

With the 2008 Presidential Election less than a year away, it's easy to see who the clear forerunners are when you ignore the mainstream media spin machine (and yes, today a good number of voting age Americans actually do). The race has come down to four candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Ron Paul. Why am I ignoring the other Republican candidates? Because the Republicans don't have a snowballs chance in hell in 2008 if they don't field Ron Paul. He's their only chance to get Democrats to vote Republican, and if they can't see that they will lose. For example, today in Virginia Paul's campaign turned in 20,000 signatures to get him on the state's GOP primary ballot. The 20,000 signatures are 5,000 more than Mitt Romney turned in, and double the 10,000 signatures required for a place on the ballot. Paul clearly has grassroots support that the other candidates (even Democrats) are having trouble obtaining.

Let's examine the "If Clicks Were Votes" series released by Compete for November 2007.

By the Numbers
Ron Paul: 496,906 unique website visitors
Barack Obama: 318,179 unique website visitors
Hillary Clinton: 289,615 unique website visitors
John Edwards: 136,002 unique website visitors

State-by-State








Yes, this is a new concept to rank candidates based on their online popularity. But you must remember that online popularity does translate back into real-world popularity, and that translates into votes in America's idea of a democracy. If each one of those unique visitors to a candidate website mentions the candidate to even 5 of his or her real-world friends, you can see the "reach" numbers jumping into the millions. It will be interesting to see how close the primary results maps look to these website visitor maps.