For a while the other day I thought I'd spied a chink of light glimmering at the end of an Oklahoman electoral tunnel of gloom. There were lots of reports (probably all copied from a single source) that Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico would be on Oklahoma's presidential election ballot. The state chapter of the now mainly defunct Americans Elect had nominated him to fill a vacant ballot slot acquired by AE earlier this year.
It turns out, though, after careful investgation, that all is not as cut-and-dried as reports indicated. The national board of Americans Elect had, it seems, applied to withdraw from their involvement in state elections. Their application appears to be dated at around the same time or a day earlier than the Oklahoma Americans Elect guys submitted Gov. Johnson's nomination, and had it accepted. Some informed commenters seem to think that the withdrawal by National AE wouldn't be allowed under Oklahoma law.
It's all unclear.
SNAFU, then !
Even more confusing is the fact that the Oklahoma Libertarian Party has been fighting for ballot access reform in Oklahoma in their own right, for months if not years, along with the Green Party. Ballot access in Oklahoma is the strictest in the whole nation. The reason for this, other than outright corruption, is also unclear. The Libertarian/Green case appears to be still bogged down somewhere in the bowels of the Oklahoma court system, and the hour is late with regard to November's General election. Hmmmm.
Anyway, I did a little preliminary research on Gary Johnson, just in case.
He originally filed as a Republican candidate for the presidency of the US but withdrew and re-appeared as a Libertarian. From THIS interview with Jon Stewart, and the stances set down on Gov. Johnson's website, I could see myself feeling able to vote for him. His positions are well to the right of my own in some areas, but one cannot ask for everything. I'd take what I could - for now.
Gov. Johnson says in the interview that he intends to run "to the left of Obama, socially, and to the right of Romney, fiscally" (that second position is a bit iffy!) But he's anti-war-ish, pro-choice-ish, pro marriage equality, anti-drug war. He'd move (he says) a lot of the $$$$$$$$$$$ from military expenditure to fund other more necessary sources. He's for free enterprise but not necessarily via corporatism, he thinks campaign donations should always be 100% transparent.
His natal chart:
Born on 1 January 1953 in Minot, North Dakota. No birth time available. 12 noon chart is shown:
His Capricorn Sun indicates a solid and sensible nature, with innate business sense, tending to lean naturally to the right politically. His Sun is conjunct Chiron (wounded healer)- not sure what that might signify, but if anything it's positive rather than negative. Uranus in Cancer is opposing his Capricorn Sun, which is kind of nice considering his vow to stand left of Obama/right of Romney - it's an astrological outline sketch of that intention.
We cannot be sure whether his natal Moon was in Cancer or Leo, before 5 PM Moon would have been in Cancer. It's of little use surmising, perhaps those who know him personally could hazard a guess though, because the two signs are not at all similar.
I suspect that Gov. Johnson's more lenient social stances come via Venus in Aquarius harmoniously sextiling Mercury in Sagittarius. Aquarius and Sagittarius together would tend to loosen and modify any severely right-leaning tendencies. Also to be taken into consideration: Saturn conjunct Neptune in Libra is in harmonious trine to Venus in Aquarius and sextile Mercury in Sagittarius - even more "softening" of hard-nosed Saturn/Capricorn!
In whatever state, if voters continue to feel forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, it becomes more and more likely that those are the only options we'll ever have.
Oklahoma is, at present, a solidly Republican state, it has not always been thus though. Our best option to prove that not everyone is in harness to the double-headed hydra is to vote third party, as long as the candidate in question is half-way decent. Third party voters will help to build a stronger alternative for the next election, and the next, and the next. It'll be a slow, often frustrating affair, I fear, trying to emerge from the gloomy tunnel, but absent a revolution, it's the only way open to ordinary citizens.
I hope Gary Johnson manages to get an "in" to the coming candidates' debates, whether he ends up on our Oklahoma ballot or not; he'll be on many other, more enlightened, state ballots and would add interest to what'd otherwise be a boring set of pre-arranged TV brainwashing.
It turns out, though, after careful investgation, that all is not as cut-and-dried as reports indicated. The national board of Americans Elect had, it seems, applied to withdraw from their involvement in state elections. Their application appears to be dated at around the same time or a day earlier than the Oklahoma Americans Elect guys submitted Gov. Johnson's nomination, and had it accepted. Some informed commenters seem to think that the withdrawal by National AE wouldn't be allowed under Oklahoma law.
It's all unclear.
SNAFU, then !
Even more confusing is the fact that the Oklahoma Libertarian Party has been fighting for ballot access reform in Oklahoma in their own right, for months if not years, along with the Green Party. Ballot access in Oklahoma is the strictest in the whole nation. The reason for this, other than outright corruption, is also unclear. The Libertarian/Green case appears to be still bogged down somewhere in the bowels of the Oklahoma court system, and the hour is late with regard to November's General election. Hmmmm.
Anyway, I did a little preliminary research on Gary Johnson, just in case.
He originally filed as a Republican candidate for the presidency of the US but withdrew and re-appeared as a Libertarian. From THIS interview with Jon Stewart, and the stances set down on Gov. Johnson's website, I could see myself feeling able to vote for him. His positions are well to the right of my own in some areas, but one cannot ask for everything. I'd take what I could - for now.
Gov. Johnson says in the interview that he intends to run "to the left of Obama, socially, and to the right of Romney, fiscally" (that second position is a bit iffy!) But he's anti-war-ish, pro-choice-ish, pro marriage equality, anti-drug war. He'd move (he says) a lot of the $$$$$$$$$$$ from military expenditure to fund other more necessary sources. He's for free enterprise but not necessarily via corporatism, he thinks campaign donations should always be 100% transparent.
His natal chart:
Born on 1 January 1953 in Minot, North Dakota. No birth time available. 12 noon chart is shown:
His Capricorn Sun indicates a solid and sensible nature, with innate business sense, tending to lean naturally to the right politically. His Sun is conjunct Chiron (wounded healer)- not sure what that might signify, but if anything it's positive rather than negative. Uranus in Cancer is opposing his Capricorn Sun, which is kind of nice considering his vow to stand left of Obama/right of Romney - it's an astrological outline sketch of that intention.We cannot be sure whether his natal Moon was in Cancer or Leo, before 5 PM Moon would have been in Cancer. It's of little use surmising, perhaps those who know him personally could hazard a guess though, because the two signs are not at all similar.
I suspect that Gov. Johnson's more lenient social stances come via Venus in Aquarius harmoniously sextiling Mercury in Sagittarius. Aquarius and Sagittarius together would tend to loosen and modify any severely right-leaning tendencies. Also to be taken into consideration: Saturn conjunct Neptune in Libra is in harmonious trine to Venus in Aquarius and sextile Mercury in Sagittarius - even more "softening" of hard-nosed Saturn/Capricorn!
In whatever state, if voters continue to feel forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, it becomes more and more likely that those are the only options we'll ever have.
Oklahoma is, at present, a solidly Republican state, it has not always been thus though. Our best option to prove that not everyone is in harness to the double-headed hydra is to vote third party, as long as the candidate in question is half-way decent. Third party voters will help to build a stronger alternative for the next election, and the next, and the next. It'll be a slow, often frustrating affair, I fear, trying to emerge from the gloomy tunnel, but absent a revolution, it's the only way open to ordinary citizens.
I hope Gary Johnson manages to get an "in" to the coming candidates' debates, whether he ends up on our Oklahoma ballot or not; he'll be on many other, more enlightened, state ballots and would add interest to what'd otherwise be a boring set of pre-arranged TV brainwashing.
We're all caught in this rock and a hardplace scenario, T. Our prime minister has yet to be charged with the election fraud that has been proven.
ReplyDeleteAnd given the choices it seems like the same down at your end.
Democracy vanished a long time ago, if it ever existed, but it seems we're all been driven off the cliff now.
XO
WWW
Wisewebwoman ~~ Yes - it's not peculiar to the USA, I know. It's a virus spreading rapidly - not sure to what end though. Global domination for the 1% after they've practically ruined our planet? Sounds like sci-fi or dystopian fiction, but getting more believable by the day.
ReplyDeleteI'm American (but I'm from California ;)), I follow politics pretty closely; can't seem to help myself, and I'm not familiar with Gary Johnson. I'm a registered Independent voter and I try to learn about all the candidates but I strongly doubt anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican could be elected as president here. We are in the very unfortunate position of choosing the lesser evil in this country. Our press doesn't even bother with candidates outside of the aforementioned. The vast majority of Americans have been "fat, dumb & happy" for so long. I'm not certain what will come of the situation we find ourselves in presently but change on a major scale seems inevitable.
ReplyDeleteJennifer ~~ Hi there!
ReplyDeleteI agree - there's no chance of anyone outside of the duopoly Dem/Repub being elected president - as things stand, and have stood for decades.
Unless a good number of people begin to refuse to think that way though, nothing will ever change.
All any of us can do is to start to chip away at the huge problem.
The media are much to blame. They ignore anyone not harnessed to the Big Two, because they, too, are bought and paid for (via advertising). If they print or say the wrong thing they lose advertising revenue. That's why we don't hear of people like Gary Johnson or Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) until something alerts us to them. Even online political blogs are not blameless in this.
People in the USA have become "imprisoned", some are well and truly brainwashed, some who do understand the situation have felt unable to free themselves and have become apathetic and defeated, either refusing to vote or voting lesser evil - which at this stage isn't lesser at all.
There may not be a solution outside of revolution, but it's way too early for one of those I think.
Only thing I'll feel comfortable doing at election time is voting my conscience, and I simply cannot vote for Obama or Romney.
:-)Thanks for stopping by to comment.
Jennifer...PS Have added you to my links.
ReplyDeleteMay I humbly suggest visiting approvalvotingUSA.org to find out why the two party duopoly exists...
ReplyDeleteIt is my contention that our voting method requires there to be a winner and a loser negating the possibility of a third-party winner, and this type of voting method is only used for political elections…
and all other human activities we use a form of approval voting…
The Man In The Street ~~
ReplyDeleteHi! Thanks for the suggestion - I have looked at the website you indicate. I hadn't seen that idea before - will give it some careful thought.
What strikes me, immediately, though is that until all US states have the same choices ( in the case of presidential candidates)
there can never be fairness - and the approval voting thing wouldn't work fairly.
I cannot see how, when voting for the president of the USA inhabitants of some states can
have as many as 4 or 5 choices while others (as Oklahoma) are left with the "2 evils".
The president is president of the whole USA, so the whole USA should have identical choices from which to cast their vote.
If that snaggle were resolved, then approval voting would make a lot of sense.
The whole US electoral system is screwed up, in my opinion, but I spent most of my life in the UK, where the parliamentary system is in place....so what do I know?
I can only apply logic.