One of the bigger whoppers is that Sen. Hatch was a co-sponsor of the bill in order to “get a seat at the table”, not to necessarily endorse its content. That, however, doesn’t quite jive with his enthusiastic support of the bill when it was initially introduced in May of 2011. Technology companies and prominent technologists immediately expressed concern with the bill and continue to do so, but Sen. Hatch’s “seat at the table” resulted in zero proposed amendments to the bill before he abruptly reversed course. This raises a few concerns.

One, why would you need to sponsor a bill you don’t particularly like in order to amend or improve it? Sponsorship is endorsement, and you, for all intents and purposes, own that bill. Two, you don’t need to sponsor a bill in order to propose changes to it. Almost anyone can propose amendments. And three, what good is that “seat at the table” if it goes unused? Failing to amend a bill that tech companies agree with break some very fundamental protocols of the Internet (including the federally-mandated DNSSEC) is irresponsible at best.

We also have to consider Orrin Hatch’s actions on intellectual property and copyright. This is the Senator who asked, in earnest, if there was a way to blow up a suspected copyright infringer’s PC. The absolute absurdity of such a proposal (not to mention its complete lack of due process) is reason enough to believe that the latest bill to be hawked is just more of the same. This dovetails with the half million dollars Hatch has accepted from the entertainment industry and numerous times he has sought to push similar legislation, including the deeply-flawed ACTA treaty, something that makes PIPA look reasonable. Hatch has also worked to greatly extend the term of copyrights far beyond what most experts consider to be economically beneficial, instead creating a system of government-granted monopoly.

Make no mistake: Hatch’s retreat on PIPA is temporary, and he will waste no time trying to pass similar or worse legislation in this space if given the chance. Let’s not let him have it.

BONUS: Watch Sen. Hatch doubletalk all over himself when it’s just him and a live audience. I’m sure this gave his handlers a headache.

One of the few positive things of the Tea Party crowd (and the members they are electing) is a vehement opposition to political elitism, including the practices associated with seniority. Instead of accepting that you have to outlast your peers to get your desired committee assignments, they have pushed for significantly more technocratic ways of committee selection based on ability. Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee (the latter of whom I have significant disagreements with) have managed to wield significant influence in the “deliberative” body of Congress despite being the new kids on the block.

So now that the influence of seniority isn’t as solid of an indicator of influence in the body, does it still have value? Not likely. Now that good ideas and ability are the currency of influence, being in office for a significant period of time without a significant list of accomplishments is a huge negative. Guys like Bennett, who seemingly accomplish little of what the general electorate cares for, get replaced by the brash go-getters who make things happen in short order.

Former State Sen. Dan Liljenquist accomplished two major reforms, state employee pensions and Medicaid, in just three years in office. Doesn’t this seem like the kind of guy who’d get things done in Washington? And, more importantly, don’t those seem like the right things to get done?

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

On the surface, this seems to be an accurate portrayal of a “lesser of two evils” scenario, but I think that perhaps Glenn hasn’t accurately portrayed the reality of a Paul presidency. Yes, Paul would absolutely slash federal programs with aplomb, maybe even many of which you heartily approve. Ask yourself, however, if this really does mean the end of the programs. It is highly likely that many, if not all, states would continue entitlement programs as a replacement of the eliminated federal ones. With the elimination of those federal programs and many federal laws, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have as much sway in our political discourse, much of it, again, being left up to the states. If Greenwald’s argument is accurate, it’s not a simple “pick which half is most important to you” argument.

And even if it is, which half matters most in a President? While you can most assuredly tackle the issues with entitlements and abortion and civil rights, etc. at the state level, can you do anything about targeted assassination of American citizens? What about warrantless wiretapping? Or a war with Iran to replace the “winding down” (if you can call it that) of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are all issues which you either fix at the federal level or not at all. But social issues and entitlement spending? Even blood red Utah is likely to keep some of them around. If we were keeping score, Paul would fulfill a lot more of your requirements for the office of the presidency.

If you crunch the numbers and still believe that Obama is a better choice for you, that’s perfectly fine. All I’m asking is that you exercise some honesty and soul-searching, ditch the tribalism of unwavering support for a Democratic president no matter how neo-conservative he may be, and choose who actually best fits your views.

• It was hilarious to watch people say that Iowa only matters if the “right” person wins. Most of them were actively talking about Ron Paul as the “wrong” person. The logical contortions required to take this position, that the result dictates the relevancy of the result, are astounding at best.
• Speaking of Ron Paul, he didn’t exactly “lose”. He scored as many delegates as Romney and Santorum and got more supporters elected to party positions than the other folks. He has a lot of caucus state ground game, and that matters when the “real” delegates get selected.
• Rick Santorum is the new Mike Huckabee. He pandered to evangelicals, has no money or ground game outside of Iowa, and will likely fade out after a few more states. I give him no longer than Super Tuesday before he drops out after many dismal showings. The idea that a good showing in a single early state can create momentum is laughable at best. There’s 49 other states, dude, and you’ve done nothing in any of them.
• Romney is calling this a “win”, but let’s consider a few facts. He’s been more-or-less campaigning constantly since at least 2007, spent a crapton of money, and won by just 8 votes over a guy who can’t come up with a campaign message beyond “I hate gay sex and abortions”. To have such a dismal showing in a state where ground game matters should be considered an unmitigated disaster. Consider that Romney has been stuck at a 25%-ish ceiling for most of the race and is counting on a crowded field to split up the Not Romney vote. Bachmann has just dropped out and Perry isn’t far behind. If Gingrinch continues to tank and Santorum falters, that can put a quarter or more of the vote back on the table, or roughly the entirety of Romney’s support. This should be scaring the crap out his campaign and supporters, but they seem to take for granted that Mitt can just coast to victory.

And how broad is it? It demands every single record related to House, Senate, and Congressional redistricting to or from any legislator or their staff. As I’ve mentioned before, the House and Senate maps both passed their respective houses almost unanimously, so what good does it to to request all of the records relating to these maps? It’s almost designed explicitly to be rejected as a freebie, and it hints that there’s really no evidence to support a lawsuit. Anyone who has actually worked with GRAMA knows that the most successful requests are specific and targeted, not overly broad.

More hilarious are the ground upon which the Party is requesting a fee waiver. The law provides that fees can be waived if the primary beneficiary of the release is the general public. In the request, however, the Party says rather bluntly that they intend to use the records in a potential lawsuit. They still insist, however, that the public is the primary beneficiary. Uh, what? Last I checked, the OLRGC is not designed to be a legal research team subsidized by the taxpayers, and if your intent of the request is to start suing people, it’s insulting to try and pretend that your primary objective is to look out for the public good.

Another portion of the law provides that a fee can be waived if it is related to the individual filing the request. Stunningly, the Party tried to insist that it is an individual under the law (ironic since most of them oppose Citizens United), a claim that OLGRC saw right through. They also dismissed the claim that because the fee “may” be waived that they are required to.

I find myself wondering if the legal eagles planning their lawsuit are rank amateurs or if they just want to see what sticks. I’ve said before that the legal threats are both poor strategy and a waste of time and money. This latest sloppy move only confirms it.

The reality of vote fraud is that it is rare, often uncoordinated, and unlikely to change the outcome of most elections. In cases where an election is close enough to make a difference, additional scrutiny is placed upon the ballots to ensure that they were properly cast. Any attempt to game an election from the front end would be quickly discovered and result in huge penalties for people who usually have little to gain from it.

Election fraud, however, is a real specter. Time and time again, electronic voting machines are shown to be easily gamed and changed to result in substantially different outcomes. Because the results can be modified to show a significant victory for a given party with the involvement of very few players, it becomes less likely that it will draw attention and scrutiny. As Joseph Stalin, someone well-versed in manipulating elections, has said, “He who votes does nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything.”

Most of us want elections to be fair and square, so let’s focus on the parts that can actually be gamed.

I’d like to offer some defense of the caucus system. While it does often reward party insiders, it allows candidates with a message but little funding to find some kind of traction. It also typically results in the most informed voters being most heavily involved.  The chief criticism is that many candidates who may win in a general election do not get that chance as it can be gamed and shut a lot of candidates out in the cold.

So why not a primary? The problem with primaries is that instead of heavily lobbying 1500-ish delegates, you have to mass market to tens or hundreds of thousands of potential primary voters. This requires a lot of money and, again, shuts some candidates out of the process. It also does nothing to diminish the power of donor money on the final outcome.

While my preferred system for elections is instant runoff voting (IRV), it’s not without its own problems. Like a primary, you need a large amount of money, except moreso since you have to survive until the general election instead. The upside is that instead of voting for a “lesser of many evils” candidate, you can pick your favorite and have a fallback position. This removes the “viability” argument from elections and gives what would previously be considered “long-shot” candidates a fighting chance.

What I’d like to propose is a hybrid of some of the best ideas of each of these with IRV serving as the base.

First, let’s allow any candidate to have ballot access so long as they are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. This would immediately increase the number of ballot choices in all elections and likely encourage more non-partisan candidates. Right now, non-partisan candidates must collect 1,000 signatures for a statewide office and 300 signatures for any other office. While this can be accomplished, it is a significant barrier to entry.

Second, let’s keep the caucus and convention system, but only as a means of endorsement. Any political party should be able to endorse one candidate on the ballot, and that endorsement should appear on the ballot along with the candidate’s affiliation, if any. This allows the political parties some influence over the election process, but no real control of the ballot itself. As much as I would like to pretend that voters do extensive research on all candidates before making their selection, I think we all know this to largely be a fiction. Party endorsement and affiliation still has a place.

Third, and biggest, let’s mix this all up with IRV. By allowing you to rank the candidates in order of preference, there is no such thing as a “wasted” vote, and keeping a broad base of support as a second or third choice can propel a candidate to victory. With both party affiliation and endorsement displayed next to each candidate, this can provide some additional information to voters to help them make a decision. Rep. John Dougall is already taking a small step by allowing cities to pick IRV for their municipal elections, and the convention system already uses it.

Will this change every election? No, not likely. It may not even change any at all. That said, it is a lot fairer to candidates and voters to at least put the options on the table.

No so for corporate income taxes. As much as we’d love to believe the myth that cigar-chomping mustachioed men in smoke-filled rooms are having to dip into their Scrooge McDuck vault to pony up their tax bill, it just isn’t so. Businesses always build their costs into their products and services, and most of them aren’t really going to let on as to how much of their retail cost goes to specific purposes. Quick: how much of Ford’s taxes did you pay when you purchased that new pickup? You have no idea, and that’s the problem. It’s not just that you’re paying a hidden tax either. Companies spend as much (or, in the case of  GE more than) finding ways to not pay taxes as they do in checks to Uncle Sam.

And this gets down to a very simple truth: companies do not pay taxes, people do. The consumers of the product are the ones shouldering it, but they don’t even get the benefit of knowing how much it is. Ending the corporate income tax doesn’t raise taxes on people, it just makes those previously unknown costs known while eliminating the loopholes that corporate collectivists are so fond of using. Doesn’t that sound like a refreshing idea?