It looks like the Democrats have one a fairly comfortable majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a very slim one in the Indiana House of Representatives. Control of the U.S. Senate is still under review, but it’s going to be a very slim majority for one or the other. According to the NCSL blog, the Thicket, on the state level Democrats have taken control of:
* Iowa House and Senate
* Minnesota House
* Michigan House
* New Hampshire House and Senate
* Oregon House
* Wisconsin Senate
* Indiana House

I think the message is that the Democrats fielded strong candidates in a lot of districts, but voters weren’t typically voting for the Democratic candidates quite so much as they were voting against the Republican candidates. This isn’t a failing of the Democrats; rather it’s just how it goes for candidates challenging incumbents. But, I suspect we’ll see the media try to package this election, summarizing it with some kind of pat “moral of the story.” In particular, I’m reminded of the supposed ascendancy of the “values voters” in 2004 — and talk of George W. Bush’s mandate. So, I wonder what kind of package this election will get wrapped in.

Don’t forget to vote. Also, if you see anything interesting or noteworthy at the polls and are so inclined, please feel free to share it here.

Update: I forgot to add the reminder to bring your state or federally issued photo identification which is required before you can exercise your right to vote. Even if you can prove who you are by other means, it doesn’t count. State or federally issued photo identification only.

Update 2: “Voting machines were not working in at least half of Marion County’s precincts after polls opened this morning because election workers forgot how to start the machines.” (Advance Indiana citing the Indianapolis Star.)

Update 3: An anonymous commenter at Taking Down Words (so take it for what it’s worth) observed two people on the south side of Indianapolis turned away from the polls because their photo ID did not have an address that matched the address on the voter roll. The ID is solely for the purpose of proving identity, not residency. So, if true, there are a couple of examples of unlawful voter disenfranchisement.

If you’re reading this blog, chances are, you don’t need to know that the elections are tomorrow. I thought I’d share my philosophy. Nationally, any vote I have is going against the Republicans. Bush is arguably the worst President we’ve ever had. The federal budget is a tsunami of red ink. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. Civil liberties are eroding quickly. The Bush administration has made a fetish of secrecy in government administration. Bad policy is coupled with incompetent execution — see Iraq, and Katrina. Add to the mix a dash of wanting to legislate morality — Schiavo, stem cells, gay marriage, etc. and you have a horribly toxic brew. We need to clean house. I’m so disgusted, I think I’ll even vote against Dick Lugar, who I happen to like, and in favor of the Libertarian candidate even though such a vote will be futile.
My hope is that an electoral train wreck will cause some serious reorganization in the Republican Party that sees the ascendancy of the fiscal conservatives and foreign policy realists along with the demise of the neocons and the social conservatives. Then maybe there will be some real choices to be had come election time.

At the state level, the Republicans are much, much saner, but they’re headed in the wrong direction. They’re headed toward the social conservatives, but there are plenty of level headed Republicans with sound policy goals currently in power. I’m thinking of legislators like Luke Kenley and Richard Bray. Even aside from the Daylight Saving Time vote, upon which I’ve made my views clear, I do not like legislators like Woodruff and Bosma who champion the intermingling of religion and government and rubber stamp the Governor’s agenda. The Governor has some good ideas from time to time, but he is impatient with the legislative process. He needs a Democratic House to teach him some patience and, frankly, to have a vehicle for the Democrats to advance some of the good ideas that they have. Plus, I generally (with frequent exceptions) hold to the proposition that the government that governs best, governs least. Having chambers of the legislative body dominated by different political parties has a way of weeding out, or at least subjecting to intense review, the controversial ideas (such as DST and the Toll Road) while allowing good government no brainers to go through. Some folks may disagree with me, and say that gridlock is a bad thing. But, absent a real emergency, I’m not one of those who thinks it’s absolutely essential for a government to “do something” just for the sake of doing something. We’ve got plenty of laws on the books right now. Slowing down the pace of adding new ones probably won’t hurt us unduly.

Locally, party affiliation becomes less important. Politicians at the local level seem less motivated by idealogy and seem much more practical in their approach to tackling problems. They’re also much more accountable to citizens of either party simply because they see them on the street and in the community every day. So, at the local level, just throw party affiliation out the door. Try to talk to somebody who knows the candidates personally and simply vote for the one who seems smartest and most competent.

That’s my two cents. That and about $1.48 will get you a decent cup of coffee.

I came across a couple of columns this morning commenting on election endgame strategies with general disapproval. First up, Sheila Suess Kennedy, writing in the Indianapolis Star notes that the Republicans are going back to the homophobia well one more time. Energized by the New Jersey ruling that audaciously held that “denying commited same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose,” we have Republicans hyperventilating about the mortal peril this represents to not only heterosexual marriages but the very American way of life. Conveniently forgotten are lesser issues about troops dying in Iraq to no real purpose, the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, the profiteering of military contractors, the refusal of Congress to implement the the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, the death of habeas corpus, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, specific to Indianapolis and on the other side of the political fence, Abdul sees gamesmanship in the Indy City County Council’s decision to investigate whether Carl Brizzi, Republican candidate for Marion County Prosecutor, misled the Council about jail overcrowding this summer. The subject of the investigation may be worthy, but the timing is suspicious. A week before the election, the Council gets interested about jail overcrowding. Perhaps they were, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, “shocked, shocked” to find a jail overcrowding problem in Indianapolis. Abdul righteously demands to be plied with Brazilian strippers, good scotch whiskey, and a box of cigars and chocolate if he is expected to be manipulated in this fashion.

For my part, the only last minute antics that have gotten me even briefly agitated are the folks getting worked up about Kerry’s stumbling attempt at humor and the media that enables them. The only way you could say that John “Oh, did I ever mention I served in Viet Nam” Kerry thinks all soldiers are stupid is if you are horribly, horribly ignorant or a liar. And yet, people expressing that view were given hour after hour of cable news time. Liberal media, indeed.

At the end of the day, I’m mildly annoyed that my vote and Abdul’s vote and Sheila Suess Kennedy’s vote are all counted equally with the votes of those who are poorly informed enough that they can be swayed by last minute theatrics and campaign advertisements. I’m happy enough with a system where I can be outvoted. I only wish that the votes were better informed.

My interest in the Connecticut Senate race is an idle one based on my dislike for Joe Lieberman’s various stances. Mainly, I just wanted to quote this Matt Stoller description of the campaign dynamic:

Today, I think there was a decisive shift both in the dynamic of the race and in the tone of the political environment.

It’s not that Lamont has overperformed, or that Joe has melted down, it’s that Connecticut Election 2006 has gone off the deep end.  It’s not your normal white picket fence suburban election, with attack ad facing attack ad.  No, this is more like a white picket fence election that suddenly gets bored with life and decides to live in the forest, take a bunch of LSD, trout-fish naked, and taunt a bear cub before ending its life suddenly and with total and inexplicable resolution on November 7.  Well not really, but there’s no analogy that I can think of summarizing what’s going on.  What has happened is that Joe Lieberman competed in a Democratic primary, lost, and is now competing in a Republican primary, and is losing again.  Meanwhile, Lamont is finally picking up renewed steam and getting back on track as a candidate.  There’s energy here, real energy.

The Palladium-Item has an editorial advocating a freer market with respect to sales of beer and wine. Apparently there is some concern about legislative action that could limit access to beer and wine permits by convenience stores. The Pal-Item says that pressure to take such action will surely come from the package liquor industry which would like to be free of the competition. However, even if that is the motivation, that will not be how they attempt to sell the legislation. Instead, the pretext for limiting sales advocated by the package liquor industry will look a lot like the quote from the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers: “If we have thousands of new outlets selling alcohol, we’ve essentially deregulated how alcohol is sold.” The main evil of deregulation would be an increased likelihood that beer and wine would be sold to minors. While true, that’s probably is not what would motivate the industry to pay lobbyists to encourage the General Assembly to take action.

Motivations of the industry aside, however, concern over minors accessing alcohol may well be what motivates legislators to act. The Palladium-Item takes the stance that the benefits from increased market forces — would reduce prices and improve services, benefits that apparently outweigh the potentially increased access by minors, particularly if increased sales generate increased tax revenues that could be used in policing efforts.

Personally, I guess I’m conflicted on the issue. I have no particular desire to protect profits of package liquor retailers. I think our approach to minors and alcohol is problematic — by forbidding alcohol on one hand while advertising its glories on the other hand, we create a climate where minors tend to abuse alcohol as soon as they can get their hands on it. Some European countries where children are exposed to alcohol from an early age tend to have less of an alcohol abuse problem. (Though I suppose there are other countries where kids have early access *and* the country has serious abuse problems.) The Palladium-Item’s purported benefits don’t appear to me to be such unmitigated blessings when applied to sales of alcohol. Sure, I’d like to pay less for a six-pack. But would it really be a great thing for society if alcohol advertising were more effective? If alcohol sales increased enough to pay for more policing?

God knows I drank my share of beer back in the day. So I’m not one to preach against the moral evils of alcohol. But I do know that drinking too much of it is debilitating, causes one to be more likely to get into trouble of various sorts, and doesn’t help society out very much. We should probably back up, figure out what our collective position on alcohol is, and legislate accordingly. From my perspective, step one is to regard alcohol consumption as a health issue and not as a moral/religious issue. Whatever restrictions we impose on alcohol, let’s recognize that there is nothing magical about Sundays.  What use is it do to make liquor sales in stores illegal on Sundays but permit it at bars and restaurants? Are we telling folks it’s bad to drink beer in the comfort of their homes on Sundays but it’s A-O.K. to drive to a bar to do your drinking?

 I don’t have the solution, but I think we should: 1) Remove religion and morality from the alcohol debate; 2) Figure out how best to get kids and adults to drink alcohol responsibly when they do use alcohol; and 3) Improve public transportation so that when we do drink, we can get home easily without harming anyone.

Now that I’ve written a few paragraphs on this, it appears that the debate on alcohol consumption and the dangers arising therefrom has some things in common with the sex debates and the dangers arising therefrom. In both debates, I think there is a sizeable contingent that wants an “abstinence only” approach, and, because of their insistence on an unrealistic approach, we miss opportunities to limit negative consequences from these behaviors to a bare minimum.

I highly recommend The War of the Words. A Ken Burns style documentary of the “101st Fighting Keyboarders:” The right wing bloggers whose brave keyboarding kept us free by helping get us into a war with Iraq. Or something.

When America needed them, they were there.
They had honor.
Courage.
And a lot of spare time.