Hello, Oregon Secretary of State? What Are You Wearing Now?

Oregon is doing it's part to boost voter registration. From KTVZ, "Central Orgeon's News Leader":

A mistyped phone number just inside the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet is now drawing some unwanted attention to the upcoming election.

Voters' Pamphlets just started hitting mailboxes across Oregon last week, and each county has its own version. But one phone number that's inside every copy in the state is making headlines.

Inside the front cover, in a letter from Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a 1-800 number is listed for voters to register on the phone. But as it turns out, the number has nothing to do with elections, voting or Oregon's primary - it's an adult hotline.

The recording then prompts you to dial another number - this one far more graphic.

It's an honest mistake that's now in some 1.7 million pamphlets across Oregon.

Why Should The Iowa Caucus Change Your Vote?

Russell Roberts takes up this question at Cafe Hayek:

The standard answer is that if you vote for a candidate who now appears to have a dramatically lower chance of winning, you might be wasting your vote.

But your vote isn't likely to matter anyway, in the sense of breaking a tie. Why is it wasting your vote to vote for a candidate who has a diminished or minimal chance of winning? You get no credit for voting for the winner. It's not a bet. Doesn't the morality of democracy demand that you vote for the candidate closest to your views regardless of the probability of victory?

By the way, I'm going to castrate the next person who uses the word "Obamentum." Hopefully, New Hampshire will strike "Huckaboom" off the MSM's phrasebook.

Showing ID to Vote

Today's Washington Post has a great article on a controversial case the Supreme Court will be deciding in the new year: is it unconstitutional for states to require people to show government-issued IDs to vote?

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

While I generally am offended when asked to show an ID, the one exception is when I'm being asked to prove who I say I am. Not only do I think it's OK for states to require people to prove who they are when they're voting, I think every state should. Not because I'm worried about widespread voter fraud but because it's just commonsense. To those who worry that people without ID won't be able to vote I say, "so". It's not that hard to get an ID, and if you don't have one you're probably not that involved in your community anyway.

Of course, a radical libertarian might argue that people shouldn't be required to get government-issued IDs and/or you shouldn't have the burden of proving you are who you say you are. I think that makes sense in lots of instances, like a police encounter. But in instances where you're saying you're a specific person - someone registered to vote, someone who has an electronic ticket for a flight, someone who is claiming they're the person listed on a credit card - it makes sense to require people to prove who they are. What are people's thoughts on this issue?

Paglia Weighs in on the Insanity of the Current Presidential Campaign

Crazy and always fun and intellectual Camille Paglia had a great article on Salon today. It was about the fact that Americans are being forced to endure a more prolonged presidential election process than ever before. And we all know how much we hate that.

The 2008 presidential sweepstakes have hit the doldrums as the pack of eager candidates of both parties dutifully make their rounds and tread water like tar. Whoever survives this corrida-by-boredom will presumably have the brass cojones to run the government. By what national curse must we suffer another year of this?

To make things worse, South Carolina announced today that it will move up its primary, which caused New Hampshire to also proposed to up its. As someone who would love to see Iowa and New Hampshire go back into their obscurity in terms of population versus primary voting influence, I think the country ought to adopt a primary day in which all citizens voted on the same day.