Money and Politics : Immediate Solutions to Address Money Corrupting the Voting Behavior Process

Prescription #9  of “Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals” is : Consider voting for candidates (e.g., President of the United States) based upon levels of intuition in addition to other areas you believe deserve consideration (see “The Voter Scorecard”, Healthy Change : Part Five — Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals, #1 ). One goal is to increase the use and usefulness of The Voter Scorecard  © 1988, 2011 to obtain good election outcomes. Toward that end,  The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates has been presented.

Please note that the time period to receive free scoring report results on The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on each of the eight 2012 Presidential Candidates currently included in the scoring system has been extended until the end of January 2012 and can be accessed from a link in the sidebar. Additionally, The Voter Scorecard  © 1988, 2011 can now be obtained free of charge until the end of January 2012 for one personal use by sending an e-mail to info@hygiologypost.com requesting a copy.One copy for your personal use will then be sent to the e-mail address you provide. 

The author plans to develop The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 to enhance its use and usefulness as a method to obtain good election outcomes. Additional 2012 United States Presidential candidates may also be included. To help enhance the use and usefulness of The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011, a “Survey of The Voter Scorecard ©  1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 On Eight 2012 US Presidential Candidates” consisting of five questions was also presented for all readers to complete and can also be accessed from a link in the sidebar as well as below. A summary of the results will be sent to the e-mail address you provide at the end of the survey free of charge.

[wp-simple-survey-10]

According to information provided at (https://www.opensecrets.org/about/index.php; obtained on 1-14-12) OpenSecrets.org :

“The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. In short, the Center’s mission is to:

• Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
• Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
• Advocate for a transparent and responsive government…”

A recent article at “OpenSecretsblog Investigating Money in Politics” (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins.html; obtained on 1-14-12)

titled “The Big Spender Always Wins?” by Bob Biersack on 1-11-12 began the following way :

“It’s a bedrock truth of money and politics: The biggest spender almost always wins.

Here at the Center for Responsive Politics we’ve watched the trends in political money for a long time, and this is one of the most consistent findings we can identify.

Even during the most competitive cycles, when control of Congress is up for grabs, at the end of the day the candidates who spend the most usually win eight of 10 Senate contests and nine of 10 House races…”

The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates can potentially provide a method to counteract and inoculate the voter against what biased monetary (political) contributors can buy (e.g., negative advertising tactics). As such, they each represent immediate solutions to address the issue of money corrupting the voting behavior process.    

The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates can potentially provide a method, albeit imperfect, to facilitate voters making their own well thought out decision(s) based upon their own research. This can provide more freedom from immediate external advertising biases. Such immediate advertising biases are often apparently controlled by those with wealth and media access who seek primarily to influence specifically how people vote by injecting specific content in a specific manner into the voting behavior process. In contrast, for both The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates, the focus is on providing a method for evaluating the candidate or issue based upon criteria that the individual voter has determined is important to help ensure quality voting results that reflect their own well thought out decisions. The voter could be in a better position to utilize their own intuition well by using The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates to do things such as :

1. Accurately going beyond the surface and reading between the lines,

2. examining and interpreting patterns within a context, and

3. figuring out their own voting decisions rather than reading or following directions given by others.

The Center for Responsive Politics through their web site, OpenSecrets.org, can provide (synergistic) information that voters can use to make their decisions when using The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates. Additional (synergistic) information sources  when using The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 and The Voter Scorecard © 1988, 2011 Scoring Version 1.0 on 2012 Presidential Candidates could include (for example) :

1. The candidates’ face-to-face communications with voters as well as the candidates’ communications in media such as books they write, television interviews, and debates they participate in;

2. the voting record of candidates;  

3. information from Project Votesmart (https://www.votesmart.org/; obtained on 1-14-12); and 

4. information from the League of Women Voters (https://lwv.org/; obtained on 1-14-12). 

The 2012 United States Presidential Candidates themselves or their representatives are each invited to comment, make  recommendations, and/or add to the information in The Hygiology Post. Also, all of the 2012 United States Presidential Candidates are invited to be interviewed (for almost any purpose and in basically any format they choose to be interviewed) by and write an article for publication in The Hygiology Post.

The author plans to expound upon Prescription #9 (Prescription #9  of “Some Prescriptions For Productive Goals” is : Consider voting for candidates [e.g., President of The United States] based upon levels of intuition in addition to other areas you believe deserve consideration) with additional information in The Hygiology Post.

The Hygiology Post welcomes feedback from readers on all six parts of the series (individually and/or as a total package) upon completion of the series as to whether the articles help fulfill its vision and mission.

Louis DeCola, Jr.                                               Copyright © 2012 The Hygiology Post