Frank Robertson's Blog

As I voted for Rays' third baseman Evan Longoria to make the All-Star team for the umpteenth time this afternoon, it occurred to me how interesting online voting would make the Presidential election. Just imagine being able to vote for your favorite candidate as many times as you like. Of course, in some states and cities, it's been suggested you can vote "early and often." Even the dearly departed have been known to cast a ballot.

One thing's for sure. If we did allow unlimited voting via the internet, the most passionate supporters on either side would be on their computers day and night. Employee productivity would come to a standstill. Imagine the dire consequences for our already stumbling economy. My guess is the more apathetic among us still wouldn't vote even if they could do so with the click of a mouse. Yet, would they be more productive at work as a result? Nah! Don't think so!

By a 5 to 4 vote, the United States Supreme Court has essentially ruled that it's okay to buy an election. Justices struck down the so-called "millionaire's amendment." It's objective was to level the playing field when a particularly wealthy person runs for political office.

So, if a multi-millionaire wants to spend part of his or or her fortune to get elected, that's fine. At the same time though, his or her less affluent opponent was allowed to exceed fundraising limits in an effort to make the race more competitive. The Court now says that's a violation of the First Amendment.

To me, the most egregious case of incredible wealth influencing an election was current New Jersey Governor John Corzine's run for the U.S. Senate in 2000. He spent 62-million of his own dollars to win that race. How can you compete with that? Well, you really can't and it's no wonder that so many people are disenchanted with the American political process.

In what's already been a divisive campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination, I find it hard to believe that everyone will be happy when the party sorts out its Michigan and Florida problem this weekend. Quite clearly, Hillary Clinton has much more to gain if all the delegates from both states are counted. She won Florida handily and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

The former First Lady has already been touting the fact that she's captured more popular votes than Senator Obama. See where this is going? Al Gore actually won more popular votes than George W. Bush in 2000 and we all remember the fallout from that.

What ever the party honchos decide this weekend, their biggest challenge lies ahead: presenting a unified image at their convention in August.

This post has been edited by an administrator

If a presidential election is not enough, you can be sure the turnout in California this November will be staggering. As you have undoubtedly heard, the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on same sex marriages. Gay rights activists are celebrating, but conservative and religious groups vow to get a measure on the ballot that would allow voters to reinstate the ban if they so choose. This should be really interesting. California is a highly diverse state and it's always difficult to predict which way the electorate will go in any election. If a gay marriage ban does end up the ballot, it will force the presidential candidates to take a definitive position on the issue in a vitally important state with 55 electoral votes. In most of the country, the central issues seem to be the economy, national security and the war in Iraq. Yet, in California, the "hot button" issue of gay marriage may be pivotal.