Sign an electronic petition with Supporters for Paul to prove skeptics wrong

My objective here on this site is to remain as nonpartisan as possible and provide unbiased information about the candidates. So that you can decide who is the best candidate for you and our country. However, I feel that I can announce whom I am voting for and still remain committed to fairness in presenting all candidates. Having said that, I am begining an online petition of Supporters for Ron Paul. Many dismiss his poll results as spam by a few avid supporters. So, let's see how many "real supporters" there are by signing your name and state. Please take a second and drop your full name and state here.

All straw poll results

You can follow all of the straw poll results here, the site looks like it could be slanted toward Obama, but that is my opinion after reading some of their analysis.

USAelection polls looks eerily similar to mine, with Ron Paul demolishing his competitors

Check it out here

An interesting thought aside, could the national polls be skewed themselves, because their polls are not representative of the internet only voting types? You decide, either way - Some of these dark horses could provide some good opposition for the better known candidates.

2008 Race Comes Down To The States

Oxford Analytica 08.31.07, 6:00 AM ET

State governments that unilaterally moved their 2008 presidential primaries to earlier dates will be penalized, the Republican National Committee has announced.

While the 2008 presidential contest is a federal election, the process is implemented at the state level and is monitored by state officials. This arrangement has been increasingly fraught, as states jockey to maximize their political influence through primary scheduling, and concerns about partisan bias in state election administration increase.

Global media outlets overwhelmingly focus on the national implications of U.S. elections, particularly during presidential campaign cycles. However, the constitutional structure of the U.S. federal system means that the individual states are responsible for administering elections and are the main venues for the presidential campaign.

Presidential hopefuls from the two major parties must gain nomination through a grueling primary and caucus process at the state level.

Rules vary widely form state to state, concerning almost every aspect of the process (apart from certain campaign finance rules regulated by the Federal Election Commission), including voter eligibility, filing deadlines, nomination rules and laws on advertising and political contributions.

The U.S. Constitution's Electoral College system, which ultimately determines the outcome of presidential elections, is state-based.

States may alter the dates of their primaries and caucus votes to increase their influence over the presidential nomination process. Therefore, idiosyncratic state regulations and administrations can have a decisive impact on the outcome of presidential elections--as the 2000 Florida debacle illustrated.

This state-based system has become increasingly controversial. State officials, "secretaries of state," who administer elections often have conflicts of interest. They are usually permitted to assume active political roles and party affiliations, such as chairing a national candidate's state election campaign organization, despite their concurrent responsibility to ensure electoral probity.

Time limits seldom dictate when these state officials may accept positions with lobbying firms. Moreover, the "revolving door" between the voting-machinery industry and the election administration sector, now much diluted at the federal level, thrives in the states.

These problematic issues cannot be easily disentangled from the U.S. constitutional framework. In the federal system it embodies, states predominate on policymaking where appropriate.

The Constitution dictates that power resides with state governments unless explicitly stated otherwise. Both the political activity of state election officials and the Electoral College are a consequence of this arrangement.

Perhaps the most important expression of state influence over the national parties' presidential nominations is the power to set the date for their own primaries and caucuses. This power has become increasingly significant, as states' efforts to maximize their influence over presidential candidate selection often leads to revised primary dates.

The 2008 election now faces a new federal restriction, in which many of the most populous and influential states will hold primaries over a two-week period in late January and early February. These first primaries may decide the nomination.

South Carolina Republicans have just moved the date of their primary forward from February 2008 to mid-January in order to preserve its status as the ''first in the South." New Hampshire and Iowa are considering similar moves.

Increasingly fractious state attempts to compete for influence over the nomination process, and the resultant public uneasiness, have spurred proposals to modify the way such votes are conducted. There is widespread discontent with the rules of an electoral game that often privileges relatively small numbers of voters in certain key states.

Several states have enacted laws imposing certain limits on the political activity of election officials. Such legislation has passed in Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado and Ohio.

To read an extended version of this article, log on to Oxford Analytica's Web site.

Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading universities and research institutions around the world. For more information, please visit www.oxan.com. To find out how to subscribe to the firm's Daily Brief Service, click here.

Worldwide press freedom index

Yearly worldwide press freedom ranking of countries
published by Reporters Without Borders
Rank Country Index

Learn more about this here.




2006 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
1 Finland 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1 Iceland 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1 Ireland 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.83 1.00
1 Netherlands 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
5 Czech Republic 0.75 1.00 3.50 2.50 11.25
6 Estonia 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
6 Norway 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
8 Slovakia 2.50 0.75 0.50 2.50
8 Switzerland 2.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 4.25
10 Hungary 3.00 2.00 6.00 3.33 6.50
10 Latvia 3.00 2.50 1.00 2.25
10 Portugal 3.00 4.83 4.50 5.17 1.50
10 Slovenia 3.00 1.00 2.25 3.00 4.00
14 Belgium 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.17 3.50
14 Sweden 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50
16 Austria 4.50 2.50 3.25 2.75 7.50
16 Bolivia 4.50 9.67 20.00 9.67 14.50
16 Canada 4.50 4.50 3.33 1.83 0.75
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina 5.00 7.00 3.67 6.83 12.50
19 Denmark 5.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.00
19 New Zealand 5.00 2.00 0.67 2.83
19 Trinidad and Tobago 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
23 Benin 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.25 6.00
23 Germany 5.50 4.00 2.00 1.33 1.50
23 Jamaica 5.50 7.50 4.17 3.33
26 Namibia 6.00 5.50 10.00 11.00 8.00
27 Lithuania 6.50 4.50 3.00 2.83
27 United Kingdom 6.50 5.17 6.00 4.25 6.00
29 Costa Rica 6.67 8.50 7.63 3.83 4.25
30 Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus) 7.50 5.50 22.00 20.83
31 South Korea 7.75 7.50 11.13 9.17 10.50
32 Greece 8.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 5.00
32 Mauritius 8.00 7.50 10.50 7.25 9.50
34 Ghana 8.50 15.00 13.50 8.75 23.00
35 Australia 9.00 6.50 9.50 9.25 3.50
35 Bulgaria 9.00 10.25 8.00 6.50 9.75
35 France 9.00 6.25 3.50 4.17 3.25
35 Mali 9.00 8.00 12.83 11.00 12.50
39 Panama 9.50 15.00 14.50 9.75 15.50
40 Italy 9.90 8.67 9.00 9.75 11.00
41 El Salvador 10.00 5.75 6.00 6.83 8.75
41 Spain 10.00 8.33 9.00 7.67 7.75
43 Republic of China (Taiwan) 10.50 12.25 14.25 12.00 9.00
44 South Africa 11.25 6.50 5.00 3.33 7.50
45 Cape Verde 11.50 6.00 8.75 8.25 13.75
45 Republic of Macedonia 11.50 8.75 11.25 9.67
45 Mozambique 11.50 10.50 16.25 14.00 23.50
45 Serbia and Montenegro 11.50 14.83 20.13 21.33 20.75
49 Chile 11.63 11.75 10.00 6.83 6.50
50 Israel 12.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 30.00
Grenada 12.00
51 Japan 12.50 8.00 10.00 8.00 7.50
52 Dominican Republic 12.75 12.25 6.75 17.00
53 Botswana 13.00 14.00 11.50 13.00
53 Croatia 13.00 12.83 11.83 16.50 8.75
53 Tonga 13.00 14.50 38.17
53 United States (American territory) 13.00 9.50 4.00 6.00 4.75
57 Uruguay 13.75 9.75 10.00 4.00 6.00
58 Fiji 14.00 14.00 16.00 11.50
58 Hong Kong 14.00 8.25 7.50 11.00 4.83
58 Poland 14.00 12.50 6.83 6.17 7.75
58 Romania 14.00 16.17 17.83 11.50 13.25
62 Central African Republic 14.50 19.75 32.50 32.75 21.50
62 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 14.50 12.50
62 Guinea-Bissau 14.50 17.00 23.50 35.25 30.25
62 Honduras 14.50 18.00 11.75 14.17
66 Madagascar 15.00 24.50 18.50 8.17 22.75
66 Togo 15.00 23.75 19.50 27.50 31.50
68 Ecuador 15.25 21.75 16.50 7.67 5.50
69 Nicaragua 15.50 15.25 11.67 6.50
70 Burkina Faso 16.00 19.00 16.25 18.00 27.75
70 Kosovo 16.00 25.75
70 Lesotho 16.00 19.50 29.50 17.75
73 Republic of the Congo 17.00 17.00 17.50 14.00 23.17
73 Kuwait 17.00 21.25 31.67 31.33 25.50
75 Brazil 17.17 14.50 16.50 16.75 18.75
76 Argentina 17.30 13.67 21.33 15.17 12.00
77 Mauritania 17.50 40.00 51.00 36.67 41.33
77 Senegal 17.50 19.00 21.50 14.50 14.00
77 United Arab Emirates 17.50 25.75 50.25 37.00
80 Albania 18.00 14.17 11.50 6.50
80 Qatar 18.00 23.00 32.50 35.00
82 Paraguay 18.25 15.50 10.50 7.17 8.50
83 Timor-Leste 18.50 13.50 13.50 5.50
84 Liberia 19.00 20.50 40.00 40.00 37.75
85 Moldova 19.17 17.50 20.50 27.00
86 Mongolia 19.25 12.50 19.00 18.25 24.50
87 Haiti 19.50 33.50 42.13 31.00 36.50
88 Tanzania 19.82 17.50 14.50 16.50 21.25
89 Georgia 21.00 25.17 27.50 17.33
90 Guatemala 21.25 21.50 16.50 30.83 27.25
91 Angola 21.50 18.00 26.50 28.00 30.17
92 Malaysia 22.25 33.00 39.83 32.00 37.83
93 Comoros 22.50 22.00 26.50 18.50 20.50
93 Zambia 22.50 23.00 29.75 23.25 26.75
95 Niger 24.50 13.00 18.33 15.75 18.50
95 Seychelles 24.50 17.00 23.50 26.75 20.75
97 Morocco 24.83 36.17 43.00 39.67 29.00
98 Bhutan 25.00 51.50 55.83 77.33 90.75
98 Côte d'Ivoire 25.00 52.25 60.38 42.17 19.00
98 Turkey 25.00 25.00 37.25 35.00 33.50
101 Armenia 25.50 26.00 23.50 25.17
101 Malawi 25.50 22.75 31.00 21.00 27.67
103 Indonesia 26.00 26.00 37.75 34.25 20.00
103 Sierra Leone 26.00 39.50 24.50 23.50 24.50
105 India 26.50 27.00 38.50 39.00 26.50
105 Ukraine 26.50 32.50 51.00 40.00 40.00
107 Lebanon 27.00 28.25 24.38 32.50 19.67
108 Cambodia 27.25 23.00 36.50 19.50 24.25
109 Guinea 27.50 26.00 24.50 33.17 26.00
109 Jordan 27.50 24.00 39.13 37.00 33.50
111 Bahrain 28.00 38.75 52.50 35.17 23.00
112 Cameroon 28.25 20.50 27.00 30.50 28.83
112 Peru 28.25 33.33 40.00 10.25 9.50
114 Gabon 28.50 26.00 37.50 31.25 20.50
115 Venezuela 29.00 23.00 24.63 27.83 25.00
116 Uganda 29.83 19.25 24.00 25.75 17.00
117 Tajikistan 30.00 33.00 27.75 34.50 28.25
118 Kenya 30.25 30.00 22.25 18.50 24.75
119 United States (extra-territorial) 31.50 48.50 36.00 41.00
120 Nigeria 32.23 38.75 37.75 31.50 15.50
121 Djibouti 33.00 37.00 55.00 35.50 31.25
122 Thailand 33.50 28.00 14.00 19.67 22.75
123 Kyrgyzstan 34.00 32.00 35.25 32.00 31.75
124 Chad 35.50 30.00 33.25 24.00 28.75
Brunei 38.00
125 Burundi 39.83
126 Algeria 40.00 40.33 43.50 33.00 31.00
127 Swaziland 40.50 35.00 31.00 37.50 29.00
128 Kazakhstan 41.00 36.17 44.17 42.50 42.00
128 Rwanda 41.00 38.00 37.25 34.25 37.50
130 Afghanistan 44.25 39.17 28.25 40.17 35.50
131 Colombia 44.75 40.17 47.38 49.17 40.83
132 Mexico 45.83 45.50 27.83 17.67 24.75
133 Egypt 46.25 52.00 43.50 34.25 34.50
134 Palestinian Authority 46.75 42.50 43.17 39.25 27.00
135 Azerbaijan 47.00 51.00 49.67 34.50 34.50
135 Israel (extra-territorial) 47.00 37.50 49.00
137 Bangladesh 48.00 61.25 62.50 46.50 43.75
137 Equatorial Guinea 48.00 44.00 46.25 44.75 42.75
139 Sudan 48.13 44.00 44.25 45.75 36.00
140 Zimbabwe 50.00 64.25 67.50 45.50 48.25
141 Sri Lanka 50.75 33.25 36.50 24.83 15.75
142 Democratic Republic of the Congo 51.00 57.33 51.50 38.50 40.75
142 Philippines 51.00 50.00 36.63 35.25 29.00
144 Maldives 51.25 58.50 69.17 47.50
144 Somalia 51.25 59.00 43.50 45.00
146 Singapore 51.50 50.67 57.00 47.33
147 Russia 52.50 48.67 51.38 49.50 48.00
148 Tunisia 53.75 57.50 62.67 50.83 67.75
149 Gambia 54.00 41.00 29.50 18.25 22.50
149 Yemen 54.00 46.25 48.00 41.83 34.75
151 Belarus 57.00 61.33 54.10 52.00 52.17
Oman 57.75
152 Libya 62.50 88.75 65.00 60.00 72.50
153 Syria 63.00 55.00 67.50 67.50 62.83
154 Iraq 66.83 67.00 58.50 37.50 79.00
155 Vietnam 67.25 73.25 86.88 89.17 81.25
156 Laos 67.50 66.50 64.33 94.83 89.00
157 Pakistan 70.33 60.75 61.75 39.00 44.67
158 Uzbekistan 71.00 66.50 52.13 61.50 45.00
159 Nepal 73.50 86.75 84.00 51.50 63.00
160 Ethiopia 75.00 42.00 37.00 37.50 37.50
161 Saudi Arabia 76.00 66.00 79.17 71.50 62.50
162 Iran 90.88 89.17 78.30 89.33 48.25
163 People's Republic of China (mainland only) 94.00 83.00 92.33 91.25 97.00
164 Myanmar 94.75 88.83 103.63 95.50 96.83
165 Cuba 95.00 87.00 106.83 97.83 90.25
166 Eritrea 97.50 99.75 93.25 91.50 83.67
167 Turkmenistan 98.50 93.50 99.83 82.83 91.50
168 North Korea 109.00 109.00 107.50 99.50 97.50

The moral of the story as you see the USA ranks 53rd, don't trust the national media for your news. Be diligent, try and seek multiple sources for your information.

Presidential candidates on healthcare

"Presidential candidates in both parties are promising to overhaul the nation's health care system and cover more — if not all — of the nation's uninsured. In 2005, 44.8 million people — 15.3 percent of the population — were without health insurance, according to estimates released by the Census Bureau in March. The leading Democrats are competing among themselves over who has the better plan to control costs and approach universal coverage. The Republicans, for the most part, are promising to expand coverage without increasing the role of the federal government, and reduce cost through tax incentives. Most of the candidates have not presented a detailed outline of their health care plans, but here is what they have said so far." - FARHANA HOSSAIN

Here is a list of all the presidential candidate's position on health care.


What's more? A nifty spot that provides several comparison's of most of the candidates health plan.

"Texas Democrats plan presidential ePrimary"

"Texas Democrats have scheduled an online presidential poll to counter a GOP straw poll, but Democratic officials acknowledged they won't have much control over who clicks a vote.

Starting Friday, visitors who log on to the state party's Web site will have the chance to vote for one of the Democratic presidential contenders and to mention the election issues they're concerned about.

Party officials said they'll work to monitor responses to make sure only Texans' votes are counted in the "ePrimary Poll." But that could include Texas Republicans.

Party spokeswoman Amber Moon said the poll will be worthwhile.

"This is open to a wide universe of people who want to be involved in the political process, who want to be involved in our party's effort to select our presidential nominee," she said.

She said she's not worried about Republicans participating.

"Republicans aren't participating in their own straw poll," she said.

The Texas GOP straw poll is Saturday in Fort Worth. Hans Klingler, spokesman and political director for the Texas Republican Party, dismissed the Democrats' online poll.

"The Republican Party of Texas is bringing together thousands of our grass-roots leaders from across Texas this weekend in Fort Worth to voice their choice for president of the United States," Klingler said. "Unfortunately, it looks like the Texas Democratic Party's only hope is to do that in a virtual world."

Texas lawmakers dashed both major political parties' hopes of moving up the state's 2008 presidential primaries. They both wanted the Legislature to move the March 4 primary to Feb. 5. The Texas House approved the bill, but it died in the Senate.

Both the Democrat or Republican polls could suffer from shortcomings in their methodology.

The National Council on Public Polls refers to online polls as "pseudo-polls."

"All these pseudo-polls suffer from the same problem: the respondents are self-selected," according to the council's guidelines.

The Republican poll won't be a scientific sampling of state party members, because those casting ballots must have been a delegate or alternate to a recent GOP state or national convention. That means the winner will be selected by voters who are the most conservative of Republicans.

The Democratic online poll extends through Sept. 7. Results will be announced Sept. 10."

Only in America, The Nelson Mail

"The next general election in New Zealand is still more than a year away, even if, especially since John Key took over the leadership of the National Party, it seems as if the two main parties already have their eyes on the prize in word and deed, the Nelson Mail said in an editorial on Thursday.

Even so, national political campaigning in New Zealand pales in comparison, thankfully, to the political process in the US to just elect presidential candidates. The next US presidential election is November 4, 2008, but the horse race of aspiring presidential candidates has already begun; indeed, in the race for either the Democrat or Republican nomination, decided at conventions in late August and early September next year, the candidates are heading down the back straight. Labour Day in the US, the first Monday in September, traditionally marks the beginning of the presidential nomination campaign before an election year, but most candidates have been campaigning for the past six months.

Such campaigning is foreign to New Zealand. The battle to win a party's presidential nomination is a public display of internecine warfare, in which members of the same party suddenly treat colleagues as enemies - just ask John McCain who suffered at the hands of George W Bush's campaign crew in 2000. The process is a complicated one, but basically candidates try to win support through a series of state primaries and caucuses. Traditionally, New Hampshire holds the first state primary and Iowa the first state caucus, but several states are now jockeying to be the first primary/caucus, or among the first ones, in order to attract more attention and be more influential. The Wyoming Republican caucus has leapfrogged the pack to January 5, making it likely that the organisers of the Iowa caucus (January 14) and the New Hampshire primary (January 22) will move their dates in front of Wyoming.

The result is the longest general election campaign in US history - and the likely winners of each party's nomination should be known earlier than ever before, unless a contest is so tight that no single candidate emerges until the party's nominating convention. At this stage, however, most political pundits see the Democrats winning the White House in November 2008. In four of the five times since World War 2, the party having held power for two consecutive terms, as Republicans have since 2000, has failed to win a third. Add to that the plummeting public approval ratings for the war in Iraq, plus the results of the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections (won by the Democrats). The only question is who will be the party's candidate.

In polls matching leading candidates from each party against the others, the Democrats win each time. However, the Democratic favourite at the moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, fares the worst, making former Bush administration strategist Karl Rove's stated belief that she is the inevitable Democrat candidate an interesting remark. Does he want Clinton to be chosen because she tends to polarise voters and he sees her as being the most vulnerable to a Republican victory? Or does he hope Barack Obama, her closest challenger, or John Edwards, who was John Kerry's running mate for the presidency in 2004, is chosen because the Republicans have a better chance against them than Clinton?

The saga that is the race for victory in the 2008 US presidency election will once again be about money (the first $1 billion election) and power brokerage in the hands of a few. But the stakes are high, the international consequences significant and the outcome still unpredictable. However, the battle between Clinton and Obama is the one to watch."