Lottery Players Survey

Free Press

April 10, 2008

BARRE — Although a third of lottery players say their education ended after high school, a new survey suggests that half of all players have attended college, most graduated and a significant percentage hold post-graduate degrees.

These were some of the findings from a 2008 Player Demographics Study reported Wednesday to the Vermont Lottery Commission.

“The profile that emerges here debunks yet again that we are predatory,” said Arthur Ristau of Barre, commission vice chairman. He was referring to a commonly voiced belief that lottery players are poor and poorly educated and thus vulnerable to the lure of gambling as a way to get rich quick

The predatory aspect isn’t debunked simply because a wider section of the population is playing the Lottery.It’s preying wider demographically .Still one third of the players say their education ended after high school. People are lured by State sponsored and heavily prompted get rich quick tickets. It is not only the poor and un-educated ,but people that are better educated that are prey of the lottery.Prey responsibly,only one third can’t afford to lose.

70.1% wouldn’t be at all likely to buy lottery tickets online.

What other new and improved Lottery schemes are afoot as they try to boost up the revenue and save it from privatization?

Late lunch today. Thought I’d offer a quick recipe to passing IRV in Vermont once and for all given that, a) Jim Douglas will always veto it, and b) any deviation from the straight-up, traditional “check one” ballot will always peel off enough legislative votes to keep passage under the veto override theshold, even though most of those legislators will agree that the current system is unsatisfactory.

The solution, therefore:

1. Pass a traditional runoff law (or would that take a Constitutional amendment? Maybe not actually so simple…). If nobody breaks 50%, the top two have a runoff election a month later. Maybe we can get really daring and suspend the rules so we can pass this at the upcoming veto override session this year.

2. Douglas, naturally, vetoes this law too.

3. Enough legislators who were leery of IRV are more comfortable with a traditional runoff to be swayed. Veto is overridden.

4. In next election, nobody breaks 50%. A month later, there is a runoff. Douglas loses.

5. Next session, Legislature passes IRV and repeals traditional runoff election law. New Governor signs. Deed is done.

A big argument against a traditional runoff from IRV supporters is often the cost to taxpayers. I submit that the cost of a single runoff election (resulting in Douglas’s defeat) as compared to repeated unsuccessful veto override sessions year after year makes for a hefty savings.

Apologies if anyone has already posted Douglas’ statement regarding his veto of instant runoff voting for our federal House and Senate seats … but here it is just in case not.

My first comment immediately follows Douglas bullshit ….

April 4, 2008

The Honorable David A. Gibson Secretary of the Senate State House 115 State St., Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S. 108, An Act Relating to the Election of U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator by the Instant Runoff Voting Method, without my signature because of objections described herein. There are serious flaws with this proposal to alter Vermont’s system of elections. This system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years and is one I had the privilege of administering for a dozen years as Secretary of State. This bill circumvents the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. That is entirely unacceptable. The authors of our Constitution applied this standard – compelling each voter to choose the candidate for each office that she or he deems most qualified – to ensure that elections are in fact a clear choice.

(Governor’s website)

And it just continues to get worse …

The Attorney General’s office has confirmed in a formal, written opinion that attempts to amend the law in order to apply the so called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) process to races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Treasurer would, in fact, be unconstitutional. While S. 108 would apply to the election of our U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator, this does not render the attempt to legislatively impose IRV democratically sound.

Our state Constitution provides a clear and effective mechanism for changes to its provisions. Voter approval, through the process set forth in our Constitution for its amendment, necessitates a statewide ballot that includes the voices of all Vermonters. If the Legislature proposes to fundamentally alter our election process, this is the procedure Vermont should follow. The Honorable David A. Gibson April 4, 2008 Page Two

Moreover, voters should not be asked to cast their ballots based on a wide range of hypothetical, theoretical or imaginary outcomes. Elections have always been, and ought to remain, contests among individual candidates and their ideas. Voters have always, and should continue to, cast their constitutionally protected vote for the individual for each office they believe would best serve Vermont. In addition, the process offered by this bill cannot result in a candidate being the top choice of a majority of voters. It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast. In other words, use of an IRV system requires a significant number of second and third choices – not the voter’s real choice – to be counted. It is therefore not valid to conclude, as the advocates and special interests do, that the winner of an IRV election would receive a majority of the vote. Finally, this system would undoubtedly lead to backroom deal making between candidates who urge supporters to vote for or against a second choice candidate if no one receives a majority. This would erode public confidence in the process. This proposal would cause a deterioration of our time tested, democratic and egalitarian electoral process. The current system has served the people of Vermont well for more than 200 years. There is no basis to make the democratically unsound change this bill proposes.

Sincerely,

James H. Douglas Governor

JHD/jg

For today I’m going to deal with this sentence: “It is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast.

Well, okay, no explanation needed. Douglas is willing to put such a blatant lie in print … it leaves my fingers relatively typeless.

And nobody will run a negative campaign against this clown?

I just got a telephone political poll, didn’t catch the name of the polling company (Crane or Cone or something, maybe)… They asked to speak only to males, then asked a couple “likely to vote” questions before asking “Are you or is anyone in your family employed by a newspaper, radio station, television station, or other media outlet or is an elected official?” Without thinking, I answered yes, because I am, and they ended the questions there… I just wanted to know if anyone got the same call and if so, where the questions went from there… The reason I ask is that not asking whatever it was that they were going to ask because I belong to a category of people likely to make a public scene about nasty push polling makes me wonder if they were, in fact, engaging in some kind of business that they didn’t wish publicized…

Anyone else get one of these calls?

On a day where fossil fuels broke two new records – oil trading above $112 dollars a barrel and gasoline selling at an average of $3.34 a gallon – Peter Welch joined fellow Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) in calling for the President to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and begin releasing some of the oil in the reserve (currently at 96%) into the market. At current prices, the administration is spending nearly $8 million a day to add to a reserve that is practically at capacity already.

And it’s more than the supply/demand equation that Welch and company expect could be impacted by releasing oil. They’re also working against increased speculating which the current economy and the dynamic oil market has encouraged, and which has then driven the prices up even further in a vicious commercial cycle. Investments in commodities are unquestionably up across the board, but its hard to say with any certainty how big an effect they are having – but no one one argues that they aren’t having an effect. Altering the US’s role as buyer and supplier against this market the way Welch & company would like will definitely impact supply/demand and speculation. What it won’t impact is that part of the problem that is due to the current puniness of the dollar.

“The public is being ripped off and yet President Bush continues the misguided policy of topping off a reserve that is nearly full,” said Rep. Welch. “The President is simply out of touch, turning a blind eye to the pain consumers are feeling at the pump.”