Thoughts large and small on Tuesday’s election:

You’ve heard the axiom, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy.”

The theory is being put to the test in Greece and other European locales.

Why do I get the sense we’re in the process of testing it here as well?

■ ■ ■

Fire district consolidation is a complicated issue. Sorting out Tuesday’s fire district commission votes is a complicated matter too.

Voters elected a mixed bag of consolidation advocates, opponents and unknown quantities to the seven contested seats in three districts.

Take for example East Naples. All four incumbents on the ballot lost.

Brian Cross, who spent no money and did no campaigning, beat out George Danz, a sitting commissioner with an extensive background in fire service, and Joe Schmitt, a retired military man and former head of Collier County’s community planning department.

Danz and Schmitt both indicated they’d be for stepping up activity toward consolidation. As for Cross? Who knows? At least two other East Naples winners appear more pro-consolidation than the incumbents

Contrast that to Golden Gate, where the only seat on the ballot was held by incumbent Chuck McMahon, who openly opposes consolidation. His position on the topic may have less to do with his win than the fact that three challengers, all advocates of consolidation, split 61 percent of the vote while McMahon took 39 percent.

It could be argued that Golden Gate, with some $7 million in looming debt, has the most to gain from consolidation.

North Naples, with no debt and a low tax rate, would benefit the least.

In the most high profile of all the fire commission races North Naples Commissioner Paul Moriarity, a retired captain who worked more than 30 years with the department, faced Norman Feder, Collier County’s recently retired chief of transportation and engineering.

Moriarity enjoyed the financial support of the firefighters, who also turned out Tuesday to hold signs and pass out literature on his behalf.

But Feder won with 53 percent of the vote. While acknowledging consolidation is a hard sell in North Naples, Feder said in August, “Small kingdoms don’t make sense,” striking an ominous note for consolidation opponents.

■ ■ ■

Whoever planted the “Stop the Collier Crooks” signs before the August primary was at it again this week, placing dozens of the red and white signs near polling stations. The signs singled out Judges Mike Carr and Gene Turner, county commissioners Donna Fiala and Jim Coletta, Sheriff Kevin Rambosk and State Rep. Kathleen Passidomo as “Good Ol’ Boys.”

A disclaimer at the bottom identified the source only as “A citizen of Florida.”

Dave Carpenter, qualifying officer for the Collier County Supervisor of Elections, said the signs violate the law in that they advocate against specific candidates yet don’t come from an identifiable source.

But the state Division of Elections isn’t likely to take up the case. “Where would you start?” he asked.

■ ■ ■

A campaign math word problem: Three Florida Supreme Court justices up for retention each received 67 percent support from voters. Four judges from the Second District Court of Appeals up for retention each received about 72 percent support.

What effect did the roughly $200,00 spent by PACS to oppose the Supreme Court justices, offset by the more than $1 million the justices spent defending themselves, have?

Answer: Five percent.

■ ■ ■

Collier County voters cast just under 150,000 ballots, a turnout of 83 percent. In 2008, 143,000 ballots amounted to 70 percent turnout. Considering the large numbers, Carpenter said things went well on Election Day and the day after.

“Nobody got shot. There are no injuries we’re aware of,” he said. “It’s always nice on Wednesday morning when our office isn’t the story.”

– Brent Batten is a columnist for the Naples Daily News

The American election system is convoluted, inconsistent, and, frankly, nearly indefensible. To offer a point of reference, if the United States was helping a newly democratic state transition from a dictatorship or through a civil war, and that nation chose to establish an election system like our own, it is likely we would suspend aid to them in objection to their undemocratic measures.

 But the fragmented design was by choice. Because the states distrusted one another, the Framers who gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention had little choice but to create a decentralized system, whereby each state controlled their own elections. This is why some states have term limits for state legislators, while others do not; why some states have appointed but others elected cabinet officials; why some governors serve for two-year terms while others have four-year terms; and why the date for primary elections varies across the country.

 The decentralized design in our Constitution, however, does not mean that there is no room for improvement. Indeed, there are numerous reforms that states and localities could pursue such as better designed ballots, more reliable voting machines, civic education, ballot measures that are written in plain English, and requirements that election officials be non-partisan, to name a few.

Likewise, this election has highlighted the need for an extended early-voting period, more polling sites, and increased support for voting by absentee ballot. There is no better example than here in Florida where a Republican governor and legislature sought to reduce the number of days of early voting, despite the fact that it worked well in 2008. But, because far more Democrats participate in early voting, the days were cut by 40 percent without explanation. The result is that voters had to wait in line for hours, with many documented cases of 6-8 hour waits.

 This election also unmasked another example of partisan interference. Several state governors (including Florida’s) made a thinly-veiled fuss over alleged incidents of voter fraud. Never mind that only a handful of cases have ever been documented, they claimed that voter fraud was a national crisis. In response, measures were instituted to limit voting and intimidate groups and individuals who register voters.

Even if voter fraud was a serious issue, elected officials should place at least as much emphasis on voter education, increasing turnout, and making the process accessible. Sadly, they did none of this.

Perhaps the two biggest “no-brainers” for reform are the need for real campaign finance reform in order to limit the corrupting influence of big money and attack ads, and ditching the Electoral College (EC) in favor of a popular vote. The EC is an antiquated compromise during a time without telecommunications or paved roads!

The EC misfired in 1824, 1888, and 2000, when the candidate who won the presidency actually lost the popular vote. By the same token, in 1800 the EC produced a tie that required 36 re-votes to break and the 1876 election was a contentious affair whereby the votes of three states (one of them being Florida) were in dispute and, after a deal was cut, likely changed the outcome of the election.

In the wake of the historic 2012 election, voters should remember the long lines, nasty attack ads, and confusion over voting. It shouldn’t take a terrible hurricane in the northeast or partisan effort in Florida to remind us that the health of American democracy rests, in part, in the integrity of our election system.

Robert Watson, Ph.D. is Professor of American Studies at Lynn University

This year’s ballot is also one of the most partisan and legislatively-influenced in history, in that every one of the amendments was introduced by the Florida State Legislature and nearly all of them were supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. None were placed on the ballot by citizens’ groups.

Amendment 1: Health Care Services

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or an employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from a health care provider; permit a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service…

In plain English

Florida will “repeal” the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obama-care”). It aims to prevent laws that compel a person or employer to obtain or provide health care coverage.

 Why vote YES?

Supporters claim the federal government’s health care reforms abuse the power of government. They believe that people and employers should not be required to obtain or provide health insurance through a government program and that private insurance companies do a better job of providing health care.

Why vote NO?

Opponents maintain this amendment may not do what it is intended to do because the U.S. Constitution will override the state effort (“Supremacy Clause”) to repeal it. They also believe that federal health care reforms allow more people to be covered, reduce the spiraling costs of health insurance, and offer an alternative to private insurance that does not cover everyone or people with pre-existing health conditions.

 The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 2: Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to Section 6 of Article VII and the creation of Section 32 of Article XII of the State Constitution to expand the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013.

In plain English

Allows for property tax discounts for disabled veterans.

 Why vote YES?

Veterans served the nation and many struggle with disabilities. The property tax discount will help them financially by reducing the taxes they pay.

Why vote NO?

Florida has budget troubles in that it does not raise enough revenue and spends too much money. This measure will further limit revenues collected that might be spent on needed public services.

The measure passed both the Florida Senate and House unanimously.

Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation

 Wording 

This proposed amendment to the State Constitution replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Under the amendment, state revenues, as defined in the amendment, collected in excess of the revenue limitation must be deposited into the budget stabilization fund until the fund reaches its maximum balance…

In plain English

Replaces existing limits on the amount of revenue the state can collect with a new, strict formula based on inflation and population changes. This new formula will likely limit the state’s revenues and therefore limit government programs.

Why vote YES?

Proponents feel that government is collecting too much revenue and they want to limit the amount of funds collected that are available to be spent on government programs. Any funds that exceed the revenue limits go into Florida’s “rainy day” fund.

Why vote NO?

Opponents, including the AARP, League of Women Voters, and others worry that the “revenue cap” could result in cuts to essential government services, government payrolls, and funding for schools.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 4: Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Non-homestead Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal

 Wording 

This would amend Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 4 and Section 6. It also would amend Article XII… In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified non-homestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases. Therefore, this amendment provides that the Legislature may, by general law, provide that the assessment of homestead and specified non-homestead property may not increase if the just value of that property is less than the just value of the property on the preceding January 1, subject to any adjustment in the assessed value due to changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to such property which are assessed as provided by general law…

In plain English

Amends commercial and non-homestead (second homes) property taxes by mandating that governments would not be able to increase the assessed value of homestead property if the “fair market value” of the property decreases. It also provides an additional homestead exemption and shifts part of the tax burden from commercial owners to residential owners.

Why vote YES?

Proponents include developers and builders who do not want to see property taxes increase while the “fair market value” of property decreases.

Why vote NO?

Opponents include municipal and county governments because it will reduce revenues needed to operate public services. Some advocates of public schools oppose it because school funding through property taxes will decline.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it, although a few Democrats in the House backed the measure.

Amendment 5: State Courts

Wording 

Proposing a revision of Article V of the State Constitution relating to the judiciary. The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The Constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by the general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement… [of] a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a … majority vote… Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court…

In plain English

Gives the Legislature increased control over the judicial branch and requires that all appointments to the Florida Supreme Court be subject to Senate confirmation. It also divides the current court into a Supreme Court of Civil Appeals and a Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals, each with five appointed justices. The most senior justices would be assigned to the latter court.

Why vote YES?

Supporters include the Florida Chamber of Commerce. It is argued that the efficiency of the courts would be enhanced by splitting the duties of the high courts. Proponents also support the notion that the Legislature (through the Senate) plays a role in confirming all appointments to the court.

Why vote NO?

The Florida Bar and judges across the state oppose the measure, believing it disrupts the balance of power by providing the Legislature with too much control over the courts (under this amendment, they only need a majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote to change the law) and creates an unusual and unnecessary two-court system. It is also argued that the measure attempts to “politicize” the criminal court by pushing older, “liberal” justices to the civil court.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

 Amendment 6: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions

Wording 

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the U.S. Constitution.

In plain English

Disallows public funds for any abortion or for health benefits that include any coverage of abortion. It also states that Florida’s Constitution cannot be interpreted to include broader rights to abortion than what is contained in the U.S. Constitution

 Why vote YES?

Various pro-life groups support the measure and maintain that abortion is not a woman’s right but that it is murder. They also believe that no public funds should be used in any abortion service.

Why vote NO?

Various pro-choice groups oppose the measure and maintain that women have reproductive rights and the state government should not interfere with personal health care decisions.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

Amendment 7: Religious Freedom

 NOTE: Amendment 7 was removed from the ballot by court order on grounds that it was unconstitutional. However, the legislature passed a law that gave the Florida Attorney General the authority to rewrite the proposal. This was done by AG Pam Bondi and the measure was placed back on the ballot as Amendment 8.

Amendment 8: Religious Freedom

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, government benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

In plain English

Using public dollars for religious events is against the law, but this amendment would overturn the law and allow taxpayer money for religious purposes.

Why vote YES?

Supporters claim that faith-based groups are discriminated against because they cannot use taxpayer money and may be barred from participating in public programs in the capacity of a religious organization. This amendment would give religious organizations full access to government services and programs.

Why vote NO?

Opponents worry that the measure attempts to repeal of the age-old separation of church and state. It would allow taxpayer funds to go to religious organizations and public education money to go to religious schools.

The bill passed the Florida Senate and Florida House on party-line voting, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.

 Amendment 9:  Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder

 Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service-connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty. The amendment authorizes the Legislature to totally exempt or partially exempt such surviving spouse’s homestead property from ad valorem taxation…

In plain English

Authorizes the Legislature to totally or partially exempt surviving spouses of military veterans and first responders who die in the line of duty from paying property taxes.

Why vote YES?

Members of our armed forces and first responders put their lives on the line for the public and this amendment allows the Legislature to financially assist the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran or first responder by reducing their property taxes.

Why vote NO?

Florida has budget troubles in that it does not raise enough revenue and spends too much money. This measure will further limit revenues collected that might be spent on needed public services.

This amendment passed both chambers of the state legislature with a unanimous vote.

Amendment 10: Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property if the assessed value of an owner’s tangible personal property is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000…

In plain English

Provides an exemption from local government taxes on personal property that is valued between $25,000 and $50,000.

Why vote YES?

Supporters claim Florida’s citizens should pay less in taxes, which frees up citizens to spend more money, thus stimulating the economy. They also feel government is too big. Less taxes means less government programs and services.

Why vote NO?

Opponents claim that Florida’s budget troubles will only get worse with less revenue, and necessary public services will be cut.

Amendment 11: Additional Homestead Exemption: Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value

 Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.

In plain English

Authorizes counties and municipalities to offer additional tax exemptions on homes of low-income seniors.

Why vote YES?

Opponents argue that seniors on a fixed income need the relief offered by this additional tax exemption.

Why vote NO?

Opponents claim that Florida’s budget troubles will only get worse with less revenue, and necessary public services will be cut. They also worry that, with so many amendments on the ballot that reduce revenues, even the most essential public services will be in jeopardy.

Amendment 12: Appointment of Student Body President to Board of Governors of the State University System

Wording 

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to replace the president of the Florida Student Association with the chair of the council of state university student body presidents as the student member of the Board of Governors of the State University System and to require that the Board of Governors organize such council of state university student body presidents.

In plain English

Revises the selection process for the student member of the Board of Governors of the State University System. The student representative used to be the president of the Florida Student Association but would now be the chair of a council of state university student body presidents.

Why vote YES?

Proponents claim the process is more democratic because the representative to the Board of Governors will come from a new association of student government presidents. These individuals are students who were elected by their campuses.

Why vote NO?

Opponents believe the current system works fine and does not need to be reformed.

Robert Watson, Ph.D. has published 34 books on American politics and history and serves as Professor and Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University, site of the third/final presidential debate

Both camps in the District 18 race are touting polls that show their guy is ahead, and both continue to assault voters with phone calls, political mailers and TV ads.

This much is clear:

Regardless of which candidate is victorious Nov. 6 — GOP Rep. Allen West or Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy — the Treasure Coast is getting a new congressman who is from another part of the state.

It’s not an attractive choice for voters who value true local representation.

Both West and Murphy moved to the area from Broward County for the sole purpose of running in the newly drawn district, which covers northern Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties.

Neither man has a record of local service to examine — but they do have local supporters who hold public office.

You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps; and you can tell a lot about a politician from the endorsements he accepts.

So, which local elected officials are willing to officially link their names to West and Murphy?

It won’t take long to list them.

West and Murphy each have picked up endorsements from two officeholders in Martin and St. Lucie counties.

West has been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney and state Sen. Joe Negron, both Republicans.

Murphy has been endorsed by St. Lucie County Commissioner Chris Craft, a Democrat, and Martin County Sheriff Robert Crowder, who ran against West in the GOP primary.

Crowder, a Republican for three decades, announced his endorsement Tuesday evening. He called West the poster child for the “radical fringe” that has taken over the GOP.

“He just has a divisive nature about him, and I guess the Republican Party has changed since the days of Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan,” Crowder said. “I don’t like the changes I’ve seen.”

It’s not the first time Crowder has played the role of political maverick. He also crossed party lines in 2010 to endorse Democrat Alex Sink in her gubernatorial bid against Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

He took plenty of heat then, as he’s sure to now.

“I was going to sit this out, but my conscience just said, ‘You can’t,’” said Crowder, a five-term sheriff who is retiring in January.

West’s supporters don’t have a problem with his controversial side.

Negron, an increasingly powerful state lawmaker who endorsed West months ago, said he thought West’s temperament was a reflection of the time he spent in the Army.

“We need all types of personalities involved in the political process,” Negron said.

He supports West in part because he thinks he will work to balance the federal budget.

When Rooney endorsed West in February, he said he believed he would “continue his efforts to get government out of the pockets and off the backs of hardworking taxpayers and small businesses.”

But Crowder — whose wife, Debbie, endorsed Murphy three weeks ago — thinks West’s divisiveness will be a roadblock to progress.

In April, West said about 80 members of Congress were members of the Communist Party. Last year, he said women affiliated with Planned Parenthood and the anti-war group CODEPINK “have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness,” adding “we are not going to have our men become subservient.”

Crowder recalled that West refused to shake his hand at a Republican gathering before the GOP primary (in which West beat him with 74 percent of the vote).

“I’ve never seen a candidate who was as rude to people, and would not talk to another candidate or even anyone with an opposing view,” Crowder said.

Crowder doesn’t see 29-year-old Murphy’s youth as a strike against him. Nor does the sheriff believe the accountant’s arrest at age 19 is a deal-breaker.

“He was a teenager, and he screwed up,” Crowder said. “I’ve known a lot of people in public office that have done a lot worse things than that.”

Both West and Murphy have attracted other endorsements from outside the area.

West’s include U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Murphy’s outside endorsements include U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, former Gov. Charlie Crist, former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham and former Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink.

People in high places are paying attention to this race, and the obscene amount of campaign spending proves it.

Next week, the people who live here will decide it.

Eve Samples is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects her opinion. Contact her at 772-221-4217 or eve.samples@scripps.com

How well do you know your neighbors?

Did they vote in the 2008 election? How about ’04?

Some of you may have received a mailer from Americans for Limited Government with that information.

ALG’s “Vote History Audit” includes the names and addresses of six neighbors, then tells you if they voted in ’04 or ’08. Of course, the same information about yourself is included.

Even though all of the information is public record, it’s very “Big Brother”-ish.

“We have conducted an audit of public voting records in your neighborhood, and wanted to present you with findings of past civic participation in your community,” the ALG mailer said.

Laurie Cooper received the mailer Monday and was none too pleased.

“Not much bothers me,” she said, “but that just got to me.”

As I told her, I would have had the same reaction. It simply crosses a line.

“It is none of my neighbors’ business,” she said. “Even if it is public record, how many people are going to look to see if you voted?

“I don’t have anything to hide, but just too much information.”

Exactly.

Americans for Limited Government is based in Fairfax, Va. I tried contacting its headquarters via email and by phone Wednesday. I was unable to leave a message because its voice-mailbox was full.

Gee, I wonder why? I wouldn’t blame people for leaving ALG some very pointed voice-mail messages.

I called Supervisor of Elections Leslie Swan to see how many people have called her to complain, and she said something that made me laugh.

“I got one too,” she said.

What was Swan’s take on ALG’s mailer?

“I thought it was terrible,” she said. “I know voter history is public record, but do you really think your neighbors need to know your voting history?”

ALG is considered a politically conservative organization.

A popular theory on the strategy behind the mailer: Motivate Republicans to go to the polls.

By listing your neighbors — five of the six on Cooper’s mailer voted in ’08 — ALG is basically employing peer-pressure tactics.

One also could argue there’s an element of intimidation.

“As a further service,” the ALG mailer states, “we will be updating our records after the expected high turnout for the Tuesday, November 6, 2012, election. We will then send an updated vote history audit to you and your neighbors with the results.”

Excuse me, ALG, but who appointed you to be the voting police?

Memo to ALG: Laurie Cooper had already voted when she received the mailer. (Pardon me while I snicker.)

• Randall Terry is one of the best-known abortion opponents in the country. These days he runs for political office to spread his message.

He had unsuccessful bids for the U.S. House (to represent a New York district) and the Florida Senate, and even ran as a Democrat for president in ’12. Now, he’s running for the U.S. House again — this time in South Florida.

Terry is running as an independent in the District 20 race. He’s trying to unseat Rep. Alcee Hastings, who favors abortion rights.

Terry has been running, um, “campaign” ads — showing gruesome images of aborted fetuses — on West Palm Beach stations. The images are so disturbing that at least one station runs a disclaimer before it airs.

At the end of the ad, a woman says President Obama — who favors abortion rights — cannot be re-elected.

Suffice to say, Terry goes for “shock value.”

It only deepens the divide, if you ask me. (Does he really think someone who favors abortion rights will slap his or her forehead and say, “I see the light now.”)

K.C. Costello, who saw the commercial while eating a pizza, minced no words.

“It was the most disgusting thing I’ve seen on TV,” he said.

Agreed.

Then again, Terry wouldn’t have it any other way.

• Barefoot Bay resident Bruce Alger, 94, says Americans don’t understand how much is at stake in this election.

“I consider this a crisis of our form of government,” he said. “This could easily be our last gasp.”

He fears America is on a path to Socialism, and the re-election of Obama would spell doom. He talked about electromagnetic bombs in the hands of foreign countries and even Bible prophecy. (Given the devastation caused by superstorm Sandy right before the election, his comments did give me pause.)

Alger served in Congress for 10 years in the 1950s and ’60s. His voting record in Washington would have made him the darling of today’s tea party movement.

• Just want to give a shout-out to the 75 or 80 Village Green residents who came to my speaking appearance Wednesday morning. What a delightful crowd. Great questions.

Dick Robertson was kind enough to email me three photos from the appearance. (“I’m a retired photographer with little to do,” he said.)

Geez, they aren’t kidding when they say the camera adds 10 pounds!

Oh, wait. Only TV cameras do that?

Russ Lemmon is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects his opinion. Contact him at 772-978-2205 or russ.lemmon@scripps.com.

Good luck with that.

Following the money trail in Florida is like taking a trip through a Rube Goldberg machine.

As Sunday’s report by Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers showed, Florida’s loose campaign finance laws allow special interests to pump unlimited amounts of money into state and local races.

The committees that funnel the money don’t have to track the candidates they are supporting or attacking — and that is awfully convenient for the donors throwing around wads of cash.

If voters can’t draw a straight line between donor and candidate, then they can’t be sure who is peddling influence.

The committees also let politicians and donors wash their hands of dirty campaign tactics while still benefiting from them.

That, apparently, is how state lawmakers like it. They sure haven’t made much effort to change the practice (which, at the state level, predates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling).

Let’s use state Sen. Joe Negron, a Republican from Stuart, as a case study.

As staff writer Jonathan Mattise reported Sunday, Negron runs or helps run four “committees of continuous existence,” which can accept unlimited donations, then send them to other groups to buy political ads.

Negron’s four committees have raised a combined $8.5 million. He runs three of them with other state lawmakers and one of them (Florida Conservative Action Committee) himself, records show.

Among the more interesting donations on the four committees’ books: $50,000 from Geo Group Inc., which supports prison privatization; $40,000 from the casino company Genting New York, which has pushed to bring casino gambling to South Florida; and about $245,000 from Big Sugar (either U.S. Sugar Corp. or Florida Crystals).

The Big Sugar contributions are particularly notable.

Negron has recently become more vocal about stopping the dumping of polluted Lake Okeechobee water into the St. Lucie River — an issue in which Big Sugar is deeply intertwined. Sugar growers own the land south of Lake O that river advocates believe is needed to restore the natural flow of water.

If committees that Negron is affiliated with are getting six-figure donations from Big Sugar, how do we know he’s acting in the interests of the St. Lucie River, not the sugar companies?

We don’t.

That’s the problem with Florida’s campaign finance laws. They cast shadows over everyone who embraces them.

I’m not picking on Negron. He just happens to be the only state lawmaker from Martin County who is affiliated with such committees.

He’s also vying to become state Senate president in 2016, and shuffling money to his allies will boost his chances of landing the chamber’s top post. (Negron could not be reached for comment on Monday.)

None of the politicians interviewed for Sunday’s stories said they were fond of Florida’s campaign finance arrangements. Yet a majority of state lawmakers have failed to embrace meaningful reform.

They should — starting with requiring more honest disclosure about where the special-interest money ends up.

I looked up the contributions and expenditures for all four of Negron’s committees of continuous existence (Florida Conservative Majority, Protect Our Liberty, Florida Conservative Action Committee and Alliance for a Strong Economy). Much of their money is sent to other political committees, the Republican Party of Florida or marketing firms — but we don’t know the end result unless we happen to receive one of the political ads in the mail.

Democracy requires transparency, and Florida’s disclosure rules fall short.

The nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics recommends three practices for campaign finance disclosure: clear statutes; comprehensive data collection and effective presentation of the data.

Of course, special interests aren’t asking for those things.

That means the chances are slim that lawmakers will act on them.

Eve Samples is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects her opinion. Contact her at 772-221-4217 or eve.samples@scripps.com.

After breakfast at Bob Evans, we’ll head to one of the sites for early voting.

Then, after months of waiting, we’ll be able to tune out all of the negative ads and spinmeisters being interviewed on television.

It’ll be a freeing feeling, I’m sure. (I know that was the case when we did early voting in 2008.)

Throughout my life, I have intensely followed presidential elections. From Richard Nixon vs. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama in 2012, some races have been more exciting than others.

For me, elections are not life and death.

Never have been, never will be.

As the saying goes, you play the cards you’re dealt.

Americans don’t seem as willing to adapt these days. Our enemies must be loving our selfish behavior — it’s straight from the “divide and conquer” playbook.

I’ve voted for third-party candidates in the past (John Anderson in ’80 and Ross Perot in ’92), but I’m going mainstream this time.

Three days out, though, I still don’t know if I’ll be voting for Romney or Obama.

Perhaps my recent “tweet” on Twitter will explain:

“For the first time in my voting lifetime, I like all four major-party candidates (president and vice president) and have no real preference.”

Some people will find that hard to believe.

Just like some find it hard to believe I don’t have a favorite baseball or football team.

Oh, I’ve had presidential preferences in the past — strong preferences a few times — but not this year. I’ll be OK with either one.

Again, you play the cards you’re dealt. Too many Americans on the losing end of an election want to take their ball and go home.

Country is right after God and family, right? Political parties would be way down the list.

Romney has positive attributes, and so does Obama. Likewise, each has negative attributes.

As I’ve said many times, I can’t stand partisan politics. Mainly because extremists in both parties demonize their opponent. Look no further than the letters to the editor to see what I mean.

In Indian River County, I’m considered liberal — some have even called me a “flaming liberal.” I can only laugh, as it proves everything is relative.

Ask me who were the two best presidents of my lifetime, and I’ll tell you Ronald Reagan (a Republican) and Bill Clinton (a Democrat).

Ask me who were the two worst presidents of my lifetime, and I’ll tell you Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) and George W. Bush (a Republican).

Obama is in the middle of the pack. For now.

In 2008, Obama won Florida and scored a convincing victory nationally. However, he received only 42 percent of the vote in Indian River County.

He’ll be lucky to hit 42 percent in ’12. That’s just the way it is here.

From my perspective, respecting those with a differing view is one of the responsibilities we have as American citizens.

Which reminds me of a call I received earlier this month after writing a column about Shannon Roberts. She is a Democrat running against incumbent Bill Posey, a Republican, and Richard Gillmor, an independent, for the District 8 seat in the U.S. House.

The woman who called was quite perturbed with what I wrote. She took great delight in trying to belittle me. She said what I wrote was “a front-page ad for Democrats.”

Seriously?

Yes, she was serious.

No one in her circle of friends likes me, she explained. I must say, she was rather snooty about it.

“Why don’t you go back to where you came from?” she asked.

Of course, she never identified herself. (Thanks to our Caller ID system, I knew her name and her phone number.) I’m sure she was proud of herself when she hung up the phone.

It’s been a few years since anyone told me to go back to where I came from.

All because I wrote about a Democratic congressional candidate.

Yeesh.

By the way, please don’t ask me who I voted for — because I’m not going to tell you. I won’t ask you, either.

Deal?

Russ Lemmon is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects his opinion. Contact him at 772-978-2205 or russ.lemmon@scripps.com. He will appear on WTTB 1490 AM’s “Morning Magazine” at 8:50 a.m. Friday.

The majority of American Jews have been voting Democratic for some eighty years, often overwhelmingly so. Before each national election the Republicans try to break the pattern, and pundits wonder whether this time it will be different. Up to now it hasn’t.

AJC, the nonpartisan Jewish advocacy organization that has tracked Jewish voting behavior for more than three decades, used a new approach this year. Besides its usual survey of a national sample of American Jews, it also polled representative samples of Jews in two crucial swing states, Florida and Ohio, where the Jewish vote could make a difference in a close election. The surveys, conducted in September, asked not only about voting preferences, but also measured President Obama’s approval ratings in the Jewish community and gauged Jewish attitudes on the key issues of the day. A separate AJC survey was conducted earlier, during the summer, of Russian Jewish voters in metropolitan New York, containing some differently worded questions. All surveys are available at www.ajc.org.

The AJC data suggest that nationally Jews continue to favor the Democrats by a wide margin, 65 percent reporting that they will vote for President Obama, 24 percent for Governor Romney, and the rest undecided. The support for Obama is consistent among all age groups, and Jewish women tend to be more pro-Obama than men. Ohio Jews split roughly along the same lines as the national sample, 64-29 percent for the president.

In the other swing state, Florida, Obama did even better, attracting 69 percent of the Jewish vote as against 25 percent for Romney.

In the national and both state surveys, more Jews approve than disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, health care, national security, U.S.-Israel relations and other issues, and believe that the Democrats are more likely to make the right decisions about those issues than the Republicans. The great majority of respondents say that the economy and healthcare are the most important issues in deciding who to support for president.

Still, more than 90 percent in all three surveys are concerned over the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. And, reflecting deep pessimism over the situation in the Middle East, the percentage of Jews who think that prospects for Arab-Israeli peace have risen in the past year languished in the single digits in all the surveys.

However, there are two Jewish subgroups that appear to diverge from the majority-Democratic consensus—Orthodox Jews and Russian Jews. While the Ohio and Florida samples do not contain enough Orthodox respondents to draw any conclusions, the national survey shows Romney beating Obama by 54 percent to 40 percent among the Orthodox. The edge for the Republican is also reflected in the president’s high unfavorable ratings in the Orthodox community on each of the issues.

Although it was held earlier in the year and hence includes many more “undecided” responses — 41 percent — than the other surveys, AJC’s survey of Russian Jewish New Yorkers similarly favored Romney over Obama, 47 percent to 12 percent. This was consistent with the last two presidential elections, when a majority of Russian Jews also favored the Republican candidates.

Barring any October surprise, then, Jewish voters will in all likelihood give the bulk of their support to the Democrats, as in presidential elections past.

Yet there are signs that this political tradition might erode over time. The Orthodox tendency to maintain high levels of Jewish affiliation and to have more children than other American Jews—characteristics clearly evident in the recent demographic survey of the Jews of New York City—portend a far greater voice for Orthodoxy in the Jewish community, and together with the steady integration of Russian Jews into American Jewish life, may eventually change the political profile of American Jewry.

Brian D. Lipton is the executive director of the West Coast Florida chapter of the American Jewish  Committee.

The five-point star on his website and bumper stickers is almost identical to the Army’s logo. His campaign colors are gold and black, just like the Army’s.

Until this week, however, the details of the Republican’s departure from the Army had remained recessed in the background of his battle for the new District 18 seat, which covers northern Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties.

That changed Tuesday when his Democratic rival, Patrick Murphy, debuted a TV ad slamming a 2003 incident in which West was accused of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice while serving as a lieutenant colonel in Iraq.

Though the ad is loose with the facts (West was not found guilty of criminal assault charges, as it claims), records show West fired his pistol near an Iraqi detainee’s head and allowed his soldiers to repeatedly punch the detainee. West could have been court-martialed for the offenses, but military leaders opted to fine him $5,000 and let him retire with full benefits.

Still, the incident doesn’t sit well with some veterans.

“It’s totally against the high standards that the military teaches and expects of all our military personnel,” said Sgt. Maj. John Estrada, who spent 34 years in the Marine Corps and now is supporting Murphy.

“If we continue with that sort of behavior, or we embrace that sort of behavior, that’s the same type of thing that will be done against our soldiers,” Estrada, a resident of Central Florida, told me Wednesday.

Other veterans echoed his sentiments during an earlier conference call organized by Murphy’s campaign.

“There are rules of war,” Army veteran Jack Shifrel of Coconut Creek said. “There are ethics that bind a military officer to have a certain amount of respect even for an enemy prisoner, even for an enemy who is being interrogated.”

In 2003, West told observers in a military courtroom that he knew “the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers,”CNN reported at the time.

West has said he believed the detainee was involved in an assassination plot against him.

Former Army Capt. Mike Breen, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not buy that defense.

“All of us face uncertain information … incredibly difficult moral dilemmas,” Breen said of troops serving in war zones. “Allen West is unique, or nearly unique, in that he chose to abandon his oath as an Army officer. To say he did that for some high moral reason is completely absurd.”

Breen, now vice president at the Truman National Security Project in Washington, D.C., is throwing his support behind Murphy, too.

Because Murphy has no military experience of his own, Democrats avoided attacking West’s service earlier in the campaign season — but it apparently became fair game after West launched his own attack ad against Murphy last week.

In that ad, the West campaign lambasted Murphy for his 2003 arrest outside a Miami Beach nightclub on charges of disorderly intoxication and possession of a bogus driver’s license. Murphy was 19 at the time. The charges were ultimately dropped, but that didn’t stop West’s camp from contrasting Murphy’s run-in with West’s military service.

“Two men. A country in crisis. You decide,” the West campaign ad states.

The decision is clear for World War II veteran Warren Grossman, a registered Republican who lives in Stuart.

“His actions in Iraq were totally unacceptable, and he disgraced his uniform,” Grossman said during Wednesday’s conference call.

He called West a “loose cannon” and the “Joseph McCarthy of 2012″ for his claims that about 80 members of Congress were members of the Communist Party.

Chip Block, a Navy veteran and Jupiter Inlet Colony town commissioner, said West was a bad apple in the Army and is now a bad apple in Congress.

“We need constructive people,” Block said during the Wednesday conference call. “We need people who are there to solve problems, not people who are there to shout epithets at the top of their lungs.”

In response to the criticism — specifically Breen’s comments, which I emailed to West’s campaign staff — campaign manager Tim Edson, wrote in an email:

“It’s amazing that another veteran would stand by and support Patrick Murphy’s flagrantly dishonest attacks on Allen West’s military record.”

Eve Samples is a columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. This column reflects her opinion.

And so, when the blogosphere lit up with complaints a few months ago when Mr. Lehrer was selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates to moderate the first presidential debate of 2012, I was not one of those voices.  In fact, even though I always advocate having a diverse group of moderators (for the record, even though two of the four moderators this year are women, no African-American or Latino moderators were chosen), I defended the Commission’s selection.  

Lehrer has been the epitome of the fair and informed professional journalist.  His experience both on the anchor’s desk and as a debate moderator is second to none.  However, his performance during the first debate, which happened to be Lehrer’s twelfth time moderating (which is a record), was, by any description, a disaster.

With respect to Lehrer, he was lethargic and completely lost control of the debate.  Throughout the evening he hesitated when informing the candidates who would go first in answering a question, even pausing as if to recall their names. 

In their responses, the candidates continually ran over the allotted time to the extent that one of the six planned topics for the evening had to be shelved.  At one point, after the candidates digressed into a discussion of Medicare and healthcare, Lehrer stopped them and said they would come back to the issue later, when he should simply have adapted the order of his prepared questions in order to continue the “flow” of the conversation.

Lehrer failed repeatedly to get the long-winded Obama to honor the time allotment and he never questioned Romney or asked for clarification even though the Republican nominee’s comments were frequently at odds with what he has been saying for the past two years.  Obama lost the debate, but the biggest loser was any control of the debate.  It is time for a new generation of moderators. 

Robert Watson, Ph.D. has published 34 books on American politics and history and serves as Professor and Coordinator of American Studies at Lynn University, site of the third/final presidential debate