Happy Election Day, USA!

Not planning to vote? Check out some of the third party and independents I posted yesterday.

Don't know where to go to vote? You can either type "Where do I go to vote?" into Google and enter your address when prompted or click here.

An Election Break

The biggest tragedy about this election is NOT that the Democrat candidate is Hillary Clinton (a person who has no regard for the laws of this nation and thinks she is above them) and the Republican candidate is Donald Trump (a person who is guaranteed to only make decisions that benefit himself)—although that is definitely a tragedy big enough to hang your head in shame when people ask if you are an American.

 

No, the biggest tragedy is that 90% of the people who step into the pole booth on Tuesday will believe that those are the only two candidates from whom they can choose. So depressing was that thought to me, that I almost considered not voting at all in this election. Now, for many of you, not voting is a common thing. For me, I have only missed two elections in which I could vote in my entire life. Last year, we moved on October 30—that means that I would have been voting for local representation in an area where I no longer lived if I had chosen to vote, so I didn't. There was also one election in an "off year" (we only vote for three years in Indiana and then take a year off) that was simply a referendum that I had no opinion about.

 

I have since revisited my decision not to vote. This is the year when a third party SHOULD be able to overturn the other two. The Republicans and Democrats have been in league with each other for years to the point where they have really stopped representing the ideals on which their respective parties were founded. They have long stopped representing "We the people…" The instead represent whomever gives their party the most money. This is not me, and I would be willing to bet it is also not you. The top two parties have also ensured that other parties do not make it on the ballots because they are the ones who write the laws for who can make it on the ballot. Some laws they have concocted are literally so restrictive in their wording it would be impossible to get on the ballot unless you are the Republican or Democratic nominee.

 

The top two are also broken because they allow ANYONE to vote in their primaries. That means I, as an independent who frequently votes across party lines, can go down and vote for the Democrat nominee without even remotely wanting to be in the Democrat party. In my state (Indiana), I do have to choose whether I want to vote for the Republican or Democrat and I cannot vote for both, but the one time I did it I was not given the chance to vote for the Libertarian, which tells me their primaries must be more selective. Some states allow you to vote in both the Democrat and Republican primaries (so I have heard). Why? Shouldn't only registered party members be voting in primaries? Yes, they should if you truly want a representative of that party.

 

However, as I said before, the Republicans and Democrats are only one party. A vote for one, is a vote for the other. Both support their top donors. I literally have somewhere in my garage a signed letter from a Senator stating he would not ever vote for something and then a printout showing he did in fact vote for that thing. In the next election, this senator advertised that he did not vote for that thing (but his voting record showed different). Thankfully, he is no longer in office, but I am pretty sure he is not alone in his deception especially since both of Indiana's current senators have advertised they would never vote for X and then turned around and voted for it! When was the last time you actually checked the voting record of the people you vote for?

 

So, I will be at the poles but I will be voting for a third party. There are actually some really SOLID choices this year. I am encouraging you (1) to please share this with all your friends and (2) please do a little research and check these people out; you may find you support their party beliefs more than you support your traditional Democrats or Republicans. DO NOT BUY INTO THE HYPE THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE TWO PARTIES. The reason that statement was first made historically is because by the nature of our elections (the person with the most votes wins even if the most votes are 25% of the total votes), only one or two parties will make the voting laws and thereby make it difficult for a third party to get in. That is the purpose of this post. If you live in a state that has barred third parties from being on the ballot, WRITE IN one of these candidate names below—unless you truly want to vote for Trump or Clinton (keep in mind though, a vote for Clinton may actually be a vote for Trump if he can get a felony tacked to her by January). 

 

LIBERTARIAN: Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) Libertarians believe that states (and ideally individuals) should make most of the laws governing America. They see the Constitution as the ultimate document for determining law. Traditionally, they support abortion, but they believe a person who disagrees with abortion should not be forced to pay for it (in other words they would remove government funding but allow it to remain legal). This candidate does have a vested interest in the marijuana industry (he used to be a CEO). He supports legalizing it at the federal level and allowing states to decide- similar to what our current president has supported. Despite what I have heard a lot of Democrats say, Libertarians are more aligned with their actual beliefs. (Democrats tend to tell me Libertarians are just Republican but this is not true.)

 

CONSTITUTION: Darrell Castle The constitution party supports the Constitution, but they see the Bible as another important document in determining law. This party is most aligned with what the Republican party believes. This candidate is pro-life. He believes the U. S. should exit from the U.N. and he would like to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Although the Constitution party is on the ballot in more than 20 states, plan on writing his name in if you want to vote for him.

 

GREEN: Dr. Jill Stein The Green Party believes in putting the environment first (big surprise, I know) and where the environment is silent, they tend to be Democrat in thinking. Their platform revolves around protecting the environment. This candidate supports public ownership of all energy sources, banning pesticides and other toxins, ending fossil fuel extraction that is disruptive to the environment, labeling and getting rid of GMOs. She would like to outlaw insurance but create national healthcare, and she supports any form of abortion.

 

There is actually a long list of write-in candidates that you can vote for, but these are the top three. A few others (who are on the ballot in 5-20 states) to research are:

 

(No party) Evan McMullin

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

Reform Party Rocky de la Fuente

Socialist Party USA Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik

Socialist Workers Party Alyson Kennedy (that is the official platform website, I couldn't find a specific webpage for her. Ballotopedia has a clearer presentation of the party platform but I don't know how accurate it is.)

Why is it when you look online you can find many different ways to do Harvard style citations?

So, one employer asked me to take a test to show I have editing skills. This is not the first time I have employers require tests (even though I have already taken tests through Guru and they are displayed on my profile). However, as all of you should know, editing is not cut and dried: This is right; this is wrong. Yes, certain things are right and certain things are wrong, but there are some things that change depending on the style manual you are using. The last time I did an editing test for an employer, I was told I failed because I did not know which style manual they were following (after the fact, I determined it was probably Chicago style, which is my least favorite).

Before taking this test, I asked which style it would cover. I was told APA and Harvard. The first part of the test was simple, but then the second got tricky. When I came to the first Harvard style question: "Which is the correct way to cite this reference in Harvard style?" Neither of the two answers was correct: (Wayne, Smith, Johnson, & McClennen, 2014) OR (Wayne, Smith, Johnson and McClennen, 2014). The correct in-text, parenthetical, Harvard style citation would be (Wayne, Smith, Johnson & McClennen 2014). This happened for three questions- I only guessed correctly one of the three times.

Needless to say, I went online to find out why this test was messed up- after all they had to use some resource that obviously wasn't the original (which is the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, 6th Ed. 2002). What I discovered was that people are confusing Harvard style (which is a complete style guide) with the Harvard system of referencing. I also think I know why Harvard style is called Harvard style even though it is from Australia.

It all started when a Harvard professor decided to use the in-text citation at the turn of the 20th century. The other methods of citation use footnotes and endnotes (Vancouver- IEEE uses this). Technically, any parenthetical citation in-text is the "Harvard" system and that is probably why the AGPS became known as Harvard style. However, some people use "Harvard" to refer to the name-date parenthetical style. This is where it gets confusing. If, as some people on the Internet claim, Harvard style refers simply to a citation system where you use the name and date in parenthesis- it has nothing to distinguish it from, say, APA which is also a name-date citation style. In general, if professors and journals want any name-date style, they will simply say use a "name-date citation style." (Or that is what they should say rather.)

Internationally, commas are frowned upon as a general rule (sad, but true). So the AGPS, which is the official style manual of Australia, is an international standard when house style manuals are not used. Keep in mind that Harvard style is a full style guide. If you are writing a thesis in Austrailia, you will be required to follow it. Harvard referencing or the Harvard system of referencing only means you should not be using foot- or endnotes. Keep in mind, though, that many of the websites talking about Harvard referencing (1) Are university websites compiled by librarians and seem to be based on what the librarians themselves prefer, and (2) have no clue what they are talking about: One stated that MLA was a footnote/ endnote referencing style. MLA is actually a parenthetical style (like Harvard) that uses the author and page number (instead of author-date).

So, that is why there is the confusion about style online. Some people (and universities) have created their own style guides using Harvard referencing as their citation method. This is very wrong of them to do. If they want to use Harvard referencing, they should call it the name-date system to help avoid confusion. Especially since they use "Harvard referencing" to specifically mean name-date as opposed to parenthetical referencing. In general, I think it is due to a lack of knowledge- kind of like when I bought the Harvard Blue Book, which is not a style manual but a legal citation guide. To further reduce confusion, Harvard style should go back to being AGPS style, but that will probably not happen.

So, your professor told you to write a paper and you don't know if you should follow the style manual or just cite works using an author-date system- what do you do? First, if you follow the Harvard style manual, you won't get marked down- or if you do you have a case you can present and you should win. (You did know you can appeal university grades, right?) Second, if you don't want to purchase the Harvard manual, you could just use its method of citation (follow the link above under "Harvard style"). Third, you could ask your professor what exactly is meant and impress (or irritate) him or her with your knowledge of citation and referencing systems. Or, fourth, you could hope your professor meant Harvard referencing, find a citation method that is name-date that you like, and be consistent throughout.

Consistency is the key with anything. That is the whole reason style manuals were developed- so you didn't use serial commas in the first paragraph and drop them elsewhere (for example). In fact, that is the whole reason Webster wrote the dictionary- so there would be more consistency in spelling. As an editor, consistency is the number one thing I have to fix.