Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a campaign where there has been much talk about change, bringing new people into the process, and high voter turnout (at least on the Democratic side), the recent lawsuit in Nevada attempting to bar nine at-large districts created so that shift-workers could vote was indeed a low moment. Fortunately, a District judge made the right decision, protecting voters and rejecting a transparent effort to suppress turnout for Barack Obama.
As I noted in a previous post, shouldn't Democrats be on the side of getting more voters to the polls, not turning them away (leave that to the Republicans)!?
The Nevada shenanigans once again exposed problems with a voting system desperately in need of reform. If we are to succeed at this historic moment in bringing new people into the process and creating a fair, transparent, accountable and truly democratic system – then we need to understand how the hardwiring of our electoral system works against *real* change. As Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. has written in the pages of The Nation: "Our voting system's foundation is built on the sand of states' rights and local control. We have fifty states, 3,141 counties and 7,800 different local election jurisdictions. All separate and unequal." While many of the needed reforms are resolutely unsexy, they are also vital if we are to overcome our current crisis – a downsized politics of excluded alternatives and a growing mistrust of the way we vote and our election results.
The 2000 presidential debacle focused public attention on our increasingly dysfunctional electoral system. In its wake a pro-democracy movement has emerged, and efforts to bring democracy home are making headway on some important fronts. Many advocates have demonstrated the unreliability of so-called black box or touch-screen voting machines which can be hacked, breakdown, and don't always leave a paper trail to resolve tabulation disputes. California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen recently decertified Diebold voting machines.
Bowen, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Bruner, and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie all support switching from touch-screen to optical scan machines, which read ballots that voters mark by hand, like a standardized test. They are more trustworthy and cost-effective, and they provide a record of each vote. Representative Rush Holt also recently introduced the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008. Currently, 20 states are scheduled to conduct completely unauditable elections in 2008. This bill would reimburse jurisdictions that choose to implement voter-verified paper trails; provide funding for audits of voting; and help states move to an entirely paper-based system. It's a good effort at a quick-fix – but it still makes the fix optional.
"We're going to try to persuade as many counties as possible to do the right thing before November," Holt told me. "There is still time for them to do it, and I think the incentive in this bill, combined with public activism, will persuade some to put in a paper-based system and an audit."
What's truly needed is passage of Holt's HR 811 which would establish a voter-verified paper trail and audit of every federal election as the national standard. It currently has 216 bipartisan cosponsors and House leadership needs to be pressed to take action on it.
While we are seeing a real uptick in registration during the Democratic presidential primaries, much more could be accomplished if people had better access to the polls. Examples include: making Election Day a national holiday so that working people can more easily participate; allowing Election Day Registration (six states currently use it and voter turnout is 8 to 15 percentage points higher than the national average); and making registration at DMVs an opt-out process rather than opt-in – all of these measures would serve to boost registration and turnout. Senator Hillary Clinton and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones' Count Every Vote Act supports these needed reforms, and it also establishes minimum standards for the allocation of voting machines and poll workers to cut down on lines; re-enfranchises millions of Americans who have committed a felony but have completed their sentences; and allows for non-partisan election observers (so we never have to see another Katherine Harris oversee a disputed election).
We also need to do a better job protecting voters. For all of they hype about voter fraud, it occurs "statistically…about as often as death by lightning strike ," according to Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt of the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice. In contrast, we know that efforts to keep people away from the polls are rampant in every election. We need to put an end to new exclusionary ID tactics, 21st century poll taxes, and unjust scrubbing of voter files. Also, Senator Barack Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act would make voter intimidation and election misinformation – like letters telling Latino voters that if they are immigrants and vote they will be arrested – punishable by more than just a slap on the wrist. It also establishes a process for reaching out to misinformed voters with accurate information before the polls close.
Vital reforms are also needed to ensure that elected representative's are more responsive and accountable to the people. First and foremost, we need to get Big Money out of our campaigns. Only "clean money" legislation will allow ordinary people to run for office and have their voices heard. Studies by the Campaign Finance Institute placed the cost of winning a House election in 2006 at nearly $1.26 million; just over $8.8 million for a Senate seat. In November, one analyst projected that the 2008 campaign would burn through 5 billion dollars. Public financing of campaigns would free elected officials from the influence of big money, and also increase the power of the public over their representatives.
In the Senate, Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter's Fair Elections Now Act has garnered 9 cosponsors, and in the House, the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act has 52 cosponsors behind it. Under both bills, candidates who show a qualifying level of support and opt-out of further private contributions would be supported by public funding. The legislation was modeled on successful public financing systems in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina. Short of a system of full public financing, one modest proposal to reduce the influence of big money is to dramatically increase the amount of federal matching funds received for donations of $100 or less -- matching them on a 1:4 basis. The effect could be further reinforced by eliminating matching funds for donations over $100.
The power of incumbency also drastically restricts the choices available to the American people, exacerbating our downsized politics of excluded alternatives. Incumbents derive much of their power from the redistricting process, increasingly a bipartisan farce in which the parties collaborate to draw district lines that will preserve their power. As reformers often remark: "Instead of constituents choosing their legislators, legislators choose their constituents." Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington all have at least nominally independent commissions which have full authority over the process of drawing up Congressional districts – taking the process of drawing up districts out of the hands of the two major political parties.
Finally, if majority rule is to be more than a hollow slogan, and third parties more than "spoilers," we need to experiment with ways to more accurately represent the diversity of backgrounds, perspectives, and opinions of the American people. Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) – in which low scoring candidates are eliminated after the first round of tabulations, and their supporters second-choice votes are added to those who remain, until one candidate gets the majority – offers another way to challenge the duopoly and also ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority.
We also need to do away with the Electoral College so that the president is elected directly by the people. The National Popular Vote Compact – in which states pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of their own state – is one way people are working to achieve that. It would take effect when states representing a majority of votes in the Electoral College agree to join the compact. It would therefore ensure that the candidate with the most votes for president would be the winner, and every citizen's vote would count equally regardless of geography.
While there is reason to hope that this election will bring increased or even record-breaking participation at the polls, there's clearly work to be done so that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Let's demand a democracy promotion program at home to ensure that every voter can vote, every vote gets counted, money doesn't talk louder than the will of the people, and every challenger gets to make his or her case.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I notice in that talk of "lawsuits" and "shenanigans" in Nevada....you leave out the NAME of the person that those actions were intended to help?
Could it be because you don't want to have a criticism on the record of the likely Democratic nominee (and likely President) for engaging in things that were once the sole province of Republicans?!??!?
BTW, $500 that no changes in the Electoral College are made (unless we get ANOTHER Florida-2000 and SHE loses)...and no "National Holiday" for Election Day.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:49pm
Does this mean she gets a free pass from virtually every liberal "feminist" commentator in America, regardless of what she does?
Posted by ZERO 01/23/2008 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person
Yep. That's what I'm seeing. Even among my friends I consider to be feminist. What I hear again and again is that America needs healing and nurturing and only a woman can do that.
Somehow when I think about caring and nurturing, Hillary Clinton does not come to mind.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 3:03pm
Now if I were to think "win at all costs" or "spindoctoring" then I'd say Hillary is in the top 5 of the people who come to mind.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/23/2008 @ 3:04pm
Does this mean she gets a free pass from virtually every liberal "feminist" commentator in America,...?
Posted by ZERO 01/23/2008 @ 2:52pm
YES! Relax.....she's had "virtually" a lifetime "free pass" from Fems.....NOT a recent phenom! My contention early on, TN is w/HRC....but NOT as obvious since the rise of Magic.....they need/want "now, more than ever", their share of the Lib/Progressive readers/subscribers....
Posted by Happy at 01/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
While there is reason to hope that this election will bring increased or even record-breaking participation at the polls, there's clearly work to be done so that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Let's demand a democracy promotion program at home to ensure that every voter can vote, every vote gets counted, money doesn't talk louder than the will of the people, and every challenger gets to make his or her case.
The basic problem, Katrina, is that we have a Constitution that still promotes a (r)epublican form of government, in which voters were thought to be too stupid to take full charge of the decisions that affect us.
Unless, and until, we challenge these antiquated republican ideals, "real" democracy will remain illusive in America for quite some time.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 3:09pm
I am glad the Constitution sets up a democratic republic form of government. There were all kinds of checks and balances set up in the Constitution, and one of those was the Electoral College.
In essence, through the election of delegates to choose our executive leader, done on a state by state basis, we get a more moderated and balanced governance where no single faction dominates the political landscape. I like that functionality of the constitution, even cherish it. I think it was a marvelous and inspired element of our Constitution, and one we should keep.
Posted by DJ in AZ at 01/23/2008 @ 4:05pm
We need to dump the Electoral College and the Senate. I should be one person, and one vote for President. The Senate does not pay much attention to the wishes of the people, and it is very expensive to run a senatorial campaign. In California, we have a population larger than Canada, and it is difficult for two people to adequately represent them. At the very least, we should reduce the Senators term to four years, with half being elected every two years. In that way major changes in the Congress could be made every two years, if necessary..
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by P. J. CASEY 01/23/2008 @ 4:06pm
You do realize, I am sure, that what you are proposing is akin to ripping up the constitution, by eliminating the senate. The establishment of two houses in congress was one of the major compromises agreed to by our founding fathers. It simultaneously provides for a congress based on representation by population, while also giving small states an equal footing with large states.
As for my arguments in favor of the current electoral college system, please see my earlier post. Thanks.
Posted by DJ in AZ at 01/23/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by DJ IN AZ 01/23/2008 @ 4:18pm
People (usually on the Left) have been pushing a "2nd Constitutional Convention" for years....as well as EC scrapping...
goes nowhere fast.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by DJ IN AZ 01/23/2008 @ 4:05pm
It was written by rich white landowners and slave masters for the benefit of them.
The Electoral College is a farce, and the notion that Americans, who are supposed to be in the most advanced nation on Earth, cannot handle a direct democracy is also a farce!
If they can do direct democracy in Switzerland, then they can do it in America!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 5:11pm
Some things never change. Although Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents for 8 years, in spite of neo-con efforts to crucify him and his family, we now have the same tactics being used by the Nation, including Katrina in support of Obama. If Bill tells the truth about Obama's voting record, he's being mean. If democrats objects to special polls being set-up for Obama supporters, they are not being fair to all voters. From all of the comments I read about Katrina's diatribe against Hillary it appears I was wrong about The Nations fairness.
Posted by papabob at 01/23/2008 @ 5:16pm
the notion that Americans, who are supposed to be in the most advanced nation on Earth,
that train left long ago. we are anything but. still, the biggest bully around.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 5:18pm
Instead of "Democracy Promotion", isn't it time the Dems stopped "Democracy Deception" as practiced against the blacks by the Dem leadership??? What has been obvious to Free Market folks (like me and Conservatives in general), has been thwarted by Dem `leaders'! Long article delving into why Hispanic Dems vote for HRC and NOT Obama! [bold mine]
(City Journal) Steven Malanga
The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates
Black anger grows as illegal immigrants transform urban neighborhoods.
Mexican gangs in Los Angeles, like Florencia 13, are waging a bloody campaign to drive blacks from neighborhoods.
Terry Anderson is angry. From his KRLA-AM radio perch in Los Angeles, the black talk-show host thunders, "...Why are our politicians and leaders letting this happen?..."...so worked up isn't the Jena Six or nooses on Columbia University doorknobs; it's the illegal immigrants who allegedly murdered three Newark college students last August. And when he excoriates politicians for "letting this happen," he's directing his fire at Congressional Black Caucus members who support open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. "Massive illegal immigration has been devastating to my community," Anderson, a former auto mechanic and longtime South Central Los Angeles resident, tells listeners. "Black Americans are hit the hardest."
Though blacks have long worried.....they have also followed their political leadership in backing liberal immigration policies. Now, however, as new waves of immigration inundate historically African-American neighborhoods, black opinion is hardening against the influx........
Black unease about immigration goes back a long way......
But the 1960s brought a big change in the views of black political leaders,.....Jesse Jackson would later herald the imminent arrival of a mighty "black-brown" or "rainbow" coalition.....the Congressional Black Caucus, which became one of Washington's most vocal groups opposing immigration restrictions.....
But as immigration reignited as a national issue in 2006, ambivalence has increasingly given way to opposition to current policies--and even to anger......Illegal immigration has sizzled as a topic on African-American stations like satellite radio XM's "The Power," with most callers demanding more immigration restrictions. African-American bloggers have excoriated black politicians who favor liberal immigration policies. "In the realm of pandering black elites, there is no more notorious public figure than [Texas] Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee," wrote Elizabeth Wright in the online newsletter Issues & Views. "According to Jackson-Lee, those blacks who forcefully oppose mass immigration are simply naive and are being ‘baited' [by white opponents of immigration] into taking such negative positions."
Recent polling data reveal the shift.......
Posted by Happy at 01/23/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by PAPABOB 01/23/2008 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person
I grow wearied of constantly wasting elocution on the rationally challenged and or shills. The people who, despite the overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, believe the idiot drivel you excrete are already part of the choir.
So why continue to waste your time and ours with your corrupt, cognitively challenged, idiot, bullshit?
Posted by V at 01/23/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 1:49pm
yeah...no mention of the rot in the democratic party known as hillbillery who show themselves by their actions and words to be little better that the last pack of assholes who screwed schmuk nation blue.
in order to begin to get real progressive electoral reform two things are needed, and the order is morphic...
1. motivated and enlightened grass roots pressure for change. this has proven hard to generate in the idiocray of trivialized schlobdum that has been average schmuk america for years now and still essentially is. the average add idiot, whos brain is infested with a toxoplasmosis like addiction to self gratifying trivialities and who is stuck in semi-concious eternal angry/petulant/pollyanish adolescense, has a hard time self motivation and auto-applying long and hard enough to a cause not percieved as immediately advantageous to self to get the great grass roots groundwell needed to apply pressure to change.
perhaps in higher average iq areas of the country such as the northeast and left coast, (blue states) the almost realistic possibility exists, but in lower iq states where medievalist religious mindsets and angry denial ridden envy of those better educated and smarter than them (the blue states) leads to apathy, contrariness and self destructive spiteful voting habits (either voting for their destructors or not voting at all)...
i admit to a certain amount of cynicism - can you tell?
2. a great leader, however, could light a fire under the dumbass masses, thereby igniting a grassroots movement even in the stupidest, most bassackward regions of the country (the rerd states) that together with the already in place movements of the smart states could develop momentum to eventually realize our pipe dreams of a better democracy.
but some enlightened and enlightening great leader most be able to convince enough of the idiocracy to do this, and the inherent contradiction in a great leader who leads us AWAY from fascism is indeed paradoxically ironic.
i think we have him in the person of barack obama. hopefully his good looks, youth, coolness, and feelgood everything-gonna-be-alright-if-we-all-work-together zeitgeist message will be able to mobilize enough of the trivialized lackwits who vote (and some who don't) to get him elected, and those who prey upon the idiocracy's self absorbed ignorance and stupidity like hillbillery will suffer a rare and historical setback...
see, there is indeed hope!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 5:53pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 5:11pm
I find your lack of respect for our founding fathers, and the God that inspired them to create the Constitution, very sad and somewhat disturbing, though not altogether shocking.
In my view, our attitudes about these things...towards the establishment of our nation, it's founders, and Deity in whatever form you choose to worship...speaks volumes regarding the character of one's soul. Let us not denigrate our founding fathers - they are some of the greatest and most noble souls that God ever sent to earth.
Posted by DJ in AZ at 01/23/2008 @ 6:12pm
It was written by rich white landowners and slave masters for the benefit of them. - Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 5:11pm
Does being rich make one evil? How about being white, or being a landowner? Does this equate them to being dirty, rotten, biased, or corrupt individuals? I would humbly submit to you and others that being a rich, white landowner does not make one inherently bad, and, in fact, may speak somewhat to their goodness. These men were not self-appointed in their task, but were asked by their states to oversee the matters of establishing "a more perfect union". And, with the help of divine providence, and despite their individual weaknesses and corruptions, they succeeded brilliantly where others had failed miserably.
Posted by DJ in AZ at 01/23/2008 @ 6:19pm
I cannot understand how ANYONE, feminist or not, can believe this nation will get "healing and nurturing" from Hillary Clinton. Look at how she and her husband are campaigning, folks! If you don't see Karl Rove's indelible influence on their primary strategies, then you can't be paying attention. Bill and Hill are the ultimate dysfunctional couple, and if they were to get back into the WH, the media and the right-wing will have a feeding frenzy. Come on! As a man, I'd like to get a woman in the WH, too, but imagine what it would do for future female candidates if a Hillary administration ends up governing like the last. The Clintons' "win at any cost" philosophy will divide the nation exactly when we need brought together. I ALREADY know of a lot of Democratic voters who WILL NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances, mostly because of how this campaign is being conducted. I include myself in this group. We can, we must do better than the Clintons. Time to turn the page and move on. There will be time for another female president in the future. Hillary Clinton is WAY TOO POLARIZING!
Posted by grejambri at 01/23/2008 @ 6:31pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 5:53pm
That lack of mention of Hillary much less "Clintons" is interesting.
An oversight...or is Ari Melber "point man" for "TN" for going after Hillary, to give Ms. vH some plausible deniability and "Well, we represent many views at 'TN'; I don't NECESSARILY subscribe to Ari's views of Hillary" on the next "Hardball"???
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 7:57pm
There are two fallacies here that deserve to be pointed out:
1) Flawed people=bad ideas 2) Imperfect ideas=ideas that need to go
Neither of these is true. Yes, many of the founders of the Constitution were slaveowners, and yes, that's clearly bad. However, that doesn't invalidate the creative solution they designed. Having a balanced government in numerous ways (different times people get elected, different branches of power, etc.) makes for a better system, which is why republican theory is probably about the best one we've found. On a relevant sidenote...direct democracy in the US is insane. Similarly, the fact that this suggestion comes from people who distrust the voting process is a gigantic irony.
Second fallacy...making the perfect the enemy of the good. Does the Constitution have flaws? Absolutely. Do those flaws automatically make some alternative better? No. How do we fix flaws? We work to improve them, and if we need to change the meaning of the Constitution, we do through the amendment process and not through democratically illegitimate (big irony number two) fiat from the Supreme Court.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/23/2008 @ 8:09pm
Does being rich make one evil? How about being white, or being a landowner? Does this equate them to being dirty, rotten, biased, or corrupt individuals? I would humbly submit to you and others that being a rich, white landowner does not make one inherently bad, and, in fact, may speak somewhat to their goodness.
It is just like a child who has become and adult and no longer needs to live by the rules in "father's house", and therefore builds his own house and creates his own rules.
You are suggesting that we are all still kids and need to be "stuck" with the rules of our founding fathers...that we can't learn from their mistakes and create a better set of rules that benefit more of our people.
This "father knows best" approach may work when you are a child, but when you become an adult, and put aside childish things, it is time to act like an adult and write the rules so that they are appropriate for governing adults.
The plain fact is that the founders failed to create a diversity of political thinking and approaches with multiple political parties. They also failed to create a proportional representation system like they have in New Zealand and The Netherlands so that those who lose in the "winner-take-all" system still have a vital role in government in partnership with the winners. The founders failed to understand the corrupt nature of power, and put into place sufficient checks that would prevent our government policy from being auctioned off to the highest bidder. And our founders failed to appreciate the increase in literacy and education of Americans, or the technological advances like the Internet that make direct democracy possible.
I say it is time to move forward and progress, and it is this ideal that makes one a progressive. We cannot afford to be held back by the shortsightedness of our founders, and must remove these shackles to achieve our awesome potential as Americans!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 8:16pm
"In my view, our attitudes about these things...towards the establishment of our nation, it's founders, and Deity in whatever form you choose to worship...speaks volumes regarding the character of one's soul. Let us not denigrate our founding fathers - they are some of the greatest and most noble souls that God ever sent to earth."
Posted by DJ IN AZ 01/23/2008 @ 6:12pm
Sorry DJ, but as a women of color, I find the "founding fathers" to be despicable. If they had so much nobility in them, they would have written a much better constitution to ban all slavery and bestow the same rights to women and people of color as they themselves. People of color had to wait 157 years for the 13th amendment, 89 years to be set free, and another 100 years for the Civil Rights Act in order to be treated equally and without prejudice.
Posted by ACook at 01/23/2008 @ 8:22pm
Barack Obama lays out a good first step:
Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy
Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information--all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest.
An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens. Technology-enabled citizen participation has already produced ideas driving Obama's campaign and its vision for how technology can help connect government to its citizens and engage citizens in a democracy. Barack Obama will use the most current technological tools available to make government less beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists and promote citizen participation in government decision-making. Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government by:
• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities. Greater access to environmental data, for example, will help citizens learn about pollution in their communities, provide information about local conditions back to government and empower people to protect themselves.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.
• Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
• Restoring the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials.
• Lifting the veil from secret deals in Washington with a web site, a search engine, and other web tools that enable citizens easily to track online federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
• Giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation.
• Bringing democracy and policy deliberations directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies.
• Employing technologies, including blogs, wikis and social networking tools, to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decisionmaking.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 8:24pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 7:57pm |
sounds eminently plausible to me...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 8:35pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 8:24pm
you know...i hear hillbillery and schlobbo schmuko yakking about how obama "has no specific plans".
well, first of all its impossible to have too specific a plan about what one wishes to do pocicy wise a year or more in the future...
but in fact obama has cleverly hidden specifics in the obscure hideyhole of his PUBLIC WEBSITE...
in order to get some specifics on his policy positions one must go through the arduous process pulling up his website and reading.
guess thats too much for some...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 8:47pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 8:35pm
You don't want to be "on the outs" in a Hillary Administration when State Dinner time rolls around!
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 9:21pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 9:21pm
mmmm...i bet those are yummy. almost worth it indeed...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
mmmm...i bet those are yummy. almost worth it indeed...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
you know, these guys are so used to rubber chicken..............................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2008 @ 9:30pm
Also, can't be TOO critical of the next President and try to catch his or HER ear for some policy changes, etc.
Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 10:21pm
nothing personal,
but your electoral system is whacked.
designed for a different people in a different time...................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 10:24pm
"designed for a different people in a different time..................."
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/23/2008 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person
True, only in direct proportion to the amount and degree of irony ... that is read between the letters and, "lines."
Posted by V at 01/23/2008 @ 10:33pm
Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 10:21pm | ignore this person
the white house cooks are good...
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/23/2008 @ 11:15pm
some folks would vote for the devil himself if he were a demoncrat. others would do the same if he were a repugnant...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 11:31pm
Posted by V 01/23/2008 @ 10:33pm
touché.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 11:47pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/23/2008 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person
depends on who gets the nom...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2008 @ 11:58pm
Nice post Metteyya. Your clear prose make you a convincingly influential supporter of Senator Obama.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/24/2008 @ 09:14am
Neither the Electoral College nor the Senate are going anywhere. 3/4s of the states need to ratify an amendment and there are too many states who benefit from disproportionately large representation in both for such an amendment to pass.
IRV will help with third-party candidates but the fact remains that a Presidential system tends to create two-party systems. That's because the strength of a small party in a coalition, the abiility to bring down a government because it provides a majority in the legislature, doesn't apply where the executive has an independent electoral mandate. Consequently, interest groups will work within the large parties to capture their process.
The problem with proportional representation is the disproportionate strength given to small/splinter parties. Why should a party like the Christian Union in the Netherlands, that won only 4% of the vote, have the ability to bring down a government.
Posted by brunowe at 01/24/2008 @ 10:25am
Nice post Metteyya. Your clear prose make you a convincingly influential supporter of Senator Obama.
Posted by LEWWELGE 01/24/2008 @ 09:14am | ignore this person
Actually, it's not her prose, it's a copy-and-paste from the Obama campaign website. I don't think she is claiming it as her own.
Posted by brunowe at 01/24/2008 @ 10:28am
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/24/2008 @ 10:25am
Those (99% on the Left) who dream of us "one day moving to a parliamentary system" typically FORGET just how unwieldy and fragile such governments are. Most AREN'T the UK or Germany...and given American psychology, one here would be more along the lines of (as you noted) the Netherlands or ITALY!!!!
The thinking behind it is that it would be more "democratic" (and of course the idea that since a lot of European parliamentary governments are more leftist than ours...that it would mean more leftist policies).
Problem is, the Republicans...would stay pretty united. The situation with McCain and Romney this year is pretty much an anomaly, while (as Will Rogers noted) the Democrats would split into three, possibly FOUR parties, and with squabbling a natural state, the "power brokers" would be the united conservatives.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:33am
MASK
A key difference between the systems in the UK/Germany on the one hand and those in the Netherlands and Italy are the electoral systems. The UK uses a first-past-the-post system like ours. This has created a de facto two-party state. Germany has a mixed system where about half of the delegates are selected by the same system (and the other half by proportional representation). Germany has had some results that are noteworthy. First, the replacement of Helmut Schmidt by Helmut Kohl was done without an election beacuse the FDP swithced its support from the Socialists to the Christian Democrats. Second, you have the grand coalitions. There have been two in history of the current German republic and lead to more of a deadlock than anything else. I would note re the UK that they changed their executive branch in June without a single vote being cast (going from Blair to Brown).
Not sure I agree about the fate of the Republicans in such a system. It seems that the religious right has embraced a sufficiently populist sentiment that they would split from the big-business wing.
Posted by brunowe at 01/24/2008 @ 10:51am
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 10:33am
actually, some of the greatest advancements in canadian politics have happened in minority governments.
health care being one........................
In 1925, Mackenzie King's minority Liberal government agreed to implement old age pension legislation to keep the support of Progressive and Labour Party MPs. The legislation was implemented in 1927.
In the 1960s, Pearson's minority Liberal government introduced several key components of Canada's modern social-welfare system, including universal health care, government loans for university students, the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). These initiatives were in part due to the close cooperation between the Liberals and New Democratic Party during Pearson's minority governments.
Between 1972 and 1974, Trudeau introduced a program of economic nationalism that included the creation of PetroCanada. In addition, old age pensions were indexed to the cost of living. Again, this was due in part to the close cooperation between the Liberals and NDP during Trudeau's minority government.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/minority-governments-canada
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/24/2008 @ 10:51am
Those nations however didn't have (again) the American sensibility (sometimes a lack of sense...heheh).
The "Big Business" Repubs have been plaing the "Social Con" Repubs for years. Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43...throw a few judges at the "pro-lifers", make a speech on "Roe Decision Day" (day before yesterday)...but 99% of the time concentrate on tax cuts and de-reg. And the LVLIB guys will go along.
Plus, I don't really buy that Huckabee is leading a MAJOR movement of "populist Religious Righties". I think a lot of them are thinking "Yeah, yeah, Mike. Be nice to the poor, that's nice. But tell us again how you're going to ban abortion and get prayer back in the schools!"
Plus you leave out the OTHER side of the equation...namely "Big Business" DEMOCRATS, "Hawk" Democrats, and even the smattering of "pro-life" Demos.
Easy to see a coalition of "Liebermans", "Sam Nunns", "Scoop Jacksons", even Bill and Hillary joining up with the Right.
Meanwhile, you'd have a Left divided between "Great Society" Democrats...."New Deal" Democrats...."Euro-socialist" Democrats...and a few die-hard "Norman Thomas/Eugene V Debs" hard-core leftists who consider the OTHER Democrats "capitalist sell-outs of the oppressed proletariat!"
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 11:31am
And Lyndon Johnson got the Civil Rights Acts passed with Republican help....sure.
But I'm talking AMERICAN politics and this country has a libertarian streak that you guys just don't. That means any coalition is likely to be towards the Right side of the spectrum, not "Middle" or "Left", as your governments tend to be.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:44pm
The problems we have are not writ in the stars, or the system either. You can dance around the issue all you wish. Even if one got a "new partner" the American collective as it now stands would still dance with the same steps, to the same old tune. Response to the music limited to bitching about it along the way. Hope or the "vision thing," no matter the sincerity ... is seen as very dangerous, in this context.
Whatever selective blindnesses (you used ...) that allowed "them," in your name ... to go after whatever target population (put the name here -_______- Blacks, Iraqi's, Illegals, the poor, etc ...) has now been turned on "you." And "they" don't need a majority either, just 28% of the population being sufficient to provide (though farcical) credibility.
Posted by V at 01/24/2008 @ 12:54pm
not "Middle" or "Left", as your governments tend to be.
Posted by MASK 01/24/2008 @ 12:44pm
oh, what a blessing that would be right about now.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/24/2008 @ 1:02pm
Nice post Metteyya. Your clear prose make you a convincingly influential supporter of Senator Obama.
Not sure what post you are referring to.
The "Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy" language is from the Obama website.
The previous posts were my attempt to use Paul's language from the New Testament (love to use the Bible against Bible-thumpers!) concerning "putting aside childish things and coming into our own as adults" to respond to this (r)epublican poster's fascination with limiting ourselves to the Founding Father's republican vision of "democracy".
Posted by Metteyya at 01/24/2008 @ 1:26pm
The problem with proportional representation is the disproportionate strength given to small/splinter parties. Why should a party like the Christian Union in the Netherlands, that won only 4% of the vote, have the ability to bring down a government.
I think you have to pick your coalition partners carefully.
The real advantage of proportional representation in The Netherlands and New Zealand is you don't get these wild swings from one election cycle to the next in which public policy is not coherent or benefits the entire nation.
It also forces parities with differing views to learn to work together for the benefit of all.
In a winner-take-all system, like we have here, Bush only consults with the Democrats when he has to, or when it is to his political advantage. Otherwise, he just completely ignores the Democrats as if they are not there in developing American public policy.
Imagine if Bush were forced to accept a Democrat as Secretary of State or Defense, or as his director of the CIA in a proportional system? Do you think he would have invaded Iraq in that case?
Shutting out completely all other parties from the executive branch is part of the cause of our hyper-partisan environment in which things don't get done in Washington, or get done poorly, in which only half (or less) the country is able to feel that they are part of our government.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/24/2008 @ 1:38pm
Shouldn't this post also address the lobbying interests that buy off most of the electorial college? I completely agree that the electorial college needs revamping, or complete dismantling, whichever costs less! But to my amazement, nobody has truly directed any of the blame to the people who are being bought off in the interests of corporations and the like. This is on both sides of the poltical spectrum. Both parties have been hijacked in the name of lobbying interests hoping to forward their agenda(Halliburton anyone?). It stands in sharp contrast to what our founding fathers had initially established in this country, the military-industrial(media-corporate-banking)complex. One need not look any further, and until that is addressed and dealt with accordingly noone could possibly comprehend the consequences these supposed elites are willing to inflict upon Americans. Please view "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi K. or the still in production "Zeitgeist" movie. The problem in Nevada is only a fraction of the real scourge this nation faces. Be informed....
Posted by dobropet at 01/24/2008 @ 2:42pm
oh, what a blessing that would be right about now.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/24/2008 @ 1:02pm
Oh come on, FZ. Harper isn't half as bad as Bush, even by Canadian standards.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 2:46pm
Has it been considered to levy a small tax on media companies in order to fund campaigns? The airwaves are the property of the public. The Media companies will get much of the taxes back from the Campaigns.
Posted by pjsilver at 01/24/2008 @ 2:46pm
Posted by PJSILVER 01/24/2008 @ 2:46pm
So tax the Media...then give them back the money in television ad buys by the candidates?
Why not just make them give away free air-time?!?!? It's be the same thing.
Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 4:52pm
Thanks for the clarification as to the proper attribution to the Obama writer(s) Brunowe and Metteyya. Rest well.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/24/2008 @ 10:01pm
I would like to see a study done comparing the number of MSM articles and wire reports on a certain candidate, to the amount of cash paid by that candidate for advertising buys. You don't see Ron Paul articles, even after he finished third, but you do see Rudy articles, notwithstanding his lousy showings so far - but he does have advertising money to spend. I think that is a far more likely cause of the concentration on Obama and Clinton than any fascination with celebrity. The media whores - at CNN, AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, NYT, Time Warner and elsewhere - put out ONLY for the paying customers. Real Journalism is only found elsewhere.
Posted by sjduskin at 01/25/2008 @ 2:06pm
I say it is time to move forward and progress, and it is this ideal that makes one a progressive. We cannot afford to be held back by the shortsightedness of our founders, and must remove these shackles to achieve our awesome potential as Americans!
Posted by METTEYYA 01/23/2008 @ 8:16pm
Sorry I got into this one so late. You bring up a very valid point. The forefathers of this nation didn't have Internet access nor did television and radio exist.
They came up with a great frame work for our government to run upon, but they also didn't have a crystal ball to know all of the crap that would be pulled a couple hundred years later...and they sure as hell wouldn't have sat idly by while the constitution they wrote was being pissed on by our present administration in charge and congress sitting on their asses letting them do it.
Our government is an ever living and adapting entity. If it can't keep up with the times, this nation won't stand the test of time.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/26/2008 @ 2:59pm
INSTANT RUNOFF? Make up your mind, you either want transparency in elections or you want Instant Runoff. (IRV) Instant runoff is a misleading name, because it wrongly implies that you get the same results as a traditional different day runoff election. IRV changes how votes are cast, counted and valued. It makes elections more chaotic, harder to count, and crazy to audit.
IRV has been used 20 times in San Francisco and failed to produce a majority winner each time: http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/majority.html
IRV failed to produce a majority winner in the Cary North Carolina experiment this November. "If the best board of elections in North Carolina had this much trouble counting 3,000 votes, this is too dangerous to try statewide." ...Maxwell recounted her experience with the approach as a candidate. She said having to explain a novel voting process was a distraction from discussing the issues with voters.
She also recalled "very uncomfortable" requests from both Frantz and Roseland to include in her campaign literature that she wanted voters to mark that candidate as second on their ballots.
Dennis Berwyn of Raleigh, who worked on Maxwell's campaign, said she declined both requests.
Maxwell's experience was a prime example of how instant-runoff voting can lead to "candidate collusion," Berwyn said. "I don't recall the conversation going like that," Frantz said. "I don't recall asking her to put anything on her campaign literature."
http://www.carynews.com/news/story/8057.html
IRV doesn't increase turnout, and in San Francisco they had 100,000 fewer voters in the IRV/Mayoral contest in Nov 2007 compared to the traditional runoff contest for mayor in 2003 http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/turnout.html
IRV would have prevented the increased turnout that Rocky Mount NC experienced this November and Lois Watkins would not have won with a 60% majority. http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/biz/content/news/stories/2007/11/07/wa rd4.html
IRV will require more complex software for voting machines, and maybe new voting machines. This could cost states millions. States will be beta tests for new software. http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/votingsystems.html
North Carolina's voting machines are not IRV compatible. Most states' equipment is not. http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Keith_Long_Machines_Not_IRV_Compatible. pdf
More information at http://www.ncvoter.net/irv.html and www.instantrunoffvoting.us
IRV shifts costs to the back end of elections, with new voting equipment, more complex software, more complicated ballot programming, more ballot printing costs, higher voter education costs http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/costs.html
IRV made voting harder for 36% of disabled voters polled by the advocacy group Capability Scotland - in Scotland during their first IRV style election this year. http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/accessibility.html
North Carolina tested, not adopted - instant runoff voting in 2 cities. Many cities turned the experiment down cold, including Raleigh, our capitol city. Hopefully our state legislature won't let allow such an experiment with our votes happen again. Things like miscounting the ballots in one of the "test" cities, and having to be recounted another day, candidates trying to get each others endorsements, candidates spending great deal of time educating voters and also running for second place. A winner in an IRV contest who didn't get a majority of the votes. The experiment has brought opposition by voters rights groups.
Jan 22, 2008 08:53 Opinion mixed on Cary's instant-runoff trial Adam Arnold, Staff Writer http://www.carynews.com/news/story/8057.html
Jan 17, 2008 Cary Voters Split on Instant-Runoff Elections (also has video interview) WRAL http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2320027/
Jan 14, 2008 Point of View: Worrisome realities mar instant runoff" Raleigh News & Observer http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/IRV_Jan_14_Worrisome_realities_mar_inst ant_runoff.pdf (archived)
Oct 30, 2007 "Critics Take Runoff Concerns to Elections Board"NBC 17 http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/search.apx.-content-articles-NCN-20 07-10-30-0028.htm
Oct 19, 2007 Voter finds new system frustrating By Harrison Metzger Times-News. Hendersonville: Bill Modlin wasn't happy with his first experience with the new "instant runoff" voting when he cast his ballot for Hendersonville City Council on Thursday. ..."It doesn't make any sense to me, and I can guarantee you because of the way they have it set up there are people in this town that are going to lose their vote," he said. ..."I call it instant confusion," he said. http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20071019/NEWS/710190361
Oct 17, 2007 To stem runoff votes, new ballots have voters rank top 3 By Jordan Schrader, USA TODAY. CARY, N.C. - October 17, 2007 Winning candidate Frantz said he heard from many confused voters on the campaign trail ."I found myself, when I was at some places, that's all I was doing … explaining the new voting system," he said. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-17-Runoff_N.htm
Rocky Mount: More resist new runoff voting idea By Zach Ahmad Rocky Mount Telegram Monday, April 23, 2007.
Rueben Blackwell, Rocky Mount City Council Member and co-chair for the NC Justice Center advised that: "To cast out an instant runoff speculative experiment in communities that have had historic voting rights violations issues is absolutely wrong.." http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/04/23/i nstantrunoff.html http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/IRV_More_Resist_New_Runoff_Voting_idea_ Apr_23_07.pdf (cached)
Raleigh NC City Council turns IRV down cold http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Raleigh_City_Council_April_3_07_IRV_NO. pdf
Posted by laura_roslin at 01/27/2008 @ 02:44am
Thanks for the fairly lengthy critique of IRV, Laura. As a long-time supporter of serious campaign finance reform and a few year's long member of Common Cause, I appreciate your obvious desire to positively, comprehensively, and transparently reform our barely functional candidate selection process.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/27/2008 @ 12:09pm
We do need democracy promotion at home. The level of fraud and corruption is sickening.
* stuffed ballot boxes (putting Lyndon Johnson, Tim Johnson, Christine Gregoire, etc. into office) * corrupt courts (putting Lautenberg and ALMOST putting Al Gore into office) * multi-state registrations and voting * illegal voting (the extreme laxity in enforcement of voter registration requirements makes it simple for illegal aliens, felons, "Mickey Mouse", etc. to register; the laxity in purging voter rolls makes it easy for so dead people, felons, people who have moved to other states, etc. to vote; and the laxity of IDing voters makes it easy for all kinds of illegal voting, esp. in states that have the mail-in ballots)
The massive disenfranchisement of legitimate voters by having their votes cancelled out by illegal votes is a terrific threat to our third-world, banana republic quality elections. We desperately need positive IDing of voters to bring some measure of credibility to the system.
Posted by Lugnut at 01/28/2008 @ 12:10pm
Changing the TITLE of a piece to make it look like a NEW article and therefore re-energize the thread, Ms vanden Heuvel?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 3:03pm
What is really needed is a contitutional amendment that sayes something like:
No candidate may collect more to obtain an office than the office payes. No one may contibute to an office who can not vote. Congress and the states may provide for additional funding.
Posted by wmnorton at 01/29/2008 @ 11:48pm