Quantcast

Nation Topics - Mark Ritchie | The Nation

Topic Page

Nation Topics - Mark Ritchie

Articles

News, Blogs and Features

Unfortunately for Democrats, who have dominated statehouse politics since 2006, the party’s troubles at the national level extend to the states.

The author's list of the most valuable political and cultural activists and activist groups of the year.

Kudos to Minnesota's recount process; and kudos to Van Jones, 2008 recipient of the $100,000 Puffin/Nation Prize for green economy activism.

It's not that big a leap from the public service work done by community organizers and the pragmatic work of coalition-building done by elected officials.

In 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.

Worried about the integrity of today's election? You should be. The United States has a dysfunctional election system that produces unequal results depending on the state in which one lives, that is vulnerable to intimidation and manipulation, and that does not consistently guarantee that all eligible Americans can vote and have those votes counted.

The Florida debacle of 2000, the Ohio crisis of 2004 and the dozens of disasters in the primary voting this year have confirmed that the basis processes of our democracy are in need of radical repair.

But where does the process begin?

The Sunday Washington Post headline said it all. Echoing a theme that is finally being picked up by print and broadcast media that for too long has neglected the dramatic problems with this country's systems for casting and counting votes, the newspaper's front page announced: "Major Problems At Polls Feared: Some Officials Say Voting Law Changes And New Technology Will Cause Trouble."

Following a disastrous election day in Maryland that was defined by human blunders, technical glitches, long lines and long delays in vote counting so severe that some contests remain unresolved almost a week after the balloting, the Post declared that, "An overhaul in how states and localities record votes and administer elections since the Florida recount battle six years ago has created conditions that could trigger a repeat -- this time on a national scale -- of last week's Election Day debacle in the Maryland suburbs, election experts said."

No fooling!

Voting debacles in Florida and Ohio have inspired a new crop of Democratic candidates to run for Secretary of State, transforming an oft-neglected post into a platform for activism.

In his 1988 song "Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards," British troubadour Billy Bragg promised, "The Revolution is just a T-shirt away." It's taken a while, but the 2004 election could prove Bra

When plants in Nebraska carrying swine diarrhea drugs mingled with food for humans, all hell broke loose.

Archive

From The Archive

The article focuses on the outlook for the Democratic Party, in light of a Republican victory in the presidential election. After many years of watching the Democratic Party and its national candidates lose, organized labor, activist groups and wealthy progressives intervened in the 2004 campaign. Their goal was creating a "shadow party" that would be faster, smarter and more flexible than official Democrats could be on a landscape redefined by new campaign finance laws and White House political strategies. Groups such as America Coming Together (ACT), the Media Fund and MoveOnPAC succeeded, provided early advertising in battleground states, engaged in grassroots campaigns where the party was weak and drew millions of new and infrequent voters into the process. There is already a healthy discussion about the need to reach out to rural voters, whose overwhelming support for Bush and the Republicans offset gains in registration and turnout in urban areas of key battleground states. And, of course, there is a deeper discussion about whether 527 groups will remain satellites of the Democratic Party or seek to use their voter lists and other resources to influence the direction of the party in a more progressive direction. Mark Ritchie, national coordinator of the nonpartisan National Voice movement, says progressives must study the success of Florida and Ohio referendums to increase the minimum wage and consider using referendums and initiatives on economic issues to mobilize disenfranchised and disenchanted voters, just as conservatives do on social issues. Ritchie says. "We have to think more about how we say, 'You can make your life better by voting.' If we learn how to do that better, we'll see 2004 not as a year when a particular candidate lost but as a year when we all started a process of renewing and expanding our democracy."

December 6, 2004