Quantcast
Channel: Most People Don't Read This Kind of Material
Viewing all 60 articles
Browse latest View live

The Rise of the Republican Party

$
0
0
By Krist Novoselic

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 at a time when the issue of slavery was becoming ever more contentious. The party shared many policy goals with the Whigs. As Whigs were falling into disarray over slavery, Republicans, who clearly opposed it, spoke to Northern abolitionists. This led to the South’s secession and Civil War. Republican policy regarding a strong federal government dovetailed into the war effort.


Before 1854, the two dominant parties in national government were Whigs and Democrats – national entities holding seats in the North and South. However, when the issue of slavery arose in context of territorial expansion, these groups split along north / south lines. Democrats wanted to expand across the continent but Whigs opposed it. Whigs instead wanted an expansion of the federal government to guide growth and development within existing boundaries. They were also afraid the issue of extending slavery would cause political controversy. But Manifest Destiny had captured the imagination of most Americans. When congress needed to organize new territories, Whigs worked towards compromises with slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, along with the Compromise of 1850 are examples of how Whigs like Henry Clay crafted legislation with the intention of preserving the Union. However, Democrat Stephan Douglas blew the lid off previous compromises with his Kansas-Nebraska Act – in effect, repealing the Missouri Compromise by punting the slavery issue to the notion of popular sovereignty. The bill passed, but after splitting both Whigs and Democrats along sectional lines. The intraparty split was so bad among Whigs, they couldn’t nominate a candidate in 1856.

The new Republican party was clearly opposed to slavery and attracted anti-slavery Northerners, social reformers and the old Whig business interests that wanted a strong national government “to promote economic growth by supporting a protective tariff, transportation improvements and cheap land for western farmers”.

Although they didn’t win, Republicans did well in the 1856 election with their candidate John C. Frémont coming in second and the American (Know-Nothing) Party placing third. The new party accepted the result with optimism and an eye towards the election of 1860.

In the meantime, the US Supreme Court passed the notorious Dred Scott decision. This mortified Northerners because, as Illinois Republican Abraham Lincoln stated, “the decision could legalize slavery in states that abhorred it”. Another event that aggravated sectional tensions was abolitionist John Brown’s wild attempt to start a slave insurrection. These developments played into the election of 1860.

Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, while a contentious Democratic nomination process produced Stephan Douglas. Douglas and Lincoln both wanted to preserve the Union. Douglas thought he could do so with popular sovereignty regarding slavery with the territories, while Lincoln clearly opposed it. The Republicans also condemned John Brown’s raid to dispel notions of the party being radical abolitionists. Another candidate, Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, also ran for president and defended slavery. John Bell of the Constitutional Union party, favored compromise on slavery. In the end, Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote and a majority of electors. Notably, he won no votes in the South.

Mortified at a Republican Lincoln presidency, by the end of the year seven southern states seceded from the Union. In February these states created the Confederacy. Four more states of the upper South joined in April. The first shots between North and South rang in July at Bull Run Creek, Virginia. The war was on but the grim situation actually accommodated Republican Party policies.

The Republican Lincoln administration commanded the war. A focused Union war effort bred the conditions for a strong national government. 1862 brought the creation of a federal War Department with, “the unprecedented challenge of feeding, clothing, and arming 700,000 Union soldiers”. There were federal sale taxes and the first federal income tax on upper income earners to finance the war. The government started to print and distribute Treasury Notes while prohibiting state banks to create their own. Tariffs doubled, railroads were chartered, western land grants were offered and a Department of Agriculture was created. Less than sweeping, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on New Years Day 1863.

These powerful nationalizing of policies were rooted in the original Republican Party platform of 1856.

The war was over in April of 1865 with a devastated and totally defeated South. The Republican Congress with elements of the Party known as The Radicals had already established a Freedmen’s Bureau that assisted destitute slaves economically. This governmental agency also provided legal and educational help. The Radicals wanted to increase the scope of the bureau, but President Johnson, a Democrat who rose to the office upon Lincoln’s assassination, vetoed the bill. The 1866 election pitted a Republican Congress against a Democratic administration. Johnson came across as cantankerous in his denunciations of his rival’s policies that “stride towards centralization, and the concentration of all legislative powers in the national government.” Republicans, in turn reminded voters of Union sacrifices to win the war. This “waving the bloody shirt” strategy worked and Republicans increased their majority on both houses.

Radical Republicans also wanted to reconstruct the South with an ideal of Free Labor. This idea of individuals equally competing in the labor market while also enjoying political rights, was to be implemented by the power of a strong national government.

Republicans were cobbling an electoral coalition together in the South. It consisted mostly of African Americans. There were also Northern “carpetbaggers”, who adhered to the notion of free labor and other Republican policies. Others in the coalition were Southerners “Scalawags” who shared many pro-business sentiments with the Northern transplants. These Southern Republicans managed to dominate the ten constitutional conventions between 1867 and 1869.
Old Confederate leaders were barred from political participation and Union Troops occupied the defeated states. As a result, Republicans lacked legitimacy with Democrats. Republican focus on railroad building drained resources from education and other programs. The tendency for rail programs towards corruption also eroded confidence in the Republicans. By the mid 1870s, Democrats dominated southern legislatures.

Republican war hero Ulysses S. Grant beat Democrat Horatio Seymour by 306,000 votes in the 1868 election. Even though they suffered from violent intimidation in the South, African American Republicans gave Grant over 500,000 votes. Republicans also retained their large majorities in Congress.

From the party’s inception, Republicans clearly opposed slavery and full scale war ensued. The latent function of the Civil War was an accumulation of strength by the federal government that has never been reversed. The cost of war in terms of life was brutal, but the circumstances benefited Republican policy.

(This information was taken from Out of Many - A History of the American People Vol I, 6th Edition Faragher J.M., Buhle M.J. , Czitrom D., Armitage S.H)

Q & A Interview: Steven Reynolds For US House

$
0
0

"The Arab Spring was about people taking their rights and taking their dignity and Occupy Wall Street is about asserting our rights and asserting our dignity." - US House Candidate Steven "Cody" Reynolds
BY KRIST NOVOSELIC  Portland Oregon - November 23, 2011

I wrote a recent article for the Seattle Weekly about Steven Reynolds, Progressive Party Candidate for US House in this January's special election in Oregon's CD 1. I was struck by how much the Progressive Party platform mirrors sentiments of the Occupy Portland movement, so I contacted Reynolds and we sat down for an interview.

OWS and others stormed the first day of Washington State’s special legislative session last month. Now #OccupyPDX can storm the halls of congress by way of the public ballot. If OWS really is the 99 percent, with this election, they only need 25 percent +1 to win! And a strong second or third place could send a variety of messages to the movement across the nation about engaging electoral politics– just in time to get ready for the November 2012 election.


Krist Novoselic:  Let’s start with the Progressive Party.  How long have you been associated with this group?

Steven Reynolds:  I was taking courses at Portland State University and I always considered myself a Democrat. I was in a class with a lady who was a member of the candidate discovery committee for the Oregon Progressive Party.  It was a constitutional law course and we were talking about issues that affect everybody. She liked my rationale and suggested I come down to a Progressive Party meeting and find out what they are about. I started attending the meetings and liked their platform. If you check out the Progressive Party platform, you’ll find out that they are not fringe people. Their issues are real and affect people. I supported the platform but hadn’t really considered running for office until this summer when the debt ceiling debacle occurred and I just sort of got angry. It’s ridiculous that we are paying these politicians and all they are doing is bickering while people are hurting and I have a real problem with that.

I have gone to the Progressive Party website and I looked at their policy platform.  I’m not a Occupy Wall Streeter myself, but from what I understand your Party platform seems like a mirror of the issues Occupy Wall Street are advocating.

That’s really true. The core issues of the platform are that we were against the bailouts from the very beginning. It was corporate welfare. We are for higher tax margins on the top one percent. What is really the difference in making 150 million dollars a year and 200 million dollars a year? What is that, another super yacht? I don’t think it matters significantly to the person who is making that kind of money. We have an accelerating income gap between the 99% and the 1% that needs to be addressed. Other core issues; we are against cooperate personhood. I am a member of the Oregon Move to Amend Movement. We are drafting proposals for the Portland City Council to pass a resolution condemning the Citizens United case and asking an amendment to the constitution be made to reflect the fact that corporations are not people and money is not speech. These are three very important issues that mesh with the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Now there are some fringe elements in the Occupy Wall Street movement, people who may have anger that may be a little misplaced and they might be a little misinformed, but that anger America has is real and does need to be addressed.

The whole anti-corporate personhood thing.  So a corporation or a group will not have rights? Can a city like Springfield, Oregon pass a resolution banning Nirvana CDs? Do you think they should have the ability to do that because Nirvana is on a corporate label and a corporation doesn’t have rights?  

Well I think there is a distinct difference in that we’re talking about Nirvana’s label which is music and guaranteed expression of free speech. What we are talking about is corporations being able to spend money to affect the political outcome of an election. In the event that Nirvana starts spending money to influence elections, then yes I would say that they would lose that right to speech because our government is for the people. It is not for the business and when businesses have an interest in government, they need to exercise their influence in a manner that is fair. They have essentially unlimited resources. These mega-corporation do and you and I don’t. We have what we have and that’s it. 

Citizens United really had to do with associations and groups. The ruling mentions the Sierra Club, they mention NRA.  It was about a group being able to express itself because Citizens United was this right-wing group and you know this…

Yes, there was this thing with Hilary Clinton         

This group Citizens United made this hack job film about Hilary Clinton. The old law said associations like a corporation or a labor union couldn’t spend money so many days before an election. If PETA wanted to make a film about some candidate that supported slaughtering horses, before Citizens United a group like PETA couldn’t spend money. The Citizens United ruling also favored transparency with political contributions. And that could be seen as a nod on how to fix things. Citizens United wanted to hide who their donors were and the Court said they couldn’t do that. We need to think long and hard before we take rights away from groups. You and I agree that corporations have too much power and that they spend too much. But perhaps with solutions, we have a different perspective. 

Okay, so I think the fundamental difference is that groups like PETA, groups like the NRA they’re represented by people and they don’t have a profit incentive. They have a message. Corporations have a profit incentive. Corporations have boards of directors. If they had a separate board of directors that directed their speech based on a representation of their shareholders, maybe I’d have less of a problem with it but right now, they’re advocating on behalf of what’s best for them to make money and not what’s in the best interest for the people.

I see Occupy Wall Street with parallels to Arab Spring. Do you think it’s fair to say that?

I think that the Arab Spring was about people taking their rights and taking their dignity and Occupy Wall Street is about asserting our rights and asserting our dignity. We in the United States have been fortunate to live in a free society that is maybe becoming less free and people are recognizing that  and they are standing up and saying that that is not okay. Where as in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, they said, “We are not free. Let’s take our freedom.  Let’s fight for it.”

Let’s look at Tunisia and Egypt. What came out of these struggles were free and fair elections. A big improvement over the tyranny the people suffered under. So is there any sense in Occupy Wall Street, not that you speak on their behalf, but do you see what the next step is? Instead of camping in some park, perhaps it’s time to engage the electoral system like a special election for the United States House of Representatives in northwest Oregon in January.

You’re setting me up, but yeah, this is the last national election before another cycle starts before fall of 2012. If Oregon can reject the Democratic candidate and reject the Republican candidate in this election, then we can send a clear message that we are paying attention that our country is dysfunctional and it’s your fault Republicans and Democrats. It’s your fault and we are going to hold you accountable. I hope I inspire people across the nation to stand up to entrenched politicians.  Challenge them, challenge these people. Challenge them from the right.  Challenge them from the left, but make them defend their values because right now they are not. They are voting with the interest of staying elected and not in the interest of their constituents. I don’t think politicians respect their constituents because if they did we wouldn’t be having the issues we are having right now. 

So there is all this energy on the streets.  People are excited.  There’s a mobilization.  Do people in the movement recognize Steven Reynolds for United States House? Do they recognize the Progressive Party and are they willing to go and put that energy in things like knocking on doors?

So, I have had a real problem just getting my message out. People don’t know I exist but once people know that I exist they don’t disagree with my message.

You went to West Point.

I graduated from West Point and duty, honor, country; those words mean something to me. I have always had a strong commitment to service. As far as the Occupy Wall Street movement goes, I am not trying co-opt the movement.  I was angry before the movement started and I put my name in to run before Occupy Wall Street started. But we do have the same goals. I think that if enough people know that I exist and they know that I am serious about winning that they will put that energy behind me.

There was an open seat for the United States House across the river in Washington’s third congressional district in 2010. There was a record amount of money spent. Most of it coming from outside of the district – 7 million dollars.  A lot of that money went to television advertising and of course those slick mailers you get every other day. Bogus groups, like “People for Fairness” or “People for blah, blah, blah” -- when these were the usual lobbies. Anyway, there was a candidates debate sponsored on KATU television here in Portland and yourself, along with James Foster the Libertarian Party candidate, were excluded. Do you know how much money respectively or combined have the Republican and Democratic candidates raised so far in this race?

Well as of the Primary election, Susan Bonamici had raised nearly $600,000 and Rob Cornilles has raised close to $650,000. I’ve raised a total of a few hundred dollars. I can’t win if it comes down to money. I’m only accepting donations of up to $50.  I mean the Republican and Democratic candidates they go through a process that is known as bundling. They bundle individual contributions and that’s not free money. That’s money that comes with a string. That’s a favor that they owe someone.  Every time you see a politicians face on television that is a favor that they owe someone

Did the major party candidates buy television advertising during the primary campaign?

Steven:  Yes, Susan Bonamici, was on television three, four times an evening on multiple television stations.  And, Rob Cornilles essentially ran unopposed.  His brand of conservatism in any other state would be a Democratic platform essentially. Yes, he was running television commercials also.

Do you know how much the rate is for a thirty second ad on the 5:00 pm news in the Portland media market?

I haven’t even raised enough money to bother checking.  No I do not. 

Because you haven’t spent a dime on television advertising and you don’t have enough money to do so, are you surprised at all that you weren’t invited to this debate?

Yes. I think now is not the time to be suppressing third party voices.  I think that the media has a moral obligation to the people to make everybodies voices heard. Especially, with the anger that has been generated by the Occupy Wall Street movement.  People are angry and people are not happy with the electoral process but they don’t know they have choices. They assume when they see a third party candidate that this person must be crazy because I have never heard of them. When that’s not the case at all. They haven’t heard of them because they are being marginalized by the corporate parties and the corporate media.

Is there anything else you would like to say?

Really, I would challenge people to go to the Progressive Party website and look at what our platform is. Evaluate it. Does it align with your values and if it does I would ask you to vote your values come January when you have the chance. Don’t choose who you think has a chance of winning. Choose who you want to win. If you want me to win, I’m going to win.

Here are some more of my thoughts regarding OWS engaging elections. (Seattle Weekly Nov, 16, 2011)  HOW OCCUPY WALL STREET CAN OCCUPY THE BALLOT BOX
    

Book Perspective: Parades and the Politics of the Street

$
0
0

Parades and the Politics of the Street
Festive Culture in the Early American Republic
Simon P. Newman, 1997 University of Pennsylvania Press

PERSPECTIVE BY KRIST NOVOSELIC

Freedom, democracy and equality — these are the basic ideals of the American way. They capture the imagination, yet also form the basis of our laws. These tenets dominated the struggle for American independence and endure in romantic notions of the revolutionary era. The reality of the period, however, reveals a discrepancy between principles and practice as freedom, democracy and equality were reserved for white men of means. In Parades and the Politics of the Street, Simon P. Newman’s research focuses on the 1790s and how social events and other rites of participation were an important forum of political activity for those excluded from the franchise of democracy.


The creation of the United States tends to focus on those known as the Founders - the men who agitated for revolution and after independence signed onto the US Constitution. But this small group would have never succeeded without broad based support. They needed rural farm folk, craftsman and artisans, free and enslaved black Americans and, of course, the female sex. A popular culture rooted in revolutionary spirit was expressed through parades, songs, feasts, toasts and symbolic rites.

Once independence was won, this means of expression endured into the partisan politics of the new republic. Newman’s research shows us how the rivalry between the Democratic Republicans and Federalists manifested among the general populace.

Newman has combed through complete runs of over fifty late 18th Century periodicals. He also examined journals, magazines, diaries and correspondence of the era. As a result, the footnotes are extensive  and the bibliography itself is twenty pages long. This academic tome can read like a chronology of events, so at times the narrative suffers. Nevertheless, this extensive catalog of actual proceedings paints a good picture of how robust and broad based political expression was the beginning of the United States.

Newman’s vast collection of sources is itself an example of how important the role of the press was in shaping and sustaining political culture in the early republic. Americans of all walks of life could not only participate in events, those who were able could read about similar proceedings in other states and cities. Citizens were erecting liberty poles and wearing liberty caps and these symbols also appeared in the illustrations of periodicals – mostly those sympathetic to Democratic Republicans.

So what were these symbols and rites and what was their meaning?

Toasting for or against certain ideas or people was an important articulation of political belief. Decorating liberty trees and erecting liberty poles was a common practice in the American Revolutionary era. In the 1790’s, the liberty pole went on as the symbol of support for the French Revolution and its heady ideals of fraternity and liberty. The red, white and blue cockade along with singing the “Ça Ira”, both imported from Republican France , was popular among common folk. People celebrated American Independence Day. All these rites included marches, parades and civic feasts; events on the street level practiced by those whose interests were with Democratic Republican policies.

On the other hand, Federalists consciously constructed a presidential culture of and around George Washington hoping that popular support for their leader would be favorable for the enactment of their policies. The Federalists presented the first president in a way that appeared monarchical. Washington himself conducted levies and receptions that held a regal tone. This was a reflection of the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and other Federalists in a hierarchical society.

Democratic Republicans needed to attack this anti-revolutionary notion of some kind of American king. While the tone of Washington’s presidency was an issue, however, it was the first administration’s support for fiscal policies that appeared to benefit elite monied interests that fanned the flames of partisan expression among common folk.

Because of Washington’s enormous popularity, it was difficult to separate the attacks on the administration’s practices and policies from that of the national hero himself. Democratic Republicans would toast Washington, but with qualifications. They would honor the hero, but also include mentions of liberty and other republican values.

Popular reaction to the monarchist tendencies of the Federalists, along with discontent over the Jay Treaty with the British, manifested in widespread celebrations of the French Revolution. It’s here that Democratic Republicans worked to win public sentiment, but it was not without its problems. These celebrations tended to engage women, low status whites and blacks. Women could be seen as straying too far into the male domain of the public sphere. And, of course many Democratic Republicans adamantly opposed the extension of French revolutionary ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality to black Americans. Free black Americans were wearing liberty caps as a celebration of the respective French and Haitian revolutions  - events rooted in violent overthrow that made white men uncomfortable regardless of their political allegiances.

Both parties and their supporters celebrated Independence Day. But even these events were partisan with both sides holding their own festivities. If there was one thing shared among the factions, it was the systematic exclusion of blacks – people drawn to the notion of liberty and equality for serious reasons.  Free blacks were literally chased away from celebrations. They then held their own explicitly black alternative to the Fourth of July celebrating Haitian Independence Day every January. This is yet another example of celebrations and rites as a form of political expression.

Watching low status Americans celebrate the French Revolution only confirmed the hierarchical tendencies of the Federalists. They associated the worst crowd violence of the French Revolution with oppositional culture in the United States. Federalists felt that French King Louis XVI was cruelly assassinated. The popular tri-colored cockade was to Federalists a symbol of despotism and anarchy.

Newman’s study is a remarkable account of the political polarization that appeared at the very outset of the United States. It strikes me how consistent the popular expression of partisanship is over time. Today, we tend to look at American politics in terms of red and blue. During the 1790’s, what color of cockade one wore sent a message of allegiance. Those who tended to support Federalist policies wore the black cockade – a symbol of the revolutionary war.  But it was Democratic Republicans with many women, low status white and black supporters who chose to wear the red, white and blue cockade – a symbol of the French revolution. I see this as a precursor to bumper stickers or political buttons that people exhibit today.

In his conclusion Newman states how the rites and symbols of political participation in the streets endured to influence later popular movements like civil rights and universal suffrage. In my opinion, considering the long-term struggle for inclusion, it seems like a shame that more people are not participating today .

It’s common for people to decry the partisanship in our current politics as if it were a recent phenomenon. But Newman’s work shows that partisanship has been with us from the start of the nation. Furthermore, when people are not verbally expressing their beliefs, they’re still finding symbols or converging in public events that convey a message .

   

Bigmouths Funding Political Ads

$
0
0
By Krist Novoselic

Recent court decisions are providing a virtual template for increasing transparency in elections. If the courts say money is speech, and groups can make unlimited political contributions, these opinions support rules for election media to reveal the mouth behind the money.


The 9th Circuit Court recently ruled in FAMILY PAC v. MCKENNA that a Washington State law banning political committees from accepting -from any one person- contributions exceeding $5,000 within 21 days of a general election is an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The ruling also rejected arguments that disclosing the names and occupations of donors who gave more than $25 would “chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation.” There is a straight line from this ruling to the infamous Citizens United case where contribution restrictions were repealed but transparency was preserved.

Here are some quotes from the Family PAC ruling offering a nice perspective on transparency within elections:

 “Given the complexity of the issues and the unwillingness of much of the electorate to independently study the propriety of individual ballot measures, we think being able to evaluate who is doing the talking is of great importance.”  
Disclosure also gives voters insight into the actual policy ramifications of a ballot measure. “Knowing which interested parties back or oppose a ballot measure is critical, especially when one considers that ballot-measure language is typically confusing, and the longterm policy ramifications of the ballot measure are often unknown.”   
“At least by knowing who backs or opposes a given initiative, voters will have a pretty good idea of who stands to benefit from the legislation.” In addition, “mandating disclosure of the financiers of a ballot initiative may prevent ‘the wolf from masquerading in sheep’s clothing. (observing that the names groups give themselves for disclosure purposes are frequently ambiguous or misleading).

There are new laws in Washington State that echo the sentiments of the ruling above. The law now requires the name of the sponsor of an election ad appear on the media. This is great because I want to know who the assholes are that send all the negative advertising and bogus claims to my mailbox.

In an independent expenditure* or electioneering communication on television or other medium that includes a visual image, the following statement must either be clearly spoken, or appear in print and be visible for at least four seconds: "No candidate authorized this ad. Paid for by (name, city, state)."

If the advertisement or communication is undertaken by a non-individual other than a party organization, then the following notation must also be included: "Top Five Contributors" followed by a listing of the names of the five persons or entities making the largest contributions in excess of seven hundred dollars.

Did you catch – “non-individual”? The law seeks to peel back an ambiguous group name to point towards actual living breathing people. Participating in democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. We need more names and less front groups. Simple statutes can tie actual names to the big money advertising that dominates politics. Let's lift the rock and shine a light on these buggers.


*Ads that are made on behalf of a campaign where the candidate has no knowledge of the effort.

Open Government Conference

$
0
0

The Washington Coalition for Open Government presents the 3rd annual

OPEN GOVERNMENT SUNSHINE WEEK CONFERENCE
Open Government: Past, Present and Future


Saturday, March 10, 2012
9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
Women’s University Club
1105 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA

Ads Should Reveal Individuals Funding Electioneering

$
0
0
By KRIST NOVOSELIC

The US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010),
Citizens United [the group] argues that the disclaimer requirements in §311* are unconstitutional as applied to its ads. It contends that the governmental interest in providing information to the electorate does not justify requiring disclaimers for any commercial advertisements, including the ones at issue here. We [the court] disagree. . . . At the very least, the disclaimers avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party.**
I wrote last week about new rules in Washington State regarding disclosure with electioneering and how recent court rulings can be guides for greater transparency. Washington State laws require the sponsor of political ads appear in the media. The sponsor needs to be an actual human being and not a happy-name smokescreen hiding big money donors. This week I suggest how disclosure rules with federal races need to be modeled on Washington law.


A big story in the horse race coverage of the GOP presidential primary is how much media the so-called super PACs are buying. While it takes a simple visit to Open Secrets to find out who's funding these campaign tools, federal laws about electioneering and disclosure are still behind in serving transparency. Here's a typical ad, and please take note of the last few seconds:


Does it really help to know that a happy-name front group has bought yet another political ad? The disclaimer at the end should instead say, "Sheldon Adelson is responsible for the content of this message". It has been reported Mr. Adelson gave $5 million to the super PAC Winning Our Future that is funding these ads supporting the Newt Gingrich campaign for president.

According to the Citizens United ruling, which paved the way for the creation of the super PACs, voters need to be aware of who is funding electioneering as, ". . . transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

Why not also have an actual image of the largest contributor to a super PAC within the disclaimer?  Perhaps then the big donors could think twice before paying for political ads that plaster their own name and face all over the media. At the very least, voters will know who really paid for the ad.

* Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act section 311 contains a disclaimer provision for electioneering communications. The entity responsible for the communication, if not authorized by the candidate or the candidate’s political committee, must contain a statement that the organization “is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

** p 52

Citizens Unite To Engage Congress

$
0
0
"G is for Google"
It’s ironic that the biggest event during the two year anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling was citizens uniting with corporations to kill the SOPA / PIPA legislation in Congress. Do we really need to overturn Citizens United – a decision that lifted prohibitions on political advertising on television – when the information revolution is rapidly merging TV, computers, cell phones and other gizmos?


The protest against SOPA / PIPA was a milestone in the convergence of technology and our democratic process. Top technology corporations joined forces with internet users resulting in a massive mobilization that effectively killed the bills in almost no time at all. In an age where approval of congress is at an all time low and cynicism towards government widespread, after last Wednesday’s protest, there should be no question that when people engage the system with social media, they can get results.

American technology corporations like Google, Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft, AOL, PayPal and others didn’t want new laws compelling them to root out foreign companies violating copyrights. Many individual internet users didn’t trust the government control proposed by the legislation. These interests converged resulting in a historic mobilization utilizing 1st Amendment rights. This convergence of people enjoyed the rights of association, freedom of speech, petitioning the government and even, if need be, prayer!

Citizens Should Unite

The Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission ruling has a clear impact in this year’s election process. The decision repealed laws prohibiting any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure 30 days before a federal primary election*. This paved the way for wealthy individuals and or corporations to now band millions of dollars together with what is loosely known as a super PAC. The super PAC will assume a nice sounding name then flood media markets in the days prior to a primary with ads that support or oppose a candidate.

Considering the glaring lack of transparency behind the mounds of special interest political cash, most people are leery of super PACs dominating media during elections - myself included.

Google Exercising Their Constitutional Right To Speak
Before the Citizens United ruling, a corporation like Google couldn’t promote on TV which candidates could be for, or against, legislation like SOPA and PIPA within 60 days before a federal general election. But Google is a massive media company itself that doesn’t need television as we know it today. As we found out with last week's protest, this corporation can easily disseminate a widespread message to help persuade public opinion.

The US Supreme Court was keenly aware of the convergence of technologies in the Citizens United ruling. They said,

Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. . . . Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. . . . Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b** would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech. (Opinion of the Court p 49.)

Imagine if SOPA, PIPA or even some new legislation proposed censorship that, “. . . would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds”? Many people opposed SOPA and PIPA for the simple reason they don’t want more government regulation of the internet.

Let's think long and hard before we take the rights away from groups engaged in free enterprise with an amendment to the US Constitution that will allow the regulation of corporate speech on the internet.

* 60 Days preceding a federal general election.
** (The expenditure prohibition.)

The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance


Digital Democracy’s Greatest Hits

$
0
0
The Next Big Thing?
The recent SOPA / PIPA protest was a milestone for the convergence of democracy and social networking. Let’s look at other important events along the path towards a breakthrough with American politics.


Our elections are pretty stagnant. All attention is on the current GOP primaries. It’s mostly the same old faces in a nominating contest that revolves around expensive television ads. Then it's a two-party contest in November – unless the phenomenon of digital democracy makes another splash!

To help give us a sense of where we're headed, here’s the timeline with the convergence of democracy and social networking:

Digital Democracy’s Greatest Hits:
2004– Howard Dean’s campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. It's a seminal sound as Dean bolts to the front of contenders early by utilizing Meet-Up technology.

2008– Ron Paul is the conservative / libertarian version of the Dean campaign where supporters tune in via the Web.   
These campaigns are insurgent within the two major parties. It's Punk!
2008– Obama For America (OFA). Barack Obama is an establishment candidate finding his groove by declining public financing. He uses a blend of social media and traditional private contributions while his GOP challenger goes old-school; taking only government funding to be badly outspent and lose.
2010 - TEA Party conservatives engage social media for mid-term election organizing. This is a minor hit.
2012– January SOPA / PIPA blockbuster protest where corporations (profit and non-profit) help mobilize web users to kill anti-piracy legislation in Congress as fast as a hyper-click. 
These are the biggies so far. I believe it’s just a matter of time until something huge breaks that brings in the new wave of democracy.

Guess who’s not on the roster of up and coming bands? Yes, the crusty Democratic and Republican parties!* They're still tuned into the golden oldies of state funded primaries and ritualistic caucuses.

New groups are trying to harness the tremendous organizing power of technology with efforts like No Labels, Ruckus, Votizen and Americans Elect. These are not Twitter or Facebook accounts augmenting slick and incessant television ads, but groups trying to break into the top ten of internet political hits.

I think Americans Elect is the most promising up and comer because they’re actually going to nominate a candidate for the ballot. They are doing the crucial groundwork of filing for the public ballot in 50 states. The group wants to engage people with an online nominating convention. This could result in a personality emerging that many voters identify with.

Google, Wikipedia and other tech leaders helped ignite a mobilization with the SOPA / PIPA issue. A presidential campaign can also capture the imagination and rally people.

Americans Elect are currently leaders with presidential primary reform and that itself gets them close to joining the list of hits above. The effort is rooted in the digital age notion of social networking so don't be surprised if many start humming along to this new tune as this election year unfolds.

* (I don't count OFA because it’s a brand mostly independent of the Democratic party.)

More reading on this:  By Any Other Name - It's  Party! Krist Novoselic, FairVote Blog 29.6.2011

Bathers With Toy Boat

$
0
0
PABLO PICASSO 
Girls With A Toy Boat 
(1937)
In the late 1990’s I paid a visit to Venice, Italy and the Guggenheim Museum. It was there that I came upon Picasso’s Bathers With A Toy Boat. There was a lot of movement in the painting on both sides / shades of the beautiful blue horizon. Who and what was that strange creature peeking up from the edge of the world? The women, abstract impressions of the human body, were also fussing over a toy boat. Was that creature peeking a reflection of myself watching the action with the tiny vessel? All this amidst a clear blue sea and sky – a reflection, in my mind, of the tranquility I had experienced on the shores of the Adriatic Sea in Croatia. The work told me a story and much like a mirror, it seemed to be my own.


There was a personal connection at that moment but like many good things, they don’t last. I needed to keep moving through the Peggy Guggenheim in Venice. But that’s what gift shops are for so I bought a nice poster print that I have framed in my home.

There are not really any correct proportions to the figures, maybe with the toy boat, but that’s the point of Picasso, I guess? The colors are calm, conjuring soothing recollections of the sea and clear sky.

Good art should invite the viewer inside and, in turn, I invited the print of the work into my home where more personal meanings developed. We had a dog named Julie Jewell who in the mornings would peek up over our bed to wake us. It didn’t take long for me to associate this pup with Picasso’s observant being popping out from beyond the horizon. That’s something that only I can own, so I guess I got my money’s worth in the gift shop! On the other hand, the actual work of art is probably priceless but what worth do I put on my own experience with Picasso’s expression?

Picasso seems like the quintessential highbrow art acquisition. His name can be synonymous with Christie’s Fine Art Auctions. It would be nice to have an original Picasso but that’s out of the question. As I look around the walls of my home I see a lot of original art. And it occurs to me that it all has personal meaning. I don’t own any art that was an investment. It’s all acquired through some kind of experience or it’s our own work. My wife is a textile artist and her work is up, along with other artists we know. There are also pieces that represent Nirvana such as album covers and photos of the band.

I believe that art should be enduring therefore it’s transient. I mean, it’s on the move and it should be here when we’re gone and others will have their own interpretations.

Picasso invented his own style. His name is synonymous with the Cubist aesthetic. I don’t know if a more literal representation of the human form would have the same effect on me? Probably not, as I can’t image how else to represent the enigmatic figure rising from the horizon. Perhaps that would be an interesting painting – a nod to Bathers With A Toy boat – if the artist could pull off what Picasso did with that peeking? But the Cubism is asking the brain to process forms differently. That’s likely why modern art has gotten in so much trouble – you start to look at life differently and certain forces might not have that in their interest. If the art is a mirror, then you’re looking at yourself differently which is likely a good thing because various perspectives are usually better than a single view. Then art has become truly transformative. If it’s changing individuals, then it’s on the way to transform society. Hello to the new era of art, and the new era of humanity. No wonder people who don’t want change feel so threatened by some art?

Digital Age Nominations

$
0
0
Unafraid of Digital Democracy
The Illinois Green Party is currently conducting it's presidential primary. What's exciting, for me at least, is how voters can participate online if they like. I wrote a guest blog for the Ruck.us last week where I shared examples of groups holding nominations outside of state controlled open primaries. The IL Greens are another example of how our democracy is transforming into the digital age.

The Greens will also hold caucuses in conjunction with the online primary. I also find it compelling that IL Green rules allow folks 13 years and older to participate. This piqued my interest as the Grange, a group I'm a member of, allows full membership to 14 year olds. This is a feature of the Grange's mission to foster civic values.

Thumbs up to the Illinois Green Party for their leadership with inclusive democracy!

Planes, Amps & Transfer Values

$
0
0
I touch on three things in this post: The Super Vacuum Tube (SVT) bass amp, Synthetic Vision Technology (SVT) avionics and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). These acronyms represent sophisticated systems that hold meaning in my life. And what the heck, I needed a theme for this week!


SVT Bass Amp Even though the name implies a vacuum tube, the SVT I mostly played was a solid-state rig -- the SVT 400T. This was altogether a different beast from the old-school SVT. My amp had a steady sound with the right kind of growl to punch through. I bought this amp brand new around 1990 and it made it through many crazy Nirvana shows. It survived to where I used it on the entire Nevermind recording. Today the amp is a museum piece at the EMP in Seattle. It was pretty worn out by the time we finished the album, and we wound up selling so many records, I bought a new amp! My 400T took many falls off the top of a speaker cabinet but kept right on playing. It could manage a two ohm load and put out enough wattage to power two 2 X 15 cabinets. I remember a show at the Blind Pig in Ann Arbor that was so hot, sweaty and beer soaked the amp went thermal and shut off. A few minutes later it cooled off enough and restarted.

I don't know if the vacuum version of the SVT could have held up as much? I used them though, mostly when we were renting gear overseas. I played an old, tube SVT at the Nevermind 20 year benefit concert at the EMP last year. At sound check I knew how to dial it in - press the heavy bass button, dump the midrange then dial in the high end to get the punch. I like these amps as you can hear the tubes blossom.

SVT Synthetic Vision Technology
I have been a pilot for ten years now. I learned to fly on the old fashioned "steam gauges". Those were the analog days, but unlike the debate in music between the merits of analog v. digital, the issue is settled with the benefits of digital and avionics. I love my Garmin G1000 in my Cessna 182T. The craft practically will fly itself and all the pilot has to do most of the time is manage the information system. I recently splurged and upgraded the avionics to include the SVT system. (Here's a video of me flying with the upgrade.)
Perhaps it was a good experience to learn to fly Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) with the old gauges. This made me develop a good sense of situational awareness without a GPS practically holding your hand. The SVT uses GPS information to look like a video game that gives you precise information about terrain in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). In other words, when you're flying in a cloud, you know what the ground looks like. However, I can't image flying with the SVT alone. Why would you deviate from controller vectors or the published airways and altitude minimums on a chart? These old fashioned paper tools were created to make your IFR trip safe. Furthermore, determining which safe altitude to fly is central to pre-flight planing - you decide how high to fly over the mountains well before the plane wheels leave the ground.

One of my checklist items on final approach, when I have the field in actual sight, is to turn off the SVT. It shows the runway on short final, and it tends to pop up on the panel. Watching airspeed just before the flare / landing is crucial and it helps not to have a busy panel image flashing in your face.

I think the SVT would be priceless in a forced landing situation at night or in IMC. It could steer you away from hills and other obstacles.

At times the IFR environment can get busy, and anything that lightens the load can help safe flying. That said, nothing beats flying by the rules, along published procedures, or if the weather is so bad - don't fly atall.

STV Single Transferable Vote
This method of elections is at the center of my political work. It is the kind of proportional representation (PR) I want to see more of in the United States. (Check out the great YouTube demonstration of how it works.)

STV is one of the versions of PR that is used in the United States. European democracies tend to use party list PR systems, and there is no tradition of list systems in English speaking countries. STV was devised in England in the mid 19th Century as a candidate-based way to to giveboth the minority and majority a seat in government. It soon spread to Ireland and Australia where it has been used to this day in national elections. It is also used in Scotland for local elections.

STV was introduced in the US over one hundred years ago and gained traction in the progressive era. Like non-partisan ballots and open-primaries, STV was a reform that took on the problems of political machines and bossism in the single-member district or ward. It did so by offering voters the opportunity to choose multiple candidates that win seats in multi-member districts. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Parties would nominate their candidates - but voters could choose the candidates they preferred regardless of party. You could choose candidates of various parties or even independents!

STV gained a lot of traction mostly in the major cites of Ohio. New York City used the system also. The Oregon State constitution was amended to explicitly accommodate it.

The system worked really well and the party bosses hated it. This meant there was a repeal on the ballot in these jurisdictions almost every year STV was in use. The insiders also tried to sue, but the courts have found it constitutional.

It was in the civil rights era and the Red Scare which created the conditions that brought down STV. Since it gave a voice to minorities, more blacks were getting elected. This caused "whisper" campaigns about the need to dump STV. In NYC, a couple of communists were elected and that gave opponents an opening. Like throwing boiled spaghetti against a wall, opponents lobbed anything they could against this reform to see what would stick. It was called Mussolini voting, or Stalin voting. The criticisms mounted in the ugly environment of racial tensions and nationalistic paranoia. STV ultimately fell in most places in the US except Cambridge Massachusetts, where it's still used today. Minneapolis just started using it for some elections though!

There's a derivative of STV called Ranked Choice Voting (among other titles). Those who are interested in promoting this reform, need to be aware of the history of preferential ballots in the USA and how over the top some critics can be.

No election system is perfect but the Single Transferable Vote is a sophisticated vote counting method that provides voters wide open choices. STV accommodates political association at no expense to independent minded voters. It takes the power away from the partisan gerrymanders aligned with the new political party / super PAC machines to put it where it belongs - in the hands of voters.

So there you have it! Three areas of my life with similar initials. Thanks for reading my blog. 


For more information on history of the Single Transferable Vote, check out the source I used in this post --- Proportional Representation & Election Reform in Ohio K. L. Barber, Ohio State University Press ISBN 0-8142-0660-3

Old Hickory

$
0
0
Old Hickory
Andrew Jackson was a populist president serving from 1829 to 1837. His election reflected the new phenomenon of universal white male suffrage. The common man could now vote and Jackson felt he spoke for ordinary people against special privilege. This perspective manifested itself with his administration’s policies - in some ways that proved tragic.


Jackson was suspicious of the power of a strong Federal government. It is cruelly ironic that his Indian policy proved this point. Even though evidence showed that natives were assimilating into Anglo-centric American culture, Jackson, with the support of white settlers, implemented a Federal policy of ethnic cleansing the native people of the southeast United States. These people were relocated, at great cost of life, to areas west of the Mississippi.

Jackson opposed paper money and fought against the Second Bank of the United States. This institution provided stability to the mostly wide-open economics of the era. The Bank was where the Federal Government kept its money. Jackson opposed this concentration of power by those who he considered elites. He didn’t trust the bankers in charge of this enterprise – a suspicion that was widely shared by ordinary people. Jackson vetoed the extension of the Bank’s charter and this action established a more laissez-faire American economy. A subsequent cycle of speculative boom and bust periods culminated in the Panic of 1837; which was the start of a six-year recession.
Pre-1928 $20.00 Note

Jackson's image was added to the twenty dollar bill in 1928. The $20 featured the image of Grover Cleveland prior to that time.

(Work Cited: Out of Many Vol. I A History of the American People Faragher, Buhle, Czitrom, Armitage 6th edition 2009)

What A Great Week!

$
0
0


It was a blast playing the 12.12.12 Sandy benefit show and Saturday Night Live with Dave Grohl, Pat Smear and Paul McCartney. I really liked jamming with Pat and Dave again -- and what a great experience playing with Paul!

The collaboration came out of the Sound CIty film that was produced and directed by Dave. He asked me if I wanted to play with him, Pat and Paul? I said YES! It was a wonderful day -- Paul came in with this cigar box guitar and started playing some mean slide on it. He said it was in a "D". Hearing that, Grunge instincts took over my left hand and I dropped the E on the bass to D. Pat and Dave got into it and the tune took shape. Paul flashed a riff and we picked it up. I busted another one out and everyone picked it up. Things started coming together.

It was so exciting to play with Paul. I became seized with thoughts, for I hadn't played like that with Pat or Dave since the last Nirvana show in 1994. Wow, it was emotionally and musically heavy! Some other things brought me back; there was a Lefty on guitar who was a heck of a songwriter. Anyway, words can't really describe it and I returned to the task at hand. A new song was born! And that's about it. That's all it is -- a new song by some players who have doing it for a while.

The Sound City film is about people coming together to make music -- and I feel that's what we did. The Sandy Benefit was a lot of fun and it felt good to participate in a good cause. Don't have any crazy backstage stories -- Pat and Dave and I had this little corner of Madison Square Garden to hang out in. Except for Paul and his band, I didn't see any of the other big acts backstage. We got there around 5:30pm and waited until after midnight to play.

SNL was a blast. Martin Short was hilarious! My only disappointment was they actually cut a great skit from the broadcast. It was a great among greats so I guess that's what we get. (Watch it here!) I think that was our best performance of "Cut Me Some Slack" for the whole week.

Thanks for a great week to SAM management and the people who work with Paul McCartney. 

That's about it for now.  More tomorrow. -- Krist



More Important News

$
0
0

One of the best meta-media names for the collaboration between Pat, Dave, Paul and I is "Sirvana". That said, Sir Paul McCartney is a really down to earth person. He's rock royalty too and with roots in the working class city of Liverpool. I could relate as Nirvana has roots in the US northwestern city of Inverness, Washington. 

Dave Grohl has been a frequent guest to the Obama White House. The Foo Fighters have rocked the executive branch of the US government many times. Still, I bet it irks Dave that the president hasn't knighted him. And Pat? Forget it -- he's half black and it distresses me that race is still an issue in American politics.

As far as names for the collaboration go, there is no consensus. It's been decided to call it "The Nirvana Reunion" and "Thee Beatles" -- to convey the project is something new and not a nod to musical endeavors past. It was initially thought to alternate between each name every other week. After many days of discussions, the lighting-quick pace of today's technology was considered and our plans changed. Instead, the two names will alternate every .0000012 of a second. This way web surfers have a good chance of seeing both names as much as possible. The algorithm for this exciting new technology is being coded as we speak, and if all goes well, it should be included on the next version of every major browser at the end of 2014 when the names are officially debuted.

At that time, any media using the new names will have to have their legal people contact our legal people -- for legal reasons. Any use on social media, blogs, SMS text etc. will have to be cleared for permission. This situation is a result of the 2010 "Citizens United" ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. We have also filed the paperwork for a new super PAC called, "Americans For A Better America" that will make contributions to political campaigns in the US and United Kingdom.

That's it for now. More news as it happens. 


The Amygdala: An “Exciting” Part of the Brain

$
0
0
"If I Only Had A Brain!"

The brain is usually referred to as if it were a single organ. However, the brain is a system with multiple and distinct components performing certain tasks for the body and mind. One such component, the Amygdala (amygdaloid nucleus), plays an important part in our emotional processes. It can jolt our bodies in fear, form emotional memories, helps us feel our dreams and can shape the effects of certain stress disorders and phobias. Indeed, the amygdala is where the excitement is at in our bodies.



Amygdala is the Latin word for almond. Anatomically, it is part of our limbic system including the hippocampus and basal ganglia. This group of structures deals with motivation, learning and memory. The amygdala is a mass of gray matter reaching into each hemisphere of the brain. The two amygdale sit on the horn-like tips of the hippocampus. They work with our sympathetic nervous system to put the body in a state of “fight-or-flight”. This means the body puts all its resources towards surviving a threat.  The amygdala assesses stimuli extremely fast and that is how we get excited – information on a potential threat is sent directly from the thalamus and our body reacts with increased heart rate and better vision among other effects, such as processes of the bowels being stopped. While this is occuring, the thalamus sends information about the stimulus to the cortex which, to put it loosely, takes a while to think about it. This dual appraisal system gets us on our feet to aid in survival. However, the cortex could determine the stimulus was only a harmless spooking thus signaling the amygdala an all-clear so our body can relax.


The amygdala has an important role in memory. It reminds us, for better or worse, of past situations. Since it is so emotional, the amygdala is responsible for those persistent thoughts we wish we would forget (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner 6.5.7). It nags us with recollections of painful or shocking events. Flash bulb memories are vivid in our minds where we can remember where we were and what we were doing at the moment bad news came. Now when I hear someone say, “I still get worked up over that old situation”, I know it is the amygdala causing physiological reactions. We need not fret too much however, as we can deal with persistence in memory and reframe things to help cope with lingering emotional pain (16.3.1). It’s about looking at the past in a new way that can facilitate emotional healing.


The amygdala is central in fear conditioning. Rats who were conditioned to associate a tone with pain reacted with freezing, which is a natural response to a threat where they crouch down motionless. The animal’s appraisal of the tone caused its amygdala to activate the sympathetic nervous system’s physiological effects.


Rats were conditioned in a lab experiment to get physically stressed out by a tone. But some people get stressed at the mere thought of rats! A quick trip to the Phobia List site tells us this is referred to as zemmiphobia. While this is a pseudo-medical term, the real fear could be based in preparedness theory, which means there is a natural reason to be afraid of rats who can bite and spread disease. As a result of adaptation, humans could be predisposed to fear rats. I have seen a person shriek at the sight of a rat – an example of the amygdala in action! Phobias are also linked to high levels of activity in the amygdala (14.2.2). A phobic disorder is persistent and excessive fear of specific objects. For example, this means some people can be really afraid of rats in a way that is irrational.


The size of the amygdala can also affect our behavior. Japanese researchers have evidence produced by brain scans that a smaller amygdala is associated with anxiety in patients with panic disorder (Hayano, et al., 2009). The researchers first diagnosed the patients using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Anxiety disorders are number 7 on the DSM-IV list. The research states, “The basic conception of PD [panic disorder] is fear of panic attack and anticipatory anxiety, ‘Panic attack may happen to me’. Fear and anxiety are inseparably connected the function of the amygdala, and the sense of fear is stored in the hippocampus area (267).” It is that nagging, persistent memory that creates the vicious circle of the fear of a panic attack causing an attack itself. The research suggests a smaller amygdala could indicate a dysfunctional aspect of that region of the brain (274). In other words, the little amygdala is causing big worries that lead to negative physical reactions.


Being an excitable part of the brain, the amygdala works day and night to even affect our sleep. This is how we intensely feel emotion in our dreams, whether it is bliss, terror, love or awe (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner 5.2.2). The amygdala is acting with the visual association area of the brain, conjuring emotionally stirring images that can result in a nightmare and waking up from a scary dream.


Why am I compelled by the amygdala? I suppose it is my frequent interaction with it. Certain emotional memories persist in my mind. Some are good but I can’t seem to shake many that are bad. Recollections of painful events and personal losses come back to me every now and then. I still feel these events and that is my amygdala at work. Personally, hard life experiences have almost always resulted in hard lessons. It is not like Dr. B.F. Skinner experimenting on a rat, but it can be fear conditioning of sorts. The term, “once bitten, twice shy” could be about reacting to memories of real pain stored in the amygdala. Sometimes, with those persistent memories, I wonder if I only knew then what I know now? It is not about so much about knowledge but rather it is wisdom and that is something time and experience can produce – or I would at least hope so! The amygdala is there to remind us of what experiences felt like so we can avoid them if possible. Those little “almonds” strung together in the middle of our brain could be the roots of our own wisdom – which means knowing how to go about current situations because we are frequently reminded by feeling similar past experiences.





Hayano, F., Nakamura, M., Asami, T., Uehara, K., Yoshida, T., Roppongi, T., Otsuka, T., Hirayasu, Y., Inoue, T., (2009) Smaller amygdala is associated with anxiety in patients with panic disorder. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 63 266–276

Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner Psychology (Second Edition)






Christmas With Zoroaster!

$
0
0
Zoroaster

The late Freddy Mercury, singer of one of my favorite Rock bands Queen, has a heritage from the Zoroastrianism tradition. Mercury, born Farrokh Bulsara, died in 1991 due to the HIV virus. I was sad about this and in listening to the news regarding his memorial, it was reported that a Zoroastrian priest officiated over the service. I looked into the Zoroastrian faith and am struck with how similar it is to Islam, Christianity and Judaism.



Of course, the aspect of monotheism is central to the similarity and there is more. A basic tenet is the dichotomy of good and evil and how a believer must choose between the two. The good is represented by Ahura Mazda and evil is Angra Mainyu. This is known as Cosmic Dualism. It is not a battle between supernatural beings but more of a clash of energies. Like the later monotheist beliefs mentioned above, Zoroastrians see God as an all knowing, all powerful force everywhere. Ahura Mazda is seen as pure good who created the world. Fire has important symbolism in the faith — in a temple in Yazd Iran, a fire is has been maintained for 1500 consecutive years!  They don’t worship flame; rather the belief is it, “represents God’s light or wisdom” (BBC). Neither does the faith worship Ahura Mazda; instead promoting morals rooted in the terms, “Good thoughts, good words, good deeds”. It is up to the faithful to realize these words in their own life to find redemption after death.

 Ibrahim, Allah well pray for you. Hey! Mustapha...
Like Christianity and Islam, there is a single prophet who preached his ideas of God. This individual was Zoroaster who had his revelations during a pagan bathing ritual. Prof. Robert Winston tells us in a 2005 BBC program that Zoroaster was an Aryan Brahman who lived 2500 to 3000 years ago in what is today Iran. Brahmin Zoroaster serviced the gods of fire, storm, sky and lightning. Winston says it was during the bathing ritual (baptism?) that Zoroaster rejected the Aryan pantheon of gods. 

While Aryan gods carried over into the Hindu tradition, Zoroastrian monotheism was a new direction that was adopted by Achaemenidian Emperor Darius. Persian elites were major patrons of Zoroastrianism and a large priesthood with many temples was established throughout the kingdom. Millions followed the faith. A big setback was Alexander the Great’s invasion of Persia. Zoroastrianism was revived under the Sasanid period but suffered tremendously with the Islamic invasion in the 7th Century C.E. While most converted to Islam, some Zoroastrians fled to India. The descendants of these exiles are known as Parsis. Some Parsis (Persians) settled in Zanzibar – an island in the Indian Ocean where Zoroastrian Freddy Mercury was born.

Today, Zoroastrianism is practiced by 190,000 people at most.

Liberal Democrats Sensational Surge in the 2010 British General Election: Multi-Party Politics in a Two-Party System

$
0
0

NICK CLEGG

The following examines the Liberal Democrats (LD) role in the 2010 British general election. That year’s election is widely considered a remarkable event (Quinn, 2011, p. 403) with the surge, in the media, of the LDP. The party’s surge was triggered by unique events such as the country’s first-ever televised leadership debate, where LD leader Nick Clegg stood among the two other leaders of the UK’s main parties. Clegg made a good impression on voters, along with a sensational splash in the media. The leader’s approval ratings soared. The press was clamoring for or against the party and its leader. Thus the phenomenon of “Clegg-mania” started.


The traditional hegemony of the Labour and Conservative parties appeared to be challenged (Parry, Richardson 2011, p. 474). It was obviously a multi-party election, while at the same time, due to the UK’s voting arrangement, certain aspects of a two-partysystem influenced how parties campaigned and, ultimately, how many seats they were able to win. This paper will provide the evidence that elections in the UK share tendencies of both two-party andmulti-party systems.

Like alter egos, British voting rules exhibit distinct personalities depending on the situation: Under one circumstance, elections act like atwo-party system, and in another they’re behaving as a multi-party system. The evidence will reveal how the dichotomous features affect campaigning between candidates and influences how voters make their choices on the ballot. Two-party election dynamics also bias seat allocations with Labour reaping the greatest benefit.

Liberal Democrats are not a minor-party in British politics, rather, the election rules penalize them distant third-place with seats won in Westminster. Because they can usually garner a quarter of the national vote, this kind of result tells us clearly the LD are really one of the three main-parties in the multi-party UK[1].


The LD are the current manifestation of a longstanding tradition of organized liberalism in Great Britain. The party is dominant in local elections. I will look at this micro political aspect and how it affects LD performance in the multi-party portion of the UK’s national politics. Public financing of opposition parties also plays a role in sustaining the multi-party dynamic.


The 2010 vote was notable for being a multi-party general election that produced the first peacetime coalition government since 1929. Clegg-mania was truly remarkable as it produced an unprecedented Liberal Democrat media splash. However, beyond the resulting coalition and hype, the election produced vote totals and seat allocations very similar to traditional Liberal performance in various elections over the past century. In 2010, it seemed the more things changed, the more they stayed the same (Cutts, Fieldhouse, Russel, 2010, p. 703). I conclude the 2010 election results will have set the stage for multi-party type politics dominating the next campaign season.


COMPETING IN A PARALLEL TWO-PARTY / MULTI-PARTY STRUCTURE


UK television viewers watched the first ever party leaders debate on April 15, 2010. It was unprecedented to have a US style debate. However, this wasn’t a square off between only the dominant rival Conservatives and Labour. Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, stood alongside the other main party leaders. With three candidates on stage, as plain as day, it was a multi-party election. During the proceedings Clegg established himself and his party as separate from the respective Labour and Conservative parties. In his opening statement, he referred to his opponents as, “the old parties”. During the 90 minute debate, Clegg went on to tag Tory David Cameron and Labour’s Gordon Brown, as, “you two”, “both major parties” and “they” among other rhetorical insinuations. This served to distinguish himself from his opponents along with challenging the traditional two-party hegemony of the Labour and Conservative parties. “It was from this initial exposure, enhanced by his confident performance, that so-called ‘Clegg-mania’ developed” (Parry, Richardson 2011, p. 476). Clegg’s rhetorical equidistance on television resulted in a next day YouGov/Sun poll (2010) giving the LD second place, behind Conservatives with 30 percent voter approval. Clegg’s prime-time performance resulted in an approval rating rising from the 40s since May 2009 to 77 percent right after the debate (Cutts, Fieldhouse, Russell 2010, p. 691). Clearly, polling in the period immediately after the debate is reflective of a multi-party democracy.


Reactions to Clegg’s performance and the resulting high polling numbers were strong among the press. Parry and Richardson offer a scholarly account of how sensational traditional media printed snarky neologisms such as Cleggwagon, Cleggphoria, Cleggacy and Cleggolatry (479). These researchers found another distinction of the season’s media bandwagon with new diminutive terms such as Clegglet, Cleggie and The Cleggster. Immediate polling, along with the party’s history, tell the Liberal Democrats are really one of the three main parties. That said, there was a particularity as far as writers throwing mocking terms around. These scholars discovered that the other main-party leaders didn’t suffer anything approaching this level of intensity. It seems like the press, accustomed to two-party hegemony in Westminster, made much copy out of the novel LD surge in the polls and how the reality of a multi-party election captured the imagination of many British voters. For better or worse, Clegg and LD, in the multi-party system, did indeed stand apart from, “the old parties”. It has been said that any press is good press, however, similar to two-party system institutional hurdles that hound the party, piles of newsprint didn’t transfer to piles of ballots giving the main-party LD a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.


For all of its successes in national elections during the last forty years, the specter of the UK’s two-party voting system has always loomed over the Liberals. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons. Each of these seats is contested in a single-member district (constituency) with the candidate who wins the most votes there getting elected – hence the term First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). Another term for this kind of plurality election is Winner-Take-All. This kind of electoral arrangement tends to produce a two-party system (Durverger, 1972). At the same time, as mentioned with the high-profile televised leaders debate and its effect on the campaign, UK elections are still multi-party affairs.


Having parallel systems can produce distortions that tend to penalize the LD. For example, usually garnering a national total of near one quarter of the votes in recent elections, without exception, the Liberals get a poor return on votes-to-seats ratios. In 2010 specifically, even with all of the Clegg-mania campaign exposure, the LD garnered 23 percent of the national vote but gained only 9 percent of the seats in parliament. In fact, they earned one percent above their 2005 vote total but the party lost five of its seats in parliament!


It is an age-old problem of the Liberal vote being too evenly spread around the country while concentrations of respective Labour or Conservative voters can dominate a single-member constituency. These biases are so strong that even if Labour and Conservatives had tied in 2010 as the national top two vote getters, the former would have still won 54 more seats than the latter (Pattie and Johnston 2010, p. 486). This margin is almost the same as all of the 57 seats won by the LD that year!


Even changing the rules to Alternative Vote (AV) tabulations[2]does not surmount the potency of the single-member district problem facing Liberal Democrats. In a simulated AV election using the 2010 election data, (Sanders, Clarke, Stewart, Whiteley 2011, p. 19) the LD could have won 89 seats. That said, the researchers state, “[U]nlike other electoral reforms, AV fails to produce anything approaching genuine proportional representation in national assembly elections”. Considering the how the election rules penalize them, it should be no wonder that proportional representation (PR) is central within Liberal Democrats policy proposals. Unlike First-Past-The-Post, PR does not slow down the development of new parties (Durverger 1972, p. 3). Under a pure PR system, with 23 percent of the national vote, the party would have won 149 seats in the House of Commons[3].


Even with FPTP in single-member constituencies, over the years the UK has changed from a two-party system into more of a multi-party one. For example, in the 1950s the Conservative and Labour parties together would win 91 percent of all the votes cast (Johnston and Pattie 2011, p. 18). In 2010, they together won 69 percent. These researchers demonstrate how the UK can still be a two-party system – it just depends on what two parties you are considering. The study shows how the 2010 election was various two-party contests fought among the three main parties. For example, Labour and Conservatives were the top two contenders in 286 constituencies. LD and Conservatives were top two in 203 constituencies. LD and Labour were top two in 95 constituencies. Regional / nationalist parties can dominate constituencies in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. Minor parties all together won a record 11.9 percent of the national vote. The Green party won its first ever seat in parliament making for a total of 11 different parties in the multi-party House of Commons (Quinn, 2011 p. 409).


No matter what two parties are in the top two of an electoral contest in a constituency, as Durverger (1972) observes, “[A] majority vote on one ballot is conductive to a two-party-system” (1). Durverger identifies the phenomenon as a matter of voters looking for a value on their ballot. This can manifest in favor of Liberal Democrats where their main rival in a constituency is the Conservative candidate. Research of the 2010 election indentifies tactical voting, “Where Labour was not in contention, Labour supporters were disproportionally likely to vote Liberal Democrats in an attempt to keep Conservative candidates out” (Pattie and Johnson, 2010, p. 482). The researchers also found in constituencies where the top two were Labour and LD, many Conservative voters chose the latter. Here we find Liberal Democrats in the perfect center with Tory supporters using them as a vote against Labour, or Labour voters blocking Conservatives by way of choosing LD on the ballot. Therefore, tactical voting with FPTP in single-member constituencies can offer some benefits to the LD.


With the two-partydynamic in various constituencies, at the same time the features of multi-party politics can also affect tactical voting considerations. Clegg-mania made the possibility of a hung parliament apparent during the election. It was reported that even the possibility of a Conservative / LD ruling coalition would put off disillusioned former Labour voters (Macintrye, 2010). Clegg announcements regarding potential coalitions affected voter opinion. “[B]y expressing a preference for working with whoever was the larger party (most likely the Conservatives) and for not working with [Labour leader] Brown, Clegg sent a signal to Labour voters that a centre-left alliance was an unlikely result even if they tactically supported the Liberal Democrats” (Cutts, Fieldhouse, Russell 2010, 704). These researchers also say that soft Labour or ‘floating voters’ from the center-left were “put off” from casting an LD vote. Therefore, considerations of potential ruling coalitions, concepts usually associated with multi-party politics, gave some Labour voters pause before they cast any tactical ballot that would have benefitted the LD.


GRASSROOTS PROFESSIONALIZED


The demands of being a major player in British politics call for a professional parliamentary party. Public policy in the United Kingdom can foster multi-party politics. The 1997 general election was a true breakthrough for the party with the Liberal Democrats winning 46 seats – doubling their ministers in parliament. This allowed for a significant increase in public funding. Public financing of certain parliament parties is called Short Money; which assists an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, funding for the opposition parties’ travel and associated expenses and funding for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office (Kelly 2012).


As its namesake Edward Short said in 1974, “A more immediate need is to provide additional support for the opposition parties in Parliament - support which they certainly require if they are to play their full part here” (Kelly 2012 p. 8). Mr. Short states “parties” in plural to acknowledge, even back then, the reality of multi-party politics. He even offers a public program to better accommodate the situation.


Public funding led to the creation of the Parliamentary Office of the Liberal Democrats (POLD). POLD then hired specialist researchers from outside the organization and increased the party’s press office. This branch of the LD employs more than half of the party’s staff (Evans, Sanderson-Nash 2011, p. 464).


While this parliamentary party is an operation of paid professionals, there is also a strong grassroots structure written into its by-laws. Liberal Democrats are unique among the three main parties with their democratic policy-making structure (Parry & Richardson, 2011, p. 467). This dynamic places them on the ground helping their focus on local politics. In the 1970s, Liberals started implementing a strategy of “pavement politics”; winning them many seats on local councils. In the 1990s, the Liberal Democrats were the second party of local government where, in many urban areas, they were the only opposition to Labour (Liberal Democrat History Group, 2007). These successes on the local level have generated greater electoral credibility among voters serving as a platform to capture parliamentary seats (Cutts, 2012, p. 101). These micro level pavement politics certainly have a role in the national multi-party situation.


CONCLUSION


The 2010 British general election was sensational, but in the end produced similar results like years past. Typical patterns were reinforced exhibiting features of both two-party and multi-party systems. This parallel affected how parties campaigned and how voters, through tactical decisions, cast their votes. The three main parties fought two-party races in various constituencies while at the same time; the election produced a multi-partyresult with a coalition ruling government.


Conservatives were resurgent but still could not win a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Tories then formed a coalition government with Liberal Democrats. As a result, Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister – sitting next the PM Cameron in the House chamber. Even though votes-to-seats distortions penalized the LD once again, their compensation as one of the main parties occupying the center is being part of the ruling government. As such, Clegg can no longer point to leaders of the other main parties as “you two” or “them”. Liberal Democrats are now accountable, with Conservatives, for the choices made with dominating issues such as current economic austerity policies. Out of opposition, both ruling partners have lost their Short Money. Being a coalition, the LD have brought things to the partnership, and in doing so are pulling the government towards the left on issues such as climate change. For example, there is currently a Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change held by a Liberal Democrat MP. These types of compromises among ruling coalitions are another result of multi-party politics.


If the coalition holds, the UK is mid-way to the 2015 election. At the next televised leaders debate, the Labour head will likely be referring at Cameron and Clegg as “you two”. The “remarkable” election of 2010 will then spawn another “remarkable” round of voting; one where all three parties will have recent experience at governing and, in turn, fold that into their respective campaigns. So goes a multi-party system – albeit one with two-party tendencies.


Krist Novoselic (2011)

Correction: Thanks to @Michael_089 for the tip. The 2010 election produced the first peacetime coalition and not the first hung parliament since 1929.

(Clegg Photo: David Spender)

References

Cutts, D. (2012) Yet Another False Dawn? An Examination of the Liberal Democrats’ Performance in the 2010 General Election” The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsVOL 14, (2012) 96–114


Cutts, D., Fieldhouse, E., Russell, A., (2010) The Campaign That Changed Everything and Still Did Not Matter? The Liberal Democrat Campaign and Performance. Parliamentary Affairs, 65 (4) 689-707


Durverger, M., (1972) Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System. ­Party Politics and Pressure Groups 23-32


Evans, E., Sanderson-Nash, E. “From Sandals to Suits: Professionalisation, Coalition and the Liberal Democrats” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations: VOL 13, (2011) 459–473


Johnston, R., Pattie, C. “The British general election of 2010: a three-party contest – or three two-party contests?” The Geographical Journal, Vol. 177, No. 1, (Mar. 2011) 17–26


Kelley, R., (2012). House of Commons Library: Short Money (SN/PC/01663)Parliament and Constitution Centre


Liberal Democrat History Group (2007, July 1) A concise history of the Liberal Party, SDP and Liberal Democrats. http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=4&item=history


Macintyre, J. (2010, January 25) See-sawing Clegg must decide. New Statesman 14


Parry, K., Richardson, K. “Political Imagery in the British General Election of 2010: The Curious Case of ‘Nick Clegg’” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations VOL 13 (2011) 474–489


Pattie, C.J., Johnston, R.J, (2010) Constituency campaigning and local contests at the 2010 UK General Election. British Politics 5 (4) 481-505


Quinn, T. “From New Labour to New Politics: The British General Election of 2010” West European Politics, Vol. 34, No. 2, (Mar. 2011) 403–411


Sanders, D., Clarke, H.D., Stewart, M.C., Whiteley, P. (2011) Simulating the Effects of the Alternative Vote in the 2010 UK General Election. Parliamentary Affairs, 64 (1) 5-23



UK Polling Report Survey and polling news from YouGov’s Anthony Wells. 2005-2010 Polls You Gov:  http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010





[1]The Conservatives and Labour, respectively, each garner a third of the national vote.

[2]Alternative Vote is a ballot where voters rank preferences. Tabulations simulate multiple runoffs until a candidate wins 50% +1 of the preferences. In the US, AV is referred to Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting.

[3]149 is offered considering the FPTP in single-member district rules. An election conducted under purely proportional rules could produce different outcomes.

TOP TWO PRO: Fair and Effective Representation For Washington State

$
0
0
Discussing William U'Ren's political impact.
This article examines a simple change to voting rules with electing Washington State House of Representatives members that allows for minority representation. I provide a definition of the term fair and effective by calling to attention State House districts with a bi-partisan delegation: hypothesizing that increasing the number of bi-partisan districts, by way of changing election rules, could better meet statutory requirements of fair and effective representation.


The notion of fair and effective representation could be seen as a basic tenet of democracy. However rooted in some noble or righteous notion, the definition of fair and effective representation can be rather broad. The US Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Holder v. Hall (1994) addresses the lack of any clear definition of fair and effective. Justice Clarence Thomas theorized on this elusive notion stating that these are, “[Q]uestions of political philosophy, not questions of law.” He adds that views regarding representation with what is fair and effective are, “competing theories.”

Washington State conducts reapportionment of legislative districts with a bi-partisan commission. Among the various criteria called for by the state constitution and statutes, the commission shall exercise its powers to provide fair and effective representation (RCW 44.05.90 {5}). The Washington State Redistricting Commission (WSRC) submitted its reapportionment plan to the legislature on January 1, 2012. Pursuant to statute, the Commission has to publish a report including, “an explanation of the criteria used in developing the plan”[1]. This report was never published resulting in a Washington resident filing a complaint to the State Supreme Court (February 8, 2012). In his court petition, John Milem is explicit regarding the lack of a definition by the Commission regarding fair and effective representation. Milem submitted a redistricting plan recommendation to the WSRC in 2011 where he conceded, “[Fair and effective representation] is a rather amorphous, subjective standard. How does one prove that one's plan satisfies it?” He then adds, “I believe that fair and effective representation is enhanced by providing districts which the average voter can recognize and relate to, can understand the commonality of.” Mr. Milem does expound on this in his recommendation, however, even if the parties do agree on Mr. Milem’s definition, we can still place it among the competing theories of fair and effective representation.

As Justice Thomas also stated in Holder, “[G]eographic districting and other aspects of electoral systems . . . are merely political choices.” [2] Let us then examine Washington’s political choice for electing its State House. In Washington’s bi-cameral system, there are forty-nine legislative districts each containing one Senator along with two State House Representatives who are elected at-large. On the ballot, the two House seats are divided among individual positions; candidates for state house file for either Position 1 or Position 2 then run exclusive campaigns for each seat. This election arrangement is a political choice made in 1965. The State Constitution[3]is silent on the matter of individual positions being separate races on the ballot in a house district election.

There is a strong consequence to this political choice however: these two individual positions, in effect, function as a single-member district. This dynamic has partisan implications as one party usually controls both House seats. Only nine out of forty-nine House districts are currently shared between a Democratic and Republican representative. We can also find this bi-partisan dynamic by examining Senate seats in a respective district. There are two districts where Senator is from one party and the House delegation is from the other. Washington has eleven bi-partisan delegations among its forty-nine legislative districts.

Seventy-eight percent of legislative districts are held exclusively by one party or another. Because of partisan gridlock, the 2012 Washington State legislature held a thirty-day extended session. Polarization in Olympia is also apparent with an examination of the voting record of legislators in the bi-partisan House delegations. Democratic representatives voted almost consistently YEA with Republicans, in that same district voting NAY about half the time. Democratic votes being almost a flush YEA is an indicator that the House committees were producing Democratic friendly bills. It is in considering these floor votes where we arrive at a theory of fair and effective representation. In the State House, Democratic voters from the bi-partisan districts have an effective voice with the YEA on roll call votes. Republican voters in these same bi-partisan districts have an effective voice but with the NAY votes. Effective votes on the ballot translated into effective votes on the House floor. For the 2011 / 12 session, Democratic members held a fourteen
seat majority in that chamber and the juggernaut of bills favoring party resulted in their legislation passing. The majority ruled but the minority party, representing the voters in these six bi-partisan districts, provide an effective voice on the floor of the House itself.

Since 2008, Washington has used a “Top Two” system with state elections. All candidates run in a first stage (primary) election then the top two plurality winners, regardless of party affiliation, run in the second stage (general) election. Western Washington University professor Todd Donovan has published an early assessment of the system. He mentions Top Two advocates key claim how this type of election would elect moderates (8). He concludes the Top Two has had weak effects remedying polarization in the legislature (19).

Another goal of having two rounds is to reflect the will of the majority of voters. However, if the goal in State House elections is fair and effective representation as reflected in maximizing bi-partisan districts, the majority rule criteria falls short. A semi-proportionalvoting system could better meet this goal by allowing an ethnic and / or political minority voiceelection in the district.

The Single Nontransferable Vote (SNTV) is a such a system that allows for minority representation. SNTV is a proven constitutional voting method with a history in the United States. This system has also been studied in its applications abroad. The voting process is simple: voters in each State House district will receive one vote to elect both seats. As there are fewer votes than seats up for election, in certain configurations SNTV is also known as the Limited Vote. This type of system facilitates minority representation (Lijphart, Pintor and Sone 155). SNTV can also be used in non-partisan elections (Amy 128), including Washington’s non-partisan prefers party descriptive ballot.

Washington’s single winner election system is referred to as the Top-Two system. Semi-proportional SNTV, as proposed herein, is different as it elects the top two vote getters among all the candidates in one election instead of having two face off in a second round. Both systems share similar quirks that tend to run wild in the hypothetical realm. With SNTV, one candidate could be elected with 95 percent of the vote and another, if they finish second, can win with less than five percent. The current Top-Two runoff tends to suffer from large fields of candidates in the first round. Again, hypothetically, two candidates with single digit first-round results could face off in the second round. These two could both offer a poor choice to the majority of voters. With either election methods, party leaders have incentives to prevent vote splitting among their candidates. A recent study by Gonzaga University researchers found that even with Washington’s “PREFERS PARTY” ballot disclaimer, a device intended to limit influence of political parties on elections, major party leaders discourage candidates to prevent “too many” in a race from a single party (Beck, Henrickson 2012).

SNTV has been measured through the lens of such concepts as decision-theoretic analysis. Professor Gary W. Cox, an expert on SNTV, has studied the results of this system’s use in Japan. Cox has an explanation of real-world data finding the, “two systems [plurality and semi-proportional] are alike in their strategic voting equilibria.” (Cox 608) His research shows that voters use the information offered in campaigns (polls, reporting, fundraising totals, endorsements, etc.), to rationally decide who the most viable candidates are then vote for them. In our state legislative races, voters without exception elect candidates that prefer either the Democratic or Republican party. In Washington, most candidates prefer one of these major parties on the ballot for a reason; party funds and other resources can be made available to them to promote their campaigns. Partisan voting tendencies would likely manifest in the district and voters would coalesce around the two most viable candidates who preferred each of the two main parties. This would result in almost every house district in Washington sending a bi-partisan delegation to Olympia.

TOP TWO PRO

The popular term for the version of SNTV described in this article is Top-Two Pro.If the goal in State House elections is the notion of fair and effective representation as offered above, a semi-proportional voting system could better meet this by allowing for a political minority voicein the district. Washington’s two round, single winner election is referred to as the Top-Two – it is a majority voting system. Top-Two Pro is proportional (That’s the meaning of the term “pro”.) It is different as it elects the top two vote getters for State Representative among all the candidates in one election.

Election reform is a process of finding the right balance. As Political Scientist Mark Rush says, “[A]ny [reform] will bring with it a new host of questions and controversies about its inherent fairness” (Engstrom & Rush 119). Bi-partisan districts for Washington State could fit a definition of what is fair and effective representation for the voters. This definition will serve well if translating votes from the ballot onto votes to the House floor is paramount. A wide range of proven options for minority representation voting systems are available to provide fair and effective representation. This paper offers Top-Two Pro to speak to this notion. It is up to the citizens of Washington, as taxpayers and subjects of the law, to recognize allowing for minority representation as fair, and votes on the ballot translating to votes on the floor as being effective.



Works Cited

Amy, D.J. Behind The Ballot Box: A Citizens Guide To Voting Systems. Praeger Publishers Westport, CT (2000) 128. Print

Beck, J. H. and Henrickson, K. E. (2012), The Effect of the Top Two Primary on the Number of Primary Candidates. Social Science Quarterly. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00876.x (LINK: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00876.x/abstract)

Cox G.W. “Strategic Voting Equilibria Under the Single Nontransferable Vote.” The American Political Science Review 88.3 (Sep., 1994) 608 Print

Donovan, T. “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn From Washington?” The California Journal of Politics & Policy 4.1 (2012) 8,19 Print

HOLDER, individually and in his official capacity as COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR BLECKLEY COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al. v. HALL et al. 512 U.S. 874 (1994)

Lijphart, A. Pintor, R.L. Sone, Y. “The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons form the Japanese and Spanish Examples.” Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. Ed. Bernard Gromfman and Arend Lijphart.  Agathon Press, INC., New York 2003. 154-169. Print.

Milem, John, in re 2012 Washington State Redistricting Plan. Supreme Court of the State of Washington, NO. 86976-6, 2012.

Rush, M.E. Engstrom, R.L. Fair and Effective Representation? Debating Electoral Reform and Minority Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. (2001) 119 Print




[1] RCW 44.05.80 7b

[2] The ruling also gives a nod to proportional voting systems by stating, "The decision to rely on single-member geographic districts as a mechanism for conducting elections is merely a political choice -- and one that we might reconsider in the future.... Already, some advocates have criticized the current strategy of creating majority-minority districts and have urged the option of other voting mechanisms -- for example, cumulative voting or a system using transferable votes [e.g., preference voting] -- that can produce proportional results without requiring division of the electorate into racially segregated districts." 


[3] Article II Section 6

Article 9

$
0
0
This site is back on line again for the next month or so. Should have all kinds of updates, articles and what not.

Check out this video I narrate about fair representation voting* for the US House. The idea is based on the theory that more southern Democrats and northern Republicans would bring more moderation to the chamber – similar to the situation a generation ago.

With these kinds of voting systems, there would also be space for 3rd parties and independent candidates. Another advantage is that voters would take the sophistication out of the hands of insiders cooking gerrymander maps. This way, most voters would elect a representative for themselves, instead of being stuck in a safe-seat district by design.

I will be posting more soon, especially about the Hall of Fame.

Krist

*Candidate-based forms of proportional representation such as SNTV, cumulative and STV.
Viewing all 60 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images