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

Open Source Party

$
0
0

This is my idea for a new virtual political party. It's called, for the purposes of this article, Open Source, and the name implies as much. Why a new political party based in social networking? The political situation in the United States is out of balance. Insiders control a system that is held in low esteem by most citizens. The two major political parties are essentially soft-money conduits and hardly a voice for grassroots participation. Organizing for change has traditionally been the way to reign in the abuse of power. Social networking is connecting people as never before. The key with the party is to fuse two similar concepts — social networking and political association. The latter, in its traditional form, could work well in the Information Age and let me tell you how.

Social media is a group process where, “much of what we hope to produce and accomplish can be done only through collective action” (Kassin, et al. p. 295). Political association is also a social medium and one would think that it would have blossomed on the Internet? This is not the case. Grassroots political association in Washington State is still an off-line medium consisting of a few stalwart party leaders heading their local Democratic or Republican committee. While these groups may have joined millions of others with a Facebook page or Twitter account, the awesome power of social networking has yet to be harnessed for structuring these traditional political organizations. In this article I will look at; empirical studies of how the internet is impacting the psychology of political participation, a classic treatise on political parties and then apply these concepts to a traditional structure of a political association. I will conclude by theorizing that the traditional party structure is well suited for the demands of the digital age.

In their 2008 book Millennial Makeover, generational theorists Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais predict a political realignment for the United States that will soon be spearheaded by the Millennial generation – those born between 1982 and 2003. The authors state this cohort will determine the relative standing of the two [major] political parties for the next thirty to forty years (p. 203) This tech-savvy “civic generation”, as the authors call them, have collective attributes that will drive them to adhere to one of the US major parties. The book shows how political realignments in our nation have always been centered in transitions between media technology. (The progression from telegraph, telephone, radio, television to Internet.) Winograd and Hais make a compelling case about the history of communications technology and its impact on politics. They look to the respective Democratic and Republican parties as potential beneficiaries of any realignment initiated by Millennials. To the authors, the future will belong to one of the lucky major parties, however, as stated above, these two groups are hardly using technology as an organizational tool.

The parties in the US are not alone as research shows political associations in other countries are also failing to merge social networking within their organizational structures. An analysis of the use of the internet in the 2010 United Kingdom elections cites international studies finding, “[P]olitical parties and candidates tend to use the internet as a top-down channel for information or party propaganda” (Baxter et al. 2010 p. 464). This seems to be changing with the research group DEMOS identifying  an emergence of web based mobilization:

The size, diversity and dynamism of social media platforms allow people to connect and form social movements outside the existing political channels far more quickly and easily than ever before. New social movements are emerging using social media, and challenging existing parties in a way unthinkable a decade ago. The English Defense League in the UK, the Pirate Party in Germany, and the Occupy movement are all examples of movements that have employed social media to grow rapidly and create a significant political and social impact – all in the last three years. (Bartlett et al. 2013 p. 11)

Psychology researchers Xenos and Moy point to an alternative dimension of the effects produced by the internet on politically minded individuals (2007, p.706). On one end, the internet is a low cost tool that individuals rationally choose to acquire information from. On the other side, there is a psychological approach, “in which the motives, characteristics, and social contexts of users play a greater role” (706). The researchers tested these two competing theories finding in the psychological approach that, “[T]he effect of Web use on these behaviors appears to be enhanced for those with greater levels of self-reported interest in the politics surrounding the campaigns.” These motivated people aren’t just gleaning inexpensive and readily available information, they’re willing to participate in politics. While we find that information drives civic participation among some, the study never articulated what percentage of respondents of this group were motivated. For an answer we can look to a seminal study of political parties.

Roberts Michaels tells us in his seminal study Political Parties, “[T]he majority is really delighted to find persons who will take the trouble to look after its affairs” (1915 p. 53). Whether the majority is loafing or free-riding, it could be, as Max Ringelmann found, the politically motivated small minority are just tugging harder to get things done (Kassin et al. p. 304). Since personal values are central in political association, the collective effort model points to the desire of the motivated to try harder to achieve the outcome. A political party needs to throw these motivated people a digital line and once hooked, I contend the traditional structure of a party can accommodate this type of personality.

When people work in virtual teams, special attention must be paid to them to offset problems in web-based social groups (Kassin et al. p. 321). The traditional structure of a political association can speak to the social challenges produced by technology. Political parties organize by electing leaders, passing resolutions / platforms and nominating candidates for office. Parties also disseminate information in what has been traditionally known as the party press. This structure meets the criteria to deal with the problems that can affect virtual teams by keeping roles clear, sharing information and maintaining a transactive memory. As far as socializing new members, “membership and participation in a relevant virtual group can become a central (and very real) part of one’s social life” (Bargh & McKenna 2004 p. 582). There is no need to reinvent the wheel of traditional organization; the trick is to apply this established form of organization to social networking technology that is abundant and already in use.

Early enthusiasm over the political potential of the Internet has given way to sober or pessimistic assessments (Davis 2010). It is one thing for a party to use social media in promoting its policies and candidates; it is another to structure an organization around social media. Nevertheless, as the Demos report stated above, web-based political participation is starting to take hold with various “startups” emerging outside of the two-party structure. However, these efforts tend to shy away from the traditional political association articulated in this paper. Now is the time to find other motivated and informed individuals to assemble a new party. I have by-laws for such a party drafted. Think technology “startup” venture meets a political association. If the timing is right, as the generational theorists claim it is, the majority of voters could be delighted to have a social network of motivated people to spearhead this collective effort so candidates emerging from a new process can actually get elected.

NEXT POST: More on the OPEN SOURCE Party.

Works Cited
Bargh, J.A. & McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004) The Internet and Social Life, Annual Review of Psychology. 55 573–590

Baxter, G., Marcella, R. & Varfis, E., (2011) The use of the internet by political parties and candidates in Scotland during the 2010 UK general election campaign, Aslib Proceedings, Vol 63 Iss: 5, 464-483

Bartlett, J., Littler, M., McDonnell, D., Froio, C., (2013) “Social media is changing politics across Europe…” New Political Actors In Europe: Beppe Grillo and the M5S DEMOS

Davis, A., (2010) New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation, New Media Society 12(5) 745-761

Kassin, S., Fein, S. & Markus, H.E., (2011) Social Psychology 8thEdition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning

Michaels, R., (1915) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, The Free Press, Reprinted 1949

Winograd, M. & Hais, M.D., (2008) Millennial Makeover: Myspace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics Rutgers University Press

Xenos, M. & Moy, P., (2007) Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and Civic Engagement Journal of Communication, International Communication Association57 704–718

Open Source Party: Part II

$
0
0

I was an active Democrat from 2004 to December of 2009. It’s a long story but I quit this group because I got tired of volunteering for a Super Pac / soft-money conduit around campaign finance rules. The GOP is just as bad, and again, that’s another story. I am also an active Grange member— a community group that takes on issues but steers clear of party politics and elections for public office. My point is that I have experience with groups and this is what has led me to conceive an Open Source party.

Social networking is transforming our world. I am perplexed that social networking has not made more of an impact on political association. These two are closely related but any merging has been limited to top-down efforts.

My idea, as a believer in the power of association, is to have a bottom-up structure for people to feel ownership in a virtual party.


I have been trying to organize such an endeavor in Washington State. It can still happen for the 2014 election, however, I feel my greatest hindrance is my personal situation. I get the feeling that the good people that I have approached are expecting me to throw myself into such a thing with full gusto. And I should be, but considering some of my ongoing commitments, I can’t be Chair of a new party.

This gets me to why I am sharing this idea with netizens. I believe that a virtual party is bound to happen sooner or later, so I might as well get the idea out there! Here is how an Open Source Party could work.


We need to get some kind of interface together — probably a WIKI engine. The WIKI can have draft by-laws (which I already have and will publish next). Users then can go over the drafts. (I know that WIKIs can get into tug-of-wars, but we can have a rule that you can cut and paste your own version of the by-laws and users will gravitate to the drafts that they best support.)

A time-table should emerge for our next step: organizing the party.

USER AS MEMBER

If things can keep together, in the next couple of months we can organize our party. This means two things: 1. ratify our by-laws / constitution, 2. elect our officers. (See the upcoming by-laws for how this will happen). We need some kind of election software or vender to help us get off the ground.

Here is a question we will have to resolve. Will we have individual state parties or a national party? Perhaps both? Will we be targeting Congress or just state legislatures? Or both? This depends on financial resources, so let’s get to that.

MONEY BOMB

The biggest motivation for Open Source is to provide a platform for people to amplify their voices. In the United States,money is political speech so why not just run with that concept? Open Source should have a $5.00 monthly membership fee. The dues offer privileges. Members can submit resolutions and party planks. Members also vote on nominees and party officers. The goal is to harness the vast numbers on the internet to provide a monthly income stream to the party to use in campaigns for our candidates.

In addition, we need to agree on individual campaign contribution limits for our candidates. It could be like $100.00 or $250.00 — our candidates can’t raise more money than our imposed limit. Candidates can’t self-finance either. The idea is, through the awesome power of social networking, for something real to be done about the distorting influence of money in politics.

PARTY ORGANIZATION

The election of officers can be held over several days on the internet. Those elected as leadership need to start having meetings. These meetings could be streamed to members with published minutes. Officers could even be compensated if resources permit such an expenditure. And if resources allow, an executive director and daily staff will be hired.

NOMINATIONS

Members can run for the Open-Source imprimatur. We should see home-made videos on a favorite or popular video streaming service. The elections will have to be timely with local filing rules.

CAMPAIGNS

Open Source candidates will work with the party leadership. This is where the leadership need to demonstrate political acumen. Check out my article on the 2010 UK general election and how a third-party managed to win seats in a two-party system by targeting selected races. We’ll need good candidates to be credible and hopefully our nominations can provide them. In the end, the party leadership will have to work with resources to support those who seem viable and worthy.

WEB SURFERS UNITE!

If you think you’re participating in politics by commenting on blogs and newspaper articles — think again. Open Source provides an actual value of real participation for your time and money. You could be elected Chair! Run for office! Plenty of kinks to iron out but this is new terrain. I will post the by-laws soon. Thanks for reading.








FairVote Event at Impact Hub

$
0
0



I want to invite you to our forum next week, in which I will talk about "How to kill the gerrymander and empower the voter with fair representation" on Tuesday, February 4th, at Impact Hub in Seattle. We'll discuss the roots of our political dysfunction and a realistic reform roadmap (outlined here) to make every voter count in elections for Congress and the Washington State legislature.
To join us, click on the link below -- and please invite your friends!

What: Discussion on electoral reform at every level of government

When: Tuesday, February 4th, 4 pm - 5:30 pm

Where: Impact Hub  220 Second Ave S. Seattle, WA

We're anticipating a great discussion and I hope you can join us.

Thanks!

Krist Novoselic — Board Chair FairVote






     

©FairVote |  6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 610, Takoma Park, MD 20912 | info@fairvote.org | 301-270-4616

A Classic Look

$
0
0
Health and Strength
Darka helped me put this look together that I wore for the Grammys. She made the vest, pants and the tie. I had bought the Stetson hat on the internet. We were trying on clothes and found this image in a book about mens fashion. Darka ran out to her studio and made me this tie out of silk that she cut on the bias. The knot is tied like a regular bow tie, but you arrange it differently for that old look.

So there you have the inspiration or this look.

Commerce at the Heart Of Cross-Cultural Exchange

$
0
0

The wheels of commerce have been turning since humans started agriculture and by 500 CE trade was at the center of the networks connecting humanity across large geographic areas. Free enterprise continued to dominate, acting as the hand lifting the curtain for the dawning of true globalization at the turn of the 15th Century. The companion on commerce’s journey was organized spiritual beliefs that functioned as ethical codes. This duo traveled far and wide as the catalyst of cross-cultural interaction.

The influence of the classical world was powerful. Mesopotamia, and later Egypt, classical Rome, the Qin and subsequent Han empires of China, the realms of the Indian subcontinent and the Greek city-states need to bear mention. At their heart is the state – which is the system of how humans organize themselves. The glue that keeps the state together is free enterprise. This endured into the period of 500 to 1500 CE, and continues to do so until this day.

The world of 500 CE had to pick up the pieces after the powerful classical states had gone. In one example, the Byzantine Empire was a continuation of Roman rule in the southeastern Mediterranean, but was different from the classical empire as the new rulers had a worldview rooted in Christianity. It is here where an important cross-cultural distinction manifested within a schism in Christian belief. The Byzantine church conducted its affairs in Greek while the western church held onto Roman influences by using Latin. Two earlier classical societies, Greek and Roman, produced a cross-cultural influence that resulted in a polarization of power between Rome and Constantinople, dividing Europe longitudinally. An enduring legacy of this situation is how western Europeans use the Latin Script while many eastern Europeans use Cyrillic writing.

It wasn’t easy being a serf in either part of Europe. Rome held onto its power not through a central state but with the appeal of Christianity. It could offer salvation to working people who held onto little else in their service to retainers who lorded over them. If this world was toil, the promise of a satisfying afterlife was a powerful draw. In reality, Byzantine Christianity was buckling under the invasion of another monotheistic religion – Islam. In 1095, Catholic Pope Urban II urged Europeans rich and poor to take up the cross, or in other words, to crusade against Muslims. This rival religion born in Arabia was pushing into Europe and ruling over important Christian religious sites in the southern Mediterranean. Ultimately, the resulting clash between Christianity and Islam created profound benefits in European education, science, technology, food production and commerce in general.

Christianity as an institution had an impact on Europe, while Islam was the driving force behind the “Caliphs”, a word meaning deputies of the prophet Muhammad, to points in the east. Starting with the Umayyad dynasty and then the Abbasid family, the Islamic Caliphate hit its peak of expansion; starting in the west with the Iberian peninsula, encompassing the entire southern shore of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, moving west into Persia and reaching the Indus river. Northern Indian regions of Sind and Bengal were under the influence of the Caliphs. The prophet Muhammad was a merchant himself and this knack for trade was at the center of the expansive dar-Islam. 

On the sea, or over land, the wheels of Islamic commerce rolled to all corners of the eastern Hemisphere. Crops from certain areas found their way to regions were they could grow well. Produce that is common on our tables today such as sugar, bananas, spinach and wheat were first brought out of their natural areas to spread within in the dar-Islam. The proliferation of the cotton plant during this time has influenced history well beyond 1500.

Merchants from the dar-Islam could be found in every port, and the realm neighbored the Indian subcontinent, a central location that took advantage of being the crossroads between east and west. The Hindu kingdoms of southern India utilized the subcontinent’s vast shoreline. Hindu and Muslim mariners knew how to use seasonal monsoon winds for the speedy transport of commerce. It has been said that commerce is about “location, location, location” and the subcontinent proves this with the vast emporium centers where goods were exchanged. I can only image the romantic bazaar scenes with hawkers pushing fine porcelain from China, glass from Europe, Indian spices and Egyptian cotton among other wares. 

Commerce was not alone sailing the monsoon winds, ideas about life and the world also hitched a ride. Islam, Christianity, Manichaeism, Buddhism and Hinduism spread along the trade routes of Southeast Asia. Of these spiritual beliefs, it was Buddhism that had the farthest reach in the east. The teachings of Indian born Siddhartha Gautama arrived in China well after the fall of the classical Chinese states. Nomads from the north brought in Buddhist thought, as did missionaries from India. As political order returned with the Tang and subsequent Song dynasties, it was Buddhism that played a role in these new states / societies. While Chinese were attracted to the spiritual elements of these Indian ideas, local Buddhist monasteries wove their way into Chinese culture in practical ways by providing social services to people in need. This is an example of how commerce can tend to leave some people behind. It was Buddhist charity work that picked up the slack. Being so far from India, and with the Chinese having a longstanding cultural identity, a version of Gautama’s teachings with local characteristics known as Chan Buddhism emerged. Buddhism also influenced the cultures in Viet Nam, Japan and Korea.

Trade wove its way into Africa. It was on this vast continent of resources where Christianity and Islam took hold. Similar to how local culture shaped Buddhism in China, Christianity and Islam took on an African flavor. Traditional African beliefs in natural spirits were synthesized into these imported monotheistic beliefs. This manifested with devotees carrying charms to ward off evil spirits. 
The western hemisphere developed its own societies once agricultural practices were developed. There are remarkable similarities with the east in social stratification that took hold with the need for an ordered society. The sheer distance between the two worlds made for hardly any contact. A “new world” of resources brought eastern people to the Americas looking to add to long established markets in the east. Commerce set the stage for Spain financing Columbus’ journey west resulting in true globalization.

Trade carried people away from their homes towards economic opportunities. Individuals then experienced different cultures and learned from them. Or, the trader could carry their ideas with them abroad. A merchant might not only return with a trunk full of goods. There was a mind full of ideas that were established in other places. Like a garden full of various plants and flowers, local cultures blossomed with diverse ideas that improved the lives of people.

Let's Talk About Love

$
0
0

Carl Wilson has released a new edition of his book Let’s Talk About Love – Why other people have such bad taste. I, among others, contribute an essay to this edition. I was reading my contribution and want to expand on a point. I believe that one of the ways that Nirvana was successful is how Kurt Cobain connected with so many people on a personal level. I get approached so many times by people of all ages about how Nirvana changed their life. This is about countless individuals who are all on their own trip so I can’t expand on it except that it is very real.

I really like this book. Wilson is not a hipster music snob; you know, one those subversive types who in actuality are not subversive but cliché. If I sound judgmental about so-called hipsters, Wilson writes about judgments and comes out on the side of the notion of humanity. This book is not about scenesters or even Celine Dion – it’s about the connection between music and our humanity.

You’d think Wilson, who has served in the trenches of alternative news weekly writing, would come out gunning for Dion. Instead, he takes on the notion of subversion as an image or identity. He’s not a hater and in the process of trying to figure out why anybody in the world would listen to Dion, he becomes sympathetic to the singer and her league of followers.

Wilson knows his Indy rock. He's a believer, however, his apostasy is not about enchantment with a global pop singer. I’m not sure he even likes Dion’s music but he has utilized the phenomenon of her celebrity to make a point. He examines Dion’s appeal with the rigor of an academic, but this is not Social Psychology treatise. It is indeed a journey to the end of taste; reverse engineering of how certain music interacts with the individual in society. 

Read this book!

Leave it to those Millennials!

$
0
0
Millennial Makeover in Pennsylvania’s 10th district.
Nick Troiano today announced his independent campaign for US House in Pennsylvania’s 10th district. I find his campaign intriguing for many reasons. First off, he is a Millennial and if you’ve ever read the book Millennial Makeover, there is a good theory about how this generation will make waves when it comes of age. Read my review of this book here and the following is an excerpt.



The youth vote always seems up for grabs but that’s not really any news. In their book Millennial Makeover, authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais tell us more. They say the party that connects with the Millennial Generation will dominate the political landscape for the next forty years. (Millennial refers to people born between 1982 and 2003.) 
The authors point to generational theories in analyzing American society since the Jackson era. This thinking separates different periods of history as being led by either civic or idealist generational types. It’s a cycle where one era follows the other – each lasting about forty years.
For example, the GI Generation dominated the civic era of the Great Depression, WWII, the 50s and early 60s. They were “outer-fixated”and reared in a protective manner that affected their adult lives in ways that made them problem solvers and institution builders.

Then came the idealist Baby Boomers – “inner-fixated” who were “reared in an indulgent manner and are driven throughout their lives by their deeply held beliefs.” This generational type, who started shaping culture and politics in the mid-sixties, is dominating the current idealist era.

Winograd and Hais paint a picture of how tech savvy the Millennial generation is. Again, no real news but they put it in historical context. They say “waves of technological change and innovation…. have oscillated in harmony with its generational cycles”. They give an account of the impact of the telegraph regarding media and the debate between Lincoln and Douglas and the realigning election of 1858. The narrative follows technology through radio and television up to the current emergence of social networking that’s defining our era. The thesis is that we’re due for a generational realignment so watch out for the techie Millennials and their civic era attitudes - views which include a positive perspective on government and politics.
Troiano’s independent campaign is a sign of this generation coming into its own. And look at how he’s doing it: First, he has abandoned the two major institutional parties for an independent campaign. And second, he is using the new communication paradigm to abandon the constituencies who dominate the institutional parties. Troiano on his site says,

I believe people should be the driving force of our democracy, not well-funded special interests. My "America Deserves Better” campaign will only accept contributions from individuals –– not PACs, corporations, unions or lobbyists. Please make a contribution of whatever you can afford to help me change politics as usual.

Public Financing is Dead, Long Live Citizen Financing!

 

Have you seen the public financing bill in the US House? It proposes a pilot program in three states where citizens can buy “My Voice” vouchers worth 50 bucks that go to candidates. I could go into more detail but that would be too archaic — like describing how a wire recording machine works. My point / analogy is that this voucher pilot program bill is obsolete even before it is voted on — Troiano, and other candidates to come, are a new paradigm manifesting. Why join some clunky state voucher pilot program when you can just donate to Troiano’s, or some other forward thinking candidate's citizen funded campaign?


We’re getting close to filing deadlines for the 2014 election. This means the playing field is solidifying for the season.  It will be interesting to see how much the new paradigm appears in this election and what kind of impact it makes.

Punk Rock Gender Parity

$
0
0
Backstage Life
I am so happy about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame event and how it went so well. Earlier that week there were three long days of rehearsals in NYC. I feel we conjured the spirit of the band, and we could not have done that alone. This, for me, is a bittersweet notion as we all miss Kurt so much. But considering we were inducted, the show had to go on. Joan Jett was first on my list to be out front. I spoke to Dave about it and he ran with the idea of having all women lead. We felt that would be a good tribute to Kurt and what Nirvana was about. 

It was a good balance of females as Joan Jett and Kim Gordon are matriarchs of Punk Rock, while St. Vincent and Lorde represent the powerful up-and-coming women in Rock. Every one of these performances nailed a Nirvana tune in their own way. Joan - Smells Like Teem Spirit, Kim - Aneurism, St. Vincent - Lithium and Lorde - All Apologies. I had fun on the last song because I got to play accordion and all of our guests were on stage for a gala closing! Our set will be broadcast in high quality television in May so check it out.

We also did a club gig afterward that was a lot of fun. I will have more on that soon but thank you to J Mascis and John McCauley for your great contributions!!!!

Our "all female" Hall of Fame set also had me thinking about the political realm (Imagine that!) At FairVote we have done a report regarding the state of women's representation. I will have more to say about this, especially how at-large districts tend to put more women in office, at another time. Until then, enjoy this short and engaging video about the study narrated by Marie Wilson.


Youth Vote: A Cheap Date

$
0
0
Nate Cohn writes this article in the April, 28 NYT’s Why the Democrats’ Turnout Problem Is Worst in NorthCarolina. The issue for Democrats is that young voters tend to sit out midterm elections. Sen. Kay Hagan is up for reelection this year and this situation is bad news for her. Hagan’s margin of victory in 2008 came from voters under the age of 30 — a voting bloc that gave her 71 percent of their vote that year. The Obama-mania of 2008 responsible for this turnout is long gone. Cohn makes this point and how it will be tough for Hagan to achieve these numbers with the youth vote this year.

Hagan is a Democrat, and like the GOP, these "state parties" are basically soft money conduits around individual campaign contribution limits. A party is supposed to be a group of likeminded people who pull others into the arena of elections. Instead, the two state parties cling to voting rules that push people away. And they use social media in accordance with their top-down group structures. It is an exclusive system that never follows up when constituencies like youth show up to vote.

Democrats have been doing this for too long. I recall the 1992 election with the big Rock The Vote effort that helped elect the Clinton / Gore ticket. There was a huge youth turnout and all the Democrats could do for this constituency was the Motor Voter Bill. My point is that there was no real effort to keep these voters engaged. The 1992 and 2010 midterms had a similar dynamic and, by what Cohn is reporting, we’re set to see it gain in 2014.

I am not a youth voter. I want a democracy for all ages. Part of making this happen is a willingness to abandon the two state parties for new forms of association. This is why I am interested in using new political social networking platforms. I want to associate with people who want to engage elections with new tools to challenge the current broken paradigm. This means advocating reforms and running candidates outside of the state party structure in 2014 and 2016. 

With the right tool, we can build a democracy for the ages.

Standing With Eddie Vedder and the Real Possibility of Peace

$
0
0
Palestinian / Israeli Separation Wall
Thank you Eddie Vedder for speaking up for peace in our world. Eddie has gotten some criticism over comments he made about the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. That situation has been messed up for so long, it is no wonder that even mentioning it is toxic. Let’s face it, the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis is a disaster! I don’t know how many times I have heard the same explanations and excuses and it matters not, there is a continuing catastrophe between those two peoples.

Our world is connected as never before. People from all corners of the planet share culture and commerce at the click of a mouse. In contrast to this great convergence of humanity, Israel is building tall concrete walls while Palestinians fire rockets over them. There's a shared recent history between these people, and I think there could be a shared future that's more in tune with what's going on with our ever-connected universe.

Hamas' policy of not recognizing Israel is a dead end. All our lives are a result of the course of history. In other words, one thing leads to another, and our circumstances bring us to where we are. Israel has been a state for over 50 years, and has grown to seven million citizens. Furthermore, Israel is an inclusive democracy with universal human rights. In fact, Arab Israelis, like all its citizens, can vote for parties who hold seats in the Knesset, the national legislature.

However, if there is to be recognition of the course of history, we cannot forget the demographic changes the idea of Israel has created over 50 years. The influx of people into Israel--mostly Europeans--has displaced some four million Palestinians. You can give any anecdote you want about how small Israel is in comparison to the rest of the Middle East but the sentiment is still there--Palestinians feel that their land was taken away.

The region is host to the convergence of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. It's where these religions started, and the region's extensive history draws from all three of these Abrahamic faiths. Radicals hold eschatological beliefs that, if manifested, could set off a major religious conflict in the region and world. You have to credit Israel for keeping a lid on this dynamic while at the same time granting religious freedom.

As we've seen with other conflicts, things do and can change. The "troubles" in Northern Ireland were a result of events a century ago, and after a proactive effort, peace has taken hold. Yugoslavia was another 19th-century idea that when put into practice caused much controversy and conflict. Today we find the south Slavs working to come together in the European Union. In both these cases, a resolution of the conflict was buttressed by the promise of the stability needed for prosperity to happen.

The people of Palestine and Israel deserve peace and prosperity. It is time to stop repeating the same old arguments, dogma and hate speech. It is the knuckleheads on both sides that should be criticized and not the singer from a rock band. In addition, both sides need to make hard decisions about finding a settlement to the catastrophe that is Israel/ Palestine.

Thanks Eddie for sharing your feelings. I stand with you my friend!!!

"They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.” Israeli Lawmaker Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home Party advocating genocidal policies.


Palestinian (Fatah) Cleric: Islam demands Israel's destruction



John & Yoko, "Give Peace A Chance!!"

A version of the post appeared in the March 2, 2009 Seattle Weekly

Voting Rights Act in Yakima, Part I: Racially Polarized Voting

$
0
0

By Krist Novoselić

 On August 22, United States District Court Judge Thomas O. Rice ruled that the City Of Yakima’s voting system was in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling identifies the city’s at-large voting system as the culprit for racially polarized voting. In the next installment about this issue, I will argue that the problem is winner-take-all rules and not at-large arrangements. Yakima can use this ruling to move beyond districts towards a truly inclusive voting system for all its voters. Until then, let us look at a recent instance of racially polarized voting in Yakima County.

Washington State held a primary election in August of 2012. One race for a seat on the State Supreme Court raised concerns over the issue of racially polarized voting in the Yakima area. Election returns revealed vote count disparities in the race between Steve Gonzalez and Bruce Danielson. Danielson, an obscure lawyer from Kitsap County beat Gonzalez who was an incumbent by appointment to the bench. Research points to voters choosing the candidate on surname alone – voters simply rejected the Latino.


Unlike other areas in the state, Danielson beat Gonzalez by 28 percent. The disparities in the race are so glaring that researchers conducted a study (Barreto, Caldwell, Oskooii, 2012). By comparing this race with other statewide races in the Yakima area and beyond, there is strong evidence of racially polarized voting. The study points to how Gonzalez was an incumbent justice who ran a well funded campaign with top endorsements. His opponent Danielson didn’t raise any money nor did he campaign or gain any key endorsements. Yet, Danielson was the top-performing candidate in Yakima and Grant counties – receiving over 70 percent of the vote. In comparison, Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna came close to, but could not crack 60 percent of the vote in the August primary. Most stunning is the comparison to Susan Owens, another sitting Justice who ran a similar campaign to Gonzalez’. She won over 60 percent of the primary vote in her race. Apparently, implicit attitudes manifested among many voters compelling them to vote in a way inconsistent with other choices on the ballot.

This situation shows characteristics of the out-group homogeneity effect. Voters / perceivers, “assume that there is similarity among members of out-groups than among members of one’s own group” (Kassin, Fein, Markus p. 167). Many voters took Gonzalez’ name as a cue for his association with an out-group (Latinos) to go as far as discounting his qualifications for public office.

Information is important regarding the strength of an attitude and behavior. Ballot design could have contributed to the distortions in the Gonzalez-Danielson race. Washington judicial races are non-partisan– meaning there is no party cue on the ballot itself. Gerald C. Wright states in a 2008 paper, “Deprived of the party cue [on the ballot] . . . voters rely on a wide variety of cues, including race, ethnicity, familiarity, place, prestige, religion, and even ballot location.” There was no state issued primary election voters guide available to voters. The Barreto study states that Snohomish County, Washington did mail a voters guide to all voters and that data shows no evidence of racially polarized voting.

Voters cast incomplete ballots with non-partisan offices because without party labels, a significant fraction of the electorate finds no basis for a decision (Wright p. 14). This phenomenon has various terms such as “undervote”, “fatigue” and “drop-off”. Data published by the Yakima County Auditors office revels the drop-off rate with Gonzalez-Danielson at 23.35 percent. This was similar to the Owens contest . In contrast, the gubernatorial primary line drop-off was 1.32 percent. The national average of State Supreme Court races drop-off is 25.6 percent (Hall 2007).

The Barreto study doesn’t mention drop-off, however, my brief drop-off analysis suggests voters that completed the judicial races had all the information they needed to commit discriminatory behavior. Voters lacking knowledge seemingly dropped off, while those with attitudes perceiving Latinos as an out-group voted against Gonzalez. At the same time, many of these voters chose the Anglo-named Owens in the other judicial contest.

Yakima county’s Latino population is 45.8 percent (Census 2010). Barreto compares election results with Snohomish County where Gonzalez obtained similar results to Owens. Snohomish Latino population according to census information is at 9.2 percent. Even though Yakima County is nearly half Latino, voting patterns are hardly integrated. The results of the Gonzalez-Danielson race offer strong evidence of racially polarized voting.

Unlike other areas of the state, many voters in the Yakima area didn’t see a qualified candidate for the bench in Gonzalez. Instead, by the cue of a surname, they used the process of social categorization to manifest the out-group homogeneity effect to make their choice on the ballot.

             


Works Cited

Barreto, M.A., Caldwell, C., Oskooii K.A.R., Dissecting Voting Patterns in the González-Danielson Supreme Court Contest in Washington State

Wright, G.C., Charles Adrian and the Study of non-Partisan Elections. Political Research Quarterly Volume 61 Number 1 (March 2008) 13-16

Hall, M.G., Voting in State Supreme Court Elections: Competition and Context as Democratic Incentives The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Nov., 2007) 1147-1159

Yakima County Auditor, Elections Division http://www.yakimacounty.us/vote/English/Returns.htm

Voting Rights Act in Yakima, Part II: Options for the City & All ItsVoters

$
0
0

by Krist Novoselić

A federal court has ruled that Yakima’s elections are in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Some may think that the City’s only options are to accept seven individual districts or appeal the ruling. This assumption is untrue as Yakima has more alternatives available than ceding to a district plan or wading forward with more litigation. A simple change to the voting rules can have Yakima keep at-large elections, while at the same time remedy issues of voter dilution.

Exclusive districts are not a solution mandated by the VRA. Making these so-called majority-minoritydistricts is a decision by the parties in the lawsuit. Judge Rice’s ruling may have called on the City to submit a district plan, notwithstanding, legal precedence allows the defendant jurisdiction the choice of election systems as long its proposal actually does remedy the vote dilution. In other words — Yakima can choose to implement voting rules other than majority-minority districts.

Instead of districts, Yakima could submit fair representation voting rules similar to how many cities in Alabama, Connecticut and Pennsylvania elect their governing bodies.  When Yakima has three seats up for election, all candidates could run against one another, and voters would cast one vote. One person gets one vote to elect three people. After all the votes are counted, the top three vote getters win election. The effect of this kind of voting is that the majority rules on the local level — but the minority has a seat at the table. 

This system would solve the voter dilution issues in Yakima because in years with three council seats on the ballot, it would take 25 percent or less to get elected — a threshold the city’s Latinos voting in a bloc can cross to win a seat.  When four seats are elected, it would take just over 20 percent to win.

The one-vote system could retain key aspects of the system that was challenged. Yakima could keep its four districts and advance the top-two vote getters from the primary to the general. These candidates would run at-large, but instead of the top-two squaring off, all of the general election candidates would be on a single ballot line. If the city staggers elections, voters would have one vote to elect three seats in one year, or one vote to elect four seats in another.

For 30 years now, over 100 jurisdictions in the United States have used various fair representation systems instead of districts to remedy their VRA cases – including three VRA cases brought by the Department of Justice in the past decade. Santa Clarita, California just this year is the most recent jurisdiction opting for cumulative voting rights, which is another version of fair representation voting.  

Ranked choice voting is form of fair representation that would allow Yakima to save the costs of holding primary elections. Cambridge, Massachusetts is a majority-white city that has used this system for seventy years, and has had continuous representation of people of color on its city council since the 1950’s.

The plaintiff’s in the case seek the creation of two majority-minority districts. This way, districts would be drawn with the intention of creating Latino majorities in those areas of the city. Yakima argued in its defense that Latinos outside of these specially created districts would then be excluded — effectively replacing one VRA violation with another. In response, the court shrugged that districts “always result in a dilution of minority voting strength in the remaining districts.” Yakima can still stand by its defense — along with a meaningful choice of candidate for every Latino voter — by requesting a fair representation alternative to districts.

In 2011, Yakima voters said no to districts. By calling for an alternative remedy, the City can respect the results of Proposition 1 while still chart its own course. Using at-large arrangements like the one-vote system lets voters decide who represent them and not political elites who draw and approve exclusive districts. 

Local governments in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and many other places around the nation for years use fair representation voting to elect stable and effective representation. The plaintiff’s in the VRA case want a seat at the table. Alternatives to exclusive districts can provide this while Yakima still makes its own way for all its voters.

Voting Rights Act in Yakima, Part III: An Inclusive Compromise

$
0
0

This is the third installment regarding a recent federal court ruling finding the City of Yakima’s elections in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). I write about how the City is offering a compromise remedy that better serves Latinos, if not all voters.

Soon after the summary ruling finding Yakima in violation of Sec. 2 of the VRA, political and opinion leaders suggested the City not appeal. Governor Jay Inslee wrote a letter to the city council saying, “I want to respectfully request that the Council send a clear message by voting to not appeal the Court’s decision and instead focus on implementing a plan to address this serious issue.” The Seattle Times editorial board wrote, that, “Yakima should abandon any notion of a costly appeal.” And guess what? Yakima did not appeal. It did however, offer a compromise that allows it to stand by its argument regarding representation for all of the city’s Latino voters — and not only those who are drawn into exclusive districts.

Latinos make up roughly one-quarter of the Yakima's citizen voting age population, yet a Latino has never been elected to office. Most tend to blame at-large elections as the barrier to Latinos electing representatives.  At-large elections are not the problem in themselves — the real culprit is the winner-take-all voting rules that allow the same majority blocto dominate every seat up for election.

Here is the system the ruling threw out: Yakima’s city council has seven members. It staggers its elections to where half the seats are in front of voters every two years. All seats are elected at-large, with each one a separate contest. Four of the seats are associated with residency districts; featuring an exclusive primary election where candidates and voters must live in that district. In each contest, residency and at-large, the top-two vote winners in the primary advance to the general to face all of the City's voters.

The problem for Latino candidates has not been getting through the primary. It was winning in the citywide election, one-on-one against a white candidate. A Latino would advance to the general, but could not overcome the 50 percent threshold.

The Court agreed with plaintiff’s evidence of racially polarized voting and Yakima’s at-large elections were struck down. In the ruling, the Court ordered Yakima to submit a plan for seven exclusive districts. Two of the districts need to have a majority of Latino voters. These “majority-minority” districts mean the lines are drawn to allow Latinos to elect a preferred candidate, which likely would be a Latino.

Before the ruling, Yakima argued that majority-minority districts only created another VRA violation. They made the case for Latinos who lived outside of the proposed exclusive districts. Judge Rice, in his summary ruling, basically shrugged off the argument saying majority-minority districts, “always result in a dilution of minority voting strength in the remaining districts”. In other words, too bad for the Latino voters not living in the exclusive districts. Yakima is rejecting this notion of collateral damage.

Yakima submitted a hybrid district / at-large plan that is a compromise allowing for representation of all its Latino voters — and not just for those who were drawn into a majority district:

First, the proposal creates five exclusive districts — including one majority-minority district and one “opportunity” district. By opportunity, the City offers demographic growth estimates where Latinos can be the majority in that district by the end of the decade.

Second, Yakima is also proposing a modified at-large system for the remaining two seats on the council. The plan cures majority bloc voting by using a semi-proportional voting system. Political scientists call this the single non-transferable vote although it might be simply called “the single vote system.” The effect of this is it would take no more than a third of the vote to win a seat. A candidate backed strongly by Latino voters can cross this threshold. 

The district / modified at-large hybrid could provide two Latino seats on the council. In addition, if demographic estimates hold up, there is an opportunity for a third seat.

The City of Yakima has been a good faith player with diversity. In 2008, Sonia Rodriguez was appointed by the City to fill a vacancy on their council. When she ran for election in 2009 for an at-large position, she came in second place to lose the seat. The judge in the ruling offers this as evidence of how the majority bloc defeats Latinos. Notwithstanding, the election results are a good example of how Yakima’s modified at-large proposal accommodates minorities. With 42.6 percent of the vote, Rodriguez would have been one of the top two winners if that system were in use. The ruling also says that she received an estimated 92.8 percent of the Latino vote. While this evidence of racial polarization is concerning, on the other hand, it demonstrates how his community can rally behind a single candidate — the key to making a modified at-large system an effective way to elect a minority.

Majority-minority districts are not explicit in the VRA. This kind of remedy is a product of the course of law. A remedy like what Yakima is proposing is also established jurisprudence. Over 100 jurisdictions in the US use a modified at-large system to create opportunities for minority representation. Many cities in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Alabama and others use it to give minorities a voice. This includes minority political views and is how Republicans get elected in urban areas and Democrats win in rural places.

On October 20th, FairVote, an election reform advocacy group I work with, filed an amicus briefproposing Yakima elect at least three seats with the single vote system. With three seats elected by the single vote, any group of voters making up to a quarter of the vote would be able to consistently elect a preferred candidate.

The City of Yakima accepted FairVote’s brief. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs seem less willing to compromise. Their attorneys, who include the American Civil Liberties Union, are arguing that state law does not allow a modified at-large system. Nevertheless, federal law typically trumps state law in such cases. Furthermore, the Washington Voting Rights Act changes state law to accommodate the remedy that Yakima is proposing. This bill has passed the Washington State House and is legislation supported by both the ACLU and FairVote.

Why do the plaintiffs oppose a compromise in the spirit of legislation that their attorneys and even the Seattle Times supports?

Every voter deserves representation. With Yakima’s compromise, it is voters, and not lawyers or political insiders, who decide who to best represent them. Yakima shows good faith by standing up for every Latino voter in the city.

There should be a ruling on the plans submitted by the opposing parties any day now. Stay tuned!!!!! 

Making A Place on the Ballot for Women

$
0
0

This article will look at electoral rules that best accommodate how a gender component, within an association’s nominating rules, could guarantee a woman a place on the general election ballot.

There is a gender gap in our politics. According to the Center for American Women andPolitics, a total of 104 women will serve in the 114th Congress. Women make up 24.2 percent of the state legislatures. We have seen a steady rise in holding office since 1917, the year the first woman was elected to the US House. Notwithstanding, women still only hold 19 percent of the seats in Congress.
My perspective is rooted in the book It Still Takes a Candidate: Why women don’t run for office by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox. These scholars examine the gender gap to find women are less likely than men to consider running for office, run for office and express an interest to run for office in the future (p. 164). To determine the sources of this gap, scholars examine potential barriers to participation. One obstacle is traditional gender socialization. This socialization assigns gender roles to the sexes where the female assumes the place of homemaker. This role can follow a woman candidate into office (p. 76). The demands on a candidate are also examined — there is a loss of privacy and the negative nature of campaigns (p. 137). Another hurdle is how electoral gatekeepers from the political parties, and other candidate support organizations, tend to recruit more men than women (p. 96). While the effects of socialization and inherent negatives in the current electoral system are formidable, groups have been recruiting women candidates.

Women’s organizations do play an important role in mitigating the gender gap in political recruitment (p. 105). For example, the Woman’s Campaign Forum, EMILY’s List, the White House Project and Emerge America actively recruit women to run for office. Lawless and Fox add that contact from a group can make a woman 34 percent more likely to be a candidate. These groups focus on encouraging female candidates, however, what if political parties themselves made an effort to recruit more women?

The Rules Matter

Political parties are the obvious portals for the emergence of candidates. Increasing participation for women in politics can result from simple party by-law changes. Parties here and abroad have rules with gender components. For example, the Washington State Democratic party by-laws call for the election of an exclusive state committeeman and state committeewoman from county and legislative organizations to the Central Committee (Article VIII, B). The National Republican Congressional Committee has instituted its “Project GROW” (Growing Republican Opportunities for Women) to, “empower women, engage female leaders on and off the ballot in the 2014 cycle and beyond’’ (NRCC). In Germany, where half the national legislature is elected at-large from closed party-list ballots, some parties have adopted gender components for their candidate nominations. Lawless and Fox tell us that compared to most election rules used in the United States, “women are more likely to emerge and succeed in proportional party-list electoral systems [used abroad]” (p. 14).

In a closed party-list system, the party publishes a list of candidates. After votes are counted, the top names on the list, in order of succession, are given seats according to the vote total proportion won by the party. In other words, if the party wins thirty seats, the top thirty candidates on the list are elected. Various parties in Germany have different rules regarding gender. For example the Social Democratic Party has a rule where if the top candidate is one gender, the second name on the list must be a different gender. Christian Democrats have a rule where gender rotates with every other name on the list (Davidson-Schmich 2010 p. 139). These gender rules not only make a difference with getting women elected to office, they tend to catch on with other parties.

Davidson-Schmich has studied the effect voluntary gender quotas in the 2009 Bundestag election. She tells us that the Green party started using gender quotas for their election lists in the mid 1980s. Other parties on the left soon followed suit in what the author refers to as a “contagion effect” (p. 134). It was a matter of appealing to women voters — as parties without the gender quota were losing support of this constituency. After the Green’s started using quotas, along with the contagion effect, the number of female parliamentarians grew from 10 percent in the 1980s to 33 percent in 2010. The evidence is clear with gender quotas within nominating rules: more women are elected and more parties choose to adopt quotas. It is a win / win proposition. 

The key to more women winning office is an election system that accommodates gender components. There is no tradition of party-list proportional representation in the United States. Nevertheless, there are versions of proportional representation, and other forms of voting that are constitutionally protected, which could accommodate parties who nominate with gender components. While these systems are candidate-based, they can still accommodate party nominees.

One such system is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV can be used either with proportional representation or single-winner elections. With this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. The primary and general are folded into one election — instead of multiple rounds of voting and ballot counting, RCV produces a winner in one election[i]. By accommodating ballot preferences through transfers, RCV avoids candidates from the same party splitting their share of votes among a constituency. Therefore, RCV is well suited for parties with voluntary gender quotas to nominate multiple candidates.

RCV is used in many local elections in the United States. This system can work with either partisan or non-partisan elections. Currently, the local jurisdictions using RCV do so with non-partisan ballots. In 2008 and 2009, Pierce County, Washington briefly experimented with the partisan version of RCV (Ammons AP, 2007). An examination of this election revealed RCV did not split the vote between parties with multiple nominees.

Political scientists studied the 2008 RCV election in Pierce County. They concluded that the partisan version of this type of voting “[D]oes an effective job of simulating both a primary and general in one election” (p. 14) This partisan version of RCV allowed the parties to nominate their candidates without state controls such as an exclusive partisan primary or “prefers party” ballot device. The Washington State Democratic party in 2008 nominated candidates for every jurisdiction in the state without state ballot controls. While these nominations produced a single candidate for a respective office, Pierce County was different. Under the unique RCV rules, the County party chose to nominate multiple candidates for a respective office. An examination of the 2008 Pierce RCV election reveals the potential of a gender component with multiple nominations for a single seat up for public election.

There were four candidates running for Pierce County Executive. The Democratic party nominated two candidates; a male and female. The GOP nominated one male candidate. There was also an independent male candidate. Voters used the RCV system and ballots were tabulated. According to the study (p. 4), the GOP came in first place with 35 percent, the female Democrat came in second with 26.5 percent, the male Democrat won third place with 23 percent and the independent finished with 15 percent. As there was no majority, the independent was eliminated with his voters second and third preferences distributed to the remaining candidates. No candidate crossed the threshold. The male Democrat was eliminated with his votes splitting towards the female Democrat 3:1 to propel her towards victory.

RCV prevents vote splitting, therefore it can accommodate multiple nominees in a winner-take-all election. By simulating the primary in a single general election, RCV allows all candidates to participate in the open general election where more voters tend to participate. If Democrat’s had a gender component for their nominations, RCV would have accommodated the party’s rules.

A Spot on the Ballot, or A Seat in Office?

Partisan RCV guarantees a woman spot on the November ballot when parties use gender components. However, it does not assure her election. With party-list proportional, if a party with a gender component wins enough seats, the women nominees are ensured election. RCV is different as it is a candidate-basedsystem. It can elegantly accommodate the expression of a party, while at the same time, it is up to an individual voter to choose which candidates to rank. A woman may fall short of getting elected. While structuring election rules is a good way to get more women on the ballot, voluntary gender components within party nominations with RCV are not a magic bullet to fill the gender gap.

Davidson-Schmich says that the within the last decade, the unprecedented rise of women members in the German Bundestag[1] has leveled off (p. 134). Here in the United States, if we hold the 1992 “Year of the Woman” surge as a benchmark, women in office have similarly leveled off. Lawless and Fox identify the gap in political ambition as the culprit in this leveling off in the United States (p. 166). They tell us this consists of three deeply embedded aspects of traditional gender socialization that inhibit women from running. These three are, traditional family role orientations, a masculinized ethos and the gendered psyche. These are real barriers to get women involved. The way to break down these barriers is by looking at rules that create opportunities to get women on the ballot.

A Comparison

German MMP Ballot
Gender components in nominations within German elections have resulted with women sitting in 30 percent of the Bundestag. Using the German example as a measure, RCV with parties choosing to nominate men and women could nearly double the number of women in Congress from the current 19 percent. Germany’s mixed-member proportional system provides a comparison. Half of the Bundestag is elected winner-take-all from single seats while the other half is proportional representation with the whole country as an at-large unit. Germany uses closed party-list ballots for the at-large part of the ballot. Davidson-Schmich says parties don’t have gender components for the single-seat nominations. As a result, of the nominations of women were very low for this half of the Bundestag. The author says this can account for the stagnation of the number of women in office (p. 147). The rules matter with how parties nominate women.

Reformers could also look at the proportional version of Ranked Choice Voting. Research by FairVote’s Representation 2020 project shows that multi-member districts tend to elect more women. State legislatures that use multi-member districts have 31 percent women compared to states with single-member districts, which are 22.8 percent women (p. 18). The combination of a gender component in nominations with multi-member districts, promises a potent means to pull more women into politics.

In Conclusion 

Gender components within nominations are a proven device to get more women in the political arena. The rules matter in an election and an examination of them could open doors for women. A party-list proportional representation system could be a hard sell in the United States. Another issue is an anti-party attitude held by elites and voters alike. That said, political parties can open up their nominations with unassembled caucuses, mail ballots or online voting. 

American versions of proportional representation have already withstood court scrutiny and are in use with local elections here in the United States. Until larger social issues regarding gender in politics lessen their influence on the gender gap, inclusive election rules can make headway towards parity of the sexes in politics.
 
REFERENCES

Center for American Women and Politics (2014) CAWP Fact Sheet Women in the U.S. Congress Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, www.cawp.rutgers.edu

Davidson-Schmich, L.K., (2010) Gender Quota Compliance and Contagion in the 2009 Bundestag Election German Politics and Society, Issue 96 Vol. 28, No. 3 Fall

Donovan, T., Barreto, M., Collingwood, L., (2009) An Assessment of Rank Choice Voting’s Debut in Pierce County A Research Report of The Washington Poll

FairVote The State of Women’s Representation 2013-2014 American Women in Elected Office & Prospects for Change, Representation 2020 A Century from Suffrage to Parity http://www.representation2020.com/uploads/9/2/2/7/9227685/swr_highlights_2013-2014.pdf

Lawless, L.L., Fox, R.L. (2010) It Still Takes a Candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press, New York

National Conference of State Legislators (2013) Women In State Legislatures: 2013 Legislative SessionAs of November 2013. http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/womens-legislative-network/women-in-state-legislatures-for-2013.aspx

National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Project Growhttp://www.nrcc.org/project_grow/


[1]Angela Merkel is the first woman Chancellor of Germany. She is also the first woman head of a German political party.


[i]With the single-winner version, choices are tabulated and any candidate that receives 50+1 percent is elected. If no candidate gets this threshold, the last place finisher is eliminated and their voters’ subsequent rankings are distributed among the remaining candidates. This process can be repeated until a candidate reaches the winning threshold.

Revelatory Dream

$
0
0
Dream Machine
Yesterday I was recording with Robert Michael Pyle. (If you are interested in what we are up to, here is a link to some work we did a couple of years ago.) I was playing guitar to Bob’s prose about Darwin’s voyage of the Beagle. During one part of the performance, I was straining to hear what he was saying, however, I could make out things through little bits and pieces. Later, during a break, I was trying to remember the school of psychology that studies how the mind can construe fragments of a visual image for a complete mental recognition. I was stumped.

Last night I had a dream where someone handed me a book with these partial images made up of typed dots and dashes . It was like …_ _ .. .. , and  I could see just enough where it was the face of Zeus. I looked at the cover of the book and the title was “Gestalt Psychology”.


Wow! During sleep, my long-term memory (LTM) was working in concert with my amygdala and visual association area to remind me of what the school of psychology I was straining to remember.



I had gone to sleep a little stressed. I have been rushing some of my studies lately and made a mistake. I was telling myself to slow down and I am slashing some minor commitments. As of late, I think my mind can get cluttered so LTM is getting blocked. The dream was liberating and clearing. I felt great after a solid, good night’s sleep.


Voting Rights Act In Yakima, Part IV: Let's Pass The WASHINGTON Voting Rights Act

$
0
0

Let's have our cake.........or taking your piece?
By Krist Novoselić

Micah Cawley is the Mayor of Yakima, Washington and he writes this great editorial in the Seattle Times today.

It is refreshing to see a forward-looking article about the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that encourages readers to go beyond the partisan stagnation that infects our politics these days.

Last week, Cawley submitted testimony in Olympia in support of the Washington Voting Rights Act. He advocated certain amendments to the bill that should make better prospects for its passage. This can be a game-changer with legislation that has been slogging its way through the process. Too bad proponents of the VRA squandered an opportunity to move an amended bill out of the Senate Government Operations and Security committee. They instead passed a version of the bill that already died in the Senate Rules committee. Unless proponents have a strategy -and I have not heard of one- it seems like EHSB 1745 [WA VRA bill] is limping its way to its death again in the Senate Rules committee. However, it's not too late and maybe Cawley’s positive attitude -and the amendments- can still give this bill some traction?


Washington State Voting Rights Act

I have been asked to explain this bill. If you don't read the link above, here is very brief explanation of the legislation.

If passed into law, the WA VRA is a way to keep places out of prolonged court battles. For example, if there is evidence of exclusion of racial minorities, a concerned party could approach a jurisdiction regarding their election system. Empirical data within a serious examination of the election system would have to be submitted. The WA VRA bill does not compensate legal fees to a party that is determined to have submitted a frivolous lawsuit — you better be serious if you execute an action under a WA VRA.

Real evidence could show how a winner-take-all, at-large election system results in majority bloc voting in a racially polarized environment. The jurisdiction then has 180 days to respond to the notice. Let’s say the board looks at the evidence and determines that it is credible. The task for the jurisdiction, if they want to avoid any further action from the party presenting evidence, is to remedy the problem by changing its election system to accommodate more people. If the jurisdiction does this, they are then immune from another state action for four years. So there you have the promise of a WA VRA — prolonged litigation on the state level is avoided!

Many assume the remedy for a VRA case is the single-member, majority-minority district. However, this arrangement is nowhere in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And technically, exclusive districting is not the only remedy in the WA VRA – and we will get to this shortly. My point is that the bill gives a jurisdiction flexibility with its choice of remedy.

For example, a city or special district can do away with their winner-take-all, at-large system and choose an exclusive district plan. It is then a matter of deciding how to draw maps. The protected class – in Eastern Washington’s case it's Latinos — would be drawn into districts that reflect their proportion of the population.

In the Yakima court-ordered exclusive district plan, one district is majority-minority; meaning these “types” of voters are virtually guaranteed to elect a candidate of their choice. In a second district, there is not a majority, but these “types” are concentrated enough to potentially influence elections. According to Drew Spencer, FairVote’s staff attorney, “almost 80% of Yakima's Latino citizen voting-age population would live outside of the one majority-minority district, and almost 60% would live outside of either the majority-Latino or the "influence" district. That means that most Latino voters in Yakima would still have no actual representation on the Yakima city council.”

This gets us to more options under the WA VRA — and what Cawley is talking about in his editorial. Yakima all along wanted to settle its lawsuit with a hybrid district / modified at-large system. Some other technical terms for modified at-large are semi-proportional representation and Single Non-Transferable Vote. Yakima proposed five districts for their seven council seats. One district is majority-minority, and another is an influence district. With the modified at-large part, they proposed the first and second place vote getters win election for the two city-wide seats. 

With this constitutionally protected and proven system, one person gets one vote towards electing two people. If considering an actual election like the one mentioned in Cawley’s Op-Ed, you can see that that indeed – most voters would be winners. Motivated, bridge-builder candidates have incentive to engage the system. This has the real potential for electing two Latino representatives on the Council. 

This hybrid is a better deal than the single and exclusive, majority-minority district the plaintiffs and court keep insisting on. Hybrid district / modified at-large voting is used in other diverse cities such as Philadelphia, PA.

The final option is a full modified at-large system. Over one hundred jurisdictions in the United States use this type of voting — many in response to VRA cases. Over forty school boards use it in Texas, a state with a large Latino population. As Cawley remarked in his Op-Ed, “the idea is to be inclusive of more voters, regardless of where they live, what they look like, or what they believe.” 

In addition, for many smaller boards, commissions and special districts where people tend to volunteer their time, modified at-large creates a larger pool of candidates available to serve. With districts, two good candidates could have to run against each other, while other districts remain vacant.Yakima needs a modified at-large component as it does not have a strong mayor system. They use a city manager, so they need the flexibility of some at-large seats to accommodate citywide representation. 

Squeezed

Regardless of their needs, the plaintiffs and their attorneys in the federal VRA action insisted on exclusive districts. In the end, the US District Court's interpretation of state law disqualified Yakima's request for flexibility.

As a result, lawyers in Seattle drew Yakima’s exclusive district maps. This fall, Seattleites get to vote for three seats on their council — unlike in Yakima where they are being told they cannot have these kinds of choices in their upcoming elections.

It gets worse. Yakima was soaked with a $2.8 million legal bill from the ACLU. The City’s defense cost a fraction of this. They asked the judge to explain this discrepancy, and are still waiting to hear back. Now, after Yakima’s punitive court-imposed legal bills, entrepreneur attorneys will see a potential pot of gold in other Washington cities with growing diversity.

As you can see, the rigidity of this ruling is ugly. At the same time, the old rules in Yakima were unfair to too many voters. This is why we need a Washington State Voting Rights Act to avoid these situations.

Save EHSB 1745!

Republicans in Olympia are leery of a WA VRA because they see it as too litigious. And considering that majority State House Democrats recently rejected GOP floor amendments that clearly made the bill less litigious, I don’t blame this suspicion. In Cawley’s testimony to the Senate, and in his Op-Ed, he proposes these six amendments to the senate bill.

1    Excludes cities and towns under 2,000 people as well as school districts with fewer than 500 students, instead of 1,000 and 250 respectively in the original bill;

2    Provides for the affirmative defense to liability that members of the protected class are already elected in proportion to their population in the jurisdiction;

3    Prohibits an action to be filed within four years of a lawsuit filed against the subdivision under the federal VRA;

4    Allows incumbents to finish their terms in office, even if that means the legislative body has to temporarily expand following new elections;

5    Allows the jurisdiction to adopt a remedy different from the one provided in the notice or notices, just so long as it complies with the law;

6    Clearly includes the use of modified at-large voting as a remedy for cities to adopt voluntarily.

I testified in favor of these amendments also. 

The version of the WA VRA that passed out of the committee is vague about modified at-large. We feel this option for jurisdictions should be clearer. The reality is that most cities and boards that remedy federal VRA cases choose exclusive majority-minority districts. Nevertheless, one size does not fit all. For example, in recent years Port Chester, New York opted for modified at-large with its remedy. Santa Clarita, very recently under the California Voting Rights Act, also chose modified at-large.

Onward!

I was in Olympia twice to testify on behalf of an amended WA VRA. I support the amendments because I see them as the only way forward. I support this legislation as I believe there is polarized voting in Yakima. What an irony that political polarization is holding the WA VRA back from passing! It will take some doing, but there might be some will to try and get an amended bill to pass the State Senate. However, it cannot be done alone. This means the GOP embracing EHSB 1745 in Rules, along with some coordinated floor amendments.

Even if the Washington State Voting Rights Act dies again this year, let us all still work to build political and racial bridges so that all of our state’s voters can get the representation they deserve.


Great show with The Sonics last night

$
0
0
I go to play the tune "Cinderella" with The Sonics last night. Their set caught the band in top form. It was amazing to see them live. I imagined being in the audience at the Spanish Castle in 1965. (This is the venue immortalized in the Jimi Hendrix song.) My point is that their energy and straight-forward arrangements actually transcended time. They were the forbearers of Punk Rock who opened doors for many in the Pacific Northwest music scene.

Here are some images by Brian Kasnyk.

Group Photo


Chris Ballew & Myself
Rhythm Section: Myself with Dusty Watson

Fifty Years of the Voting Rights Act

$
0
0

By Krist Novoselic

In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued its Brown v. Board of Education decision; which put an end to the doctrine of “separate but equal”. This unanimous ruling struck down the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson — an 1896 decision that propped up a regime of racial segregation lasting for generations. A decade after Brown, vestiges of segregation still existed in state and local election law. As a result, a broad-based, grassroots civil rights movement took action. To this day, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), a centerpiece achievement of the civil rights movement, looms large over elections in the United States. The goal of this landmark legislation is to break down statutory barriers to political representation such as literacy tests, poll taxes and other voting rules meant to exclude. As a result of the VRA, elections today are reflecting more racial diversity than ever before. This demonstrates the success of the VRA.

On the other hand, the status quo of civil rights advocacy is far from dynamic. Civil rights issues have been drawn into the political polarization that currently grips American politics. We find the Act repeatedly manipulated by political elites of both major parties to maximize their electoral strength. Instead of broad-based, grassroots efforts, the battles over civil/voting rights within legislative reapportionment are fought among attorneys. The resulting course of law is a patchwork of civil rights rulings, some at odds with the Act itself. These fights occur at all levels of government; for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives; who controls the floors of various state chambers; on down to counties, cities and other local jurisdictions. Those who control and prevail with the drawing maps for this type of election effectively become Masters of the Political Universe. This article looks at how political elites tend to focus on geographical districting with single-seat, winner-take-all elections as a remedy to VRA cases.

While the VRA has been successful with electing minorities, measuring legislative responsiveness in the United States Congress shows poor results. This article examines legislation in the House of Representatives regarding immigration—an important concern to Latino voters—and how this issue is languishing as a result of distortions caused by partisan manipulation of district lines.

I conclude by suggesting some form of modified at-large voting as a way of keeping omnipotent political elites in check.



Literature Review

Concerns over the VRA and ethnic minorities efficacy with government have been expressed for decades. Guinier has criticized the single-member district as a remedy to minority vote dilution and how alternative-voting systems could effectively connect more people with their representatives (1994). Issacharoff, Karlan and Pildes in the legal textbook The Law and Democracy, compile then examine many cases regarding the VRA and redistricting. They also look at alternative voting methods (2012). Engstrom and McDonald (2003) not only look at reform efforts like district elections that increase minority representation, they consider the efficacy these communities have with government once their candidates are elected. Empirical data shows districting as a success in electing minorities, while the latter regarding efficacy has, at best, mixed results. Wallace (2014) offers similar research regarding Latinos. She looks at roll call votes and bill co-sponsorship in the 112th Congress — when Democrats had complete control. She picks bills regarding immigration, labor and education because she says these are “high salience issues” for the Latino community. Her study suggests that Latino representatives are more active on these issues than their non-Latino colleagues.

Polarization in the United States


Our nation has hardly achieved a post-racial social condition. Every week brings news of another black man perishing at the hands of white police officers. Regardless of the circumstances of each instance, the painful legacy of racial conflict in the United States lingers over these tragedies. Recent events in Maryland and Missouri reveal the sad fact that we still have race riots in our country. Racial unrest is an expression of the racial unease in our nation. This uncomely fissure within our society also infects the public ballot itself.

In August of 2012, voters in Yakima Washington overwhelmingly voted for an Anglo surnamed judicial candidate over a Hispanic one. Bruce Danielson was an obscure attorney who barely campaigned against his opponent Steve Gonzalez, a sitting State Supreme Court justice who won key endorsements, raised financial contributions and ran a conventional campaign. Yet Danielson won over 70 percent of the vote in Yakima County — winning the most votes of any statewide candidate on the primary ballot. Racially polarized voting played a role in the outcome. Evidence strongly suggests dominant white voters in this contest essentially rejected the Spanish surname. While Gonzalez ultimately won the statewide vote, recent studies show how political choices nationally also tend to be divided among racial lines.

According to a recent report by the Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies, race and partisanship are closely aligned. They say the 2012 presidential election “pitted 93 percent of blacks, 73% of Asian Americans, and 71% of Latinos on the Democratic side, against the clear majority of whites (at 59%) on the Republican side” (2015 p. 18). There are similar findings from the Pew Research Center; 80% of blacks and 56% Latinos tilt Democratic. Republicans hold a 49 percent to 40 percent lead over Democrats with party identification among whites (2015 p. 3). The report shows the gap is even larger in significant sub-groups of whites.

The conflation of racial polarization with political polarization should be a cause for concern. It is here where the struggle for civil rights for every American has become contaminated by the power battles among elites. The VRA is a victim caught in this tug of war.

Tool of Change

There are two ways to use the VRA to force changes to legislative maps. One way is through Section 5 and the preclearance process. The other is a court action against a jurisdiction through Section 2.

With Section 5, certain states, and the jurisdictions within, are under federal supervision with their election system. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has to approve changes with elections in these “Section 5 covered” places. The idea behind this section of the Act is to stop discriminatory and racially retrogressive election laws before they are put in use, thus avoiding time consuming and expensive litigation. Without question, this efficiency has been an important protection to the benefit of the cause for civil rights. While this section of the VRA can cover many different types of changes to elections, this article will focus on redistricting.

In 2013, SCOTUS decided Shelby County v. Holder. The Court voided Section 4 of the Act, which provided the formula for jurisdictions to qualify for Section 5 preclearance. While Congress renewed the VRA in 2006, the old formula remained unchanged; it was based on whether these places had prerequisites to voting such as literacy tests and low voter registration or voter turnout statistics from the 1960s or 1970s. The Court left it to Congress to devise new/modern criteria for Section 4. However, our politically polarized Congress has yet to pass an updated law. Section 5, with its important efficiencies and protections, now hangs in limbo. Notwithstanding, the course of law reveals the pre-clearance process had offered no guarantee of balanced elections.

Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) involves Section 5 and is an example of the conflict among power elites when drawing districts maps. After the 2000 census, majority Democrats in the Georgia legislature decided on a different approach to reapportionment. Instead of packing black voters in single Democratic districts, the plan was to spread these voters among more districts. Some districts would still contain a majority of black voters, while others could be an “influence district"[1] . These new state legislative maps enjoyed almost unanimous support of black lawmakers. Regardless of this support, the DOJ challenged the plan under Section 5, alleging the influence districts were retrogressive for black voting power. Yet again, the wheels of the legal apparatus were put into gear. Ultimately, SCOTUS upheld the legislative maps on the grounds that the District Court that disqualified them did not look at the totality of circumstances. The black / Democratic power brokers in the Georgia legislature may have won the battle, but at what cost?

Before the ruling, retrogression was just that [2] — districts where the number of black voters was diminished were simply evidence of disenfranchisement. Now, with the totality of circumstances criterion, the lines are blurred. Issacharoff (2004) says about Ashcroft, “from a bright-line rule . . . to an assessment of the competing political considerations in securing effective black representation, the Court introduced for the first time to Section 5 the fine grained calculus of trade-offs of political influence versus descriptive representation.” The legal squabble effectively was over the dogma of racially based districting. The old way of thinking was, “for guarantees of minority electoral success, which in turn translated into the maintenance of packed minority districts” (Issacharoff, p. 1729). Packed districts usually result in an uncompetitive or uncontested election in a district with a large surplus of minority voters needed for the election of a single representative. The post Ashcroft ideal is for spreading enough minority voters across districts as a better way to increase their influence, as it allows the opportunity to create cross-cultural coalitions. In turn, prevailing coalitions could result with better responsiveness in government. Regardless of how you look at packing or influencing districts, the practice of engineering electoral districts to affect the results are at the heart of the matter.

Recent court rulings show how the “fine grained” strategy of districting is replacing the longstanding practice of packing districts with minorities. Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. v. Alabama, et al. (2015) regarding state legislative lines and Dawn Curry Page, et al., v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. (2014) regarding congressional boundaries, are two cases where the longstanding practice of district packing was rejected by the courts. In addition, the political insiders who drew the lines in Virginia, defended their work as preventing retrogression of minority voting power. Alabama map makers were basically recreating minority districts from the 2001 redistricting cycle. Excuses aside, it must be noted that both of these “packed” maps were pre-cleared under Section 5 by the DOJ.

The brief look at the circumstances above shows section 5 failing its mission of preventing redistricting litigation. Section 2 of the VRA also seems to offer lackluster results with districting remedies.

Section 2

With section 2, a plaintiff must prove that an election system is fostering racial voter dilution. Jurisprudence has developed a three-pronged test to determine if any dilution is possible.

Washington State had its first federal action ever under the VRA in 2012. Considering the example of racially polarized voting above, it should be no surprise the City of Yakima was sued by plaintiffs under a section 2 challenge alleging the City’s winner-take-all, at-large election system was harming Latino voters. Federal judge Thomas O. Rice issued a summary ruling siding with the plaintiffs that racially polarized voting occurred under the city’s election arrangement. Yakima was ordered to submit an exclusive district plan, which included one, so-called, majority-minority district and another “influence district”[3].

Within the initial pleadings, Yakima pointed to a key weakness with exclusive single-member districts as a remedy to racial exclusion. They argued for Latinos who did not live in these two racially fashioned districts. Yakima claimed excluding voters replaced one alleged violation of Section 2 with another sure violation. Judge Rice, in the summary ruling responded, “[C]reating a minority district to remedy a §2 violation will always result in a dilution of minority voting strength in the remaining districts . . . The dilution of minority votes in other districts is an inevitable byproduct of the §2 remedy, and there is nothing improper about it” (Montes v. Yakima, 2014). In response to settle the section 2 issue, Yakima then offered a hybrid plan including a modified at-large component that clearly resolved the problem of Latino voters left out of exclusive districts. Nevertheless, the judge rejected the City’s settlement offer and, as a result, Yakima’s voters are now segregated into racially-fashioned districts. Latinos living outside of the majority-minority district are drawn into a political minority, abandoned as an “inevitable byproduct” of districts.

The City is appealing on equal protection grounds that the new districts are lopsided when considering eligible voters. For example, in the new majority-minority district, the citizen voting age population is 40 percent. In district seven, which contains mostly white voters, the citizen voting age population is 74 percent. In essence, it takes less than half as many voters to get elected in the majority-minority district than in the other. If the section 5 cases mentioned above involve “packing” districts with racial minority/opposition voters, this section 2 case is about “scattering” racial minority/supportive voters. Either way, it is about political elites using single-member districts to engineer elections.

The logic with section 5, (before Ashcroft) and section 2 in Yakima are examples of dogmatic thinking applied to the VRA. With the former, accusations of retrogression were applied to an apportionment plan conceived with progressive intentions for wider minority voter participation and representation. With the latter, racial constituencies outside of exclusive districts—that are supposed to be protected under the VRA—are shrugged off as an inevitable byproduct. The Court’s use of language is revealing — voters on the losing end of the districting battles among elites are basically collateral damage. Preordained winners and losers in specially-crafted boroughs are not the only limitation to the doctrine of the single-member district, policy suffers as well.

Distorted Districts, Distorted Outcomes

It is here that I present my primary research regarding the 2012 election and the subsequent 113th Congress. We must look at the results of this election to put the following research into perspective.

This election featured a presidential race at the top of the ballot, a factor that tends to increase voter turnout. Barack Obama was elected to a second term in an election that produced an estimated 57.5 percent total voter turnout. Democratic candidates for the United States House of Representatives (House) received 51 percent of total national vote. Republican candidates won 49 percent of the national House vote. However, because of the effects of reapportionment, minority vote getter Republicans won a 54 % majority of the seats in the House (HAAS 2013).

Latinos made up 10 percent of the electorate in the 2012 election. As mentioned above, a strong majority of Latino voters prefer Democratic candidates. In the 113th Congress there were 35 Latino representatives in the House. This was the largest class of Latinos ever. It is not easy to determine who is a member of an ethnic group. There are different metrics to ascertain this profile, however, I settled on the information provided by the House Press Gallery. Twenty-seven Latinos belong to the Democratic caucus, while 8 are Republicans.

I want to look at the efficacy of these Latino representatives regarding issues that are important to this community of voters. According to Latino Decisions, immigration is the top issue for Latino voters. A 2013 Latino Consortium/ Latino Decisions poll found that 70 percent of Latino voters wanted “a clear path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, as long as they pass a background check, learn English, and pay a fine” (Latino Consortium 2013).

Methods and Results

I analyzed the record of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives for bills submitted by Latinos regarding immigration. Their website is comprehensive and interactive. A researcher can keyword “immigration” into the search field under “113th Congress and all the bills with this term will result.

The record shows that Democratic Latinos introduced forty-two bills in the House, with none passing. Republican House Latinos introduced eight bills, with none passing also. In total, the House introduced 150 immigration bills. While not every immigration bill had to do with immigration from Central and South America, there was substantial legislation in this regard.

Democratic Representative Raul Griljava of Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, introduced HR 3163 — the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2013. This 645-page legislation is just as it title suggests — a wide-ranging proposal regarding immigration along the southern border. The bill deals with rules affecting legal immigrants including a program to assist permanent resident aliens to become citizens. The bill also considers illegal immigration, among other issues, and it is this facet of the proposal where I want to focus. Section 163 of the bill establishes apprehension procedures for families and parents of illegal aliens. Part 5 of this section wants to, “ensure that the best interests of children are considered in decisions and actions relating to the detention or release of any individual apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security, and that there be a preference for family unity whenever appropriate.” As the poll above states, this sensibility speaks to the needs and values of the Latino community.

Arizona’s 2011 congressional district map was precleared under Sec. 5 of the VRA. According to Rep. Grijalva, “The 3rd District includes the majority of Tucson’s Hispanic, African American and urban Native American residents”. Rep. Grijalva’s seems to be representing his constituents by introducing HR 3163. He was not alone in Congress, a similar bill, sponsored by New York Senator Charles Schumer also offered comprehensive immigration reform. The difference is that S. 744 passed the Democratically controlled Senate in the 113th Congress. House Republicans, by virtue of their artificial majority, not only failed to pass HR 3163, they had opposite intentions for the issue of immigration.

HR 5272 is a callous attempt at eliminating the Department of Homeland Security’s discretion involving children who entered the United States unauthorized. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was created by an executive action. It allows unauthorized youth legal residency and even legal employment for a time period to individuals who qualify. HR 5272, which specifically seeks to repeal this program, was one of the six immigration issue bills to pass the House in the 113th Congress. If ever made into law, HR 5272 would result in the deportation of many thousands of Latinos currently in the United States.

This negative result is strong evidence of the lack of efficacy regarding Latino representation in the U.S. House. 

There is no doubt that if the Democratic Party—who won the majority of national votes—controlled the House, with support from the Democratic Senate and President, comprehensive immigration reform would have been passed into law. The single-member district has not only failed Latinos; for the 113th Congress, the doctrine of single-member districts, by not reflecting the majority of Americans, hobbled the fundamental concept of the House of Representatives as a populist chamber.

Solutions / Discussion

Legislative reapportionment is very complicated. Districting criteria of competitiveness, compactness and keeping communities of interest together must be weighed with constitutional obligations. Mapmakers must also consider the obligations of the VRA into this situation. With fifty years of court rulings interpreting how to apply the law, the course from President Johnson’s desk in 1965 to today is not a straight line. One curve is how it is acceptable to create racially exclusive majority-minority districts, but extreme racial gerrymanders designed to benefit minorities are not permitted (Shaw v. Reno 1992). Another turn is how the protections of section 5 preclearance have not only failed to stop litigation, they can miss the finer points of reapportionment — such as how voters should be able to build coalitions instead of sitting packed in their own exclusive districts. Section 2 also falls short when applied in a way that abandons some minority voters as byproducts of single-member districts.

In the section 2 case with Yakima, the city proposed an alternative to exclusive districts. By offering a modified at-large voting system, many of the problems with districts are eliminated. The problems are eliminated because there are no districts with a modified at-large voting system [4]. These alternatives to winner take all at-large voting are used in local elections in the United States. They are systems of proportional representation that include the methods of “Limited Voting”, “Cumulative Voting” and “Ranked Choice Voting”. Steven J. Mulroy says, “These three ‘alternative’ systems employ special voting rules designed to enhance the abilities of minority voting blocs to obtain representation . . . without carving the jurisdiction into sub-districts” (1998).

Voting rights expert Lani Guinier has been a longtime supporter of modified at-large systems and says the link between representation and voting is restored because legislators represent united, not divided, constituencies (Guinier 1994). She adds. “Gerrymandering becomes unnecessary and can no longer be used to enhance the disproportionate power of incumbents to ensure their own reelection or to exaggerate the political control of the party in power.” (p. 152).

The Supreme Court of the United States has mentioned modified at-large voting systems favorably. In a concurring opinion with Holder v. Hall (1994), Justice Clarence Thomas[5] says that there is nothing in the VRA that prevents a modified at-large system as a remedy to a section 2 violation. Justice Thomas is keen on how majority-minority districts tend to racially segregate voters and he looks at many aspects of this in his opinion. The following quote from the 1994 opinion is prophetic regarding voting rights court decisions and the continuing litigation:
“Blacks are drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics are drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on. Worse still, it is not only the courts that have taken up this project. In response to judicial decisions and the promptings of the Justice Department, the States themselves, in an attempt to avoid costly and disruptive Voting Rights Act litigation, have begun to gerrymander electoral districts according to race. That practice now promises to embroil the courts in a lengthy process of attempting to undo, or at least to minimize, the damage wrought by the system we created.” (p. 6)
These leaders in the field of elections have been aware of the controversy and problems with redistricting and race for many years. My primary research shows one example of how the policy decision of single-member districts has real effects on citizen efficacy with government. In the end, it is the citizenry that must become aware of this matter.

Most citizens do not know or care about political institutions at all (Bowler, Donovan 2013). Districting is complicated and we should not expect voters to completely understand the process. In addition, its machinations are not visible to the average voter holding their ballot. This reality should not serve as a smoke screen to protect incumbent legislators and their political parties during political battles. The more transparent way to hold elections is to take the ability to make single-member districts away from political elites by putting sophisticated voting methods in the hands of voters. This does not necessarily complicate matters. Just like voters do not know or care about institutional activities like redistricting; with modified at-large, voters need only to accomplish the task of voting easily and effectively (Amy 2002). If they do happen to care, all the information should there for them.

I mention voters are paramount as their will is the key to bring about this reform. If voters realize they have more power with comprehensive ballots, they could bring about this kind of fundamental voting change. This realization is the first step in slaying the notion of the Masters of the Political Universe.

A large body of scholarly work demonstrates that modified at-large voting systems offer greater voter turnout and efficacy (Bowler, Donovan p. 5). My article made points about problems with single-member districts. No election system is perfect, however, modified at-large voting takes the power of determining winners and losers away from elites and puts it where it truly belongs — with the voters.

Let us never forget the hard work the civil rights movement undertook in the 1950s and 60s to create the federal Voting Rights Act. We must also recognize the work of those who successfully took on racial barriers to voting by using the important tools written into the Act. As we near the VRA’s 50 Year celebrations, let us look forward in the spirit of inclusion and justice that the civil rights movement manifested into electoral opportunities for Americans to engage their government. It is in this essence that the perspectives offered above have been presented. My wish is for the reforms I offer to be considered within this same spirit.



Footnotes

1. While not a majority, racial minorities could inhabit a district in such numbers where they could influence who could get elected.

2. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976)”[T]he ability of minority groups to participate in the political process and to elect their choices to office [should not] be augmented, diminished, or not be effected by the change affecting voting” (p. 425).

3. While not a majority, racial minorities could inhabit a district in such numbers where they could influence who could get elected.

4. Modified at-large voting can also use multi-member districts to achieve its goals.
5. Justice Thomas also wrote the majority opinion upholding Washington's and California's Top-Two election system.

References

Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. v. Alabama, et al. (2015) 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227

Amy, D. J. (2002). Real choices/new voices: How proportional representation elections could revitalize American democracy. Columbia University Press p. 189.

Barreto, M.A., Caldwell, C., Oskooii K.A.R., (2012) Dissecting Voting Patterns in the González-Danielson Supreme Court Contest in Washington State

Barreto, M.A. (2015) Missed Opportunities: Assessing Latino Turnout in 2014 Latino Decisions March, 31 http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/03/31/official-voter-turnout-data-for-latinos-in-2014/

Bi-Partisan Policy Center (2012) Election Turnout Dips Below 2008 and 2004 Levels: Number Of Eligible Voters Increases By Eight Million, Five Million Fewer Votes Cast

Bowler, S., Donovan, T. (2013). The limits of electoral reform. Oxford University Press. p. 5, 32

DACA http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

Dawn Curry Page, et al., v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. (2014) Virginia Eastern District Court, 3:2013cv00678

Engstrom, R.I., McDonald, M.D. (2003) The Effect of At-Large Versus District Elections on Racial Representation in U.S. Municipalities Electoral Laws And Their Political Consequences. Edited by Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart, Agathon Press, Inc. New York, 3rd Printing pp. 203-225

Grijalva, R. http://grijalva.house.gov/3rd-district/

Guinier, L. (1994) The Tyranny Of The Majority: Fundamental Fairness In Representative Democracy. Free Press, University of Michigan, 324 pages.

HAAS, K.L., Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, http://clerk.house.gov/

Issacharoff, S, (2004) Is Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act A Victim Of Its Own Success? Columbia Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 6, Oct.

Issacharoff, S., Karlan, P. S., & Pildes, R. H. (2012). The law of democracy: legal structure of the political process. Foundation Press.

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (2015) 50 Years of the Voting Rights Act: The state of race in politics. http://jointcenter.org/content/50-years-voting-rights-act-state-race-politics

Latino Consortium/Latino Decisions CIR Poll Toplines March 18, 2013 http://www.latinodecisions.com/files/1913/6357/1744/Latino_Consortium_Toplines_-_March_18_Release.pdf

Montes, et al, v. City of Yakima, et al., (p. 30) Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, NO: 12-CV-3108-TOR

Mulroy, S. J. (1998). The Way Out: Toward a Legal Standard for Imposing Alternative Electoral Systems as Voting Rights Remedies. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL), 33(33) p. 339

NALEO http://www.naleo.org/latinovote.html

Pew Research Center, April, 2015, “A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation”. http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/04/4-7-2015-Party-ID-release.pdfShelby County Alabama v. Holder Attorney General, (2013) 679 F. 3d 848,

Wallace, S.J., (2014) Representing Latinos: Examining Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress, Political Research Quarterly Vol. 67(4) 917–929



My Testimony in Olympia Supporting Options for Local Elections

$
0
0
I am testifying today in support of allowing local communities and jurisdictions the ability to move away from winner-take-all at large elections.

This committee is considering districting as a way for localities to remedy possible issues with minority vote dilution. Nowhere in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does it mandate exclusive districts as a remedy. In fact, the jurisprudence established since this important federal law was passed gives local communities options for voting remedies. While most choose a districting plan, others opt for a modified at-large system.

There are over 100 jurisdiction in the United States that successfully use this kind of voting system. For example Texas, which has a large Latino population, has 40 school boards that use modified at-large to elect their board members.

The City of Yakima wanted to settle its Voting Rights Act case with a hybrid single-member district / modified at-large system to elect their seven seat council. There could be five districts, including a majority-minority district and a minority influence district. The two at-large seats work like this: voters get one vote to elect two council members. When votes are counted, the top-two vote getters win.

Instead of working towards a compromise, the plaintiffs in the Yakima Voting Rights case adamantly rejected this offer by insisting on exclusive districts. They argued that state law prohibited modified at-large. The judge cited state law in denying Yakima a way to avoid the problems with districting.

The Federal Voting Rights Act does not mandate districts to remedy minority vote dilution. The Washington State Constitution does not mandate single-member districts in local elections, or House elections. Districting is a political decision. Not allowing a local option for modified at-large elections makes exclusive racially fashioned districts the only way communities can move away from the potential legal liability of majority bloc voting fostered by winner-take-all at-large elections.

I support a Washington State Voting Act which allows the local community to implement remedies to cure minority vote dilution. I submitted an amendment for the bill to this committee that puts localities—and not attorney’s from across the state—in charge; so long as the local remedy is a legally established way to make elections more inclusive.

I would like to respectfully submit language including a modified at-large option for the legislation you are considering today.

Thank you.

Real Election Reform Enters The 2016 Race

$
0
0
I sent Lawrence Lessig's latest effort five dollars today. I did it because he is supporting proportional representation as part of his Citizens Equality Act. (He also links to FairVote, a reform group that I Chair) Lessig is right, the system is rigged—and it is the result of voting rules that tend to tip the scales.

Here is an example of how lopsided things are. In November of 2012, in Washington’s 7th Congressional District, (Seattle) the Democrat received 298,368 votes to win the election. In the 3rd District, where I live, the GOP winner got 177,446 votes. The reason for this lopsided result is the single-member districts rule for US House seats. The bi-partisan commission in Olympia that drew the lines packed the 7th District with Democratic voters, and the result is a huge surplus of votes. In the 3rd CD, the Democrat won almost 40 percent but that accounted for nothing—as the winner takes all. In the end, all of these surpluses piled up to where it cost the Democrats—who won the most votes nationally—the US House.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it express single-member districts with winner-take-all rules for House elections. The current rules are the result of political decisions by the elites who make them.

Winner-take-all rules also impact campaign financing issues. For example, Washington’s 7th and 3rd districts are so lopsided for one party or another, they tend to be ignored; while the handful of so-called “swing districts” get tons of money dumped into them. This is a great value for the special interests who tend to dominate campaigns because they only need to spend / amplify their voices in certain areas. All the while, voters in safe seat districts are spectators in elections that are seen as a foregone conclusion.


What Is It?

So what is Lessig’s plan proposing with elections? Imagine living in a congressional district where there are up to five seats elected. Among all of the candidates running in the district, a voter could get five choices on the ballot. They then can rank up to five choices for US representative. This system is called Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) or Single Transferable Vote. It is used in Minneapolis and Cambridge MA. Internationally, the Australian Senate, Irish national legislature and other places use it.

RCV allows you to express your favorite candidate as first choice, then your next favorite as second, and so on. With a three seat district, it would take as much as 20 percent of the vote to get elected. If no candidate gets that amount, they are eliminated and their voters' remaining choices are transferred to the other candidates still in the running. If a candidate does cross the twenty percent threshold, their voters’ remaining choices are transferred to the others still in the running. This surplus is distributed at a transfer value which is at a fraction reflecting how strong this elected candidates first choice support was. It is sophisticated, but what is important is, that unlike the current system, the surpluses are not wasted. Most voters win because the outcome is a proportional reflection of the electorate.

The Gerrymander is Dead

Indeed, RCV is a sophisticated system. However, it takes the sophistication away from gerrymandering political elites and puts in in the hands of the voters. In the places that use RCV, most voters rank their favorites then leave it up to the officials to count. Of course, the candidates, parties and others pay close attention to a counting system that is transparent and audit-able.

Here’s what the election could produce.

In a five seat district, there could be a conservative Republican, moderate Republican, moderate Democrat, conservative Democrat and third party / independent. It depends on what the district looks like politically. Again, it's up to the voters to decide. It is no longer about political elites arranging electoral maps to suit their selfish needs.

Parties can run slates where voters can pick and choose among all parties. For example, you can pick a moderate Democrat as first choice, moderate Republican as second, and move on down the ballot to rank all five seats if you want. You can vote third party / independent without any strategic worry because with no surpluses—there are no wasted votes.

The People’s House

Independent commissions drawing legislative districts alone will not solve the problems with the single-member district. We need fair representation voting to lower the barriers to election to the US House—and state legislatures for that matter. Lawrence Lessig is a national political figure who is talking real reform with how we vote. This makes him unique and worthy of support.


Viewing all 60 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images