Quantcast
Channel: Most People Don't Read This Kind of Material

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

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



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.



Don't believe the hype with Citizens United v. F.E.C.

0
0
Smokescreens to my right and left.
(This piece was originally posted on Medium, October 23, 2015.)

I bet you’ve heard the slogan, “Let’s overturn Citizens United!” This is telling people we need a constitutional amendment, or appoint new justices, who will overrule 2010’s Citizens United v. F.E.C. decision.

Citizens United has become a symbol, to many, of an exclusive federal government that puts a premium on political contributions. I agree that this is the state of the current United States political situation. However, calling for repealing a 2010 ruling is more of a potent rhetorical tool than a realistic — or even honest — solution to fixing an American democracy out-of-whack.

I have discussed the ruling with people who are emotional about it. Before I tread too deep into a conversation, I always ask the question, “Have you read it?” Most have not. This is understandable. A person with the Open Source Party recently said this about how people get their political information,

“One of the jobs of a political party is to provide a high return on attention by being a curator of ideas, a distiller of information, a vetter of facts/sources, and by being a bit smarter and faster than the average member who doesn’t have the time, money, or attention to research issues in depth.”

They’re right, however, we don’t have parties as much as we have candidate-based political movements. There are groups within the two major parties in the United States; and one inside the Democratic Party is #FeelTheBern. A cornerstone of Sanders’ campaign is his position on overturning Citizens United. If his rallies are like rock concerts, this line is received like one of his greatest hits.

His website says, “In a 5–4 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials.”

The statement regarding “undisclosed money” is simply not true. The 2010 ruling was good for transparency in elections. To blame the appalling lack of disclosure in federal elections on SCOTUS denies how good the Court has been on transparency. It also obscures the root of the problem.
The GOP can pass comprehensive disclosure rules tomorrow, however, they jealously clutch current loopholes that create the smokescreens their patrons hide behind. We need to be hitting ruling Republicans on blocking transparency laws. To Sen. Sanders’ credit, he supports legislation such as the Disclose Act, which increases transparency in elections.

Second, while spending limits can sound good, the reality is that they tend to bump up against the right of freedom of speech. The group Citizens United wanted to show a documentary on Pay-Per-View television and federal election law prohibited them from doing so. The laws that Citizens United overturned were passed by Congress before popular media such as YouTube took off.
Citizens United stated the Constitution does not discriminate against certain speakers. I believe a group like a union ought to be able to make a documentary about a candidate’s labor relations — and this statement should be allowed to stream on the internet. The Court was explicit regarding the convergence of traditional television and rapidly unfolding media technology. The ruling also mentioned how blogs and other web-based tools are important for expression.

Within the right of free speech, how is Pay-Per-View television any different from online content delivery? The ruling overturned prohibitions on electioneering during defined periods preceding an election. Citizens United basically knocked down censorship of the internet.

Buying Elected Officials?

Sanders’ campaign is raising tens of millions of dollars. His message is resonating with a lot of people. His crowd-sourced funding is the expression of the needs and values of his supporters. In other words — money is speech! The technological revolution is rapidly changing the political playing field where groups of people can combine their finances as a way to counter the concentration of money by a few individuals. I think this is an exciting development!

In light of this potential, do we really want to limit political information by repealing a court ruling that was good for transparency and internet freedom? And do we want to do this based on incendiary political rhetoric?

Indeed, politicians fanning the flames of discontent might be loath to turn off the tap of a lucrative rhetorical tool. Nevertheless, there are months before any party nominations are conducted. There is time for voters to make informed choices.

Lawrence Lessig has a good plan to break down barriers US House members have built to protect themselves. His plan to end gerrymandering and widen the franchise of voting is an honest and rational way to fix our broken political system.

Lessig is also right to call Sen. Sanders out on his sensational rhetoric. But with the #FeelTheBern bandwagon rolling, are people willing to listen?

Peaceful Resolution with Armed Dissent in the United States

0
0
Photograph of Geronimo, 1887 by Ben Wittick
Militiamen taking over a federal bird sanctuary in Oregon has me thinking about violent political actions. I have been studying American Indian history and there are similarities with actions some Indians took a generation ago. I hope the situation in Oregon will be resolved peacefully and there is precedent for this in the United States. The following are my thoughts based on an essay by Dean J. Kotlowski that is in the Roger L. Nichols compilation The American Indian: Past and Present

Kotlowski: Alcatraz, Wounded Knee, and Beyond


Social turmoil defined the era of the late 1960’s to mid 1970’s, and the American Indian was not immune to its effects. Society seemed split between an older establishment and a young, impatient, vocal youth. This schism manifested in the Indian community with Navajo leader Peter MacDonald praising US President Richard Nixon on one side, while activists like Russell Means, Dennis Banks and others with the American Indian Movement (AIM) going as far as to stage armed protests. I can understand MacDonald giving praise to Nixon—considering that Termination was in full swing twenty years previously. Nixon thought Indians were a “safe” minority (p. 358). Nixon calculated that a generous approach to Indians would be good politically for him with younger Americans, yet he conceded that there were real injustices heaped on these people with “very few votes”. While the tribal establishment may have welcomed presidential gestures, the young radicals were itching for a fight.

In 1969, fifty Indians occupied Alcatraz Island, a closed federal facility. This was on the heels of the Kent State shooting and the Nixon Administration was loath to escalate tensions. Instead of a fight, the authorities simply waited the occupiers out. The public eventually lost interest and the Indians fell into squabbling factions where most left the island (p. 359). In 1973, Wounded Knee II found similar tactics on both sides. In the end however, Means and the Indians surrendered their weapons after the government agreed to investigate the corrupt leadership of Richard Wilson on the Pine Ridge reservation. In 1974, Mohawks at Eagle Bay, New York planned to form their own nation, then posted guards around their camp. The government responded to this action in a similar light handed fashion—to the point where it dragged out for two years until the State of New York offered a settlement. Nevertheless, amidst all this unrest, the United States was still proactive in trying to help Indians.

President Ford continued Nixon’s Indian friendly policies by adding 185,000 acres to the Havasupai Indian Reservation in Arizona. New Mexico Taos Pueblo’s and Washington State Yakima’s also physically expanded their reservations. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was another case of the federal government giving land back to Indians. Kotlowski says Nixon and Ford were “remarkably enlightened and a tolerant” considering the challenging circumstances radical Indians had created (p. 369).

The social unrest of the period was pervasive, and many Indians were vocal activists—despite that the President had turned the tide of Termination back. It is amazing that any progress was made in light of incendiary statements and actions by AIM and others.

There is precedent for peaceful resolution with armed standoffs with the federal government. I hope this will happen in Oregon.

Citizens United: The Real Story

0
0

THE HISTORY OF MODERN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

By Krist Novoselic

The most notorious Supreme Court ruling of recent times is 2010’s Citizens United v. F.E.C. This ruling has captured many an imagination with the idea that the Court turned somehow turned “corporations into people” or that money was created into speech. This article is not about propagating these useless catchphrases, rather, it is about how independent campaign expenditure prohibitions bump into 1st Amendment protections. I look at the history of attempts to regulate independent campaign expenditures and how, in the process, a state censorship board was created.



On February 5, 1972 President Nixon signed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) into law. The New York Times reported that some considered the Act “a revolution in American political finance”[i]. While it may not have materialized any revolution, this legislation, and its progeny certainly have caused much judicial and legislative controversy—casting a shadow that affects us to this day.


FECA arose from the demand for reform after campaign finance abuses of the time. The legislation required detailed disclosure of campaign contributions; set campaign contribution limits to candidates, parties and committees; set expenditure limits on campaigns, independent groups and individuals and created the first public financing of presidential campaigns and national conventions. Under the Act, the Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office monitored compliance with FECA. 1972 was an election year, therefore it did not take long for the new law to become embroiled in campaign politics.

           

A group called "The National Committee for Impeachment," purchased a full two-page advertisement in the May 31, 1972, issue of The New York Times (Times). Under the title of "A Resolution to Impeach Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States" the advertisement was critical of the sitting president’s Vietnam war policies. The group also stated it would, “devote its resources in funds and publicity in aid of any new candidate for election to the House of Representatives” who supported impeachment of Nixon.


The Nixon administration soon after filed a complaint under FECA’s § 301(f), claiming that this two-page advertisement was effectively a campaign expenditure. Nixon alleged the group “attempted to influence the outcome of various Congressional primary and general elections”[ii], along with, "the outcome of the 1972 Presidential and Vice Presidential elections." The United States Department of Justice issued an injunction against the impeachment group, and also let it be known it was considering prosecuting the Times for running the advertisement.


The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit decided on October 30, 1972 that “The dampening effect on first amendment rights and the potential for arbitrary administrative action that would result from such a situation would be intolerable.”[iii] In a narrow ruling, the Second Circuit found this single newspaper advertisement failed to establish a close nexus between the impeachment group and a specific candidate. While FECA’s expenditure limits may have survived this challenge, there was still unease over the government’s potential to stifle political speech.


On October 27, 1972 a full page ad ran in the Times with the title “It Took A Court Order To Get This Advertisement Printed”. In fact, the action of obtaining an order is exactly what the ACLU did before it purchased the advertisement. On December 9, 1972, the Times published a letter to the editor from Aryeh Neier, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[iv]. Mr. Neier was defending the advertisement and was in response to another letter published in the Times a day after the advertisement ran by Phillip S. Hughes, Director of the Office of Federal Elections. Mr. Hughes asserted that such an order was not needed to run the advertisement. Mr. Neier stated that the order was obtained to “vindicate our right not to submit materials we wish to publish for prior review by any government agency.” Mr. Hughes may be correct that such an order was unnecessary, nevertheless, the ACLU obtained the order to make the point that expenditure limitations could potentially stifle free speech.


While the 1972 ruling regarding the impeachment advertisement expressed concerns over “arbitrary administrative action” by the government, nonetheless, FECA became a political weapon used by warring campaigns during elections. Accusations of breaking the rules were flying, however, according the the Federal Election Commission, following the 1972 elections, few of the nearly 7,000 cases referred to the Justice Department and the Comptroller General by congressional officials were litigated[v].


In 1974, after campaign finance abuses in the 1972 presidential election came to light, Congress amended FECA. The result was tighter contribution and spending limits[vi]. In addition, the Federal Election Commission, now an independent body appointed jointly by Congress and the President, was established. Another amendment exempted media companies from falling under independent expenditure prohibitions to “ensure the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political-campaigns.”[vii] Other than the media exemption, FECA’s amendments were immediately challenged by presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, New York US Senator James Buckley, the Libertarian Party, the ACLU and other groups.


On January 30, 1976 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled unanimously in Buckley v. Valeo[viii] that, among other issues, the expenditure limits were unconstitutional restraints on speech. The Court rejected arguments defending the law that expenditures were conduct and not speech. Unlike the burning of a draft card—which is determined to be conduct and not speech—the Court said, “some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two.” Even though prior rulings such as the impeachment newspaper advertisement were narrowly construed as outside of the scope of FECA, the law’s expenditure limits were found generally to be "suppressing communication." The Court said,


A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.


Buckley provides the template for today’s campaign finance regime; where contribution limits are acceptable, while independent expenditure proscriptions, imposed on certain groups and individuals, are not. The ruling also protects other aspects of our current campaign financing law. Buckleyupheld FECA’s provisions such as the public financing of campaigns, direct campaign contribution limits and campaign financial disclosure. Buckley invalidated how FEC members were appointed, however, the legislative fix that preserves the separation of power stands to this day in the form of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The decision also invoked First Amendment free speech rights by establishing that there should be no constraints on self-financingcandidates—for, how can a candidate corrupt themselves?


The Court addressed independent expenditures with issue advertisements“that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office”. FECA’s $1000 expenditure limit on communications not containing “express words of advocacy [magic words] of election or defeat, such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘reject’” was declared a violation of free speech rights. Independent expenditures are just that, uncoordinated and not connected to a campaign. Therefore, the Court said corruption is seemingly impossible, “The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent . . . alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate.” The lack of the “magic words” of express advocacy can move a political message—along with the groups who espouse them—through the walls of direct contribution limits. The resulting ghost-like creature is the Political Action Committee (PAC) resulting in the soft money / hard money dynamic; which defines how and where finances are allocated in today’s elections.


Hard money is a campaign contribution given directly to a candidate’s campaign. Contributions must be made with funds that are subject to the FECA’s disclosure requirements and amount limitations. The current contribution limitation to a candidate is $2,700. Soft money is the funding of an issue advertisement that does not contain express words of advocacy of election or defeat. There are no contribution limits to this kind of communication. The effect of this is hard money limits are avoided with communications that resemble advocacy, however, lacking the express or “magic words”, technically are not coordinated with a campaign. The soft money dynamic is a giant loophole that FECA and its amendments has tried to contain. Despite Buckley’s position on allowing independent campaign expenditures, a state took aim at this loophole. Once again, newspaper advertisements were caught in the First Amendment issues arising from expenditure prohibitions.


Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) was a challenge to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The Court ruled, six to three, that Michigan could prohibit corporations—other than media companies—from using treasury funds with independent expenditures in campaigns[ix]. The Act, however, did still allow corporations to use segregated funds for the purpose of electioneering. The Chamber, from within its treasury funds, wanted to run a political advertisement in a newspaper in favor of a candidate for state office. The group wanted to enjoin the statute as unconstitutional, but SCOTUS overturned an Appeals Court decision and let the Michigan law stand. The majority in SCOTUS said the expenditure limit did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by singling out certain corporations because, “the State's decision to regulate only corporations is precisely tailored to serve the compelling state interest of eliminating from the political process the corrosive effect of political ‘war chests’ amassed with the aid of the legal advantages given to corporations[x].”


The Chamber cited MassachusettsCitizens for Life—a 1986 SCOTUSruling regarding corporate expenditures[xi]. In this case, a group / corporation opposed to abortion was allowed to electioneer because of its “narrow focus”. TheCitizens for Life were not a business group, rather, they held the sole purpose of expressing a single political opinion. The Chamber, on the other hand, was made up of businesses, who had an economic incentive to be part of this economic advocacy group. The crucial point with upholding the Michigan expenditure limit is the economic advocacy group could be a way for these business interests to circumvent the individual contribution limits of Buckley. The Court frowned on how the Chamber could be a convenient soft-money conduit.


Despite FECA and its amendments, along with various court rulings—campaign finance laws could still not contain spending. For example, during the 1996 presidential election, the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton became embroiled in controversy regarding foreign contributions. As a result, in 2002 the FEC imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton-Gore campaign, a group known as The Buddhist Temple and nearly two dozen people and corporations acting as conduits for illegal contributions[xii]. Amidst this scandal, and the fact that the Republican and Democratic parties had each raised and spent $500 million between 1998 and 2000[xiii], Congress was ready to act on campaign finance reform again.


The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), offered a series of amendments to FECA and has been referred to as “the most significant change in federal campaign finance law since the early 1970s[xiv]” As a result of Austin, which upheld expenditure prohibitions—even after Buckley—the BCRA contained limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions. §441b. said, in part, it was, “unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office”. These limits were within a certain timeframe preceding federal primary and general elections. This means electioneering communications, including newspaper ads, were off limits for certain groups during the election season. The BCRA was sued immediately, with Senator Mitch McConnell leading the plaintiffs; which included the ACLU who called the new law, “a double-barreled attack on political freedom in America[xv].”


With this challenge, SCOTUS once again ruled on campaign finance reform laws in 2003. McConnell v. F.E.C[xvi]was a long opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Paul Stevens for the majority. This opinion gives a comprehensive history of campaign finance legislation. They recall the T. Roosevelt administration and the Tillman Act of 1907. They mention other campaign finance legislation such as the Hatch Act passed shortly after World War II. Of course, FECA looms large in McConnell, with the reform spirit of that 1972 legislation setting the tone of this jurisprudence.


The McConnell majority were uneasy about the rigid quid pro quo standard of corruption with campaign financing established in Buckley. This legal term means that there is an exchange for money between the contributor and the office seeker only for the purpose of buying a favor. In essence, the contribution is a bribe. The McConnell majority provide a nuanced view, citing undue influence with campaign contributions[xvii]. They said the quid pro quo standard is too narrow, reasoning that substantial donations gain access or ingratiate high-level government officials; hence the influence. The majority thenlament how soft-money loopholes in the system funnel ever increasing amounts of money, “Of the two major parties total spending, soft money accounted for 5% ($21.6 million) in 1984, 11% ($45 million) in 1988, 16% ($80 million) in 1992, 30% ($272 million) in 1996, and 42% ($498 million) in 2000” [xviii]. Their frustration is that money in elections was ballooning regardless of 30 years of FECA. Considering the incessant growth of money in politics, and concerns over influence it tends to garner in elections, an alarmed SCOTUS majority did not have the heart to overturn the 2002 BCRA expenditure prohibitions.


The McConnell majority said that express advocacy and the loopholes of, “the presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully distinguish electioneering speech from a true issue ad”[xix]. This is the key to their ruling upholding expenditure prohibitions. Advertisers could easily evade express advocacy restrictions. This evasion made attempts at reform “a pile of legal rubble”[xx]. They add the soft-money loophole has “destroyed our campaign finance laws.” Therefore, the BCRA independent expenditure prohibitions close off these soft-money conduits.


The McConnell majority opinion is essentially a lecture on how campaign finance regulation is in the public interest. The opinion reads like the Court throwing up their arms frustrated, urging that something needed to be done. It is like they were saying that if the cost of trying to contain growing campaign spending—and the undue influence it can buy—is at the expense of some First Amendment free speech protections, then so be it. The cost of this decision would soon appear.


The 2004 election was a year into the United States’ Operation Enduring Freedom. This invasion and occupation of Iraq was a reaction to the devastating September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington DC, New York City and in the air in Pennsylvania. Filmmaker Michael Moore released a film critical of the George W. Bush administration’s Iraq war policies. Fahrenheit 911 was reviewed by the Times who said, “it isnot a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies”[xxi]. The reviewer also called the film “partisan”. George H.W. Bush, the ex-president and father of the subject of the film called Fahrenheit a “vicious attack” on his son[xxii]. Released in June, the documentary was caught in the middle of presidential election year politics—and BCRA expenditure prohibition periods. The nature of the film was not lost on other partisans and a formal complaint was made to the FEC.

Dale A. Clausnitzer alleged Fahrenheit 9/11constituted an independent expenditure by Mr. Moore’s corporation Dog Eat Dog Films because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush[xxiii]. The FEC disagreed and determined, “the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not ‘contributions’ or ‘expenditures’ as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act”. Mr. Moore’s film was essentially ruled as entertainment by the FEC—even though it was a partisan attack in the middle of an election year. It is very plain Mr. Moore’s production company had a similar partisan intention as the The National Committee for Impeachment did in 1972, however, what was different is how communication technology had progressed significantly in the 40 years since that election season.


Mr. Clausnitzer’s complaint noted that a partisan site, ReDefeatBush.com, provided a link to Michaelmoore.com; a corporate asset of Moore’s production company, which also provides political advocacy[xxiv]. The complaint mentioned a link to MoveOn.com and MoveOn PAC, another Democratic / left-wing advocacy group. In other words, there appeared to be coordination, through new technologies, to target the incumbent president. Like the group seeking Nixon’s impeachment, Moore’s political statement survived electioneering complaints rooted in expenditure prohibitions. This is a victory for free speech, however, the tensions with these expenditure bans and the First Amendment would hardly go away.


In 2008, there was an open seat for the office of president. Former First Lady and United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) was caught in a tough fight for the Democratic party nomination. Long a foe of right-wing partisans, this prominent political figure was a major target. In 2007, a right-wing advocacy group called Citizens United made their own documentary with Sen. Clinton as the subject. Like Moore’s film, Hillary: The Movie (Hillary) is an attack on a candidate for president. Citizens United was prepared to give a pay-per-view cable company $1.2 million to make Hillary available on a channel called “Elections ‘08”[xxv]. This way, the film was available to cable viewers free of charge. The proposal also included airing 30 second advertisements promoting the work. SCOTUS, in their Citizens United v. FEC ruling, called these advertisements “pejorative” towards Sen. Clinton[xxvi].


Citizens United filed a complaint in District Court in December of 2007 requesting that the Court prevent the FEC from enforcing electioneering communications provisions. The group also asked that the disclosure at the end of the advertisements for the film be declared unconstitutional[xxvii]. The Court denied both of these requests and the case was appealed.


On January 21, 2010, SCOTUS issued its ruling with Citizens United v. FEC, on the grounds expenditure prohibitions violated First Amendment protections, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech”[xxviii] The notion of “corporate personhood”—a term not used in the opinion—was referenced. The majority said even though, “state law grants corporations special advantages—such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets. This does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech.”[xxix] The Court rejected the undue influence standard found in McConnell as being “unbounded”[xxx] reasoning, “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt”[xxxi]. The clear quid pro quo standard was therefore restored. 

There were conflicting legal precedents regarding expenditures, so the court could choose which course of law to follow. The narrowly tailored public interest cited in Austin was overruled. Citizens United instead cited Buckley; rejecting any government interest “in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections.”[xxxii]


Citizens United did not repeal direct hard-money contribution prohibitions to campaigns from corporations or unions; “For example, the owner of an incorporated mom and pop grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make [direct] contributions.”[xxxiii]  Like Buckley, Citizens Uniteddid not touch the laws on direct contribution limits to campaigns.


The Citizens United majority also identified another way the expenditure prohibition was producing lopsided results. “In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to [soft-money advocacy groups], yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.”[xxxiv]


The Court did reject Citizens United’s plea to strike down disclosure laws by adhering to “public interest” reasoning. As in Buckley, the ruling said disclosure of campaign finances pass Constitutional muster to, “insure that the voters are fully informed about the person or group who is speaking”.[xxxv] On the heels of this notorious case, in another opinion, more campaign finance regulations were struck down.


On April 2, 2014, SCOTUS decided McCutcheon v. FEC. With this case, the same Citizens Unitedmajority overturned aggregate contribution limits to campaigns. While the individual limit on hard-money to a candidate still stands at $2,700, the limit of $48,600 in total individual contributions, every two years, among all federal candidates was struck down as an infringement of First Amendment rights. The Court argued that once the aggregate limit was reached, how does that extra contribution above it constitute quid pro quo corruption? Again, the Court stressed, “The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.”[xxxvi]


Conclusion


The catchphrases of Citizens United“turning corporations into people” or making “money speech” loom large in the minds of many. Their grip on the reactionary psyche is a powerful rhetorical opportunity for politicians, non-profits and others dependent on political fundraising. The BCRA effectively turned the FEC into a state censorship board. As described above, filmmaker Michael Moore’s production company Dog Eat Dog Films had to stand in front of a state agency to get permission to show his documentary during an election season. Same with the group Citizens United.


The best one can do to serve democracy is to understand and study issues. Don’t believe the hype about Citizens United. It was a good ruling that protected the right of people to hear information without the government picking and choosing who could speak.


Correction, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq is "Operation Enduring Freedom" and not "Desert Storm". The article now reads as corrected. (Tip of the hat to pure_mercury for the catch)

NOTES:


[i]   Nixon Expected to Sign '71 Campaign Funding Act Tomorrow Ben A. Franklin; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times pg. 20, Feb 6, 1972

[ii]Federal Election Campaign Act'Censorship' Aryeh Neier,

New York Times Dec 9, 1972; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: pg. 34

[iii]United States v. National Committee for Impeachment, 469 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1972).

 

[iv] 

New York Times Dec 9, 1972; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: pg. 34
 United States v. National Committee for Impeachment, 469 F.2d 1135 (2d Cir. 1972).
[vi]

PUBLIC LAW 93-443-OCT. 15, 1974 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/s3044/text
[vii]

   https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/93-443/00007D7A.pdf
[viii]  

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976).
[ix] 

Nowak, J.E., Rotunda, R.D., (1991) Constitutional Law Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company p. 1121
[x] 

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S. Ct. 1391, 108 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1990) at 1401
[xi] 

Federal Election Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 107 S. Ct. 616, 93 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1986)
[xii] 

1996 Fund-Raising Scandals Bring Stiff Penalty, Sep 21, 2002, The Washington Post
[xiii] 

Baran, J. W. (2001). Regulating Money in Politics: We've Got It All under Control. Cumb. L. Rev., 32, 591.
[xiv] 

Briffault, R, (2002) The Future of Reform: Campaign Finance After the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Arizona State Law Journal 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 1179
[xv] 

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform
[xvi] 

 McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S. Ct. 619, 157 L. Ed. 2d 491 (2003).
[xvii] 

Ibid p. 41
[xviii] 

Ibid p. 13
[xix] 

Ibid p. 86
[xx] 

Ibid p. 19
[xxi] 

Scott, A.O., New York Times , June 23, 2004 http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html
[xxii] 

Susman G. (2004) Former President Blasts Michael Moore Entertainment Weekly June, 1 http://www.ew.com/article/2004/06/01/former-president-bush-blasts-michael-moore
[xxiii] 

 Federal Election Commission August 9, 2005, http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050809mur.htm
[xxiv] 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/000045DF.pdf
[xxv] 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 558 U.S. 310, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)
[xxvi] 

Ibid at xxiv p. 3
[xxvii] 

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_C.shtml
[xxviii] 

Ibid at xxiv p. 33
[xxix] 

Ibid p. 35
[xxx] 

Ibid p. 44
[xxxi] 

Ibid p. 43
[xxxii] 

Ibid p. 34
[xxxiii] 

 http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#prohibited
[xxxiv] 

 Ibid at xxiv p. 40
[xxxv] 

Ibid p. 53
[xxxvi] 

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Com'n, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 572 U.S., 188 L. Ed. 2d 468 (2014). P. 3

THE POWER OF ASSOCIATION I: Book Review, The Inevitable Party

0
0
Seth E. Masket is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Denver. His new book is The Inevitable Party, a study of the consequences of anti-party laws in the United States. 

Starting over 100 years ago, would-be reformers have taken power away from political parties in an attempt to remedy the effects of political machines and the bosses that controlled them. Masket tells us how today the new boss is the same as the old boss—as political insiders are resilient. They adapt to rules intended to disburse power, resulting in “reforms” that weaken democracy by fostering lack of transparency and polarization.


Professor Masket tells us about the “policy demanders”. These are individuals and the groups they form to advocate policies that reflect their needs and values. I think other terms for the policy demander could be; insider, special interest, consultant, partisan, political elite, operative and others. These actors fill the vacuum left by political parties weakened by state policy.

The book offers case studies such as Colorado in 2002. Voters passed constitutional amendment 27—which sharply limited money parties and individuals could give to state legislative candidates. Advocates of the amendment claimed this reform would, “reduce the impact of special interests on the political process and increase the influence of individual citizens” (p. 36). Indeed, political parties were crippled by the amendment’s passage, however, policy demanders skillfully circumvented state campaign finance prohibitions—while at the same time consolidating power for themselves.

A group of liberals known as the “four millionaires” recruited candidates to run as Democrats and used independent expenditures to target critical races for the Colorado legislature. Masket says these policy demanders preferred to call themselves the “Roundtable” (p. 38). The Roundtable worked with traditional Democratic party groups such as labor, environmental advocates and others during the 2004 campaign. The Roundtable spent around $3 million on its efforts, resulting in longtime minority party Democrats winning the majority in both chambers of the Colorado legislature.

The Inevitable Party gets deeper into the situation with mixed-method case study. Masket analyzes voter turnout and compares the amount of money spent in certain races. This study found many donors were giving less to the Colorado Democratic Party, and instead gave to the Roundtable. One of the effects of the money was how Roundtable supported candidates were identified as the favorites early on (p. 56). With ample funding, these favorites deterred others from running for office. In fact, only five out of 84 Democratic primaries in Colorado were contested in 2004. 

Primaries are another longstanding feature of our elections that promise to reduce the impact of special interests on the political process and increase the influence of individual citizens. However, this century-old reform seemed to wither in the face of a new campaign finance law placed on top of it. The result was determined policy demanders becoming the new bosses crowning their preferred candidates for the ballot.

Chapters in the book examine other cases in various states. An examination of California’s 2003 gubernatorial recall shows how parties and policy demanders shaped that situation, regardless of California’s anti-party policies; which recall is one of. Masket then looks at another case with how Minnesota did away with its non-partisan legislature after it became politically polarized after WWII. Another chapter tells of how Wisconsin adopted partisan primaries in the first place—it was a fluke of events and passed after policy demanders recognized the benefits—to them—of this anti-party reform. 

In another example we learn how Nebraska—with the nation’s only non-partisan legislature—became politically polarized. The scholar’s research suggests the adoption of term limits could be the cause. How so? He says, policy demanders regularly recruit and support candidates who have no institutional memory. These temporary legislators then rely on the people who helped get them elected for guidance. 

The title of the book’s concluding chapter is “Quit Fixing It”—which speaks for itself. The point is that many so-called reforms fail to achieve their goals while producing unintended consequences that make matters worse. He wraps the book up by looking at two things: One is campaign finance, and the other is how parties contribute to representative government and what happens when there is no one to fill that role.

On campaign finance he says, “Changing the way our campaigns are financed has become a business unto itself, an ongoing crusade to rid politics of the scourge of money and, indeed, corruption” (p. 151). Masket adds, “It should be noted here that political scientists have generally had a very difficult time identifying any effect of campaign spending on the behavior of elected officials.” 

Of course, he mentions cases of illegal graft, however, Masket cites research that finds limiting campaign contributions makes partisanship worse (p. 152). This is because formal party organizations tend to fund more moderate candidates. Limiting funding sources results in individuals and interest groups finding ways to give money. These independent actors tend to be more ideologically motivated—and this reflects on the candidates who end up being funded and elected.

On parties, Masket points to how they provide information to voters for the ballot. Research shows half of voters cannot name their state legislators (p. 161). Parties package social and economic issues for voters; who in turn use the party cue on the ballot to help choose candidates. When there is no party label, many voters tend to roll off the ballot—meaning they simply skip races.

Regardless of this potent informational tool, Masket says parties are viewed by most people as corrupt organizations. The scholar adds that political actors can find willing allies in the American people if they frame their reform proposals as curbing the power of parties (p. 159).

Masket does point to Ranked Choice Voting and media reform as promising ways to fix what is ailing our democracy.

I highly recommend The Inevitable Party to people who are interested in political reform. My short review barely scratches the surface of information available in the book. While Seth Masket provides an interesting narrative on how election rules impact representative democracy, there are sections where he plugs data into research models.

My Opinion

This book just confirms what I have been urging reformers to do—which is to take a holistic view of elections. Instead, many reform proposals attempt to tack structures on top of existing dynamics, which could be failing themselves. For example, Seattle has several features of its electoral system, with many of them implemented decades apart. There are mandatory runoff elections, an August primary, a strong mayor system, a nine-member council elected by seven single-member districts with two winner-take-all at-large seats, non-partisan ballots and public financing of campaigns. Maybe some of these existing features should have themselves been reformed before the recent introduction of districts and public financing? I followed the campaigns for districts and public financing respectively and recall no mention of how the reform proposals would interact with existing features—or even why the existing rules were there in the first place. Instead policy entrepreneurs argued along the lines their proposals would reduce the impact of special interests on the political process and increase the influence of individual citizens. 

Reformers should recognize that political association is the voice of a group of people, and when combined with social networking, the potential is promising. We already see it with crowd-sourced campaigns. If the parties themselves embrace the openness that can be fostered with technology, a new kind of association could emerge. The effect of this lets parties package issues while at the same time interested citizens pool their resources around candidates who articulate the message.

Instead of creating more rules on top of an already broken system, lets instead strip away the existing prohibitions on parties and allow groups of citizens to do what comes naturally—which is associate and rationally pursue their interests. 

Giants in the Trees - Sasquatch (Official Video)

County Fair Grange Booth

Transparency is the best policy.

0
0
Thump, thump, bam, thump.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting Facebook will be requiring more transparency with political issue ads. “The latest [Facebook] move will cover “issue ads”—those that don’t specifically mention a candidate but weigh in on a divisive issue, including during an election campaign. Such advertisers will be required to confirm their identities and locations with the company.

This is the approach I suggested in a November 1, 2017 Rolling Stone op-ed. Hey Google!!! Are you in?

I want Facebook to know I am happy to help anytime.

Majority Losers

0
0
On Twitter Lee Drutman is pointing out how Democrats could win a majority of votes nationally this November—but still be in the minority in the US House of Representatives. This happened as recently as 2012.

How? One factor is Washington’s Redistricting Commission packed too many Democratic voters in Seattle, while other similar voters were sprinkled around other places in the state.

For example, in the 2012 election, the Democrat in Seattle's WA07 won 298,368 votes, for 79.65 percent of the vote. This is in an election with 85 percent voter turnout!

I live in the southwest corner of the state in WA03. In the same election the Democratic candidate earned 116,438 votes for 39.62 percent of the vote.

In WA07, for the all of the turnout, Democrats got one seat. There could have been 100 percent turnout for the Democrat and the result would be the same. In WA03, for a decent showing of 40 percent—Democrats got nothing. This used to be a competitive district, however, it was the first election within the new 3rd district; where the Commission drew Olympia, with all its Democratic state employees, out of the district. This basically made the 3rd a GOP safe seat.

Single-member districts can skew outcomes through arranging voter populations. Combine the Democratic voters in the districts mentioned above and see how 414,806 votes won only a single seat. This leads to how majority Democrats lost the US House in 2012, and very well could wind up in the same place again for the 2018 election.

The way we elect US House members is the result of political decisions made in various states and US Congress. There is no mandate in the United States Constitution for 435 House seats elected with single-member districts. Here is Drutman on the Fair Representation Act. It is about using proportional representation to elect House seats as a way to minimize the wasted votes like we found in 2012's election.

This system is good for urban and rural Democrats. It’s good for urban Republicans. It also creates space for independents and third parties.

Washington’s redistricting commission puts power in the hands of political appointees. Here is an idea for you: How about instead we put power in the hands of voters themselves? Yes, let voters decide who represent them—after all these are the folks who pay the taxes and live under the laws and rules passed by government. We can do this with multi-member districts electing candidates with fair proportional voting rules. No constitutional amendment required.

1956 Volkswagen Panel Van

0
0
Robert painted the wheels and I purchased new tires. I bought snow tires without the studs so I can have better traction in the mud. This is a work van after all!!! The only size available was 205 R15. I need hub caps.

Next job is welding in the new cab floor.

Panel Van 2

0
0
This van sat in the woods in Eastern Washington near the Canadian border since 1980. The previous owner told me someone had stole the engine then pushed it down a hill. The van was saved by a barbed wire fence that stopped its descent. There are about 5 bullet holes in the metal. All the glass has been broken out. Somebody hacked in some aftermarket larger taillights sometime in the 1970s. I will keep this dynamic instead of doing all of the welding to restore the original look—even though I like the original better.
John repaired all of the hubcap clips on the van rims. 

It took John and I 3.5 hours to pull the van out of the gully. We put roller tires on. To our pleasant surprise, the transmission and wheels moved freely. The front tires freed up too!!
Right after we pulled it out—after nearly 40 years!

I have obtained replacement glass. In the image at the bottom, you can see new tires and painted rims. John had a 1200cc engine with a good bottom end. We obtained new 77mm pistons and we reconditioned some cylinders. Also cleaned up a couple of 40hp heads. Still need to put the engine together.

So what do I do? Patina, or Rustoleum gloss paint job. Don't want to put the time and money into a fancy restoration. I plan on using this van to work on the ranch and in the hills. It will be a Western Wahkiakum cruiser—hauling tools like shovels, saws and guitars. Will be mechanically sound rig.


The panel as it sits today.

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.

"It Goes"— By Giants in the Trees.

0
0
Here is a live, in studio performance of "It Goes" by Giants in the Trees. I am the musician in the red pants.

“Man Turns Into Cloud”

0
0
BUTTERFLY LAUNCHES FROM SPAR POLE performing “Man Turns Into Cloud” next to the old blue cookstove in Dr. Pyle’s living room. Freeman Dyson is cited.




Latest Images