Watch this video and be formally introduced to National Popular Vote legislation. At this point, you might be agreeing with what you just watched,  but please ask yourself about ramifications regarding such a substantial change in how our Presidential elections work. What follows may entail answers you come up with but it may also present some troubling viewpoints you have yet to explore, viewpoints that will trouble you deeply the more you ponder them.  This legislation undermines our very basic structure of government and the dangers it presents to our liberties and to the Constitution itself are numerous and profound.  The worst part about this situation is that this is already established law here in Illinois. The saddest part is that the vast majority of people who read this will be exposed to it for the very first time.  It is not just our civil liberties being stolen from us, the country itself is at stake and there is no better example of that than this issue right here.

It is fair to say that just about everyone on this planet we call Earth knows what oceans, lakes and rivers are.  Most of humanity has either seen, or will see, one or more of these bodies of water in their lifetime. The same thing can be said about this thing we call government.  Like water, government can take many forms and depending on their quality, each can help life flourish or they can be tools of chaos and destruction.  While the tidal power of these entities ebb and flow, the most dangerous aspects of them both generally go unseen and unrecognized by most.

Rivers swell out of their banks causing untold amounts of carnage. Governments can, and do, operate outside their imposed limitations causing a similar destruction of individual liberties. In the case of an ocean, there are undercurrents, called riptides, that go unnoticed by most people while they go about their daily lives. Most are unaffected by this danger until such time as they go swimming while on vacation.  Only then is the danger realized and all too often it is too late to avoid a tragic happening born out of ignorance.

The Presidential election of 2000 saw something of a riptide come into existence. As a result of that election’s circumstances, some people felt as if George W. Bush was not legitimately elected.  Those with a populist mentality felt that because former President Bush didn’t gain the majority of the nation’s popular vote count,  his election was unjust.  They opined that our system of election failed and must be changed to avoid another outcome such as the one in 2000. To this end,  a movement was sparked to change how Presidents are elected.  This effort is centered around  National Popular Vote legislation.

On it’s face, it seems like something to support. After all, in a democracy, the one with the most votes wins, right?  Well, there is the first giant mistake right there.  We live in Republic where democracy is to function as a check and balance within our form of government – as opposed to democracy being the form of government itself.  Unchecked  majority rule is something that our Framers saw fit to avoid because tyranny of the majority is exactly that – tyranny. This is but one problem posed by the outcome that a national popular vote structure would bring about.

What happens when two opposing sides bring equally valid points of order to the table of debate?  Well, usually, gridlock occurs. What is to be done when one side says that the people must have their vote while another side says that each state is due equal representation. Both sides present true and germane arguments. In order to solve this seemingly insurmountable hurdle when creating the legislative branch of government, our Framers came up with a compromise affording each side what their facts were supporting. Thus was born the House of Representatives and the Senate constituting the legislative branch of government.

For law to be made in a checked and balanced manner, the people, through their elected representatives, must have a voice and so must each state.  The same level headed solution was applied to the question about how to elect a President.  The people are due their representation, their vote, but so too are the states.  The electoral college structure is akin to the legislative structure. This structure is there to be seen all throughout our Republican form of government. This structure is the backbone of America.  Break that backbone and America falls asunder.

Those who argue against the electoral college do not realize that they argue against the basic structure of our entire government.  They argue against a system of checks and balances that has afforded prosperity and liberty never before known in this world.  Well,  maybe some do realize this but they simply refuse to admit that this is what they are doing.  Others go along with the idea because they are unaware of the dangers that doing so presents.  Think back to that unsuspecting person going for a swim for a minute.  They know not what riptide awaits their entry into the water.  Now, please understand that this writing is a warning not unlike a sign at that water’s edge.

It is true that each state decides independently how it’s electoral ballots will be cast. Some states hold elections for those who will cast electoral ballots, some appoint them from within a party or a state may even have individual candidates name them as part of their campaigns.  Recently, New Hampshire almost passed what can be termed “partial apportionment”.  This means that a state government operating such a system would look to how the state’s population as a whole voted and then divide up the state’s ballots based on that breakdown. If a state has 4 votes and 3/4 of the people vote for one particular candidate, then that candidate would get three of the four votes with the remainder going to another candidate.

The National Popular Vote movement seeks to do an end run around these state processes while it claims to be operating within the rules of the federal process as they are.  It tries to bring about a radical change without amending the Constitution.   It seeks to remove the states’ role entirely and elect a President based solely on the popular vote itself.  This would be like deleting the United States’ Senate..  Does anyone think that eliminating the Senate could be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment?

What would result were this to happen?  Much the same kind of government that Illinois has, that’s what.  The major population center in Illinois,  Chicago,  has a kind of stranglehold control that seemingly cannot even be challenged, much less broken.. There exists a tyranny of the Majority.  Basing the election of a President on a national popular vote alone would see several major population centers elect President after President. Think of it, New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago and a few others holding the same trump card on the White House as Chicago has on Illinois.  See the riptide yet?  No?  Ok, try this one on for size then.

Several states have already passed law to this end. New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois and Washington all have laws in place already that enter into practice the instant any combination of states, comprising together more than 50% of the total electoral ballots needed to win election, pass laws of this nature.   Let’s explore what this law actually entails, shall we?

Remember in the video how the goal to have everyone’s vote count was touted?  While ignoring the race card played in that video,  let’s just see how true that claim is.  In Illinois, once the law signed by Blagojevich in early April of 2008 goes into practice,  it is possible that not even one Illinoisan’s vote will actually count.  For example, every person in this state could vote for candidate A but if candidate B wins the national popular vote, then candidate B would gain all of Illinois’ electoral ballots. Yes, you read that correctly, every person in this state could vote one way,  but if the rest of the country votes another way,  then Illinois would go that way in spite of how Illinoisans voted.   So don’t drink the kool-aid being offered by these people who say this is about making every vote count,  this is about political domination by major population centers – and don’t ever forget it.  This effectively nullifies Illinoisans’ voting power and puts Illinois’ electoral ballots in the hands of members of all 50 states.

Undoubtedly, a court challenge of a Constitutional nature will be waged the moment that the final state, whichever one it happens to be,  passes a bill like this into law.  Article one Section ten of the Constitution forbids alliances among the states. What is this if no an alliance among states?

As it stands this day, the fate of  Illinoisan’s voting power rests in the legislatures of other states.  Current Illinois government is responsible for putting in jeopardy not only our right to vote and have it count but also our state sovereignty.  For this, all those there who pushed this nightmare endeavor through should be punished at the voting booth,  before there is no more voting booth to even use toward that end.  Take notice,  folks from both parties support this effort.  This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue.

That Illinois is in this situation should astound everyone with open eyes. If you think there is leg pulling or exaggeration of the situation present,  please feel free to read the language of the legislation yourself.  Absorb what you read and then question it with boldness. You will see how dangerous this legislation really is.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0714

Explore further this dangerous body of water at www.nationalpopularvote.com and then warn friends and strangers alike about the vicious undercurrents that threaten to forever sink the beacon of freedom known as the United States of America.

I’m very excited about something.  Friends always say “What’s the deal with the electoral college?”  And I’m like “Yeah, it’s crazy, someone should change it.”  Well someone IS changing it!  The National Popular Vote movement (wiki) wants to get all 50 states to pass a law in their legislature which would assign actual votes instead of using the electoral college.    Cool thing is, states possessing 23% of the required electoral votes have passed it already. I think that’s rad!

Here’s what their web site says:

“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).”

Benefits: Well, we would (finally!) erode the absurd 2-party system.  Also, it would solve the problem of a candidate who wins the popular vote still losing the election – this has happened 7 times in this country (remember 2000?).

Check out the progress on the movement in your state!


There’s criticism, of course. Here’s a good scholarly study critical of the movement.  Really, though, the criticism amounts to pointing out how hard it will be to accomplish this (which isn’t really criticism of the movement itself), as well as pointing out numerous “what if” problems that result from changing the status quo.  Well OF COURSE problems will arise.  It’s DIFFERENT.  And DIFFERENT ISN’T BAD!  A third concern is that such a movement, when not done through the constitutional amendment process, violates state’s rights (10th amendment).  Now I am a man concerned with centralized power, and I see no problem here.  The states themselves will be voting this measure in, so it requires their consent.  And it doesn’t rob states of any meaningful power, considering the ENORMOUS BENEFITS.


This is a chance for us to actually change our country for the better!  I’m down!

But don’t just take my word that this is a good thing.  There’s tons of blogs, youtube videos, articles, and studies on this issue.  Check ‘em out!

Political reform is a dicey matter. There are many who clamor for and demand reform of the political system. I’ve been an observer of the American political scene for a long time and I have seen anti-establishment reform movements and efforts come and go through the years. Many of these efforts generate a lot of activity and even media attention but eventually fizzle out and end up not reforming anything.

One organization’s reform efforts, however, stuck out to me like a sore thumb—an organization called FairVote. This organization’s efforts stuck out  because they actually are succeeding in implementing crucial reforms. Not only are the reforms the type of actions designed to promote democratic participation among ordinary people and those who are outsiders to the two major parties—which I thoroughly support—FairVote actually has a record of concrete results in implementing reform on the local and even the state and national level.

The most successful and visible of FairVote’s many projects are:

• Instant Runoff Voting
• National Popular Vote

Instant Runoff Voting or IRV is a voting method designed to encourage participation of third and minor parties in elections by removing the “spoiler effect” that is intrinsic to our two-party dominated, winner-take-all model of elections. The National Popular Vote or NPV plan would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The respective links above contain more specific information on these efforts.

A Track Record of Results

FairVote has a track record of success of implementing these reforms incrementally on the local level, for example, such as municipalities and city councils that have adopted IRV as their voting method. But more impressively, FairVote has also had some success on the state and national level. The NPV plan has been submitted for legislative consideration in all 50 states and (as of today) and has been enacted into law in five states (Maryland, Illinois, Washington State, Hawaii, and New Jersey).

FairVote could not have accomplished all of this without heavy-hitting political allies and if you review the websites for both IRV and NPV you will see that among FairVote’s endorsers and supporters are current and former state legislators from both major parties, mayors and city councils across the country, and even nationally-known politicians from both major parties including John McCain and President Barack Obama.

Both IRV and NPV also enjoy wide media coverage from and have been endorsed by prominent news outlets. Despite this, however, FairVote still operates pretty much under the radar of public consciousness and is not yet a household name in mainstream American politics. If you ask most Americans if they are familiar with FairVote and its reform efforts you would most likely draw a blank.

One can argue with the merits of the IRV and NPV plan—and a healthy discussion on political reform is always a good thing in my book. But one thing that cannot be argued with is results. FairVote has consistently and incrementally shown results in its efforts. Whether it is media coverage, endorsements by prominent politicians or actual implementation of its plans into law through local and state legislatures, no one can deny that FairVote has been a highly effective force for political reform. At the end of the day, that is really what counts and the metric by which reform efforts should be measured.

• Part I of this series
• Part II of this series

Feel like your vote doesn’t count?  Hendrik Hertzberg, New Yorker columnist and editor, wants to change that.  He’s the popular face advocating the adoption of a national popular vote, a system that would call an end to the electoral college system reduce gerrymandering as we know it.  In this interview with the Brennan Center he lays it out clearly and convincingly:

So, where is Minnesota on the popular vote, if 28 states have passed some measure?  A version of the bill were introduced to the Minnesota House of Representatives but died in a committee and while it has been introduced in the Senate, passage requires the convergence of the two.

I just checked out an interesting video at the Independent Voting web site titled “How the Independent Movement Went Left by Going Right.” It is an hour-long documentary of a speech political strategist Jackie Salit gave at the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) conference in January 2009.

The CUIP is a nationwide network of veteran Independent political organizers who have run campaigns to put candidates on the ballot for all 50 states in presidential elections. Not an easy feat which requires resources, organization and a dedicated cadre of long-term staff and volunteers.

Main Points

Salit chronicles the story of the Independent movement starting from the Reform Party effort with Ross Perot in 1992 culminating with the election of Barack Obama in 2008. She argues several main points:

• Independent voters were instrumental in electing Barack Obama president in 2008. Barack Obama received close to the same amount of votes among independents as Ross Perot did in 1992 (19 million votes)

• The political composition of the independent movement from 1992 to the present changed from right to left. From a largely white, center-right phenomenon to a center-left, multiracial coalition

• Political parties exercise political power on their own behalf and not on behalf of the American people. People realize this and the result is 35 percent of the electorate have rejected political parties and have designated themselves independent or unaffiliated.

• CUIP networks mobilized voters for Obama in the 2008 elections and gave Obama his margin of victory. However, Independents may have supported Obama but they did not become Democrats

Fusion and the Failure of the Third Party Strategy

The third party strategy has failed to bring power back to the people in the American political system. Third party candidates who run in local and national elections, except for some anomalies, routinely post miniscule results. This is primarily the result of structural factors and the lopsided rules by which electoral politics in the US is conducted.

The CUIP asserts that there is absolutely no need to wait for these crucial reforms to happen before independents can start participating as players in American politics. Independents have to find ways to participate in politics and affect the political process now. Independents have to be willing to join in the fray of mainstream politics and be ready to throw its support behind any candidate from any party, major or minor, which represents and speaks out for independents. Salit calls this the fusion strategy.

For political outsiders who view issues and politics outside of the prism of Republican or Democratic perspectives, the CUIP’s fusion strategy presents an intriguing possibility for political outsiders to affect the political process as players instead of marginal participants. Indeed, if Independents act as a unified bloc or an organized group of political actors, whatever agenda they represent can be attractive enough for mainstream political candidates who seek their support to adopt.

Threads of Political Reform

The CUIP’s fusion strategy is on my list of political reform movements to watch in the next few years. If you are a regular reader of this blog you will know that I am an observer (and sometime participant) in political activism. I am keeping a running list of various movements that I feel have a fighting chance of actually accomplishing something. This list is comprised of groups that primarily come from a left-of-center perspective mainly because I’m a left-of-center kind of person.

• The internal war for control of the Democratic Party between tech-savvy Progressive grassroots activists and the business and corporate-friendly wing of the party. This conflict is vividly told in a couple of books: Crashing the Gate and Taking on the System

• FairVote and its efforts to enact Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote among other reforms

• The CUIP and the fusion strategy in practice and applied to national politics

You will notice I do not have third parties who run candidates in electoral politics such as the Green Party on the list. I also don’t have radical political groups such as the various groupings of Socialists and Marxists which are pretty much marginalized on the fringes of American politics. I also don’t include the anti-war and anti-globalization movements.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with their ideologies. It has everything to do with the types of tactics and strategies they employ to participate in American politics and how successful (or unsuccessful) they have been so far. The three reform movements on my list I see as having a fighting chance of actually succeeding in penetrating the mainstream of American politics.

BC-STV released the video for their first official advertisement (it is not on the air yet, though they are collecting donations to do so) today. The Yes side has seemed to dominate the debate so far, as far as blogs, signs, and public chatter have gone, and there is a very good chance it will pass. One of the reasons for this is the excellent timing.

In 2000, George Bush won the American Presidential Election, receiving more electoral votes than Al Gore, while at the same time receiving less votes. Since then, there has been a growing movement against the 239 year old Electoral College, the primary method being the National Popular Vote Compact, which binds a state’s electoral voters to the winner of the national popular vote once a group of states comprising a majority of electoral votes has passed it into law. And while it has been signed in 4 states and passed by numerous other legislatures, it certainly has less momentum than BC-STV, and for good reason.

Prior to 2000, the last time a candidate won the election without a plurality of the popular vote was in 1888, when Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland lost the election with 90 000 more votes. Most voters, recognisably, are not aware of this, and so the focus in scrapping the Electoral College centres around the 2000 election. Even though throughout the 2008 election, Obama had a structural advantage in the electoral college, the movement is largely seen as Democratic and not bi-partisan. However, with BC-STV, the situation is much different.

As the Yes for BC-STV ad points out, there have been two different crises with the First Past the Post system in the last 3 elections, detrimentally affecting each party. In 1996, the NDP actually lost the popular vote, yet formed a majority government. While in 2001, the BC Liberals won only 58 percent of the vote, yet dominated the legislature with 97 percent of the seats. One of the reasons the argument for STV is so strong is the bipartisan nature of the problem. Supporters of STV can point to how neither party should be satisfied with the current system. The examples are fresh in voters’ memories, and easily understandable. Unless the National Popular Vote Compact can find an example that appeals to Republicans similarly, it will be a much harder struggle to pass than BC-STV.

Fair?

Mostly non-apocalyptic Sunday links. (UPDATE: Yes, I know it’s Saturday.)

* J.G. Ballard’s last story, in the Guardian.

* The governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela have issued a statement in response to the 5th Summit of the Americas that declares, in part, that capitalism is destroying the planet. Why do the governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela hate America / Jesus / puppies?

* See also: An anti-environmentalist lobbying coalition for industry has been caught, cigarette-lobby-like, ignoring its own experts.

* See also: this cartoon.

* Myths about the National Popular Vote Bill. This page actually answered a few of my objections, mostly about the likelihood of post-election pact-breakage.

* Crimes committed by Ferris Bueller during his day off.

The National Popular Vote, a movement to circumvent the electoral college with a process in which the United States President is elected by popular vote of all United States citizens is an effort currently being pursued in the United States.  States amounting to 19% of the electoral votes needed to enact the law have already approved the National Popular Vote and California could be next.

From the National Popular Vote Website:

“Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).”

Currently Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey are the states that have enacted the National Popular Vote Act, amounting to 50 of the 270 votes needed.  California’s 55 votes would more than double that.

The National Popular Vote released a 8-page memo about the issue, including the specific language of the National Popular Vote Act.  Read the memo here.

Carole Migden, the former California State Senator from San Francisco proposed SB 37 – The National Popular Vote Act in California during the 2007-2008 Legislative Session.  It passed both houses and was vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2008.

This legislation will be beneficial for California.  Currently, there is no need for Presidential candidates to campaign in California because it is a winner-take-all democratic state.  Democrats, who saw their candidate win their election by a 23 point margin should like the idea of giving that vote advantage to their candidate.  Republicans, on the other hand, would have the ability to swing a national popular vote election by millions of votes in our state.  In some cases, the margin on victory in California is more than the total vote of other states.  Candidates would campaign heavily in California to ensure they get a substantial portion of the votes.

SB 37 passed both houses during the last legislative session.  Hopefully one of former Senator Migden’s colleagues will propose the bill in January and get the ball rolling again.  Passing the bill in California wont make it law, it requires 270 electoral votes worth of states to pass the bill to take effect, but at least we can do our part.

Governor Schwarzenegger has made government reform his priority and has succeeded with Proposition 11.  Why not make the National Popular Vote Act a priority as well?

For more information about the National Popular Vote Act, visit www.nationalpopularvote.com or read the NPV’s Memo from August 13, 2008.

Once again – as on so many occasions this election cycle – the blogosphere and the number-crunching experts on sites like 538, DailyKos, electoral-vote et al are way ahead of the game.  And the TV networks and even 24/7 news channels like CNN are failing to either be accurate or informative.  What is the cause of this?  It is Obama winning one of Nebraska’s 5 electoral college votes - an event which joins the long list of records broken this year.  

As electoral-vote explains:

“Nebraska is one of the two states (along with Maine) that awards one electoral vote for each congressional district carried plus two for the statewide winner. It now appears that Obama won NE-02 (Omaha) and picks up another electoral vote. This is the first time in history that either state has split its EVs.”

CNN and other major news networks just can’t cope with this fact and don’t – at least as yet - show it on their maps.  And there has been very little mainsteam discussion of even the possibility of it happening, as far as I can tell.  Where as Nate, Kos and others (including me!) have been talking about it for a while and following the vote count in Nebraska closely.

Proving the rule that incumbents when they keep winning under a system don’t want to change it and then look like sore losers when they immediately reverse their position upon losing (even just one electoral vote),

“Nebraska Republicans have reacted to this development with dismay and intend to introduce legislation in 2009 to go to a winner-take-all system like 48 other states. Although technically the (unicameral) legislature is nonpartisan, de facto, the Republicans control it and also the governor’s mansion, so they will probably succeed.”

And going back to one of my favourite subjects, reforming the electoral college, electoral-vote.com some great analysis of how Nebraska may prove a fillip to the national popular vote movement: 

“An indirect effect of Obama winning the electoral vote is to provide a solid precedent for allowing a state to allocate its electoral votes as its state legislature determines by state law. This issue could come up again if the Interstate Compact is adopted by states with 270 electoral votes. If this happens, then those states will cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote (not the state popular vote), de facto eliminating the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. Currently four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey) have passed it. If another dozen or so blue states were to pass it, it would come into being and there would surely be court fights about the right of a state legislature to determine how its electoral votes were cast (even though the constitution is pretty clear it is up to the states to choose their electors as they wish). Having a precedent for something other than winner-take-all would strengthen that court case.”

artwork by Phil Scroggs, for UCLA

Do you believe in democracy? By that I mean not just the way the government is structured. I also mean do you believe in the notion that The People — ordinary citizens — should be empowered to participate in the various institutions of society in order to represent their interests (social, economic and political)? Do you believe that the best way to tackle social problems is not solely through government fiat or the rule of experts but to include in the deliberation and decision-making process those who are most affected by the problem? And do you believe factors that impede the practice of democracy — anti-democratic practices — should be eliminated? Do you believe minor or third parties have important perspectives to contribute to national discussions on social and political issues and potentially have a valuable role to play in policy-making and implementation?

Such questions are a running theme in this blog. Below are my ruminations on the pros and cons of the various options available in American-style democracy for ordinary people to participate. I speak from the point of view of a Progressive who views social problems and their solutions through that particular lens.

The Problem with the Major Political Parties

“Those Who Make the Rules, Rule” argues that the problem with American democracy is rooted in the two major political parties (Republicans and Democrats) being deeply entrenched in our political system. The major parties set the rules through which all policy is decided — who gets on the ballot in elections, who is included in candidate debates, what issues are addressed, how they get discussed, what laws are enacted, and what policy Americans are ultimately left with. The Democratic and Republican parties make those rules to suit their — not the American people’s –interests.

The result is a monopoly control of the major institutions for legitimate democratic participation by the major parties and where minor parties are marginalized to irrelevance. If you are a Progressive in the U.S. your only viable option in terms of actually getting in a position where you can get things done (read: where you are not marginalized or maligned into irrelevance) is through the Democratic Party.

In addition to the above, I find a lot of validity in the critique of both major parties as being dominated by corporate interests, Wall Street insiders, and lobbyists. In this arrangement, the interests of ordinary citizens take a back seat until election season where the major parties pay rhetorical lip service to the Ordinary Joe in campaign ads and literature.

This is why I am intrigued by the Better Democrats movement which seeks to reform the Democratic Party from within. The focus of activism is to place Progressives into elective offices in local, city and state races nationwide — as Democrats. Blogs like Open Left and organizations like Progressive Majority and Democracy for America are proponents of this strategy.

Change the Way the Electoral Political Game is Played

Organizations and political movements which seek to change the rules of the way American politics are conducted do exist and are very important. FairVote, for example, seeks to enact initiatives like Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote. FairVote has been enacting such initiatives one state legislature or city council district at a time and has even scored major victories in getting IRV implemented in major cities like San Francisco. IRV is a method of voting that allows people to vote for third parties in multiple-candidate elections without fearing that their third-party votes will sway the elections towards the candidate they oppose (the spoiler effect).

Another growing political movement seeks to affect the way the political game is played on the level of voters. The Independent Movement, led most prominently by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, seeks to organize and mobilize the growing third of the American electorate who self-identify as being other than a Democrat or Republican into a political force. From their web site:

Founded in 1994, CUIP mounts political, legal, legislative and organizing challenges to partisan control of the political process.  It has pioneered methods of organizing independents without a political party, creating independent voter associations to project the voice of the 35% of the electorate that considers itself independent.  For CUIP, independents are not “swing voters” who exist to be wooed and swayed by one or the other major party. Independents have strongly held beliefs about how partisanship and ideological labeling are corrupting and constraining progress.  Independents defy traditional political labels; what they share is support for the principle that radical structural reform of the electoral process and of government is the urgent political necessity of the day.

So far I have been impressed by the efforts of the Independent Movement and been in contact with some of their key people, most prominently with blogger Nancy Hanks who operates the blog The Hankster. There is a caveat in working with this growing movement, however. Remember my earlier point about “not being marginalized or maligned to irrelevance?” A simple Google search of key people in the CUIP such as Lenora Fulani, Jackie Salit, Fred Newman, etc. reveal a long-standing public relations problem which they are very much aware of and openly acknowledge. If you associate yourself with the Independent movement as defined by the CUIP, do you run the risk of inheriting their political enemies and getting painted with the same brush that their enemies paint them? I don’t know the answer to that question yet. I only know that a long-standing public relations problem is bound to rear its head sooner or later especially if your group is becoming more successful and attracting more mainstream support and visibility.

However, I also know that there is no other entity in American politics besides the CUIP which is seeking to empower and organize political Independents into a coherent and functioning movement. For that alone I think they deserve a close look.

The Information Technology Revolution

According to the Personal Democracy Forum Manifesto:

Democracy in America is changing.

A new force, rooted in new tools and practices built on and around the Internet, is rising alongside the old system of capital-intensive broadcast politics.

Today, for almost no money, anyone can be a reporter, a community organizer, an ad-maker, a publisher, a money-raiser, or a leader.

If what they have to say is compelling, it will spread.

The cost of finding like-minded souls, banding together, and speaking to the powerful has dropped to almost zero.

Networked voices are reviving the civic conversation.

More people, everyday, are discovering this new power. After years of being treated like passive subjects of marketing and manipulation, they want to be heard.

Members expect a say in the decision-making process of the organizations they join. Readers want to talk back to the news-makers. Citizens are insisting on more openness and transparency from government.

All the old institutions and players-big money, top-down parties, big-foot journalism, cloistered organizations-must adapt or face losing status and power.

Personal Democracy, where everyone is a full participant, is coming.

The Personal Democracy Forum is your place to meet the people who are making that change happen, discover the tools powering the new civic conversation, spot the early trends, and share in understanding and embracing this dynamic new force.

The driver for change, in this case, is not primarily people but advances in information technology. Technology has allowed new ways of communicating, organizing, fundraising, and mobilizing people’s political behavior. An example of this phenomenon is this blog you are reading where a private citizen shares and publishes his thoughts on politics and current events and participates in conversations with fellow citizens in this and other blogs via the comments section. Personal Democracy Forum is an example of a web site that keeps track of the latest news and advances in the intersection of politics and technology.

Another interesting example of this phenomenon is the New Organizing Institute. Veterans of the first Democratic political campaigns to be waged in the Internet Age have created the NOI because:

By training new online organizers and technologists, our goal is to infuse this new field with talented staff, to connect and energize a new generation of progressive activists, and to solidify long-term progressive power.

Join or Start an Advocacy Organization

In my offline life this is what I do with Filipino-American human rights group Katarungan. I care about Filipino-American and Philippine issues and the group had a compelling mission and agenda so I decided to join their ranks as a volunteer where I lend a hand in the nuts and bolts of implementing their social justice vision. I have helped in establishing their web site, drafting their communications and legislative plan, and will work on compiling a database of Congressional and legislative contacts. A lot of what I do is technical in nature but being with the group allows me to learn about human rights issues in the Philippines, do activities such as presentation on behalf of the group and meet other folks both online and in real life who care about the issue. This is really how grassroots organizations and social movements are started and I am glad to lend a hand in order to be part of that movement.

Before I go through the particulars of how things are shaping up in the electoral vote count, I would just like to thank Susan for her comment on one of my earlier posts. Susan spoke about how we ought to change the system so that the election is decided by the national popular vote, and not the electoral vote. And I agree with her.

However, at least in this 2008 election, and probably for the next several decades of elections, we wil be using the electoral vote system, so here it comes. The latest on the race between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

Right now, things are looking strong for Senator Obama. He is leading by almost five points nationally when you average out all the polls. And if the election were held today, he would win with about 300 electoral votes, 30 more than necessary.

At this point, it looks highly likely that he will be able to swing Colorado (currently a 6% Obama lead), New Mexico (6% Obama lead), and Iowa (9% Obama lead) into the Democratic column. That’s 21 electoral votes right there that Bush got in 2004 that Obama will not be getting in 2008.

In addiiton, Obama might be able to swing Virginia (approx. 2% Obama lead) and North Carolina (.3% Obama lead) into the Democratic column. That would be another 28 electoral votes right there going from Bush to Obama.

Now currently, McCain is slated to receive about 240 electoral votes. But that’s assuming he wins Ohio and Florida, which are both tightly contested states. In both states, McCain leads by less than 2%, and without them, he has no chance. And in terms of Pennsylvania, Obama leads by a fairly safe-looking 5%.

So, as we head into October, it’s clear who is in the lead. Yes, the young African-American senator from Illinois is the frontrunner. Now the question is, with just several more weeks to go, can he hold the lead.

Now that the Presidential Elections are heating up towards voting day in November, I can’t help but think about what happens afterwards. By that I mean not what happens to the country or to society – but what happens to me and towards what politically-motivated activities should I focus my efforts. The 2008 elections has been and continues to be a fascinating and energizing force that has awakened my desire for participatory democracy.

For readers of this blog, here are a few options and suggestions I have in mind of good organizations to explore further. My criteria for picking these organizations is that they, for the most part, (a) represent a Progressive perspective; (b) if not explicitly Progressive in ideology, are non-partisan and Independent; and (c) they are actually involved in doing something that has the potential to reform American politics given sufficient traction to their program.

Democracy for America and Progressive Majority are organizations which seek to place Progressives in local offices by winning elections in key states against Republicans or conservative Democrats. DFA is a grassroots organization with over 725,000 members nationwide which provides campaign training, organizing resources, and media exposure to support progressive issues and candidates. Progressive Majority recruits progressives to run for office at the state and local levels. More than 750 people have run as Progressive Majority-backed candidates and they have elected 272 to office.

Wellstone Action and the New Organizing Institute are organizations which provide training and leadership development for Progressive activists. Wellstone Action was founded in January 2003 and its mission is to honor the legacy of Paul and Sheila Wellstone by continuing their work through training, educating, mobilizing and organizing a network of progressive individuals and organizations. The New Organizing Institute trains online organizers and technologists. Their goal is to infuse political New Media with talented staff to connect and energize a new generation of progressive activists.

A criticism the above four organizations have had is that they are focused narrowly along the lines of the Democratic Party. Sure, they are mostly Progressive Democrats but their political framework is still crafted along partisan lines. If your beliefs and ideals run counter to the Democratic Party platform or see them as being a weak vehicle for real reforms what options do you have? The next few suggestions cover organizations that are outside of the Democratic Party.

The Committee for a Unified Independent Party and the Independent Movement are organizations set up by veterans of the Perot-era Reform Party which now focus on non-partisan organizing, training, and connecting political independents across the country. The CUIP is planning a national conference in New York City for January 2009 and I am seriously thinking of attending. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich have made overtures to these groups. One thing to note: these groups have ties with controversial figures Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman. Fulani is the first African-American woman to run for President on the ballot in all 50 states in 1988 and 1992. Fred Newman is a New York City psychotherapist and political activist. Some people might be turned off by these ties. But so far, in my own explorations and contact with these groups, I have seen nothing untoward or inappropriate in their operations or how they conduct themselves. In addition, they appear to be the only entities in U.S. politics involved in organizing political independents into a legitimate political force that works outside of the purview of the Democratic and Republican parties. For that alone, they are worth checking out.

Another option is to explore a third party. In particular, two have caught my attention in recent years.

The DC Statehood Green Party is the second-largest political party in Washington, DC — second to the Democrats and outnumbering registered Republicans. They run candidates in local elections and their platform for economic and social issues have many things that I agree with on principle. I must admit I haven’t explored them beyond the Internet so you might see me attending a few DCSGP meetings in the future just to see what they are all about.

The Working Families Party is a grassroots community and labor-based party that is primarily located in New York state. Their Wikipedia page says they have chapters in Connecticut and South Carolina and are trying to establish themselves in California, Massachusetts, and Oregon. They first caught my attention from favorable mentions of them in the books Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America by Micah Sifry in 2003 and again in 2008 in The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington by David Sirota. The WFP is a populist, left-of-center political party that has many members from the labor movement. The goal of the Working Families Party is to “more forcefully inject the issues of working-class, middle-class, and poor people-like jobs, health care, education, and housing-into the public debate, and hold candidates and elected officials accountable on those issues. Our organizing strategy is to start local, think long-term, combine campaign work with organizing and education.”

Another organization worth checking out is FairVote. This organization is involved with fixing the nuts and bolts of the American political system with specific focus on voting rights, voting procedures and models of how to vote, and political representation for non-majority and non-mainstream political actors. From their web site: “FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve universal access to participation, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation for all.  As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to vote, universal voter registration, a national popular vote for president, instant runoff voting, and proportional representation.”

So there you have it. This list to explore should provide readers with some fodder to start 2009 with a political bang. What about you, dear readers? What types of organizations and activities relating to politics are you exploring for the next year after the Presidential elections are over and would like to share? No matter who wins in November, democratic participation shouldn’t begin and end with the presidential elections and I urge you to get involved.

Both mvy in my comments and Matt Yglesias at his blog have posts talking up the National Popular Vote movement. It’s absolutely clear that the Electoral College needs to be abolished, and I think the NPV compact is a genuinely clever way of getting around the impossibility of ever amending the Constitution for this purpose—but I do have serious concerns about the compact’s constitutionality, and whether or not it would actually be held up by the courts if challenged and/or reneged upon during a close vote.

It may still be the best fix available to us, but it’s certainly not perfect, and carries with it serious potential for total electoral chaos.

MUDGE’S Musings

It’s back to the Electoral College. Summer’s over people, time to get serious again about the 2008 presidential election.

In case you’re a completist as is yours truly, previous stories on the subject can be found here and here and here.

The cure for the Electoral College that is worse than what ails us.

By Jamin Raskin
Posted Friday, Aug. 24, 2007, at 5:32 PM ET

It’s hardly news at this point that, as it works today, the Electoral College undermines American democracy. It does so in three fundamental ways:  First, it betrays the principle of majority rule, threatening every four years to deliver the White House to the popular-vote loser. Second, it reduces the general election contest to a matter of what happens in Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other swing states, leaving most Americans (who live in forsaken “red” and “blue” states) on the sidelines. This in turn depresses turnout and helps give us one of the worst rates of voter participation on earth. Third, because of its proven pliability, the Electoral College invites partisan operatives, legislators, secretaries of state and even Supreme Court justices to engage in constant strategic mischief and manipulation at the state level.

This last problem is about to make things much worse, as strategic actors try to exploit spreading discontent with the system by pushing “reform” proposals for purely partisan advantage. Thus, in California, top Republican strategists are now proposing a ballot initiative that would “reform” the system by awarding the state’s electoral votes by congressional district. Its real purpose is to break up the state’s 55 electors, which typically go to the Democrats in a bloc as inevitably as Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma give their 56 combined electors to the Republicans. Following the proposed division of California’s well-gerrymandered blue and red congressional districts, it is likely that the 2008 GOP nominee under this plan would carry away about 20 electors. In one fell swoop, this would ruin the Democrats’ chances for winning the presidency.

This is very plainly not reform. It is tactical gamesmanship.

I guess I not surprised that the Governator’s party might be trying to game the system… What’s next? The native-born clause?

[Per L-HC's reformed process, please click the link below for the complete article -- but then please come on back!]

The cure for the Electoral College that is worse than what ails us. – By Jamin Raskin – Slate Magazine

Are you as disturbed about this as I am?

And, now you don’t have to be more than slightly daffy about Michael Bloomberg to be frightened of a repeat of the supreme debacle of 2000, or worse.

High time to get behind National Popular Vote in your state, especially if your state is California, in the light of the above mischief.

This bears repeating:

Thomas Jefferson famously said: “We are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Today, at least for the purposes of creating a national election for president in which every vote counts equally, we should all be Republicans and Democrats, Independents and Greens and Libertarians. Why not put aside political party just for a moment to see if we can still work together to create a more perfect union?

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

I was interested in the National Popular Vote effort being conducted by FairVote, the electoral reform organization. I had a few questions and the folks at FairVote were kind enough to answer them. Without further adieu, here’s my Q&A on the National Popular Vote!

How did the idea for NPV come about? Has anything like it been done before in the past?

Dr. John Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor, conceived of the idea as a way to do away with the current division of the country into safe states and battleground states. Currently, 2/3 of our states get absolutely no attention by presidential campaigns. The principle behind it is not new at all. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution gives state exclusive power over how to award their electoral votes. That is why we see Maine and Nebraska using a different method than 48 states. Under NPV, states join an interstate compact to agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in all fifty states. The compact goes into effect when enough states have joined to add up to 270 electoral votes, or a majority in the Electoral College.

The nationwide scope of the NPV effort is impressive. What are the primary difficulties a campaign of this magnitude faced with? And how do you overcome them?

Our biggest asset is the huge percentage of Americans who favor a national popular vote for President. Ever since the Gallup poll began to ask the question, it has gotten 70%-80% of the public’s support, and that holds true today, in every single state. We’ve taken advantage of that and now have bills in 47 states with over 350 legislative sponsors. Even in states that may benefit from the winner-take-all rule for award electoral votes that NPV is looking to change, you will find that constituents overwhelmingly favor the idea of a popular vote.

Playing devil’s advocate: one argument against NPV says under a national popular vote system, people living in smaller, more sparsely populated states will be at a disadvantage because more votes will come from densely populated states and coastal regions. Those regions tend to have more Democratic-liberal leaning voters. Candidates and campaigns will thus, tend to focus their resources and efforts primarily in these densely populated regions. How do you respond to the criticism that NPV will put smaller, more sparsely populated (and Republican-leaning) states at a disadvantage?

I am always amazed that this is brought up. A national popular vote is a reform that helps small states and empowers rural areas.

Right now, on the other hand, the smallest states in the country are severely disadvantaged by the current system. Of all the 13 states with 4 electoral votes or fewer, six are red and six are blue, and only a one – New Hampshire – is a swing state. The rest of the states are totally locked out. Campaigns don’t poll them, spend money there, advertise, visit, or campaign there.

Just consider the math. Those 12 smallest states have about 40 electoral votes and 11 million people. Ohio also has 11 million people, but only 20 electoral votes. Does the small state bonus make candidates go to the small states? Not at all. They go to Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the biggest of the swing states. Even Iowa, which is a swing state, finds itself ignored toward the end because regardless of how that state votes, Ohio is the true kingmaker because of its size.

A popular vote makes every vote equal, and candidates will vie for every vote they can. In other popular elections for governor, candidates campaign in every part of the state. If cities always controlled and election, we might have nothing but Democratic governors. But that doesn’t hold true. Gov. Schwarzenegger, for example, did not win by carrying San Francisco and Los Angeles, nor did Bush win the state of Ohio in 2004 by carrying Cincinnati and Cleveland.

To win a popular vote election, you simply need to campaign everywhere. If you do not, you will lose. Low population areas will never the be center of the universe, but they will at least be included in the universe, and have reason to activate their local party organizations and be heard by the national parties. As things stand, candidates can ignore all but a handful of, and within that category, pay attention to the biggest.

Playing devil’s advocate: one criticism of NPV (and which was used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in his veto of the bill) was that if candidate A won the national popular vote but candidate B won the state’s popular vote, shouldn’t the state’s electoral votes go to the winner of that state? How do you respond to that argument?

Nobody who votes for president ever wakes up the day after Election Day and says, “Hurray! My candidate didn’t become president, but he won my state!”

The issue is not who wins which state, but who becomes President of the United States. In Utah, there are plenty of Democrats whose votes don’t count. In California, there are plenty of Republicans whose votes don’t count. In fact, not only are they failing to help elect the candidate they voted for, but they are in effect having their votes cast for the opposite party. So we must not forget that the issue cuts both ways.

At the end of the day, only a national popular vote makes every vote count the same, and count exactly for the candidate for whom it was cast.

Playing devil’s advocate: one argument that has been advanced about NPV is that it is not a comprehensive reform effort. They say NPV, for example, is not intended to mitigate majority parties’ control of election rules nor is it designed to bring improvements to or eliminate problems resulting from campaign financing. Why NPV rather than some other type of reform?

The National Popular Vote plan is intended to make every vote equal, make every state important, and make sure the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. It may have other salutary effects, such as impelling states to protect their voting process and get more voters to turn out to vote. However, it’s main goal is to make the election of the president fairer at a basic level.

For election reform in general, there is no silver bullet. Campaign finance reform will not clean up politics in a comprehensive way, nor would redistricting reform, or so on. That doesn’t mean they are not worthy efforts. We need to pursue good policies across the board.

Making sure we have a president accountable to all 50 states and all Americans, however, seems like an ambitious effort all by itself!

If you can say anything to ordinary people (Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, conservative, etc.) to elicit their support for the NPV effort what would it be?

If you believe in the principle of one person one vote, and your vote should count no matter where you happen to live, then you should support a national popular vote for president.

Anything else you’d like to add?

With all the partisan gaming out there, it’s time we work toward goals that benefit the country universally. The National Popular Vote campaign ( www.nationalpopularvote.com) does just this. Thank you for taking an interest in this important issue.