Tag: elections

Why We Vote “No”

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Two weeks ago I suggested that our tendency as voters is to vote against the subject of any given election. This morning my brain supplied me with a possible explanation as to why that might be. Scott Hinrichs has written on various occasions about the fact that we expect more from our president than could ever be met by one person. When my brain connected those two ideas I began to wonder if the reason we tend to vote against whoever is in our focus is because the more we focus on someone the easier it is to see that they could never do all that we expect of them as President.

Thoughts?

Tags connections, elections, government, voting

culture National

Who Are You Voting Against?

Post author By David
Post date August 8, 2008
9 Comments on Who Are You Voting Against?

I really wish I could find the article I glanced at yesterday postulating that the presidential race is not looking like a blowout for Obama because the contest has been framed as a referendum on Obama rather than a referendum on Bush and the Republican party.

The thought that struck me is that when an election gets framed as a referendum on a candidate that candidate or party usually loses. I think that the reason that Gore did not receive enough support in 2000 to overcome the Nader voters is that the voters were fatigued by the emotionally charged Clinton presidency. In 2004 the vote got framed as a question of whather Kerry was really presidential or if he was just another politician. I think that 1996 was 2004 with Dole in the place of Kerry.

The exception seems to be 1988 which was a referendum on Reagan in which Bush I won.

What do you think? Is this how the outcome of our elections is decided – by voting against whoever the debate is centered on? (If so I would predict that 2010 will be a bad year to be a Democrat seeking election – regardless of the outcome this year.)

Tags 2008, 2010, civic participation, elections, Obama, questions

National

The Best Day to Vote

As a perpetual proponent of incresing voter turnout, I enjoyed considering the story on NPR about Rethinking The Tuesday Vote. I’m not sure when voters would be noticable less busy than Tuesday – especially considering that we would not want the vote to be on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday as each of those days is sacred to one major religion or another. If we ever find an easy way to increase voter turnout that would not cost lots of money we should do it. (I thinkthat changing the day of the week would be easy to implement so long as there is advanced warning.)

Tags civic participation, elections, NPR, voting

National

GOOOH – Elect Regular People

Post author By David
Post date June 27, 2008
No Comments on GOOOH – Elect Regular People

I’m always interested in ways to open up government to the average voter so I was interested when I learned about GOOOH (Hat Tip – Mark Towner). Their mission is to change the way we elect representatives and try to make those representatives more accountable to their constituents.

Because GOOOH is a process for selecting representatives (not an agenda-based party platform) we expect a very liberal candidate to be selected in San Francisco and a very conservative one in Colorado Springs — but it will be up to the GOOOH members in each district to decide.

They obviously recognize that some of their ideas will generate some friction:

The most controversial part of GOOOH is that the founder, Tim Cox, has proposed excluding politicians, actively prosecuting attorneys, and individuals with family assets over $11.5 million (250 times the median income) from the process. They are excluded not because they are bad people, but because they are overly represented in government today and, generally speaking, no longer seem to represent the common man.

Personally, as I have spent lots of time thinking and discussing the issue of term limits, I also have a problem with their current stance of promoting a limit of two terms (4 years) in the House -that seems excessively strict to me. On the other hand, it sparked an idea that I would like to explore sometime about the possible ramifications of having a bicameral legislature where one house is term limited and the other is not – allowing voters to be the term limiters in one house and forcing voters to seek fresh faces regularly in the other.

So I like the general idea and I figure that if I want to have any impact in massaging the positions of the group now is the time to act. In any case it’s worth looking into and I would recommend that anyone who is interested in improving our government should go have a look and decide if this is worthy of their support.

Tags change congress, elections, goooh

State

Join the Game

When we recognize that most “news” is really entertainment it’s easy to see that politics is really a sport. John Florez is absolutely right in saying It’s time we all join the game and back some rookies. Assuming that more people actually join the game sometime before election day John suggests:

Maybe this time voters will elect those candidates who will work in the public’s interest rather than being influenced by special interest money; and who will concentrate on exercising their “oversight responsibilities” — monitoring and enforcing the laws they pass — that incumbents have ignored. Maybe they can do “take-aways” regarding outdated and cumbersome laws that now fatten government at taxpayers’ expense and bog it down with process and no results.

Until voters stop reading incumbent’s mailings and start rooting for those who really believe government belongs to the people, the lobbyists will continue making their “drops” and make government work for them. Unless voters consider legislative candidates who take their oversight responsibilities seriously, rather than allowing them to write more laws, our government will get fatter. Voters who keep voting for the same team without looking at the player’s performance become part of the problem. Accountability is trash talk unless someone is there to make sure things get done and there are consequences.

Even if many voters take the time to get informed and participate in the process it’s possible that many incumbents would win and return to the seats they already hold. It’s all too easy for each incumbent to blame “the system” or their fellow legislators (especially those in the other party) for any existing problems that the voters see. That is why the invitation to “back some rookies” is important. In Utah that generally means that you should support a democratic party candidate. The only exceptions would be if there is some reason why the democratic candidate is not qualified for the position they are running for, or if there is a rookie on the Republican side of the race. If there are two qualified rookies then any vote you are comfortable with is a good vote, otherwise give preference to any rookie who looks like they are up to the job they are seeking over any incumbent.

We need to establish a pattern of voters kicking out incumbents (it’s not good enough to just have a regular turnover of incumbents retiring) so that candidates who win (thus becoming incumbents) will have a large incentive to be responsive to the voters rather than the party or anyone with deep pockets.

Tags civic participation, elections

National

Sitting Out the Final Period

Post author By David
Post date March 29, 2008
2 Comments on Sitting Out the Final Period

Seeing all the recent commentary on the Democratic Primary contest I have seen the pattern of less and less substantive discussion and more and more trash talk (by trash talk I’m not referring to the tone of the “discussion” but rather the way that it looks just like trash talk in sports – it has nothing to do about athletic ability and everything to do with getting in your opponent’s head).

Democrats have been saying for most of the primary season that they were thrilled to have such a large slate of well qualified candidates. Now that their contest has been narrowed to two candidates and no room for substantive discussion I’ve decided to quit paying attention to the primaries. Once we get into the general election I’m sure I’ll have some opinions to offer on the candidates, the issues, and the election process. Until then – I’ll focus on more local politics.

Tags elections, parties, primaries

National State

A Timely Request

Kip, at the Wide Middle, invites others to share Questions for the Candidates. This comes the very day that I have a question that I would ask any congressional candidate.

What part, or parts of the Change Congress movement would you pledge to support (if any). The four principles of the movement are that:

Candidates and congressmen should accept no money from lobbyists or PACs
Congress should vote to end earmarks
Candidates should agree to run publicly-financed campaigns
Congress should support reform to increase Congressional transparency

Candidates and citizens can pledge to support any combination of the above principles and citizens should hold candidates responsible for their campaign promises (this pledge and others).

Tags candidates, change congress, elections

National

Remarkable Consensus

I was pleased to read from Phil Kerpen on Earmarks:

An amendment to the budget sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been collecting some unlikely cosponsors over the past couple of days, including both Democratic presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The amendment would establish a bold loophole-free ban on earmarks for one year. After the election, the new president and congressional majority would face a choice of bringing back earmarks under some reformed process or extending the temporary ban. Either result would be a major improvement. . . The loophole-free moratorium embodied in the DeMint-McCain amendment would actually end earmarking for at least one year.

Not mentioned there is that this amendment is being opposed by the Senate leadership of both parties. What would draw all the presidential candidates together in opposition to the leadership of both parties? My suspicion was that all the presidential candidates are facing an election but the party leaders in the Senate are not. The reason that would make a difference would be explained by the majority of Americans favoring an end to earmarking.

My confidence in that hypothesis fell when I discovered that Mitch McConnell (the minority leader) is facing re-election (although his 30 point win in his last election might mean that he’s not very worried about his re-election chances). Despite my lowered confidence, that is the best theory I have right now.

Whatever the reason for this consensus, I hope that the amendment passes and is signed by the president.

Tags consensus, earmarks, elections, government

National

No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

Post author By David
Post date February 20, 2008
2 Comments on No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

With the debate over the role of super-delegates and the delegates from Florida and Michigan in choosing their nominee, the Democratic Party finds itself in a no-win situation. Without the unpleasant idea that the super-delegates might have to publicly buck the democratic primary voters to give the nomination to Senator Clinton, we would not hear the Clinton Campaign calling to have the delegates in those states that she won (Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan) seated to make the race more level.

If the party chooses not to seat delegates from those states they open the door for Republicans to attack them for not backing up their “make every vote count” rhetoric.

If they do choose to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan they face a whole range of paths to bruise themselves. First – any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). If they choose to accept that defeat they then have to choose how to seat the delegates. They can take the existing results and hear people cry fowl who chose not to vote, or who chose to vote in the Republican primary, based on the fact that their votes would not count in the selection of the Democratic nominee. If they chose to hold new primaries in those states they have to cover the costs or persuade the states to pay for a second election and they have to choose who to allow to participate. Michigan has open primaries so they run the risk of having people vote in their new primary who already voted in the Republican primary (the reverse of what Markos advocated as Michigan arrived). If they choose to limit their primaries in any way it can only be an arbitrary line.

Interestingly, if this same eternal nomination fight were happening in the GOP most of the problems outlined above would not exist because they chose to respond to the states that abandoned the party calendar by only stripping half their delegates so the original votes can stand and represent the votes taken without undermining party authority.

When I went searching for the Daily Kos link above, I thought it was funny to discover that Markos made many of the same arguments I just made on this issue. He recommends seating the delegates from both states and splitting them 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. Why don’t we just award an extra 200 delegates for each state that obeyed the party rules with the same 50/50 split condition while we’re at it? A 50/50 split is meaningless in deciding the nominee. It expands the pool of delegates, but adding 200 delegates to the delegate count of each candidate only means that there is a larger convention. Getting 1191 delegates to win the Republican nomination is just the same as getting 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination – the numbers may differ, but it all comes down to who gets 50% + 1. Besides that, the 50/50 split is unenforceable – either they have a choice, or they have no vote to cast. There’s no point in inflating the numbers to say “Welcome to the convention, check your seat for a number – odds vote for Clinton, evens vote for Obama.”

Tags connections, DNC, elections, parties

General

Wrinkles In Iowa

I have read two stories now from the New York Times about questionable practices in the Iowa Caucuses. One on Iowa’s Student Vote and another on the reporting of the Democratic Caucus results. In regard to the student vote I was disappointed to learn that:

. . . political operatives often try to suppress the student vote . . . [using] a variety of tactics over the years to keep students from voting. There are often too few voting machines, so lines stretch for hours. Sometimes, students are falsely told that they will lose financial aid, health care or even car insurance if they vote while attending school.

In Iowa, the suppression has been rhetorical. With Barack Obama’s campaign, in particular, urging students to come out for him, other campaigns have tried to put up roadblocks. . . Clinton said during a campaign stop that the process should be reserved for “people who live here, people who pay taxes here.” Chris Dodd seemed to imply that people who were “paying out-of-state tuition” and participating in the process were somehow being deceptive and unfairly casting themselves as Iowan.

Student are rightly up in arms about these statements. The law in Iowa is crystal clear: students who attend school in the state are entitled to register to vote in the state as long they are not registered anywhere else.

For myself, I would be happy with any vote where voter turnout was above 70% even if I absolutely hated the person who got elected. At least I would know that the person who got elected was elected by an active electorate who disagreed with me.

With regard to the results of the Democratic Caucuses I was surprised to learn that the actual vote count was never made public. In the words of the article:

Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. . .

The press invests months in covering the caucuses. It and the public it serves are entitled at the end of the exercise to an unambiguous vote count, instead of delegate numbers that camouflage how much popular support each candidate earned.

Such practices serve as extra fodder for those who argue that Iowa is not representative of the nation and does not deserve to always take the lead in the process of selecting our president.

Tags civic participation, elections, media, voting machines