Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
No on California Proposition 41 Bond Act
California Proposition 41, which is up before the voters for the June 3, 2014 primary election, is the sort of thing every voter has seen before. Despite the state being overburdened by debt, special interests will devise a plan to borrow more while hiding their true agenda.
Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014 might help veterans including homeless veterans a bit, but its real victors would be the investment banks that sell the bonds; construction moguls; and land speculators.
If the people of California want to help the homeless or veterans, through the State of California, the money should come out of an annual budget, not further borrowing.
Where will this alleged housing be built? Will your city, town, or county benefit? Probably not. It will go where the most corrupt politicians and bureaucrats want it to go, where it most profits their patrons.
Where is all the housing from prior, similar bond acts? Not much of anywhere, because the interest on the bonds, and the bankers' commissions for selling the bonds, and the bureaucratic pay for planning housing, and rezoning, and fighting with the neighborhoods that usually don't want the housing anyway, will eat up most of the taxes paid.
Except that all the taxes paid, despite the astonishingly high tax rates in California, are already being eaten up, not just with ordinary state expenses, but with interest and principle payments on prior bonds. [We supported the recent tax hikes to get us out of a mess, not to reinvigorate the mess]
The tragic inability of the State of California to help people during the late Great Recession was a direct result of overspending before 2008, including endless bond measures, each titled to try to appeal to enough voters to get them passed. During the recession California cut aid to the homeless, including the newly homeless who had long histories of paying taxes.
California needs to pay down its debts and deal with the underfunding of the pensions for public workers. When that is done we can fund things like alleged housing for the poor out of budget surpluses, if necessary by stopping funding items that are less important to us.
While it can be found everywhere, homelessness should be addressed at a detailed level. Some homeless people just need a job; some need medical or psychiatric help; individuals have individual issues. These issues can best be addressed at the local level.
The only homeless persons these bonds might help are veterans. While the vast majority of homeless people in California are not veterans, they would be left out in the cold by this program.
Don't be fooled by the title. Vote NO on Proposition 41 in the June 3, 2014 primary.
See also: California Official Voter Guide Proposition 41
Yes on California Proposition 42
California has open public meetings and records laws. Proposition 42 makes clear that local governments and agencies must follow these laws. They are good laws. Every state should enact them, and there should be federal similar federal laws.
These laws due impose some burdens and costs on agencies and governments. However, these costs a tiny compared to the benefits of openess.
Proposition 42 fixes a flaw in the current situation. In some cases the State picked up the costs of compliance. In some cases Agencies and localities used lack of funding to refuse to comply with the law.
California Proposition 42 makes the Brown Act and California Public Records Act work the way most laws work. The law is the law. The costs of complying with the law are to be paid by the local units of government. There is no need for a bureaucratic system for the State to reimburse local government for doing what local governments should do anyway.
Local governments and agencies should not see the open meetings and records laws as a burden. Members of the public want to help insure there is good government. To get an accurate picture of a situation, and to base good judgment on it, they need access to meetings and public records. The more citizens keep an eye on local boards, the less room the boards have for corruption and just plain poor decision making.
Vote Yes on California Proposition 42 in the June 3, 2014 primary
See also: California Official Voter Guide Proposition 42
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Top-two California Primary Shows Promise
Tuesday, June 5, we had the first test of the new, less-partisan, open primary system established under Proposition 14. While most candidates and voters stuck to their old partisan ways, some of the results were encouraging. Notably, this November there will be a number of contests between two Democratic Party identified candidates, or between two Republican Party identified candidates.
In the 53 House of Representatives congressional districts in California most of the races produced results similar to the old partisan primaries: a Republican will run against a Democrat in the fall. 40 districts will have that traditional choice.
One district, 37, had only one candidate, a Democrat, the incumbent.
Six districts will see two Democrats contenting for the seat in November.
Two districts will see two Republicans runoff.
Four districts will have an NPP, no political party, candidate in November. These independent candidates will face Democrats in three cases and a Republican in one case.
In the 80 California State Assembly races, 58 will be Dem v. Rep. Twelve races will pit Democratic Party candidates against each other. 6 will pit two Republican Party candidates against each other. Appallingly, in 3 districts only one person ran, a Democrat. Only one NPP, independent candidate made it to the November election, and will be facing a Democrat.
In the 20 California State Senate races (out of 80 4-year seats), 14 will be bipartisan in the fall. Two races will be between Democrats. One race will feature two Republican contenders. Three races had only one candidate, all Democratic Party.
Independents as candidates did not do well, and even those who made the Top Two are not likely to do well in the fall. Still, it is a start. Independents don't have the campaign organization or funding that the political parties have, but this may change with time. Also, independent voters often don't vote in primaries, since in the past they could only vote for or against propositions. Strong campaigns by independents in the primaries should encourage better voting habits by those who do not identify with a political party.
We will see a fair number of races where both candidates are from one political party this November. This is already a paradigm shift. In the past the party machine candidate won its primary. Since districts in California tend to be heavily biased to one or another party, the machine candidate of the majority party was almost guaranteed victory in the fall.
Now in Republican districts a far-right candidate may loose to a moderate Republican, if the Democrats and independents get out and vote for the moderate. Similarly for the Democratic Party dominated districts.
Third party candidates struck out under the new system, but they almost always struck out under the old system too. Buried in the results were a few Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates who came within decent range of making the top two. With more campaign contributions and better run campaigns these types of candidates could finally start upsetting the entrenched parties in 2014.
This is a great experiment in electoral democracy. The political party machines and their candidates will, of course, continue to look for ways to control the government gravy train. Citizens devoted to good government are going to have to get their electoral campaigning to a higher level if we ever want to see genuinely good government in California. Top-two primaries open the door to that possibility.
Note: some elections were close enough that counting straggling votes, or a recount, could change the results tabulated above.
In the 53 House of Representatives congressional districts in California most of the races produced results similar to the old partisan primaries: a Republican will run against a Democrat in the fall. 40 districts will have that traditional choice.
One district, 37, had only one candidate, a Democrat, the incumbent.
Six districts will see two Democrats contenting for the seat in November.
Two districts will see two Republicans runoff.
Four districts will have an NPP, no political party, candidate in November. These independent candidates will face Democrats in three cases and a Republican in one case.
In the 80 California State Assembly races, 58 will be Dem v. Rep. Twelve races will pit Democratic Party candidates against each other. 6 will pit two Republican Party candidates against each other. Appallingly, in 3 districts only one person ran, a Democrat. Only one NPP, independent candidate made it to the November election, and will be facing a Democrat.
In the 20 California State Senate races (out of 80 4-year seats), 14 will be bipartisan in the fall. Two races will be between Democrats. One race will feature two Republican contenders. Three races had only one candidate, all Democratic Party.
Independents as candidates did not do well, and even those who made the Top Two are not likely to do well in the fall. Still, it is a start. Independents don't have the campaign organization or funding that the political parties have, but this may change with time. Also, independent voters often don't vote in primaries, since in the past they could only vote for or against propositions. Strong campaigns by independents in the primaries should encourage better voting habits by those who do not identify with a political party.
We will see a fair number of races where both candidates are from one political party this November. This is already a paradigm shift. In the past the party machine candidate won its primary. Since districts in California tend to be heavily biased to one or another party, the machine candidate of the majority party was almost guaranteed victory in the fall.
Now in Republican districts a far-right candidate may loose to a moderate Republican, if the Democrats and independents get out and vote for the moderate. Similarly for the Democratic Party dominated districts.
Third party candidates struck out under the new system, but they almost always struck out under the old system too. Buried in the results were a few Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates who came within decent range of making the top two. With more campaign contributions and better run campaigns these types of candidates could finally start upsetting the entrenched parties in 2014.
This is a great experiment in electoral democracy. The political party machines and their candidates will, of course, continue to look for ways to control the government gravy train. Citizens devoted to good government are going to have to get their electoral campaigning to a higher level if we ever want to see genuinely good government in California. Top-two primaries open the door to that possibility.
Note: some elections were close enough that counting straggling votes, or a recount, could change the results tabulated above.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Yes on California Proposition 28, term limits
Currently in the the State of California there are term limits for citizens serving in our state legislature. A person can serve three terms of two years in the California State Assembly and two terms of four years in the California State Senate. Thus a successful politician can serve a maximum of fourteen (14) years at the state level. After that, to remain in elected political office, the options are to return to local seats, try for one of the few statewide offices like governor, or try to jump to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives or one of the two U.S. Senator positions.
Proposition 28, "Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office," which if passed would be an amendment to the California Constitution, would change the rules for term limits. A citizen would be able to serve only 12 years in the State Assembly or Senate, but could divide up those years as desired (or as the citizens are willing to vote).
This would serve to mitigate two problems at once. In the current system, upward-climbing politicians start in the Assembly. After spending a year running for office, they have a year of being a novice before running for Assembly again. By the time they are experienced at Assembly work, they are term limited out. They have spent 3 years running for office, then 3 years focused (hopefully) on the people's business. Their last year is usually spent desperately seeking a higher office, or getting ready to join the vast army of parasitic former legislators who become lobbyists or get appointed to highly paid, no-show California commission committee work.
Under 28 a citizen can get up to six terms in the state assembly. There would be a mix, in the assembly, of old hands who know their business and newer members to provide fresh energy. The same would basically be true of the State Senate.
Of course the corrupting power of money in politics will remain with us, as will a population of voters almost none of whom follows the legislative process closely (even I can't do that). Prop 28 is a tweak, not a revolution.
I like Proposition 28 and don't find any argument against it to be compelling.
Vote Yes on Proposition 28, the new term limits initiative.
Text of Proposition 28 with official arguments
Proposition 28, "Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office," which if passed would be an amendment to the California Constitution, would change the rules for term limits. A citizen would be able to serve only 12 years in the State Assembly or Senate, but could divide up those years as desired (or as the citizens are willing to vote).
This would serve to mitigate two problems at once. In the current system, upward-climbing politicians start in the Assembly. After spending a year running for office, they have a year of being a novice before running for Assembly again. By the time they are experienced at Assembly work, they are term limited out. They have spent 3 years running for office, then 3 years focused (hopefully) on the people's business. Their last year is usually spent desperately seeking a higher office, or getting ready to join the vast army of parasitic former legislators who become lobbyists or get appointed to highly paid, no-show California commission committee work.
Under 28 a citizen can get up to six terms in the state assembly. There would be a mix, in the assembly, of old hands who know their business and newer members to provide fresh energy. The same would basically be true of the State Senate.
Of course the corrupting power of money in politics will remain with us, as will a population of voters almost none of whom follows the legislative process closely (even I can't do that). Prop 28 is a tweak, not a revolution.
I like Proposition 28 and don't find any argument against it to be compelling.
Vote Yes on Proposition 28, the new term limits initiative.
Text of Proposition 28 with official arguments
Monday, May 7, 2012
Obama Pisses on our California Democracy
Barack Obama may be the first sort-of black President of the United States, but his political heritage is not much different than the entire line of Presidents starting with real-estate speculator George Washington. Barack will be the only choice on the Democratic Party Presidential ballot line for the June 5 election. The total corruption and march-in-line behind the leader mentality of the party is shown by the lack of even token progressive and anti-war opposition.
Knowing the Democratic Party nomination is locked up, and wanting to appeal to right-wing voters, Barack Obama ordered widespread, unconstitutional raids on our perfectly legal medical marijuana purveyors. It's a funny thing, the way almost all media sources keep the Obama name out of the stories about the raids. It is always the Justice Department. Like Obama is not head of the government. Like he could not order the stormtroopers to go after other crimes. Are there no Islamic teenagers who might be entrapped by agents offering them a chance to play with government-supplied C-4? Are there no criminals violating Disney's copyrights needing to be rounded up and put in concentration camps?
It is not just his Reaganesque marijuana policy that mocks California's enlightened citizenry. There's his anti-gay marriage stand. His ongoing military attacks on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, plus anti-Iranian saber rattling. His promotion of the very men who created the mortgage derivatives and banking meltdown to be his top economic advisors. His failure to vigorously protect women's reproductive rights. His half-ass reformulation of the healthcare for profit system.
But what is a Democrat to do? It is too late to send Him a message by re-registering Green or No Political Preference (the new Decline to State, known everywhere else as independent). You can do that after the primary.
All you can do is vote for your favorite local candidates (up to and including Congress) and then not vote for Barack Obama. Barack does not give a damn how you feel about him, as long as he is the head of the corporate security state. He's going to be the next President. What not voting for Obama will do is show, when the votes are counted, that you care about California and your fellow Californians.
According to my readings of John Steinbeck, pretty many California citizens were smoking marijuana long before the 1960s rolled around. Since the 1960s California citizens have almost all been tolerant of their neighbors who choose to smoke. Sure, there are occasional problems with stoned citizens, but they pale compared to the problems of drunk citizens, and they don't seem to be significantly higher than the problems we encounter with perfectly sober citizens, either.
We Californians are a nation of individuals, but we do mostly share some cultural values, like respecting individual diversity. We have a disproportionate number of agnostics and atheists among us, and even our religious citizens tend more to humanist spirituality and ethical conduct than to memorize-the-text orthodoxy. We believe in evolution, and are evolving, but are ruled by people whose brain capacities froze at Middle Ages levels of memory and compute capabilities.
There are about 38 million of us. There were less than 4 million people living in the original 13 states at the time of the American Revolution, and that included slaves and Native Americans.
We should demand some respect from the rest of the states. If they do not respect our ways and our values, including ending marijuana prohibition, we should began the process of (hopefully without a civil war) leaving other United States and governing ourselves.
Because we can govern ourselves a lot better than the eastern states can govern us.
We don't need the national parties, either. Even if we stay in the Union, California citizens should have their own political parties, subject to our own corrupt bosses and political machines, rather than to the corrupt national bosses and machines.
Let's make that a goal: at least one California-centric party by 2014.
Knowing the Democratic Party nomination is locked up, and wanting to appeal to right-wing voters, Barack Obama ordered widespread, unconstitutional raids on our perfectly legal medical marijuana purveyors. It's a funny thing, the way almost all media sources keep the Obama name out of the stories about the raids. It is always the Justice Department. Like Obama is not head of the government. Like he could not order the stormtroopers to go after other crimes. Are there no Islamic teenagers who might be entrapped by agents offering them a chance to play with government-supplied C-4? Are there no criminals violating Disney's copyrights needing to be rounded up and put in concentration camps?
It is not just his Reaganesque marijuana policy that mocks California's enlightened citizenry. There's his anti-gay marriage stand. His ongoing military attacks on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, plus anti-Iranian saber rattling. His promotion of the very men who created the mortgage derivatives and banking meltdown to be his top economic advisors. His failure to vigorously protect women's reproductive rights. His half-ass reformulation of the healthcare for profit system.
But what is a Democrat to do? It is too late to send Him a message by re-registering Green or No Political Preference (the new Decline to State, known everywhere else as independent). You can do that after the primary.
All you can do is vote for your favorite local candidates (up to and including Congress) and then not vote for Barack Obama. Barack does not give a damn how you feel about him, as long as he is the head of the corporate security state. He's going to be the next President. What not voting for Obama will do is show, when the votes are counted, that you care about California and your fellow Californians.
According to my readings of John Steinbeck, pretty many California citizens were smoking marijuana long before the 1960s rolled around. Since the 1960s California citizens have almost all been tolerant of their neighbors who choose to smoke. Sure, there are occasional problems with stoned citizens, but they pale compared to the problems of drunk citizens, and they don't seem to be significantly higher than the problems we encounter with perfectly sober citizens, either.
We Californians are a nation of individuals, but we do mostly share some cultural values, like respecting individual diversity. We have a disproportionate number of agnostics and atheists among us, and even our religious citizens tend more to humanist spirituality and ethical conduct than to memorize-the-text orthodoxy. We believe in evolution, and are evolving, but are ruled by people whose brain capacities froze at Middle Ages levels of memory and compute capabilities.
There are about 38 million of us. There were less than 4 million people living in the original 13 states at the time of the American Revolution, and that included slaves and Native Americans.
We should demand some respect from the rest of the states. If they do not respect our ways and our values, including ending marijuana prohibition, we should began the process of (hopefully without a civil war) leaving other United States and governing ourselves.
Because we can govern ourselves a lot better than the eastern states can govern us.
We don't need the national parties, either. Even if we stay in the Union, California citizens should have their own political parties, subject to our own corrupt bosses and political machines, rather than to the corrupt national bosses and machines.
Let's make that a goal: at least one California-centric party by 2014.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Buy It Now: Dianne Feinstein for Senate
According to syndicated columnist Tom Elias, Dianne Feinstein recently put an additional $5 million of her personal cash into her re-election campaign for the U.S. Senate. She had to. A Democratic Party crook, Kinde Durkee, showed sometimes there is not honor among thieves by embezzling untold sums from the many California political campaigns she served as treasurer for.
The candidates who lost money, or whose funds are frozen while the investigation continues, may have a difficult time in the 2012 elections, perhaps even in the June primaries. Not Ms. Feinstein, whose personal and family wealth is inconceivable to most Californians.
Despite her voting record in Congress, most notable for her desire to crush any remaining Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, to give unlimited funds to the U.S. military and homeland security, and to serve herself and her husband heaping helpings of the federal budget pie, there will be no serious reformist Democratic Party challenger to Dianne in the June primary. A Senate campaign requires reaching some 18,000,000 likely voters. If you can convince the media gatekeepers that you are a serious candidate, you might be in the debates, but not all that many voters actually watch or listen to debates. No, you would need to mail a flyer or two or ten to each voter and buy a good deal of television and radio spots to have a chance at winning. That is a daunting task unless you are a multi-millionaire or have a money machine left over from say, having already been governor of California.
Even Michael Reagan, talk show host and son of Ronald Reagan, apparently looked at the Feinstein money and decided even Reagan name recognition would not give him a shot at her Senate seat.
How did the Democratic Party end up with so wealthy of a Senator? That has always been the plan from the time when Andrew Jackson and his wealthy slave owning friends noticed that poorer white men, having been given the vote, had become a danger to the class system, and created the Democratic Party [See Andrew Jackson for President, Act I].
In particular, Dianne Feinstein was born to a wealthy doctor, then married money not once but three times (retaining her political last name, Feinstein, from her 2nd husband). Current husband Richard C. Blum is an investment banker (the kind people are protesting against on Wall Street right now) with very extensive real estate holding and close connections to the U.S. education, defense, and homeland security establishments. [See also DiFi and Blum: a Marriage Marinated in Money]
Most political offices in California cover a limited geography. Money is important in local elections and in elections to the California State Assembly and State Senate, but the magnitude of money needed to run for one of the two U.S. Senate seats, or for governor and other state-wide California offices, is staggering even to most successful, seasoned politicians. Since Republicans are hard pressed to win any state-level office anymore (the last was Arnold Schwarzenegger), the real action is in the Democratic party primaries.
Challenging a Democratic Party, state-wide, near-billionaire incumbent in a primary amounts to tilting at windmills. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Ebay. There should be a buy-it-now option. Then we would not have to wait to see who wins the auction. Instead of wasting money on lying to voters, Dianne could donate all that money to helping reduce the State budget deficit. [Yes, this last paragraph is satire, not an actual proposal.]
The candidates who lost money, or whose funds are frozen while the investigation continues, may have a difficult time in the 2012 elections, perhaps even in the June primaries. Not Ms. Feinstein, whose personal and family wealth is inconceivable to most Californians.
Despite her voting record in Congress, most notable for her desire to crush any remaining Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, to give unlimited funds to the U.S. military and homeland security, and to serve herself and her husband heaping helpings of the federal budget pie, there will be no serious reformist Democratic Party challenger to Dianne in the June primary. A Senate campaign requires reaching some 18,000,000 likely voters. If you can convince the media gatekeepers that you are a serious candidate, you might be in the debates, but not all that many voters actually watch or listen to debates. No, you would need to mail a flyer or two or ten to each voter and buy a good deal of television and radio spots to have a chance at winning. That is a daunting task unless you are a multi-millionaire or have a money machine left over from say, having already been governor of California.
Even Michael Reagan, talk show host and son of Ronald Reagan, apparently looked at the Feinstein money and decided even Reagan name recognition would not give him a shot at her Senate seat.
How did the Democratic Party end up with so wealthy of a Senator? That has always been the plan from the time when Andrew Jackson and his wealthy slave owning friends noticed that poorer white men, having been given the vote, had become a danger to the class system, and created the Democratic Party [See Andrew Jackson for President, Act I].
In particular, Dianne Feinstein was born to a wealthy doctor, then married money not once but three times (retaining her political last name, Feinstein, from her 2nd husband). Current husband Richard C. Blum is an investment banker (the kind people are protesting against on Wall Street right now) with very extensive real estate holding and close connections to the U.S. education, defense, and homeland security establishments. [See also DiFi and Blum: a Marriage Marinated in Money]
Most political offices in California cover a limited geography. Money is important in local elections and in elections to the California State Assembly and State Senate, but the magnitude of money needed to run for one of the two U.S. Senate seats, or for governor and other state-wide California offices, is staggering even to most successful, seasoned politicians. Since Republicans are hard pressed to win any state-level office anymore (the last was Arnold Schwarzenegger), the real action is in the Democratic party primaries.
Challenging a Democratic Party, state-wide, near-billionaire incumbent in a primary amounts to tilting at windmills. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Ebay. There should be a buy-it-now option. Then we would not have to wait to see who wins the auction. Instead of wasting money on lying to voters, Dianne could donate all that money to helping reduce the State budget deficit. [Yes, this last paragraph is satire, not an actual proposal.]
Sunday, August 14, 2011
June 2012 California Primary
Where to put the California Presidential Primary has long been a contentious issue. This year the state's politicians easily agreed that next-year's primary will be in June.
For local races (including Congress and the U.S. Senate) a June primary has always made good sense. For offices like the California State Assembly that come up every two years, having a February primary means there is only about a year in every 2 year cycle that the incumbent does not need to be campaigning. It also means a huge lull for the public between February and the runoff election in November. It also means low voter turnouts.
For Presidential nominees, the question is how much California will influence the nomination process. Because of the size of its population, California has a large proportion of votes at national nominating conventions. Because of its political culture, California tends to be more liberal than most other states both within the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. An early California primary in 2012 would have helped moderate contenders in the Republican Party. On the other hand having an early primary would not necessarily make California a king-maker. Having a late primary is a gamble if you care about such things. The contest may be all-but-over, making California votes seem irrelevant. Or the field will have narrowed to two viable candidates, and California voters would get to pick the nominee.
Usually it is the Democratic Party faithful who want an early primary, but this year they are mostly holding their steam (about Afghanistan, war spending, and compromises with the Republican) and hoping no serious left-of-Obama contender comes forward. Uniting behind the incumbent is their best bet at holding onto what national power they have.
The June 2012 election could be a groundbreaking election totally apart from the Presidential nomination aspect. The two big game changers are Proposition 14, which makes the primaries less partisan, and redistricting.
Redistricting occurs every ten years, after the results from the U.S. census are returned. In the past California political districts were designed by incumbents, for incumbents. In partisan political terms this meant district lines were drawn to maximize the percentage of either Republicans or Democrats (including independent (Decline To State) voters known to typically vote one way or the other). This actually reduced the number of Democrats in Congress, the State Assembly and State Senate from its theoretical maximum. More of the new districts will have less-than-landslide sized Democratic majorities. While in theory this could help the Republican cause in some elections, the most likely outcome is more Democrats will win these seats. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission will vote on adopting its final maps on August 15, 2011.
Proposition 14, which passed in June 2010, makes partisan primaries more like non-partisan local and school board elections. Candidates can still list a political party, but the winner in each political party does not proceed to the runoff election. The top two vote getters advance to the November runoff, even if they are in the same party.
This non-partisan reform measure could have a big impact, if entrenched interests can't eliminate it (they are suing to block it) or find ways to manipulate the new mechanics. It encourages challengers from within the dominant political party in a district, as well as serious independent and small party candidates. Take a district that is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, not unusual in California. In the past typically a right-wing Republican and an incumbent Democrat would win their respective primaries. Then the Democrat would win the runoff. [Invert the scenario for Republican dominated districts in the Central Valley or San Diego]
Now a centrist candidate, Republican, Democrat, third party or even decline-to-state might pick up enough votes to become one of the top two vote getters. If they hold the center together, they can get elected.
If enough candidates see this new opportunity to take on incumbents, we might even see another scenario from time to time. Say three Democrats run and Two Republicans. Suddenly third parties like the Libertarians and Green Party could be viable. Taking 20% of the vote in the primary could make the third-party candidate one of the top two. In particular it would be interesting to see elections in left-leaning districts that pit a Green Party citizen against an incumbent Democrat.
Whatever the outcome, redistricting and non-partisan elections are good for democracy. Hopefully 2012 will just be the beginning of opening up our system to participation by citizens who do not already belong to powerful, entrenched lobbying groups.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Republican Party Aims to Control Primaries
Traditionally in California (as in most of the rest of the U.S.) most elections are really decided before the primaries take place. Donors and organizations that control volunteers make their choices, if there is any choice other than the incumbent. Primaries just show how well political machines have pushed their candidates. For the most part in California for the past couple of decades this has resulted in very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans being elected to the state legislature. None can afford to alienate the machines that elected them. As a result in good times creating California state budgets has been difficult; in recessions, it has been a disaster.
Proposition 14, passed by voters in 2010, is supposed to change that. The two highest vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, will proceed from the primary to the runoff election. This is the same system that has always been used in California for non-partisan offices like school boards and city councils. The framers of Prop 14 hoped that this would allow centrist candidates to emerge and even win. For instance, in a Republican majority districts (most districts are drawn to be heavily biased, a back-scratching agreement between the parties), usually a very conservative Republican candidate backed by the local machine would win the Republican primary under the old system. Even if the Democrats ran a centrist, that Republican would still win the main election. Under Prop 14 a centrist Republican might garner the number 2 spot in the primary, then go on to beat the conservative, machine-supported Republican in the runoff.
All the political parties in California opposed Prop 14, including the Green Party. Now all are working on reasserting their power under the new system. The Republican Party has a pretty good idea for doing that: holding its own internal elections before the primaries. They intend to mail ballots to all Republican voters, and let them decide on who will be the official Republican nominee. That is, who will be backed by party resources. Of course, this will mostly work out to be much like tthe old system because voters choose based on name recognition, and that is based on advertising or outreach by volunteers from the same old sources.
Still, it is better than allowing the party bosses to decide which candidates will be supported by the party.
Whoever the official Republican nominee is for an office, they will still have to run against all the other candidates in the primary, and if they don't place first or second, they will be out of the running.
In my opinion what we really need to give the voters real options is some strengthening of some of the smaller parties, like the Green Party and Libertarians, and a new, centrist party. Call it the California Center Party for now. There are a lot of people in the center, and they want a functioning California government that is not either overly indulgent of the anti-tax crowd or the tax-and-spend crowd.
But no such party has emerged yet.
See also:
The GOP Searches for relevance post Proposition 14
California Republican Party
Addenda: facts not so clear about Republican plans: Sparks Fly at California Republican Party [Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2011]
Proposition 14, passed by voters in 2010, is supposed to change that. The two highest vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, will proceed from the primary to the runoff election. This is the same system that has always been used in California for non-partisan offices like school boards and city councils. The framers of Prop 14 hoped that this would allow centrist candidates to emerge and even win. For instance, in a Republican majority districts (most districts are drawn to be heavily biased, a back-scratching agreement between the parties), usually a very conservative Republican candidate backed by the local machine would win the Republican primary under the old system. Even if the Democrats ran a centrist, that Republican would still win the main election. Under Prop 14 a centrist Republican might garner the number 2 spot in the primary, then go on to beat the conservative, machine-supported Republican in the runoff.
All the political parties in California opposed Prop 14, including the Green Party. Now all are working on reasserting their power under the new system. The Republican Party has a pretty good idea for doing that: holding its own internal elections before the primaries. They intend to mail ballots to all Republican voters, and let them decide on who will be the official Republican nominee. That is, who will be backed by party resources. Of course, this will mostly work out to be much like tthe old system because voters choose based on name recognition, and that is based on advertising or outreach by volunteers from the same old sources.
Still, it is better than allowing the party bosses to decide which candidates will be supported by the party.
Whoever the official Republican nominee is for an office, they will still have to run against all the other candidates in the primary, and if they don't place first or second, they will be out of the running.
In my opinion what we really need to give the voters real options is some strengthening of some of the smaller parties, like the Green Party and Libertarians, and a new, centrist party. Call it the California Center Party for now. There are a lot of people in the center, and they want a functioning California government that is not either overly indulgent of the anti-tax crowd or the tax-and-spend crowd.
But no such party has emerged yet.
See also:
The GOP Searches for relevance post Proposition 14
California Republican Party
Addenda: facts not so clear about Republican plans: Sparks Fly at California Republican Party [Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2011]
Sunday, January 23, 2011
California: Democracy in Form
After writing about Representative Mike Thompson's bill to allow commercial development of conservation easements, I was reflecting on how formal our democracy is when it comes to the elections in his California district. We have not had a meaningful election as long as I can remember. Every cycle the incumbent collects some $2 million in campaign funds mostly from the timber industry, the wine industry, the public-funded construction industry, and public-serice employee unions.
Mike Thompson is registered in the Democratic Party, as are a majority of the voters in the district. Republicans form a distinct minority; the second largest group in the district are unaffiliated ("decline to state" in California parlance). Mike (who is a likeable and shrewd guy) has never had meaninful opposition in a primary since his first election. This is despite there being lot of leftish Democrats in the district, including a number of Democrats in the hierarchy who are more in touch with voter sentiments in the district. As to the Republicans, they nominate someone to run every time (as do the Greens and Libertarians), but they aren't going to waste good money in a district where they will get clobbered on election day just the same.
Aside from the bias towards rich people's problems, in many ways Mike's voting record is reflective of an largly apathetic electorate. On abortion Mike is pro-choice. He is for the environment unless it gets in the way of a winery or development. He is againt the war when standing in front of Democrats, but always votes for funding the war. It is hard to imagine us getting a new Representative before he dies or voluntarilly retires.
In a dictatorship maintaining this poor of a standard of government would require silencing critics like me. But I can criticize Mike all I want. Worst case scenario, if a lot of people listen to me about a particular issue, Mike will back track, voters will calm down, and it would soon be business as usual.
From what I hear from around California, this scenario is the rule, not the exception. There are a smaller number of Republicans with safe seats than there are Democrats, which reflects the overall liberal culture of California. It can't even be said that the liberalism is entirely symbolic.
It is sad that a mere $2,000,000 can buy a seat in the House of Representatives that controls a multi-trillion dollar economy. I suspect the rich would give more if they could do it legally. A favorable estate tax rate, or capital gains rate, is worth a lot more to even a mid-level capitalist than a mere $2 million. At $2000 per person, it only takes 1000 donors to raise $2 million dollars.
In effect about 1000 people participate in running the California 1st congressional district. That is called an oligarchy, not a democracy. I would think that would be a ball park figure for the typical seat in Congress. With 435 seats in the House, that means there are less than one-half million people who get to meaningfully participate in the decision making at the national level.
But maybe what is wrong is that ordinary people don't give enough to the opposition. At a more affordable $100 giving level, 20,000 people should be able to band together to buy a seat in Congress. But they would have to band together and agree on what they want for their money. Which is harder than getting some agreement out of 1000 donors.
Mike Thompson is registered in the Democratic Party, as are a majority of the voters in the district. Republicans form a distinct minority; the second largest group in the district are unaffiliated ("decline to state" in California parlance). Mike (who is a likeable and shrewd guy) has never had meaninful opposition in a primary since his first election. This is despite there being lot of leftish Democrats in the district, including a number of Democrats in the hierarchy who are more in touch with voter sentiments in the district. As to the Republicans, they nominate someone to run every time (as do the Greens and Libertarians), but they aren't going to waste good money in a district where they will get clobbered on election day just the same.
Aside from the bias towards rich people's problems, in many ways Mike's voting record is reflective of an largly apathetic electorate. On abortion Mike is pro-choice. He is for the environment unless it gets in the way of a winery or development. He is againt the war when standing in front of Democrats, but always votes for funding the war. It is hard to imagine us getting a new Representative before he dies or voluntarilly retires.
In a dictatorship maintaining this poor of a standard of government would require silencing critics like me. But I can criticize Mike all I want. Worst case scenario, if a lot of people listen to me about a particular issue, Mike will back track, voters will calm down, and it would soon be business as usual.
From what I hear from around California, this scenario is the rule, not the exception. There are a smaller number of Republicans with safe seats than there are Democrats, which reflects the overall liberal culture of California. It can't even be said that the liberalism is entirely symbolic.
It is sad that a mere $2,000,000 can buy a seat in the House of Representatives that controls a multi-trillion dollar economy. I suspect the rich would give more if they could do it legally. A favorable estate tax rate, or capital gains rate, is worth a lot more to even a mid-level capitalist than a mere $2 million. At $2000 per person, it only takes 1000 donors to raise $2 million dollars.
In effect about 1000 people participate in running the California 1st congressional district. That is called an oligarchy, not a democracy. I would think that would be a ball park figure for the typical seat in Congress. With 435 seats in the House, that means there are less than one-half million people who get to meaningfully participate in the decision making at the national level.
But maybe what is wrong is that ordinary people don't give enough to the opposition. At a more affordable $100 giving level, 20,000 people should be able to band together to buy a seat in Congress. But they would have to band together and agree on what they want for their money. Which is harder than getting some agreement out of 1000 donors.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
California Budget Woes Show Flaws in Democracy
On November 2, 2010 California voters went to the polls. They chose Jerry Brown to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. For the most part they sent the same gang back to the State Assembly and Senate, barring only those who were forced out by term limits. Well-greased political machines made sure that when their guys (or gals) were term-limited out, an indistinguishable candidate was selected to continue to represent their interests in exactly the same way.
After so many reforms being enacted in California, it is fair to ask: what is the point? Nothing stops The Blob of self-interest, it just oozes around what ever new barriers or weapons are used against it.
But there is a barrier The Blob cannot overcome: the limits on California state spending. Oh, it tries. It tries to increase taxes, and some times it succeeds. But there is only so much economy out there. Raise personal or business taxes and people only have so much they can spend, especially given they have to pay federal taxes in addition to state taxes. True, at the high end, rich Californians and giant corporations that operate in the state may still have some juice left to squeeze out. But then there is the major goal of the Blob: squeezing the juice out of the middle class, so that the rich need bleed out only token juice.
Now Jerry Brown is delivering the bad news: his budget is going to cut services, and public sector jobs and salaries, even further back than Arnold's did. This is not Jerry's fault. He is trying to deal with reality. Just like Arnold was.
The reality is that in good years the screaming Mimi's, from MediCal recipients to public service unions to corporations that profiteer on government contracts, always want more. They get it, too, then try to hold onto it during recessions.
California's economy will grow again, especially once housing starts to sell again and new housing construction resumes, but 2011 will be a tough year. Silicon Valley is already prospering and paid more taxes in 2010 than it did in 2009, but much of the tax base depends on real estate taxes and the construction industry. Real estate tax revenues may continue to decline in 2011 and even 2012 as people get their residences re-assessed.
People and businesses can take only so much squeezing. A wise government would find ways to encourage business activity in California without compromising the environment or exploiting workers. Democracy, unfortunately, works (to the extent it works) by allowing the dividing lines to be set by the pushing and pulling of interest groups. The rich are few in number, but can deploy a lot of money to choose the politicians they want. Generally speaking, only candidates backed by the rich, or by public sector unions, can win political primaries. Most of us are not rich and not in public sector unions, so we get shafted. In fact the current system means 90% of the voters are disenfranchised before the general election is held.
Public funding of campaigns could help break up this unfair scenario, but attempts to enact that have been consistently blocked.
Which leaves only remote possibilities to break the deadlock. A political party, currently a third party, could organize the 90% to vote for their interests. Organizing voters without already having political power to begin with, however, is no easy task. Or independent political machines could emerge in each Assembly district, led by individuals rather than political machines. Proposition 14 made that possible, at least in theory.
After so many reforms being enacted in California, it is fair to ask: what is the point? Nothing stops The Blob of self-interest, it just oozes around what ever new barriers or weapons are used against it.
But there is a barrier The Blob cannot overcome: the limits on California state spending. Oh, it tries. It tries to increase taxes, and some times it succeeds. But there is only so much economy out there. Raise personal or business taxes and people only have so much they can spend, especially given they have to pay federal taxes in addition to state taxes. True, at the high end, rich Californians and giant corporations that operate in the state may still have some juice left to squeeze out. But then there is the major goal of the Blob: squeezing the juice out of the middle class, so that the rich need bleed out only token juice.
Now Jerry Brown is delivering the bad news: his budget is going to cut services, and public sector jobs and salaries, even further back than Arnold's did. This is not Jerry's fault. He is trying to deal with reality. Just like Arnold was.
The reality is that in good years the screaming Mimi's, from MediCal recipients to public service unions to corporations that profiteer on government contracts, always want more. They get it, too, then try to hold onto it during recessions.
California's economy will grow again, especially once housing starts to sell again and new housing construction resumes, but 2011 will be a tough year. Silicon Valley is already prospering and paid more taxes in 2010 than it did in 2009, but much of the tax base depends on real estate taxes and the construction industry. Real estate tax revenues may continue to decline in 2011 and even 2012 as people get their residences re-assessed.
People and businesses can take only so much squeezing. A wise government would find ways to encourage business activity in California without compromising the environment or exploiting workers. Democracy, unfortunately, works (to the extent it works) by allowing the dividing lines to be set by the pushing and pulling of interest groups. The rich are few in number, but can deploy a lot of money to choose the politicians they want. Generally speaking, only candidates backed by the rich, or by public sector unions, can win political primaries. Most of us are not rich and not in public sector unions, so we get shafted. In fact the current system means 90% of the voters are disenfranchised before the general election is held.
Public funding of campaigns could help break up this unfair scenario, but attempts to enact that have been consistently blocked.
Which leaves only remote possibilities to break the deadlock. A political party, currently a third party, could organize the 90% to vote for their interests. Organizing voters without already having political power to begin with, however, is no easy task. Or independent political machines could emerge in each Assembly district, led by individuals rather than political machines. Proposition 14 made that possible, at least in theory.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
California Voters Extend Citizens Redistricting Commission
California is notorious for non-competitive electoral districts for the State Assembly, State Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives. Each district is designed to maximize the incumbent's chance of re-election. Almost all districts are currently designed to be either heavily loaded with Democratic Party voters, or with Republican Party voters.
In 2008 California voters passed Proposition 11, which established a Citizens Redistricting Commission to redraw the Assembly and Senate district boundaries after the results of the 2010 census come in. Otherwise the state legislature would have redrawn the districts, thus allowing each elected official to have a say in their own district's boundaries. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party apparatus opposed Proposition 11, making its passage a landmark along the path of California voters to independence from these two ancient, corrupt, federal parties.
In the November 2, 2010 election two related propositions were on the ballot. Proposition 20, in passing, extended the authority of the Citizen's Redistricting Commission. Proposition 27 would overturn Proposition 11, returning redistricting power to the very legislators whose districts are to be redrawn.
With the votes tallied as of today, the results were:
I interpret this as a dramatic victory for democracy. A substantial number of citizens saw the need for a redistricting system that is designed for the good of the citizens, not the good of politicians.
That said, I don't see anything wrong with arguing about some of the particulars of the original Proposition 11. Hopefully, however, the experiment will go well. Then we, those California citizens who can put partisanship aside in favor of the general good, might make some improvements in the system for the round of redisticting that begins in 2020.
In 2008 California voters passed Proposition 11, which established a Citizens Redistricting Commission to redraw the Assembly and Senate district boundaries after the results of the 2010 census come in. Otherwise the state legislature would have redrawn the districts, thus allowing each elected official to have a say in their own district's boundaries. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party apparatus opposed Proposition 11, making its passage a landmark along the path of California voters to independence from these two ancient, corrupt, federal parties.
In the November 2, 2010 election two related propositions were on the ballot. Proposition 20, in passing, extended the authority of the Citizen's Redistricting Commission. Proposition 27 would overturn Proposition 11, returning redistricting power to the very legislators whose districts are to be redrawn.
With the votes tallied as of today, the results were:
Yes Votes | % | No Votes | % | |
| Proposition 20 | 4,569,276 | 61.4% | 2,881,716 | 38.6% |
| Proposition 27 | 2,963,152 | 40.4% | 4,354,553 | 59.6% |
I interpret this as a dramatic victory for democracy. A substantial number of citizens saw the need for a redistricting system that is designed for the good of the citizens, not the good of politicians.
That said, I don't see anything wrong with arguing about some of the particulars of the original Proposition 11. Hopefully, however, the experiment will go well. Then we, those California citizens who can put partisanship aside in favor of the general good, might make some improvements in the system for the round of redisticting that begins in 2020.
Be sure to visit CaliforniaDemocracy.org for more about issues important to democratic government in California and the United States.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Yes on 14
14. Elections. Increased Right to Participate in Primary Elections
California's Proposition 14, on the ballot for the June 8, 2010, would make major changes in how citizens get elected to office in California. While it is not without its risks, it is a reform well worth trying. At its core it makes elections less partisan for offices in the State Legislature and U.S. Congress. It takes a step towards the non-partisan model already used in elections for local offices like school boards, city councils, and county boards of supervisors.
Under the current system a primary and a general election are held, with each recognized political party selecting a candidate in the primary. A candidate who comes in second in their parties primary is out no matter how many votes they get. A candidate who wins their primary (and third party primaries are rarely contested) goes onto the general election no matter how few votes they get. Independent candidates (highly discouraged by election rules) also go straight to the general election. This violates basic principles of democracy.
In the new system the two highest vote getters go on to the general election, whatever their parties. In many of the election districts, as they are currently gerrymandered, the likely outcome is either two members of the Democratic Party or two members of the Republican Party. The consensus among political pundits is that this will cause the elections to gravitate towards the center.
For instance, moderate Republicans (often fiscal conservatives who are pro-choice environmentalists) have trouble winning Republican primaries in Republican districts. By coming in second in the primary election, behind the more conservative Republican but ahead of any Democrats, a moderate Republican could be in a position to win the general election by appealing to Democratic voters who can't simply vote the party line.
Voters would need to do more thinking; they would no longer be able to simply rely on party labels printed on their ballots.
Third parties, notably the Green Party, have argued against Proposition 14, asserting a right to have their candidates in the general election. First, this is not a right. Second, Prop 14 creates a major opportunity for independent and alternative party candidates. Using the Green Party as an example (no disrespect to Libertarians, etc.), currently there are very few registered Green Party voters. So in a primary Green Party candidates only get a few votes. This makes them look like losers even as they advance to the general election. If Prop 14 passes anyone can vote for a Green Party candidate in the primary election. Even if the candidate is not in the top 2, they have a much-improved chance of getting out of the under-five-percent ghetto, if they run a strong campaign. Which means they are in a position to do better in the next election.
Also, a Libertarian in a largely Republican district might have a chance of coming in second ahead of the leading Democratic Party candidate. A Green (or Peace & Freedom Party) candidate in a heavily Democratic Party district might come in ahead of the leading Republican.
The main point democracy advocates should be making is that Proposition 14 allows voters to vote for who they want in primary elections. They are guaranteed that the two top vote getters will go head-to head in the general election. Party bosses will lose some power.
Today the Democratic Party dominates the state, and it is ossified. Money and power have created a machine that prevents reform from within. Prop 14 allows insurgent Democrats (and Republicans, and Greens) to gain control of their local party. It won't be easy, but at least it will become possible.
Whether 14 passes or not, the big problems will remain. The California Constitution is a bloated mess. Most money in California politics comes from relatively few rich people. We are saddled with the federal system where are most important decisions are made in Washington, D.C. by representatives of states that are even more befuddled by the modern world than our own representatives are.
If Proposition 14 passes it will not go into effect until the 2012 round of elections. In 2010 we will mostly see the re-election of the same incumbents who got us into the current mess. Except when they are term-limited out and replaced by the next player in line in their party machine.
But in 2012 we would see politicians having to earn the right to be in the general election by getting enough votes. The people of California could begin to be united in the pursuit of excellence in government, rather than divided by moribund political parties. We might begin fixing some of our social and economic problems, instead of leaving them as black energy holes.
Vote Yes on Proposition 14.
Text and Arguments, Proposition 14
California's Proposition 14, on the ballot for the June 8, 2010, would make major changes in how citizens get elected to office in California. While it is not without its risks, it is a reform well worth trying. At its core it makes elections less partisan for offices in the State Legislature and U.S. Congress. It takes a step towards the non-partisan model already used in elections for local offices like school boards, city councils, and county boards of supervisors.
Under the current system a primary and a general election are held, with each recognized political party selecting a candidate in the primary. A candidate who comes in second in their parties primary is out no matter how many votes they get. A candidate who wins their primary (and third party primaries are rarely contested) goes onto the general election no matter how few votes they get. Independent candidates (highly discouraged by election rules) also go straight to the general election. This violates basic principles of democracy.
In the new system the two highest vote getters go on to the general election, whatever their parties. In many of the election districts, as they are currently gerrymandered, the likely outcome is either two members of the Democratic Party or two members of the Republican Party. The consensus among political pundits is that this will cause the elections to gravitate towards the center.
For instance, moderate Republicans (often fiscal conservatives who are pro-choice environmentalists) have trouble winning Republican primaries in Republican districts. By coming in second in the primary election, behind the more conservative Republican but ahead of any Democrats, a moderate Republican could be in a position to win the general election by appealing to Democratic voters who can't simply vote the party line.
Voters would need to do more thinking; they would no longer be able to simply rely on party labels printed on their ballots.
Third parties, notably the Green Party, have argued against Proposition 14, asserting a right to have their candidates in the general election. First, this is not a right. Second, Prop 14 creates a major opportunity for independent and alternative party candidates. Using the Green Party as an example (no disrespect to Libertarians, etc.), currently there are very few registered Green Party voters. So in a primary Green Party candidates only get a few votes. This makes them look like losers even as they advance to the general election. If Prop 14 passes anyone can vote for a Green Party candidate in the primary election. Even if the candidate is not in the top 2, they have a much-improved chance of getting out of the under-five-percent ghetto, if they run a strong campaign. Which means they are in a position to do better in the next election.
Also, a Libertarian in a largely Republican district might have a chance of coming in second ahead of the leading Democratic Party candidate. A Green (or Peace & Freedom Party) candidate in a heavily Democratic Party district might come in ahead of the leading Republican.
The main point democracy advocates should be making is that Proposition 14 allows voters to vote for who they want in primary elections. They are guaranteed that the two top vote getters will go head-to head in the general election. Party bosses will lose some power.
Today the Democratic Party dominates the state, and it is ossified. Money and power have created a machine that prevents reform from within. Prop 14 allows insurgent Democrats (and Republicans, and Greens) to gain control of their local party. It won't be easy, but at least it will become possible.
Whether 14 passes or not, the big problems will remain. The California Constitution is a bloated mess. Most money in California politics comes from relatively few rich people. We are saddled with the federal system where are most important decisions are made in Washington, D.C. by representatives of states that are even more befuddled by the modern world than our own representatives are.
If Proposition 14 passes it will not go into effect until the 2012 round of elections. In 2010 we will mostly see the re-election of the same incumbents who got us into the current mess. Except when they are term-limited out and replaced by the next player in line in their party machine.
But in 2012 we would see politicians having to earn the right to be in the general election by getting enough votes. The people of California could begin to be united in the pursuit of excellence in government, rather than divided by moribund political parties. We might begin fixing some of our social and economic problems, instead of leaving them as black energy holes.
Vote Yes on Proposition 14.
Text and Arguments, Proposition 14
Saturday, April 17, 2010
New Plan Could End Electoral Corruption
Not to pick on California Senator Barbara Boxer, but I was looking for an example of how our (or their) system works and found this at www.nytimes.com today: "The proceeds from twin fundraisers will be split between Boxer and the Democratic National Committee; ticket prices range from $100 for a reception to $17,600 for dinner with the president.” [Calif. Sen. Boxer Finds Rocky Re-election Terrain, Associated Press April 17, 2010]
$17,600 is about half the annual take home pay of the average worker in California.
Californians have been trained to think that a bribe consists of a suitcase full of paper United States money given to a politician (or policeman or bureucrat). But a large election donation all to often is simply a legalized bribe.
According to the Supreme Court (of California's overlord, the federal government of the U.S.A.) the rigth to free speech includes the right of the rich, and of business corporations, to give unlimited "donations" to political campaigns.
That is the main reason we are in such a fiscal mess. The $17,600 crowd wants a return on its investment. Often millions of dollars of taxpayer money are allocated to please someone who has given only a few thousand dollars in donations. On a larger scale, millions may be spent in donations and lobbying to get billions in targetted expenditures. But the same people want low taxes. So most of the tax burden, and almost none of the benefit from government spending, falls to the middle class.
I am a strong believer that even those of us who are near the bottom of the economic pyramid should set some money aside to help candidates we like. Even near minimum wage workers, and certainly skilled workers, could contribute $25 to their favorite candidate once every two years. We have numbers on our side: 5,000 $25 donations is $125,000, enough to give an honest candidate a chance in a city council or State Assembly race. But we don't have a culture of giving to election campaigns in the working class. When unions were stronger, they collected dues and used some of those dues for politics. Workers got used to not worrying about it, and never thought about this consequence of letting the unions die. [Not that many unions did not have their own corruption issues.]
Here is a simple cure: give tax credits for voting and for making political donations in California. Say $100 for every time you vote, up to $100 per year for donations to candidates or campaigns for propositions. To make this really attractive, don't make people wait to file their taxes to get the credits. We have computers, we should be able to set up a system that can do this easily with minimal fraud.
If even 50% of the voters of California took advantage of the election campaign contribution tax credit, this would wash away the advantages of large single campaign donations.
More at www.CaliforniaDemocracy.org
$17,600 is about half the annual take home pay of the average worker in California.
Californians have been trained to think that a bribe consists of a suitcase full of paper United States money given to a politician (or policeman or bureucrat). But a large election donation all to often is simply a legalized bribe.
According to the Supreme Court (of California's overlord, the federal government of the U.S.A.) the rigth to free speech includes the right of the rich, and of business corporations, to give unlimited "donations" to political campaigns.
That is the main reason we are in such a fiscal mess. The $17,600 crowd wants a return on its investment. Often millions of dollars of taxpayer money are allocated to please someone who has given only a few thousand dollars in donations. On a larger scale, millions may be spent in donations and lobbying to get billions in targetted expenditures. But the same people want low taxes. So most of the tax burden, and almost none of the benefit from government spending, falls to the middle class.
I am a strong believer that even those of us who are near the bottom of the economic pyramid should set some money aside to help candidates we like. Even near minimum wage workers, and certainly skilled workers, could contribute $25 to their favorite candidate once every two years. We have numbers on our side: 5,000 $25 donations is $125,000, enough to give an honest candidate a chance in a city council or State Assembly race. But we don't have a culture of giving to election campaigns in the working class. When unions were stronger, they collected dues and used some of those dues for politics. Workers got used to not worrying about it, and never thought about this consequence of letting the unions die. [Not that many unions did not have their own corruption issues.]
Here is a simple cure: give tax credits for voting and for making political donations in California. Say $100 for every time you vote, up to $100 per year for donations to candidates or campaigns for propositions. To make this really attractive, don't make people wait to file their taxes to get the credits. We have computers, we should be able to set up a system that can do this easily with minimal fraud.
If even 50% of the voters of California took advantage of the election campaign contribution tax credit, this would wash away the advantages of large single campaign donations.
More at www.CaliforniaDemocracy.org
Monday, March 29, 2010
Catching up on California Referenda, etc.
My lack of writing here does not mean that a lot has not been going on. There is nenewed interest in the issue of Corporate Personhood, so I'm going to be speaking in Davis on April 15, and then we are celebrating Democracy Day in Point Arena with a couple of events: on the 23rd This Land Is Your Land will be shown at the Arena Theater and on the 24th we'll have a discussion on corporate personhood.
There will be 5 propositions on the California primary ballot on June 8, 2010. I'm not sure that illustrates democracy in action, since getting propositions on the ballot takes so many signatures these days, it mostly happens when some big business interests have money to throw at an issue. You can see my takes on the five issues at June 2010 California Propositions Overview at californiademocracy.org.
By way of controvery, I am in favor of Proposition 14, which makes the primaries essentially non-partisan. I don't buy the fear-driven arguments of the California Democratic, Republican, and Green Parties. What is good for the citizens is not necessarily what is good for the parties. Incumbents tend to have a lock on elections in California, and so small groups of voters, the majority within the dominant party in each district, decide almost all elections in the primaries. In particular I think that "third" parties will be able to attract more voters in the primaries under Proposition 14, and that should help them build their cores of regular voters. In the many districts of California that have become nearly single-party, in November everyone will be able to choose from two candidates of the dominant party. That would at least break the monotony.
Money will still be a big factor in the campaigns, and so will all the usual political trappings. I don't expect 14 will pass, but if it does I don't expect a lot of change overnight. I do hope that more people will participate in primaries and also register decline-to-state, instead of feeling they have to be in a particular party to participate.
There will be 5 propositions on the California primary ballot on June 8, 2010. I'm not sure that illustrates democracy in action, since getting propositions on the ballot takes so many signatures these days, it mostly happens when some big business interests have money to throw at an issue. You can see my takes on the five issues at June 2010 California Propositions Overview at californiademocracy.org.
By way of controvery, I am in favor of Proposition 14, which makes the primaries essentially non-partisan. I don't buy the fear-driven arguments of the California Democratic, Republican, and Green Parties. What is good for the citizens is not necessarily what is good for the parties. Incumbents tend to have a lock on elections in California, and so small groups of voters, the majority within the dominant party in each district, decide almost all elections in the primaries. In particular I think that "third" parties will be able to attract more voters in the primaries under Proposition 14, and that should help them build their cores of regular voters. In the many districts of California that have become nearly single-party, in November everyone will be able to choose from two candidates of the dominant party. That would at least break the monotony.
Money will still be a big factor in the campaigns, and so will all the usual political trappings. I don't expect 14 will pass, but if it does I don't expect a lot of change overnight. I do hope that more people will participate in primaries and also register decline-to-state, instead of feeling they have to be in a particular party to participate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
