Speaker Madigan's first substantive proposal in the 95th General Assembly was to move the 2008 presidential primary to its earliest possible date (according to DNC rules): February 5, 2008. The move is motivated by a desire to boost the prospects of the only presidential candidate from Illinois: Senator Barack Obama. (Potential pre-campaign website at www.Obama4America.com)
I think it's a great move. The rules that govern how to pick a president are stacked up to diminish the voice of Illinois citizens. First our primary (currently scheduled for mid-March) comes too late for us to influence the nominee; then the winner-take-all rule that most states use for the Electoral College means that all the extra votes in November for Obama (assuming he's the nominee) go to waste and do not help to elect him.
Moving our presidential primary to February will also help the moderate Illinois Republicans mitigate the more radical southern wing of their party by giving Illinoisians more clout in the Republican presidential nomination, which will likely help nominate a better Republican. That's also a good thing for the country.
Representative John Fritchey in his blog (now named Open House) notes that having two primaries (one presidential in February, another in March or perhaps later for everybody else) might serve to depress turnout for the non-presidential primary. Fair enough, but I still think a relevant presidential primary is a good move. And besides, we should just follow Australia's lead and require all citizens to vote. (No one would have to cast a vote for any particular race, but just like jury duty, it should be a price of citizenship to show up, take a ballot, and turn it back in, with or without any votes cast).
I'm glad that Speaker Madigan took the initiative with a bold move to improve our election system. I hope it inspires similar bold thinking among the rest of the General Assembly.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Mayor Tim Davlin puts IRV on the Springfield ballot to enfranchise overseas voters
Great news: Mayor Tim Davlin earned City Council approval this week to place instant runoff voting on the April ballot for overseas voters!
That means Springfield citizens will be the first in the state to have the chance to implement a ranked ballot.
Right now, overseas voters are disenfranchised from the April election, because there simply isn't enough time after the February primary to print, mail and return the ballots before the April election. The solution to this administrative problem is instant runoff voting: the clerk sends the overseas voters two ballots in January, a regular February ballot and a special ranked ballot for the April election. Since the voter won't know when he casts his vote in January which candidates will survive to the April election, all candidates are listed and he ranks his choices. The ballots are sealed separately and mailed back before the February election, ensuring that the voter is no longer disenfranchised. When the April election comes, the vote goes to the candidate on the April ballot with the highest rank. In other words, if his first-choice didn't make it to the April election, then his vote goes to his second-choice candidate (and so on).
Instant runoff voting is used for overseas voters in Louisiana, Arkansas and South Carolina, but Springfield would be the first city to use it in Illinois. San Francisco, Minneapolis, Davis, Oakland and Burlington all use IRV as well.
Mayor Davlin deserves a ton of credit for aggressively working to enfranchise overseas and military voters. You can hear him make the pitch for IRV at the Public Affairs Committee meeting of the City Council on January 8 here. Mayor Davlin's press release is here. The Springfield Journal-Register blurb on the vote is here and a longer article is here. I hope Springfield voters will approve the measure in April, which would then go into effect for the 2011 municipal election.
That means Springfield citizens will be the first in the state to have the chance to implement a ranked ballot.
Right now, overseas voters are disenfranchised from the April election, because there simply isn't enough time after the February primary to print, mail and return the ballots before the April election. The solution to this administrative problem is instant runoff voting: the clerk sends the overseas voters two ballots in January, a regular February ballot and a special ranked ballot for the April election. Since the voter won't know when he casts his vote in January which candidates will survive to the April election, all candidates are listed and he ranks his choices. The ballots are sealed separately and mailed back before the February election, ensuring that the voter is no longer disenfranchised. When the April election comes, the vote goes to the candidate on the April ballot with the highest rank. In other words, if his first-choice didn't make it to the April election, then his vote goes to his second-choice candidate (and so on).
Instant runoff voting is used for overseas voters in Louisiana, Arkansas and South Carolina, but Springfield would be the first city to use it in Illinois. San Francisco, Minneapolis, Davis, Oakland and Burlington all use IRV as well.
Mayor Davlin deserves a ton of credit for aggressively working to enfranchise overseas and military voters. You can hear him make the pitch for IRV at the Public Affairs Committee meeting of the City Council on January 8 here. Mayor Davlin's press release is here. The Springfield Journal-Register blurb on the vote is here and a longer article is here. I hope Springfield voters will approve the measure in April, which would then go into effect for the 2011 municipal election.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Speaker Pelosi sounded great (and Representative Holt had a nice touch)
What a great feeling: Speaker Pelosi swearing in the new Democratic House of Representatives. She came across as warm and sincere (not unlike the grandfatherly warmth of Speaker Hastert), and her joy was touching.
I thought it was a great touch to bring up all the children to surround her on the podium.
Her insistence on passing substantive legislation in 100 hours resonated as well and reminded me that the '100 days' benchmark that FDR created with his New Deal is far too slow for 2007. 100 hours is more like it. I like the sense of urgency.
And I thought it was great Representative Holt stood up for democracy by raising a point of parliamentary procedure in support of the 90,000 votes that disappeared in a Florida congressional election and ensuring that the decision to seat the Republican candidate did not affect in any way the litigation over Christine Jennings' election.
It's an odd feeling to not be immediately defensive about Washington D.C. I like this change.
I thought it was a great touch to bring up all the children to surround her on the podium.
Her insistence on passing substantive legislation in 100 hours resonated as well and reminded me that the '100 days' benchmark that FDR created with his New Deal is far too slow for 2007. 100 hours is more like it. I like the sense of urgency.
And I thought it was great Representative Holt stood up for democracy by raising a point of parliamentary procedure in support of the 90,000 votes that disappeared in a Florida congressional election and ensuring that the decision to seat the Republican candidate did not affect in any way the litigation over Christine Jennings' election.
It's an odd feeling to not be immediately defensive about Washington D.C. I like this change.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
President Barack Obama reinforces meritocracy and upward mobility, unlike President Bush
I believe one of the reasons why so many people are attracted to the concept of President Barack Obama is because of a sour taste from the quasi-hereditary feeling generated from President George Bush (the Second). It's obvious that there were tens of thousands of people more qualified, more intelligent and better leaders than President Bush available to serve as a Republican President, but because he was born the son of a President, George Bush beat out everyone else. That's disheartening.
Barack Obama, by contract, earned everything he's got. His father had government connections -- in Kenya. That didn't help Barack. He's wickedly intelligent and has performed well under pressure, as well as caught a ton of political lucky breaks, to become a viable pre-announcement presidential candidate. That's a heartwarming story as it cuts to the center of what's best about the United States: we believe in upward mobility and meritocracy, where anyone born poor can become wealthy and class doesn't exist. Now, that isn't objectively true (the best determinant of whether a particular American will earn above-average or below-average income is whether his or her parents earned above-average or below-average income) but because most of us want that to be true, we're willing to support taxes and spending that will help make that more true (like cheap or free higher education or cheap loans to small businesses or a progressive income tax where people who earn more money pay more money).
I think we're all generally more willing to support meritocracy taxes and spending when someone who struggled to make it to a position of power, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, can speak on its behalf. When very wealthy people advocate for meritocracy taxes, like John Kerry, it sounds a little arrogant and infused with a spirit of noblesse oblige. People who have been broke, as Barack Obama spent most of his life, can connect with voters about why it's smart to raise taxes on what Paris Hilton will inherit from her family and use that money to buy health insurance for everyone or college scholarships or hiring more teachers or police officers. I think John Edwards can also speak with authenticity on the topic, especially because he's made the eradication of poverty - the grinding, Third World poverty persisting too long -- central to his campaign. I don't know if Hilary Clinton can speak as compellingly, not because she was born priviliged, but because she only has her opportunity to run because of her husband. Perhaps that's unfair, but I think that's the perception of a former First Lady.
Barack Obama, by contract, earned everything he's got. His father had government connections -- in Kenya. That didn't help Barack. He's wickedly intelligent and has performed well under pressure, as well as caught a ton of political lucky breaks, to become a viable pre-announcement presidential candidate. That's a heartwarming story as it cuts to the center of what's best about the United States: we believe in upward mobility and meritocracy, where anyone born poor can become wealthy and class doesn't exist. Now, that isn't objectively true (the best determinant of whether a particular American will earn above-average or below-average income is whether his or her parents earned above-average or below-average income) but because most of us want that to be true, we're willing to support taxes and spending that will help make that more true (like cheap or free higher education or cheap loans to small businesses or a progressive income tax where people who earn more money pay more money).
I think we're all generally more willing to support meritocracy taxes and spending when someone who struggled to make it to a position of power, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, can speak on its behalf. When very wealthy people advocate for meritocracy taxes, like John Kerry, it sounds a little arrogant and infused with a spirit of noblesse oblige. People who have been broke, as Barack Obama spent most of his life, can connect with voters about why it's smart to raise taxes on what Paris Hilton will inherit from her family and use that money to buy health insurance for everyone or college scholarships or hiring more teachers or police officers. I think John Edwards can also speak with authenticity on the topic, especially because he's made the eradication of poverty - the grinding, Third World poverty persisting too long -- central to his campaign. I don't know if Hilary Clinton can speak as compellingly, not because she was born priviliged, but because she only has her opportunity to run because of her husband. Perhaps that's unfair, but I think that's the perception of a former First Lady.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Beyond the Beltway year-end review
I had a thrill this week: a tag-team year in review Beyond the Beltway show refereed as always by Bruce DuMont. On the liberal end, Chicago Blog King Eric Zorn and myself; on the conservative end, Tom Roeser and Chris Varones. The first hour aired Christmas Eve and the second hour will air New Year's Eve, both on WYCC and on WLS.
So if you are not (a) watching the Bears take down the Pack or (b) celebrating New Year's Eve, then by all means, watch Zorn and I take on Roeser and Varones with DuMont calling all fouls!
So if you are not (a) watching the Bears take down the Pack or (b) celebrating New Year's Eve, then by all means, watch Zorn and I take on Roeser and Varones with DuMont calling all fouls!
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Paul Froehlich identified justice as the core principle of the Illinois Republican Party
State Representative Paul Froehlich has written his vision of an Illinois Republican Party that competes for the affection and identification of racial minorities in the Tribune here. It's a thoughtful and insightful analysis that explains one of the reasons why the Democratic Party is the governing majority in Illinois and increasingly, in the nation: the Republican Party is perceived to be largely indifferent to the concerns of most racial minorities.
Representative Froehlich lays it out, identifying President Nixon's racist "southern strategy" (only formally revoked by GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman last year) as the reason for the hostility to Republicans by minorities, as well as:
Blunt crusades against illegal immigrants and affirmative action, which are easily (mis)interpreted as racist.
A blind attachment to the death penalty, despite the high wrongful-conviction rate of minority defendants.
The lack of serious Republican effort (except for Ken Mehlman) to earn support from African-Americans.
Opposition or indifference to issues important to Latinos and African-Americans, such as rooting out racial profiling and closing the nation's biggest disparity in public education funding.
------------
He's correct. He's also sparked a debate on Rich Miller's Capitol Fax site here, where some Republicans seem to argue that the only way to pursue justice for minorities is ..... reduce the size of government. Actually embracing minority issues (such as the criminal justice system injustices or public education funding) is warmed-over liberalism, according to his critics. That's nonsense, but that's one significant wing of the GOP (particularly those from former Confederate states).
It's refreshing to see any white elected official from the suburbs reaching out to embrace justice for racial minorities. While it's healthy for a two-party system to have far-sighted Republicans like Paul Froehlich, the partisan in me hopes not too many GOPers catch on to his way of thinking.....
Representative Froehlich lays it out, identifying President Nixon's racist "southern strategy" (only formally revoked by GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman last year) as the reason for the hostility to Republicans by minorities, as well as:
Blunt crusades against illegal immigrants and affirmative action, which are easily (mis)interpreted as racist.
A blind attachment to the death penalty, despite the high wrongful-conviction rate of minority defendants.
The lack of serious Republican effort (except for Ken Mehlman) to earn support from African-Americans.
Opposition or indifference to issues important to Latinos and African-Americans, such as rooting out racial profiling and closing the nation's biggest disparity in public education funding.
------------
He's correct. He's also sparked a debate on Rich Miller's Capitol Fax site here, where some Republicans seem to argue that the only way to pursue justice for minorities is ..... reduce the size of government. Actually embracing minority issues (such as the criminal justice system injustices or public education funding) is warmed-over liberalism, according to his critics. That's nonsense, but that's one significant wing of the GOP (particularly those from former Confederate states).
It's refreshing to see any white elected official from the suburbs reaching out to embrace justice for racial minorities. While it's healthy for a two-party system to have far-sighted Republicans like Paul Froehlich, the partisan in me hopes not too many GOPers catch on to his way of thinking.....
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Representative Robin Kelly moves on to Alexi's staff
Shocker: Representative Robin Kelly, a progressive south suburbanite legislators who I had thought had a long future in the House, will serve as Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias' Chief of Staff. I wasn't a big Alexi fan during the primary, but this is a fantastic move on his part and shows a lot of aggressive wisdom. Picking top-notch staff is a sign of smart leadership. I'm expecting a lot more progressive legislative energy out of the Treasurer's Office now than I had been before.
Representative Kelly was the force behind establishing a 14-day grace period for voter registration that allowed thousands of Illinois citizens to vote who otherwise would have been disenfranchised (SB 2133 in the 93rd GA with some blog posts here). She will be missed.
Representative Kelly was the force behind establishing a 14-day grace period for voter registration that allowed thousands of Illinois citizens to vote who otherwise would have been disenfranchised (SB 2133 in the 93rd GA with some blog posts here). She will be missed.
The price of oil is going to continue to rise: China is thirsty for more
The Chicago Tribune has a great report (just the first part of three) today detailing how China is now muscling its way into new oil-soaked regions around the world much like the U.S. (with armed forces in 100+ nations around the world, largely to keep our access to oil flowing).
Here's the Econ 101:
Demand for oil goes up -- a lot.
Supply of oil stays the same.
That means the price goes up -- a lot.
So what's a smart country to do?
Invest in transit, particularly transit that runs on electricity. Make your cars more fuel-efficient. Tax oil now so anticipate the price hikes and soften the blow. As John Anderson said in 1980, it's better to tax ourselves and use the revenue for our national interest than to pay the oil shieks billions of our dollars.
Higher oil taxes -- and soon, before the higher oil prices knock us into a recession. Or even worse, before some yahoo oil-patch president starts a Cold War with China over access to oil because we weren't smart enough to tax it domestically and break the habit.
Here's the Econ 101:
Demand for oil goes up -- a lot.
Supply of oil stays the same.
That means the price goes up -- a lot.
So what's a smart country to do?
Invest in transit, particularly transit that runs on electricity. Make your cars more fuel-efficient. Tax oil now so anticipate the price hikes and soften the blow. As John Anderson said in 1980, it's better to tax ourselves and use the revenue for our national interest than to pay the oil shieks billions of our dollars.
Higher oil taxes -- and soon, before the higher oil prices knock us into a recession. Or even worse, before some yahoo oil-patch president starts a Cold War with China over access to oil because we weren't smart enough to tax it domestically and break the habit.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
My bold prediction: Senator Barack Obama does not run for president
Since I'm Time's Person of the Year, I figured I had a responsibility to share my thoughts on the most exciting political buzz to run through the capital of Blue America in a long time: the almost-expected presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama.
I've blogged previously here (shortly after Obama took office in the Senate) that I didn't believe he would run for president in 2008, reacting to Chicago Tribune blogger's Eric Zorn's column predicting an Obama run (the first media maven to do so, as I recall). And further back, this was my late-night reaction to Barack's victory speech for his Senate primary. I think Barack Obama is a fantastic legislator and I'm very proud that I was an early supporter. If he does run, I'll enthusiastically support his campaign.
I'm way outside of conventional wisdom, but I'm going out on my limb: Barack Obama will decide over the next two weeks that he does not want to serve as President of the United States.
There's no question that he'd be a fantastic candidate. Progressives like me will stick with him, because he's straight with us. He's never condescending. He's fiercely intelligent and always looking for the best way to buy a better quality of life for most people. But the big deal about this decision-- and it came to me clearly while watching his interview on Leno -- is whether he wants to be the President. It's easy to want to be a candidate for president. He basically already enjoys most of the benefits of a candidate: hundreds of thousands of supporters, national attention to his thoughts and actions and the ability to mobilize dollars and hours for a good cause. Whether he could beat Hilary is a less interesting and relevant question to whether he wants to transform his life inside out in order to do a uniquely better job than other Democratic candidates would do as president.
He and his wife are level-headed enough to live in Chicago after he got a job in Washington. He has always struck me as completely unfazed by the hype. And his best speeches and lines about politics have been ruthlessly pragmatic: the point of all this is to measurably improve the quality of peoples' lives -- nothing else. Fame, glamour, power -- none of that matters. So when I hear Senator Obama talking about needing to have "a unique voice" to justify running for president, I hear an organizer and an advocate who is in politics for the mission of social justice first and foremost making a cool calculation about the expected value of serving as the president. If someone else (another progressive Democrat) can do just a good job as he can do at improving peoples' lives, what's the point of his run?
The obvious unique factor in a President Obama is racial. That's no small thing. But a female President is no small thing either. And a black Senate Majority Leader (his ultimate job, in my opinion, if not Attorney General) is no small thing either.
One of the refreshing things about Barack Obama is how impervious he seems to be from hype. I'm convinced that since he has essentially been bestowed a top-tier candidacy on the strength of his candor, intelligence, charm and hard work, he'll now decide quite independently of the allure of fame or power whether he believes that he can best pursue justice as a presidential candidate. His ability to be a competitive candidate -- which is more than enough for most politicians to make the leap -- is only a threshold question. Now that the ability has been thrust upon him, he's been forced, really, to confront the question whether he can do the most good as President. And I believe he'll calculate that others can do that job (and weather the enormous personal sacrifices) just as well as he could (if not quite as candidly and without the historic racial breakthrough that he would bring).
Barack Obama's ability to improve the lives of regular people around the globe is growing every year at an astonishing pace. I believe he doesn't need a presidential campaign -- or to serve as President -- to grow his power for social progress. Like Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Bono, Barack Obama can mobilize millions for smart, progressive causes and for the political civility that permits a consensus on good policy to emerge. And I'm predicting he'll make a similar calculation.
UPDATE: I realize that almost all news accounts have described the Obama campaign as essentially existing and the decision period as a formality. I just can't shake this hunch that news accounts are getting way ahead of Senator Obama's internal decision-making process as to whether he wants to serve as the President.
I've blogged previously here (shortly after Obama took office in the Senate) that I didn't believe he would run for president in 2008, reacting to Chicago Tribune blogger's Eric Zorn's column predicting an Obama run (the first media maven to do so, as I recall). And further back, this was my late-night reaction to Barack's victory speech for his Senate primary. I think Barack Obama is a fantastic legislator and I'm very proud that I was an early supporter. If he does run, I'll enthusiastically support his campaign.
I'm way outside of conventional wisdom, but I'm going out on my limb: Barack Obama will decide over the next two weeks that he does not want to serve as President of the United States.
There's no question that he'd be a fantastic candidate. Progressives like me will stick with him, because he's straight with us. He's never condescending. He's fiercely intelligent and always looking for the best way to buy a better quality of life for most people. But the big deal about this decision-- and it came to me clearly while watching his interview on Leno -- is whether he wants to be the President. It's easy to want to be a candidate for president. He basically already enjoys most of the benefits of a candidate: hundreds of thousands of supporters, national attention to his thoughts and actions and the ability to mobilize dollars and hours for a good cause. Whether he could beat Hilary is a less interesting and relevant question to whether he wants to transform his life inside out in order to do a uniquely better job than other Democratic candidates would do as president.
He and his wife are level-headed enough to live in Chicago after he got a job in Washington. He has always struck me as completely unfazed by the hype. And his best speeches and lines about politics have been ruthlessly pragmatic: the point of all this is to measurably improve the quality of peoples' lives -- nothing else. Fame, glamour, power -- none of that matters. So when I hear Senator Obama talking about needing to have "a unique voice" to justify running for president, I hear an organizer and an advocate who is in politics for the mission of social justice first and foremost making a cool calculation about the expected value of serving as the president. If someone else (another progressive Democrat) can do just a good job as he can do at improving peoples' lives, what's the point of his run?
The obvious unique factor in a President Obama is racial. That's no small thing. But a female President is no small thing either. And a black Senate Majority Leader (his ultimate job, in my opinion, if not Attorney General) is no small thing either.
One of the refreshing things about Barack Obama is how impervious he seems to be from hype. I'm convinced that since he has essentially been bestowed a top-tier candidacy on the strength of his candor, intelligence, charm and hard work, he'll now decide quite independently of the allure of fame or power whether he believes that he can best pursue justice as a presidential candidate. His ability to be a competitive candidate -- which is more than enough for most politicians to make the leap -- is only a threshold question. Now that the ability has been thrust upon him, he's been forced, really, to confront the question whether he can do the most good as President. And I believe he'll calculate that others can do that job (and weather the enormous personal sacrifices) just as well as he could (if not quite as candidly and without the historic racial breakthrough that he would bring).
Barack Obama's ability to improve the lives of regular people around the globe is growing every year at an astonishing pace. I believe he doesn't need a presidential campaign -- or to serve as President -- to grow his power for social progress. Like Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Bono, Barack Obama can mobilize millions for smart, progressive causes and for the political civility that permits a consensus on good policy to emerge. And I'm predicting he'll make a similar calculation.
UPDATE: I realize that almost all news accounts have described the Obama campaign as essentially existing and the decision period as a formality. I just can't shake this hunch that news accounts are getting way ahead of Senator Obama's internal decision-making process as to whether he wants to serve as the President.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The House should require a new election in Florida -- stand firm for democracy
There are 600,000 people in each congressional district. Maybe 300,000 eligible voters in an average district, and with an average of 50% turnout, there are 150,000 votes in an average congressional race.
In a tight congressional election a month ago, the Democratic candidate lost by less than 400 votes -- but 18,000 votes just ... disappeared.
They use paperless touchscreen voting machines in that part of Florida, and there is absolutely no way to find out why 18,000 people who voted in the election (around 1 out of every 10 voters) didn't cast a vote in the congressional election.
The House can choose not to seat a new member (in this case, the Republican candidate) because the election was so broken.
Speaker Pelosi and the newly-empowered Democrats should stand up for democracy and refuse to certify a broken election. They should require a revote to make sure every vote is counted.
MoveOn.org is sponsoring a petition that you can sign here to Speaker Pelosi, but I'd suggest you also call your Representative and ask him/her not to certify the broken election in Florida and stand up for democracy.
In a tight congressional election a month ago, the Democratic candidate lost by less than 400 votes -- but 18,000 votes just ... disappeared.
They use paperless touchscreen voting machines in that part of Florida, and there is absolutely no way to find out why 18,000 people who voted in the election (around 1 out of every 10 voters) didn't cast a vote in the congressional election.
The House can choose not to seat a new member (in this case, the Republican candidate) because the election was so broken.
Speaker Pelosi and the newly-empowered Democrats should stand up for democracy and refuse to certify a broken election. They should require a revote to make sure every vote is counted.
MoveOn.org is sponsoring a petition that you can sign here to Speaker Pelosi, but I'd suggest you also call your Representative and ask him/her not to certify the broken election in Florida and stand up for democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)