Happy Birthday America!
Wonderful coincidence to also find out there are 3 initiatives trying to get on the ballot this November that will open up the primary process in a way to allow for more party choices. I would put this under the "softball" category of reforms as it does not address the fundamental barrier of single-district representation. Nonetheless, it is an excellent start.
Initiative 112 is the most important one to bust the duopoly, but #113 and #114 would also serve to diminish the duopoly stranglehold on power. Below are the proposed ballot text from the group that is pushing these initiatives. As far as I can tell, the group is legit and not some corporate-funded sham.
Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #112
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a
two-round election system for federal and state offices, and, in
connection therewith, replacing partisan primary elections with
first-round balloting in which any eligible elector may vote; allowing
the three candidates with the most first-round votes and any other
candidate who earns at least 3% of the first-round votes to advance to
the second-round general election regardless of party affiliation;
conducting general elections by allowing voters to vote for and rank in
order of preference up to three candidates per office; requiring
tabulations until a candidate receives fifty percent of the votes; and
specifying petition procedures for candidates?
Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #113
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the
use of registered voter political affiliation as a factor in determining
the boundaries of legislative districts, and, in connection therewith,
requiring each congressional district and state legislative district to
include registered voters from the two largest political parties and
unaffiliated registered voters in percentages that are as equal as
possible to the respective percentages of such voters statewide and
specifying maximum variances in such percentages of three percent for
Congressional districts and six percent for state legislative districts?
Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #114
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a
non-partisan Secretary of State, and, in connection therewith,
converting, effective January 2017, the office of Secretary of State
from a partisan elected office with a four-year term to an appointed
office with a six-year term filled by the governor subject to
confirmation by the state senate, prohibiting the person so appointed
from having been involved in partisan politics during the prior three
years, requiring the secretary of state to act in a nonpartisan manner
when discharging his or her duties and to refrain from engaging in
certain political activities, and restricting the grounds on which the
secretary of state may be removed?
Friday, July 4, 2014
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Softball update: California's "2 past the post" primary system"
Among the softball solutions to the duopoly, changes to the primary election method seem the most promising way to enable more political competition. In 2012, California enacted an electoral reform called the open primary. The method (also used in LA and WA) allows whomever gets the 2 top spots in a primary (regardless of party affiliation) to be the 2 candidates that compete for the office at stake in the general election.
As much as I applaud any effort to open up the electoral process, this reform only provides the appearance of greater competition. Beyond the awkward possibility of 2 candidates from the same party competing in the general election (which has already occurred), the open primary is flawed in that it assumes only 2 candidates are allowed to compete for 1 seat in the general election. In theory, anyone with enough energy and money can surpass the duopoly in the primary and win as an independent in the general election. However, due to institutional and cultural inertia, there is still too much incentive for only 2 parties to compete for that seat as it simply shifts the overwhelming money advantage of the duopoly from the general election to the primary. In the end, the open primary is limited by the single-member district model as instituted in the 1842 Apportionment Act and subsequent legislation.
The solution to this conundrum? Ditching the single member district model in favor of proportional representation. This does not require a parliamentary system as there are plenty of ideas on how to create a more fair voting scheme than what we have now. The key will be creating the political will to make such reforms, which we know will not happen as long as the duopoly strangles the process as it is bankrolled by corporate interests. This brings me back to my current position that the best way forward is to amend the constitution to declare that corporations are not people and do not enjoy the same rights as humans. From there, we would have a realistic chance of passing the electoral reforms needed to rebirth our republic.
As much as I applaud any effort to open up the electoral process, this reform only provides the appearance of greater competition. Beyond the awkward possibility of 2 candidates from the same party competing in the general election (which has already occurred), the open primary is flawed in that it assumes only 2 candidates are allowed to compete for 1 seat in the general election. In theory, anyone with enough energy and money can surpass the duopoly in the primary and win as an independent in the general election. However, due to institutional and cultural inertia, there is still too much incentive for only 2 parties to compete for that seat as it simply shifts the overwhelming money advantage of the duopoly from the general election to the primary. In the end, the open primary is limited by the single-member district model as instituted in the 1842 Apportionment Act and subsequent legislation.
The solution to this conundrum? Ditching the single member district model in favor of proportional representation. This does not require a parliamentary system as there are plenty of ideas on how to create a more fair voting scheme than what we have now. The key will be creating the political will to make such reforms, which we know will not happen as long as the duopoly strangles the process as it is bankrolled by corporate interests. This brings me back to my current position that the best way forward is to amend the constitution to declare that corporations are not people and do not enjoy the same rights as humans. From there, we would have a realistic chance of passing the electoral reforms needed to rebirth our republic.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Revolution
The revolution that birthed this nation proclaimed a right to self-destiny. The civil war was the 2nd revolution, by proclaiming equality a necessary ingredient for liberty. The 3rd is upon us, as the private sector has usurped the political machinery to the point that it overshadows the state and drowns out civil society. The course we take from here will answer whether the collective will can correct the cumulative greed of individuals.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
To Affliation and Beyond!
The organizing conference for MTA that I posted about in May was delayed until this weekend and I attended part of the Saturday session. Though turnout was low, it was great to meet some of the people for whom I only knew a name, and to be energized to get more involved.
The next step will be drum up some interest in Longmont and then apply for an MTA affliation. Not sure yet if I'll try to just host a meeting, get some petitions signed, or something else. Either way, I am excited to use my prior grass-roots organizing skills and to be part of a movement for which I feel strongly about.
Stay tuned.
The next step will be drum up some interest in Longmont and then apply for an MTA affliation. Not sure yet if I'll try to just host a meeting, get some petitions signed, or something else. Either way, I am excited to use my prior grass-roots organizing skills and to be part of a movement for which I feel strongly about.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Why Obama won
Though Obama's re-relection only extends the duopolistic control of our political system by the wealthy elite, it's worth examining the mechanics of why Obama's campaign operation was so successful:
1. Demographics is destiny: As the percentage of white voters in the electorate continues to decline, the math was against the republicans.
2. Superior ground game: after the 2008 election, the Obama campaign incorporated itself as a company to maintain and expand on the momentum of the previous election. The focus on early voting significantly favored the democrats, especially when a lot of that early voting occurred before the debates when systematic ad buys painted Romney as an uncaring plutocrat in battleground states.
3. We're not them: from Romney's 47% to Akin's legitimate rape, the republicans could not help but shoot themselves in the feet and piss off key voting blocs.
That's my take. What do you think?
1. Demographics is destiny: As the percentage of white voters in the electorate continues to decline, the math was against the republicans.
2. Superior ground game: after the 2008 election, the Obama campaign incorporated itself as a company to maintain and expand on the momentum of the previous election. The focus on early voting significantly favored the democrats, especially when a lot of that early voting occurred before the debates when systematic ad buys painted Romney as an uncaring plutocrat in battleground states.
3. We're not them: from Romney's 47% to Akin's legitimate rape, the republicans could not help but shoot themselves in the feet and piss off key voting blocs.
That's my take. What do you think?
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Materialism = Sadism, part 1
In a prior post I mentioned the concept named in this post's title.
To elaborate requires some explanation.
First, a definition of terms.
Materialism is understood here as the accumulation of material goods, and as a consequence, status, prestige, power.
Sadism is understood here as 1 side of a duopoly towards sexual deviance, in that Sadism represents the willing subjugation of the lover, while masochism is the willing surrender.
Second, responses to possible objections to the above definitions.
Though the Sadism/Masochism convention is typically treated as one of the more lurid theories of Sigmund Freud, this assumption about basic human behavior is telling in that it describes well how humans interact with other humans and with the world we live on.
One could point out that materialism has always been seen as hedonistic, so materialism as sadism is not exactly seminal. True indeed, but our stated supposition, as will be shown, is an attempt to understand that relationship through an existential or ontological lens, with the moral consequences of materialism (expressed as hedonism) a secondary lens.
Third, the arguement.
To construct our existential lens we must dive into Jean Paul Sartre, a French existential philosopher from the mid-20 century. The link is to his bio, so I won't repeat here, other than to highlight how tragedies of the 1930s and 40s influenced his philosophy.
In Sartre's primary work, Being and Nothingness (1943), he posits that the sadism/masochism struggle can function as a means to negotiate the "Other" or as Sartre labeled it, the "being-in-itself."
We all negotiate Other as the primary means of relating with the world as a Self. It is the Self-Other dichotomy that drives much of human behavior, and sadism is a way to cope with Other by controlling or defining it (the flip-side being controlled or defined by Other).
We can control or define Other by consuming it. By consuming Other, it disappears, and then no longer threatens to force us to face our "facticity (Sartre's term), or the fact that we are free to define our existence, and are therefore not free from having to do just that. And it's the knowledge that we are not free to to not define ourselves is what causes Sartre's "La Nausée".
Fourth, to circle round.
Consumption is essentially materialism.
Therefore, materialism equals sadism.
To elaborate requires some explanation.
First, a definition of terms.
Materialism is understood here as the accumulation of material goods, and as a consequence, status, prestige, power.
Sadism is understood here as 1 side of a duopoly towards sexual deviance, in that Sadism represents the willing subjugation of the lover, while masochism is the willing surrender.
Second, responses to possible objections to the above definitions.
Though the Sadism/Masochism convention is typically treated as one of the more lurid theories of Sigmund Freud, this assumption about basic human behavior is telling in that it describes well how humans interact with other humans and with the world we live on.
One could point out that materialism has always been seen as hedonistic, so materialism as sadism is not exactly seminal. True indeed, but our stated supposition, as will be shown, is an attempt to understand that relationship through an existential or ontological lens, with the moral consequences of materialism (expressed as hedonism) a secondary lens.
Third, the arguement.
To construct our existential lens we must dive into Jean Paul Sartre, a French existential philosopher from the mid-20 century. The link is to his bio, so I won't repeat here, other than to highlight how tragedies of the 1930s and 40s influenced his philosophy.
In Sartre's primary work, Being and Nothingness (1943), he posits that the sadism/masochism struggle can function as a means to negotiate the "Other" or as Sartre labeled it, the "being-in-itself."
We all negotiate Other as the primary means of relating with the world as a Self. It is the Self-Other dichotomy that drives much of human behavior, and sadism is a way to cope with Other by controlling or defining it (the flip-side being controlled or defined by Other).
We can control or define Other by consuming it. By consuming Other, it disappears, and then no longer threatens to force us to face our "facticity (Sartre's term), or the fact that we are free to define our existence, and are therefore not free from having to do just that. And it's the knowledge that we are not free to to not define ourselves is what causes Sartre's "La Nausée".
Fourth, to circle round.
Consumption is essentially materialism.
Therefore, materialism equals sadism.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Duopoly Gets More Attention from Occupy
The occupy movement publishes a series of information cards called "Occucards" and now there's one on the subject of the political duopoly in this country.
I'm super psyched about this and have already ordered copies to start leaving anoymously in random places and may be change a few minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)