Election Reform
New Mexico considering Oregon vote-by-mail
Not going to happen this next year, but it could happen:
Since 1998, Beaver State voters have dropped their ballots in special mail receptacles or popped them in the regular mail.Could New Mexico be next for similarly easy, and cheap, elections?
Maybe, says Secretary of State-elect Mary Herrera.
She's got mail-in elections on her to-look-into list, although not for the 2007 legislative session.
"Mail-in is a lot cheaper and you get a lot higher turnout," she said.
The turnout statewide was more than 52 percent in this election, in which voters picked a governor, statewide officials and members of Congress. In 2002, about 53 percent of voters showed up at the polls on Election Day.
By contrast, Oregon in recent general elections has seen as high as a 90 percent voter turnout, said Connie Higgins, Curry County, Ore., elections administrator and chief deputy county clerk.
There are so many reasons for all states to move to the vote-by-mail system - turnout, cost, ease of use, general enfranchisement and promoting a deliberative voting process (voters get time to consider the issues and candidates, instead of just voting on the spot).
Coming from Oregon to New Mexico, I must admit I was a little frustrated by the voting process. I'm not saying it was especially hard to vote here but rather it is so easy in Oregon. Every year I would just receive my ballot, take my time to consider it and then send/drop it off. If we had systems like this in place across the nation, let alone out west than we could make vast strides towards a more more healthy democracy.
Landon Mascareñaz | December 15, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Protecting the Foundation of Democracy
In a modern democracy, the people's will must be able to be freely expressed through fair and honest voting systems. We all know the stories of Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Katherine Harris in Florida. Because of their malfeasance, the true intent of their state's voters will never be known.
Out in the West, we sense a growing demand for honesty and integrity in elections. Arizona has a clean money system for finance, New Mexico has a mandated paper trail for all its ballots and Oregon, with their vote-by-mail, sets a great western standard for civic participation (turnout in 2004 was 70.9%) and strengthening democratic ideals.
Enter the Secretary of State Project:
The Secretary of State Project was created by concerned citizens to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to key Secretary of State races.
Their criteria?
The Secretary of State Project evaluates candidates based on their positions on election issues - primarily support for a voter-verifed paper trail and transparency of the voting process, strict enforcement of laws preventing voter intimidation, opposition to any and all barriers to voting by and registration of citizens, and a committment to increasing voter turnout rather than suppressing the votes of traditionally disenfranchised groups. While a progressive enterprise at its heart, the Secretary of State Project does not screen candidates for issue positions unrelated to the duties of the office of Secretary of State, including but not limited to the war in Iraq, gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, or U.S. trade policy.
Money spent in these races will go much, much, much farther than money spent elsewher due to the nature of their usual competition and media markets. It's great to see organizations like this making the move and organizing off to the sides where it matters quite a bit.
When news like this comes up, you want the right person (in this case, Ken Gordan) for the job:
Under the gun to meet tight election-day deadlines, the Secretary of State's office certified a kind of voting machine for Jefferson and Mesa Counties that does not meet state requirements.The information comes from the deposition of John Gardner - the man appointed by Gigi Dennis as an expert and charged with certifying the machines.
But Gardner testified he is not an expert in the areas required by state law. He also admitted that the Secretary of State's office was under pressure to certify the voting machines because counties had already purchased them.
Democratic candidate for Secretary of State and state Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon issued a release today criticizing Dennis.
"I call on Secretary Dennis to immediately hire competent staff and perform adequate and thorough testing, as the law requires her to do," Gordon said in the release. "There must be a competent examination of these computerized voting machines before the election. There are critical decisions for Colorado to make this November. We cannot have trust in the results on election night if serious doubts surround our computerized voting machines."
Though Congress is definately the dog and pony show of 2006, down-ballot races such as these will make all the difference in the world. If you believe the battle for Congress is key to the future elections, how can we count on elections when we can't count our votes?
Support The Secretary of State Project.
Landon Mascareñaz | September 14, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
3 Western States Apply to Vote Early in 2008 Primary Season
At least eight states applied Friday to join Iowa and New Hampshire in voting early in the 2008 presidential contest.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada and South Carolina had put in a bid by Friday afternoon. Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said he wasn't sure how many more states might apply.
Despite the applications it is worth it to note that the proposal to allow up to two other states to hold caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, and then allow up to two more states to hold primaries shortly after New Hampshire still has to be voted on by the DNC Rules Committee and the full DNC. Even then, look for New Hampshire to make a lot of noise on the issue. After all, in New Hampshire "First in the Nation" primary is a birthright.
kencamp | April 14, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Florida challenging the West
Would Florida moving its primary forward really be that big of a challenge to the Western Primary? Yes, I think so. A big electoral state (27 evs) with a consolidated media market vs. a diverse range of Western states. Am I getting too worried about this?
State Rep. Marco Rubio, a Miami Republican in line to become the next Speaker of the Florida House, says he has the necessary, bipartisan political backing to move the state’s presidential primary to a date one week after New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.Florida is “a social and economic microcosm of the United States” that has been frustrated by its inability to affect the primary selection process, said Rubio. “We are committed to moving the Florida primary up.”
If Florida did shift to the top tier of the primary calendar, it could siphon advertising money, press coverage and the attention of candidates from a group of Western states that are also considering such a move.
I'm especially frightened by the statement that Florida is “a social and economic microcosm of the United States."
Emmett O'Connell | April 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Early Primary Calendar: Why not Oregon?
Editor's note: The following is a guest column by Scott Bellows of Eugene, Oregon. Scott describes himself as a "lawyer, mediator, writer, parent, and politics geek."
From Sunday's Washington Post:
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday dealt a blow to New Hampshire Democrats hoping to keep their coveted place in the presidential nominating schedule, agreeing by voice vote to a plan that would place one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14, 2008, and the New Hampshire primary eight days later.The proposal, which grew from recommendations by a commission studying how to make the nominating process more diverse both racially and geographically, would also add one or two primaries after the New Hampshire contest but before Feb. 5 -- the date after which any state is free to schedule a vote.
The next step in the process is for states hoping to win an early place in 2008 to submit their proposals to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by April 14. Representatives from states hoping to move up can also make a personal pitch to the committee during the Democratic National Committee's spring meeting April 20-22 in New Orleans.
Most observers believe the additional states will come from the South and the West -- two rapidly growing areas that offer a diverse electorate. South Carolina, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Alabama and Mississippi are among the states under consideration.
Which for me raises two questions:
1. What states are most likely to result in an early victory by a dark horse other than the presumptive frontrunner? THOSE are the states we want to add, because power-broker-engineered juggernauts (more here) both are bad for democracy and, contrary to conventional wisdom, tend to result in candidates who lose in the general election.
2. Why are the only Western states being considered located in the Southwest? Marketing experts commonly test new advertising campaigns in Oregon because it's representative of the nation's overall demographics (it has everything from hippies to farmers to cowboys to millworkers), and because advertising costs are relatively low; those same factors, plus the fact that the state demographically mirrors parts of the more influential states California and Washington and would draw strong media coverage from those larger markets, make Oregon a great choice for an early primary.
Kari Chisholm | March 13, 2006 | Comment on This Post (13 so far) |
Why Campaign Finance Reform is Necessary
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is the latest example of why campaign finance reform is necessary. Where else but in the United States of America could a high school student find the resources to give the maximum donation of $44,600 to Governor Schwarzenegger for his re-election campaign? Does anyone out there know of a teenager with $44,600 to their name? Capitol Weekly has the story.
Because Elizabeth Arkley is 18 years old, she, like any other adult, can donate up to $22,300 to Schwarzenegger for both the gubernatorial primary and general election. Elizabeth's parents, Cherie and Robin Arkley and her college-aged sister, Allison, each gave $44,600 to the governor's reelection campaign.
This process, for the uninitiated, is what is known as bundling. Elizabeth Arkley may not have $44,600 but because her parents have more than enough, and because she is at least 18, under California law, she can donate the maximum to the Governor under her own name. So what politically active, rich parents do is donate the maximum in the names of all of their family members who are legally eligible to donate.
In all fairness, Schwarzenegger's Democratic challengers, Phil Angelides and Steve Westly, have donors who have bundled their donations and done the same thing.
It is has been proven that young people aren’t the most politically active age group, so while Elizabeth Arkley might be politically active, what about all of the other youth who have donated large sums to Governors, Presidential candidates and others? Are they all politically active, and if so why aren’t they voting? Also, teenagers are notorious for rebelling against their parents. Are we to believe that Elizabeth Arkley and all the other teenagers who have donated actually support the candidates their parents support?
Mainly, bundling is a way for big money donors to skirt campaign finance laws and to gain favor with the candidate of their choice. How many of George W. Bush’s Rangers bundled donations?
It’s time for serious campaign finance reform. More power to the 18 year old who is able to donate $44,600 in an election cycle, but I’m willing to bet there are less than 5 of them out there. And while the Supreme Court has equated political donations with free speech, there has to be some way to stop the madness. I’ve been hearing more about it lately and perhaps public financing of elections is the answer.
kencamp | March 2, 2006 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Western primary buzz in Montana
Of course, the Western Primary is a “the more the merrier situation” (except for California), so its good to see that Democrats in Montana are talking about it. Also, it would be good to see the state that brought us Brian Schweitzer and will bring us Jon Tester or John Morrison voting on the same day as Utah and New Mexico (at least) in 2008.
The Missoulian:
A coordinated Western states primary could go a long way to asserting the Western voice in the selection of presidential candidates, writer and thinker Dan Kemmis told the Missoula County Democrats Tuesday night.But figuring out how and how much to change the system is not as easy as it might seem.
Proponents of a Western states primary suggest that the eight Rocky Mountain states band together to hold primaries and caucuses closer together and earlier in the season than Montana's is held now. That would compel candidates to visit Western states instead of flying over. And it would encourage Westerners to identify the regional issues they hold in common.“It's trying to get presidential candidates to pay some attention to the West,” said Kemmis, who is working on the idea from a bipartisan perspective in his work as senior fellow in public policy at the University of Montana's Center for the Rocky Mountain West.
Kemmis also has a good review on how things are going right here.
Emmett O'Connell | January 16, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Scott Chacon for Congress is dead, long live Margee Ensign
Scott Chacon, Rep. Richard Pombo's open source opponent in the CA-11, has pulled out of the race. His reason for leaving the race is the same the one he has for joining in the first place: whether any suitable candidate is challening Pombo:
Margee is unbelievably qualified, technologically savvy, internationally and politically experienced and still amazingly humble. We are continually impressed with her passion, kindness and strength of character. She is exactly who I want representing me. I have volunteered to do whatever I can to help her campaign and she has very graciously accepted.
If you look at Ms. Ensign's website, you might see why he likes her so much. She has picked up almost exactly where Chacon left off with his ground breaking website package.
Chacon also reminds us that Pombo, as many congressional Republicans are, is vunerable in the next go-round:
Pombo has gained national attention for his questionable and controversial acts while at the same time his congressional mentor Tom DeLay is being prosecuted for corruption charges. Because of this negative attention, the DCCC and other democratic-leaning organizations have targeted our eleventh district. Pombo and the Republican party are vulnerable, so now candidates and money are pouring into this race.
Emmett O'Connell | December 8, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Nevada Caucus
There is a move to make Nevada or possibly Colorado an early caucus state.
This could give a greater voice to several underrepresented and important groups in the early selection process: residents of urban areas, Hispanics, and Westerners. As a bonus to office seekers and the press alike, January in Nevada is likely to be a lot more pleasant than January in New Hampshire or Iowa.
An early Western caucus is a great complement to a Western primary.
Leo Brown | December 5, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Lowering Western Primary expectations
Utah's Governor Jon Huntsman (R) is saying that the number of state's that will participate in a likely to participate in the Western Primary will be three (UT, NM and AZ) and not six (take out MT, CO and WY). On a purely partisan basis, this isn't really bad news because two of the three states left are arguably stronger Democratic states that the ones that Huntsman now says aren't likely.
But, this isn't a partisan thing. If it was, I would be arguing for one big primary in the Northeast or a Pacific Coast primary to boost Democrats in places we are already strong. But, one of the points of the Western Primary is that it would help transform the Democratic Party from a Northeast/Pacific Coast party to a party from (partly) the West. Whichever Republican that said "...Democrats (in Utah) could be hurt because national candidates tend to be more liberal" is wrong in outlining the effects of a Western Primary. Only a certain type of Democratic candidate would bother spending time out West. Having a Western Primary at all, especially a big one, would even change who would be running to begin with.
If you make the path for the Presidency run West, you change the party.
So, I would argue that including some deep Red Western states where Democrats have shown some success (such as Wyoming with Gov. Dave and Montana with the big Schweitzer) is a vital part of the entire Western Primary.
Emmett O'Connell | August 31, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Support for a Western Primary from Tucson
The good citizens at the Tucson Citizen have a short opinion piece on a Western primary. They are for it.
There's a lot of merit to the idea. Western states have many common issues. It would mean more influence in Washington, D.C., if we all spoke with one voice.
Leo Brown | July 29, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Western Primary Idea Noticed Back East
The Boston Phoenix has noticed that
…many Western Democrats — including New Mexico governor and Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson — are pushing for (surprise!) an early Western primary, which they claim could help the Democrats add votes in the Rocky Mountain region.
They know the current primary framework with Iowa and New Hampshire first is not divinely ordained.
...New Hampshire’s primary originally occurred on the second Tuesday in March, the same day as Minnesota’s and a full week after Indiana’s. And Iowa’s political celebrity dates only from 1972...
Leo Brown | July 27, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Mother Jones: Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing
In a thoughtful, but misguided, piece over at Mother Jones magazine, Steven Hill cries 'Woe is us!' and tells us Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing.
The basic thesis? That the U.S. Senate (and by extension, the Electoral College) award disproportionate power to small states - thus throwing the Senate and the Presidency to the GOPers, despite higher vote totals for Democrats.
So from the Democratic Party perspective, the political geography does not work. In the current climate of Red vs. Blue America, any "emerging Democratic majority" must overcome an 18th-century political system that puts urban-centered Democrats at a decided disadvantage. As I wrote above, it's like having a foot race in which one side (the Republicans) begins 10 yards in front of the other (the Democrats), election after election. It's time to level the playing field.
So, he's crying out for amending the Constitution. Now, that's all well and good, but does anyone really think that three-fourths of the states will vote to reduce small-state power in the Senate and the Electoral College? (The 38 "biggest" states would have to agree - and that includes states with five electoral votes like Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia.)
Of course, Steve misses the larger point. The small-state math is exactly why the Western Democrat project is so important. If we continue to rely on a big state strategy, we will continue to lose.
If Democrats are going to regain a majority in the U.S. Senate and a majority in the Electoral College, Democrats have to find a way to win in the small states.
And as everyone who reads Western Democrat knows, our best hope lies in the West.
Take the Kerry '04 states, add Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. We win - without Ohio and without Florida.
Kari Chisholm | June 20, 2005 | Comment on This Post (7 so far) |
The Chicago DNC meeting
This was buried in a comment on a long-ago post, so I thought I'd upgrade it here. The following is the testimony from Brian Kuehl - spokesman for the Democrats for the West - at the Chicago meeting of the DNC commissioner on presidential primaries just this last weekend. (The emphasis below is mine.)
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Brian Kuehl and I am here representing Democrats for the West, the nation’s first regional party organization.Democrats for the West was founded last year by a coalition of state parties from nine western states – Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Alaska.
Democrats for the West is a new organization composed of Democratic stalwarts such as Stewart Udall, Cecil Andrus and Mike Sullivan, along with state party officials, rising stars, and local activists working to bring together Democrats from across the region to build long-term governing majorities throughout the West – one of the nation’s fastest-growing regions. Democrats for the West unites Democrats across state lines, adds value to state party efforts, and shares ideas and resources.
We are here today to strongly endorse the concept of an early western regional primary. For our purposes, I will use the term “regional primary” to mean a coordinated set of state primaries and/or caucuses held across the western states over a period of a few days or perhaps a week.
Why do Democrats for the West support a western primary? Why do we ask the Democratic National Committee to support it?
We are engaged in a long-term, region-wide party-building effort. We see a regional primary as an important component of that effort, and we are actively working toward that goal in each of the western states. As a compliment to our on-the-ground efforts, we believe the time is exactly right for the DNC to endorse a call for an early western primary.
We are not arguing that the West should be at the very front of the primary calendar or even that we should remain permanently near the front of the primary season. We are open to a fair rotation system. But from both a Democratic and a national perspective, we believe that 2008 is the right year to convene an early western regional primary.
We clearly have a partisan realignment occurring in the Rockies, and the swing is in a strongly Democratic direction. In the 8 states proposed for this primary (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) there were no Democratic governors by 2000. Now half of the states have Democratic governors – Governors Richardson, Napolitano, Freudenthal and Schweitzer. We picked up a U.S. Senate seat and a House seat in 2004, and we turned both Colorado and Montana’s legislatures from red to blue. Across the region, we out-gained Republicans in legislative bodies. And we’re electing Democratic mayors around the region – from Denver to Salt Lake City to Boise.
This is a strong, well-earned swing in a Democratic direction across the region. As Democrats for the West, we want to consolidate our gains and push this swing to the top of the ballot to produce a substantial number of Democratic electoral votes in 2008.
This much is absolutely clear: no region in the country is better positioned to produce new blue states than the West. We believe that with coordinated regional party building efforts and concerted attention from Democratic Presidential candidates, many western states will endorse the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008.
That having been said, no matter how powerful the Democratic arguments for a western primary might be, no major rescheduling of primary dates can occur without broad bipartisan support. And here again, the time is right to give the West a stronger voice in the primary process. The idea of a western primary or caucus has strong bipartisan support. That support was evident when the Western Governors Association endorsed the idea in 2004. Not only governors, but also other leaders from both parties in several western states have expressed their support. The reason is simply that both parties in the western states are tired of being passed by during presidential primaries.
Both parties in the West recognize that a simultaneous regional primary or caucus will prompt Presidential candidates to focus on issues critical to the western region. Even beyond issues, a western primary will make westerners in general feel like they count for something at the national level. That’s good for the West.
And if the DNC supports this move, it will be a welcome signal to westerners that the Democratic Party really cares about the West. And to many westerners, that’s not always been clear.
We proudly call ourselves Democrats for the West, and we will continue our regional party building efforts with or without an early western primary.
But fundamentally, we want our western neighbors to know that our entire Party is “for the West.” Supporting this initiative is one way that the national Democratic Party can send the message that we are all “Democrats for the West.”
Kari Chisholm | May 15, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Udall supports Western Primary
As the DNC's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling got back to work in Chicago this week, Mark Udall sent them a letter supporting the idea of a Western Primary (Thanks to Coyote Gulch for the link):
The latest campaign to establish a coordinated regional primary/caucus day in the Rocky Mountain West got a boost Friday from Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo.In a letter to the fancifully named Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling, a Democratic group which is meeting in Chicago this weekend, Udall said the mountain West "has too often been overlooked in framing the presidential nomination process.
"In presidential elections, we are often viewed by party leaders, national political pundits and other national 'experts' as a Republican Red Sea impossible to cross, like a great desert more to be endured than embraced."
But in fact the party is increasingly competitive in the West, he said.
By the way, you can go to this page and tell the DNC that you support a Western Primary.
UPDATE: Dems for the West are getting into it too. The Brian in the story below left a comment on the DFW activities here a few days ago.
A group called Democrats for the West pushed for an early primary group of eight interior Western states, but they also would vote after Iowa and New Hampshire.Spokesman Brian Kuehl said the West is the fastest growing in the nation, and represents prime areas where Democrats can gain.
"We believe that with coordinated regional party-building efforts and concerted attention from the Democratic presidential candidates, many Western states will endorse the Democratic nominee in 2008," Kuehl said.
The commission will debate the various proposals in October. It will recommend changes, if any, in December.
Republicans already are planning to launch their 2008 nominating process in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Emmett O'Connell | May 15, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Western Primary discussed at DNC
This morning, the DNC Commission on Presidential Nominations met and discussed the timing and structure of the primary system.
Elaine Kamarck, a politico and professor at the JFK School, encouraged the party to think about two issues: 1) Do we want to encourage the kind of retail politics found in Iowa and New Hampshire - particularly early in the process? 2) Do we want to create some extended time between the early states in order to encourage thoughtful reflection on the outcome and to create meaningful campaigns in follow-up states?
Art Torres, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, fired the opening salvo on behalf of a Western primary, reminding the panel that Iowa and New Hampshire simply aren't representative of the nation as a whole. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan suggested that while retail politics is a good thing, there are plenty of states capable of that - especially more diverse ones. It doesn't have to be NH and IA.
The strongest case for a Western primary came from political consultant Mike Stratton. He reminded the commission that the purpose of these discussions is not to generate an interesting primary battle - but rather to win the general election. As he put it, "these primaries help us build a base for November."
Stratton pointed out, as we have in the Western Democrat manifesto, that John Kerry would have won had he picked up Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. The down-ballot results of 2004 prove that all those states could be competitive presidentially. With Democratic governors in New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, a regional Rocky Mountain primary is a possibility.
Kamarck had argued that a Western primary wouldn't attract enough attention without the inclusion of California, simply because there's not enough delegates. Never mind that California would likely cause the rest of the states to be ignored. As Stratton argued, even though the half-dozen states of the Rocky Mountain West may not contain massive numbers of delegates - a Western primary would generate plenty of attention - and ultimately, would help create the momentum to a win in November 2008.
And isn't winning in 2008 the point? As we've asked before, should we run a campaign for a Western Primary?
Kari Chisholm | March 12, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Richardson pushing for Western Primary
Gov. Bill Richardson is planning an aggressive push to persuade Western mountain states to have a presidential primary on a single day early in the nominating process in 2008.Richardson told the Western Governors' Association today he will make a formal proposal for a Western primary sometime after most legislative sessions end in April and May and before the association's meeting in mid-June in Colorado.
The idea, he said, "is to make the West a greater player, a bigger player in the presidential process."
This idea was proposed prior to the 2000 election and was killed by Democrats who were afraid of an insurgent (Bill Bradley) stealing the day from Al Gore, afraid of the costs, and by the national party that apparently didn't want to rock the boat for Gore either.
One question I have is whether Harry Reid will do his same tricks this time to kill the primary. It seems though that his reasons for shuffling the primary deck don't exist anymore and that by creating a Western Primary, it would increase the West's stature in not only the Democratic Party, but across all parties.
The thought that a Western Primary would help only Bill Richardson is a bit short sighted when you take the history of such regional primaries. In its first year, the Southern Super Tuesday actually was the final straw that killed Al Gore and other moderate centrists in 1988. It wasn't until 1992 that Super Tuesday did anything to help moderate Southerners. Depending on what states enter the Western Primary, it could either help a more conservative Dem slightly or give a boost to a very liberal Eastern Dem, (for example if Oregon, Washington and California were joined by one or two Interior states).
A balanced Western Primary is as important as a Western Primary. We shouldn't leave out Oregon and Washington, but we should make sure if California is going to be involved that as many Interior Western states are as well to act as balance.
Emmett O'Connell | March 2, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Western Super Tuesday? Convention in the West?
Here at Western Democrat, there have been two big ideas tossed out - as mechanisms for helping push the Democratic Party toward a Western strategy.
The first is a Western Super Tuesday - a single day when many (if not most) of the Western states would host a primary election. Obviously, this would require action by the many state legislatures - and would probably have to be lead by the Secretaries of State in those states.
The second idea is a Democratic Convention in the inland West - something that's never happened. Since 1960, the convention has been in California twice (SF 1984, LA 2000) but otherwise never west of Chicago. This would require action by the DNC, perhaps more achievable.
So, I want assess interest. Should we mount a campaign for one or both of these ideas? Along with spreading the meme and promoting the strategy, should these be our driving goals over the next few years? Tell us what you think in the comments...
A little background reading
The 2004 convention site selection process and timeline
The DNC's 2008 nomination calendar commission
The National Association of Secretaries of State regional primary proposal for 2008.
Kari Chisholm | January 8, 2005 | Comment on This Post (11 so far) |
Bill Richardson: A Western Primary?
There's a great article by the Miami Herald's Andres Oppenheimer over at HispanicBusiness.com. In the piece, he shares the news that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is working to develop a Western primary (as suggested by Emmett here).
Richardson is leading an effort by four Western states -- New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona -- to hold a regional primary in the first week in February 2008, shortly after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Most of these states have large Hispanic populations and can be won by either party.
Beyond that, Oppenheimer - who usually writes about Latin America - points out that Richardson would help drive the Democrats to the West; and would help the Party regain its footing among Latinos.
Oppenheimer called Richardson and asked him the magic question:
When I called Richardson earlier this week and asked him whether he would run, he told me, "My main concentration is the New Mexico Legislature in January, and my re-election as governor in 2006. Beyond that, who knows?"
My translation: He's running like crazy.
Kari Chisholm | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Our own Super Day
One of the most effective ways Southern Democrats solidified their hold on being the conservative soul of the party for the past 15 or so years has been Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday, like the Iowa Caucuses, focused the attention of Presidential candidates on issues that are now generally outside the range of most urban Democrats. The West can do the same thing in 2008 by creating a regional primary
One of the best ideas this year to help build Western influence in the Democratic Party has been the Western Primary.
On the surface it would seem like Republicans just as much Democrats would benefit from a unified Western primary, but the point is not necessarily building the party in the West. While that is an important goal, I think we should focus on the primary now in order to build the region in the party.
The Democratic Party needs Western Democrats and one of the best ways to influence the party is through primaries. If we want the Western Primary, now is the time to act: "Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is expected to appoint a committee over the next few weeks to discuss the primary calendar in 2008."
Emmett O'Connell | November 22, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Near the last word from me on liberal islands
One of the few reasons I voted for I-872 this year was a personal vote against "safe seats" in the state legislature and Congress. I don't like safe seats. What they are doing to our government is driving state legislatures and congress to the fringes. Elected officials are abandoning the middle because they don't need to be there anymore to be elected in so called "safe seats."
Every ten years bipartisan redistricting commissions redraw the political maps for our states. In Washington, this is a very boring process (totally unlike Texas).
This is one of the many reasons that the political parties argued so strongly against the Top Two primary. In many districts across the state it would mean two Democrats or two Republicans would face off in the general. That, though, is the fault of the political parties in the first place for making a deal with the devil in the first place and drawing so many safe districts.
I know it is impossible for every district to be competitive, Olympia will likely represented by a Democrat for the rest of my life. But, the majority of districts don't need to be "safe." If in two years there are singular party choices in the general election that is the fault of the parties in the first place.
How does this all relate to the Stranger's Liberal Gilligan's Island Theory, F the S, and let's redraw the American map so all of us smart blue staters can be Canadian?
The United States has a winner take all system, generally. From city hall, to the state house, Congress and the Presidency, only one person can win any given election. And, the President, whoever sits in the White House, is the President of the entire United States, not just Red or Blue states. Brian Baird is the congressman of the entire Washington 3rd congressional district, not just Olympia, Tumwater and Vancouver.
Brian Schweitzer is the governor of the entire state of Montana.
My point is that where ever someone is elected, they tend to represent the values and concerns of their entire constituency. Not all the time I know, but usually the more competitive the congressional district (for example) the more moderate the congressperson will be.
The Stranger makes it sound like by simply flexing the urban muscle and building our base, Democrats can push over the rural areas. We know that is not true, the Stranger even employs some funny math to attempt to prove their point:
- 226 Americans total (thought there was more than that)
- 85 million in "cities" (the muscle)
- 55 million in "the country" (the enemy)
- That still leaves 86 million people in neither cities nor the country. This must be the exburbs I've been hearing all about.
The last thing we should do it start seeing people from outside our district, our city or our state as being "the other." We're stuck together, we're in the same boat, we have shared destiny and some other cliches.
We know the Republicans are wrong. We know they do not represent all of America. They have played the game of limiting the field by throwing the wedges between the people. Doing what the Stranger suggests is literally joining the Republicans on the low road. Even if we can win like that, I don't want to play that game.
While we won't try to be all things to all people, we should at least try to be more to everyone.
Emmett O'Connell | November 17, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
