In the 2008 Minnesota election for US Senate, Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by less than three hundred votes. In that race, almost four thousand absentee ballots were not counted because votes didn’t sign the envelope, as required. The problem was a flaw in the design of the envelope. Voters didn’t notice the signature line, an innocent mistake that ultimately disenfranchised them. That screw-up prompted the Minnesota secretary of state’s office to redesign the absentee mail-in envelope to include an outsized X to prominently indicate where voters needed to sign. In the 2010 election, the missing-signature total dropped to 837.

The way your ballot looks influences how you vote. Anyone who paid attention to the 2000 presidential election will remember how “butterfly ballots” in Palm Beach County, Florida, confused thousands of voters, who may have voted for Patrick Buchanan rather than Al Gore, because the layout of the ballot was ambiguous. More recently, in the 2018 senate election in Florida, thousands of voters didn’t mark their ballots for that contest, because it appeared at the bottom of a long column of instructions—a column that many voters skipped. Election officials calculate that more than 30,000 votes may have been lost because of that design error. The winner of the Senate race, Rick Scott, won by less than 10,000 votes. No one will ever know if that margin of victory was attributable to the missing votes.

In 2020, as American politicians, election scholars and administrators try to figure out how conduct elections in a pandemic—and increasingly by mail—ballot design is going to be a critical factor in getting it right.

The Washington Post recently posted this very informative, four-minute video on this subject. Watch it here.

The post Ballot design is important, especially now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder—to overturn the “pre-clearance” requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—continues to have major ramifications for voting rights in America. Just before the decision came down in 2013, The Brennan Center for Democracy looked into its crystal ball and envisioned what would happen if the Court decided against pre-clearance. The predictions were ominous, and, unfortunately, they began to materialize, just days after the Supreme Court’s opinion went live. Here are the general categories into which new voting rights abuses were likely to fall, according to the Brennan Center’s prescient predictions. Check them against what has actually happened. I’m republishing this post because of its continuing relevance in the Trump era of diminishing American democracy.

Jurisdictions could try to revise discriminatory changes blocked by Section 5.

To give you a sense of the scope of this category, consider that 31 such proposed changes have been blocked by the Justice Department or the federal courts since the Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized just eight years ago. In just the past six months, after the 2012 election, many such challenges have been rejected.

Jurisdictions could put in place broad discriminatory practices they were previously “chilled” from implementing by Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement.

In South Carolina v. Holder, a Section 5 challenge that preceded the 2012 election, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, an appointee of George W. Bush, highlighted the deterrent effect of the statute — how it prevented state lawmakers from moving forward with the most obviously discriminatory practices, and how these officials narrowed the scope of their proposed voting change to track the requirements of the Section. That deterrent effect will be gone.

Jurisdictions might implement those discriminatory practices they tried but failed to get past the Justice Department under Section 5.

The Brennan Center reports that 153 such voting measures have been submitted and then withdrawn in recent years after federal officials questioned the discriminatory nature of these proposed laws. Even if just half of these policies were to be reconsidered and adopted in the absence of Section 5 they would significantly change the voting rights landscape in several Southern states.

Finally, the most obvious impact — jurisdictions might try to adopt restrictive new voting measures they neither contemplated nor dared submit for preclearance under Section 5.

For best effect, those lawmakers could do so on the eve of an election, forcing voting rights advocates to scramble and practically daring the federal judiciary to enjoin the measures. We wouldn’t likely go back to the age, as John Lewis recounted, where black voters would have to guess the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. But we wouldn’t be too far off, either. Just last election cycle, in Texas, lawmakers sought to impose what amounted to a poll tax on indigent — or carless — registered voters.

If you think these predictions sound hysterical, Orwellian and unlikely to occur in this country, think again. In the past seven years, states and local jurisdictions enacted legislation on many of the fronts outlined by the Brennan Center. We need to stay on full alert.

The post Life after the Voting Rights Act appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With a few heartening exceptions, the trend in voting rights in America is toward suppression and trickery—with just 9 weeks to go before the crucial 2018 midterm elections. As I recently observed, voting rights in the Trump era is a one-step-forward-two-steps back story. And just when you think you’ve caught up on the news, another state, another county, or another White House authoritarian surprises you with a new wrinkle. Here’s a roundup of some voting-rights developments that cropped up in just the past few days:

In Georgia’s Randolph County, a consultant recommended closing seven of the county’s nine polling places, as a cost-saving measure. The trouble was that Randolph County is predominantly black, and the closings would have forced many midterm voters to travel as far as 30 miles to get to a polling place. Also, it just so happens that there’s a hotly contested election for Governor on the November ballot that pits Democrat Stacy Abrams, who would be Georgia’s first black chief executive, against a white Republican—Brian Kemp—who  has been called a “master of voter suppression” by his political opponents.  Democrats cried foul—and won. At its August 18 meeting, the Randolph County election board rejected the proposed closings by a vote of 2—0.

So, will voters know whether their polling place is open, or will they be unsure and give up? Failing to complete their mission of suppressing the minority vote by making it impossibly inconvenient to get to a polling place, Georgia still has managed to sow confusion, which is a voter-suppression tactic in itself.

In North Carolina, a three-judge panel ruled – on Aug. 27, just 10 weeks before the midterms—that  the state’s congressional districts were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans over Democrats and said it may require new districts before the November elections, possibly affecting control of the House.

According to the Washington Post,

The judges acknowledged that primary elections have already produced candidates for the 2018 elections but said they were reluctant to let voting take place in congressional districts that courts twice have found violate constitutional standards… North Carolina legislators are likely to ask the Supreme Court to step in. The court traditionally does not approve of judicial actions that can affect an election so close to the day voters go to the polls.

One judge has proposed some unusual ideas for remedying the situation: appointing a special master to draw new districts; holding general elections without party primaries; or even turning the November elections into a primary and holding the general election sometime before the new Congress convenes in January.

North Carolina’s record in voter suppression and racial gerrymandering has a long history, so this development is not a surprise. This is the kind of chicanery that was institutionalized in North Carolina before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Then, in 2013, the Republican Congress gutted the 1965 act, and all hell broke loose in states, like North Carolina, whose voting authorities had previously operated under the watchful surveillance of the courts. States like North Carolina, freed from supervision, reverted to their natural states of voter suppression and discriminatory practices.

The question now is: How will this latest court ruling affect the November 2018 midterms? Can the state redraw its district maps with less than 10 weeks to go before the election? If it does, will voters know what district they’re supposed to vote in? The net effect is more confusion—and the logical consequence is less voter participation.

Meanwhile, at the White House, Donald Trump has made his own contribution to the confusion agenda. The Trump administration has pressured its Republican allies in the Senate to squelch a bipartisan bill to protect American elections against interference, Yahoo News reports.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) proposed the Secure Elections Act, which was then cosponsored by Democratic senators like Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Republicans Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Before the White House got involved, the bill was expected to pass the Senate and become a rare bipartisan success story for Congress.

The bill would have given the top election official in each state security clearance to receive information on electoral threats, formalized information sharing between the federal government and the states, mandated an audit of federal elections, and incentivized the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper trail.

This move, passively supported by Republicans who constantly refer to themselves as “patriots” and guardians of the U.S. Constitution, reveals the true Republican agenda: Republicans benefit from election interference, and they will do anything to preserve their own seats in Congress and their overall majority—at whatever cost to the “democracy” they claim to defend.

The post Confusing the vote: 2018 midterms edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Depending on what state you live in and who you are, your voting rights may be either expanding or contracting this year. At the same time that some jurisdictions are making it easier to register and vote, others are continuing their efforts to make it harder to vote and to essentially disenfranchise voters whose views they don’t like. Here’s a brief rundown on the push-me-pull-you situation.

 One step forward

On August 9, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker [R] signed into law a bill that makes voter registration automatic throughout the state. The bill had passed the state legislature with an overwhelming majority—in the State Senate, it was unanimous. Under the new law, people will be automatically registered when they have transactions with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, or when they interact with the state’s Medicaid system, known as MassCare.

The new law [AVR] is set to be fully implemented in time for the 2020 presidential election. It could reach estimated 680,000 eligible voters who are not yet on the rolls. According to Masslive.com, “An analysis by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress estimated that AVR could enroll 437,000 new Massachusetts voters, of whom 156,000 could be expected to show up at the polls.”

Massachusetts now joins more than a dozen other states that have enacted similar AVR systems. More than a dozen other states including New Jersey and Washington have enacted similar automatic voter registration systems. Massachusetts’s law also raises the penalty for voter fraud to a fine of up to $10,000 or a five-year prison sentence.

And there may be more to come. According to the Brennan Center, “This year alone, 20 states have introduced legislation to implement or expand automatic registration, and an additional eight states had bills carry over from the 2017 legislative session.”

AVR: Opting out, rather than opting in

How does automatic voter registration work? Here’s the Brennan Center’s explanation and rationale:

AVR makes two simple, yet transformative, changes to the way our country has traditionally registered voters.  First, AVR makes voter registration “opt-out” instead of “opt-in”—eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote or have their existing registration information updated, unless they affirmatively decline. Again, the voter can opt-out; it is not compulsory registration. Second, those agencies transfer voter registration information electronically to election officials instead of using paper registration forms. These common-sense reforms increase registration rates, clean up the voter rolls, and save states money.

States that have already implemented AVR have seen positive results, says the Brennan Center:

Since Oregon became the first state in the nation to implement AVR in 2016, the Beaver State has seen registration rates quadruple at DMV offices. In the first six months after AVR was implemented in Vermont on New Year’s Day 2017, registration rates jumped 62 percent when compared to the first half of 2016.

By Election Day 2018, reports NPR, almost of quarter of Americans will live in states where filling out voter registration postcards will be a thing of the past as more and more states are moving to automatic voter registration.

That’s the good news. Now for the flip side.

Two steps back

Unfortunately, some people view AVR not as positive steps toward democratic engagement, but rather as threats to their entrenched power. Over the years, we have witnessed many attempts, in many states, to restrict voting rights, disenfranchise certain groups, and generally make voting more inconvenient for people whose voting patterns threaten the Republican status quo.

This year, however, has marked a turning point in voter suppression efforts, as the Department of Justice itself–which was once an ally for voting-rights advocates—has switched sides. In August, Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave the green light to states’ efforts to drastically purge their voter-registration rolls—a major reversal of previous administrations’ efforts to protect the vote.

According to Slate:

The DOJ has withdrawn its opposition to Texas’ draconian voter ID law and to mandatory arbitration agreements designed to thwart class actions. Now the agency has made another about-face: ..It dropped its objections to Ohio’s voter purge procedures, which kick voters off the rolls for skipping elections. The DOJ is now arguing that such maneuvers are perfectly legal.

In addition, the New York Times reports that, under Sessions, the DOJ is not going to oppose the following voter-suppression efforts:

• A new voter ID law that could shut out many Native Americans from the polls in North Dakota.

• A strict rule on the collection of absentee ballots in Arizona that is being challenged by votig-rights advocates as a form of voter suppression.

• Officials in Georgia who are scrubbing voters from registration rolls if their details do not exactly match other records, a practice that voting rights groups say unfairly targets minority voters.

The Sessions department’s most prominent voting-rights lawsuit so far forced Kentucky state officials last month to step up the culling from registration rolls of voters who have moved.

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the department has filed legal briefs in support of states that are resisting court orders to rein in voter ID requirements, stop aggressive purges of voter rolls and redraw political boundaries that have unfairly diluted minority voting power — all practices that were opposed under President Obama’s attorneys general.

If my understanding of America history is correct, since the beginning of this country—with some notable exceptions—we have been on a path of expanding rights, becoming more inclusive, and encouraging engagement. So, it’s heartening to see states building on that tradition and finding ways to enable more people to participate in the fundamental activity of a democracy—voting. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and its spineless Republican enablers [or should I say co-conspirators] clearly have a different trajectory in mind. We can only hope that enlightened thinking will prevail, and that our democracy—warts and all—will survive this dark period in American politics.

The post Voting rights 2018: One step forward, two steps back appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Are you having post-election buyer’s remorse? There are many reasons people did not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. Some people, including myself, generally lean Green-Left, but we actually found several of Trump’s policy positions put forth during the election to be more appealing. Mrs. Clinton is a staunch defender of the status quo (hardly a leftist perspective). She primarily ran against Trump’s flagrantly flawed character. Whenever she got any sort of a lead in the polls, she lunged to the right. These numerous ideological differences may have encouraged many well-intended voters to vote for Jill Stein, the Libertarian, not vote at all, or even support Trump. Now that we know about his major appointments and have witnessed several pronouncements via Twitter and elsewhere, let’s revisit those issues where Trump provided more hope than Clinton.

Before getting started, please note that this dreary review is not meant to be snarky about those who did not vote for Hillary. I have a lot of sympathy for alienated voters, non-voters, reluctant Trump voters, and Trump supporters who may already have doubts. The political system is rigged to favor the rich.

I erroneously voted for Nader in 2000 instead of Gore and did not want to make the same mistake again, so I reluctantly voted for her. Trump appears unstable and is congenitally dishonest. He launched his Presidential campaign by promoting the odious, racist Big Lie that President Obama had been born outside the United States. His casual, misleading retraction revealed his complete contempt for facts. Thus, I never took seriously any of his campaign positions. I hoped he was lying about the most awful ones, such as the nonexistence of climate change. Overall, the good stuff is being discarded while the worst stuff is metastasizing on the table.

Massive nuclear war

Trump claimed he would work with Russia, while Hillary supported NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, a policy her husband began. She might have shot down Russian planes in Syria by the end of next month. But Trump merely switched “official enemies.” We are now supposed to hate China more than Russia. A 2016 update of Orwell’s 1984. Given Trump’s inherent volatility, the risk of massive nuclear war appears greater than under Clinton. Trump’s proposal to re-escalate the nuclear arms race is frightening.

No second Cold War

Clinton appeared to want another Cold War with Russia. The only thing worse than a Cold War is a Hot War. Now, we probably will have Cold War II with China. Hardly an improvement. Neither Party seems interested in peace.

Smaller wars

Trump claims he will not revisit Obama’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment, the deal with Iran. But who would more likely invade Iran? There are a lot of aggressive people in the Trump Cabinet, while there would have been different members of the War Party in the Clinton Cabinet. Neither leader would do much for the Palestinians. Once again, Trump’s bellicose personality suggests he is a greater threat to world peace.  But don’t forget that Obama has bombed seven countries and probably sent special forces in many more, while Hillary has always been inclined to use violence.

Free trade

Just as I am not a fan of unregulated markets, I oppose unconditioned trade and open borders. Trump stopped TPP, while Obama would probably have pushed it through Congress as Secretary Hillary feigned disapproval. However, Trump’s plan to impose a huge tariff on Chinese goods suggests that his trade policy will be part of his (hopefully only) Cold War against China. Jobs probably will continue to flow to most other countries. Already, the increased value in the dollar makes it less attractive to manufacture products in the United States.

Immigration reform

The Democrats were going to serve their corporate masters; Clinton advocated, “open borders” and Schumer said it was one of the first things they were going to do after their hoped-for victory. I doubt if it will be all that different under Trump. There may or may not be a wall, but the wealthy want illegal and legal immigration to reduce labor costs, increase labor competition, and weaken unions. You can be sure no employers of illegals will face legal sanctions.

Drain the swamp

Trump attacked not just the Clintons’ corrupt behavior but also the appalling ethics of the Beltway. He frequently mocked his Republican opponents for their subservience to people like him.  However, his appointments of political hucksters and leaders from Goldman Sachs indicate business as usual or worse.   His personal conflicts of interest are astounding, rivaling or exceeding the Clintons’ grubbing for money while she was Secretary of State.  So far, it does not look like there will even be “an appearance of propriety.”  It would be real progress if Trump, unlike Obama, indicts a few corporate criminals. Given the appointments, what are the odds? Perhaps a bit better than under Clinton.

The Fed

Trump talked about taming the Federal Reserve Board, the institution that primarily implements “socialism for the rich” while Congress maintains “capitalism for the poor.” But will there even be a real audit of that secretive institution dominated by private bankers? The Goldman appointments indicate “No.”

Personal corruption

Trump claimed he was so wealthy that the elite would not capture him. True, they will have more than usual trouble controlling his outbursts, but he won’t resist their giving money to his family and creating immediate financial opportunities for his businesses. It will be interesting to see how much his family’s wealth has increased by the end of his Presidency.  I am sure he is envious of Putin’s billions.

Infrastructure

There was a possibility that Trump would have created a substantial infrastructure program. But Republican opposition in Congress may prevail. Do you think he cares? Our best hope may be that one of his children enters the construction business.  Either way, any decent Trump proposals will probably share the same fate as any reasonable Clinton initiatives.

The ACA

Trump once supported “single payer,” the cheapest, best solution to providing national care. But his cabinet appointments indicate millions of Americans’ health and finances will soon rapidly deteriorate.

Jobs

Trump asserted he would enable the working and middle class to have better jobs. Clinton only wanted to tinker. While talking about reducing student loan debt, she failed to mention that her husband received millions to promote a for-profit educational institution that extracted millions from the desperately underemployed. Given Trump’s appointments, it looks like the average person will have to wait at least four more years before they have a President who actually cares about them.

LGBT

The President-elect has been quite good on LGBT rights. Peter Thiel spoke at the RNC. Trump said the Supreme Court should not revisit the gay marriage decision. This position is the remaining glimmer of decency, similar to Clinton’s support. There was a passing hope that Trump could convince his base to let go of this stupid, divisive issue. But Senator Cruz is proposing an Orwellian Bill that will undermine vital First Amendment rights (along with many other constitutional rights) by permitting business owners to discriminate against gays for “moral reasons.” It will be OK to keep African-Americans out of your public restaurant if their patronage violates your “religious liberty.” Will Trump speak out against this divisive, dangerous bill? Will he veto it? Will he closely vet Supreme Court nominees to prevent legalized gay bashing and racism? With Hillary, we wouldn’t need to ask these questions.

Helping poor minorities

“What have you got to lose?” While the Democratic Party elite has not made a serious effort to ease the plight of the urban poor for decades, it looks like every average person will lose a lot over the next four years: the ACA, workers’ rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, HUD, public services, and on and on and on.

Character

A lot of people, including myself, disliked and distrusted Hillary Clinton. When Trump won, those who despised Clinton might have been temporarily pleased, thinking, “At least that lying, greedy, militaristic Hillary and her corrupt, sexually predatory husband will not regain power.” Yeah, but Trump’s a lying, greedy, sexually predatory Wildman who may be inclined to replace our beloved republic with an authoritarian or Fascist State.

The bad stuff

We haven’t even considered all the bad things he said he would do that he will do and all the bad things he will do that we haven’t heard about yet. Nor all the venomous, greedy, and cruel legislation that Clinton might have vetoed.

It already looks like it was a grave mistake not to vote for Clinton. I certainly would already be second-guessing that tempting decision. If you did not support Hillary, don’t feel too guilty. It is never shameful to vote your conscience, and there are more powerful ways to move society in a more humane direction than periodically casting a vote. We must organize, developing community-based institutions that provide companionship and direction. To paraphrase Joe Hill, “Don’t mourn the election, organize!”

The Left always tends to finger point and sub-divide. If we are going to deal with looming catastrophic environmental problems, terrorism, religious fanatics, class and racial divisions, and the threat of war (including nukes), we need a much bigger tent, extending deep into the Republican Party’s current base. Then anti-democratic garbage like voter suppression, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College won’t matter. It will not be easy to get there. Even this brief essay pointed its finger (and we know which one) at both Clintons.

But there may be some good effects resulting from this rapid deflation of fragile, desperate hope. If Trump had made an effort to extend his political support by helping most people instead of doubling on austerity economics (socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor), he might have created a much broader base, enabling him to fulfill many other, even more odious and dangerous aspirations that may lurk within.

The post Buyer’s remorse? Perhaps you should have voted for her appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As both Democrats, some Republicans and backers of third-party candidates look for ways to tweak the Electoral College for a different outcome to the 2016 presidential election, at least one picture is muddy. In particular, there is controversy over who, if anyone, would win the election if each states electors were divided proportionally according to the popular vote in that states.

Occasional Planet has previously written about a proportional vote of electors. If democracy is the popular vote of the people, which it is in the United States for every election except that for President and Vice-President, then proportional electoral voting is just another way of stifling direct democracy. But there are some political scientists, philosophers and practitioners who think that it is good policy because it reduces the total disparity between electoral votes and popular votes. For instance, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won 47.9% of the popular vote to Donald Trump’s 46.7%. That 1.2% difference in Clinton’s favor amounts to nearly 1.6 million actual votes. That is not inconsequential.

As for the electoral vote, it finally appears that Michigan will go for Donald Trump. That being the case, he will win 306 electoral votes or 57% and Clinton would garner 232 electoral votes of 43%. So the electoral college has a separation of fourteen percentage points, and in favor of Trump, but the popular vote difference is only 1.2%, and this time in favor of Clinton. So the electoral college is a distortion in terms of both quality (who won?) and quantity (by how much?).

When we examined proportional electoral voting in the 2012 presidential election, we found that Barack Obama would have won in such a system, just as he won the popular vote and the standard electoral vote. Using the same methodology as in 2012, our calculations show Donald Trump winning in a proportionally apportioned electoral college by a slender 272-266 margin. If the idea of a proportional representation in the electoral college is to make it more democratic or more like the popular vote, it would have failed. Below are the state-by-state results.

PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL VOTES BY STATE, 2016

There is a different view of how the election would have come out had there been proportional voting in the electoral college. “rrk” commented to Occasional Planet, “I did the arithmetic for those of you who can’t wait for Mr. Lieber. No rounding. Multiply to three digits. for example, Rhode Island 4 votes, DJT 1.592, HRC 2.216. Final total was DJT 253.114, HRC 257.43. the 5% that is missing went to the third party candidates.” In this scenario, Clinton would have had the plurality of electoral votes, but still over twelve short of the majority. With no candidate having a majority, the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives. The rules governing that are complicated, but they would have resulted in a Trump presidency, perhaps at a cost to Mr. Trump.

While there has been considerable interest in proportional voting in the electoral college, we can see that would give us neither a democratic nor proportional result. It leaves us with two possible solutions.

The first is a straight popular vote, which is the fairest, but would require a constitutional amendment. The main benefit of the constitution amendment is that it would be difficult to repeal. The other option is the “National Popular Vote” in which any combination of states with 270 electoral votes would decide to vote for whomever won the national popular vote. This could be readily accomplished before 2020, but the downside is that it could easily be changed.

Looking for a proportional electoral college vote is the kind of distraction that often keeps us from strengthening our democracy. We need to emulate all other forms of electoral democracy in the United States; the direct popular vote.

The post Hillary wins popular vote; Trump wins proportional electoral college — maybe appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What should be done about the Electoral College, now that, for the fifth time in US history, one candidate has won the popular vote, but lost to the candidate who won the electoral vote? How about giving Electoral College votes to the national popular vote winner?

Over the years, three strategies for Electoral College reform have emerged:

Abolish the Electoral College

The most prominent of these strategies is simply to eliminate the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. Unfortunately, that is not a “simple” solution, both for Constitutional and political reasons. To do it, you’d have to pass an amendment to the US Constitution—and that is not likely to happen any time soon. It’s also a big stretch to think that Republicans, who will have control of all three branches of the federal government after Inauguration Day 2017, would even put Electoral College reform on their agenda: The Electoral College system worked perfectly for their candidate this time around. In these circumstances, abolishing the Electoral College—as fair as that strategy seems—is probably dead on arrival.

Proportional electoral votes

A second strategy would be to award electoral votes proportionately. In the current system, as was made painfully clear on November 8, 2016, electoral votes are a winner-take-all deal. In a proportionate system, states would split their allocated electoral votes according to the percentage of popular votes that went to each candidate. That change would be up to state legislatures. Unfortunately, with the majority of state legislatures controlled by Republicans—who have just seen the winner-take-all structure work to their candidate’s advantage—that’s not going to happen, either.

National Popular Vote

A third idea—which has not been as widely discussed recently—is to award Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This is not a brand new idea: The National Popular Vote bill has been circulating in state legislatures for more than 10 years. Under this plan, states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes in the national tally. This process is different from the current system, in which states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote within their state.

According to the organization called National Popular Vote, the bill would:

 …guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide (i.e., all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

And it has momentum.

It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes [for a total of 270, the amount needed to be elected President.].

The bill has passed one chamber in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes. Most recently, in early 2016, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House. One of the first states to pass it was Maryland, in 2007.

If you add it all up, the National Popular Vote agreement is already more than 60 percent on its way to activation.

Is this constitutional?

Yes, says Fair Vote:

The Constitution gives states full control over how they allocate their electoral votes. The current winner-take-all method, in which the winner of the statewide popular vote wins all of that state’s electoral votes, is a choice—and states can choose differently.

The drawback, of course, is that the National Popular Vote bill is contingent on enough states passing it.

According to Fair Vote:

This [agreement among states[ takes effect only when enough states sign on to guarantee that the national popular vote winner wins the presidency. That means states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes—a majority of the Electoral College—must join the compact for it to take effect.

And that’s the catch, unfortunately. If you’re a Republican legislator in a Republican-dominated state, and you want make yourself appear to be in favor of more fairness in the electoral process, you might just vote for it, because you’re pretty sure that it won’t reach its critical mass.

[Yes, that is a cynical view. But three days post-election, cynicism seems justified.] I admit that, before Election Day, I was glad that the Electoral College was in place, because I thought it would act as a circuit-breaker preventing a dangerous candidate from being elected by a duped population. But of course, it was my own ox that was gored this time, and as the night wore on, I switched sides. You can call me a hypocrite, and I can’t fight back on this one.

But we should all realize that the electoral-popular vote disconnect can happen—and has happened—to candidates of both major US parties. National Popular Vote seems like a doable, fair solution—which would best be enacted long before the next presidential election.

We just need to find enough state legislators who give a damn about fairness and democracy to make it happen—before the next time our screwed-up electoral system gets us into this mess again.

The post Let’s award electoral votes to the national popular vote winner appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri does not have early voting. You have to vote when everyone else does, between the hours of 6 am and 7 pm CST on Election Day—unless you vote absentee, either in person or by mail. Last weekend was the first Saturday of in-person absentee voting in St. Louis County. There are four Saturdays for in-person absentee voting, in addition to weekday business hours.

But, as many Missourians seem to have discovered, the rules for voting absentee contain a little loophole that many may be wiggling through. Here are the rules, as specified by the Missouri Secretary of State. Can you spot the loophole?

Registered Missourians who expect to be prevented from going to their polling place on Election Day may vote absentee beginning six weeks prior to an election.

Absentee voters must provide one of the following reasons for voting absentee:

Absence on Election Day from the jurisdiction of the election authority in which such voter is registered to vote;

Incapacity or confinement due to illness or physical disability, including a person who is primarily responsible for the physical care of a person who is incapacitated or confined due to illness or disability

Religious belief or practice;

Employment as an election authority, as a member of an election authority, or by an election authority at a location other than such voter’s polling place;

Incarceration, provided all qualifications for voting are retained.

Certified participation in the address confidentiality program established under sections 589.660 to 589.681 because of safety concerns.

Did you catch it? It’s in the very first line:  “Registered Missourians who expect to be prevented from going to their polling place on Election Day…” [My emphasis].

Does that one word—“expect”—make it okay to vote absentee, even if you’re not really going to be out of town, working early or late, or in jail—because you might be, or expect to be, or just find voting on Election Day to be inconvenient?

Strictly speaking—no.  When you show up at the Absentee Voting site, you have to check one of the boxes listing your reason for voting absentee. An election official I interviewed reminded me that, while the Secretary of State’s website uses the word “expect,” the absentee ballot application does not include that term: It just says “absence…on Election Day.” When you put your signature at the bottom of that form, you are signing an affidavit asserting that your reason is true. The election official to whom you hand that affidavit doesn’t ask questions: You don’t have to show an airline ticket or any other proof that you fit into the category you’ve checked. But you are signing a legal document saying that you’re telling the truth.

But I wonder how many Missouri voters, seeing the convenience and popularity of no-excuse early voting in other states—are using the word “expect” to justify voting absentee.

If “expect” is the operative word, and voters have an expectation that they won’t be able to vote on Election Day, that’s not voter fraud, right? They are who they are. They live where they say they live. They bring the proper ID. They’re not planning to vote more than once. [One part of the affidavit makes you promise that you’re not going to try to vote more than once.] By allowing absentee voting, we are protecting all citizens’ right to vote. And that’s important, given the attempts at voter suppression that have become nearly epidemic in Republican-controlled state legislatures.

I suspect, too, that the election authorities—and the scores of temp workers staffing the check-in stations– know that this is happening.

Apparently, they are not authorized to fact-check your affidavit or subject you to interrogation. So, powerless to do anything about it—and perhaps even secretly wishing that Missouri would get on board with early voting already—maybe they tacitly accept the reality of what’s happening. I don’t know. Just guessing here.

But when I called the St. Louis County Election Board, an official–speaking off the record–told me this: “I don’t want to speak for the voters, but, just between you and me, there’s a lot of people who are going to be out of town on Election Day.”

Another election official said, “We trust that people don’t lie on their applications.”

I’m pretty sure I detected a  couple of wink-wink, nudge-nudges in those statements.

By the way, According to Ballotpedia, as of September 2016, Missouri is one of only a handful of states with no early voting that also require voters to provide an excuse for voting by absentee ballot. Twenty seven states and the District of Columbia offer no-excuse absentee voting. This map shows the distribution of no-excuse absentee voting, excuse-required absentee voting, and early voting, state-by-state. [Click on the map for a larger view.]

The election official who took my application mentioned that they are expecting 50,000 absentee votes in St. Louis County in the November 2016 election. A higher-up at the Election Board said that 30,000 to 35,000 is probably more accurate, reflecting the absentee participation in the 2012 presidential election. “In 2012,” he said, “interest in absentee voting increased as Election Day got closer, and during the last two weeks, we were getting as many as 2,000 absentee voters per day.”

Are there really that many people who fit the requirements?

My conclusion is that there’s probably a lot of “wink-wink, nudge-nudge,” in the absentee voting system here in Missouri. To me, a better way would be to offer some early voting days and thereby decriminalize the loophole wriggling that everybody knows is happening.

The post Absentee voting in Missouri: Legit, or “wink-wink, nudge-nudge?” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you want to prevent certain people from voting, you’ve got a lot of options. Some are legal; some are not. Most of us are familiar with the proliferating tactic of requiring photo IDs that may be hard to get for certain parts of the population [mostly low-income and most often Democratic voters].  Alongside that strategy is the one we saw most recently, in the 2016 Arizona Democratic primary. That’s where the director of elections, in an supposedly cost-cutting move, reduced the number of polling places in Maricopa County, from 600 to 20.

But there are a lot more tactics to choose from. Here’s a brief roundup, gleaned from Wikipedia, of some other dirty-tricks, voter-suppression tactics in play in recent years.

In the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal, Republican officials attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by paying professional telemarketers in Idaho to make repeated hang-up calls to the telephone numbers used by the Democratic Party’s ride-to-the-polls phone lines on election day. By tying up the lines, voters seeking rides from the Democratic Party would have more difficulty reaching the party to ask for transportation to and from their polling places

In the 2004 presidential election,

Allegations surfaced in several states that a private group, Voters Outreach of America, which had been empowered by the individual states, had collected and submitted Republican voter registration forms while inappropriately discarding voter registration forms where the new voter had chosen to register with the Democratic Party. Such people would believe they had registered to vote, and would only discover on election day that they were not registered and could not cast a ballot.

In 2006,

Four employees of the John Kerry campaign were convicted of slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the Wisconsin state Republican Party which were to be used for driving Republican voters and monitors to the polls. At the campaign workers’ sentencing, Judge Michael B. Brennan told the defendants, “Voter suppression has no place in our country. Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens.”

In the Virginia Senate election

• Democratic voters received calls incorrectly informing them voting will lead to arrest.
• Widespread calls fraudulently claiming to be “[Democratic Senate candidate Jim] Webb Volunteers,” falsely telling voters their voting location had changed.
• Fliers paid for by the Republican Party, stating “SKIP THIS ELECTION” that allegedly attempted to suppress African-American turnout.

 

In 2008,

In Michigan, the Republican party used a “caging scheme,” in which the party planned to use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls. The Obama campaign sued, and a Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls.

In Montana, the Republican Lieutenant Governor accused the Montana Republican Party of engaging in a similar voter caging scheme, to purge 6,000 voters from three counties that trend Democratic. The purges included war veterans and active duty soldiers.

In Wisconsin, the Republican Party attempted to have all 60,000 voters in the heavily Democratic city of Milwaukee who had registered since January 1, 2006, deleted from the voter rolls. The requests were rejected by the Milwaukee Election Commission.

In 2010,

In the Maryland gubernatorial election , the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that “the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression”, in the form of having “African-American voters stay home.” To that end, the Republicans placed thousands of Election Day robocalls to Democratic voters, telling them that the Democratic candidate, Martin O’Malley, had won, although in fact the polls were still open for some two more hours. The Republicans’ call, worded to seem as if it came from Democrats, told the voters, “Relax. Everything’s fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.” The calls reached 112,000 voters in majority-African American areas.

And these are just the most egregious examples that received press attention. No doubt, there are many more schemes at play. I personally witnessed an example  while serving as an election judge in the 2012 presidential election. The judge sitting next to me kept insisting that voters [who had already been checked in at the ID station] had to show HER their photo ID [which is not required in my state]. Then, she called her party supervisor [Republican] to complain that “they’re letting people vote here without photo ID.”  [Her supervisor, to his credit, explained that photo ID was not required.]  But she continued to do her best to suppress as many voters as possible.

How many other small-bore attempts like that one are happening? Apparently, for some people intent on cheating people out of their right to vote, there are no tactics too petty or sneaky.

Vigilance.

The post 50 ways to cheat your voters appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s absolutely true that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans obstructed every Democratic initiative. On the other hand, Democrats didn’t give people a reason to go to the polls. Why should Democrats bother to vote when its clear their party chooses the needs of banks and corporations over the needs of its constituents?

Whatever you think of Ralph Nader, he made a lot of sense when he spoke with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now about Democratic losses in the midterm elections. He says there are plenty of excuses being made like being outspent by Republicans, and Republican obstructionism, but they don’t hold water.

The Democrats raised huge amounts of money this time around, and in 2012 . . . plenty of money to win. [But] . . . they didn’t get their own voters out, because although they finally came around to the only issue that Politico said is getting traction for the Democrats—raising the minimum wage for 30 million people, who are paid less now than workers in 1968 adjusted for inflation, 30 million people and their families, a lot of voters—they didn’t make it a big enough issue. . .

We got a president who spent almost two weeks in salons, from New York and Maine and San Francisco and Los Angeles, raising money for the Democrats, not barnstorming the country on an issue that has . . .80 percent support. . . .So, . . .they didn’t have a policy. They didn’t have an agenda. They didn’t have the message. They had tons of money to put on insipid television ads that didn’t move the needle. . .

In other words, people back home are not given enough reason to vote for the Democrats. But they’re given plenty of emotional reason to vote for the Republicans because of all the social issues—the school prayer, the reproductive rights, the gun control. The Democrats have dropped the economic issue that won election after election for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. They can no longer defend our country against the most militaristic, corporatist, cruel, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-women, even anti-children party—the Republican Party.

A lot of soul searching is needed, and we shouldn’t let Citizens United and voting restriction laws . . . be used as alibis by the Democrats in Congress.

“Soul searching,” of course, means actually adopting a progressive agenda—one that serves the majority of Americans. And that means being willing to give up the corporate gravy train—the big campaign contributions, and the lucrative jobs upon leaving office. Most (although not all) Democrats are hooked into this money/power revolving door, so I don’t expect the money influence in the party to change, on its own, any time soon.

But there is some good news coming out of the midterms. The Republican “sweep” of Congress in no way represents the underlying mood of the country. Democratic losses came from a cocktail of Republican voter suppression and glaring Democratic Party policy failures.

While Republicans were claiming a mandate on the national level, there were plenty of local progressive victories that reveal a growing left-leaning electorate. If you’re bummed about the midterms, this laundry list of progressive victories complied by Bill Moyers.com will cheer you up. The dysfunctional, corporate-owned Democratic Party needs to sit up and take notice.

David beats Goliath in Richmond, California

Richmond, California is a small town of 100,000 and the home of Richmond Chevron refinery. For a hundred years, Chevron owned the Richmond city council. Then, in 2007, locals put forward a progressive movement to run local progressive candidates who pledged not to take a penny from corporations. Running on very little money, they won the mayor’s seat and five other local elections based on a progressive, anti-corporate message. Since then, the progressive controlled city council has accomplished a lot, including passing a $13 minimum wage and gaining an additional $114 million in taxes from Chevron. This year progressive candidates won again against extremely well funded Chevron-backed candidates. Chevron and Wall Street money failed to drive progressives out of office.

Richmond is a microcosm of what could happen on a larger scale in this country if progressives became focused and organized.

Minimum Wage measures pass in four red states

Voters in four “red” states—Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska and South Dakota—approved measures on Tuesday to raise the minimum wage. They did this against the well-funded opposition big business groups. As a result, over 1.7 million workers will be getting a raise.

These victories didn’t come out of nowhere. Increasing grassroots pressure and demonstrations by low-wage workers around the country—especially employees of fast-food chains and Walmart—helped bring the issue to the attention of the wider public. Polls show that most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, support an increase in the federal minimum wage.

Worker’s rights expanded in two states

In Massachusetts a ballot measure passed giving paid sick days to about million workers. In Montclair and Trenton, New Jersey, voters passed ballot initiatives expanding paid sick leave to food service, childcare, and home health care workers.

Fetal personhood proposals defeated in Colorado and North Dakota

Planned Parenthood and its allies organized to beat back this extreme assault on women’s rights.

California voters say no to the prison-industrial-complex 

More than two-thirds of California voters approved revising some of the lowest-level petty crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. This was a major victory against the prison-industrial complex and the growing number of private corporations that now run state prisons and support legislation to incarcerate as many people as possible. Money for incarceration is money drained away from schools and other social needs.

Gun reform beats the NRA

Washington state voters defeated the National Rifle Association by approving a ballot measure to impose criminal background checks on people who purchase firearms online or at gun shows.

Soda tax passes in Berkeley California

Three quarters of voters in Berkeley, California adopted a tax on soda and sugary drinks to combat diabetes and other illness. The American Beverage Association spent $2.1 million to oppose the soda tax through full-page newspaper ads, television and radio spots, and telephone and door-to-door canvassing.

The “yes” campaign spent only $273,000, primarily on door-to-door canvassing and phone calls.

Public employees win in Arizona

Arizona voters defeated Proposition 487, put on the ballot by business and Republican interest groups to undermine public employee pensions.

Pot legalized in Oregon and Washington, DC

In Oregon, voters legalized recreational use of marijuana, joining Washington state and Colorado, who adopted similar measures in 2012. In Washington, DC, voters passed a measure to let residents grow cannabis indoors and possess as much as two ounces.

The post Midterms: Democratic Party didn’t give people a reason to vote appeared first on Occasional Planet.