DUCKPOND

Should it have been required, we are reminded tha the United States has the original horse and buggy constitution.
(more…)

The Canadian election seem to have been anti-climatic. The Conservative Government improved its numbers in the House of Commons, but failed to get a sufficient number of MP’s to govern in its own right.
(more…)

Wither representative democracy? The crass behavior of the former State Labor Government and the criminal behavior of some players at the local level, in particular property developers, led to the sacking of the Wollongong City Council, and the introduction of the notion of community democracy – “democracy in the deep sense”.
(more…)

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has called an early election for 14 October. He did so apparently despite having a bill for fixed terms that was voted down by the Canadian Senate.
(more…)

The Reichstag fire on 27 February 1933 was a critical turning point in the rise of Hitler and National Socialism in Germany. It achieved more for the Nazis than they were ever able to achieve at the ballot box. While the unemployed Dutch bricklayer was found inside the building was summarily executed for purportedly lighting the fire.

Photo via Speigel Online
(more…)

While I would suggest that in his broad brush picture he does not get the politics right, E J Dionne may well be on to something with his contention that globalization is undermining social democracy. As I have noted previously, I believe that The Guardian got the politics right with respect to the French election, and given the handicaps that she was working with, Segolene Royal did well, although clearly defeated. And here I am talking about economics again. So I must repeat again my qualification that that is subject, along with most others is something that I do not know anything worthwhile about, but in this case I am merely repeating the opinion of others. E J Dionne’s piece was originally in The Washington Post, and republished at Truthdig.

(more…)

President Bush’s tour through selected destinations in Latin America is being shadowed by President Chavez of Venezuela. Bush bounced from Brazil, where he predictably triggered counter demonstrations, to Bolivia via Uruguay, to Columbia, then Mexico and finally home where is odds on to win a popularity contest with the Dixie Chicks. Chavez is holding public meetings in adjoining countries. Deutsche Wella has a report.

And here are the DC’s at New York’s Madison Square Garden:

This thing could catch on. John Howard flies to Tokyo, unnamed Pacific leaders flies to Beijing. And it is, and could be, quite fun.

In the recent midterm elections, one ballot question in Massachusetts proposed the adoption of fusion voting. This voting method is modification of the simple plurality, winner take all, voting system that allows minor parties and interest groups to appear on the ballot paper nominating a candidate of a major party. For example in the recent election in New York, voters for The Working Families Party recorded their votes, which were then added to the total won by their nominee Senator Hilary Clinton. The Massachusetts initiative was defeated by a 65% No vote.

Thus it seems that inertia and the status quo won over change. At least two major newspapers expressed opposition. The Boston Herald merely said that this modification to the two party system would benefit the left, a more significant argument than it first appears. The Boston Globe premised its editorial on three grounds. They argued that competition between the major parties could be better achieved by other measures, such as campaign finance reform, as if parties in a democracy were not about other values such as participation, access to power, interest aggregation, and the formulation of government policies and programs. They argued that voters would become confused, a doubtful proposition since voters usually revel in any opportunity to cast strategic votes. Then they suggested, as the experience in New York shows, that such voting would be used to buy favors, thus ignoring the fact that size of the campaign chest held by the major parties is taken as a direct indicator of the number of votes that will be won.

According to Wikipedia:

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late 19th century, however, as minor political parties such as the People’s Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, Republican-dominated state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: “We don’t propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don’t intend to fight all creation.” (Spoiling for a Fight, 227-228). By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only seven states.

Democrats, as in North Carolina, also successfully sought to make fusion voting illegal, and thereby critically weaken their opponents.

In the Tar Heel State [in the last decade of the nineteenth century], the Populist and Republican parties disagreed on certain national issues, such as the tariff, the gold standard, and silver coinage. The parties, however, agreed on many state issues, including education, voting rights, and restoring the charter of the Farmers’ Alliance.

It became apparent in 1892, when Democrat Elias Carr (1839-1900) won only a plurality of 48.3% votes in the three-way race for governor, that Democrats were in trouble. Rather than entertain growing Populist demands for economic reform, county self-rule, and increased educational funding, the Democratic legislature spitefully repealed the charter of the North Carolina Farmers’ Alliance (which was blamed for the emergence of the Populist Party) and instituted tighter restrictions on the election process.

On August 1, 1894, the Populist Party convention endorsed a combined slate for state offices. On August 30, the Republican Party convention followed suit. The die was cast.

In the 1894 election, the Fusion alliance of Populists and Republicans swept the state. Fusionists won control of the legislature, elected several Congressmen, and secured some statewide offices. . . Perhaps the greatest legislation of Fusionist rule was ensuring that all political parties were represented by election judges at the polls and requiring designated colors and party insignias on ballots so that the illiterate had a political voice. The reforms were highly successful and popular. The election law alone led to an increase of registered voters by over 80,000. . .
In November, the Fusion legislative victory was impressively larger than in 1894. The entire statewide slate of Fusionist administrative officers was elected. Republican Daniel L. Russell handily won election as governor.For the first time since Reconstruction, Democrats were totally out of power. There were only twenty-six Democrats in the 120-member House, and only seven in the fifty-member Senate. All statewide offices were in the hands of Republicans or Populists.

One of the most interesting aspects of Populist-Republican Fusion rule was the service of African American office holders. There were approximately 1,000 elected or appointed black officials, including Congressman George H. White (1852-1918). Although black Tar Heels were still underrepresented, the presence of black officials troubled Democratic white supremacists.

In the 1898 “White Supremacy Campaign,” led by future U.S. Senator Furnifold M. Simmons (1854-1940), chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, the Democratic Party used identity politics to regain power. “Negro rule” and “Negro domination” became the catchphrases of the campaign. Josephus Daniels (1862-1948), editor of the Raleigh News and Observer, was the unabashed press spokesman for white supremacy. Red Shirts, reminiscent of the Klan, intimidated blacks and thereby limited the number of Republican votes.

Shortly after a resounding victory, Democrats disfranchised African Americans and thereby ended a possible Republican resurgence.

Thus this story suggests that it was not so much that fusion caused confusion to voters, or otherwise did not work, but that it worked too well for the powers that were dislodged, whether they were Democrats or Republicans.

The problems of the existing voting systems typically go unnoticed, as does history. In the last two elections in the United States, the recent midterm and the presidential election, 40% of the potential voting population cast ballots. One way to increase participation might be to increase the viability and vitality of third parties providing challenge to entrenched power holders from fringe groups whose numbers are not effectively counted since perhaps many of them do not vote. In 1992, Ross Perot and the Progress Party, achieved 19% of the vote in the presidential election, but in the past two elections only 2% voted for minor parties. Given the winner take all voting system, voting for minor parties is widely considered a wasted vote.

Despite the failure in Massachusetts, fusion is alive and well in New York, despite the criticisms from The Boston Globe. The Working Families Party, which sounds to me like a Labor Party, is achieving potential tangible and intangible gains for its members. They report access to candidates and office holders which would otherwise not be so accessible. Furthermore, I was struck by Hilary Clinton’s victory speech, which seems to me to provide evidence that their policy agenda is taken seriously.

Senator Clinton’s speech is here:

The question for an office holder with fusion becomes the margin of victory, because in this system a minor party can withdraw its support or decide not to give it

It is true that fusion voting, as a modification to the first past the post system, is seen as inferior to other potential voting systems, including preferential voting. And as Ross Perot demonstrated in 1992, and to some extent Senator Lieberman demonstrated in Connecticut this year, with the support of New York Mayor Bloomsberg’s machine, third parties do not lack for support.

Voting systems are not accidents. They are the products of history, of circumstances and opportunistic choices, as much as constitutional arrangements. There is a conflict between top-down legislative measures, which typically restrict voting, and bottom-up democratic initiatives. The sticking point is that bottom-up electoral reform is essentially about providing rights for minorities, or those otherwise marginalized by the existing status quo. So achieving 35% for the Ballot Question in Massachusetts was about as much as could be expected.

The Independent has some numbers in its report with references:

Almost 79 million people voted in Tuesday’s election, with Democrats drawing more support than Republicans for the first time in a mid-term election since 1990.

The overall turnout rate, reflecting a percentage of voting age population, was 40.4 per cent, compared with 39.7 per cent in 2002, according to an Associated Press vote count and an analysis by American University’s Centre for the Study of the American Electorate.

It seems that American elections, especially midterm ones, seem to be determined by who turns out and who decides to stay at home.

Postscript:

This election has been significant and very dramatic in changing control of Congress. I cannot get past the fact that only 40% of the electorate participated – how democratic is that? 

Here is a summary of the results, via Political Animal (Kevin Drum)

Assuming these figures hold, and they are consistent with the polls, they represent a change in dynamics in American politics with flow-on effects especially for Britain and Australia. Blair, it is to be hoped, will eventually go, but Howard will need to recalibrate the message, even as the Republican playbook recordings have developed static. Who knows what congressional oversight might uncover?

Postscript: 09 November 2006

BBC News confirms that the Democrats have taken Virginia and completed a rout of the Republicans when the House results are taken into consideration. It is not necessary to be an expert in American politics to realize the truth of this contention it hardly matters, subject always now with two independent senators that the Democracts have the numercial advantage, and given the fact, as I have come to realize that executive oversight is not exercised primarily on the floor of the chamber, but through the committee system.

The fact that ABC News Online runs a story suggesting that the two sides of Australian politics are in dispute over the outcome seems witless to say the least. No doubt in the spirit of Fox News they are attempting under their new managerial/government directive to fair and balanced.

With 62% of the vote counted, Daniel Ortega is polling 39% of the vote in a field of five. Should this lead be maintained, Ortega will avoid the run off election and ascend to the presidency of Nicaragua, much to the chargin of the Americans.

His opponents are claiming election irregularities. The claim has been denied by the Carter election oversight group.

It appears to me that Nicaragua has a winner-take-all voting system with provision for a run off election if the leading candidate does not obtain 35% of the vote.

The Independent says the election will be an embarrassment to the Americans, who actively campaigned against Ortega. The Washington Post has a slightly different spin:

If the results from Sunday’s vote hold, they will mark a stunning comeback for the Cold War icon, who has failed twice to regain power since 1990, when voters disillusioned by a decade-long war with U.S.-backed insurgents and government abuses cast his Sandinista National Liberation Front from office.

Ortega’s return to Nicaragua’s presidency would also constitute an embarrassing setback for the Bush administration. American officials have recently made thinly veiled threats that the United States would impose economic sanctions and other punitive measures if Ortega was reelected, arguing that Ortega has not changed despite his embrace of Catholicism, pronouncements in favor of a market economy and efforts to cast himself as the candidate of “reconciliation.”

U.S. officials appeared motivated in part by concerns that Ortega would be an eager partner in pushing an anti-American alliance with Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez. Ortega’s return is particularly galling to many in the Bush administration who devoted their careers to getting rid of him in the 1980s.

How the world has changed since Abraham Lincoln said in Lawrenceburg, Indiana on, February 12, 1861

If the politicians and leaders of parties were as true as the people, there would be little fear that the peace of the country would be disturbed. I have been selected to fill an important office for a brief period, and am now, in your eyes, invested with an influence which will soon pass away; but should my administration prove to be a very wicked one, or what is more probable, a very foolish one, if you, the people, are but true to yourselves and to the Constitution, there is but little harm I can do, thank God!

That confidence might be supposing that Congress and the Supreme Court were acting as checks and balances, and before all democracies became suspectible to intimidation, duckspeak and propaganda.

Hence the contemporary definition of a lame duck presidency, or government, as not so much a president with a strangled vocal chords of the inarticulate or the non-contemplative, but rather one subject to legislative and legal accountability, which ought to be the normal course of events.

In these matters, voting merely changes the actors, not the script.

Source: Quotation from Malcolm Muggeridge reviewing the 1964 Johnson presidential campaign via BBC News.

As far as I can tell the tide, based on opinion polling, has been running for the Democrats in these midterm elections. Given the broken voting system in the United States there will be adjustment for the Republicans in the actual figures.

Nevertheless, there is a an interesting possibility, given present opinion polling, that the Senate will be split with fifty senators for each of the major parties. As far as I know there is no precedent. Aside from the fact there will would have to be trading and deals for the Chairmanship of committees, this outcome, I would guess, would make for a Senate of independents. In such an outcome, George Bush would be more of a lame duck than he would otherwise be?

Postscript: 02 November 2006
It is still speculation, but in this situation  as stated the Vice President would have the deciding vote, making it effectively a win for the Republicans. I suspect it would be harder to party control, and a tendency for independent voting. Above all it would be a unique outcome.

The midterm elections, we are told, are usually characterized by a lower turnout than is usual for US elections. Perhaps this piece of conventional wisdom may be turned on its head this year, at least in some of the close Senate and House races. The accepted wisdom is that the Republicans are better at turning out the vote than the Democrats.

From the view of an external viewer, the interest will be the effect that Iraq wreck has on the vote. On this matter, Juan Cole believes that Red State religious traditionalists will turn on the Republicans. If he is correct, this will represent a electoral seismic shift in political alignments.

The state of play is suggested here at electoral-vote.com, which has at this moment.(via History Unfolding) Based on various opinion polling, the Republicans ahead by three in the Senate, underlining the importance of the media-based propaganda in Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee, and the Democrats appear set to take the majority in the House of Representatives. These results are supposedly updated daily.

Looking at the map, the significance of the Republicans overturning the Democrat gerrymander in Texas seems apparent.

The paucity of choice with respect to selection of political parties and representation never seems to occur to American commentators.

Postscript: 30 October 2006.

Another striking observation from an Australian perspective is that some States are not holding Senate elections this year. I just took it for granted that each State has two senators and one would be elected in each consecutive election. And yet I am not aware of any States holding elections for two Senate positions.

Of course, we have twelve senators from each State and two from each Territory with half-Senate elections currently synchronized with elections for the House of Representatives. Senators have six year terms.

So you will appreciate why I am slightly confused.

And here is the answer, via Wikipedia:

Senators serve for six-year terms that are staggered so elections are held for approximately one-third of the seats (a “class“) every second year.

I would never had realized that my general knowledge was lacking without seeing the visual presentation of the State Senate races.