Category: political challengers

Categories
ballot access national politics & policies political challengers

Question 5 Fixes Flaw

fairvote, Krist Novoselic, Nirvana, voting, democracy, illustration

This week, Krist Novoselic, rock-n-roll bassist of Nirvana fame and fellow board member of FairVote.org, appeared on Fox Business’s Kennedy to explain ranked choice voting.

Krist compared a single ranked ballot under the proposed system to two ballots under the current method. Often, a voter will mark the ballot for one candidate in the primary, and, if the candidate doesn’t make the cut, for another in the general election.

Ranked choice voting sort of collapses multi-candidate primaries and the shorter list of the general election into one, allowing voters to rank their choices so that when their first choice doesn’t make it, their less valued candidates get counted.

So if you prefer a candidate unlikely to win you aren’t “wasting” your vote by marking that candidate first, as today in most American elections, because your vote goes to your second choice.

The current system encourages “strategic voting,” where we deny our preferences to work around the defects of the electoral system. We end up voting for candidates we do not like, to avoid even worse, promoting mediocre and downright bad elected officials.

In Maine, Question 5 on the November ballot, sets up a ranked-choice ballot system for “the offices of United States Senator, United States Representative to Congress, Governor, State Senator and State Representative for elections held on or after January 1, 2018.” It has a not insignificant amount of support, from Mainers across the political spectrum.

But not from the state’s governor (and voicemail-performance-artist) Paul Le Page. He dubs it a way for “loser” candidates to get a “second chance.”

Just like a politician! He focuses on politicians’ chances not voters’ options.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

fairvote, Krist Novoselic, Nirvana, voting, democracy, illustration

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers responsibility term limits too much government U.S. Constitution

Duck/Rabbit, Maiden/Crone, and Taxes

maiden/crone, illusion, paradigm shift

Revolution! Must we?

Can’t we reform at a reasonable pace?

Well, whether we change slowly or quickly, change must occur. Today’s in-place policies are not stable.

But a better future itself must be stable. Or else it will not be better.

And a key to successful change is change in the hearts and minds of the people. The vast majority, East and West, need to shift mental gears and shift their ideological paradigms. (That is the term most famously used by Thomas Kuhn.)

Take yesterday’s story. I first heard about it from proponents of Oregon’s big business excise tax hike. They were saying that Oregon had the lowest business taxes in the union, and took that as a cue to raise taxes. I looked at it as a great political success, and one that had contributed mightily to Oregon’s remarkable economic resilience in these trying economic times.

The difference between the Higher Taxes reaction (which views low taxes as an opportunity only to raise them, and the consequences mainly as who gets the tax funds) and my reaction (which concentrates on the consequences of the expropriation, and looks to a longer period of time to gauge results) is a paradigm shift. To go from one to the other (preferably from the pro-tax to the low tax position) requires a shift in vision.

It is like what happens when you refocus on the Duck/Rabbit image, or the Maiden/Crone. Give a person some time. Be patient. And hint that a shift in perspective is warranted to see both.

And that we might gain something from a paradigm shift.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

maiden/crone, illusion, paradigm shift

 

Categories
Accountability Common Sense general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

America After November

activism, politics, elections, initiatives, president, Trump, Clinton, meme, illustration

Yesterday, I bemoaned the disaster that is this year’s presidential race. But big whup. As the LifeLock commercial rightly asks, “Why monitor a problem if you don’t fix it?”

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president. That means we have our work cut out for us. And we can’t wait for the 2020 presidential race to fix the problem. We must immediately assert citizen power to create an effective check on government-gone-wild.

So, what to do?

First, let’s admit that fixing Washington isn’t easy. We must fight the Feds through national organizations, of course, but we actually gain greater leverage by working closer to home — at local and state levels.

We need to elect mayors, governors, legislators and councilmembers in 2017 and 2018, men and women who will fight for free markets and against cronyism. And stand up to the federal government.

And where we have the power of ballot initiatives and recall, let’s use it.

By Inauguration Day, we can be changing the conversation in most of the top 25 media markets. How? By petitioning the right issues onto the ballot. By April and May, voters in those cities and counties can directly enact those reforms. Next November, Ohio and Washington state voters can weigh in with ballot initiatives.

Sadly, tragically, it’s too late to stop campaign 2016’s tornado from doing damage. The next disaster of an administration is on its way. But we can create a competing agenda to the Hillary Clinton or the Donald Trump agenda.

A pro-liberty agenda. Starting now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

activism, politics, elections, initiatives, president, Trump, Clinton, meme, illustration

 

Original (cc) photo by Niklas Hellerstedt on Flickr

Categories
general freedom insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

We Take the Bullet

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration

“[I]f someone puts a gun to your head,” argues David Boaz of the Cato Institute, “and says you have to choose between Clinton and Trump, the correct answer is, take the bullet.”

Then, proving the axiom “it can always get worse,” came Friday’s twin revelations: the Washington Post broke the story of Donald Trump caught on a hot microphone bragging about groping women, and WikiLeaks released hacked emails with unflattering revelations about Hillary Clinton “principled” duplicity.

The Clinton camp huffs about the hack of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, but denies nothing.

In those speeches for which Wall Street firms paid her millions, Clinton’s progressivism evaporates. She suggests Goldman Sachs and other large financial firms should regulate themselves, because they “know the industry better than anybody.”

While publicly bashing the rich, she privately complains before her wealthy audience about the “bias against people who have led successful . . . lives.” Moreover, Hillary explains that it’s bad “if everybody is watching” public policy being made, adding: “[Y]ou need both a public and a private position.”

And to think some folks don’t trust her.

Mr. Trump likewise confirmed our worst fears. During a 2005 taping of a television soap, he boasted that “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

And then gave a “rapey” example of what “anything” means.

This man deserves political power?

Forget which is worse. Note how much alike they are. Both seem to think they can say — even do — anything. Without consequences.

Without caring one whit about the rest of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom government transparency moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility too much government

How Insidious the Plot?

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

The story of the Wisconsin John Doe raids against conservatives, covered yesterday and the day before, is a big one. Huge. So I now continue.

The rest of the story? Recently, materials that police seized from the subjects of those dawn raids were leaked, illegally, to the Guardian newspaper — in direct violation of a court order. Yet more lawlessness.

Who leaked this information? Well, it was in the possession of the Milwaukee County prosecutors, and they haven’t alleged a Russian hack.

What’s really going on? Eric O’Keefe stated on Monday that “even though they never brought a charge, the prosecutors did achieve one of their major goals: the unlawful seizure of millions of private communications to create a searchable database of political intelligence spanning Wisconsin and the entire country.”

In short, the abusive investigation was part and parcel of a partisan effort.

State Rep. Dave Craig is urging the creation of a special legislative committee to “take sworn testimony . . . to determine whether those charged with the public trust have acted maliciously by intentionally leaking sealed materials in violation of state policy.”

It’s important that justice be done. To prevent future tyranny.

We don’t want to see a repeat of the IRS abuse of Tea Party groups without anyone being held to account.*

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Speaking of the IRS, it turns out that the head of Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (GAB) was a pal of Lois Lerner, who headed the IRS division responsible for violating the civil rights of Tea Party groups — before she took the Fifth, refusing to testify before Congress and then retiring with a six-figure pension. Further, there is evidence the GAB may have illegally provided confidential information to the IRS in hopes of getting the Feds to join in harassing these conservative groups.

 

FOR MORE ON THIS INCREDIBLE STORY

Printable PDF

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

A Morning After

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

Yesterday we celebrated the end to “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history” — the dawn police raids of the so-called John Doe investigations against conservatives alleged to have violated campaign finance regulations.

State and federal courts ruled that no laws were broken and some laws were unconstitutional — certainly Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s prosecutorial methods violated the rights of citizens the court called innocent.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, announced Monday, not to hear Chisholm’s appeal thankfully ends this particular reign of error and terror.

So what have we learned?

First, courage is contagious. Had Eric O’Keefe with the Wisconsin Club for Growth not bravely spoken out, others would have remained quiet, and the prosecutors might have gotten away with what National Review’s David French called “a pure intimidation tactic to try to terrify conservatives into silence.”

Another unmistakable conclusion: yes indeed, it can happen here.

It has.

Obviously.

And if changes are not made, it will happen again.

Reforms have already been won. Not only is the John Doe investigation shut down, the law was changed, allowing for no more John Doe attacks. The Government Accountability Board, found to have acted from partisan motives, has been completely disbanded and new ethics bodies formed.

Another avenue of correction comes through the courts. The MacIver Institute filed a class-action lawsuit against Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and others for illegally seizing documents, and Cindy Archer, whose home was raided by police, has filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Ms. Archer’s suit was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutors had immunity. But that dismissal is now on appeal before the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The prosecutors will go to court . . . as defendants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin