Tag: elections

Categories
government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall

Temporal Redistricting

Sneaky Democracy

They must be proud of themselves, the Little Rock insiders who pushed through a vote on a bond measure in hot-​as-​Hades mid-July.

Less than 4 percent of eligible voters turned out for the off-​cycle exercise in 100-​degree democracy. The measure, which refinances previous library bonds and puts an influx of cash into Little Rock public library branches, passed with over four-​fifths of the minuscule turnout.

Now, as bond measures go, this one sure seems like a dream; its advocates say it will reduce, not increase, taxes.

But that July 14 vote!

“There was no organized opposition to the bond refinancing campaign,” we read, courtesy of the Arkansas Democrat-​Gazette. “Still, Pulaski County Election Commission Executive Director Bryan Poe expected a higher voter turnout.” He thought they would get at least 6,000 voters. Still, even that many votes would have amounted to less than 5 percent of the over 126,000 registered city voters.

It certainly wasn’t any surprise, then, that turnout would be tiny and democratic decision-​making left to a tiny fraction of the public.

Detect a certain odor?

It stinks of redistricting. When politicians redistrict voters so that predictable partisan outcomes can be reached — somehow to the benefit of those doing the redistricting — the insiders are not really trying to provide representation to voters. They are trying to continue their business as usual.

“Insiders know best”?

By selecting a summer date for the vote, insiders in effect redistrict the voters using time as the gerrymandering boundary. Call it temporal redistricting, advantaging those with the most at stake in the vote’s outcome.

Call it democracy for the 1 (or 3½) percent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Sneaky Democracy

 

Categories
term limits

Universal Bull

Term Limits

“We have term limits, they’re called elections.”

So goes one argument, famously paraphrased by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for an African Union summit: “It is a democracy. If people want a leader to continue, let him continue.”

“All over the world,” Owen Bennett-​Jones writes at BBC​.com, “leaders…are reluctant to give up power.” He points to a number of cases, mainly in nations struggling for democratic stability:

  • “The most striking current example,” according to Bennett-​Jones, “is Burundi’s President Pierre Nkurunziza who, amidst violent opposition, is campaigning for a third term in office despite the constitution saying he can only have two.” The president’s spokesman acknowledged, “ Nkurunziza indeed believes he is president by divine will.”
  • In Burkina Faso, thousands clogged the streets after the 27-​year presidential incumbent, Blaise Compaore, schemed to evade a constitutional term limit on his office. But facing unrelenting pressure, Compaore soon stepped down.
  • Speaking about his campaign to have the parliament eliminate term limits so he can run for re-​election, Ecuador’s socialist President Rafael Correa told reporters, “The easiest thing would be for me to retire in 2017 as one of the best presidents in our history, as the people refer to me.” Correa’s decision to reluctantly remain in power has sparked protests across the country.

It is easy to recognize the sad abuse of power by these “third world” strongmen. Yet, we are continually fighting politicians in “first world” America.

When will politicians ever learn?

When the people are organized enough to assert power over those politicians … in Ecuador … Burundi … and the good ol’ US of A.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Term Limits

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture

Bosworth Sentenced

Dr. Annette Bosworth

Last week, Judge John Brown sentenced Dr. Annette Bosworth, a neophyte candidate for U.S. Senate from South Dakota, to twelve concurrent two-​year prison terms … to be suspended provided she successfully completes three years of probation, pays the cost of her prosecution, and performs 500 hours of community service providing medical care to the poor.

Note: that final punishment is what she has been doing on her own for years, and is sort of why she is in this mess in the first place.

The case isn’t an innocent person being unjustly accused. I’ve met Annette Bosworth; I’m proud to call her a friend. But she wasn’t exactly innocent. She got bad advice and made a faulty decision to sign as the circulator of petitions when not every signature was affixed in her presence.

That’s a mistake. It shouldn’t be a felony.

The bigger issue? The over-​the-​top prosecution. Attorney General Marty Jackley’s heavy-​handed, multi-​felony approach sends a chilling message to anyone in South Dakota considering political participation.

More ominous is the apparent long-​running personal feud between Jackley and Bosworth. In a statement after her sentencing, Jackley declared that Bosworth had “crossed the line of exasperation.”

But it is South Dakotans who should be exasperated with the AG: “Jackley had said before her sentencing,” the Capitol Journal reported, “that he might recommend prison time depending on Bosworth’s attitude after conviction.”

Meanwhile, State Rep. Steve Hickey, a chief Bosworth accuser, appears to have committed her same sin: signing a petition as circulator and not witnessing each signature. Jackley hasn’t bothered to investigate, but defensively told reporters, “I’ve never said that I won’t look into it.”

Tellingly, Mr. Hickey just resigned his seat in the legislature.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Previous commentary:

Printable PDF

Dr. Annette Bosworth

 

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies too much government

The Ultimate Result of Campaign Finance Regs

Last Thursday I tried to be magnanimous. Of campaign finance regulation proponents, I wrote, “I suppose a reasonable person could blanch at rich people giving money to political causes … if they objected to all super-​rich donors.”

My expectation of reciprocity was dashed at the non-​reciprocal gambits of the Koch-​hating campaign finance regulation advocates. It all really does come down to how they hate having others spend lots of money … against their causes.

Hardly democratic, that. Sorta ‘live and don’t let live.’

But they could (and will) defend themselves. They could say something like this: “We don’t like our billionaires having to give so much either. We’d like to cap our billionaires’ giving, too!”

It’s tough to have to keep up with your opponents’ spending, a pain having to give and give to get what you want and want.

We’d all like to get our way without having to spend time and money. But that doesn’t seem to be the way the world works — everything has a cost.

I sympathize. Economists call the problem of political campaign spending a “Tullock auction,” which sports no rational upper limit on spending, because winners take all.

Still, to bitch about your opponents’ spending but never your own gives away your game.

And we all know what the ultimate progressive game is: tax-​funded elections. Tightly controlled, with more and more intrusions into how citizens assemble and cooperate to promote their candidates and causes.

So if the promotion, debate, and decision process is to be government-​funded, government-​controlled, we might as well call it Socialism and be done with it.

Could such a system be biased, just possibly for the pro-​government growth side?

All mysteries solved.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

govFundedElections