The Democratic Agenda

The Downing Street Memo

2005-06-16T06:37:00.000-07:00

I know most Democratic bloggers are heartbroken over the failure of the Downing Street Memo to bring down the Bush administration. I cannot understand this sentiment. The fact that Bush decided to go to war first, and decided to look at the intelligence second is obvious. He can't admit it, but everyone knows its true. There are documents going back to 1991 from members of his administration calling for regime change. Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were members of a group that took out ads in the New York Times in the 90's calling for war. That fact that Bush fixed intelligence is not and has never been a secret. The Downing Street memo is just proof of what everyone already knew, it changes nothing.

If the Senate or the House were in Democratic hands, maybe the memo would have made a difference. It could have served as the hard proof justifing a congressional investigation. But Washington is completly dominated by the GOP, and that being the case it should be no surprise that no one wants to talk about things they already know and could hurt them in elections.

2008 Watch: Christian Right To Hold GOP Accountable

2005-06-16T06:07:00.000-07:00

A recent article in USA Today highlights a claim by various Christian Right groups that any GOP candidate seeking the presidential nomination will have to go through them. Although it might seem counterintuitive, Democrats should welcome the Christian Right's growing influence in the GOP. As the recent fights over judicial nominations has shown, mainstream Americans are growing tired of the Christian Right's agenda. Although much is made of the ascent of the "values voter", White Protestant evangelicals are a minority in America, and their percentage of the population is shrinking as immigration diversifies the religious makeup of the country.

Bush has only used evangelicals successfully because he has kept them on a short leash, promising them the moon, and giving them pretty much nothing. (Where's the anti-gay marriage amendment, for example?) The hard Right desperately wants to break free of these restraints. Should they succeed in forcing their reactionary agenda upon the Republican party, the moderates that make up the bulk of the electorate will flock to the Democrats. 2008 could be 1964 all over again.

New Labor

2005-06-15T19:50:00.000-07:00

Five of the largest labor unions in the AFL-CIO, representing 40% of its members today formed a new federation aimed at pressuring the entire AFL-CIO to adpot reforms geared towards increasing membership. Should the AFL-CIO reject these reforms, this new federation may bolt, splitting the labor movement.

The five unions, Service Employees International Union(SEIU), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Laborers' International Union of North America, are opposed to AFL-CIO president John Sweeny's strategy of focusing money on political organization, rather then steming the long decline of union membership in America. Of all the unions in the AFL-CIO, only the SEIU, under its firey president Andy Stern, is adding members.

Because unions are such a vital pillar of Democratic support, forming about a quarter ofthe electorate and voting Democratic by two-thirds, any shakeup in the union world is of vital importance to the Democratic party. The unity of the labor movement is not the most important issue here, however. If labor cannot reverse its massive declines soon, it will be a spent force. Andy Stern has shown he knows how to orgainze, and putting him at the head of a new federation should add some competition and vitality to the labor movement that should be encouraged.

The largest reason why unions haven't been adding members, however, is the anti-union laws that have been in place since the Regan administration. Should the Democrats ever get into power again, they may feel obliged to the unions to pass legislation to encourage membership gains. Until then, its time to see what Andy Stern can do shake things up.

2008 Watch: Richardson Speaks in New Hampshire

2005-06-13T00:28:00.000-07:00

New Mexico Governor Bill Richarson spent the weekend in New Hampshire speaking to various political and community groups. Richardson seemed to be signaling his intention to run in 2008, and jokingly told a mostly Hispanic audience in English that he wouldn't, and in Spanish that he would. The governor also distanced himself from criticism of DNC chair Howard Dean, telling a radio audience that Dean's comments were unwise, but that "he is a good chairman".

US Historical Balance of Power

2005-06-12T06:09:00.000-07:00

Balance of Power 2005

2005-06-12T03:23:00.000-07:00

Senate 2006: Harris To Run In Florida

2005-06-12T01:50:00.000-07:00

Katherine Harris announced this week that she plans on seeking the US Senate seat currently held by Democrat Bill Nelson. Such a polarizing figure should get both bases excited for the election, but I have a feeling such a contraversial candidate will give Democrats the advantage among moderates and independants.

Senate 2006: Map

2005-04-30T10:43:00.000-07:00

Earth Day

2005-04-23T03:32:00.000-07:00

Today is a good day to reflect on the global warming debate. I am still shocked to see some conservative commentators and bloggers to be arguing that global warming doesn't exist, or worse that it is a deliberate hoax. I was glad to see this week that Mother Jones magazine has run an article explaning why this "debate" still exists. It turns out that one oil company, ExxonMobil, has funded the entire "global warming dosen't exist" enterprise. Every scientist. Every paper. Funded with Exxon money. This wasn't too much of a shock to me, but it does indeed boggle the mind that some people actually buy into this "science", when it is so obviously perverted to serve the needs of the oil industry.

The Italian Victory

2005-04-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

Of the European governments who supported George Bush's war in Iraq, Italy was second only to the United Kingdom in backing up its support with real commitments of troops and supplies on the ground. This position did not endear Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to the Italian people, and they showed their displeasure earlier this month at regional elections. Berlusconi's conservative coalition was massacred, loosing control of six of the eight regions they governed, and taking none from the center-left opposition. The losses were so massive that a party in Berlusconi's coalition withdrew its support for his government, forcing his resignation. Mr. Berlusconi is now trying to hobble together a new government, hoping to make it last until the next elections are due in 2006. However if he fails to do so, elections could be called in the coming months, with victory for the left assured. Either way Berlusconi's days of dominating the political agenda in Italy are over.

The fall of Berlusconi is a great victory for democracy and justice. Italy's richest man, Mr. Berlusconi bought his way into the premiership. As prime minister he controlled nearly all the media outlets in Italy, controlling the state-owned stations through his premiership and most of the privately owned ones through his own investments. He abused this massive power for political gain. He was often charged with corruption, and was only let off the hook because of a special law his government passed to prevent his case from going to trial. His support for Bush's failed foreign policy was unwavering. The first Italian troops to die in combat since the Second World War died over his decision to send them to Iraq. There was something chillingly autocratic about him. The Economist magazine even called to resign years ago, a suggestion he took as an invitation to sue the respected British newsweekly. He was in coalition with the descendant to Italy's fascist party.

All over Europe rightist and authoritarian governments are falling. Spain and Ukraine offer the latest examples. Another victory for the left in Italy and another crushing defeat for the right in Britain, two of the EU's "big four", would signal the beginning of the end for conservatism in Europe.

The Activist Judges

2005-04-19T21:45:00.000-07:00

Conservatives don't like it when things don't go their way. Case in point is conservative anger over the so called "activist" judiciary. Conservatives argue that judicial decisions they don't agree with, such as Roe v. Wade, are poorly constructed because they are not written by "strict constructionists", judges who only interpret the exact wording of the constitution, and do not adapt it to new circumstances.

There are two things wrong with this argument. The First is that the adaptation of constitutional principles, even those not specifically enumerated in the constitution, is essential. The framers of the constitution had no concept of such issues as medically safe abortions, wiretapping, "enemy combatants", or desegregated public schools. These things simply did not exist at the time the constitution was written, thus the fact that the constitution makes no mention of something such as abortion does not prove the framers intended to deny citizens the right to have one. In order to remain relevant, the constitution must adapt.

The second fallacy of the conservative argument is to claim that judicial decisions that adapt the constitution to new circumstances always favor liberal ideals. The constitution says nothing about corporate personhood, yet the Supreme Court arbitrarily declared that corporations are legal persons, protected by the constitution. The constitution says nothing about the right of an employer to pay their workers whatever they want, yet for decades the Supreme Court ruled that the federal minimum wage was unconstitutional because it denied employers this "constitutional" right. The constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the authority to decide a disputed presidential election, and yet that is precisely what they did in Bush v. Gore. I didn't hear any conservatives complaining then.

The fact is that when conservatives disagree with court rulings, they attack the court's integrity. When the agree with court rulings, they are silent on the matter. Its a blatant case of hypocrisy, but their massive media machine has made the myth of the "activist judiciary" so powerful, even the average layperson is now inclined to agree that the courts are "out of control". This is a very dangerous state of affairs, threatening the separation of powers. In fact some are threatening more than that, with a Republican United States Senator recently making veiled threats on the lives of judges on the Senate floor. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Republicans have been able to make the judges an issue. Fortunately for Democrats, the debate of the judiciary is an easy one to win, for the conservative's hypocrisies are so glaring. All we need to do is engage in the debate.

More To Explore:
NYT Op/ED

The Western Agenda

2005-04-18T00:48:00.000-07:00

The mainstream media is now touting what many western Democrats have been saying for years, that the future of the Democratic party lies to the West of the Mississippi. A very good recent article in the L.A. Times highlights the Democrats efforts to make inroads in the West

British Elections

2005-04-05T15:54:00.000-07:00

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced today that he will ask the Queen to hold parliamentary elections on May 5th. This will be an extraordinary election, the first time Tony Blair's Labour Party will face the polls after its unpopular decision to take the UK to war in Iraq.

Traditionally the Labour Party has been the "left" in British politics, corresponding to the Democratic party in the US, and the Conservative Party has been the "right", corresponding to the Republican party in the US. As the Iraq war illustrates, however, the Labour party has moved right in recent years becoming more centrist than anything else. The space on the left is now being occupied by the Liberal Democrats, a free-market, pro-environment, pro-civil liberties party led by the Scottish Charles Kennedy. Many on the left who are disaffected with Labour's drift to the right are thinking about voting LibDem this time around.

Although Labour is almost guaranteed to win the election,(due to the perverse voting system Britain uses) the real fight is for second place. If the LibDems can garner enough support they may overtake the Conservatives as the primary opposition party to Labour. The Labour party has unfortunately left its roots as the defender of workers and enemy to imperialism. It now has made the dangerous mistake of sending British soldiers to Iraq and has bungled badly on terrorism where its scaremongering and blatant disrespect for civil liberties show that it is a party badly in need of a kicking. The United Kingdom has no written constitution to guarantee the rights of individuals, as we do in the United States. Of the three parties going to the polls on May 5th only the Liberal Democrats oppose the Labour government's efforts to undermine civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. For this reason alone, they deserve the support of progressives, liberals, and Democrats on this side of the Atlantic.

There is another important reason why the LibDems should receive our support. The Liberal Democrats overtaking the Conservatives may permanently shift British politics to the Left, following a trend around the globe where several important nations, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Canada, and Mexico have elected strong left-wing governments with very weak Conservative opposition. Indeed in many nations conservatism itself is dying. Right wing parties in most European nations now have positions that correspond to the Democrats' here in the US, and even then they are often in the minority. In Latin America the only right wing leader of note oversees a nation undergoing a civil war. In Asia, both Taiwan and South Korea have recently ousted their rightist authoritarian parties that governed them in the decades of dictatorship. In the developed world, only Australia and the United States seem to have truly Conservative governments, and Australia's is almost wholly supported by the Australian economy which has grown at an unbelievably fast rate in recent years.

Supporting the Liberal Democrats in this election will force the Labour government to take its commitment to liberal ideals seriously, and may spell the end for the party of harsh conservatism and Margaret Thatcher. Current polls have Tony Blair's Labour Party leading with 37% of the vote, Michael Howard's Conservatives trailing narrowly at 34%, and Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats behind with 21 % (with smaller parties totaling 8%). Although this looks bad for Labour, because of the way Britian elects its MP's, Labour is likely to retain a substantial majority despite coming almost even in the polls. The conventional wisdom is that the Liberal Democrats will rise to the polls after the start of the official campaign season, becasue their charismatic leader shines in the spotlight. Let's hope that happens.

Election 2008 Map

2005-03-26T15:35:00.000-08:00

The New Swing States: Nevada

2005-03-26T05:22:00.000-08:00

Electoral Votes: 5
Vote 2004: 51:48 Bush
Party ID: 39 Rep, 35 Dem, 26 Ind
Governor: Kenny Guin (R)

Nevada is like a fast paced version of the changes occurring in the Southwest. Its three year rate of population growth is an astonishing 12.2%, almost four times the national average. At this rate Nevada's population is set to increase greatly by 2008.

Latinos here make up about a fifth of the population, but are underrepresented at about a tenth of voters. They went for John Kerry by a healthy 60% in 2004. A concerted effort to register Latinos alone probably would have given Democrats the state in 2004, and should be a top priority for 2008.

Nevada's income demographics are interesting compared to its neighbors. In most states George Bush has won over the poorest voters with social issues, and the richest voters with his economic policies, leaving the Democrats to fight for the middle classes. Nevada however looks more like old-school economic warfare with John Kerry winning by 20 points among the poorest income groups, splitting the middle classes, and loosing the rich badly. This tendency to vote on economic interests should help the Democrats, especially as many of the recent arrivals are poorer immigrants working in the leisure industries.

The New Swing States: New Mexico

2005-03-26T05:21:00.000-08:00

Electoral Votes: 5
Vote 2004: 50:49 Bush
Party ID: Rep 33, Dem 40, Ind 27
Governor: Bill Richardson (D)

New Mexico is set apart from its neighbors to the north and west in many ways, but like the others it is a crucial swing state in 2008. New Mexico's population growth rate is actually lower than the national average, assuring that the demographics in this state divided more evenly than Florida won't change much in four years. And New Mexico already has the high percentage of Latinos residing in the state that its neighbors will see soon, the highest in the nation in fact at 42%.

Latinos in New Mexico, however, are quite different from the populations currently building in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. Many Latino families here are not recent immigrants at all, in fact a great number have roots in the state pre-dating American settlement. The conventional wisdom is that this demographic is less likely to vote Democratic because the immediate issues of immigration and poverty are not as important to them as recent arrivals, and therefore they are free to vote based on social issues, such as abortion. This wisdom is pretty much right, with John Kerry winning Latinos in New Mexico by half the margin as a nation as a whole, and actually loosing women in the state to George Bush (presumably because of New Mexican Latino women's conservative moral values.) It is also unsettling that New Mexico in 2004 showed the reversal of the national age trends, with John Kerry gaining more support among older voters and George Bush among the young.

All is not lost in New Mexico, however. The vote here was closer than anywhere in the nation in 2004, and much of John Kerry's loss here can be put upon the candidate himself. A Latino on the ticket in 2008 would most likely swing the state democratic. Governor Bill Richardson is the popular Latino governor here, and despite the fact that he could not carry the state for John Kerry, if Governor Richardson is on the 2008 ticket, New Mexico is certain to be in the Democratic column.

The New Swing States: Colorado

2005-03-26T05:19:00.000-08:00

Electoral Votes: 9
Vote 2004: 52: 47 Bush
Party ID: 38 Rep, 29 Dem, 33 Ind
Governor: Bill Owens (R)

Colorado has recently been the unlikely scene of several big Democratic victories. Democrat Ken Salazar was elected to the US Senate in 2004, and his brother was elected to the US House in a mostly rural district. The state Democratic parties also captured both houses of the Colorado legislature in 2004, for the first time in decades. There are rumors that Mr. Salazar may run for the open governorship in 2006, with Bill Owens term limited and likely seeking the presidency.

These positive trends are amplified by Colorado's changing demographics. The state already has a Latino population of 18 percent, and that is rapidly rising. In 2004, however, only 8 percent of the voters were Latino. John Kerry captured a very impressive 68% them. Any increase either in voter registration among Latino voters or the total Latino population should prove to be a major help for the Democrats. The fact that the highest profile Latino in politics represents the state in the Senate as a Democract should help keep that bloc Democratic as well.

The demographic changes in Colorado are also occuring at a rapid pace, with a healthy 6% annual population growth rate. At this rate Colorado's population is set to increase nearly 15% by 2008. The new arrivals have a stong chance of being Latino Democratic voters, and most of this population growth is occuring in the Denver/Boulder metropolitian area where Democrats are already strong. The strong rural support for the Salazar brothers may make voters outside this area more likely to consider a Democratic president as well.

Colorado last voted Democratic in a presidental election in 1992 when a large vote for Ross Perot gave the state to Bill Clinton. Recent Democratic victories at both the State and Federal level, however, and the state's strongly Democratic and fastly growing Latino population should put it in play in 2008.

The New Swing States: Arizona

2005-03-21T21:40:00.000-08:00



Electoral Votes: 10
Vote 2004: 55:44 Bush
Party ID: 44 Rep., 30 Dem., 26 Ind.
Governor: Janet Naplotanio (D)

Arizona has historically been one of the most conservative states in America, even producing the most conservative presidental candidate ever, Barry Goldwater in 1964. However, demographic trends and the fact that Arizonians elected a Democratic governor in 2002. Although several polls held the race close in 2004, Kerry lost by a disapointing 11 points. Despite that, on current trends Arizona is very much in play in 2008.

Arizona's conservativm is quite distinct from that of George Bush's. Arizonians value primarily tax-cutting, budget balancing fiscal conservatives, and not so much the Southern moral conservatives in power now. Should the Republicans nominate another Southern moralizer, such as a Bill Frist, Arizonians may warm to a fiscally resposible Democrat.

Demographic trends also favour a Democratic candidate. Arizona has also seen explosive growth in its Latino population in the past few years, and assuming the Democrats keep their historic advantage among minority groups this should put the state in play. Latinos made up 12% of Arizona's voters in 2004, and they voted for Kerry by 13 points. Latinos, however make up 25% of Arizona's voting age population and that number is set to rise rapidly. If Democrats can make a concerted effort to register latino voters in the state, that alone may win them the election. A Latino candidate at the top of the ticket may even expand their margins within the growing population.

Arizona's growing reputation as a retirement destination may also contribute to a Democratic victory in 2008. Arizona's seniors went to Bush in 2004, but by a smaller margin than the state as a whole. Many of the new retirees are from Blue states such as California and New York, and the Republicans may have a national problem on their hands with seniors in 2008 thanks to their fiddling with Social Security.

The Democrat's bigest ally may not be the particular demographic changes themselves, but the astonishing speed at which they are occuring. Arizona has a population growth rate almost triple the Unites States's average. At these rate Arizona's population will grow greatly by 2008, and many of the new arrivals will be Democratic voters. The challenge in Arizona is to assure these new arrivals will register and vote in the state. It is likely that the number of people who wanted Kerry as president was greater than 44 percent, but many of these people were not registered or did not vote as the Democrat's get out the vote effort was concentrated in Ohio, Flordia, and the other swing states. A good indication as to where the state is headed should come in 2006 when Governor Napolitano is up for reelection.

Drilling the Arctic

2005-03-21T00:27:00.000-08:00

It appears that the Bush administration will get its wish, and drilling will be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The administration has argured that this is an essential step to assuring that America will become less dependant on Middle Eastern oil. Of course rather mild measures at energy efficency, such as raising CAFE standards for automobiles or subsidizing energy efficeent appliances would be far more effective.
Despite enviromentaist's arguments to the contary, it is actually rather unclear what the effects upon wildlife in the refuge will be. In fact it is unclear weather there will be any drilling at all. Although it is assumed that any oil there may be recovered profitably, the site has not been surveyed in decades. It may turn out that the massive expenses of doing heavy industral work thousands of miles away from any major city is just unprofitable, even at today's high oil prices.
Either way its amazing that our government would actually allow oil exploration, the dirtiest of industrial activites, in an area specifically designed to protect wildlife.

Democracy in the World

2005-03-21T00:26:00.000-08:00

In the last four years there have been many new democracies created, which is obviously good news for America and the world. One might think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the two best examples of this new trend, and justification for the huge nation-building expenses the Bush administration has spent. However the democratic progress these nations have made pales in comparison to some others, such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia, that have made their transitions non-violently and without overt foreign interference. It does indeed seem that Ameria's dollars would be better spent on democracy and civil society promoting programs to provoke a democratic revolution from within, than by invading autocratic nations outright.

What Minority Party?

2005-01-30T05:36:00.000-08:00

Much can change in four years. In 2000 the Democratic party looked as if it were on the cusp of achieving dominace in American politics. The Presidency had been occupied by a Democrat for eight years, the democrats had made significant gains in both houses of congress the past two elections, and the popular vice-president was ahead in the polls against a lightwieght challenger whose only claim to fame was his last name. Surely by 2004 the Democrats would have complete control over the levers of government, and send the Republicans into permanant minority status.

Now, four years later, it seems that the tables have turned. It is the Republican party who has earned the right to occupy the White House for eight stright years, and have made gains in the past two elections in both houses of congress. The Republican electoral juggernaught shows no sign of slowing down, and surely that by 2008 the Democrats will be in permamant minority status, never to be a force of opposition again. Right?

The giddy conservatve commentators that are currently predicting the demise of the Democratic party are surely to be just as wrong as those that prediected Democratic hegemony in this decade. The fact is that the United States is split evenly between its two primary parties and any difference in electoral representation is the result of several factors including the appeal of individual canidates, gerrymandering, organization, strategy, and luck. The "Republican dominance" in Washington and in capitols all over the country is extremly overblown. Here are the numbers:

In the last four presidental terms:
50% Democratic
50% Republican

Democratic Senate %
44

Democratic House%
46

Democratic Governers %
44

Democratic State Legistatlures
50%

This picture obviously is not great news for the Democrats. But it is hardly Republican dominance. The Democrats control no less than 44% of any major government body. That's not bad. Surely the Democrats are currently in the minority at every level of government, but the Republican margin is so razor thin at every level that the Democrats are only one election away from a clean sweep of government.

Still, I've claimed that the US is currently 50:50. So if that's true, why are all these numbers closer to 45:55? Well, there are a lot of reasons but chief among them is the unfair election system that the United States employs. The US uses a first past the post (fptp) election system that allows a canidate to win an election without winning a majority of the votes. This system also allows a third party canidate to decide an election by not having a runoff between the top two vote getters, as most nations do. This unfair system is why we have a Republican president, not a Democratic one. Our election system also gives unfair representation to rural states, who recieve more than their share of electoral votes .

Gerrymandering, the process by which legislative districts are drawn, is the greatest reason why elections in America are unfair. In most states polititians themselves draw the lines of the districts in which they will be elected. Essentially, they get to choose who gets to vote for them. This situation has led to a US House of Representatives, the body which the framers wanted to be the most responsive to public opnion, that rarely looses an incumbant. Every year polls show that more Americans want the Democrats to control congress, but every election its the Republicans who win the most seats. This is not democracy, and one can hardly say that the Republicans are the majority party when their electoral victories owe to such tactics.

Attention Deficit

2005-01-26T22:29:00.000-08:00

The New York Times Times reported yesterday that the budget deficit of the United States government will rise to $427 billion dollars in the year 2005, a number that will likely rise because it does not include any spending that will be added by congress later in the year. This news means that the US government will spend $427 billion more dollars than it takes in from taxes, borrowing the money from foriegn banks, mostly in China and Japan. The situation is obvioulsly a problem, but the Bush administration has shown no ability to deal with it.

Amazingly it was only four years ago when the government had its only budget surplus since the 1840's. There are basically two reasons why the biggest surpus in history turned into the biggest deficit. One is that the government is spending more money, becuasue of the war in Iraq and increased spending in other areas. The other is that the government is getting less money in taxes because the economy has slowed down and Bush cut taxes on the rich. Any solution has to solve at least one of these problems. Either spending must be cut, or taxes must be raised.

Mr. Bush has refused to raise taxes because of ideological constraints. He has also refused to stop spending, not vetoing a single spending bill in his entire term as president. In the next four years he must do one or the other or the deficit will spin out of control and the economy will dip into recession, if not depression. Becuase spending is hard to cut during a war, I would suggest raising taxes on the rich. Unfortunatly Mr. Bush does not agree. Mr. Bush has his own ideas of what the future will look like. On current trends the deficit will grow from $427 billion to $4 trillion by the year 2015. Remember that when you're thinking of thanking Bush for your $45 tax break.

To put that in perspective, by 2015 things will get TEN TIMES WORSE than this:

Election 2008 : The Republican Presidential Candidates

2005-01-14T23:42:00.000-08:00

-The author of this list is a Democrat. He does not claim to be neutral. The focus of this list, however, is accurately assessing the electoral prospects of each candidate, not advocating a certain point of view. It should be of use to people of all political beliefs.

For the first time in a long time the incumbent party has neither a President nor a Vice-President as a possibility for the next nomination. This should prove to be a bruising fight, all the more so because the overconfident Republicans will probably try to overreach and favour ideological candidates over electable candidates. Arlen Specter's primary battle in 2004 is a sign of things to come. Hopefully whoever emerges will be weakly staggering to a resounding general election defeat.

The Bushites

Sen. Bill Frist- I sure hope Bill Frist gets nominated. This guy comes off as just plain creepy on TV and lacks any semblance of substance aside from being a "team player". Republicans would be wise to reject Frist, and no doubt they will. Frist is stepping down from the senate in 2006, and its looking like he has his eye in the prize. Good luck Bill.

Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick:2

Gov. Jeb Bush- If George W. Bush won the presidency based on his last name, his brother Jeb will lose his chance at the presidency for the same reason. A charismatic, popular governor from the largest swing state of all should be a favorite for the nomination. Fortunately, three Bushes in four presidents is a little much, even for Republicans. Jeb will most likely save himself the embarrassment and continue governing one of the largest states in the union.
Will Run: 1 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 1

Gov. Bill Owens- The Governor of Colorado has been widely viewed as a success, and his term conveniently expires in 2007. His positions are close to Bush's, pro-business and hugging the Christian Right, but not too tightly. He is better positioned than anyone on the hard right to "fake" a move to the center, as Bush did in 2000. He seems to have every intention of entering the race.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 4

Rudy Giuliani- The well known former mayor of New York is the most hyped candidate of the 2008 election. However the hype isn't backed up by any sense. The liberal positions that Giuliani has taken on abortion and social issues should pretty much doom him in an open Republican primary lacking the immediacy of 2000's, where a Republican loss would have shut them out of the White House for at least 12 years, and probably 16. The Republican notion of "principles" (meaning bashing gays and teenage mothers) will dominate the nomination process, and Giuliani will be left out. That, however, is the least of his problems. The Bernard Kerik fiasco was the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the Giuliani administration, and I have a feeling that his creepy, Putinesque cadre of confidants has more skeletons in its closet. With the attacks on New York seven years in the past, Giuliani’s only redeeming characteristic may be fading into the distance by '08. With nothing to do until then, Giuliani’s star is fading fast. Of course Giuliani himself knows none of this, and will run. Watch him be hyped bigger than Howard Dean, and crash just as spectacularly.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 4

Condoleezza Rice- The Secretary of State offers Republicans with a tempting situation to appeal to minorities and women. Nominating a black woman, however, to head a party whose voters are disproportionately white men would be a dangerous strategy, especially if the Democrats nominate a Southern man, as appears likely. Although the Republican party is less overtly racist than it was in Nixon's day, the "Southern Strategy" of appealing to Southern whites disenchanted with the Democrats' civil rights program, still makes up a huge part of its electoral map. It is unlikely that Republican primary voters, particularly in South Carolina, would accept a black woman. Ms. Rice has other disadvantages, particularly the fact that she has never held elective office and spent most of her career in academia. The fact that she was National Security Advisor at the time of the terrorist attacks doesn’t help either. Ms. Rice is a smart woman and knows she doesn’t stand a chance. She'll stay out of politics in 2008.
Will Run: 1 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 2

The Outsiders

Sen. John McCain- John McCain's 2000 campaign was destroyed by Karl Rove's dirty tricks in South Carolina. The man who should be President will most likely run again, despite his advancing years. He has massive swing appeal, and is strong on national defence. Unlike most of the Republican mavericks, McCain has solid socially conservative credentials (people usually forget this). He's as anti-abortion as anyone in congress. He may be the only person who could possibly survive both the primaries, by appealing to the hard-right, and the general, by appealing to substantial number of democrats. The Republican's best chance in 2008.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 4 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 0

Gov. George Pataki- This New York Governor looked like a contender until he started being upstaged at home by his own Attorney General. Pataki will likely step aside in 2006 and save himself the embarrassment of loosing to Elliot Spitzer. Having to avoid reelection in his own state is no way to start a campaign for the presidency. He likely wouldn't survive the socially conservative litmus test anyway, and would probably loose his own state in a general election.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 2

Sen. Chuck Hagel- The Nebraska Senator is a bit of a McCain style moderate, and has a chance in 2008. He seems acceptable to the hard right, and not too objectionable to centrists. The adjective used to describe him is usually "internationalist", meaning he is both experienced in foreign affairs and has a sensible opinion on it. A nice change of pace from Bush, but the role of centrist maverick candidate is already filled by Sen. McCain.
Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 4

Gov. Mitt Romney- This Massachusetts governor may be an appealing candidate in 2008. He is a relatively moderate governor who still has managed to gain credibility with the Christian Right because of his Mormon faith. In what may be seen as a prelude to a primary contest, Romney seems eager to fight Democrats in Massachusetts on stem cell research. Romney, however, is very likely to loose his own state in 2008 and it is unclear if the Southern and Western states that form the backbone of the Republican electoral map would prefer a New Englander over someone from closer to home. Much of Bush's success in the South is due to his contrived accent and interest in hunting. Romney seems unlikely to repeat Mr. Bush's New Englander to Southerner transformation. Hasn't attracted much attention, but his unpopularity at home means he'll probably risk all the marbles and go for it in 2008.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 3

The New Goldwaters

Newt Gingrich-My favorite scenario for 08 has the Republicans nominating a completely unelectable wackjob because the Christian Right axis wants to make a stand on "principle". A candidate who takes the jolly Texan mask off of the heartless ideology of the Republicans, and expose it for what it really is. No candidate can fit that bill better than Newt Gingrich. The disgraced former Speaker of the House (who resigned as speaker after revealing that during all those years of trying to impeach President Clinton for having an affair, he too was having one) still has enough cult appeal amongst certain elements of the Republican Party to be a contender. He will surely fail in his quest for the Presidency, as he failed to bring down Clinton. But let's hope he tries. He has been quoted as expressing interest in a run and will most likely do so if he feels he has a shot.
Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 1 VP Pick: 2

Sen. Tom Coburn- The man who was once so worried about the rampant outbreak of lesbianism in a rural Okalahoma county that he advised teachers to send little girls to the bathroom "one at a time" gives no indication that he is interested in a run for the Presidency. The man seems to have a strange sense of public mission in Washington, and an almost unbelievable disinterest in seeking power for power's sake. He is not a greatly gifted speaker, and his positions are so extreme (advocating the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions) that he is unlikely even to survive a primary. But should he enter a primary he will force the whole lot to move to the right to cut off his support, serving as a Pat Buchanan of the new century. This could damage the Republicans in the general election.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 1 VP Pick: 1

Sen. Rick Santorum- This Pennsylvania Senator is number two on my "how in the hell did he get elected?" list, Tom Coburn being number one. Unlike Coburn, Santorum faces reelection between now and '08. I have a hard time believing that a state that has voted for Gore and Kerry and whose Republican voters supported the liberal Arlen Specter in 2004 will reelect the most comically conservative man in congress since Gingrich himself. (Republicans are worried too. Santorum was strategically placed directly behind GW Bush at the inauguration)His job should be Ed Randell's for the taking, and probably anyone else's for that matter. His loss in '06 should stop any presidential ambitions in their tracks. Pity. Santorum would loose the general election. However, even if he does squeak out a win in 2006 there are far more qualified candidates on the hard right to upstage him.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 1 VP Pick: 2

Rep. Tom Tancredo- Anti-immigration advocate Tancredo perhaps has the greatest chance of destablizing the Republican primary. He champions an issue that is as dangerous as it is popular, immigration reform. The issue plays very well to the far-right republican primary voters, yet a cutthroat battle over immigration could easily make the Republican party seen xenophobic and archaic. Although unlikely to win, he could force the whole field to get into the messy issue of immigration reform, and tie the hands of the Republican winner by getting him to promise some sort of anti-immigrant action. That, combined with a Hispanic on the Democratic ticket, could swing Latinos.
Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 1

The Unexpecteds

Bill O'Reilly- The conservative Fox News host has real power over huge swaths of America. He also is detested by just as many swaths. His politics are actually more palatable than Bush's, with a libertarian streak counteracting his pandering [sic] to the Christian Right. Thankfully, we'll never have to assuage ourselves with such lesser of two evils thoughts, for O'Reilly has no chance of the nomination. Not only is political experience a necessity in a post 9/11 world, but O'Reilly, like Giuliani, has scandal written all over him. His self aggrandizing personality and famous temper would put serious doubts into voters concerning his fitness to be commander in chief. Bill O'Rielly will get into politics, but not in '08 and not at the presidential level. Watch for him to consider taking on Hillary in '06.
Will Run: 1 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 1

Election 2008: The Democratic Presidential Candidates

2005-01-14T16:46:00.000-08:00

It's never too early to speculate on the next presidential election. You can be sure the potential candidates are speculating on it as we speak. This election will be even more decisive than the one in 2004. A Democratic loss would set the party on course to permanent minority status. A win would provide for an opportunity to pack half of the Supreme Court. For those who resist the Bush agenda, the most important election in American history will occur in November 2008. It is never too early to speculate on its victor.

2008 of course will be a free-for-all, with both parties having perfectly competitive primaries. The main determent for a Republican candidate will be, I believe, a socially conservative background. The social conservative special interests have been clamoring for more clout over policy, and they will demand a socially conservative candidate in 2008 to further Bush's lukewarm agenda. On the Democratic side, all that matters is winning. This fact would give the upper hand to a candidate from the South or West, the conventional wisdom being that only a redstater can avoid John Kerry's fate. (As if this wisdom served Tennessean Al Gore very well.) This picture should favor the Democrats, with the outside possibility that the Republicans will nominate a nutcase in the Goldwater tradition, and with the very good possibility at least that infighting will weaken whichever candidate emerges.

The Also Rans

John Kerry- The Democratic nominee in 2004 would be mad to try again. Once the perception of being a loser seems into the public's mind, it is hard to dislodge. Al Gore, perhaps, could have pulled it off, but only because he could make a great case for why he didn't really lose. John Kerry lost by 3 million votes, ran a lousy campaign, and only got the nomination because people didn't have a credible alternative. He has no chance of being nominated.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 1 VP Pick: 0

Al Gore- So what about that other man to "lose" to George W. Bush? Al Gore is a much better politician than John Kerry, both in his policies and in his campaign style. But he's been off the radar for far too long, and has marginalized himself by allying with the loosing primary candidate Howard Dean. I think he could have done it in 2004, but 2008 is a stretch.
Will Run: 1 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 0

John Edwards- Although the man certainly has the unusual combination of Bill Clinton's charisma and Joe Lieberman’s integrity, he's never shaken the image of being a "lightweight". I don't think that criticism is all that unfair. His one term in the Senate was far from accomplished, the last third of which was spent running for the presidency. Now, without a political role to play, Edwards has no opportunity to prove himself. The ambition is there however, and I bet that Edwards will run in 2008. His inexperience, loss in 2004, and his three year absence from the public view will sink him pretty fast.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 0

The Heavywieghts

Hillary Clinton- Sen. Hillary Clinton is the smart money choice for the nomination. She is the only viable candidate with significant name recognition, a shrewd politician, and would have the backing of most of the establishment. Unfortunately, she is an inexplicably polarizing figure. The Republican press figured out a while ago that a smart, ambitious, well-known woman would be a formidable candidate at any level. It has thus been engaged in a decade-long smear campaign that has somehow painted the moderate Clinton as a rabid socialist. The success of this campaign would be hard to undo. The Republicans have been preparing for a second Clinton presidency for years, and by the time Hillary enters the race, it may be too late to win the public over. Pity. But if electability is the Democrat's number one priority, Hillary Clinton's high negativity ratings will more than cancel out her high name recognition. Nevertheless, she may just have enough steam get through the primaries. If she does, it's the Republicans who would be cheering.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 4 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 2

Howard Dean- Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean seems pretty committed to becoming chair of the Democratic National Committee, which would preclude a run for the presidency. Should he not be chosen as the chair, I don't believe there is much chance he would be interested in the nomination. You can only run an insurgency campaign once, and his ran out of gas in Iowa last year. The taint of loosing is even stronger on Dean than it is on Kerry. Despite his loyal base and good Internet organization, he will stand no chance should he decide to run in 2008.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 2
Update: Howard Dean has been elected chair of the DNC. He is unlikely to seek the nomination

Joe Biden- One of my favorites and a sure contender in 2008 is Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. The man is probably the most personable of all the possible '08 candidates, seeming very comfortable with the media and in the spotlight. The only reason why he was not a contender in 2004 was a personal promise he made to not undercut John Kerry. A moderate on all fronts. His name recognition isn't great, but I say he shines in the primaries and wins the general election if nominated. He has already been quoted as saying he's running.
Will Run: 5 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 3

Barrack Obama- As a moderate superstar, Sen. Obama would be a formidable primary and general election candidate and this fact could induce him to run in '08. I have a feeling that Obama is too cautious to pull a John Edwards and risk everything on a presidential run before even completing one term in the Senate. Watch for Obama to sit it out and accept the Vice-Presidential nomination should it come his way.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 4 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 4

Charles Shumer- The powerful Senator from New York raised way too much money in his 2004 cakewalk to reelection to not be considering the presidency. As head of the Democrat's effort to retake the Senate in 2006, Shumer will not be challenging Elliot Spitzer for Albany's top job. That leaves 2008 open, and there's a good chance he will run. Something tells me that one New York Senator running for the Presidency is enough however, and that Shumer will drop out early in the process if he decides to run at all. If he successfully steers the Democrat's gain in the Senate, Shumer may choose to remain in the majority.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 3

The Southern Strategy

Mike Easley- The last two Democratic presidents have been Southern governors, and conventional wisdom holds that only a redstate governor can win in 2008. That wisdom may or may not be right, it is dangerous to take lessons from past presidential campaigns seeing as how small the statistical sample is. Nevertheless there are Southern governors who would be formidable candidates in any case. Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina is a prime example. The consensus is that his term as governor has been a success, and he easily won reelection in 2004 in a state that John Kerry lost by fifteen points. His term conveniently runs out in 2008 and his candidacy would automatically put fifteen electoral votes in play. His record of bipartisanship should appeal to independents in a way the Republican candidate most likely won't. Could be a lock-down candidate in the primaries and the general if he decides to run.
Will Run: 3 WIn Primary: 3 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 2

Mark Warner- The Governor of Virginia has many of the same advantages as Gov. Easley, a moderate Southerner with a history of reaching across the aisle. He as the added advantage of being somewhat of a capitol insider, governing much of metropolitan D.C. Warner is a bit inexperienced, and may go for the Senate in 2006 instead. His moderation may hurt him in the primary process, but would be a huge advantage in the general.
Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 3

Phil Bredesen - The Governor of Tennessee(yes we really do govern three southern states!), Bredesen is a self made millionaire and former mayor of Nashville. Seemingly popular, Bredesen is described as the next Bill Clinton (hopefully without the scandal). Tennessee’s electoral votes could be crucial to the election. The matchup between him and Easley should be interesting, with both having a real shot at the nomination and the presidency.
Will Run: 3 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 3

Other Redstaters

Evan Bayh- This Indiana Senator seems like a good choice if you buy the idea that the next nominee must be from a red state. However, his electoral success in Indiana stems mostly from his family's political heritage in the state, not any appeal or charisma of his own. He seems to want to run, but will most likely be outshone by his hipper southern competitors.
Will Run: 4 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 2 VP Pick: 3

Bill Richardson- The Governor of New Mexico has many of the things the Southern Governors have, executive experience, red state popularity, and a favorable election calendar. He also has extensive foreign policy experience and Latino heritage. If this sounds too good to be true, it is. Richardson is lackluster on the campaign trail and not very good on television. These things matter in a modern campaign. Still Richardson would make a formidable candidate should he suddenly undergo the James Carville makeover. All of this may be mooted, however, by his closeness to the Clintons. Should Hillary run it is unlikely Richardson would get in her way. She may be Hillary's first choice as VP, however.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 4

The Unexpecteds

Elliot Spitzer- The attorney general of New York is pretty much guaranteed to be Governor Spitzer two years from now, but his future after Albany is uncertain. The timing is horrible for a presidential run, just a year after taking office, he would seem untested as an executive. Nevertheless Spitzer has a lot of things going for him and his anti-corruption drive has nationwide appeal. Watch for Governor Spitzer to sit this one out. That said he should be everybody’s VP short list.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 3 Win General: 4 VP Pick: 4

Jennifer Granholm- As a Michigander I cannot express how disappointed I am that the parents of our Governor decided to move to the United States after their daughter Jennifer was born, and not before. Because Ms. Granholm was born in Canada she is constitutionally disqualified from running for President or Vice-President. Ironically, she would probably be the most qualified candidate in 2008. She's a woman, which should stop the defection of women to the Republican Party, she's from a crucial swing state, she's a governor, and she lacks the polar effect of Hillary Clinton. There is a fairly serious movement to amend the constitution to allow for foreign-born citizens to run (mostly because of Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitions). Changing the constitution is a long process, however, and as soon as the Republican's realize that Granholm would slaughter Arnold in a general election, they're unlikely to expedite the process. A lot can happen in four years, however.
Will Run: 1 Win Primary: 4 Win General: 5 VP Pick: 1

Harold Ford Jr. - This Tennessee Representative is certainly the most impressive young democrat to emerge aside from Sen. Obama. Also black, Ford could become the first serious black contender since Jessie Jackson. He is far more ambitious than anyone else in Washington (hard to believe, but true) and will certainly go for either the Senate in 2006 or the Presidency in 2008. Although he'll be facing tough competition, his drive and charisma could easily take him all way.
Will Run: 2 Win Primary: 2 Win General: 3 VP Pick: 3
Update: Ford has announced a run for Senate in '06, win or loose, unlikely to run in '08.

This list is pretty extensive, but by no means complete. 2008 is completely wide open and any one of the red state governors or senators should have a chance. A possible former General may emerge, or a successful businessperson. Since 2008 is going to be bruising through both cycles, however, I expect a pair of seasoned politicians to be the odds-on choice. Clinton/ Richardson and Easley/ Spitzer are some likely pairs.

Updates:

Russ Fiengold~more soon

Barbra Boxer~more soon

Jon Corizine- moore soo

The Democratic Agenda

2005-01-14T16:42:00.000-08:00

This blog aims to be yet another blog concerning politics, specifically left-of -center politics in the United States. It differs, however, from the typical blog in that it aims to provide high-quality, intelligent analysis of American Politics, rather than off-the-cuff, involuntary spasms of hackary and scandal-monogering found in the typical political blog. The number one topic will be coverage of the process to get Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008, and election reform is a favorite issue. Thanks to all who take the time to read, please tell your friends.

-To return to the homepage, click THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA title of the blog.

-Please leave any comments or suggestions about the site below on this thread.

:<)

What is Instant Runoff Voting?

2005-01-01T13:38:00.000-08:00

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is nothing but a method of electing a candidate in a political election. Most people in America don't know that there is actually more than one way to run an election. Elections in America are run using what is called the First Past the Post system.

First Past The Post (FPTP)
In this system, the candidate with the plurality of votes wins. So as long as a candidate gets more votes than anyone else, that candidate will win. If there are five candidates (A, B, C, D, and E) in an election each with the results as follows:

Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent

Using the First Past the Post election method in this election awards the win to Candidate E even though that candidate was voted against by 70 percent of the voters. That 70 percent of the people have no representation in this election, even though they constitute a majority of the people.

How it Works
Instant Runoff Voting is a majoritarian system the candidate with the majority of the votes wins. No candidate can win the election without wining 50 percent of the vote. So every winner will at least represent the majority of the people. How does this work, however, if a situation such as the above occurs? Simple. The system not only asks the voter what their first choice candidate is, it asks them their second and third (or fourth or fifth) choices as well. If the first round of voting produces no candidate with a 50 percent majority, the system uses this information to simulate a series of "instant runoffs" where in each round the candidates with the least amount of votes is eliminated. When that candidate is eliminated, the system distributes his/her vote to what his/her voters say was their second choice. If there is still no candidate with 50 percent, another candidate is eliminated and his/her voters are redistributed based on their second choice preferences (or if their second choice candidate was eliminated in the second round, their third choice). The process continues until there is a winner with over 50 percent of the vote.
For instance in the situation above, take the same results:
Round One
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent

Since no candidate got a majority of the votes, a new round of voting needs to be simulated. First, Candidate B must be eliminated. His 10 percent of the vote must be redistributed. Say 90 percent of his voters preferred candidate C as their second choice and 10 percent candidate D. 9 percentage points would be added to Candidate C's total, and 1 percentage point to Candidate D. The others would be unchanged. The new total would look like this:
Round Two
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 34 percent (+9)
Candidate D: 21 percent (+1)
Candidate E: 30 percent

since no candidate has a majority after round two, the system runs another round. Candidate A is now eliminated with his/her 15 percent of the vote redistributed to the remaining candidates. Say that two thirds of Candidate A's supporters have Candidate D as their next preference candidate and one third have Candidate C. That situation would add 10 percentage points to Candidate D and five points to Candidate C. The results would look like this:
Round Three
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 39 percent (+5)
Candidate D: 31 percent (+10)
Candidate E: 30 percent

Still no candidate has a majority. So candidate E is eliminated. Suppose one third supports Candidate C, two thirds Candidate D. The results:
Round Four
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 49 percent (+10)
Candidate D: 51 percent (+20)
Candidate E: --eliminated--

Finally the process has produced a winner! But take a look! The winner in this election using IRV is Candidate D, while the winner using FPTP is Candidate E. The same election with the same candidates, and yet the two voting system produces two different winners. The question is, which one is more legitimate? Candidate E got more the vote in the first round, but that was only because the anti-E vote was split among four different candidates. More people actually preferred Candidate D this election to Candidate E. The IRV system takes this fact into account. The FPTP system does not. The IRV system thus more closely represents the will of the people.

All of these rounds of voting take place instantly. The ballots are tabulated by computer(or humans) and the process is entirely automated. All the voter has to do is provide the information by ranking their candidates.

How They Compare
No election system is perfect, but IRV certainly is more democratic than the FPTP system the United States uses. The requirement that at least 50 percent of the electorate must choose a candidate just makes sense in a country where the majority rules. The ranking of the candidates makes sure that a candidate that is most preferable to the electorate will be chosen. The preference voting system also eliminates the "nader effect" where a third party candidate can risk hurting his/her own cause just by running because his/her candidacy draws votes away from a viable candidate. With the IRV system, the votes of the third party candidate are redistributed if no candidate wins a majority. (If a candidate does win a majority in the first round, a spoiler is a moot point.) The adoption of IRV allows third parties a chance to build their parties without alienating supporters by spoiling elections.

Usage

IRV is used around the world in nations that have opted for a more democratic voting method. Currently all elections in Australia use a form of IRV. Ireland also uses IRV for their presidential elections and their elections to the European Parliament. Other nations, such as New Zealand, are also experimenting with IRV at the local level and considering their use at the federal level.

Prospects in the United States

IRV is currently being used in municipal elections in San Francisco. It’s prospects in the rest of the country is mixed. Most people are not aware of the need for electoral reform, or know what STV is. There is evidence, however, that Americans would be accepting of a move that would allow more representation. Witness the millions of people who voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. It is encouraging, also, that the implementation of IRV would not necessarily require federal legislation. The individual states are in charge of all elections, even federal elections to the presidency, the senate, and the house. Each state can choose to give their electoral votes to the winner of an IRV election if it so chooses. In many states all that stands between FPTP and IRV is a simple ballot initiative. The implementation of IRV would be quite easy in the United States, but the problem remains unknown to most people, even those heavily involved in politics. Most people don’t think twice about the election method, but as we’ve seen it does has a huge outcome on who wins.