![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosIn American elections, people often complain that they're unsatisfied with the choices. They're cynical about having to pick the least bad candidate from a narrow set of options they don't really like. They feel that the real choices have already been made for them.
They're right.
The real choices have already been made for them. And in many cases, the people who made those choices are the ones we call primary voters. The people making these well-founded complaints tend to be the ones who don't get involved in primaries. By giving primaries a pass, they exclude themselves from many of the most important elections they could vote in, and relegate themselves to second class voter status, left to choose among the pickings left for them by those who did vote in the primaries.
If you ever feel tempted to make the complaints in the first paragraph, pay attention to primaries. You will find candidates you actually like. You will find a broad spectrum of choices. And you can be part of the minority of voters who make the more important decisions: which candidates will be on the ballot in the general election. If you had to skip one, in most cases I'd say skip the general. The primary is usually much more important.
Now I'm going to ramble about three state primaries that are on my mind: Pennsylvania, because it's today; Massachusetts, because I live here and these are the campaigns I'm getting involved in; and Connecticut, which features what I think is the most important election in the country this year. But whichever state you live in, find out when your primary is, find out about the candidates in the major party you tend to prefer, and vote.
Pennsylvania primary, Tuesday May 16th
The race getting all the attention nationally is for US Senate. Republican Rick Santorum is the incumbent, and there are three Democrats running. Whoever wins the primary - almost certainly Bob Casey the son of the former governor - will go on to defeat Santorum in November :) Casey is much too conservative for my tastes. He opposes a woman's right to choose to end pregnancy, which you probably already know if you live in PA, but did you know that he endorsed Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court? I support Chuck Pennacchio. Remember, this is a primary: Vote for the candidate you like, not the one you think will win.
From reading the blogs, I recently learned about Valerie McDonald Roberts, running for Lieutenant Governor. Bloggers I respect in PA all seem to support her. Here's an interview with her on MyDD which has a lot of information about her positions. And I hear she actually has a very good shot at winning.
Speaking of MyDD, one of the founders and lead bloggers there, Chris Bowers, lives in Philadelphia. He's been organizing locally all year, trying to reform their Democratic party. Now he's running for state committee. He needs 100 write-in votes from voters in the 8th senate district (a chunk of Philly).
[Update: Chris Bowers won!]
Massachusetts primary, September 19th
We have quite a doozy of a contest for statewide offices on the Democratic side this year! The Republicans, as usual, have already annointed their nominees and there's no real competition. Democratic incumbents for State Treasurer and US Senate are unopposed, as is Martha Coakely running for Attorney General (she is currently Middlesex County DA). The contested races are:
Connecticut primary, August 8th - the most important election in the country this year.
Joe Lieberman seems like an entrenched incumbent. But he's George W Bush's favorite Democrat, representing a blue state. From all accounts, his antics have pissed off enough CT Democrats and he's vulnerable. Ned Lamont is challening him in the Democratic primary, and is already doing much better than you'd expect from someone challenging such a powerful incumbent.
Strong primary challenges are a very very big deal. They have ramifications far beyond the particular office in question. A strong primary challenge against a strong incumbent, even if the incumbent survives, can have serious behavior-modifying effects on entire legislatures. In 2004 & 2005, a small handful of Democratic primaries for state legislative seats in Massachusetts managed to flip over 60 votes in our legislature on gay marriage, leading to the trouncing of an amendment that had received majority support on its first vote. Only one of those was a successful primary challenge against an entrenched incumbent (there was also a successful primary challenge against a not-so-entrenched incumbent, and a very strong but unsuccessful challenge against another entrenched incumbent), but it sent shock waves through the legislature.
Joe Lieberman trashes Democrats and repeats Republican talking points regularly. He wholeheartedly supports the Iraq war, even today. You may recall his love of censorship from the 90s. Ned Lamont is a great candidate. Watch the video Robert Greenwald made for his campaign.
They're right.
The real choices have already been made for them. And in many cases, the people who made those choices are the ones we call primary voters. The people making these well-founded complaints tend to be the ones who don't get involved in primaries. By giving primaries a pass, they exclude themselves from many of the most important elections they could vote in, and relegate themselves to second class voter status, left to choose among the pickings left for them by those who did vote in the primaries.
If you ever feel tempted to make the complaints in the first paragraph, pay attention to primaries. You will find candidates you actually like. You will find a broad spectrum of choices. And you can be part of the minority of voters who make the more important decisions: which candidates will be on the ballot in the general election. If you had to skip one, in most cases I'd say skip the general. The primary is usually much more important.
Now I'm going to ramble about three state primaries that are on my mind: Pennsylvania, because it's today; Massachusetts, because I live here and these are the campaigns I'm getting involved in; and Connecticut, which features what I think is the most important election in the country this year. But whichever state you live in, find out when your primary is, find out about the candidates in the major party you tend to prefer, and vote.
Pennsylvania primary, Tuesday May 16th
The race getting all the attention nationally is for US Senate. Republican Rick Santorum is the incumbent, and there are three Democrats running. Whoever wins the primary - almost certainly Bob Casey the son of the former governor - will go on to defeat Santorum in November :) Casey is much too conservative for my tastes. He opposes a woman's right to choose to end pregnancy, which you probably already know if you live in PA, but did you know that he endorsed Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court? I support Chuck Pennacchio. Remember, this is a primary: Vote for the candidate you like, not the one you think will win.
From reading the blogs, I recently learned about Valerie McDonald Roberts, running for Lieutenant Governor. Bloggers I respect in PA all seem to support her. Here's an interview with her on MyDD which has a lot of information about her positions. And I hear she actually has a very good shot at winning.
Speaking of MyDD, one of the founders and lead bloggers there, Chris Bowers, lives in Philadelphia. He's been organizing locally all year, trying to reform their Democratic party. Now he's running for state committee. He needs 100 write-in votes from voters in the 8th senate district (a chunk of Philly).
[Update: Chris Bowers won!]
Massachusetts primary, September 19th
We have quite a doozy of a contest for statewide offices on the Democratic side this year! The Republicans, as usual, have already annointed their nominees and there's no real competition. Democratic incumbents for State Treasurer and US Senate are unopposed, as is Martha Coakely running for Attorney General (she is currently Middlesex County DA). The contested races are:
- Governor: A 3-way race between Deval Patrick, Tom Reilly, and Chris Gabrieli. Any of them could win. Tom Reilly is the current Attorney General, Deval Patrick led the federal Civil Rights Division in the Clinton Administration as Assistant Attorney General (and would be our first black Governor if he won), and Chris Gabrieli is a solid technocrat who was the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2002. I support Deval Patrick.
- Lieutenant Governor: A 4-way race between Tim Murray, Andrea Silbert, Deb Goldberg, and Sam Kelley. Tim Murray is the mayor of Worcester. Andrea Silbert co-founded the Center for Women & Enterprise and helps women start companies. Deb Goldberg was the chair of the Brookline Board of Selectmen. Sam Kelley is a doctor and a healthcare entrepeneur.
I'm still undecided on this one. Blue Mass Group has had some excellent coverage, and is co-sponsoring a debate - Secretary: Incumbent Bill Galvin, often called the dark prince of Massachusetts politics, is running for re-election. Voting rights leader John Bonifaz is challenging him. I met John last August and we talked election reform for a while, I saw his first campaign speech that fall, and joined his campaign when he decided to definitely run in December. Now I'm his campaign blogger, so visit his site often to read my posts :)
John Bonifaz founded the National Voting Rights Institute, was lead counsel in the fight to recount Ohio in 2004, succesfully forced the Massachusetts legislature to fund the clean elections law in 2002, and is a MacArthur Fellow (their fellowship is often known as the "genius award"). His campaign is my personal priority this year, so I'll post more about him later on.
Connecticut primary, August 8th - the most important election in the country this year.
Joe Lieberman seems like an entrenched incumbent. But he's George W Bush's favorite Democrat, representing a blue state. From all accounts, his antics have pissed off enough CT Democrats and he's vulnerable. Ned Lamont is challening him in the Democratic primary, and is already doing much better than you'd expect from someone challenging such a powerful incumbent.
Strong primary challenges are a very very big deal. They have ramifications far beyond the particular office in question. A strong primary challenge against a strong incumbent, even if the incumbent survives, can have serious behavior-modifying effects on entire legislatures. In 2004 & 2005, a small handful of Democratic primaries for state legislative seats in Massachusetts managed to flip over 60 votes in our legislature on gay marriage, leading to the trouncing of an amendment that had received majority support on its first vote. Only one of those was a successful primary challenge against an entrenched incumbent (there was also a successful primary challenge against a not-so-entrenched incumbent, and a very strong but unsuccessful challenge against another entrenched incumbent), but it sent shock waves through the legislature.
Joe Lieberman trashes Democrats and repeats Republican talking points regularly. He wholeheartedly supports the Iraq war, even today. You may recall his love of censorship from the 90s. Ned Lamont is a great candidate. Watch the video Robert Greenwald made for his campaign.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
*nods* I have always said that people who have the chance to vote and don't have no right to bitch.
no subject
no subject
If you want to pinpoint when he jumped the shark, I think it was when he said "we undermine the president's credibility at our own peril". He said this last year. The president had no legitimate credibility left at that point.
Lieberman, way past the shark
First, I would like to agree with cos and shadesong, and raise them one. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Gov. Dean said, "If all you do is vote, you get a D". People who get out and vote, do have some right to bitch about politics. But, if you really want bitching rights. You need to get involved in campaigns, in the local party, consider running for office yourself.
Now, on to Lieberman. Joe Lieberman was a good progressive many years ago. In 1968, he helped form a progressive organization, not much different from the various DFA or PDA groups that are being formed today. When did he change? Was it when he started taking support from William Buckley in his efforts to defeat Lowell Weicker? Was it when he started attacking the entertainment industry and attempting to impose his morally on people around him? Was it when he attacked Bill Clinton for his behavior, and now refuses to criticize a sitting President? Was it when he ran for Senate in 2000 and for V.P. at the same time, and virtually ignored his home state?
I like Joe. I realize I may be in a small minority, but I do like him. He's been over at my house. We've talked politics. I went to his mother's funeral. I also liked the person my wife ran against for State Representative last cycle. Both Joe, and my wife's opponent are very nice people, even though I disagree with their views. Liking a person isn't enough. Being a nice person isn't enough.
We need candidates that stand up for Democatic principles. We need people like Ned Lamont, as well as others, such as cos has mentioned.
Re: Lieberman, way past the shark
I happen to agree that more people should be involved on more levels, I just happen to not think it is a lack of virtue or moral character on their part.
getting involved is easy
Where I live, there are lots of local progressive groups that meet monthly, and have other events, socials, movie screenings, and so on. Coming to any of these groups' meetings gets you involved. You learn about what's going on, and what you can do. We also have several elections a year, where candidates can use help. There are other things going on all the time, like party caucuses you can go to to vote for the supporters of one candidate or another, training sessions and workshots, etc. It's not difficult to come to the Progressive Democrats of Somerville potluck, or go with a friend to the Democratic caucuses, or call up a campaign and say you want to volunteer for two hours on election day after work.
Yet even when I talk to people who care about the issues involved, and invite them personally to do these things (like, come with me to a meeting), most people just never ever do. They think it's weird. They think it's something they don't do because they're not political people. They already have other plans - every single time. It's just not on their priority list, and it's not a habit of theirs, so they mental barrier is very high, no matter how easy the actual actions are.
One of the weirdest catch-22 attitudes I encounter all the time is "I don't know enough". Hey, here's how you can be a delegate to the state convention! It only takes two hours one day in February, and then a day and a half of attending the convention in June. Sorry, I can't do that, I don't know enough. Okay, fine, how about just the two hours going to a caucus in February, to vote for your neighbors? I can't do that yet, I don't know enough. Okay, wanna come to the DFA-Cambridge meeting where we'll be discussing the caucuses and making plans? Oh, I can't go to a political group like DFA-Cambridge, I don't know enough about politics like they all do.
How are these people ever going to learn? The answer is, they won't, until they get over that hump and do something or go to something. Then they'll start learning.
Re: getting involved is easy
Have you thought that maybe if they all react like they don't feel they know what to do, that people in the process are very off putting? (I honestly don't know, but it did occur to me.)
Re: getting involved is easy
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
In my opinion this would reduce some of the middle of the roading that candidates do as early as the primaries, and we'd at least get to see a glimpse of the real candidate inside, rather than the guy who looks good on camera and says nothing which might offend someone who will be voting.
no subject
It'd be interesting to do an analysis of voting patterns in states with and without open primaries to see how much the "Vote for the Crazy" strategy is actually used. For my part, I always get a sense of distaste when people tell me they've done it, because it seems like playing dirty. Regardless, for me, the opportunity to get the best possible guy in my court is always more appealing than the opportunity to get the worst guy in someone else's, even when it isn't the smartest strategy.
There's a definite personal downside to registering with a party, though; it feels kind of dishonest and weird to me, since my views aren't adequately captured by either of the mainstream parties. I mean, if I lived in a state with closed primaries I'd do it for sure (I was a registered Dem when I lived in MD) but I'm much happier not having to be part of a club to vote for people who are. If that makes sense. I think there a lot of moderates who probably wouldn't vote in primaries if they had to register with a party, but it's an empirical question whether open primaries actually increases their participation, and it's one I don't have the answer to.
no subject
I agree, but I also believe that part of "partisan politics" is helping to bring a party more in line with your views. I mean, no you may never change the juggernaut, but a little bit of political action and organization in your home town or county can go a long way towards raising voices. If enough people are dissatisfied with a platform and work to change it, they can. (Yadda yadda.) I'm sure my idealism and naiveite is probably showing now. ;)
As to voting for the crazy...it does feel dishonest. I've also watched what happens when someone joins a party to vote for the crazy and stays for the dinner. My mom ended up drinking the Republican kool-aid, and yeah...not pretty.
no subject
Just the opposite! Idealist naivete usually translates to not seeing any of that, and to viewing the major parties as dirty unmovable monolithic blocks. It's the experienced people who see how you can refom parties through local action, working to change the platform, etc. They then go do things like running for state committee, like Chris Bowers is doing. Or being delegates to the state convention. Or joining their friend's campaign for alderman / city council. They go to party committee meetings. These are the sorts of things that really have an effect.
no subject
New Jersey has a reasonable compromise, given the unequally advantageous treatment the two main parties effectively get in election law. In New Jersey, you start out Undeclared. Then you can vote in any primary, but that automatically declares you as a memeber of the party whose primary you vote in. Then you can't vote in any other parties primaries unless you file a change-of-affiliation form at at lweast 50 (or is it 40?) days before the primary. And you can never go back to Undeclared. You can go to Independant, if you want to renounce public affilation with all parties, but then you can't vote in any primary.
But that's only a compromise that mitigates the built-in advantage of the big parties. I think parties should be able to set whatever restricitve loyalty rules they want, but we should have New York-style laws that make it easier for otehr parties to get established.
no subject
I was going to say the only "downside" of a closed primary, for the individual, is having to register by party, and why is that a downside? But you answered that in the comment below. I actually think you make the opposite case, ironically. Open primaries lead to people glorifying not being part of any party, as a sort of noble thing. The fact is, nobody agrees completely with either of the major parties, and that's not why they register with them. Not joining parties leads to political cynicism and disconnection, which leads to worse polititics, which leads to people not wanting to join parties, which breeds political cynicism and disconnection, etc. I think that if you care, you need to pick a party, join it, and work to make it closer to what you want. The party for you is never going to be there if you don't try to make it, and checking out of the game is't noble IMO.
On the other hand, most people don't think about politics much. It never occurs to them to work within a party, or to try to change it. It never occurs to them that most people in a party don't agree in lockstep. It never occurs to them that there are state legislators, let alone that they matter. So they register independent. Then, an exciting candidate comes along who pulls them out of their shell and gets them to pay attention.
If there's a closed primary, these people can't vote for that candidate. If there's an open primary, they can. A lot of them often get involved in the last few days before the election, but some of them stay involved, and many of them join that candidate's party afterward, and work to make it better.
I think for that reason, open primaries are a good thing, and I support them.
no subject
I'm undecided about the Lieutenant Governor's race as well. Thanks for the info about the debate. I'm interested in the debate, but it's in Lowell, I'm not sure how I'd get up there. I'm sure there will be other opportunities. Of the bunch, I only really know of Tim Murray from Worcester so obviously need to do some more research :)
I'm sorry I didn't make it to
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Galvin
Sometimes, a candidate comes up who is so amazing, it doesn't matter if I even like all their opponents. For example, I didn't think Somerville ward 6 alderman John Connolly was bad. But when Rebekah Gewirtz decided to run against him, that wasn't the issue, because she is so overwhelmingly better (and I think the results we've seen since she beat him and took his job, bear that out - she is a huge improvement, even though he was pretty good to begin with).
So, the main reason I'm supporting Bonifaz isn't about what I think of Galvin, it's about Bonifaz. He's a tough, effective, inspiring election reform and voting rights leader, on the national scale. He'll use the office to lead, and do bold things. I want the things he intends to do - things Galvin hasn't done despite being in office a long time, and probably won't do unless we push him hard. Bonifaz doesn't need to be pushed (and is often the one doing the pushing).
Since getting involved, I've learned more about Galvin and how he does his job, and there are more things I object to. Initially it was just that he hadn't done much. But now, for example, I know that he personally worked to kill several initiatives recently to try out election day voter registration in MA. Election day registration is one of the things I most want, and expect Bonifaz will do if he gets elected, and I faulted Galvin for never pursuing it, but I didn't know he actively opposed it. There was that flap in Lawrence last year, when the city sent out notices to "inactive" voters implying that they couldn't vote, and causing mass confusion. Several city councilors complained to the state elections division and Galvin did nothing. John Bonifaz went to court and got a partial remedy (not enough - the state could've done more).
Then there's the recent spate of federal voting rights act investigations in MA cities, including the consent decree where Boston admitted its violations and is now under federal monitoring for the next few elections. Mostly these are about cities not having the proper resources or experience to deal with voting access for language minorities. This is the sort of thing that falls squarely in the Secretary's purview. The state should've heard the complaints, and come in to help, rather than sit back while the problems festered, until the Bush justice department had to come in to protect minority voting rights!
And where was Galvin on the most important elections reform battle in MA in recent memory, the clean elections law. He's the elected official in charge of elections in this state, and as far as I could tell, he said nothing and did nothing. John Bonifaz led the fight against Finneran to fund the law, and actually succeeded. Galvin's absence from that one is emblematic of his absence from elections reform altogether.
[reposted, with fixed html]
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, being a primary voter in this part of California is giving me a couple major races, a couple ballot initiatives and too many races I know too little about.
IRV
I do agree with you. The solution I support is instant runoff voting. I understand that in theory, it has flaws that some other systems solve. But they have flaws too, and in practical terms, given what actually happens in elections, and how people vote, I'm solidly convinced that instant runoff voting is far far superior to all the other methods.
Here's a flyer I made about IRV last year, for the Democratic State Convention. We distributed hundreds of copies to delegates. I plan to bring more to this year's convention.