Hello, Genossen und Genossinnen. It's Sunday and I'm writing- aren't I newly consistenyly productive?:)
An important part of any theory of economic stimulus in a market economy is how to move the most capital through the most transactions, reflecting increased demand, triggering increased consumption and profit for business overlords. (honestly, doesn't sound so good, does it?). But this goal of capitalists can be used to illustrate the folly of budget cuts, particularly cuts to welfare and food assistance programs.
Put simply, the less money someone has, the greater the share of it they will need to spend on necessities. This means that providing for the poor, oppressed and unemployed, aside from questions of morality, is actually the best way, dollar for dollar to fuel the capitalist machine. (I'd like to fix that by removing profit motive form vital sectors of the economy, but let's shelve those plans for this discussion). I support three courses of action (Actually many but I'm going to talk about these three) to maximize economic action and help the needy.
Firstly and most importantly, as this will fund all other undertakings, fix the payroll tax. It's structured in a horribly regressive manner, having its greatest impact on the poor, while leaving income over a million dollars immune to taxation! Aside from questions of morality (remember-think like an economist here), this is terribly inefficient! Rich people spend proportionally less of their money on economic activities that immediately benefit the community- no matter how much money you have, at some point you will no longer need to spend more on foodstuffs, utilities and so on. Money sent into savings accounts or overseas investments is simply not being used to further the interests of the community- neither by the Socialist standard of providing for the public good, nor by the Capitalist standard of increasing demand. We need a tax system that reflects this, because moderate progressive redistribution is actually good for business, and redistribution is a way to remedy systemic abuses. Tax the Workers less, and tax the Capitalists more- it will increase demand, and may actually alleviate some suffering!
Second- Raise the minimum wage. If the original minimum wage standard had been maintained, it would now be at some 12 dollars per hour. 7.25 minus a regressive payroll tax isn't enough to support a family, while megastores with underpaid workers end up costing the government billions in assistance to the exploited and destitute. More money in the pockets of the Worker means less suffering, and more immediate demand for goods- (the promotion of consumption is unwise, but try explaining that to businessmen! Ultimately, we do want to help people, so I'm letting it slide here.)
Thirdly- Public Works, Public Works, Public Works!- I'm pretty sure my native St. Louis has enough potholes to employ the whole jobless population for at least a year. Furthermore- if we're not doing anything else to fight climate Change, why not some quality reforestation while we're at it? Put people directly on the government payroll, hire professionals in construction and agriculture to train, oversee, and manage with the goal of employing people to the public benefit. Train our wasted human capital to build proper infrastructure! We need a new power grid, better rail systems, electric car charging stations, and environmentally sustainable dams. (I'm also in favor of more tall, menacing towers and moats filled with homeless alligators and confused bull sharks, but this is my compromise proposal:).
Nothing remotely original, but it needs constant saying. If the myth of Austerity=>prosperity is being trumpeted, we need to make social justice worth the while of business elites. (I admit, I feel dirty advising anything on business-friendly grounds, but oh well).
Solidarität, Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
P.S.- I'm considering reposting some old works in German- any advice on where to start?
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Landeswahlen, Volksbegehr, und Sparpolitik
Brief Update on German Politics
Hello, all.
I’ve got lots of thoughts on current German politics that are burning a
hole in my brain, (wait, what?), and thought I could make a shorter post
summarizing what I’ve been following from my distant seat back here in
Missouri. Some of it is actually quite
encouraging, while some is disheartening or even sickening.
State elections- the federal elections for the
Bundestag are approaching, set for September 2013, but many state legislatures
held their elections last winter, offering some idications of the national
mood. The news was very mixed- my
favorite party, die Linke/the Left lost some overall representation, but so did
the Frei Demokratische Partei/liberals, the reprehensible and unprincipled
business party who make it a priority to cut social services at every
opportunity and to try to use Germany’s economic power to coerce privatizations
in other countries. The change was
mostly in favor of the Greens, my second favorite party, and Neues Deutschland
speculates that Merkel will probably have to change coalition partners- perhaps
working either with the Greens or a sold-out SPD, as it seems unlikely that the
liberals will have the numbers to give her Christian party a majority. Two other footnotes in the returns- the
Piraten Partei won their first state legislature seats in Berlin, while the
neo-nazi National Democrats picked up a lot of strength, especially in the
south. the Social Dems are talking about
banning the National Democrats, and I think they ought to: insofar as Germany
constitutionally commits to banning fascist organizations from political power,
the NPD certainly qualifies, and it ought to give the Verfassungschutzamt
something to do other than harass union leaders, although they have been
working to observe and infiltrate the Nazi Underground movement, an
investigation lauded by the ND.
Energy- Berlin citizens have apparently
succeeded in petitioning for an initiative (Volksbegehr) to establish a
collective green power company for the city and surrounding regions of
Brandenburg. the only question remaining
(as of my last reading of the ND) is when the election will be held, with the
measure’s backers trying to get it on the September ballot. (Initiatives are always handicapped by low
turnout, so when possible they should be scheduled to coincide with bigger,
sexier elections to take advantage of their higher turnout.). Sadly, Merkel seems to be reconsidering her
newfound opposition to nuclear power, and the ND ran a rather amusing editorial
comparing her to the Simpsons‘ Mr. Burns.
Regulatory power is also under threat as Merkel, apparently as a favor
to her weakening coalition partners, is allowing great numbers of Free
Democrats to be installed in appointive office.
That can’t end well.
Sparpolitik und Privatisierung- the government
is still pushing for mass privatizations and abolition of social services in
countries with struggling economies- the most egregious ones look to be Spain’s
airports and water systems. The ND
points out correctly that the status of East German Volkseigenerbetrieb after
reunification offers a pretty strong case against wanton privatization- the
record time and again is of increased price to pad some investor’s wallet while
lowering the availability of vital service for citizens, but after all, if a
government cares about its people, it’s promptly called Socialist. (I happen to be a Socialist, but that’s beside
the pointJ)
It’s still my firmly held belief that the
vital sectors of the economy- food production and distribution, energy,
education, media, healthcare and transportation cannot be trusted to
exclusively private hands. Most of the
western world (and nearly all the developing world) has operated with this
viewpoint to one extent or another since the end of the Second World War, with
generally positive results. Now, insofar
as Austerity „Sparpolitik“ seeks to revert Social Contracts to their pre-war,
laissez faire state of indifference to human suffering and the evils of
capital, the fruits of collective responsibility are threatened.
Wenn ich ein Bürger Deutschlands war, wählt
ich Links- were I a German citizen, I’d vote Left
Just a brief update, Danke sehr, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Scotland, Salmond, and Secession
Hello, all.
It's still quite distant, but the day in September 2014 when Scotland will decide whether or not to claim independence and effectively secede from the United Kingdom is approaching. This is an interesting possibility from a historical standpoint- the conquest of Scotland by England, and the resulting United Kingdom of Great Britain (to which, in the words of W.S. Gilbert, some add, but others do not, Ireland) dates to the beginning of the 18th century, and has been unquestionable until the mid-twentieth. At present I cautiously support independence, but I'm keeping an open mind about the Union.
The present impetus for a referendum on Independence came out of the "Devolution" program begun, also by Referendum, in 1997, establishing a Scottish Parliament with significant but not total control of internal Scottish affairs. This accompanied the rise of the Scottish National Party at the expense of Labour, which had traditionally been strongest in the Highlands.
The Nationalists managed to win control of Parliament a few years ago, and since then their longtime leader Alex Salmond has ruled as First Minister of Scotland, chosen by the Scottish Parliament in its bizarre capital at Holyrood. I'm a little concerned at the level of devotion he seem to inspire from his party, which, when coupled with nationalist messages really gives a rather fascist impression, but from the past years I cannot deny that he knows how to run a government, and use it to care for the most vulnerable. While the trend across Britain from Blair to Brown to Cameron has been privatizations of vital sectors such as water and transit, Scottish governments in general and Salmond's in particular have pushed back, not only retaining the public infrastructure but extending further aid to Workers, particularly in the form of additional childcare. Scotland's economy is strengthening, helped I believe by the strong state role, and much of the credit for improving public services must go to Salmond, and capable deputies like Nicola Sturgeon. Youth unemployment is down 40 percent since he took office, and the SNP has remained firmly anti-war. Indeed, one of their top priorities is the removal of Britain's nuclear arsenal from Scottish soil. Back to the topic of youth in society, the government is just now pushing a bill which seems sure to pass, lowering the voting age to 16! This is pretty cool. Salmond and Sturgeon, (fishy as it sounds) know what they're doing.
The unfortunate part of all this is that Independence is not necessary to achieve the goals of the Scottish government. The most desired power which Scotland lacks is that to set its own tax rates- all the aid programs in the world won't last without the capital to fund them properly. This was to be originally offered as a third option in the referendum, but a combined effort of the Conservative and Labour parties got it booted. I regret to say that Labour leader and leftwing dreamboat Ed Miliband was a willing part of this effort. Parliament has gambled, probably correctly, that full-blown independence will prove less popular than a federal Scottish Parliament with the power to tax. The matter is further complicated by Scotland's desire to remain on the Pound Sterling rather than the Euro. That said, the benefits of a Scotland truly free to pursue a path of Social Democracy far outweigh these impediments, as we've seen, with boons to public health, working women, youth, and the anti-war movement already flowing from mere Devolution, an Independent Scotland could achieve so much more!
Scotland has shown it can manage its own affairs, and that its goals are significantly different than those of the Westminster government. honestly, I think a new Scotland, one more closely aligned with Northern Europe, could be a very positive force in global politics, and a check on an increasingly conservative and to some extent, militaristic England. Let's give Scotland its chance!
Solidarität mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
It's still quite distant, but the day in September 2014 when Scotland will decide whether or not to claim independence and effectively secede from the United Kingdom is approaching. This is an interesting possibility from a historical standpoint- the conquest of Scotland by England, and the resulting United Kingdom of Great Britain (to which, in the words of W.S. Gilbert, some add, but others do not, Ireland) dates to the beginning of the 18th century, and has been unquestionable until the mid-twentieth. At present I cautiously support independence, but I'm keeping an open mind about the Union.
The present impetus for a referendum on Independence came out of the "Devolution" program begun, also by Referendum, in 1997, establishing a Scottish Parliament with significant but not total control of internal Scottish affairs. This accompanied the rise of the Scottish National Party at the expense of Labour, which had traditionally been strongest in the Highlands.
The Nationalists managed to win control of Parliament a few years ago, and since then their longtime leader Alex Salmond has ruled as First Minister of Scotland, chosen by the Scottish Parliament in its bizarre capital at Holyrood. I'm a little concerned at the level of devotion he seem to inspire from his party, which, when coupled with nationalist messages really gives a rather fascist impression, but from the past years I cannot deny that he knows how to run a government, and use it to care for the most vulnerable. While the trend across Britain from Blair to Brown to Cameron has been privatizations of vital sectors such as water and transit, Scottish governments in general and Salmond's in particular have pushed back, not only retaining the public infrastructure but extending further aid to Workers, particularly in the form of additional childcare. Scotland's economy is strengthening, helped I believe by the strong state role, and much of the credit for improving public services must go to Salmond, and capable deputies like Nicola Sturgeon. Youth unemployment is down 40 percent since he took office, and the SNP has remained firmly anti-war. Indeed, one of their top priorities is the removal of Britain's nuclear arsenal from Scottish soil. Back to the topic of youth in society, the government is just now pushing a bill which seems sure to pass, lowering the voting age to 16! This is pretty cool. Salmond and Sturgeon, (fishy as it sounds) know what they're doing.
The unfortunate part of all this is that Independence is not necessary to achieve the goals of the Scottish government. The most desired power which Scotland lacks is that to set its own tax rates- all the aid programs in the world won't last without the capital to fund them properly. This was to be originally offered as a third option in the referendum, but a combined effort of the Conservative and Labour parties got it booted. I regret to say that Labour leader and leftwing dreamboat Ed Miliband was a willing part of this effort. Parliament has gambled, probably correctly, that full-blown independence will prove less popular than a federal Scottish Parliament with the power to tax. The matter is further complicated by Scotland's desire to remain on the Pound Sterling rather than the Euro. That said, the benefits of a Scotland truly free to pursue a path of Social Democracy far outweigh these impediments, as we've seen, with boons to public health, working women, youth, and the anti-war movement already flowing from mere Devolution, an Independent Scotland could achieve so much more!
Scotland has shown it can manage its own affairs, and that its goals are significantly different than those of the Westminster government. honestly, I think a new Scotland, one more closely aligned with Northern Europe, could be a very positive force in global politics, and a check on an increasingly conservative and to some extent, militaristic England. Let's give Scotland its chance!
Solidarität mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Snowden, Morales, and rude awakenings
Hello, all. I'm finally writing again.
I'm sure you've all heard- some Defense contractor, Edward Snowden, has released documents detailing the National Security Agency's massive wiretapping program. We all knew something of this sort was happening, and that it is probably unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier that any effort to put an injunction on this program depended on having proof that it was operating to begin with- proof whose exposure was illegal. Snowden apparently sought the job looking to expose as much of our government's espionage program as he could. Whatever his motivations, I'm glad he did.
For many like me, the Bush administration's massive wiretaps program was one of the main reasons to rally behind an early anti-war candidate in 2008. To a large extent, I supported Obama then because of his willingness to challenge the country's foreign policy consensus of long wars of occupation, torture, airstrikes on civilian targets, and stifling dissent, all while ignoring the bill of rights. Now we find that, as with the bombing campaigns, torture, and military occupations Obama has not only allowed wiretapping to continue but has apparently expanded it. This was all enabled by the FISA bill, passed early in his first term, setting up a quasilegal framework for constant surveillance. This was one of the first signs I noticed that I'd been had. (I'm sure there were earlier signs, but this was one of the first I noticed). Essentially, every phone call's source, destination, and duration are being recorded, while google, facebook and yahoo do the same with web patterns. Journalists' phones, in particular, are constantly tapped in the Justice Department's ongoing effort to end the practice of public disclosure of misdeeds, and it's not hard to see the massive data stockpile being used to selectively enforce laws against social elements labelled "undesirable", or simply to further enrich the security state, or haul more people off to for-profit prisons. Whatever the goal of the program, it offers an abundance of personal information that has never previously been the domain of the state to our government. Moreover, the Democrats who took office claiming rightly that the Republican programs had shredded our political liberties have now become ardent defenders of those same programs. I blame most of the party, but the onus of blame falls especially hard on those who led us to believe something else- namely the president and Attorney General Holder, as well as hardline Democratic hawks like Diane Feinstein, who has quickly become a caricature of herself in this affair.
Whether you support or oppose a surveillance state, I hope you agree with me that we need to discuss the emergence of one openly, with public knowledge of our government's decisions. this alone makes Snowden a hero.
The really depressing side of this, though, is the extent the Western World has gone to to apprehend Snowden. Stranded in Moscow's airport, most of Western Europe forbade Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane from returning home until they had searched it, on the pretense that he was smuggling Snowden to safety. Putting aside the laughable notion that a president as hawkish as Obama would not simply send in a (Reagan in Grenada style or Bush in Panama style) military raid on any country brave enough to harbor an American political refugee, this is a gross violation of international sovereignty. How would we react if our president was arbitrarily stopped in a foreign country and all his effects searched by jackbooted thugs? For the record, Morales is pretty awesome- imagine a Native American Hugo Chavez, albeit without the benefits or corruption of oil. The mere suspicion of Morales supporting Snowden was sufficient to suspend the rights of the president of a sovereign nation. The disappointing side of this, of course, is the extent to which the agenda of European states I like to believe are at least somewhat enlightened, states like France, Spain, Italy and Austria, coincided with that of our own government. The other service Snowden has performed in his flight is to show once more the arrogance of the American government, which has always sought to project its will globally, whether it be tearing down governments that support economic sufficiency for their populations, monopolizing the oil and arms trade, or repealing environmental treaties, now for the moment frustrated in its effort to apprehend the man who revealed its latest misdeed. With the spectre of Chelsea Manning's permanent suicide watch- namely, constant restraints in prison from which she will never be permitted to emerge alive, Snowden's flight is the only sensible path for a whistleblower who has not yet given up the fight. My heart goes out to him and any state willing to shelter him (well, maybe not Putin's Russia). Whatever the case, the public still has the right to know.
Solidarität, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
I'm sure you've all heard- some Defense contractor, Edward Snowden, has released documents detailing the National Security Agency's massive wiretapping program. We all knew something of this sort was happening, and that it is probably unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier that any effort to put an injunction on this program depended on having proof that it was operating to begin with- proof whose exposure was illegal. Snowden apparently sought the job looking to expose as much of our government's espionage program as he could. Whatever his motivations, I'm glad he did.
For many like me, the Bush administration's massive wiretaps program was one of the main reasons to rally behind an early anti-war candidate in 2008. To a large extent, I supported Obama then because of his willingness to challenge the country's foreign policy consensus of long wars of occupation, torture, airstrikes on civilian targets, and stifling dissent, all while ignoring the bill of rights. Now we find that, as with the bombing campaigns, torture, and military occupations Obama has not only allowed wiretapping to continue but has apparently expanded it. This was all enabled by the FISA bill, passed early in his first term, setting up a quasilegal framework for constant surveillance. This was one of the first signs I noticed that I'd been had. (I'm sure there were earlier signs, but this was one of the first I noticed). Essentially, every phone call's source, destination, and duration are being recorded, while google, facebook and yahoo do the same with web patterns. Journalists' phones, in particular, are constantly tapped in the Justice Department's ongoing effort to end the practice of public disclosure of misdeeds, and it's not hard to see the massive data stockpile being used to selectively enforce laws against social elements labelled "undesirable", or simply to further enrich the security state, or haul more people off to for-profit prisons. Whatever the goal of the program, it offers an abundance of personal information that has never previously been the domain of the state to our government. Moreover, the Democrats who took office claiming rightly that the Republican programs had shredded our political liberties have now become ardent defenders of those same programs. I blame most of the party, but the onus of blame falls especially hard on those who led us to believe something else- namely the president and Attorney General Holder, as well as hardline Democratic hawks like Diane Feinstein, who has quickly become a caricature of herself in this affair.
Whether you support or oppose a surveillance state, I hope you agree with me that we need to discuss the emergence of one openly, with public knowledge of our government's decisions. this alone makes Snowden a hero.
The really depressing side of this, though, is the extent the Western World has gone to to apprehend Snowden. Stranded in Moscow's airport, most of Western Europe forbade Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane from returning home until they had searched it, on the pretense that he was smuggling Snowden to safety. Putting aside the laughable notion that a president as hawkish as Obama would not simply send in a (Reagan in Grenada style or Bush in Panama style) military raid on any country brave enough to harbor an American political refugee, this is a gross violation of international sovereignty. How would we react if our president was arbitrarily stopped in a foreign country and all his effects searched by jackbooted thugs? For the record, Morales is pretty awesome- imagine a Native American Hugo Chavez, albeit without the benefits or corruption of oil. The mere suspicion of Morales supporting Snowden was sufficient to suspend the rights of the president of a sovereign nation. The disappointing side of this, of course, is the extent to which the agenda of European states I like to believe are at least somewhat enlightened, states like France, Spain, Italy and Austria, coincided with that of our own government. The other service Snowden has performed in his flight is to show once more the arrogance of the American government, which has always sought to project its will globally, whether it be tearing down governments that support economic sufficiency for their populations, monopolizing the oil and arms trade, or repealing environmental treaties, now for the moment frustrated in its effort to apprehend the man who revealed its latest misdeed. With the spectre of Chelsea Manning's permanent suicide watch- namely, constant restraints in prison from which she will never be permitted to emerge alive, Snowden's flight is the only sensible path for a whistleblower who has not yet given up the fight. My heart goes out to him and any state willing to shelter him (well, maybe not Putin's Russia). Whatever the case, the public still has the right to know.
Solidarität, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham
Monday, December 31, 2012
Time's up, the people lose
Apparently the administration is adding a partial retention of the estate tax moratorium to its offer to the Republicans. Honestly, it's hard for me to see any good coming of this- we saw last year that the S/P will punish the government every time it doesn't cut Medicare ad Medicaid, to say nothing of attempting to fund Social Security. (S/P said its credit downgrade was in response to what it viewed as insufficient cuts to health and welfare programs), meanwhile, the Republicans are in lockstep as ever, blocking any tax increase targeted by income, and holding down deduction adjustments to those most aimed at workers. No surprise there, and the administration has already pledged 152 billion in unrelated Social Security cuts in exchange for... Keeping the estate tax dead? Seriously, whose side are the Democrats on? I'm glad to see Harkin standing up, but without support from a White House that has betrayed its Democratic base at every opportunity, or a Scrooge-like change of heart from the House GOP I can't see anything good happening. Social Security is going to be weakened, and it remains to be seen just what damage will be done to seniors, workers, and families who rely on Medicare or Medicaid, but said damage will be horrible. Furthermore, the estate tax- a vital source of revenue for any government dating back to Henry II and before, and furthermore the best way to prevent concentration of wealth of the kind we've seen over the past two decades- will be kept dormant.
The entirety of the Republican Party, and a sizable contingent of the Democratic Party are completely dedicated to keeping things as they are for wealthy Capitalists, and philosophically committed to destroying the few social programs in existence. The president has appeased this group at every opportunity, but the structure of our republic does make it far easier for a minority to blackmail a majority than for a majority to govern the country, so the blame isn't all his. How do you negotiate with an enemy who has the ability to prevent you from doing anything to lead the country you were elected to govern, is committed to its goals, and tolerates no dissent? The president seems to think the answer is by giving them everything they want, discreetly or otherwise. The problem is- he's been doing that for four years now. I sure don't see any payoff. What little he's accomplished has either been with the Democratic House, or with Executive Order. The Republicans (and certain Democrats) are committed to his personal downfall, and the continuation of the rule of the American aristocracy. If he had realized this from the beginning, he may have been a great president. Now, he is left pleading lamely with the Republicans not to follow the demands of their base.
This would be a time to say that the middle way is none at all, but that's actually not appropriate, since only one side has taken the middle path, so really, the middle way is non-existent would be better. How can Democrats expect Republicans to respect progressive, communitarian values at the negotiating table if not in belief when their own president discards those values at every opportunity?
Solidarität
Genosse Graham
The entirety of the Republican Party, and a sizable contingent of the Democratic Party are completely dedicated to keeping things as they are for wealthy Capitalists, and philosophically committed to destroying the few social programs in existence. The president has appeased this group at every opportunity, but the structure of our republic does make it far easier for a minority to blackmail a majority than for a majority to govern the country, so the blame isn't all his. How do you negotiate with an enemy who has the ability to prevent you from doing anything to lead the country you were elected to govern, is committed to its goals, and tolerates no dissent? The president seems to think the answer is by giving them everything they want, discreetly or otherwise. The problem is- he's been doing that for four years now. I sure don't see any payoff. What little he's accomplished has either been with the Democratic House, or with Executive Order. The Republicans (and certain Democrats) are committed to his personal downfall, and the continuation of the rule of the American aristocracy. If he had realized this from the beginning, he may have been a great president. Now, he is left pleading lamely with the Republicans not to follow the demands of their base.
This would be a time to say that the middle way is none at all, but that's actually not appropriate, since only one side has taken the middle path, so really, the middle way is non-existent would be better. How can Democrats expect Republicans to respect progressive, communitarian values at the negotiating table if not in belief when their own president discards those values at every opportunity?
Solidarität
Genosse Graham
Thursday, December 20, 2012
advantages of a mixed-member legislature
Well, one of winter break's many advantages is time to write. I thought I'd take a moment to be weird and talk about how awesome a mixed-member proportional legislature is- this is the system used to determine representation in the German Bundestag. Generally, it unfolds as follows-
some the legislature's members are chosen through first-past the post district plurality voting, as all are in the U.S. and U.K. While this has many problems- i.e., it is winner-take all and discourages all but the most mainstream of opinions from being voiced- it does have the compelling advantage of ensuring that every citizen has an elected official personally answerable to their district's voters, ensuring a source of support for dealing with problems relating to government, on everything from pension checks to federal grants. But the majority- here's where it gets interesting- are chosen by party.
Each citizen gets two votes for the Bundestag- one for their own representative, and one for a party at the federal level. The parliamentary seats are assigned on a proportional basis deriving from these votes. Each party publishes a list of nominees in preferential order, and they fill out their share of the legislature accordingly. Candidates who win districts outright are bumped to the top of their party's list. Should a party win more districts than it is entitled to, more seats are added. At present, I believe the threshold for representation is 5% of the national vote. This ensures that moderate-to minor sized parties also get representation, and gives national attention to multiple viewpoints. At present, there are five parties in the Bundestag, and two others are near the threshold for representation. Now, more parties is not necessarily good- see Israel for a compelling indictment of extremely multi-party parliaments, with some forty parties represented in the Knesset, but I think it would be a good idea here- here is my estimation of what would be best here-
Republican Party- the Republican Party operates as a coalition between business interests/libertarians, hard-core war hawks and religious/racist fundamentalists, most of whom agree on basic issues, but have differing priorities when it comes to implementation. While the Republican Party is masterful at delivering national support for all these disparate groups, there is some tension at times- the Christians involved in the Dominionist movement have been working to bridge this gap. And for all those libertarians I know who claim that their brand of anarchy has nothing to do with religious hatred or mistrust of minorities, a MMP system would give them the chance to act as secular champions of feudalism, rather than as appendages of religious or (as they like to pretend) corporate authority.
Democratic Party- Democrats generally seem more compatibly aligned in term of goals, but far less compatible in terms of magnitude. I think it's fair to say that aside from blue dog dinos, most supporters of the Democratic Party are at least somewhat in favor of regulation of business interests, a healthy welfare state, equal rights under the law regardless of identity, a less confrontational foreign policy, and some environmental protection. There are some, like myself, who feel that class conflict is a fundamental part of American life and are therefore Socialists, some, like the president, who compromise on most of these basic goals for short term expediency, and many who are somewhere between those two avenues. All these basic goals have their particular champions, but the potential for schism is largely along lines of intensity rather than overall goal. And this is not necessarily bad- Germany has both a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist party. Each has a share of the Bundestag, and the SPD is actually the default strongest opposition party, while the Left is largely successful in the ehmalige DDR, and parts of Bayern, but maintains firm adherence to neo-Socialist philosophy, providing a sort of moral voice to German progressives. The Greens are quite successful too, and have been in government as many times as opposition over the past 20 years or so, to which I largely attribute Germany's world leadership in solar and wind power. Again, the thing to remember is that this actually works.
Right now, the government is a coalition between the Christian Democrats (Conservatives), Free Democrats (Pro-business opportunists with very few principles other than staying in government at all costs, being sidekick to the Christians, and cutting foreign aid budgets and women's shelters with gusto), with the SPD, Grünen, and Linke in opposition. The fascist NPD and freedom of information Pirate Party are both strong enough at the local level that they may soon win seats as well.
Here's an example of how things go there. The City of Lübeck, with a city council coalition between SPD, Linke, and Grünen, has recently had its administration dissolved over an issue of cuts- the city's budget repair plan (and I use that term with full knowledge of its significance to my fellow Wisconsinites) mandated a certain level of cutbacks in the social welfare programs that make Europe great. (Lübeck is a museum capital of the world). The local government, under the left-centrist SPd, specifically targeted women's shelters for the cuts. The Left and Greens, in a fine display of German chivalry, stood up to them, and left the government, joining the opposition, so the bill can't go through- the SPD then tried to form a coalition with the Christians, like they've done in Saarland, but the election will likely straighten this out. Each party has declared its position, responsibly letting the voters know its priority, and now the electorate can make an informed choice, rather than wondering which faction of the victorious party will dominate decision-making.
Another example is in the debate over Aids-treatment funding. The federal government, led by the Free Democratic Development Minister, is pushing through massive cuts to foreign aid in general and HIV/Aids programs in particular just as a serious dent is being made in new infection rates. In America, this would play out as the GOP calling for cuts, and the Dems debating, then finally saying "ok" and demolishing lifesaving programs. In Germany, the SPD seems undecided what to do- but not the Greens and the Left! They're calling for an expansion of foreign aid, paid for (along with most other budget needs) by implementing a common-sense regulation of a financial transactions tax.
The multi-party parliamentary system ensures that politicians are able to show spine on issues of importance to their voters, and that the abomination of divided government never slows up the functioning of the state for long. It also enables voters to make more informed decisions as to their choice of candidate and party, and allows a larger number of perspectives to be considered. Now, this is constitutionally impossible for now, but I earnestly believe this would be a better system- perhaps a state should experiment with redesigning its legislature elections- Nebraska has already done so with a switch to a unicameral legislature in 1934- this experiment has proven a success, and stands to this day. What we need is a small state willing to experiment- for the first time in American history, political outliers would know their votes would have significance, and we would arrive at a legislature that is more democratic. (definitely small d, possibly big D)
Now, the question of reconciling this democratization of a legislature with an independent executive... That's a problem, but I still would love to see this tried on the state or city level somewhere.
Solidarität, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Graham
some the legislature's members are chosen through first-past the post district plurality voting, as all are in the U.S. and U.K. While this has many problems- i.e., it is winner-take all and discourages all but the most mainstream of opinions from being voiced- it does have the compelling advantage of ensuring that every citizen has an elected official personally answerable to their district's voters, ensuring a source of support for dealing with problems relating to government, on everything from pension checks to federal grants. But the majority- here's where it gets interesting- are chosen by party.
Each citizen gets two votes for the Bundestag- one for their own representative, and one for a party at the federal level. The parliamentary seats are assigned on a proportional basis deriving from these votes. Each party publishes a list of nominees in preferential order, and they fill out their share of the legislature accordingly. Candidates who win districts outright are bumped to the top of their party's list. Should a party win more districts than it is entitled to, more seats are added. At present, I believe the threshold for representation is 5% of the national vote. This ensures that moderate-to minor sized parties also get representation, and gives national attention to multiple viewpoints. At present, there are five parties in the Bundestag, and two others are near the threshold for representation. Now, more parties is not necessarily good- see Israel for a compelling indictment of extremely multi-party parliaments, with some forty parties represented in the Knesset, but I think it would be a good idea here- here is my estimation of what would be best here-
Republican Party- the Republican Party operates as a coalition between business interests/libertarians, hard-core war hawks and religious/racist fundamentalists, most of whom agree on basic issues, but have differing priorities when it comes to implementation. While the Republican Party is masterful at delivering national support for all these disparate groups, there is some tension at times- the Christians involved in the Dominionist movement have been working to bridge this gap. And for all those libertarians I know who claim that their brand of anarchy has nothing to do with religious hatred or mistrust of minorities, a MMP system would give them the chance to act as secular champions of feudalism, rather than as appendages of religious or (as they like to pretend) corporate authority.
Democratic Party- Democrats generally seem more compatibly aligned in term of goals, but far less compatible in terms of magnitude. I think it's fair to say that aside from blue dog dinos, most supporters of the Democratic Party are at least somewhat in favor of regulation of business interests, a healthy welfare state, equal rights under the law regardless of identity, a less confrontational foreign policy, and some environmental protection. There are some, like myself, who feel that class conflict is a fundamental part of American life and are therefore Socialists, some, like the president, who compromise on most of these basic goals for short term expediency, and many who are somewhere between those two avenues. All these basic goals have their particular champions, but the potential for schism is largely along lines of intensity rather than overall goal. And this is not necessarily bad- Germany has both a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist party. Each has a share of the Bundestag, and the SPD is actually the default strongest opposition party, while the Left is largely successful in the ehmalige DDR, and parts of Bayern, but maintains firm adherence to neo-Socialist philosophy, providing a sort of moral voice to German progressives. The Greens are quite successful too, and have been in government as many times as opposition over the past 20 years or so, to which I largely attribute Germany's world leadership in solar and wind power. Again, the thing to remember is that this actually works.
Right now, the government is a coalition between the Christian Democrats (Conservatives), Free Democrats (Pro-business opportunists with very few principles other than staying in government at all costs, being sidekick to the Christians, and cutting foreign aid budgets and women's shelters with gusto), with the SPD, Grünen, and Linke in opposition. The fascist NPD and freedom of information Pirate Party are both strong enough at the local level that they may soon win seats as well.
Here's an example of how things go there. The City of Lübeck, with a city council coalition between SPD, Linke, and Grünen, has recently had its administration dissolved over an issue of cuts- the city's budget repair plan (and I use that term with full knowledge of its significance to my fellow Wisconsinites) mandated a certain level of cutbacks in the social welfare programs that make Europe great. (Lübeck is a museum capital of the world). The local government, under the left-centrist SPd, specifically targeted women's shelters for the cuts. The Left and Greens, in a fine display of German chivalry, stood up to them, and left the government, joining the opposition, so the bill can't go through- the SPD then tried to form a coalition with the Christians, like they've done in Saarland, but the election will likely straighten this out. Each party has declared its position, responsibly letting the voters know its priority, and now the electorate can make an informed choice, rather than wondering which faction of the victorious party will dominate decision-making.
Another example is in the debate over Aids-treatment funding. The federal government, led by the Free Democratic Development Minister, is pushing through massive cuts to foreign aid in general and HIV/Aids programs in particular just as a serious dent is being made in new infection rates. In America, this would play out as the GOP calling for cuts, and the Dems debating, then finally saying "ok" and demolishing lifesaving programs. In Germany, the SPD seems undecided what to do- but not the Greens and the Left! They're calling for an expansion of foreign aid, paid for (along with most other budget needs) by implementing a common-sense regulation of a financial transactions tax.
The multi-party parliamentary system ensures that politicians are able to show spine on issues of importance to their voters, and that the abomination of divided government never slows up the functioning of the state for long. It also enables voters to make more informed decisions as to their choice of candidate and party, and allows a larger number of perspectives to be considered. Now, this is constitutionally impossible for now, but I earnestly believe this would be a better system- perhaps a state should experiment with redesigning its legislature elections- Nebraska has already done so with a switch to a unicameral legislature in 1934- this experiment has proven a success, and stands to this day. What we need is a small state willing to experiment- for the first time in American history, political outliers would know their votes would have significance, and we would arrive at a legislature that is more democratic. (definitely small d, possibly big D)
Now, the question of reconciling this democratization of a legislature with an independent executive... That's a problem, but I still would love to see this tried on the state or city level somewhere.
Solidarität, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Graham
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Voter suppression in Wisconsin
First of all, it has come to my attention that we have a foreign audience, with a reader in the U.K., 2 in France, and four pageviews from the Bundesrepublik Deutschland- Wilkommen, mein Kameraden! Bitte, erzählen mir, was sie denken über die Frühling Wahlkampf! Ich muss meine ND mehr oft lesen, aber ich hoffe das Merkel wird verloren. Linke-Grünen, ich hoffe!
Now that I'm through butchering the language of my forefathers, on to business. This past election cycle, (as some of you may know) I tried to vote for Rocky Anderson for president. I had to write him in on the ballot, which is admissible and I had submitted the full slate of electors necessary for this vote to be counted. A friend of mine did likewise, indeed we both ran for elector on the Justice Party ticket- he at large, I for the second district. Having labored over my ballot to ensure my (admittedly atrocious) handwriting did not preclude the counting of my vote, I was fairly certain I had met all the necessary qualifications to make sure my vote got counted. December first rolled around, and I combed through the returns, only to find that no votes for Rocky had been counted in the 16th ward of Beloit, where my friend Sam and I voted. Irate correspondence with the GAB and Beloit City clerk got me the list of all write-in votes. Aside from the depressing fact that the fictional (if awesome) wookiee, Chewbacca matched our tally, I learned several unsettling things.
My vote seems to have been counted at the local level, as one vote was recorded for Anderson Rodriguez. this is presumably mine, as Sam neglected to write-in Rodriguez, leaving the VP slot blank). This half-counted vote may have been one of the three listed "scattering"-i.e., insignificant votes in the returns, but it should not have been, by the GAB's own admission.
The GAB says a mistake was made, and my vote should have been listed for Anderson. Instead, the results show an inflated total for the "scattering" column, and omit Anderson's votes.
Vote counting is done erratically- 112 votes for Anderson were counted statewide, yet mine was not. Clearly, we met the requirements, but someone in Rock County just decided my vote wasn't worth listing.
Sam's vote has entirely disappeared. Having seen all write-in votes cast in our ward, there was one vote for Anderson-Rodriguez (presumably mine), but none for just Anderson. As many other votes were cast for legally unqualified candidates with no VP slot, this becomes really troubling. Votes for Chewbacca, Ron Paul, and Palpatine were listed on the write-in tally sheet alongside my vote for Anderson-Rodriguez, but no vote for just Anderson was present. Where is Sam's vote?
I have been in contact with the GAB- they acknowledge a mistake was made, and say they'll make a note of it, but can't do anything to record my vote accurately, much less tell me what happened to Sam's ballot.
If anyone would like, I'll post the text of our email conversations here, to reveal just how little is done about improperly counted ballots.
The excuse I've been given again and again is that this isn't likely to change the outcome of the election and is therefore a waste of time. I disagree- I know Anderson didn't win a single state or electoral vote. This isn't about winning, this is about exercising my right to protest- if not on our ballots, where may we speak freely? I felt very strongly that I could not vote for either pro-war, anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-climate, pro-gun, pro-austerity Capitalist candidate, but I also felt that I should vote for a competent administrator, rather than merely a doctor or dentist who shares my beliefs. I found my guy, did the groundwork, made sure that votes for my candidate would be counted, ran for electoral college in support of him, and finally voted, or so I thought. Some clerk in Rock County decided to correct my ballot, lowering the total for Anderson statewide, and, more significantly, destroying my rationally decided protest. And then there's Sam's vote.
Forget president- if you want to rule the world, just make sure you're the one counting the votes. This admittedly offensive squelching of my rights to free speech and voting is relatively innocuous, but this, and much worse happens in elections where it does make a difference. If I, a relatively well-off, white student with the time on my hands to at least try to figure out if my vote was counted can be disenfranchised, just think what the suppressors can do to poor, minority voters! As it stands, nearly twenty percent of black votes are retroactively invalidated in Florida, and just last year Waukesha county produced 15 thousand miracle ballots for Prosser two days after the election! Voter suppression is rampant, and has been systematically deployed to shift election results to the right. By some accident, they decided to go after our votes too- we didn't fit the profile of their usual demographic targets beyond being students, and our votes were only of value in the sense that they would let us hold our heads high with the knowledge that WE VOTED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE to war, greed, recklessness, and indifference. They have taken that away from us with seemingly no reason, or maybe not even intention. It remains to be seen how much they've taken away from others.
This may have been a accident, but that leaves us with the question of why does the GAB refuse to fix it, and as I've asked before- what of Sam's vote? Where did it go, and who sent it there?
I've contacted MSNBC and the ACLU. I further intend to speak with my state rep upon returning to Beloit, but I really don't think I'll get any answers. So much for my attempt to vote- guess I'm another apathetic, young, non-voter through the action of some clerk's assistant, not any action or inaction of my own. I'll keep on voting, but I bet I'm on a caging list now for daring to ask. Probably won't work. I'll see what I can find out by next election.
In dejected Solidarität
Genosse Graham
Now that I'm through butchering the language of my forefathers, on to business. This past election cycle, (as some of you may know) I tried to vote for Rocky Anderson for president. I had to write him in on the ballot, which is admissible and I had submitted the full slate of electors necessary for this vote to be counted. A friend of mine did likewise, indeed we both ran for elector on the Justice Party ticket- he at large, I for the second district. Having labored over my ballot to ensure my (admittedly atrocious) handwriting did not preclude the counting of my vote, I was fairly certain I had met all the necessary qualifications to make sure my vote got counted. December first rolled around, and I combed through the returns, only to find that no votes for Rocky had been counted in the 16th ward of Beloit, where my friend Sam and I voted. Irate correspondence with the GAB and Beloit City clerk got me the list of all write-in votes. Aside from the depressing fact that the fictional (if awesome) wookiee, Chewbacca matched our tally, I learned several unsettling things.
My vote seems to have been counted at the local level, as one vote was recorded for Anderson Rodriguez. this is presumably mine, as Sam neglected to write-in Rodriguez, leaving the VP slot blank). This half-counted vote may have been one of the three listed "scattering"-i.e., insignificant votes in the returns, but it should not have been, by the GAB's own admission.
The GAB says a mistake was made, and my vote should have been listed for Anderson. Instead, the results show an inflated total for the "scattering" column, and omit Anderson's votes.
Vote counting is done erratically- 112 votes for Anderson were counted statewide, yet mine was not. Clearly, we met the requirements, but someone in Rock County just decided my vote wasn't worth listing.
Sam's vote has entirely disappeared. Having seen all write-in votes cast in our ward, there was one vote for Anderson-Rodriguez (presumably mine), but none for just Anderson. As many other votes were cast for legally unqualified candidates with no VP slot, this becomes really troubling. Votes for Chewbacca, Ron Paul, and Palpatine were listed on the write-in tally sheet alongside my vote for Anderson-Rodriguez, but no vote for just Anderson was present. Where is Sam's vote?
I have been in contact with the GAB- they acknowledge a mistake was made, and say they'll make a note of it, but can't do anything to record my vote accurately, much less tell me what happened to Sam's ballot.
If anyone would like, I'll post the text of our email conversations here, to reveal just how little is done about improperly counted ballots.
The excuse I've been given again and again is that this isn't likely to change the outcome of the election and is therefore a waste of time. I disagree- I know Anderson didn't win a single state or electoral vote. This isn't about winning, this is about exercising my right to protest- if not on our ballots, where may we speak freely? I felt very strongly that I could not vote for either pro-war, anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-climate, pro-gun, pro-austerity Capitalist candidate, but I also felt that I should vote for a competent administrator, rather than merely a doctor or dentist who shares my beliefs. I found my guy, did the groundwork, made sure that votes for my candidate would be counted, ran for electoral college in support of him, and finally voted, or so I thought. Some clerk in Rock County decided to correct my ballot, lowering the total for Anderson statewide, and, more significantly, destroying my rationally decided protest. And then there's Sam's vote.
Forget president- if you want to rule the world, just make sure you're the one counting the votes. This admittedly offensive squelching of my rights to free speech and voting is relatively innocuous, but this, and much worse happens in elections where it does make a difference. If I, a relatively well-off, white student with the time on my hands to at least try to figure out if my vote was counted can be disenfranchised, just think what the suppressors can do to poor, minority voters! As it stands, nearly twenty percent of black votes are retroactively invalidated in Florida, and just last year Waukesha county produced 15 thousand miracle ballots for Prosser two days after the election! Voter suppression is rampant, and has been systematically deployed to shift election results to the right. By some accident, they decided to go after our votes too- we didn't fit the profile of their usual demographic targets beyond being students, and our votes were only of value in the sense that they would let us hold our heads high with the knowledge that WE VOTED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE to war, greed, recklessness, and indifference. They have taken that away from us with seemingly no reason, or maybe not even intention. It remains to be seen how much they've taken away from others.
This may have been a accident, but that leaves us with the question of why does the GAB refuse to fix it, and as I've asked before- what of Sam's vote? Where did it go, and who sent it there?
I've contacted MSNBC and the ACLU. I further intend to speak with my state rep upon returning to Beloit, but I really don't think I'll get any answers. So much for my attempt to vote- guess I'm another apathetic, young, non-voter through the action of some clerk's assistant, not any action or inaction of my own. I'll keep on voting, but I bet I'm on a caging list now for daring to ask. Probably won't work. I'll see what I can find out by next election.
In dejected Solidarität
Genosse Graham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)