Why Molly Ivins and I will not vote for Hillary

by: Kankakee Voice

Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 13:24:17 PM CST


I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president:
From Molly Ivins: Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
And now a year later in the WaPo Hillary announces - LIKE IT'S A GOOD THING - she won't use public funds!!!:
By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

 

Kankakee Voice :: Why Molly Ivins and I will not vote for Hillary
Others have opted out of public financing for the nomination campaigns, but Clinton is the first since the current structure was created in 1974 to declare she will forgo public financing in the general election as well.

Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

One effect is to put lesser-known candidates at a further disadvantage in competing with rivals who have the capacity to raise huge amounts of money.

Mrs. Clinton's continued arrogance  (very Bush-like) and lack of loyalty to the base of the democratic party and left leaning voters is contemptible and I will not reward her with my vote, should she get the nomination.

Mrs. Clinton's actions prove her, and the whole democratic party's belief, that, unlike the Republicans who pander to their base, the democrats don't think they have to. Ala the Clinton's good friend, Rahm Emanuel, the powers that be in the democratic party simply take liberals for granted. They know that most of us will be "practical" and overlook the contempt Clinton shows towards true political reform by annoucing a move like this.

We here in the left have been demanding public funding of all political campaigns, so Clinton announces she won't accept ANY PUBLIC FUNDING AT ALL. In essence telling those of us in the left and who are reform minded and trying to clean up the swamp that are political campaigns and donations to go F*ck off. Thanks Hillary!

Also by doing this she has put up a big sign to lobbyists, big moneyed special interest and big moneyed corporation to COME ON IN, IT'S SAFE HERE WITH US DEMOCRATS. Business will continue as usual for the rich and powerful with Mrs. Clinton in charge.
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why Molly Ivins and I will not vote for Hillary | 61 comments
Well... (4.00 / 1)
...I absolutely will not vote for Hillary in the primary, but I would certainly vote for her should she get the nomination. I am certain that she is better than anyone the GOP puts up and I'm not interested in splitting the vote with a third party candidate.
But Bridget (4.00 / 2)
How do we stop this business as usual, where all the benefits go to the rich and powerful while the rest of us struggle, if "we" - even if "we" is a minority at first - don't start in very concrete way like NOT working for, voting for or donating our money to, politicians like Clinton who don't really care about reform? How is anything important ever going to be changed?

They - the democrats in power - know that their base is loath to vote for or even NOT vote and thereby let win, a republican candidate who seemingly represents even more of all things we hate. But really if the middle class, most people's interests, are not made a priority what have we gained? Sure politics is about compromise. But it seems we - the left, the real reformers - are always compromising our most basic values for a lesser evil. Is that really a choice? Choosing the lesser of two evils?? When all it would really take is courage and patience on our part - some real sticking together for the sake of some rock bottom and very important values - to change things?

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
Keep building strength (0.00 / 0)
We have to keep building strength as an alternative.  If it becomes obvious we can and will deliver the votes then the representation will change.

  FDR famously told someone that came to lobby him that they convinced him now go make him do it.  In other words until we can get overwhelming public opinion on our side we can not make the necessary changes.

My experience with Working Families Win and my involvement in the Greater Chicago Caucus have convinced me that we need to work together to form coalitions to move the debate.

http://greaterchicag...

http://www.wfwin.org...

We Educated, We Lobbied, We Marched, and US Policy has not changed. Now is the time to unite as never before to ensure policy change that supports human needs both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Greater Chicago Caucus

[ Parent ]
My pesimistic side (4.00 / 1)
Building strength is great. But buying strength is easy. Pubic opinion is swayed by strength, but the one with the biggest, baddest, loudest bullhorn is often the one who gets heard, and sways public opinion their way - not necessarily the strongest.

Clinton has the ability to raise money hand over fist. We can see just how much she will have to spend by the blog ad on the side of our blog from her campaign - an how it's on just about every blog there is. Even Right-Wing blogs. She's got money to push her message even in places where that message is not welcome like the Blogosphere.

At some point there has to be accountability. Opting out of public financing sends a signal that public financing be damned, I'm going to buy the election.  It's just the wrong direction to take.

[ Parent ]
Say Amen! n/t (0.00 / 0)


Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony
[ Parent ]
Amen (0.00 / 0)


We Educated, We Lobbied, We Marched, and US Policy has not changed. Now is the time to unite as never before to ensure policy change that supports human needs both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Greater Chicago Caucus
[ Parent ]
Hear! Hear! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
sounds like the same... (4.00 / 1)
argument I used for not voting for Duckworth in the General.  Boy did I get a lot of abuse for that position.  I imagine you will as well for yours.
[ Parent ]
Countering biz as usual (0.00 / 0)
Work hard--& give 'til it hurts--to worthy primary candidates. But when it comes to the general I'll not see McCain take it.
[ Parent ]
Last Night ... (0.00 / 0)
I signed up to give $10 a month to both the DNC and DFA. This morning a pledged $25 to the 21st Century Democrats. But you sneer and tell *me* to f**k off. Sorry, that won't fly in this quarter.

None of this has anything to do with Hillary, of course.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

21st Century Dems (0.00 / 0)
"Twenty-First Century Democrats believes that the core problem leading to our electoral failures is the lack of bold visionary leadership. We need leaders who are willing to risk everything to stand up for what they know is right. Twenty-First Century Democrats wants to make sure that the next generation of our party's leadership is as bold as our current leaders are timid.

The best way to achieve sustainable majorities - and to enact substantive changes in public policy - is to invest in the kind of leaders who will inspire their community, give voters a compelling reason to elect them, and will not cower in fear at the first sign of difficulty.

While we support the efforts of progressive organizations to take back majorities at both the state and federal levels in 2006, we recognize that the Democratic Party suffers from a lack of leadership and the lack of a farm team of proven leaders unafraid to stand up for progressive values. Leadership is the key not only to winning elections, but also to taking actions after Election Day that define our party, inspire communities, allow us to govern effectively, and sustain our success.

Twenty-First Century Democrats understands that this is a significant shift in the progressive paradigm. Fundraising prowess is more important than leadership ability for most Democratic consultants, strategists, and party leaders. For them, short-term electoral success is more important than electing candidates who can effectively lead the majorities we hope to elect. We have tried this failed strategy for more than a decade, and it has failed. The tactical approach to elections is bankrupt.

It is time for something different." - mission statement of 21st Century Dems

So I'm not sure what your point is?  Sounds like don't vote for Hillary to me.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
As I Emphasized, (0.00 / 0)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Hilary. But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any candidate of any stripe. Or -- at least that's the implication I take -- to any political organization of any kind. I value greatly the ability to put my money where my mouth is (and my feet are).

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted
[ Parent ]
Well.... (0.00 / 0)
I do think that if we want real reform in our government we need to take financial considerations out of the equation, which means public funding of all political campaigns. As long as politicians are dependent on any special interest for money there is going to be a conflict of interest.

I would love to see a case go to the Supreme Court arguing that "free speech" is not equal to financial donations made to a politician. How can it be free speech if it costs money? Especially the large amounts of money we are talking about in today's political campaigns. If most people can't afford the access to politicians that big business has because of the money spent by it's lobbyists in D.C. or any State Capital, how can that be "free speech"?

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
I would settle.. (0.00 / 0)
for saying corporate speech in not the same as free speech.  I don't mind if politicians spend all the money in the world if it comes from individual supporters, with limit caps so the rich do not have undo influence, but when corporations or other groups can pour tons of money into a race then money is an issue.
[ Parent ]
But We're Talking About Federal Races (0.00 / 0)
Where, as you know, corporations are not allowed to give a dime.

Now if you want to talk about limiting corporations' and rich folks' ability to contribute to Illinois state races, I'm with you. Except that [sign] no one but me seems to give an expletive about the State of Illinois.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
Giving an expletive for IL (0.00 / 0)
I care. Here's a sample. Disappointed that I cannot trust the motives of my state rep. due to the sources of his funds, I supported his challenger last fall. But the newbie's campaign was mostly funded by out-of-district cash, which was almost as disturbing.
[ Parent ]
Really Glad to Hear It (0.00 / 0)
It was getting frustrating that no one else would bother to acknowledge that we have a problem.

Next question: How do we get the Illinois campaign finance law changed? It can be done. Other states have done it -- Tom DeLay is probably going to jail for something that would have been 100% legal in Illinois. But how do we get the ball rolling?

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
No certainty here (0.00 / 0)
about the answers but I plan to continue to squeal about it in both print & online forums & support the most reform-minded candidates possible. No reason the campaign-finance reform issue can't be right up there with education funding and property tax relief.
[ Parent ]
And if I get a little time (0.00 / 0)
-- this workload can't continue indefinitely, although the money is great -- I'm going to see if I can't get DFI behind a push for campaign finance reform. Some of what we saw a year ago suggests a number of people realize there is a problem, but with the campaign already ramping up at that time candidates (especially Blagojevich) were more concerned with their own cash position than with what would be good for the state in the long run. Maybe this is the time to start pushing.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted
[ Parent ]
"corporations are not allowed to give a dime??!!" (0.00 / 0)
Contribution Limits

An individual can give up to:

$2,000 per election to any candidate or candidate committee
$25,000 per calendar year to a national party committee
$10,000 per calendar year to each state or local party committee
$5,000 per calendar year to a Political Action Committee (PAC), a political group usually representing some issue-oriented organization, business or labor interest
$95,000 per two-year election cycle to candidates, national party committees and PACs
A multicandidate political committee can give up to:

$5,000 per election to any candidate or candidate committee
$15,000 per calendar year to a national party committee
$5,000 per calendar year to any PAC
Candidate committees, national party committees, multicandidate committees and PACs can and do spend large amounts that don't go directly to the candidates themselves. Corporations and unions can pay for radio and TV commercials that support a candidate and run more than 60 days before a general election. During the 60-day period they can't support a candidate directly. But they can indirectly, for example through commercials on an issue associated with the candidate and important to the group.

Though individuals can give no more than $2,000, they can lead a drive in their place of business, to "bundle" their contribution with those of others. For example, as of September 2003 Merrill Lynch, the financial services company, had contributed $364,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign in donations from employees and their immediate family members. The employees of the law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, had bundled $97,500 in contributions for Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry.

Political committees making use of a vague area of campaign finance law have spent more than $430 million in unlimited and unregulated amounts during the past three years to influence elections and policy debates through commercials, voter drives and political research. Both the Republican and Democratic parties work steadily, hard and successfully at finding ways to get around campaign finance regulations.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
yet corporations and unions are prohibited from giving... n/t (0.00 / 0)


"We have a lot of kids on the ground acting like adults and we have a lot of adults in this room acting like kids," President Obama told his advisors about all the infighting
[ Parent ]
I Like Hillary (0.00 / 0)
She stayed with her unworthy husband, and that's sayin' something, and she seems "softer" now (great staging!  was that cheesecloth over the lens?).  And though I don't expect to vote for her in a primary, I could see voting for her in the general, depending on the neandrathal factor of the Republicans' nominee.  If I had to vote in a primary today for one of the declared and/or exploring candidates (and thank goodness I don't), I'd vote for Bill Richardson. 

However, I think the left wing of the Democrats has been far more succesful than they give themselves credit for. As a result, there aren't any Democrats (IMO) who have sufficient credibility on the subject of national defense.

Where is Harry Truman when you need him?

-jde

He wasn't some middle manager (0.00 / 0)
She stayed with her unworthy husband, and that's sayin' something, ...

Um, she stayed with him to be sure. But his being the President of the United States and the most powerful man alive probably had something to do with that.

[ Parent ]
True 'nuf. (4.00 / 1)
If ever a person couldn't manage his middle, it was William Jefferson Clinton.
[ Parent ]
Vasoline (0.00 / 0)
.... on the lens that is. That's how they give us women of a *certain age* a softer look.

Staying with her "unworthy husband" was a no-brainer if she loved him and enjoyed his company, and they shared a child together. Only those who have children know what a cosmic tie children are.

So he got a blow job from a younger woman. Not a great character reference, but there she was, an ADULT woman ready and willing to comply with his clearly "it's only about sex" behavior. I'm not applauding or excusing Bill's behavior, but Monica was equally respondsible also. Trying to make out she was less responsible is demeaning to all adult women, imo.

When I was younger, in my 20's, I was confused that sex and love had something to do with each other. They don't. Sex is sex: a basic biological instinct. Love involves not just your feelings but your intellect, your higher brain functions. Loving someone is a decision and a commitment. Not saying this should give Bill Clinton points at all, but his actions were clearly saying he loved his wife. If anyone woman thinks giving a blow job to a man in a small room off to the side of the Oval Office is love, she's a damn fool. Inspite of his transgression, Bill clearly regretted upsetting Hillary and his daughter - NOT Monica.

How do you see left wing democrats, or just plain liberals, as being successful? In my eyes we get small concessions, while the REAL values items keep getting  "comprised" away. For instance Hillary announcing she won't accept public funding - like it's a GOOD THING? 

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
Try Finding a Dem Candidate Who Supports This War.... (0.00 / 0)
That's why I think the Democratic Left has been more successful than you give yourselves credit for(here, acknowledging the obvious--that you seem to occupy a "lefter" position on the political continuum than I). 

My position on the war, the military and its importance is admittedly more "Sam Nunn" than it is "John Edwards", and I don't really have a candidate running who I can whole-heartedly support. 

So, IMO, you've been quite successful at forcing any 2008 Dem standar-bearer to adopt an anti-Iraq-war message (even when s/he voted for it in the first place!). 

Congratulations.  Based on that, I'd say you definitely won this round.

-jde

[ Parent ]
Not just the left or just Democrats (0.00 / 0)
That is a really good example of when the public opinion is over whelming the policy has to change.  It is not just people on the left that are not happy with this war. People that would describe themselves as conservatives as well as middle of the road are also against the war.
  Once the opinion on any subject is above 50% it is no longer a left or right issue.
Still there is the caution even in the Democratic Party to make major changes in policy.
So we have not reached what would be called the tipping point yet.

We Educated, We Lobbied, We Marched, and US Policy has not changed. Now is the time to unite as never before to ensure policy change that supports human needs both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Greater Chicago Caucus
[ Parent ]
Today I heard Evan Bayh (0.00 / 0)
yammering on about al-Maliki and repeating about six zillion times that the Iraqis "have to do the right thing."

Sure sounded like support for Bush's policies to me.

It does not seem to have occured to Bayh that maybe the Iraqis might have a different opinion of what the "right thing" is, and of what is the right thing for Iraq instead of the US.

With Democrats like this, we don't need Republicans.

[ Parent ]
hey Eds (0.00 / 0)
...is you comment,

However, I think the left wing of the Democrats has been far more succesful than they give themselves credit for. As a result, there aren't any Democrats (IMO) who have sufficient credibility on the subject of national defense.

  a critique of the left side of the party as doing damage to the party's ability to be credible on national defense.  Because if it is I beg to differ.  It is the pandering to Bush's war plans to prevent themselves from somehow looking non-`patriotic' and thus damaging their political careers, that has made them less then `credible on defense', or more accurately in current situation `offense'. 

[ Parent ]
It wasn't, and it isn't. (0.00 / 0)
It's just acknowledging the obvious.  I support the surge (actually, a larger one than the President has ordered), and the military's mission to assist the new democratic government of Iraq prevail over bloody terrorists.  It's not a popular position right now, and I respect the opposition.  So do the Democratic (and some Republican) presidential candidates--so much so that I can't find a Democrat in the Senate, much less running for President, who is willing to take my view.

I feel this is a seminal issue for our nation, and the cornerstone of our national effort to prove we can deny a haven to terrorists. Anyone who wants to withdraw our military before we've accomplished that lacks national defense credibility TO ME, IN MY OPINION and that needn't be the same for you, which I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT. 

To wit, Chuck Hagel (whom I much admire) is as wrong on this issue, IN MY OPINION, as Barack Obama.  It's an "issue thing", not a "party thing".

Last, to Christine, I politely beg to differ.  While I admit there is growing discontent with the war, and I acknowledge that it's unpopular with > 50% of poll respondents, I disagree that this is a settled question.

-jde

[ Parent ]
Eds I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
except that we should not have gone in and should not be in Iraq. We should be doing all this in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan. Osama. Afghanistan. Osama.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
The Objective is Far More Broad Than Osama. Or Afghanistan. (0.00 / 0)
KV, I believe the mission has grown far beyond targeting OBL.  In fact, he's reasonably neutralized right now. I feel our over-riding military objective is to work with allies where we can, and to oppose enemies where we must, to prove beyond doubt that we have the will and the ability to deny a haven to terrorists.  This is why I believe the mission in Iraq is of such supreme importance--in fact, far more importance than when it began, IMO.
[ Parent ]
And there is where we have (0.00 / 0)
our complete breakdown in agreement.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony
[ Parent ]
What A Progressive Democrat Does In This Situation (0.00 / 0)
Obviously, given a choice between Hillary and her Republican mirror image, like John McCain, what do you do? Vote for Hillary, of course. She has her flaws, but she's better than any jerk the GOP will put up.

What you don't do is give her money, or work for her campaign. If your position requires it, phone in the minimum. There will always be candidates and issues that are more deserving than the homogenized Frankencandidates we get for President from both parties. One hopes these will be local causes, perhaps fighting a gay-marriage ban, or a good grassroots candidate for Congress. But

And take a close look at the organizations that come out for her in a strong fashion. It's helpful, for example, to look at who really put themselves behind the fraudulent Todd Stroger candidacy, versus who phoned it in or refrained entirely. Based on the Stroger support test, Forrest Claypool's progressive credentials are strong; David Fagus/Joe Moore not so much.

I see your point about (0.00 / 0)
Moore and Fagus. Was Forrest in a party position or political position at the time of his resistance to Stroger? So, I guess, I'm asking how much more phoning in did Fagus and Moore have to do because of their political profiles? Do you think it's always easier to be a "good" progressive the less political "power" you have?

Is the Stroger thing a red herring. That Republican clown (his name slips me at the moment) that was running against Stroger, he's no progressive for sure. So is the Stroger test problematic when it comes to measuring progressiveness?

Admittedly I'm biased towards Moore, but I do appreciate your nuances here.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
i agree... (4.00 / 1)
i've already written that i will not, under any circumstances, vote for hillary.  if she's the nominee, she will have to live without my vote.  she can't win, so it's not that big a deal.  and hillary will crystalize conservatives like no other candidate possibly can.

i've been very clear and consistent on this kind of thing: the bush doctrine has to go, be reputiated, shown for the immoral action that it is.  hillary doesn't have the backbone to do this.

but even if she suddenly grew some courage, i could not support her.  this trading of the presidency back and forth between the bush family and the clinton is antithetical to the kind of democracy i want to live in.  i want no part of dynastic politics...

"We have a lot of kids on the ground acting like adults and we have a lot of adults in this room acting like kids," President Obama told his advisors about all the infighting

It's the War, stupid. (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who supports or supported the war in Iraq will not get my vote in 2008. If you couldn't see the freight train of lies and deceit coming down the track in 2002, how can I trust you to cut through the bullshit and do the right thing now?  I don't want someone making nicey-nicey with the chickenhawks and playing footsie with the Christian fascists to tell me with a wink and a nod that hey, it's just flirting, it's you I really want.

That said, it's better to have sinned and repented than never to have repented at all. So if I can't vote for a candidate who saw through Bush's lies right off and will work to do a 180 on American foreign policy, I will vote for the one still standing who will admit his or her errors forthrightly and have the courage to fight for what's right, the polls and focus groups and all the other crap be damned.

Right now, although I can't stand the man, I'd vote for Bush before I'd vote for Hillary. He's crazy as a dopehouse louse, but at least he's got the courage of his conviction. Of course it's the courage to drive right off the edge of a cliff, but you have to admit he's got a story and he's sticking to it.

Maybe if she would tell the truth, that would help. Or, maybe she is telling the truth. If so, that would make her a weasel. I don't vote for weasels. Weasels are gonna let you down, sooner or later. It's in their nature.

[ Parent ]
More Gore? (0.00 / 0)
As reported on Ron Grunzberger's Politics1.com website, James Carville has told Rolling Stone that he fully expects Al Gore to run for President in 2008.  Wouldn't that be something!?
Gore has my vote (0.00 / 0)
LOCKED UP if he runs! He knows what is good for our country. He was way ahead of everyone on global warming and the internet. Besides, he WON the 2000 election, he should get his chance at the presidency. (Not that I put any faith in anything Carville says.) I would hope he would embrace the Green Party Values and run on a Green Party ticket.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony
[ Parent ]
Green Gore = Bull Moose (0.00 / 0)
TR tried something similar, and it didn't work very well for him.  If Gore runs, I'd like to see him run as a Democrat; it would be nice to see him joust with his competitors in the debates, as it sharpens the issues, as well as the winner's skills for the general election.

Speaking of the notion that Gore won the 2000 election, I regrettably disagree--but only because we have an imperfect system, and by the rules of that system, W won. 

However, the system is really, really awful.

I am wondering if people who are considering a candidacy in 2008 will also consider advocating a plank to institute one person, one vote national elections. I don't know if it should be a constitional amendment, or if it could be legislated, but I think it is seriously worth considering for a few reasons:

First, under such a system (which is, in my opinion, more perfect), Gore WOULD have won.

And second, it makes each vote more direct and meaningful, thereby increasing voter participation, in my opinion.  To wit, a true-blue democrat in Utah has every reason to vote, and to try to convince his compadres to vote, regardless of living in a deep red state. Ditto a republican living in Illinois. 

However, the current system tends to cancel out minority votes in each state, by awarding all electors to that states winning party.

It's not quite Instant Runoff Voting, but it's a heckuva lot better than what we have right now.

[ Parent ]
IRV is the way to go (0.00 / 0)
That seems to me the most perfect way of ensuring every vote counts, and it helps give more than just two parties a chance in local, state or federal elections.

W won only because of Scalia's political vote in the Supreme Court. "The people" should have took to the streets when the decision of who would be president was given to the Supreme Court rather than the procedure that is written into the constitution - for just such an occasion as in 2000 - being used to pick our president. I don't call a stolen, or fixed, election a "win".

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
Two Separate Issues (0.00 / 0)
We agree that IRV is best.  However, it's a different issue than direct national elections.  We can (and I do) advocate IRV locally, at the same time we advocate direct election of Presidents.  It's time for the electoral college to go.

[ Parent ]
National Popular Vote (0.00 / 0)
I thought that we had written about this here before, but I couldn't find it. In any case, you might want to take a look at the National Popular Vote website. It does a pretty good job laying out where things stand with regard to this. It also shows how broad of appeal something like this has. The supporters are generally very bi- (non-?) partisan. However, as others have responded, it requires constitutional amendments and those need to have (today) almost unanimous support and some major event as a driving force to see a change.

There are ways for states to force it to happen on their own, Jeff has talked about getting a group of large states together with laws requiring changing delegates to match the national popular vote if enough other states institute the same laws, but it is difficult because of both inertia and potentially going against the state's interests (even if not the interest of the nation or citizenry as a whole).

ltsply2

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
However, as others have responded, it requires constitutional amendments and those need to have (today) almost unanimous support and some major event as a driving force to see a change.

Good grief!  The worse guy won, and went on to start a war that has grown to be about as popular as a klansman at an NAACP meeting. How much more major an event do we need?

Or, maybe you shouldn't answer that.

-jde

[ Parent ]
On this we agree... (0.00 / 0)
It is mindboggling how unlikely it is. In order to see an amendment on the National Popular Vote pass, I think that you would need to have at least a 4 point national popular vote loss (two party) with a nail-biter electoral victory. Also the distribution of the loss would have to be such that the winner of the electoral college would have to take primarily just the big states with 50% + 1 vote while the loser carried all the smaller states handily. (In other words, it'd almost have to be a Democrat getting the "win".)

ltsply2
[ Parent ]
Quoth Hillary: (0.00 / 0)
We won't know unless we try.

-jde

[ Parent ]
Both youse guys are forgetting (0.00 / 0)
That there is a way of doing a National Popular vote without an amendment. Still hard but not nearly as hard. I diaried a while back on the "National Popular" vote effort of getting compacts in the 11 or so most popular states that would have the same effect as an amendment.

The idea is that a state can choose its electoral college members any way it wants. So if the most populous, or enough, states each chose to award their delegates according to who won the popular vote, that would have the same result without an amendment. Supposedly California has a bill well along and Illinois even has one somewhere in committee.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
To Clarify (0.00 / 0)
I believe you're saying that these states will give *all* their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of what the vote in the particular state may have been.

I find it hard to believe that people in Illinois will agree to have the outcome in our state determined by what people in New York do.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
You may be right (0.00 / 0)
but it's not just N.Y. but the outcome of the whole country. Illinois would give all of its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote as counted in all the states.

Republicans might love the idea since Illinois is expected to go Democratic for the foreseeable future. And Democrats might go for it remembering Gore vs Bush where Bush lost by 500,000 votes.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
Foreseeable future? (0.00 / 0)
Illinois will remain reliably Democratic precisely so long as the Illinois Republican party remains so bitterly divided it cannot mount a successful campaign. To put it another way, so long as there are neocons who would rather vote for a Green than for an "establishment" Republican.

But that may not greatly outlast 2008 and Bush's departure from the White House. Illinois is basically a purple state and I would be surprised if it were many years before election results once more reflected that reality.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
Neocon would NOT vote Green! (0.00 / 0)
Now William, only a "regular" republican MIGHT consider voting Green. NeoCons certainly would not, Greens are pro non-violence and are for Social Justice & Equal Opportunity and for Grassroots Democracy. 

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony
[ Parent ]
Oh?? (0.00 / 0)
1. Someone on this thread was urging progressive Democrats not to vote for Hilary because she doesn't support our positions. I cannot belive that neocons are so much more principled that they will vote for their party's nominee regardless of her position on their issues. Especially when this is part of an ideological power struggle that makes what we see in the Democratic party look like pattycake.

2. A glance at the vote totals in the DuPage County precinct I closed made it obvious that essentially everyone who voted for Whitney had cast all their other votes for Republicans. To me, it simply makes no sense that these would be people who had supported Topinka in the primary.

3. If Greens support non-violence, why did their gubernatorial candidate say they all should be carrying concealed handguns?

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
Welllll.... (0.00 / 0)
based on all we've observed from Bush's base, the 27% who can arguably be labled Neocon - those who totally and unconditionally support the Iraq war, AND are big "values voters re: abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research. I can't see these people voting Green.

I say don't vote for Hillary because she is already totally part of the problem. She IS one of the rich elite who thinks it is necessary to give big multinational corporations breaks. Because, imo, she is a politician and wants the donations to stay in power and control.

I can see "regular" republicans, who don't like big government or taxes - who would have maybe voted for Topinka if she wasn't such a dummy and so close to gov. corruption via Gov. Ryan. So yes, those kinds of Repubs would have cast a vote for Whitney - an anti tax, anti gov. corruption vote. They would rather vote FOR someone than not vote at all.

As for Whitney's stand for conceal carry - that goes to individual liberties. Like me, the Green Party is PRO non-violence, meaning, imo, that they consider the use of force a very last resort on their list of how to solve problems.

They do not, like me, claim to be total pacifists.

If one is going to deal with reality based IN Reality, violence is sometimes, rarely, a necessary evil. At least that's how I interpret the 10 key values of the Green Party.

I would not own a gun - unless the society I'm living in absolutely requires that for my own or my loved ones survival. IF THAT IS IN FACT NECESSARY then I'm all for conceal carry. I'm going to do what I have to do to protect myself, those I love and other innocent & good willed people.

As for those who choose to use conceal carry now, I have no argument with those people as long as they follow the rule of law and are not trigger happy. I don't agree with them and their gun happy ways or, say, their fondness for hunting. But it's their right as a free individual living in America.

My brother's a big hunter, I don't understand it or want to participate. But I see it makes him very happy, he eats or gives to others to eat (many who are poor and are happy to get the meat), all the animals he kills. Who am I to tell him not to do that?

I could easily live as a vegan, but it's not my place to tell all other people they must live as I believe - if I felt that strongly to in fact live that way.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
Please remember, though, (0.00 / 0)
that you are talking to someone who, whatever compromises he may be willing to make with the beliefs of others in terms of laws and societal norms, is a complete pacificist in his personal beliefs. Who went through two years in the army without ever touching a weapon. And who is inclined to regret that marriage led him to abandon his vegetamian way of life.

From where I sit, what you are talking about looks like minimizing the use of force rather than anything I can recognize as true nonviolence.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Speaking of the notion that Gore won the 2000 election, I regrettably disagree--but only because we have an imperfect system, and by the rules of that system, W won.

No, he didn't. Not unless you consider the completely arbitrary Bush vs. Gore ruling to be part of the system. (And both Scalia and Thomas had family connections to the Bush campaign, so it would've been illegal for them to rule in this case even if their ruling had had some basis in law, which it didn't.) NORC proved that had all the votes in Florida been counted, Gore would've won, and that's not even taking into account votes that were electronically fudged by Diebold, the butterfly ballot, etc. etc.

"In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose." -- I.F. Stone

[ Parent ]
Please Re-Read (0.00 / 0)
I especially direct your attention to the word "imperfect". 

Yes, I do consider the USSC, flaws and all, to be part of our (here's that word again) "imperfect" system. 

I also understand Gore would have won if he'd timely requested a full recount.  He did not.  Whoops, his bad. 

Again, it's all part of our imperfect system--the one under which GWB43 won the election. 

Note: This was not meant to be controversial, and I don't intend to go back and forth arguing a six-year-old fait accompli.  If you disagree, and it appears you do, that's your right in our free country.  God love ya.

[ Parent ]
MUST Be a Constitutional Amendment (0.00 / 0)
The Electoral College is written into the Constitution, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it. And I remain convinced that the idea of getting 3/4 of the states to vote to abolish the Electoral College is a pipe dream.

Each individual state legislature could have that state's electoral votes divided according to the popular vote -- the winner-takes-all system for a given state is not in the Constitution. In fact, I believe two or three states have done this. But even if all 50 states did this, it still wouldn't be a true one-person, one-vote system.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
Duh (0.00 / 0)
I forgot about that little detail. ;) Didn't Colorado most recently decide to direct how their electoral votes are distributed differently?

So it would take a consititutional amendment to get IRV for presidential elections? And for more local and state election to go IRV it would take a change in state and local laws, correct? I get mixed up on all the different local, state and federal levels.

Just Another Souless Atheist Working for World Peace and Harmony

[ Parent ]
Yes and No (0.00 / 0)
The individual states could, if they so chose, put in IRV for the way their own presidential electors are chosen. That might or might not have changed the outcome in 2000 -- there's no guarantee whatsoever that the people who voted for Nader would have bothered to indicate a second choice. (Why choose between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee?) But it wouldn't really be what you are looking for.

There's overlap between federal and state laws for Senate and Congressional races. I'm not sure, but I think the change could come from either level. Home-rule municipalities could change their own election laws, but the change could also come from the state and would have to for local entities that don't have home rule. And the state would have to make the change for all state offices.

Yes, it's a bit complicated.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted

[ Parent ]
Voting for the party (0.00 / 0)
I hate being taken for granted; Hillary knows she doesn't need to work for my vote, but I will vote for who ever wins the democratic primary because the presidency is so much more important than a single person.  One of the things Bush does that aggravates me to no end are all of his appointments.  The president gets to decide who are our ambassadors, who heads the hundreds of federal agencies, and who becomes a federal judge.  And while Hillary may do things time and time again that I don't like, she or any other democrat will appoint better people than any republican.
Public Financing (0.00 / 0)
Kankakee Voice, I suspect that many, like you, will not support Clinton because of her decision to forego public funds for her campaign.  According to a bipartisan report by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research, 75 percent of likely voters support public financing.  What's even more significant is that this research also shows that congressional candidates who publically fund their campaigns would greatly improve their chance of winning against an opponent who privately funds the campaign.  Unfortunately, and as you've noted, Clinton has effectively precluded the possibility of any one of her opponents opting for public funds while still waging a viable campaign.

Public financing seems like a no-brainer for a candidate: it would eliminate the need to constantly fund-raise, and it rests favorably with voters.

But, the reality is that the presidential campaign finance system needs to be reformed so that candidates are compelled to use it.  And in keeping with this thread of reform, you probably know that your U.S. state senator, Dick Durbin, is expected to introduce a public financing bill within the next month.  This bill would allow candidates running for federal office to opt into a system of public funding, hopefully reducing the influence of special interest money. Any thoughts? 

Why Molly Ivins and I will not vote for Hillary | 61 comments
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

0 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search

Misc
View
Powered by: SoapBlox