Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Texas No Longer Solidly Republican
Though I suppose you can still count on our state to supply Republican scofflaws, a new Gallup poll indicates that Texas is no longer a solidly Republican state. In fact, only four states are: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska. Nebraska leans Republican, and all other states are either competitive (Texas), lean Democratic or are solidly Democratic.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Legal Action in Irving
Things are still happening in Irving, although I haven't posted anything on it recently. There are a couple of lawsuits in the works. One is against the City Council's at-large election system and the other is against the school district's at-large election system. Here's the story. The ACLU has been involved in a few lawsuits against at-large election systems, and evidently such systems have been overturned before, especially notably in Dallas in 1988.
One of the tests that any proposed single member district plan has to pass is whether or not it would produce minority leaders. That may be hard to pull off, although while this fight seems to be mainly between Hispanic activists and the city leadership, it should be noted that Irving has a historic African American community. It should be noted that at present the city council is all white, despite a slightly more than 10% African-American community and a 31% Hispanic community as of the 2000 census. Whites make up 64% of the population as of 2000, but control all 9 council seats (including the mayor).
Now one needn't presuppose that an all-white council cannot govern a multi-cultural, multi-racial city fairly and equally, doing justice for all. By and large, the kind of overt racial politics of the Old South are gone. While the focus of some council members on immigration issues evokes suspicion of race-based hostility, the dominant forces of the council are those that are concerned with keeping Irving's economic growth and renovation on track. However, just because people are not acting with racist motives it doesn't mean their efforts don't negatively impact certain groups more than others. Again, as the great apartment debate goes on, we see that the city is cracking down on apartments which appeal to a certain class of people, many of whom happen to be poorer Hispanic people. It might be that if they were free to elect a council member who was looking out for their interests there would be more projects focusing on the improvement of living conditions for Irving's poorest instead of redeveloping those areas into attractions for people with money.
Some people look at Dallas and charge that the single-member districts work to the detriment of the city as a whole, since the council members will work for their own interests (namely the good of their electorate). As is pointed out though, corruption didn't begin with the ending of the at-large elections; it was already well established.
As regards the school district, the numbers are a little more convincing. Irving's school populace is roughly 67% Hispanic, yet not one Hispanic serves on the school board. Two Hispanic candidates were defeated in the elections. It's not like the whites got together and said, "Hey, we can't let those damn Mexicans get on to the school board" or anything. It's just that with at-large elections, the white majority holds sway, even though they represent a third of the school populace. There's got to be something wrong with that.
It'll be interesting when these cases go to court.
One of the tests that any proposed single member district plan has to pass is whether or not it would produce minority leaders. That may be hard to pull off, although while this fight seems to be mainly between Hispanic activists and the city leadership, it should be noted that Irving has a historic African American community. It should be noted that at present the city council is all white, despite a slightly more than 10% African-American community and a 31% Hispanic community as of the 2000 census. Whites make up 64% of the population as of 2000, but control all 9 council seats (including the mayor).
Now one needn't presuppose that an all-white council cannot govern a multi-cultural, multi-racial city fairly and equally, doing justice for all. By and large, the kind of overt racial politics of the Old South are gone. While the focus of some council members on immigration issues evokes suspicion of race-based hostility, the dominant forces of the council are those that are concerned with keeping Irving's economic growth and renovation on track. However, just because people are not acting with racist motives it doesn't mean their efforts don't negatively impact certain groups more than others. Again, as the great apartment debate goes on, we see that the city is cracking down on apartments which appeal to a certain class of people, many of whom happen to be poorer Hispanic people. It might be that if they were free to elect a council member who was looking out for their interests there would be more projects focusing on the improvement of living conditions for Irving's poorest instead of redeveloping those areas into attractions for people with money.
Some people look at Dallas and charge that the single-member districts work to the detriment of the city as a whole, since the council members will work for their own interests (namely the good of their electorate). As is pointed out though, corruption didn't begin with the ending of the at-large elections; it was already well established.
As regards the school district, the numbers are a little more convincing. Irving's school populace is roughly 67% Hispanic, yet not one Hispanic serves on the school board. Two Hispanic candidates were defeated in the elections. It's not like the whites got together and said, "Hey, we can't let those damn Mexicans get on to the school board" or anything. It's just that with at-large elections, the white majority holds sway, even though they represent a third of the school populace. There's got to be something wrong with that.
It'll be interesting when these cases go to court.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Obama has bigger lead over McCain, but Hillary will do in a pinch
According to this ABC News/Washington Post poll, we see that Obama posts a 12 point lead over McCain if the election were held today, whereas Hillary only leads with 6 points. I've got no time to analyze, hopefully one of us will get around to adding onto this.
One more reason to back Obama: experience loses vs. McCain.
The results of this poll overall offer a roadmap to likely themes in the general election. Foremost are competing desires for the future: Americans divide evenly on "new ideas and new direction" vs. "strength and experience" in a candidate. Against McCain, Obama wins 80 percent of new direction voters; Clinton, 65 percent. Voters more focused on experience instead go to McCain, by 2-1 over Clinton and by 3-1 over Obama.
One more reason to back Obama: experience loses vs. McCain.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Flyers Give Voters Wrong Date
Boy, this just never gets old, does it?
Odds that the culprits will be found? Oh, about zero.
A bogus election flier that gives the wrong day for Election Day raised alarm bells among local officials Monday.
Featuring the county logo and the county Elections Office "Tarrant Votes" logo, the flier urges voters in English and Spanish to vote on Saturday, Nov. 10. Election Day is today.
The flier is marked "Official Notice" across the top and specifically mentions the state's constitutional amendments and the Fort Worth City Council District 9 race.
The flier has been distributed to voters in the predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods of Rosemont and Worth Heights in south Fort Worth, county officials said. Both neighborhoods are in District 9.
Odds that the culprits will be found? Oh, about zero.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Texas General Election Round-Up
[This round-up of election news and endorsement posts is brought to you by the Texas Progressive Alliance in anticipation of the November 6 general election. Some of the blogs and sites included in this round-up are not member sites of the Texas Progressive Alliance, but are included in the hopes of giving voters a wider picture of the many issues facing voters in local races around the state. The round-up was compiled by Vince at Capitol Annex.]
On November 6, voters all across Texas will have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote on a variety of issues. First and foremost, voters across Texas will vote on 16 amendments to the Texas Constitution including Proposition 15, the much-touted amendment to fund cancer research in the state.
In addition, voters in some municipalities, most prominently Houston, will be casting votes for city officials including mayors and city council members. College districts, independent school districts, and special districts across the state will also hold elections for their members. A number of cities and school districts will also hold bond elections to fund everything from jail construction to parks and recreation and additional school facilities. Some school districts will also hold tax rate elections to authorize tax rates higher than those allowed by the tax reform plan passed by the Texas Legislature in special session back in 2006.
Texas bloggers have dedicated a considerable amount of coverage to election issues across the state, from the statewide constitutional amendment election to local issues. Much of this coverage is highlighted below.
Local Elections, Bonds, & Referendums
Charles Kuffner at Off The Kuff has exhaustive coverage of local elections in Houston from city council elections to college district elections and city bonds. There are a large number of posts, but mosts can be found in two categories, here and here.
Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don't You Weep.
Texas Cloverleaf has a round up of campaign spending on the Trinity River campaign.
Grits for Breakfast has a round-up of jail-related propositions on the ballot across the state, including in Smith County (Tyler).
Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don't You Weep.
North Texas Liberal explores the pros and cons of the Trinity River referendum in Dallas.
Other Key Local Election Coverage:
Homophobia Rears Its Nasty Head in Fort Worth City Council Race (Doing My Part For The Left)
Endorsements & Voter's Guides: Statewide Amendments & Local Races
Non-partisan voter's guides on the 16 statewide Constitutional Amendments: Texas League of Women Voters, Texas Legislative Council (full version), Texas Legislative Council (condensed version--warning, this is a .doc file), Texas House Research Organization
Newspaper Endorsements For Constitutional Amendments: Dallas Morning News, Austin American-Statesman, Waco Tribune-Herald (split editorials: here, here, here, here, here), El Paso Times (Prop. 4) Lufkin Daily News, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, San Antonio Express-News.
Bill Howell at Stoutdemblog provides links to analyses of the amendments, then compares different stands taken on them by some other bloggers and Republicans and Libertarians, then gives his own personal stands on each at Web Resources On The Endless Amendments.
Muse at Musings urges voters to vote the opposite of the Harris County Republican Party's endorsements.
Capitol Annex has endorsements of the 16 Constitutional Amendments with detailed information behind the reasons for their picks in their four endorsement posts.
Gary at Easter Lemming News
WCNews at Eye on Williamson has Early Voting in formation for Williamson County along with several guides and couple of opinions on the amendments .
Off the Kuff gives his recommendations for the state and local bonds and propositions.
CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme points at some resources to decipher the proposed Texas constitutional amendments.
Other Notable Statewide Amendment Coverage:
Proposition 4 (Off The Kuff)
Proposition 15 Ramps Up (Off The Kuff)
On November 6, voters all across Texas will have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote on a variety of issues. First and foremost, voters across Texas will vote on 16 amendments to the Texas Constitution including Proposition 15, the much-touted amendment to fund cancer research in the state.
In addition, voters in some municipalities, most prominently Houston, will be casting votes for city officials including mayors and city council members. College districts, independent school districts, and special districts across the state will also hold elections for their members. A number of cities and school districts will also hold bond elections to fund everything from jail construction to parks and recreation and additional school facilities. Some school districts will also hold tax rate elections to authorize tax rates higher than those allowed by the tax reform plan passed by the Texas Legislature in special session back in 2006.
Texas bloggers have dedicated a considerable amount of coverage to election issues across the state, from the statewide constitutional amendment election to local issues. Much of this coverage is highlighted below.
Local Elections, Bonds, & Referendums
Charles Kuffner at Off The Kuff has exhaustive coverage of local elections in Houston from city council elections to college district elections and city bonds. There are a large number of posts, but mosts can be found in two categories, here and here.
Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don't You Weep.
Texas Cloverleaf has a round up of campaign spending on the Trinity River campaign.
Grits for Breakfast has a round-up of jail-related propositions on the ballot across the state, including in Smith County (Tyler).
Bill Howell in Stoutdemblog comes out for a vote Yes on the Dallas referendum on the Trinity River at River Don't You Weep.
North Texas Liberal explores the pros and cons of the Trinity River referendum in Dallas.
Other Key Local Election Coverage:
Homophobia Rears Its Nasty Head in Fort Worth City Council Race (Doing My Part For The Left)
Endorsements & Voter's Guides: Statewide Amendments & Local Races
Non-partisan voter's guides on the 16 statewide Constitutional Amendments: Texas League of Women Voters, Texas Legislative Council (full version), Texas Legislative Council (condensed version--warning, this is a .doc file), Texas House Research Organization
Newspaper Endorsements For Constitutional Amendments: Dallas Morning News, Austin American-Statesman, Waco Tribune-Herald (split editorials: here, here, here, here, here), El Paso Times (Prop. 4) Lufkin Daily News, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, San Antonio Express-News.
Bill Howell at Stoutdemblog provides links to analyses of the amendments, then compares different stands taken on them by some other bloggers and Republicans and Libertarians, then gives his own personal stands on each at Web Resources On The Endless Amendments.
Muse at Musings urges voters to vote the opposite of the Harris County Republican Party's endorsements.
Capitol Annex has endorsements of the 16 Constitutional Amendments with detailed information behind the reasons for their picks in their four endorsement posts.
Gary at Easter Lemming News
WCNews at Eye on Williamson has Early Voting in formation for Williamson County along with several guides and couple of opinions on the amendments .
Off the Kuff gives his recommendations for the state and local bonds and propositions.
CouldBeTrue at South Texas Chisme points at some resources to decipher the proposed Texas constitutional amendments.
Other Notable Statewide Amendment Coverage:
Proposition 4 (Off The Kuff)
Proposition 15 Ramps Up (Off The Kuff)
Friday, January 26, 2007
The crumbling public financing system for presidential campaigns
With the 2008 presidential race sure to see the largest sums of money raised on either side in history, Sen. Hillary Clinton has already waved off federal funds for the general election. As the FEC rules currently stand, candidates would have to agree to cap spending at $45 million during the primaries to qualify for matching funds and hold general-election spending to $75 million. But herein lies the problem - these races are beginning to cost 100 million just for someone to really compete in the top-tier of candidates and thus, there's no incentive for any candidate in that group to take matching funds since it'd just leave them at a monetary disadvantage. Also, the matching funds wouldn't arrive until January 2008, in which the first 4 primary/caucuses take place (and will likely decide the nominee if last year is any indication), so it's too late for anyone to effectively use.
Now a bill introduced last year and slated to be reintroduced in the new Congress would release primary-campaign funds six months earlier, significantly boost spending caps ($150 million for the primaries and $100 million for the general election), and raise the rate at which private donations get matched. And if one candidate opts out of the system and runs against a candidate who agrees to federal spending caps, the FEC would pump extra money into the participant's coffers to close the spending gap, if his or her opponent spends more than 120 percent of the FEC's limits.
While this would perhaps be better than the current system, it really ignores the central problem that candidates need to raise and spend so much money in these races. And the more private money raised, the more these candidates are indebted to those private donors. That's why we should move to a 100% public financing system for all federal elections. But removing private donations, we remove the special interests behind them, and equal campaign dollars for candidates will level the playing field so that it's their stances on issues that matter, not the number of negative TV ads they can buy.
Some critics of this proposal argue that transparency is all that is needed, but one wonders what they are talking about. Truthfully, you can already trace where money is coming from to a large extent, but the average voter doesn't have time to do that. And by the time they read any fishy connections in the newpaper (if they are reported), they've already been effected by the advertisements that money has bought. Besides, since every serious candidate running for office has to take money from private interests, voters can't choose not to vote for one of them!
Others simply complain about the cost (though most studies suggest it wouldn't have to be that high to the average taxpayer). Well, to that I say that the thought of a special interest-free government based on the power of ideas rather than the amount of money spent is well worth any extra cost to me.
Now a bill introduced last year and slated to be reintroduced in the new Congress would release primary-campaign funds six months earlier, significantly boost spending caps ($150 million for the primaries and $100 million for the general election), and raise the rate at which private donations get matched. And if one candidate opts out of the system and runs against a candidate who agrees to federal spending caps, the FEC would pump extra money into the participant's coffers to close the spending gap, if his or her opponent spends more than 120 percent of the FEC's limits.
While this would perhaps be better than the current system, it really ignores the central problem that candidates need to raise and spend so much money in these races. And the more private money raised, the more these candidates are indebted to those private donors. That's why we should move to a 100% public financing system for all federal elections. But removing private donations, we remove the special interests behind them, and equal campaign dollars for candidates will level the playing field so that it's their stances on issues that matter, not the number of negative TV ads they can buy.
Some critics of this proposal argue that transparency is all that is needed, but one wonders what they are talking about. Truthfully, you can already trace where money is coming from to a large extent, but the average voter doesn't have time to do that. And by the time they read any fishy connections in the newpaper (if they are reported), they've already been effected by the advertisements that money has bought. Besides, since every serious candidate running for office has to take money from private interests, voters can't choose not to vote for one of them!
Others simply complain about the cost (though most studies suggest it wouldn't have to be that high to the average taxpayer). Well, to that I say that the thought of a special interest-free government based on the power of ideas rather than the amount of money spent is well worth any extra cost to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
