The Democratic Piece

Without in any way endorsing anything McCain has said today, particularly moving the goal posts yet again in Iraq to 2013 (conveniently enough JUST after his presumed re-election against a candidate urging to “cut-and-run”), I do have to say that I like his urging to bring UK-style question sessions to the President. Aside from my belief in the necessity of such things for the health of a democracy, I also believe this type of procedure makes for fantastic television.

I have come to believe that one of the greatest tragedies of the Bush 2 presidency has been the complete transformation of the presidency into a carefully controlled photo-op. While this has helped to reduce unfortunate gaffes by this particularly prone president, it has also turned the most powerful democratically elected office in the world into a complete spectacle. I believe that this has had two harmful consequences:

1) It leaves the American public feeling cut off from their elected leaders, thus reducing government legitimacy and public participation.

2) It leaves the American government cut off from the American people, and worse, cut off from even the most marginal inquiry.

While #1 is unfortunate, I believe that #2 has been disastrous. Perhaps the reason why we’ve seen policy after policy which should never have been implemented is that nobody was ever actually able to ask the President a meaningful question about the policies he wanted to implement. Instead, we received a classic case of cabinet groupthink and, well, we see what we’ve ended up with.

I’m not sure that a “Questions” session is the perfect answer to this problem, but it’s a great place to start. If a President can’t be bothered to learn enough about why a policy should be implemented to defend it to the lawmakers who fund it at the taxpayers expense, well, then maybe that policy shouldn’t be pursued any further. It may not actually bring information feedback back to American government, but it should make for some great entertainment.

Thomas Friedman in last Wednesday’s NY Times argued America’s oil dependence and declining soft power - but mostly oil dependence - are driving a global “democratic recession.” I’m sympathetic to the concern about oil but not the logic. One, state weakness has raised the costs of freedom in some places. Two, autocrats are simply more sophisticated when it comes to keeping power. Three, and most important, the ‘developed’ democracies have not consistently supported democrats abroad. My working conclusion: soft power is indeed waning for reasons both structural and intentional.

Friedman cites the Freedom House index for 2008. Attention to where and why ratings fell reveals a more complex causal narrative.

Military interventions in democratic politics drove down ratings in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Faulty, stolen or generally unfree elections affected the Comorros, Kenya, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Russia.

Political violence rocked Sri Lanka, Somalia, Pakistan and the Philippines.

Insurgency or generally rising insecurity eroded freedom in the Central African Republic, Mali, Niger and Afghanistan.

Media crackdowns drove down ratings in Georgia, Mali, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Lesotho, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Venezuela and, arguably, the Solomon Islands, where governing authorities refused to address criticism related to a cabinet appointment.

Restrictions on freedom of assembly and organization increased in Burma, Lesotho and Venezuela.

Whether by violence, intimidation or dubious institutional reengineering, executives eroded checks and balances in Malawi, Nicaragua, Kazakhstan and Egypt.

Overt opposition crackdowns took place in Congo-Kinshasa, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Syria.

Corruption and the entrenchment of economic oligarchies diminished freedom in Chad, Latvia, the Philippines, Tunisia, Burma, Madagascar and Somalia.

In Switzerland, the election of overt racists merited demotion.

Government paralysis earned negative points in Lebanon.

The infiltration of state and military by drug cartels drove down ratings for Guinea-Bissau.

While Freedom House’s executive summary does mention oil in two other places, only in Chad does it cite falling transparency in the “management of oil revenues.”

Next year’s report no doubt will cite eroding executive-legislative relations in Russia, a(n attempted?) stolen election in Zimbabwe, and whatever dubious constitutional amendments, opposition crackdowns, exiles and media shutdowns the remainder of 2008 brings. It will be interesting to see how Chinese ‘foreign aid’ packages and the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation figure in.

Overall, freedom declined in 38 nominal democracies. The dominant sources of backslide were corruption, media and opposition crackdowns, state weakness, deliberate election mismanagement and entrenchments of executive power.

Oil dependence is a big problem for the US and even the rest of the world, but it is not the principal driver of “democratic recession.” Alongside more structural problems of uneven economic development and state capacity are growing gaps between flagship democracies’ missions to spread freedom and their wills and means to do so. On one hand, emphasis on stability is replacing their post-Cold War emphasis on democratization. On the other, aid conditionality loses efficacy as rising authoritarian states like China and Russia reach out to Africa and Central Asia.

If democracy is to boom in the last seven months of 2008, the old democracies need to (1) renew their commitment to democratization and (2) cooperate to balance the soft power of authoritarian alternatives.

Fifteen European democracy assistance organizations recently launched the European Foundation for Democracy through Partnership. By pushing for democracy assistance to become a pillar of EU policy, EFDP hopes to rescue the good name of democracy assistance by offering a no-invasion-necessary European variant. The website is only nominally up and running, but check out the brochure here.

The EFDP aims to work in “countries on all continents where EU funding does not reach partners and where there is not sufficient funding available for democracy promotion.” EFDP will also “focus on working with partners that are most necessary in building democracy, but which do not receive funds from other sources.” (They go on to a list of pretty usual suspects, but “political society” comes last.) Anyway, Timothy Garton Ash hopes it will be a “benign European hydra to advance the cause of democracy.”

According to her own advisers, Hillary can’t win even by changing the rules:

In a Clinton campaign conference call with reporters on Wednesday, three top advisers acknowledged that even if all the delegates from disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida were seated at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton would still not have enough delegates to claim the nomination.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign, estimated that in a best-case event, where the Michigan and Florida delegates were apportioned according to each state’s popular vote, Mrs. Clinton would still be about 100 delegates shy of the number needed. Delegates in those states have not been counted, the penalty for holding early primaries.

So it’s difficult to see where she has a case to stay in the race (I’m a rapper) if she can’t even win via a coup d’etat.

So a lot of dirt is being thrown at the voter ID decision by the Supreme Court (keep in mind, the decision was 6-3 so it wasn’t the wicked R’s on the panel making up law as they went).

I feel like the commentary so far has been reprehensible. While I am appalled that a reference to Jim Crow made it on to the blog, I think addressing the issues will prove more worthwhile than “indignation”.

First issue: this is a partisan attempt to decrease voter turnout. I will accept that the party that gains to benefit most from this move is Republicans. However, I think most people forget that both parties are affected by the decision, especially if it is taken to a national level. Think about the incentives. For a Democrat-majority state, Voter ID is legal disenfranchisement. Thus, until there is a national law, I wouldn’t expect to see “Democratic strongholds” passing similar laws.

So who will enact Voter ID legislation?  Republican-majority states. But, in a lot of Republican-majority states, the lowest social classes are the “hick, playin’ my bango on the porch of my broken down house in a dirty wifebeater” (or so the generalization goes), Republicans. Methinks then, that Republicans would end up depressing their own turnout, since those individuals would be just as likely as “minorities” or “the poor” to not have a legal government ID.  I doubt the Democrats will be too saddened to hear of these people’s plight.

Furthermore, there is already a national system in place to get voters registered: they’re called political parties.  If the democrats are really worried about depressed turnout of their likely voters (because the only way they’ll lose the election is dirty Republican tricks to decrease turn out), then the local party offices can organize GOTV campaigns. Get a van, a driver, round up people and go to the DMV or another state office that gives state ID’s.

This leads to the second issue: Democrats feel they are unfairly burdened by the decision.  While they are putting resources into GOTV, Republicans can spend money on attack ads. I honestly believe this is a non-argument. First, I’m sure that Democrats can find volunteers to perform these GOTV tasks. just consider: 4 people from Georgetown (one guy wasn’t even a U.S. citizen) drove to Pennsylvania (a 2 hour drive) to canvas for free.  Why did they do it? Because they wanted to be involved. The news is constantly emphasize the record turnouts in Democratic primaries and caucuses. Obama’s ability to raise money hand over foot is touted as another example of how “ordinary people” are making an effort in this election (let’s not forget that Hillary isn’t far behind Obama in fund raising lately). Lastly, volunteers for both candidates flood the streets when their state is holding its primary.  And you’re telling me they couldn’t find people with cars willing to shuttle other people to the DMV in hopes of helping their candidate? (Let’s not forget, they have till November).

If the incentives are there, the parties will act on them. And FYI, Republicans (who tend to have lower volunteerism as a whole) would have to get their supports the same ID’s as well, so they’ve got their work cut out for them as well.

Voter ID might not be perfect but it’s not a malicious attempt to disenfranchise. Is the Democratic parties opposition to splitting the electoral college votes in California an attempt to “disenfranchise” people? I wouldn’t say so - splitting CA’s votes would give Republicans an unfair advantage nationally since similarly important and diverse states (like Texas) will maintain the unity of their electoral college votes.

I guess my point is that there are legitimate problems with American democracy, but I wouldn’t consider this one of them. To attack any kind of Voter ID system as an attempt to disenfranchise voters without putting forward a better plan for ensure the integrity of the system seems ridiculous.  More than ridiculous, it plays right into Republican propaganda that Democrats simply want to bolster their turnout by allowing the votes of illegal immigrants. I don’t buy that line of reasoning but I think the reckless attack of Voter ID is akin to Republican propaganda just from the Democratic side. It’s the same knee jerk politics with the same righteous indignation. The problem with that is that It doesn’t help get anything done.

New delicious nuggets about Putin’s Russia emerge almost every week. Dimitri Medvedev is set to assume the Russian Presidency this week and there is much speculation about how the power-sharing arrangement between Putin and his successor will play out. As the media focuses on the transition, or lack thereof, there are always little items that I notice about how the Putin government has revived many Soviet-era traditions. Many of these items seem pretty innocuous, but they can tell observers a lot about how the regime views itself and its form of governing.

Radio Free Europe noted in their daily e-mail digest that the Russian military will parade through Red Square on May 9th for Victory Day. Money quote:

he parade will include 171 pieces of military equipment, including T-90 tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, and antimissile defense systems. For the first time, Topol mobile strategic nuclear-capable missiles will also be on display, as will some 30 aircraft. The event marks the first time military equipment has participated in a Red Square parade since November 7, 1990, newsru.com

Makes me almost nostalgic for my childhood. Other Soviet-era practices adopted by Putin include the reintroduction of the Soviet anthem, the reemergence of single-party rule, and sham elections. This is aside from the decreases in media freedom and repression of opposition political parties and civil society.

Disgusting is the politician who uses his opponent’s skin color and religion to fear people into voting for you.  Hillary became disgusting when she said Obama’s not a Muslim “as far as I know“.

Pathetic is the politician who attacks people because they disagree with him, especially when he is incredibly wrong.  This is what Hillary became today.  From Reuters:

“I’m not going to put my lot in with economists,” Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

“We’ve got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,” said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

Sadly, the attack-when-wrong tactic is a tried and true method of convincing people that you are right.  But if this is your strategy, then who needs to be right?  Tired is the politician who conforms the world to his worldview, rather than making the adjustments to his worldview that would cause it to fit the world.

“Mission accomplished,” right?

I’ve had enough of this bullshit for the last 8 years to last a lifetime…  how about you?

London, England had local elections on May 1. As far as local elections go, the city has quite an interesting set-up.

The mayor is elected using the supplemental vote, which is a cruddy variant of IRV. Voters get two choices. If no candidate has a majority of first choices, the top two compete in an instant runoff of sorts.

All the other candidates are eliminated but the second choice votes on their ballot papers are reviewed. If they are for either of the top two candidates these votes are added to their totals.

The candidate with the most first and second choice votes wins. If there is a tie then the Greater London Returning Officer draws lots.

The 25-member assembly is elected under MMP: 14 seats in single-member plurality districts, 11 from party lists.

Some are upset that proportional representation let the British National Party win a seat, but that’s no reason to toss out the baby with the bath water. Undesirable causes can prevail under any voting system, and PR also lets forces for good win seats where they might not otherwise. As the Make Votes Count campaign notes:

However, the way the London Assembly elections work has also given anti-racist campaigners the opportunity to organise, campaign and get out the vote in their own areas, in an effort to push up turnout and raise the threshold needed for the BNP to gain seats. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the message that votes in the London Assembly London-wide Members ballot in effect counted twice – once for the party they support, and once against the BNP – motivated numbers of people who otherwise may not have voted to make the trip to their polling station.

Those believing ‘we’ve always had winner-take-all elections’ will be surprised to know Louisiana just held two for the first time since 1976. (On a Saturday, no less.)

In the 1st district, Steve Scalise (R) won a four-way race with 75%. Voters in the 6th district, formerly held by Richard Baker (R), elected Democrat Dan Cazayoux with 49% of votes. The big news, some say, is that the national swing favoring Democrats in 2006 seems like it will persist into November 2008. In other news, the new winner-take-all system wasted 50.8% of votes in LA-06.

Louisiana used to use a ‘cajun primary’ for all its elections until legislation last year brought congressional races in line with the national norm.

The cajun primary is an open-endorsement two-round system (TRS). All candidates compete in the first round of voting. If no candidate has a majority, the top two face off in a later round. The system makes it somewhat difficult for parties to discipline candidates and organize voters, which are features I like given the context. On the other hand, the top-two logic of the first round makes it easy for like-minded voters to spoil their own candidates, which I do not like. With its single round of voting, sequential (versus batch) elimination, and majority requirement, IRV is a better option for parties and voters alike.

Unfortunately Louisiana did not go that route. Happily, though, the federalism of electoral system design (versus election administration) holds out the possibility for such innovation. If only states could control district magnitude too.

Anyone with time and interest should read this column about the genesis of the single transferable vote and its history in America. It’s written by someone at Princeton U who knows her stuff.

There was controversy recently at Princeton over their STV student government elections. As with Georgetown undergrads earlier this year, calls for repeal were rooted in misunderstanding of the system.

Good article, Josephine.