Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, has this commentary in the January 4 edition of The Hill, one of the publications intended for members of Congress and their staffs, and others who are especially interested in legislation and politics. The article advocates that presidential primaries be closed to non-members of the parties.
The Institute for Public Policy Research was formed in Great Britain in 1988, and now has a presence in 25 nations. On January 4, 2011, it issued a 24-page report, “Worst of Both Worlds: Why First Past the Post No Longer Works.” The study finds that British parliamentary elections, which use the same winner-take-all system that the United States uses for federal and state elections, are deeply flawed.
It says, “The strongest case in favor of First Past the Post is that it delivers single-party majority government; however, there is good reason to believe that this will be more difficult to achieve in the future because of long-term trends in voting patterns across the United Kingdom. The two principal forces undermining FPTP’s ability to produce single-party government are: (1) The declining share of the vote for Labour and the Conservative parties; and the rise in support for third parties; (2) The changing electoral geography of the UK.” The study can be read at this link.
Much of what the report says about Britain is true for the United States as well. The report emphasizes that only a small number of House of Commons districts are “swing districts”, and documents the extent to which campaigns by the major parties are focused much more on those districts, than on “safe” districts. That generalization certainly describes presidential elections in the United States, where voters in swing states get far more attention than voters in safe states. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
On January 4, a circuit court in Chicago ruled that Rahm Emanuel meets the duration of residency requirement to run for Mayor of Chicago. See this story.
Several New Hampshire legislators have introduced CACR 3, to set up procedures for the initiative in that state. New Hampshire has never had procedures for statewide initiatives. The proposal seems extremely difficult; it appears to require a petition that must have the signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters in every precinct in the state. If the legislature passes CACR 3, that would be a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. The measure would then go to the voters, but it would need a two-thirds popular vote in order to pass. Thanks to Howard Wilson for this news.
Ralph Nader is appealing his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, and its allies, to the Maine Supreme Court. The lawsuit, Nader v Maine Democratic Party, et al., was filed in Maine state court in 2009. It argued that the Democratic Party’s actions in 2004 to keep Nader off the ballot were done in bad faith. Democrats filed challenges to Nader’s ballot status in 19 states in 2004, and a large majority of those challenges were found by administrative agencies or by courts to be unsound. Nader argues that the challenges were filed, not because the challengers believed in the challenges, but as a deliberate attempt to cripple his campaign.
Nader’s lawsuit lost in lower Maine state court on November 16, 2010. But on December 28, 2010, that same lower court ruled that Democrats may not recover fees and costs in that lawsuit (except that the judge awarded a nominal $1 to Toby Moffett, one of the defendants). The judge rejected the Democratic Party’s assertion that the Nader lawsuit was “meritless”. He wrote that the case “warrants further analysis and development through the evolution of normal civil litigation”. He also wrote, “The case raises significant questions concerning the appropriate judicial interpretation” of Maine’s anti-SLAPP law. UPDATE: see this story in the Bangor Daily News of January 4.
