Group Launches Campaign for Top Two Primary in Arizona

A new organization in Arizona called the Open Government Committee is launching a ballot initiative to implement a top two style primary system in the state.  From today's column at AZIVN:

Earlier this month, the Arizona Open Government Committee officially launched its campaign to bring a top-two style open primary system to the Grand Canyon State by ballot initiative in next year’s elections . . .

The new system would be implemented for all partisan elections except those for President and Vice President of the United States.   The proposed amendment would guarantee that all qualified voters have an “unrestricted right” to vote for the candidate of their choice.  Under the current system, Republicans cannot vote for Democratic primary candidates and vice versa.

“No longer will primary elections exist in which Democrats are limited to just choosing among Democratic candidates and Republican voters cast ballots just for Republican candidates, while Independent voters are largely left out altogether,” stated former Republican State Senator Carolyn Allen.

Yet, Independents are not completely left out of the present system.  Though, while they may opt to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary, they cannot cast a primary vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in another.

Proponents also argue that the new system will open the political process.  “Currently, partisan candidates seeking the nominations of their party often simply address the issues of a narrow group of voters who vote in the primary election,” said Paul Johnson, a former Democratic mayor of Pheonix who has since registered as an Independent, and is spearheading the movement.  Under the new system, “candidates will be forced to address issues of importance to all of us – Independents, Democrats and Republicans alike,” he stated.

Johnson and Allen are among those spearheading the effort, as reported here at AZIVN last month.

Opponents of top-two style open primary systems object to the fact that it limits voter choice to just two candidates in the general election.  “In practice, it would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot,” wrote ballot access expert Richard Winger in an op-ed for the Sacrameto Bee arguing against California’s top-two initiative.  Winger points out that this was indeed the case in Washington after the state instituted its own brand of top two in 2008.  “Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide state race or for any congressional race,” he stated.

“I call them Choke Point primaries, because that is precisely what they are – they create a choke point so general election voters have less choices,” writes Solomon Kleinsmith at Stop Top Two, an organization founded in opposition to the California initiative.  The group notes that there are numerous reform alternatives to the top-two open primary system that would incentivize political participation and lead to more representative government in the United States.  It suggests, for example, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, approval voting, and multi-member legislative districts.  The Open Government Committee is set to begin collecting signatures to get its initiative on next year’s ballot later this month.  They must collect nearly 260,000 valid signatures by July 5th 2012.

The organization may find a fair amount of support among Arizona Independents, who now outnumber Democrats in the state and are steadily gaining on Republicans.  From last month at AZIVN:

The group sees a golden opportunity for reform in the growing number of voters in the state who refuse to affiliate with either of the major parties.  In 1990, Democrats and Republicans accounted for 89% of registered voters in Arizona.  Ten years, later 18% of Arizonans were registered with no party affiliation or with a third party.  By April of this year, 33% of the state’s 3.2 million registered voters opted not to affiliate with either major party, surpassing the registration numbers of the Democrats, who now account for just 31.3% of Arizona’s voters.  Based on this trend, many observers predict it is only a matter of time before Independents and third party supporters overtake the Republicans as well.  See the Secretary of State’s website for registration numbers going back all the way to 1924, when there were fewer than 100,000 registered voters in the whole state!

Though many advocates of third party and independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans are staunch opponents of top two, the proposed amendment in Arizona not only does away with the state's semi-closed partisan primary election system, it also requires uniform primary ballot access rules for all candidates seeking to get onto the primary ballot, whether they are registered with a party or with no party at all.  This would be a big improvement over Arizona's current system, which overtly discriminates against third party and independent candidates. 

Marginalized, Moderates Consider Third Party Option

From a letter to the editor of LJ World:

The real problem is those extremists in both parties that drive our debate. In an environment where the majority of our national legislature is assured election by political association, the extremes in the two parties dominate.

While the majority of the electorate self-identifies as moderate, they seem to have little influence with the party leadership loyal to those extremes. The old not-so-sneaky trick of splitting the national leadership in the search for compromise no longer works. On the contrary, compromise may be fatal to the political survival of an elected official.

Perhaps the only way we can address hard problems like our debt crisis in the political environment prevailing today is to establish one or more centrist parties to which the moderates can gravitate. The abrupt and erratic progress when the electorate infrequently grants political control to one of the existent parties may just be too disruptive to justify the continuation of our two-party system. We might learn from our many democratic allies that a multiparty system better serves the public interest.

The piece has sparked an interesting discussion in the comments section as well.

Will Independents Walk the Walk in 2012?

From Wednesday's column at CAIVN:

Public disgust with Democrat-Republican party government is at an all-time high in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle. As more Americans identify themselves as Independents, will they walk the walk when it comes time to cast their ballots next year?

Americans have long held a low opinion of Congress.  “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself,” wrote Mark Twain once upon a time.  If recent polling is any indication, it appears that more and more Americans are coming to see the truth of Twain’s quip.  A new survey from CNN finds that 70% of respondents do not believe most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected, and, more astoundingly, only 41% believe their own representative is worthy of re-election . . .

Discontent is most high among Independent voters.  75% of Independents told the pollster that most members of Congress do not deserve re-election, compared with 74% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats who said the same. Independents held similarly negative views of their own Congressional representatives.  57% of Independents said their representative in the US House does not deserve re-election.  50% of Republicans and just 36% of Democrats said the same.

A separate poll by Rasmussen bolsters the numbers reported by CNN.  The Rasmussen survey found that only 17% of likely voters believe the federal government has the consent of the governed, an all-time low.  Just 8% of respondents said they believe the average member of Congress listens to constituents over party leaders, while 84% stated that our Congressional representatives listen more to their party leaders than the voters they are elected to represent.

This raises an obvious question.  If a large majority of Americans believe Democrats and Republicans put their party before the people, and indeed, before the country itself, why do so many Americans continue voting for or otherwise supporting Republicans and Democrats?  In response, one might answer rather simply that they don’t.  In the 2008 presidential election, which saw the highest levels of voter turnout in over forty years, fewer than 57% of eligible voters cast a ballot.  There were more Americans who opted not to vote than there were who voted for Obama.  In the highly charged midterm elections of 2010, fewer than 38% of eligible voters bothered to show up at the polls.

What is an Independent voter to do?  If you do not or cannot support the Democrats or Republicans, which appears to be the case for an increasing number of Americans, but there are only Democrats and Republicans on the ballot, when there is a choice at all, why even bother voting?

Consider the situation in Virginia, which holds its state elections in odd-numbered years.  There are 100 members in the State House and 40 in the State Senate.  This year, 62 seats in the House and 15 seats in the Senate are going uncontested, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.  There is literally no choice in these elections.  They have been reduced to nothing more than a formality.  Fortunately for some, there are a handful of third party and Independent candidates for the State House (seven) and Senate (four), but that likely does not provide much comfort to the majority of Virginians who will have no choice at all when it comes to choosing their representative for the State House.

If Independents desire adequate representation in government, as opposed to the automatic reproduction of the two-party political status quo, they are going to have to demand it by supporting alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.  2012 is right around the corner.

The Lesser Evil is the Greater Evil

More liberals and progressives appear to be waking up to the fact that they are not represented by the Democratic party.  In the Huffington Post, Bob Samuels, the president of the University Council for the American Federation of Teachers, makes the case for a third party challenge to Obama from the left.  Excerpt:

Many progressives and liberals have been coming to the same conclusion: someone has to challenge President Obama from the left. One of the main reasons for this move is that people are starting to realize that Obama has pushed through an agenda that only a conservative can love. While Republicans have tried for thirty years to destroy the welfare state and to push more wealth to the richest Americans, only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been able to achieve these goals. . . .

If it is true that Democrats are the most effective representatives of the conservative agenda, then it is clear that we need to promote a candidate who is not tied to either party. . . .

The main criticisms of this push for an independent campaign is the fear that a challenge on the left will undermine Obama and help elect a crazy on the right. Yet, this desire to go with the lesser of two evils means that we are still only hoping for an evil, and as argued above, it is only the lesser evil that can enact the policies of the greater evil.

A Conscientious Objection to Political "Science"

Judging from their comments and commentaries in the mainstream media, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that political scientists are among the most reliable and reactionary supporters of the Republican-Democrat party establishment and ruling political class in the United States today.  Except, perhaps, for those deluded pundits who naively believe that political science is both non-political and "scientific."  Consider a recent op-ed in the LA Times by Seth Masket and Hans Noel, two political "scientists" from the University of Denver and Georgetown University, respectively.  Entitled "Don't Look to a Third Party Candidate," Masket and Noel argue against the very idea that a third party or independent candidate could win the presidency, and furthermore assert that even if one did, he or she would be stymied by a partisan Congress.

Their argument against advocacy for a third party presidential candidate boils down to one simple point: it's too hard.  It may be difficult for some to believe, but the position of these political "scientists" is literally that no one should support alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans in any presidential election because it's too difficult.  One need not wonder how specimens such as these might have counseled the leaders of the American revolution.  They begin thusly:

Why wouldn't the solution to our nation's problems be a moderate president, without ties to the usual suspects, who is free to simply do what is right?  The problem is, it's not going to happen. What's more, we really don't want it to.  It's not going to happen because the major party candidates have three huge advantages. They are already organized. They have built-in supporters. And our electoral institutions favor the largest two parties.

First of all, there is no substantive difference between "being organized" and "having built-in supporters." So their three huge advantages can be reduced to just two right off the bat.  Secondly, the fact that our electoral institutions favor the Democrats and Republicans is neither a coincidence nor a simple stroke of fate or luck.  The Democrats and Republicans have rigged our institutions to consolidate and maintain their grip on power.  The fact that our electoral institutions favor them is therefore conditional upon the fact that they are organized, thereby eroding the distinction between the two remaining advantages distinguished in the screed.   They continue:

To win the presidency, you have to campaign across the country. You have to build a campaign in state after state — from scratch. You have to assemble lists of donors and databases of voters to contact, and you have to develop a base of volunteers who can carry out the vital tasks of organizing and campaigning precinct by precinct.

This is meant as an argument against a third party or independent presidential campaign, but it should be noted that the same holds for any Democratic or Republican presidential campaign as well.  Taking this point to its logical conclusion, we'd have to conclude that no one should ever run for president because it's difficult, even with the huge advantages conferred by a supportive party apparatus.  And yet people do run for president, even though it is difficult. Indeed, people do things that are difficult all the time, despite the fact that they are difficult.  If everyone allowed the possibility of failure to deter them from doing anything, nothing would ever get done.  Failure is always an option.  But success is always a possibility.  They continue: 

Keep in mind that about 40% of the country votes Republican and about 40% votes Democratic in a presidential election no matter who the candidates are. Even if you could win over some of the less committed voters in the middle, it would be very hard to pull away those committed partisans. At best, an independent candidate could win 20% to 30% of the vote. 

The assertion here is demonstrably false.  Over 40% of the country doesn't even vote in presidential elections.  Less than 30% of the country votes Republican and less than 30% of the country votes Democrat.  Democrats and Republicans rarely obtain support from a majority of eligible voters even when you tally their votes together.  In most elections it's considerably less than that.  The political scientists then go on to reference Duverger's "law," to make the institutional or procedural argument against third party presidential candidates, and their abject cynicism shines through.  Excerpt:

Duverger's Law, named after Maurice Duverger, the French scholar who most explicitly articulated it, boils down to the idea that voters are strategic. In a winner-take-all election, they know there's virtually no chance of the third-most-popular candidate winning. Better to help determine which of the top two candidates wins. So they vote for the least objectionable of the candidates with a real shot at winning.

So the ideal candidate for these two political scientists is not the best candidate, or the most representative candidate, but rather the major party candidate who is not as objectionable as the other major party candidate.  This is nothing more than the old lesser evil argument dressed up in academic jargon.

Masket and Noel then argue that even if a third party candidate were elected president, it would be difficult for him to accomplish anything in his program because he would have no allies in a Congress dominated by professional partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Here they essentially return to their initial argument that if something is difficult it is not worth doing.  Finally, they conclude by asserting the metaphysical claim that the two-party state is a "natural" phenomenon, and urging readers to work within the two-party state.  Excerpt:

All of this seems unfair. Why should these two parties have such an advantage? That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democrats and the Republicans are not our overlords. They are us. They are the natural creations of politically concerned citizens who want to make a difference . . . If you're not content with the way this country is being governed, one of the best ways to change it is to get involved with one of the existing parties and work to nominate and elect candidates at all levels of government who will fight for the things you care about. . . . Pining for an independent, third-party dictator is not only a waste of your time, but if you somehow got what you wanted, you'd quickly find it wasn't what you wanted at all.  [Emphases added.]

Of course, there is nothing "natural" about the dictatorship of the two-party state.  It is a wholly artificial construct created and maintained by self-interested lawmakers whose loyalty lies, first and foremost, with the Democratic and Republican parties themselves.  The assertion that the ruling two-party state is a "natural" or "organic" phenomenon is nothing more than obscurantist, metaphysical nonsense.

For some reason, these "scientists" furthermore fail to observe one of the most self-evident political phenomena in the United States today: the Democratic and Republican parties no longer represent the people of the United States and the people of the United States increasingly no longer support the Democratic and Republican parties.  If you wanted to end abortion, would you get a job performing abortions?  If you wanted to end the death penalty, would you sign up to be the state's executioner?  If you want alternatives to the dictatorship of the Democrat-Republican two-party state, why would you join the Democratic or Republican party?

Third Party Independent: Building Independent Media

As some of you are already aware, last month I launched a newspaper in New York City devoted entirely to third party and independent political news and views: Third Party Independent.  The paper was conceived as a print companion to Third Party and Independent Daily, and is intended to raise awareness of alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, while providing another media platform for third party and independent advocates to have our voices heard above the duopolist din.  The first issue hit the streets the week of Independence Day, with eleven articles by nine authors from across the third party and independent blogosphere.  I would like, once again, to thank all the contributors to the first issue! The second issue is already in the works and should be available in the next week or so.

The main reason why I have not yet mentioned the paper very much online, if at all, is because the website is still under construction.  However, aside from some minor cosmetic tweaks that are still necessary, all the basic functionality is there, and the layout is pretty much set.  The site is set up to be an open community blogging platform for third party and independent activists.  Anyone can sign up and start publishing.  So far as I'm aware, though there are numerous such sites for Democrats, Republicans, progressives and conservatives – the most well known being Daily Kos and Red State – there is no such site on the web for third party and independent activists across the political spectrum.

Though the website, at this point, is still a work in progress, I would like to extend an invitation to readers to head over to Third Party Independent, look around a bit, check out the first issue of the newspaper, and, if you're so inclined, sign up for a free account and publish a couple test posts to the site.  Any and all feedback, comments and suggestions are more than welcome!  Indeed, it will be crucial to build the site into a vibrant community dedicated to escaping the dead end and breaking the deadlock that is Republican-Democrat party politics.   

Are You Independent or Are You Codependent?

From yesterday's column at CAIVN:

With the big stock market drop and credit rating downgrade that immediately followed the debt ceiling debacle, public discontent with elected representatives in Washington is, once again, at an all-time high.  In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken last week, a full 82% of respondents stated that they disapprove of the way the Congress is handling its job, “the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977,” reported the Gray Lady.

It is surely no coincidence that record high numbers of Americans also refuse to associate themselves with the Democrats or Republicans.  A full 39% identified themselves to the pollster as Independents, compared with just 32% who said they are Democrats and 24% who admitted to being Republicans.  Since 1992, there was only one other poll in this series which found such high levels of Independent identification, and that was in late July 2009.

Writing in The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein argues that “astronomical levels of discontent with President Obama, Congress, and the Washington system itself” among Independent voters is building into a “towering wave of alienation” that promises yet another volatile political backlash in the voting booth next year.

“With each party hemorrhaging public support amid political polarization and economic stagnation, the implications for 2012 are complex and unpredictable,” he writes.

Brownstein sees three possibilities in his crystal ball: the rise of an Independent third party movement, an anti-incumbent backlash against the sitting representatives of both major parties, and continued de-alignment of the voting public from the major parties rather than realignment with either of them.
On the other hand, many supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties are more comfortable explaining away the public’s deep discontent and growing dissatisfaction with the two-party state, choosing to ignore it rather than address or confront it.

In Commentary Magazine, Seth Mandel advises Republicans that in 2012 they should not reach out to Independents.  “There is no “reaching out” to Democrats and independents (or Republicans for that matter), at least in the classic sense; there is only offering solutions. This is mainly because independents don’t really exist,” he writes, echoing the assertions of observers who are ideologically and institutionally invested in the maintenance of the two-party state.

At The New Republic, on the other side of the duopoly divide, Ruy Teixeira makes the very same point, on the basis of the very same article, but from a Democratic perspective.  He argues that President Obama should not reach out to Independents because Independents effectively do not exist.

“To understand how very unlikely it is that Obama’s long sought-after deal is going to magically turn around his numbers, we must visit one of the most robust but amazingly underappreciated findings in American political science: independents are not independent,” writes Teixeira.

Here we see a rare point of overt agreement between the partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties:  Independents should be ignored in favor of courting and consolidating the dwindling number of Democratic and Republican party adherents across the country.

This situation makes one thing crystal clear.  So long as Independents continue voting for, or otherwise supporting, Democrats and Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they will continue to lack adequate representation in government. So long as Independents allow themselves to be held politically hostage by the ideologues of the two-party state and the entrenched interests that maintain both the Democratic and Republican parties, they are not Independent; instead, they are codependent.

Consent of the Governed

Some noteworthy numbers out of Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed.  Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe the government does not have that consent. . . . .

The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed - a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence - is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

Perhaps it's no surprise voters feel this way since only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. That, too, is the lowest level measured to date.  Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent.

Voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low - for the second month in a row. Only six percent (6%) now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent.

If You're Not Independent, You're Codependent

A political cartoon from P. Jamiol via Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs:

From Hostage Taking to Hijacking

When word first began leaking out during the debt ceiling negotiations that the proposed agreement would create a so-called "super Congress" to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit, there was reason for both concern and skepticism.  The very idea that the Congress would agree to abrogate its representative duties and responsibilities, and empower a glorified committee to do the dirty work of  party elites, is unsettling to say the least.  On the other hand, the creation of joint committees, commissions and so on, is standard practice in the legislature, which may of course determine the rules of its own proceedings.  Perhaps the term "super Congress" was just a poor locution, or sloppy journalistic shorthand, or a poorly chosen but pithy sound bite favored by some group of lawmakers.  And, indeed, the proposed body is now commonly being referred to as a "super committee" or simply as a "joint committee."  Yet, is there any reason to give the representatives of the ruling political class any benefit of the doubt?  Ron Paul argues that the "super committee" is patently unconstitutional.  From CNBC:

The "super Congress" committee of 12 that will decide on budget cuts by Thanksgiving as part of the debt ceiling agreement is unconstitutional, Rep. Ron Paul told CNBC Thursday. "I don’t think there’s any doubt about it," said the Texas Republican, who is running for president.

"I would challenge it in the courts," he added. "I would say it is not a constitutional function. There’s no authority to have a 'superCongress' who takes over what the House [of Representatives] is supposed to do" in handling the nation's purse strings.

Democratic and GOP leaders of the House and Senate are expected to each name three lawmakers to form the new 12-member committee in the next couple of weeks. The committee will have until Thanksgiving to come up with a way to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade.

Paul added that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say a committee can make budgetary decisions "and then pop something back into the House and Senate and say, 'You have an up or down vote, you can’t take it to a subcommittee or full committee, you can’t negotiate it.' You don’t know what’s going on there."

The form and makeup of the committee succinctly demonstrate the way in which the two-party system has effectively undermined constitutional government in the United States.  It will have twelve members, six from each party, with party leaders in each chamber appointing three members from their own caucus.  Of course, the parties are not equally represented in either chamber of the legislature, and the constitution does not establish the two chambers of the legislature on an equal footing.  Pretending that a strictly bipartisan, bicameral "super committee" is representative of the American people or even the legislature itself is an exercise in self-delusion, a crass utilitarian fiction.

By the end of the debt ceiling debate, it had become commonplace to describe negotiating tactics on both sides of the duopoly divide as "hostage taking."  None of those hostages – namely, the American people – have been released.  Indeed, the terrorist operation now appears to be moving into its second phase.  The "super Congress" is a hijacking of the Congress by the ruling elites in the Democratic and Republican parties.  And they didn't even need box cutters.  At World Net Daily, Alan Keyes argues that the debt ceiling deal and "super committee" approved by  the Democratic and Republican parties demonstrate, once more, that it is time to move beyond the two-party charade.  Excerpt:

The partisan farce wasn't just much ado about almost nothing. In fact, if allowed to stand, the only concrete outcome of the otherwise pantomime process deserves to be call "historic," but in the desperately bad sense that it may have produced the first audible death rattle of representative government in the United States. I'm referring, of course, to the so-called "super committee" devised as cover for the implementation of Mitch McConnell's scheme to wrest the initiative in fiscal matters from the representatives of the people in the House. 

In effect, this super committee will function as a budget politburo, meant to assure that for the foreseeable future a little clique of elite faction fellow travelers usurp in fiscal matters the legislative role of the body that most nearly represents the people. 

I believe that this mechanism inaugurates a process that is meant to place Congress on the road to extinction. It will cease in any real sense to be a legislative body. It will become an administrative appendage, providing window dressing for a politburo style of government increasingly emancipated from any control, involvement or effective influence by the people . . .

We must kick our addiction to the twin-party sham; prove that we have the discipline, clarity and courage to go cold turkey. And do it in a fashion so grand and unmistakable that we will finally convince ourselves. To achieve this goal, people acting in the true Tea Party spirit will have to focus with laser-like intensity on one political goal between now and Election Day in 2012 – to throw the twin parties overboard

Even those delusional individuals who, for some reason that is virtually beyond rational conception, continue to support the Democrat-Republican two-party charade have begun to question the sanity of maintaining the two-party state.  From Ezra Klein:

Those in Congress who want action — and they are of both parties — manufacture crises in order to force it. It’s not that things don’t get done so much as that they get done in the most dangerous, insane and reckless way. And if that fails and they don’t get done, they trigger awful, unimaginable crises.  At some point, isn’t it time to admit that this system is broken?

Of course, the only people who refuse to admit that "this system is broken" are the dead-enders of the Democratic and Republican parties themselves, and it seems like there are fewer and fewer of them every day.  Nonetheless, it is easy to fathom why party elites would continue to deny this obvious reality: it is in their interests.  

Update: By the way, obviously, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are coming from libertarian-leaning Republican and Independent conservative positions, respectively.  But progressive-leaning Democrats and independents have been equally critical of the debt ceiling agreement and, at least initially, of the "super Congress".  Anyone been following what the latter folks have been saying about the "super committee" since the agreement was signed into law? 

The Criminalization of Internet Browsing

"Won't somebody please think of the children?!"  This is the rallying cry of hysterics and political zealots everywhere.  In the House of Representatives, it is now being spouted by supporters of a new bill that would require internet service providers to retain a database of our names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, dynamic IP addresses and browsing histories, in order, supposedly, to protect children from internet pornographers.  In other words, the goal is to create a massive police state surveillance network and spying database on every single American who uses the internet, and has nothing to do with "the children".  From ZDNet:

Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives’ judiciary committee passed a bill that makes the online activity of every American available to police and attorneys upon request under the guise of protecting children from pornography . . .

The Republican-majority sponsored bill is called the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.  It has nothing to do with pornography, and was opposed by over 30 civil liberties and consumer advocacy organizations, as well as one brave indie ISP that is urging its customers to do everything they can to protest the invasion of privacy.

“Protecting Children” forces ISPs to retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses.  It’s like having your wallet plus the web sites you visit tracked and handed over on request. These logs are now going to be retained for the scope of one and a half years.  (I have to wonder if ISPs can sell this data, too.)  This has nothing to do with porn . . . 

CNET’s Declan McCullagh reminds us that “the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well.” CNET reported that mandatory data retention was being fast-tracked in January, 2011.

The fact that civil litigants could subpoena your internet activity and the contents of your wallet has nothing to do with the labeled and stated purpose of this bill.

Such subpoenas would not require approval by any court.  Rather we must simply trust the credibility and integrity of the Democrat-Republican police state itself.  From the National Journal:

The bill also gives the U.S. Marshals Service the authority to use administrative subpoenas to track down unregistered sex offenders.  A court does not need to approve administrative subpoenas, and this provision garnered heated opposition from members who said that it gives the marshals too much power. An amendment by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., that would have stripped that provision from the bill, failed.

The bill, which has both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition from both major parties, provides us with a sickening example of the political tactics favored by police state and surveillance society advocates such as Lamar Smith (R) and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D), who co-sponsored the measure.  Do you oppose the violation of privacy rights, the further evisceration of the Fourth Amendment, the consolidation of the police state and the expansion of the surveillance society?  Well, then you must support child pornography.  However, as is demonstrated by ongoing investigations of websites devoted to child pornography, proposals like that supported by Smith and Wasserman-Schultz are completely unnecessary to "protect children from internet pornographers."  From Ars Technica:

They used proxy servers and encryption. They used anonymous screen names like "Beast," "Bones," "Jailbird," and "Johnny_5_is_@live" to post and share their child sex abuse films. Admins carefully segregated participants according to how much they were trusted.

But none of that stopped the Department of Justice from identifying and indicting 72 people accused of celebrating the sexual abuse of children age 12 years and younger through a members-only Web forum called "Dreamboard."

"Using sophisticated methods to evade detection by law enforcement, Dreamboard members allegedly used the power and anonymity of the Internet to motivate each other to commit their horrific acts of sexual abuse of minors and trading in child pornography," announced Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech today. "No matter how savvy online predators think they are, we will find them, dismantle their networks, and bring them to justice."

To sign a petition against the bill, head over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

It is Time to Break the Two-Party Duopoly

From a letter to the editor of Alabama News from Richard Rutledge, the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Alabama:

Many of our Founders warned against allowing a two-party system to control our political system, but we refused to listen. Now, we have created a dual-headed monster and a ruling-class elite that are virtually unchallengeable by common men. This is the exact opposite scenario our Founders sought to create. . . .

The political gridlock in Washington, with the bitter, purely partisan battle over the budget and raising the debt ceiling, clearly shows breaking the monopoly the two-party system holds over our political system is essential to our survival as a republic. We must find a way to elect statesmen who will represent the interests of citizens who elect them, not the current crop of career politicians who answer only to party will and special interests.

Said Frederick Douglass: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

AZ: Tucson Greens Prepare for Historic Primary

Green party candidates are running in a number of noteworthy contests this year.  Among them is the Tucson mayoral election.  From last week's column at AZIVN:

In June, Democratic party activists successfully purged all Republican party and Independent hopefuls from the ballot in this year’s mayoral election in Tucson, ensuring a two-party race between the Democrats and Greens, as reported here at AZIVN late last month.  Following the Green Party’s first ever primary election for Tucson mayor in August, Democrat Jonathan Rothschild will square off against either Mary DeCamp or David Croteau in the election for the city’s highest office this coming November.  The city’s current mayor, Republican Robert Walkup, is not seeking re-election. 

Last Friday, the two Greens sat down for the first in a series of candidate interviews with Christopher Conover and Andrea Kelly from Arizona Public Media.  The cordial discussion began with a consideration of what this primary means for the Green party.  Mary DeCamp, a teacher and lifelong activist originally from Nebraska, stressed its historic character. 

“This is historical. This is the first city-wide [primary] election that the Green party has run,” said DeCamp. “We have only been in Pima County for 20 years. So we’re as young as some of our youngest voters . . . to offer a new way of approaching politics is very exciting,” she continued.  DeCamp stressed that she and her primary opponent David Croteau are good friends.  “We’re bringing the message to the public that politics can be civil, respectful, engaging and fun,” she concluded. 

David Croteau, a self-employed craftsman and also a longtime activist, stressed that voters are clearly looking for real alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.  “I believe that the two-party system is broken,” he said.  “The largest voting increase seems to be in Independents, and that suggests to me that the two major parties aren’t giving choices that people are willing to stick with,” he continued.

Read the rest.  Independent voters now outnumber Democrats in Arizona.  The Green party's primary in the Tucson mayoral election has the potential to significantly raise the party's profile throughout the state.  If Greens and progressives nationally are looking for a local campaign to bolster in an off-year election, this one should be on the top of their list.

Q&A with Americans Elect at Rise of the Center

Later this week, Solomon Kleinsmith from Rise of the Center will be interviewing the press secretary of Americans Elect and he's asking people to suggest questions for their discussion.  So if there's something you've been wondering about the organization, head over the RotC, and leave your question in the  comments.  From Solomon:

I was able to get through to Americans Elect, thanks to the help of the ever awesome John Avlon, and will be able to talk to someone soon, probably their Press Secretary. I have several questions I’d like to ask, but since I know some of you have questions of your own that I may not have thought of, I thought I’d give you all the chance to give me some to add to my list.

There are already some really good questions in the thread, so be sure to at least skim the comments section before posting.

From the Bottom Up

In a so-called Letter from Washington in the New York Times, Albert Hunt of Bloomberg News provides a critical view of the top down political strategy that is being pursued by Americans Elect.  Hunt makes the case for working from the bottom up:

America’s two political parties are too often captives of narrower interests and a my-way-or-the-highway base. That flaw afflicted Democrats a generation ago, and today the central cause of political irresolution is the unyielding, out-of-the-mainstream elements of the Republican Party that often call the shots.

Sharp disagreements, disputes and divides are healthy in democratic societies. The debt ceiling, however, is not the stuff of earlier battles over war and peace, or civil rights or the New Deal. And when it comes to unsustainable deficits, Democrats and Republicans both are culpable.

Still, for more than a century and a half, these two parties have served America well, creating a more stable political system than most democracies. Sometimes they have benefited from independent or third-party movements, absorbing ideas and disaffected voters.

It may be that this time, one or both of these parties have gone too far and the new technology affords opportunities for sweeping change. If so, independent or third-party advocates should focus next year on electing hundreds of state legislators, dozens of members of Congress and perhaps even a statewide officeholder or two. That might provide the start of the necessary infrastructure of a new movement, or force the major political parties to adapt.

That is less sexy and a lot tougher than tapping someone to run what history tells us would be a quixotic campaign for president. 

In terms of possible Independent centrist candidates for president in 2012 or thereafter, would it not seem that Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee would be an obvious choice for consideration?  From the Providence Journal:

Is Governor Lincoln Chafee a viable third-party presidential candidate in 2012?
Apparently, the online readers of Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza seem to think so.

Chafee, the nation’s only independent governor and a former Republican U.S. senator, was among the top-10 political figures cited by readers, according to an item last week on Cillizza’s blog, The Fix.

The list includes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, businessman Donald Trump, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and CIA Director David Petraeus.

Chafee on Thursday did not deny his interest, but said simply: “I’m focused on Rhode Island.” But his spokesman, Christian Vareika, had more to say the day earlier: “The Governor is appreciative of this national recognition of his record of independence while in Washington, including his consistent fiscal conservatism and his farsighted votes against the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, both of which have resulted in enormous deficits and our country’s current debt crisis. However, while flattered, Governor Chafee is focused on Rhode Island and bringing job creation and economic prosperity back to our state.”