Comments for Rhode Island's Future

Comment on Why Should Politics Be Boring? by Samuel G. Howard

Samuel G. Howard — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:11:26 +0000

Thanks, Don. You’re right on Chafee, he’s not a remarkable speaker. But that doesn’t distinguish him from any other current RI politician. It’s a problem across the entire national political class.

Comment on Why Should Politics Be Boring? by donroach

donroach — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:48:06 +0000

Very interesting read, Samuel.

Although, Chafee would never be confused with some of the best orators of the 20th century even if he has a chance to be politically interesting.

Comment on Laboratories of Democracy Must Push for More Democracy by mvymvy

mvymvy — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:31:57 +0000

A survey of Rhode Island voters conducted on June 1, 2008 showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 78% among independents, 86% among liberal Democrats, 85% among moderate Democrats, 60% among conservative Democrats, 71% among liberal Republicans, 63% among moderate Republicans, and 35% among conservative Republicans.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 80% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 63% among men.
Now presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states’ total 166 electoral votes.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for candidates to try and elevate their share where they aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Rhode Island.

Comment on Laboratories of Democracy Must Push for More Democracy by Samuel G. Howard

Samuel G. Howard — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:00:46 +0000

Man, the 17th Amendment? Do you think things were better when political insiders could be appointed Senator by virtue of being friends with the state legislature? Do you think we would’ve had a Claiborne Pell if the 17th Amendment hadn’t been passed? Political bosses got appointed Senator all the time. The People of the United States are mature enough to select their own representatives, and suffer the consequences as a result.
Yes, the Electoral College maximizes voting power, but only for the folks in important swing states. I used to think that it meant Rhode Island was more important in the election, but that’s false. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Texas, California, etc… none of those states matter since their results are foregone conclusions. If you move to Ohio, you’ve just magnified the strength of your vote.
As for your “candidates will only focus in the areas with the largest voter density (urban areas) and ignore the rural ones,” well, that’s a fallacy. nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m7.php#m7_2

Comment on Laboratories of Democracy Must Push for More Democracy by jgardner

jgardner — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:43:40 +0000

The 17th Amendment was also popular, but it can be argued we’re worse off for it. Equality alone is not the goal (under tyranny the populace’s power is equal to zero). The goal should be to maximize each voter’s voting power, and that is what the Electoral College does. Each individual vote has more power to swing an election under the EC system than a direct majority vote. If you remove the electoral college, then the candidates will only focus in the areas with the largest voter density (urban areas) and ignore the rural ones. That doesn’t seem like a better outcome.
Removing the electoral college would further erode the relevance of the states (just as the 17th Amendment did), a key piece of the structure of our gov’t.

Comment on Jack Reed Work-Sharing Language Passes by DogDiesel

DogDiesel — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:51:33 +0000

Rhode Island already used work share. Why is this any different?

Comment on The Gospel Is Too Important to Put Down by PinkHatLib

PinkHatLib — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:22:46 +0000

“…the Secular Left has been hesitant to embrace religious argumentation and politics…”

In that case, let me just say, “judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Comment on The Gospel Is Too Important to Put Down by Samuel G. Howard

Samuel G. Howard — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:59:54 +0000

I don’t think this is exactly a straw man, though I understand your points, Barry & PinkHatLib. I used the atheist parody of the “Strong” ad to show that sense of smug superiority which turns me off, the almost casual denigration of religion.
While the Secular Left is not completely divorced from religion, I do believe it has not fully embraced it. I think coming out the ’60s and ’70s there has been a progressive divorcing of religion from left politics. Woody Guthrie’s “Christ for President” (reproduced by Billy Bragg and Wilco) is a throwback to when the Religious Left was a dominant force. I think that largely it’s due to the rise of the Religious Right that the Secular Left has been hesitant to embrace religious argumentation and politics, since the Religious Right is often a very large turn-off.
This may also be as congregations have moved farther and farther away from church leaders in terms of politics.
This may play into a meme, but the meme has largely been allowed to flourish because the Left has not been willing to fight back.

Comment on The Gospel Is Too Important to Put Down by PinkHatLib

PinkHatLib — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:14:34 +0000

This just plays into the Republican meme that somehow the left hates religion. Put these discussions in that frame and we lose, Sam. Framing always trumps facts (see “Don’t Think of an Elephant”).

Comment on The Gospel Is Too Important to Put Down by Thom Cahir

Thom Cahir — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:06:36 +0000

I’m an atheist and I too believe there is a need to understand what’s going on inside the heads of the religious right. As a father (of two atheist boys), I always told my sons they needed a grasp of the Bible to understand the arguments others would make against them. Being raised Catholic (I survived and I’m now recovering), I know the Bible and spout chapter and verse as well. However, I don’t consider myself superior (well, maybe a little) but have been known to use a verse or storyline from the Bible to state my case against someone making an overly religious appeal to an issue. So, while i may not agree totally with Sam’s premise, I do think we all need to be able to use any source at our disposal to help educate others to our way of thinking; that of the secular world prevailing over one being predominated by the religious.