Stein, a doctor from Massachusetts and the Green Party’s standard bearer for the second election in a row, will visit the CCRI campus in Warwick on Saturday, August 22. She’s the keynote speaker at the Green Gathering, an annual meeting of local Green Party members and supporters.

Unlike even Sanders, Stein offers a real alternative to mainstream political candidates. She endorses a $15 federal minimum wage, ending poverty by creating a job for everyone through a “Green New Deal.” And she’s been critical of campaigns like Sanders’ which seeks to change the party from within.

“What Bernie is doing, speaking truth to power, is a wonderful thing,” Stein said, according to ThinkProgress in June. “It’s been done many times before within the Democratic Party. But one only has to look at the inspired campaign of Jesse Jackson to see where that goes. It’s a wonderful flourish, but when it’s over, it’s over. And the party continues to march to the right. These reform efforts within the Democratic Party feel good for those who participate, but at the end of the day, they have not built a foundation for the future.”

Stein will be joined by Sherrie Anne Andre, one of the FANG activists who have been fighting the expansion of methane gas in Rhode Island and David Fisher, a former Green Party candidate for mayor of Woonsocket, who will speak about local elections.

Here are the details of the Green Gathering, from Greg Gerritt:

We all know that our state faces many challenges. In most cases, good and honest leadership and visions have been unthinkable, especially in these challenging times. Like many others, I am aware of those critical issues and challenges, and I am deeply concerned about what lies ahead for our creative capital and state. However, I stood by and with you through the fight in the past elections, and I still believe and stand with you as you take office.

I have no doubt in mind that you’re ready to transform our city and state by changing it from within.

As you take your respective seats in offices and roll your sleeves, keep in mind that I and thousands of other concerned Rhode Islanders are watching you– particularly those of us who walked tirelessly under scorching summer sun and bitter cold winter. We burnt our fuel and carelessly increased our cars odometers by traveling to every corner of the city and state. We knocked on strangers’ doors despite the dangers and untold and unexpected humiliations that came with it. Above all, we put our own lives on hold, believing it’s worthy. We were ready to tell your stories and share your visions with the rest of the city and state. We believed in you and still do.

Like many others, I am watching you. I am watching you because I care about you and our state. I am watching you because I still believe in One Providence and One Rhode Island, where a mother on the Southside of Providence sends her teenage boy to the nearby corner store without any fear that he might not return home safely. If you do not do what you made us believe and get swallowed by the chronic illness of “cultural and insider politics,” don’t be surprised to read my articles in the papers. Don’t be surprised to see me hitting every medium, criticizing the person you might become. Don’t be surprised to see a movement against your failures. Don’t be surprised when an ardent supporter and a friend becomes a fierce critic.

As your good friend, I am watching you with eagle eyes. Beware and be yourself! Lead with open heart, open mind and integrity!

Your caring friend,

Komlan A. Soe

Will focuses on General Assembly and Town Council races, but his post made me wonder how different towns around Rhode Island voted compared to the state averages. So I dug into the numbers for statewide races. Here’s what I came up with:

Democratic Lean by Town Population

Democratic Lean by Town Density

This is a little confusing; here’s what I did:

1. I looked up what percentage of the votes in each town the Democrats and Republicans for each statewide office received.
2. I subtracted the GOP candidate’s percentage from the Democrat’s for each town, giving the percentage margin the Democrats won (or didn’t) by.
3. I then averaged together the margins for each statewide race, roughly giving each town’s Democratic lean.
4. I then subtracted the average statewide Democratic lean from each of those town leans, giving us an idea of how each town compares to Rhode Island as a whole.

Those are the numbers you see above. Here’s my spreadsheet. A few observations:

• Hardly anyone lives in New Shoreham. But we already knew Block Island isn’t a population hub. (These population numbers are from Wikipedia and could be wrong.)
• There’s a clear trend of the denser and more populous cities voting more for Democrats than less populous towns. I ran the correlations and it’s 0.55 for population and 0.82 for density. Both are reasonably strong.
• Imagine the vaguely logarithmic trendline that would best fit these points. For the density graph the formula for that trendline would be y = 0.084*ln(x) - 0.6147. It’s in relation to that trendline that I’ve made the map at right. Gray towns are those that voted about how you’d expect based on their density, blue towns voted more Democratic than density would suggest while red towns voted less Democratic.
• Remember this is one point in time, November 4, 2014. It can’t tell us a lot about how things are changing or how all those people who didn’t turn out would vote if they did.

So at the end of the day, what does this tell us? Municipalities with higher population & density tend to vote for Democrats more than towns with lower populations. This isn’t just true in Rhode Island, it’s true across the country. But what is interesting here is how different areas of the state deviate from that implied trendline.

In House of Representatives especially. The chamber controlled by conservative Democrat Nick Mattiello saw the GOP membership almost double – from six to 11 while Democrats dropped a total of six seats.

Linda Finn of Portsmouth lost to Republican Dan Reilly and Larry Valencia of Richmond lost to Republican Justin Price. Scott Guthrie and Lisa Tomasso, both of Coventry, lost to Republicans Robert Nardollilo and Sherry Roberts. And Donna Walsh of Charlestown lost to Blake Filippi, an independent from Block Island.

The good news is Aaron Regunberg, of the East Side of Providence and Shelby Maldonado of Central Falls won. That Peter Palumbo lost to Republican Robert Lancia can be seen as a wash to progressives if not Democrats.

Things weren’t quite as bad in the Senate, but Democrat Cathy Cool Rumsey lost to Republican Elaine Morgan.

Here’s a list of some of the legislative seats I was watching:

Portsmouth/Middletown (House District 72)

Linda Finn 45.9%

Dan Reilly 53.9%

Narragansett / Wakefield (House 34)

Teresa Tanzi 53.5%

Steve Tetzner 46.3%

Providence, East Side (House 4)

Aaron Regunberg 82.5%

Ethan Gyles 16.8%

Coventry (Senate 21)

Margaux Morrisseau 35.8%

Nick Kettle 54.7%

Coventry (House District 26)

Nick Denice 43.7%

Patricia Morgan 49.4%

West Warwick (Senate District 9)

Adam Satchell 55.7%

Michael Pinga 44%

North Kingstown (House District 31)

Julie Casimiro 46.8%

Doreen Costa 53.1%

North Kingstown (House District 32)

Sharon Gamba 47.8%

Bob Craven 51.8%

Richmond (House District 39)

Larry Valencia 42.5%

Justin Price 57.4%

Central Falls (House District 56)

Shelby Maldonado 83.4%

Albert Romanowicz 16.5%

Central Falls (House District 56)

Elizabeth Crowley 84.7%

Dan Bidondi 14.8%

Cranston (House District 18)

Art Handy 65.9%

Don Gendron 33.8%

Newport (Senate District 13)

Teresa Paiva Weed 54.6%

Mike Smith 45.1%

Gina Raimondo has the best ideas about how to better Rhode Island – and her middle class-friendly campaign message is far more appealing than Allan Fung’s policy proposals of cutting taxes and shrinking government. Couple that with Raimondo’s track record of being able to move political mountains and it seems like an easy choice.

But it wasn’t.

Maybe I’m holding a grudge because of her ability to shepherd through landmark pension reforms, which I still feel were too one-sided, but I’d like to think it’s more than that. I’m not sure I want to contribute to The Narrative of ‘A Democrat Can Screw Unions And Thrive’. There may be many short and long term wins to be had there (lower unfunded pension liabilities, for just one), but ultimately I’m far from convinced that’s the best row to hoe if we really want to fend off increasing economic inequality, which I firmly believe to be the root cause of much of our social and economic ailments.

Then there’s Wall Street.

It’s not a place in lower Manhattan, it’s a sector of our economy. Maybe the biggest, depending on how you define it, certainly it’s the strongest, and the only thing it makes is profits. This can be harmless in times of growth but, ultimately, can only be predatory unleashed on a society that consumes more than it produces. As such, Wall Street is the glue that solidifies increasing income inequality as the New American Way.

I’m not sure Gina Raimondo shares my thoughts on these issues. But I’m pretty certain Allan Fung doesn’t either. And in the short term, Raimondo will be far better for Rhode Island.

Payday loans don’t stand a chance with Gina Raimondo as governor. I bet she can whip the legislature into raising the minimum wage. I’m confident she can attract vibrant new businesses to downtown Providence and that she’ll be a fantastic ambassador for our tourist economy. She will not only defend our pioneering healthcare exchange, but I’d be surprised if she doesn’t find a way to make it even better. She will prioritize preparing for climate chance and sea level rise, and someday soon Rhode Island will regret if we are not.

Both Raimondo and Fung will support charter schools more than me. But I can see Raimondo turning the focus to a Constitutional right to an adequate and equal education for all. If one thing is obvious about education politics in Rhode Island it’s that we need someone to lead a high level conversation about where it’s going. I hope whoever is the next governor will pick up Bob Healey’s idea to fund education statewide as a way to offer both property tax relief and education equity. Raimondo is the only one who could pull this off.

I wanted to vote for Bob Healey, but it’s just too close with too much at stake. I think he’s the only one telling the truth on the campaign trail, even if he’s sometimes mumbling it. He may well be more popular if he had shorter hair, but instead he chooses to mock our political process. He’s the only one who earned my respect. But I think Rhode Island needs my vote, so it’s going to Gina Raimondo.

Both men describe themselves as liberal, and both have a history of community service. There is no question that Kevin Jackson has worked to better his Ward. The upgraded Billy Taylor Park, on Camp St., is the most obvious testament to that. Marcus Mitchell led the formation of the Providence Community Libraries, which successfully prevented the closure of nine public libraries throughout Providence. He currently sits on the board for the Hope High School Dollars for Scholars foundation, which was named Scholarship America’s national new affiliate of the year.

Despite these similarities, there are also stark differences. The most obvious, and probably the most divisive, is Jackson’s post as campaign co-chair for Buddy Cianci. Mitchell, by contrast, does not want to go back to the old way of doing things. This says a lot about each man’s vision for the residents of Providence.

Currently, Providence residents pay high property and car taxes, yet our streets are a disaster, public services are diminished, our public schools are struggling for financial assistance, and economic development is seemingly at a stand still.

This election stands a chance to change this. The primary election in September proved that Rhode Island is ready to move forward; political newcomers upset the endorsed candidates in several races. Running a write-in campaign is no easy task, but Mitchell is familiar with grassroots organizing, and has made a name for himself in his work with local organizations.

Jackson describes himself as a liberal progressive Democrat. Mitchell prefers to let his record speak for him. He has worked with some of the most conservative politicians in this country to give voice and funding to underserved communities, his background is in economic development, and he has won awards for community service and dedication to civil rights. Mitchell says that he works to “get the job done with whatever resources are available.” I, for one, am ready to see Providence “get the job done”, and hope you will join me in writing in Marcus Mitchell for Ward 3 City Council on Tuesday.

On the November ballot, referendum Question 3 will ask voters; “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?” While most people following Ocean State politics are focused on who will be the next governor of our state, or the next mayor of our capital city, question three bears watching too. The process for putting the referendum on the ballot every ten years was the result of a 1973 constitutional convention ballot initiative.

The first time the voters were presented with the new question (in 1984) they authorized a convention. The result was a two-year process that placed 14 questions on the 1986 ballot, eight of which were ratified by the voters. In 1994 and 2004 the voters rejected the referendum and no conventions were held as a result. Our organization, Common Cause Rhode Island, opposed the last two referenda but in 2014 we are not taking a position. Quite frankly, there are too many compelling arguments for and against a convention this time. Just a cursory review shows both sides to have compelling arguments.

Supporters of a convention point to important constitutional changes that they assert are needed in our state as the impetus for their efforts. They also rightfully point out that many of these reforms that limit legislative power could be much more difficult to achieve through the typical process whereby the General Assembly puts proposed constitutional amendments it would like on the statewide ballot.

Opponents of a convention point to the many important changes that have been put on the ballot by the legislature; including Separation of Powers, downsizing the legislature, elimination of the much abused legislative pensions, merit selection of judges, etc. They argue that a convention will be a creature of the legislature given that the election of delegates is based on state legislative districts, and that in 1986 many of them had deep ties to members of the General Assembly.

Opponents of a convention express legitimate concerns about the possibility that such a gathering might put restrictions on important civil rights and liberties up to a popular referendum. They point to amendments from 1986 that would have put restrictions on abortion rights (which didn’t pass) and imposed restrictions on bail for certain drug offenses (which did pass).

Supporters point to the fact that the people must approve any changes to the Rhode Island constitution that are placed on the ballot by a convention, and that the voters overwhelmingly rejected new restrictions on abortions in 1986. They argue that the U.S. Constitution contains sufficient protections for civil rights and liberties, and that those cannot be abrogated by the a state constitution.

We encourage the voters of Rhode Island to look closely at the arguments made against a convention by Citizens for Responsible Government, and for having a convention by Renew RI. Both coalitions have already been spending considerable resources to make their respective point of view heard. No doubt the coming weeks will see even more arguments by both sides of this question.

Common Cause is engaging a different type of education, one that is not focused on persuading anyone about the merits or dangers of a convention. Rather we are trying to explore what a convention might look like by digging into the archives from the 1980s and other sources. Here are a few quick facts:

There were an extraordinary 558 candidates for the November 5, 1985 election of 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. That election resulted in only 96,538 eligible voters casting a ballot. The convention held 11 statewide public forums and received over 1000 comments. After that they held 111 substantive committee meetings and took testimony at 34 public committee hearings. The result was 322 resolutions introduced by the delegates and vetted through six substantive committees. Fifty-six of the resolutions were debated in 10 plenary sessions. The result was 26 resolutions that passed and were consolidated into the 14 ballot questions proposed in 1986.

There is much more to learn about the 1986 convention. The Common Cause website contains five hours of video from a March conference we hosted with Roger Williams University School of Law, the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, and the League of Women Voters or Rhode Island. Included are talks by Professors Alan Tarr and Robert Williams from the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, perhaps the two leading authorities on state constitutions. Other materials we have added include information about the campaign finance from the election of delegates.

While the candidates you vote for on November 4th may be in office for four or eight years, changes to our state’s constitution may last for generations. In the coming weeks we hope you take the time to become educated about Question 3 and make sure on Election Day to go down the ballot and make your voice heard on this issue, no matter where you stand.

A Providence woman was denied the right to vote, according to an ACLU press release which details four incidents in which Rhode Island’s controversial voter ID law caused problems at the polls on primary day.

“An elderly Hispanic woman who did not have identification was turned away from voting in Providence,” says the press release. “According to a poll watcher, the warden wrongly told her ‘even for a provisional ballot, you need an ID.’ The woman left without casting a ballot. The warden confirmed to the poll watcher that this was her understanding of the rules.”

The woman did not give her name, and did not speak with the poll watcher, said Johanna Kaiser, an ACLU spokeswoman. “Under the law, any person without proper ID is supposed to be given a provisional ballot, and if the signature they provide matches the one on their voter registration, the ballot ends up getting counted.” said the ACLU press release.

The ACLU had approximately 12 poll watchers at voting locations in Rhode Island and identified four “problems” – three on election day and one with an early voter.

According to the press release, a man casting an emergency ballot the day before the primary “was initially not given a provisional ballot, but instead was told he was unable to vote because he did not have proper identification. He got to vote only because another person waiting in line, who was familiar with the law’s requirement, forcefully advocated on the voter’s behalf.”

Here’s how the ACLU described the other two incidents:

• “A Providence man with an expired license was initially told he could not vote. He told the ACLU that poll workers did not give him a provisional ballot until he showed them in writing that provisional ballots are available to voters without proper identification.”
• “Poll workers in Pawtucket denied a voter a provisional ballot when he did not show photo ID. The voter, who was aware of his right to such a ballot, explained the law to the workers, who then had to call a supervisor. It then took poll workers 45 minutes to determine how to administer a provisional ballot, according to the voter.”

Said Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU: “The voter ID law was promoted by the Secretary of State as necessary to address an alleged perception of voter fraud. Yet the implementation of this law is in fact, not in perception, denying qualified voters the right to vote. That is where the real concern should be, and why the law should be repealed.”

Kaiser added, “We will again be sending letters to the the Board of Elections raising concerns about poll workers not being given clear enough instructions about their obligations under the law, and urging the Board to address this before the November election. The ACLU and other organizations sent letters to the Board ahead the primary, but to our knowledge the Board took no further action.”

Apparently you call this person a right wing extremist—but only when you’re talking about Gina Raimondo.

For Rhode Island liberals, it’s taken as an article of faith that Raimondo is a conservative wolf in Democratic sheep’s clothing, based only on her (successful? we’ll see) attempt to stop the state’s runaway public employees’ pension train. The fact that this notion is so pervasive among progressives is a testament to how much unions—especially public sector unions—dominate the Liberal/Progressive scene here in Rhody Land.

We can debate the way in which the Treasurer went about bringing pension reform to fruition, but there is no question that it was both absolutely necessary and very popular with the general public. But let’s set this one issue aside for a moment, step back, and take a big-picture look at our Democratic nominee for Governor.

Remember way back when instead of full marriage equality we got a watered down “civil unions” law? Raimondo supported full equality through all of it. She’s unabashedly pro-choice and has been endorsed by EMILY’s List—and with her Republican opponent being backed by RI Right to Life, we can be sure Planned Parenthood will come out with their endorsement of Gina any minute now.

Sure, she’s “socially liberal.” But what about on economic issues?

I already mentioned her support for raising the minimum wage. Even the more-conservative-than-it-should-be Rhode Island House raised the wage two years in a row. But Gina supports taking it a step further and not just raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour but also indexing it to inflation.

But most significantly, Gina has been a fierce advocate for reigning in the truly evil practice of predatory lending. This is a big deal. Right now, our pseudo-Democratic leaders in the General Assembly are pretty much in the pockets of the payday loan sharks, and the working men and women of Rhode Island are suffering because of it. I hope Gina continues to support Payday Lending Reform—we know how well she wields a bully pulpit, and she’ll have a much bigger one if she wins in November.

So if you are an Angel Taveras or Clay Pell Democrat trying to figure out how you can possibly support Gina in the general election, hopefully I’ve given you enough here to help you to vote for your party’s nominee without having your head explode.

And if you’re seriously considering voting for Allan Fung, well, then you’ve got to ask yourself whether or not you were a Democrat in the first place.

[Oh yeah and before y’all get crazy in the comments, let me save you some time: I’m not “anti-worker” or even “anti-union.” I fully support workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain—just like Gina Raimondo does. You can call me a “DINO” if you like—since I do it to people all the time, that’s only fair. But if you’re over the age of 35 and/or connected to the old school Party, forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. And Sam Bell: you can say “pension cuts” instead of “pension reform” all you want—the cuts were part of the reform, and I still love you.]