Four ideas that will improve Rhode Island


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

robert-healeyAlthough the electorate chose another for Governor, I still wish to share my ideas for a dynamic Rhode Island in hope that there can be some support for these visions. There are four ideas, all of which I had spoken of during my recent campaign, that I believe could profoundly change the game and restore Rhode Island to prosperity.

  • A statewide teacher contract
  • A state bank
  • A state monopoly over marijuana sales
  • And a revision of the election process

Statewide teacher contract

The idea of a statewide teacher contract for wages and benefits has great potential. By negotiating a teacher contract statewide on election years prior to the filing deadline for candidates for office would be a boom for Rhode Island.

By using the income tax system instead of property taxation to fund such an endeavor, the property taxes in most communities could be cut dramatically, fifty percent or more in most communities. This reduction in property taxes would result in seniors and others on fixed incomes being able to remain in their homes. It would also put the burden more fairly on those earning incomes, who, coincidentally, are the people who have children in schools.

The secondary benefit is that having low property taxes can serve as a lure for economic development. Presently, a high property tax rate would make business reluctant to locate. Just moving here places the responsibility of education costs on them, and, not having children in the system, they are in essence paying up front for services they don’t need.

With lower property taxes, a business would look favorably on locating, creating the jobs that would pay the income taxes required for education. It would work for economic development and by creating an environment of jobs, would then provide for education. It doesn’t change the cost, but it favorably changes the paradigm.

Sure, there is a possibility of a statewide teacher strike, but what sort of a deterrent is that? Yes, there will be resistance from entrenched teacher unions, but that can be negotiated away. There are ways to create a formula for the different wages that currently exist. It is not difficult.

Against these negatives, weigh the even greater potential for education. Local school boards, freed of the task of contract negotiations, would be liberated to focus on education policy, the very essence of their elected duty.

State-run bank

The second idea postulated was one of having a state bank. Since we pay roughly one half of a billion dollars a year to finance our state, why not become the bank? In doing so, we pay ourselves, freed of Wall Street and its ratings.

It is not a novel idea. North Dakota has been doing just that for almost a century. The problems relate to powerful banking interests that would clearly resist in that there is no money in it for them. Quite frankly, I see the biggest challenge in finding those honorable enough to serve in management, given the past struggles Rhode Island has had with corruption.

If we could get past this hurdle, and chart a well intended course to provide our own funding, we could seriously save the state billions of dollars and not worry about our debt servicing, since we are merely servicing our debt to ourselves.

Marijuana monopoly

A third idea is to have the state legalize marijuana sales and hold a monopoly. The state could utilize its land grant college, the University of Rhode Island, to grow the product. Under a legalized system, the state would then sell the product to the public. There would also be an educational benefit related to the agricultural program at the state university, a win-win as they say.

With the power of a state monopoly, the state could set its price to be twenty percent below the street value. In doing this, it would retain all the profits instead of the drug dealers. It would, in short, have a benefit of lowering drug crime in that it would put drug dealers out of a profitable business.

While states have legalized marijuana only to tax it, such an idea falls short. Taxing a product raises its street costs. Why would someone purchase taxed pot when they can get it on the street without taxes? The idea in creative public policy is to get a benefit to the state.

Selling the product below the street cost cuts out the middleman and provides all income to the state. Anyone purchasing the product will certainly not go on the streets to purchase it at a higher cost. In turn, this would reduce the criminal prosecution related to marijuana sales and use, saving precious law enforcement and corrections time and energy. It is that simple.

While there are some who will argue that legalization is fraught with danger, to legalize only to tax is not an alternative. The real value of legalization is for the state to be the grower and the dealer. Given the fact that we have the means of production, we are poised to exploit an opportunity.

And finally, it is time to step into the future with election reforms. Our state of the art election machines have now seen their age. We will be in need of new machines in the very near future. Why not use this as another opportunity to modernize our voting?

Instant runoff voting

It is without a doubt that multi-party elections are in Rhode Island’s future. The system that was designed for two party voting methods no longer holds as a viable position. In the last several elections there have been many elections by less than a majority. While we have legal provisions for election by plurality, it would be beneficial to all citizens to have a method that assures a majority of support.

There are two ways viable methods to resolve this problem. One is a simple system that requires a runoff election for the two candidates with the highest vote total if one hasn’t received over fifty percent.

There is, however, a far greater, and less expensive, method that can provide a better result. This system is used in Australia, Cambridge, and other communities in the United States. It is called Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV.

Under an IRV, a person ranks the choices for a particular office. That ranking is translated into a number of points based on the number of people running for office. For example, in a four person race, the first choice would get four points. A person’s second choice would get three points, and so on.

In this day of computerized everything, including vote tallying, this system is completely workable, and it will ensure that the person elected has the general support of the entire population. It is far more representative of the people in that your ‘second choice’ may win based on your individual preference.

Sure, this system will be resisted by the political powers that be in that it may threaten its power, but it is in the interest of the people that such a system can benefit Rhode Island in that it will restore faith in the election process.

Given that we will be looking to purchase new voting machines in the near future, it is time we consider a voting process before going out to bid. By stepping into the future, by giving the power to the people, by demonstrating that Rhode Island can make changes for the betterment of its people, we can then show the world that Rhode Island has escaped from its tortured past.

To continue on the course without entertaining change will merely lead nowhere. It is time to chart a new course, embrace a new vision, experiment with novel ideas. We have an opportunity, I urge those in power to consider them. Even though these ideas were based on my campaign, I freely encourage all to take them and implement them in a way that is responsive to the needs and the people of Rhode Island.

The old saying is that when all you have is lemons, make lemonade. In Rhode Island, even this is perverted. Stocked with lemons, to open a lemonade stand in Rhode Island would require a state permit to make sales at retail, zoning approval, and other regulatory compliance. Unless and until common sense prevails, and we actually work to exploit our resources, we will only have lemons.

Other electoral changes that work (Part 13 of MMP RI)


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Currently, for a party to be recognized by the state, they must collect signatures totaling 5% or more of either the Presidential vote or the Gubernatorial vote (whichever was more recent). Then, in the next election, to maintain their party status, they have to win 5% of the vote in that category, and then every four years win 5% again.

That threshold is designed to keep third parties from being recognized. Plurality, winner-takes-all voting schemes like Rhode Island’s practically force voters to vote strategically and over time reduce the amount of parties down to two. Lowering the threshold to a more manageable number like 2% of the vote would be a start. Alternatively, the requirement could be 5% of the Gubernatorial vote and then a requirement to win 5% in any statewide race. Another would be to keep the signature requirement and an interval after a reasonable period of time to force that collection again (however, this would mean that Republicans and Democrats were forced to do this as well). Finally, dropping the signature requirement altogether and making sure that parties met a set number of requirements could also open up our party system.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

I’ve mentioned this before, and the General Assembly passed the Voter Choice Act in 2011 to study IRV. The study commission was due to report on May 1, 2013; but a House bill by Rep. Blazejewski (a member of the commission) was passed on July 3rd to move the date to November 1st. Don’t ask me how that works.

IRV allows voters to rank their choice of candidates, preventing the spoiler effect that third party candidates and independents can have (as a result, IRV systems foster multiple parties). In an MMP system, it could greatly change how district seats are awarded. In Rhode Island, this could ultimately mean the end of Democratic dominance in the districts.

Revamp Election Day

Election Day sucks. A working Tuesday is a terrible day to hold an election. Miss it because you were sick or had work, and you have to wait two years (and no guarantee it’ll be the same election then. Beyond early voting and extended voting times, one of my favorite suggestions was to turn Election Day into a week-long paid-holiday/celebration, complete with things like parades and fireworks. Considering it’s the part of our democracy that’s the most democratic, I think that’s a good idea.

Stop/Reduce Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering can create a way for a party to cling to power even when it should’ve been defeated. This problem is endemic across the United States, but it’s only receives attention in the run-up to redistricting, during redistricting, and in the immediate aftermath. While MMP ostensibly works to counteract gerrymandering, how districts are drawn is a better solution, since it works across electoral systems.

Bipartisan commissions bother me, since incumbents always have a reason to draw themselves safe districts. Independent commissions also bother me, since legislators are pretty good at finding a way to work around nominal independence. I don’t have a very good solution, but the shortest-splitline algorithm seems like a promising way to counteract it; though it leads to districts that often ignore geographical features and boundaries. I’ll let this YouTube video explain it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

 

This is Part 13 of the MMP RI series, which posits what Rhode Island’s political landscape would look like if we had switched to a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system in 2002. Part 12 (a revisiting of the 2010 election based on Attorney General election results) is available here. Part 14 ends this series.

Anthony Gemma Should Stay In CD1 Race


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Anthony Gemma

Anthony GemmaI’m going to go out on a limb here and argue against our editor Bob Plain’s article that Anthony Gemma should drop out of the race for Democratic nominee for Congressional District 1. Now, obviously, it’s not because I have any particular love for Mr. Gemma. It’s because I’m a radical democrat.

I believe in the application of democracy, that our ideas and politicians have to be challenged in order to strengthen them. Representative David Cicilline shouldn’t get a free ride (though, obviously, no one can really accuse him of that since Providence Mayor Angel Taveras announced a “category 5 hurricane” about the city’s finances). I think that, regardless of how much I personally feel that between Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Gemma that Mr. Cicilline is clearly the better candidate, Mr. Gemma needs to stay in the race.

This should apply to everyone. In our democracy, it’s a shame that anyone ever stands in any election unchallenged. I’m not deaf to the idea that sometimes the best candidate is already in office, but I sincerely doubt it always applies. Everyone needs to be capable of defending their ideas; those who don’t tend to get sloppy. Even worse, they can get entitled. Mr. Cicilline clearly never got the chance to feel entitled to his seat; when Mr. Taveras made his now famous remarks as to the city’s financial condition, the uphill battle began. Everyday since then has been a justification of why Mr. Cicilline should remain in office. That‘s a good thing. These telephone town halls, while pretty ubiquitous, have been a departure from Patrick Kennedy’s tenure when the representative was… someplace, talking to some people.

Mr. Gemma serves a purpose; to ask the question “can Mr. Cicilline serve as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer for Representative in RI CD-1?” However terrible an instrument Mr. Gemma is for that purpose, we’ll know the answer on September 11th.

This principle should’ve extended to the Republican race as well. John Loughlin II dropping out was bad for Rhode Island. It denied Republicans the chance to vet their candidate. Hopefully, Michael Donahue can fill Mr. Loughlin’s shoes; although I sincerely doubt he will, with the twin issues of a dislike of lawyers & law enforcement and the Federal Reserve and a likely resources and media coverage deficit.

Today being filing day, it’s important that those who can go out and do as Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D-Narragansett, Peace Dale, Wakefield) told the audience to do at Netroots Nation: run for office. To make democracy work, we have to run, no matter how impossible the task seems.

That said, I want to lay out the problems to this. First, and foremost, it’s an incredible drain on resources; financial, physical, and emotional. People burn out, or they go bankrupt. Politics is exceedingly expensive. In a perfect world, we’d have public financing and everyone would work with similar resources. But the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be against that, so we have to deal with the fact that our elections are going to become more and more oligarchical. I don’t have the solution to that.

There’s also the grueling personal attacks. I’d love it if political campaigns were cordial affairs (what if candidates campaigned together?), but I recognize that they’re not. And the result is that they can be bitter, wounding attacks. This is because it’s far simpler to make personal attacks, because people connect more easily with emotional appeals, and because we have a news media which rewards the personal attack with coverage and a general blasé attitude. We shouldn’t deny it; the first hardcore “issues” article I read about the CD1 campaign was the Progressive Democrats presentations/questionnaires that both Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Gemma went through. And I’m jealous of our former editor Brian Hull (and the Progressive Dems) for getting it.

Furthermore, more and more candidates in a single race means our first-past-the-post system reveals its inherent flaw: it doesn’t take a majority to win. You only have the win the largest plurality. Which means elections can end with a candidate the majority of people actually don’t like winning. A simple reform would be to switch to instant runoff voting, but it’ll take a sustained campaign and a real threat that the RI Democratic Party might lose its grip for that switch to happen.

But even without changes in how we organize elections and how we cover them, we need candidates to be brave enough to stand up and speak out for what they believe in. We need them to argue with whatever assumptions currently stand; with the consensus. The consensus shouldn’t get to rest on its laurels, it should constantly have to strive to prove its worth. Ideally, Rhode Island should thrive on this sort of idea.

In some places, there’s an option for “none of the above”. Voters can reject all the candidates by selecting it; and it means that a new election is called with new candidates. Perhaps that’d be a more honest way of doing this; giving voters the chance to say “all of these options are unappealing to me.” But until that comes along, that’s what Anthony Gemma will be: an alternative to “none of the above”.