RI NOW endorses 9 for Senate, 26 for House


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

RI NOWby Amanda Clarke and Melanie Carrazzo

The RI NOW Political Action Committee (RI NOW PAC) announced their endorsements in anticipation of the state primary elections on September, 13 2016.

The RI NOW PAC is excited to have so many candidates committed to improving the lives of women within the state of Rhode Island. Endorsed candidates have pledged their support on the issues of reproductive freedom, economic equality, ending violence against women, constitutional equality, civil rights for all, affirmative action and moving women out of poverty through empowering, non-punitive welfare policies.

“Currently women hold only 31 out of 113 seats in the RI General Assembly. The RI NOW PAC has endorsed 18 women so far in this election and we are thrilled to throw our support behind these candidates to increase gender parity in the General Assembly,” said Amanda Clarke, Chair of the RI NOW PAC. “We are also pleased so many men are willing to stand with women and fight for policy change to improve social and economic conditions for women in Rhode Island.”

The complete list of RI NOW PAC endorsements is as follows:

Rhode Island State Senate

  • Gayle Goldin, Senate District 3
  • Jonathan Hernandez, Senate District 6
  • Doris De Los Santos, Senate District 7
  • Matthew Fecteau, Senate District 8
  • James Seveny, Senate District 11
  • Dennis Lavallee, Senate District 17
  • Margaux Morisseau, Senate District 21
  • Stephen Archambault, Senate District 22
  • Jeanine Calkin, Senate District 30

Rhode Island House of Representatives

  • Edith Ajello, House District 1
  • Christopher Blazejewski, House District 2
  • Moira Walsh, House District 3
  • Aaron Regunberg, House District 4
  • Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, House District 5
  • Anastasia Williams, House District 9
  • Joseph Almeida, House District 12
  • Lisa Scorpio, House District 13
  • Art Handy, House District 18
  • Joseph McNamara, House District 19
  • David Bennett, House District 20
  • Eileen Naughton, House District 21
  • Jennifer Siciliano, House District 22
  • Julie Casimiro, House District 31
  • Carol Hagan McEntee, House District 33
  • Teresa Tanzi, House District 34
  • Kathleen Fogarty, House District 35
  • Larry Valencia, House District 39
  • William Deware, House District 54
  • David Norton, House District 60
  • Katherine Kazarian, House District 63
  • Jason Knight, House District 67
  • Susan Donovan, House District 69
  • Linda Finn, House District 72
  • Deborah Ruggiero, House District 74
  • Lauren Carson, House District 75

Local Races

  • Sandra Cano, Pawtucket City Council, At-Large
  • Meghan Kallman, Pawtucket City Council, Ward 5
  • Suzy Alba, Smithfield Town Council
  • Jeremy Rix, Warwick City Council, Ward 2
  • Elena Vasquez, Pawtucket School Committee

*Amanda Clarke is the RI NOW PAC Chair, Melanie Carrazzo is a member of the RI NOW PAC Board

Don’t vote your conscience


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

Trumo Go BoomAs the landscapes of media and communication continue to evolve, the lines between news, opinion and entertainment are blurring quicker than society can vet facts. Thus, there seems to be confusion over what is unsafe and what is uncomfortable. While the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, it is imperative to understand that neither are they the same.

While the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, it is imperative to understand that neither are they the same.

Politics and (some) Violence

In the United States, politics was established as the means by which problems can be addressed without violence. This places faith in a system, regulated by layers of redundancy in its checks and balances, to decide what measures to pursue that reflect the vox populi. One can guess that when the founders were composing the fundamental document to establish our government, they were still reeling from the echoing concussions of revolution. These men did not feel safe.

Rather, the founders probably felt correspondingly unsafe with the prospect of a disproportionate amount of power allocated to either the central government or the state governments. They felt unsafe with the potential  uprising of a population of people who were kept as property based on their race. They felt unsafe due to the enormous financial debt incurred by the colonies for the economic costs of war. So, they designed such constitutional measures as separation of powers, the second amendment to the Bill of Rights, and a fractional reserve system of banking. What worked to preserve their safety at the time was, perhaps, shortsighted.

Two-hundred-thirty or so years later, our nation, devised in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, has risen to a peak in global prowess that demonstrates the success of the system born of revolution, as well as showcasing its many flaws. History shows us that, when diplomacy fails and compromise is not pursued, violence fills the vacuum. While the argument can be made for the causes of political breakdowns to be many and complex, the most notable of them have been over race, war, and money.

Last Place Aversion in (presidential) Politics

The social phenomenon happening today has been increasing in frenetic urgency every four years, showing itself in the form of presidential campaign rhetoric. Fears are stoked and false equivalencies are pedaled. Now, as the locomotive of the Republican Convention barrels into the station as if driven by Casey Jones, the strategy has become clear. Donald Trump has tapped into the ugly effectiveness of the last place aversion paradox. Last place aversion is, to put it in extremely simplistic terms, the concept of relinquishing power to those with more, if it means preserving that power from those who have less. Following Donald’s speech, now more than ever, for Democrats to win this election against the nativist, hyper-nationalist, downright racist messaging of the Republican nominee’s pro-wrestling-style cheap-pop, they must focus all their campaigns -presidential and otherwise – on civil rights. In fact, all issues must be rooted in civil rights. That is an uncomfortable truth.

Last place aversion happens when uncomfortable is confused with unsafe. Self-preservation and self destruction look alike. The rest is just dressing one’s decision with self-serving justification to make it more palatable. Often such justification is fed to people by campaigns who would have people believe that politics is something worthy only of being the butt of a joke, or effective only when threatened with the barrel of a gun. This is thinly veiled by pundits and surrogates who use the word “establishment” with negative connotation, as if when they say it they want to laugh or spit. Just as familiarity breeds contempt, so does being an outsider fill voters with a sense of honesty and purity.

The Obama Coalition, consisting in large part of the growing minority population that makes up a reliable and vocal block of voters, ready to mobilize, and for whom this election is far too important to stay home, will be organizing and voting for the Democratic nominee. That, for some, is also an uncomfortable truth.

Trump in the Garden of Good and (mostly) Evil

Donald J. Trump has campaigned by exaggerating issues that make many people uncomfortable, thereby creating the illusion they are unsafe. Race in America is an uncomfortable conversation. Immigration is an uncomfortable conversation. Terrorism and  religion is an uncomfortable conversation. Yet, by harnessing the manipulative aspects of the behavioral psychological phenomenon of attribute substitution, a process thought to underlie a number of cognitive biases (including stereotypes), Trump has tipped the scale away from many of these uncomfortable conversations. If addressed bravely and honestly by Americans, perhaps communicating on these issues would make the nation a safer place in the long run. Instead, Trump scapegoats the populations statistically facing the most real danger, painting them as the causes of danger for those who are likely to harbor biases and discomfort.

Described by Daniel Kahneman in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, attribute substitution is best explained as:

“When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”

Kahneman goes on to clarify the concept:

“An easy question (How do I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it?).”

Many Americans prefer not to think about “it” at all. In spite of the fact that the average (white) American is far more likely, statistically to die of heart disease than by Islamic terrorism, he is still more likely to stare suspiciously at the Middle Eastern-looking gentleman at the ballpark, while eating a second hot dog and drinking a 32 ounce Mountain Dew. That same person may complain about “Mexican illegals” taking American jobs, after leaving his empty cup and hot dog wrapper on the ground to be cleaned up by a tax paying, undocumented, Ecuadorian immigrant – a job the average (white) American would never accept. Then, he may confidently drive home, in excess of the speed limit, knowing if he gets pulled over, he will be able to afford the speeding ticket. The average (white) American takes for granted that, were he stopped, he would not be shot by the police officer.

It was to an audience, made almost exclusively of this average (white) American, to whom Trump addressed his speech, describing a thousand points of darkness. In the city in which Tamir Rice was killed for holding a toy gun, Trump talked about being the law and order candidate. Simultaneously, white nationalists and open-carry enthusiasts brandished real firearms absent of police interference. Because, the problem, according to Trump, was everyone except his audience. To call on his audience to look within themselves and discern whether or not they enjoy privilege that others lack, would make them extremely uncomfortable. The only ask he made of his audience was to vote to put him in charge and let him speak for America. Because, only he alone can solve the scourge of lawlessness which he blames on everyone except himself and his supporters. That is not only wholly illogical, it is decidedly unsafe.

(not) Voting Your Conscience

Come November, Americans will vote their individual consciences. One might argue that, based on the collective conditioning of attribute substitution and its influence on people’s cognitive biases, people who “go with their gut instinct” are just as often wrong as they are right. Yet, just as likely is that voters have already made their decisions and are simply seeking justification for the choice that makes them most comfortable. Another quote by Kahneman goes:

“We think, each of us, that we’re much more rational than we are. And we think that we make our decisions because we have good reasons to make them. Even when it’s the other way around. We believe in the reasons, because we’ve already made the decision.”

Voting one’s conscience makes one feel comfortable. Perhaps it may be better to truly weigh the facts and the potential consequences before voting.

Of course, this unsolicited advice is not directed at you. I’m certain your choice will be weighed, measured, and not be found wanting for that which is best overall for the nation’s most vulnerable and the longest and most balanced period of peace and prosperity.

Politics is not the enemy. It is the process by which America solves its problems, albeit slowly and uncomfortably, without resorting to violence.

Three governors were deposed about 38 Studios


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

2147835-38_studios___logoWhen the cache of documents related to the ongoing 38 Studios lawsuit (click here to view or download) brought by Governor Linc Chafee was released on September 24, a wealth of information was opened up. After years of curiosity, the public was able to see almost totally the chain of events that led to one of the biggest financial boondoggles in Rhode Island history.

After years of spin, lack of comment, and problematic answers, we bring you an analysis of the sworn and true answers of the three public officials to occupy the governor’s office since the deal was struck.

DONALD CARCIERI
carcieri_4After multiple days and 562 pages of deposition testimony, it is clear that former Governor Don Carcieri, the man responsible for the 38 Studios deal as chairman of the EDC, is nervous. Throughout the transcript, he peppers his answers with “you know” – a sign of anxiety.

When Carcieri took office in 2003, he touted himself as a pro-business reform candidate, campaigning on a promise to bring a ‘Big Audit’ to the convoluted state government. One of these moves included merging the Economic Policy Council and a smaller EDC into the single agency that approved the 38 Studios funding package. He says of the decision:

[I]t was a board decision. This was not my decision alone. I mean, this was a quasi-independent corporation. We went through lots of pains to restructure the whole corporation, created a whole new board, and as I said, I felt very pleased at the quality of the people we were able to attract, and I wanted to make sure that they could do their job.

Carcieri thought they had a prize in 38 Studios, a company that would spur the growth seen in the Cambridge, Massachusetts high-tech corridor on Route 128 decades earlier. At one point, Robert Stolzman, now a defendant in the lawsuit, wrote to the governor thanking him for involving him in the 38 Studios issue. With predicted earnings of $50 million by 2015, they believed they were going to be responsible for a high-tech renaissance.

They expected that they had a real winner in terms of a game and what they were doing in developing with a lot of industry expertise in this multi-player game was going to be very well received. They, you know, were supported in that, to my knowledge, by entertainment arts [Electronic Arts video game publishing] who understood the industry as well.

But there were warning signs from the outset that Carcieri refused to heed. One board member at the EDC, Karl Wadensten, voiced concern about the total monies being dedicated towards the project. Rosemary Gallogly, a seasoned adviser with years of experience regarding government accounting, raised multiple red flags that the governor blew off as infrastructural issues, part of the ‘big government’ he had vowed to fight.

-I don’t recall reading the whole [Strategy Analytics] report [regarding risks and possibilities]. Often they have executive summaries is what I would read, then I would skim, possibly, through, but what I’m saying to you is this is not my recollection of what was presented to the board meeting. That there was a slide dec. like all — PowerPoint or something that, you know — the sum and substance was, on balance, positive that’s my recollection, Tom.
-You’re saying your recollection on balance was positive?
-Yeah.
-Of the Strategy Analytics report was positive?
-Yes.
-Now, but you don’t know if you actually read the entire report or not, do you?

Two things become abundantly clear from Carcieri’s testimony.

First, despite boasting about his business savvy, he remained woefully out of touch with the industry he was trying to get involved in and remained so last year when deposed. Throughout the transcript, he consistently confuses the name of EA Games, the third-largest video game firm on earth, calling them ‘Entertainment Arts’ instead of Electronic Arts. When discussing the second title 38 Studios was working on at the time of their bankruptcy, a massive multi-player online game akin to the popular WORLDS OF WARCRAFT, he is hazy on the terms used in distribution, calling the industry-standard subscription-based servicing of those titles a “lease.”

That is a sign of bad business management. The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, has been very open with how he made his fortune, explaining that, if he cannot understand a prospective investment and how the company works when he sits down at his kitchen table with the spreadsheets, he passes on the investment. Buffett does not have access to the secret formula for Coca-Cola or understand how Dairy Queen produces all their dessert items, but he does understand how to drink soda and take his grandchildren out for ice cream. The trick with smart investment is understanding exactly why a product or service will have success, not due to innovation as much as appeal. In the case of 38 Studios, Curt Schilling could and probably should have done what most sports players do in retirement when they get involved with video games, release a title based on his name recognition and sports career. It may not have been as exciting as the roll-playing fantasies he hoped to develop with sci-fi author RA Salvatore, but no one has seen John Madden crying on the way to the bank. Carcieri and Schilling were both clueless about everything from basic game programming to distribution models. The former Governor was so out of touch he did not even realize that the board he was chair of had not hired IBM and Wells Fargo as consultants! That he did not know he was not the first to talk with Schilling about the venture is merely the pinnacle of his lack of connection, regardless of whether politicians like William Murphy, Gordon Fox, and others lied to him.

Carcieri also seems to have let his ideology get in the way of basic economic logic regarding recovery from a recession. Even though they portrayed themselves as conservatives, Schilling and Carcieri bear all the markings of classical English liberals in the economic sense, fiercely opposed to unions and praising the virtues of so-called ‘free markets’ and supply-side economics. They wanted to create a business boom in the tech sector, which is non-union.

Besides the aforementioned lack of industry literacy, Carcieri and other Rhode Island officials fatally misjudged why the Massachusetts Miracle happened in the first place. In that instance, technology firms since the 1960s had been creating a diverse set of products that reaped millions. And while they did see a particular boom in the 1980s and 1990s with computer software, the vast majority of the products created were technologies used in unionized jobs, such as municipal construction or lighting devices, industries with almost-guaranteed supply-and-demand ratios as opposed to video games, which are wildly uncertain in success based on the nature of customer satisfaction.

The reality is still as John Maynard Keynes told us 80 years ago, the way to get out of a recession is by having a government spend huge amounts on public works and infrastructure projects that create long-lasting, good-paying, unionized jobs. As the workers continue to take home good paychecks over the course of years, they in turn spend their earnings on everything from houses to cars to luxury services that they could not afford previously. That was the reason President Eisenhower, as a Republican, was pro-union and opposed the anti-labor ideologies of Joseph McCarthy and Barry Goldwater. He knew then that the middle class prosperity he oversaw was dependent on organized labor serving as a balance with the controlling powers of big capital. The fact Carcieri mistakenly thought that RISD could perform the same services as MIT and Harvard and that their wildly unpopular former President John Maeda would help foster this boom is the tragically ironic icing on the cake.

LINCOLN CHAFEE
Chafee_1-200x300When Lincoln Chafee took the governor’s office in January 2011, the state was in a complete crisis. Municipalities were on the verge of bankruptcy. The pension system was in trouble. And when, during his campaign, he had opposed the passage of the 38 Studios deal, he was blocked from speaking at an EDC meeting and “swatted aside” by a state trooper. He left office as a very unpopular man, with then-Treasurer Gina Raimondo having bad-mouthed him both in the press and during election debates.

I was apprehensive, given my very, very vocal opposition to the deal in the campaign, including going uninvited to an EDC board meeting and being barred from entering, that I could be accused of meddling, micromanaging, interfering. There were still board members that were very- had voted in favor of this deal. The executive director and I had sparred in the course of the campaign, now he was my executive director of the EDC. I was very apprehensive about, as I said, micromanaging or meddling in this. I saw my role as to be supportive and write the checks and hope that that first game was successful… We inherited an inferno.

Now comes the release of his deposition. Of all the motley crew of big-shots and political players, he comes across as not just respectable but actually the closest thing to a hero. I do not agree with all of his policy moves while in office, including the public sector pension reform he oversaw, but it is obvious he did not care about his image, he cared about Rhode Island.

-I did get a call from Providence Equity leadership who experience in this area and shared my initial thoughts and opposition and reinforcing that.
-When you say Providence Equity leadership, is there a particular individual you spoke with?
-My classmate, Jonathan Nelson… I had expressed opposition at that point to the loan, and he said I’m in the business, this business, and you’re right about your opposition.

From day one, Chafee was educating himself about the video game industry and saw a turkey. One of the many exhibits in his deposition is a packet of news articles and analyses that he had in his campaign office, representing the level of research he was doing during a busy election season about an industry he and everyone else knew nothing about.

-Yes, these documents we came upon after the request to make sure we had given everything that we had, and just in further searching, these are the documents that reflected that further search.
-Where were they found?
-Some in my campaign office, which was not my original campaign office that I had during the campaign, but a subsequent mini closet, almost, where we store a number of items, and others were in the governor’s office.
-Okay. The mini campaign office you refer to, where is that located?
-Airport Plaza, Warwick, Rhode Island…
-Did you ask any members of your campaign staff to do any research for you into any issues which may concern this type of potential relationship with a company like 38 Studios?
-I’m sure being a team effort and this being a major item in the news and being, you know, a very, very competitive campaign everybody was involved in finding out as much as they could about all the details of this type of state investment.

In both the deposition and public statements, Curt Schilling and his lawyers have tried to blame Chafee for their failures. They claim the governor’s press statements were the kind of bad publicity that drove away potential investors and ultimately caused the company’s failure. In the deposition, Schilling’s lawyer Michael Sarli repeatedly tries to pigeonhole Chafee and make him seem incompetent, a poor chair of the EDC board that was asleep at the wheel. The question, rephrased and repeated time and again, is contemptuous of the Governor’s office, to the point Max Wistow, the lawyer Chafee hired to represent the EDC and launch the current lawsuit, says “The gentleman is the governor. It is being abusive and argumentative.”

Regardless of how one feels about Chafee, every Rhode Islander should understand that Wistow is not standing up just for one man, he is defending the integrity of the state itself, which Schilling is trying to drag through the gutter. Chafee had no ability to impact the company’s success or failure after taking office. What killed 38 Studios was inherent to Schilling’s management style, the nature of the video game industry, and the economic impact of the 2008 crash. They failed to sell enough copies of their first game because it was a mediocre title and people were tightening their belts due to the recession.

GINA RAIMONDO
raimondo_3The deposition of Gina Raimondo is a one that occupies a unique time and place, having been taken on September 11, 2014, two days after she had won the Democratic primary, but before she won the gubernatorial race and ceased her duties as treasurer. Having emerged from the private sector as a venture capitalist prior to entering politics in 2011, she had a particular level of insight on the issue when news of the 38 Studios deal first broke.

-Well, as a professional in the field of venture capital, did the idea that the state was looking to enter into some sort of an agreement with 38 Studios pique your professional interest at all?
-Yes.
-Did you do anything in follow-up to having that curiosity?
-I did. I wrote that e-mail to Keith Stokes suggesting that, in my opinion, it was a high-risk venture, and if I could — since I had expertise in investing, if I could be of any help, I was here to help.

Raimondo was in the minority of those who expressed concern about the deal after she talked about the issue with her co-workers, who had a history of financing video game firms and did some research on 38 Studios. Before the company moved to Rhode Island, it was based in an area with a high concentration of gaming developers and the venture capital firms that traditionally finance their efforts.

-Okay. So, at least at the time you had knowledge that there were people that you regarded as experts in the gaming business that had decided not to invest and had looked at 38 Studios specifically, fair?
-Yes. Yes. The nature of the way this happens in general is, you know, Monday morning, you have investment committee meetings. You sit around at a table like this, you say, Sean, what do you think — Sean was my partner, who is a… gaming expert, what do you think of this 38 Studios deal? It’s casual chitchat. And so I don’t remember doing that, but the nature of it, the conversation would have been, in the vernacular it’s called shopped, the deal has been shopped around. I don’t remember him saying it, but I’m thinking reading this, he probably said, oh, that’s been shopped all over the place, and everyone’s passed… I didn’t know anything, really, about the deal or anything other than what I read in the paper, but it’s just the general concept that he was a famous baseball player in a really hot area of gaming in the venture capital mecca of America, and if he couldn’t get venture capital money and had to come to the State of Rhode Island for money, hit the pause button. Like, I didn’t know anything just from the outside looking in, if you’re a famous guy in the hottest area of gaming in the hot venture capital market in the world, and you can’t get funded,… what does the State of Rhode Island know that the whole rest of the world doesn’t know? So it was just a general concept of hold your horses.

It is possible that Raimondo will be able to use quotes like this to her advantage in the future. She is on the public record regarding how she said from the outset that this was a bad deal. But as one reads further on in the transcripts, a troubling image emerges. It becomes absolutely clear that this is a cunning and ruthless politician that will sacrifice anyone to get ahead in a political contest. Consider her treatment of Chafee in May of 2012:

-I’m going to direct your attention to the part of this document that follows the header, “A company doesn’t run out of money overnight.” Do you see that
-Yes.
-And there’s a quote attributed to you in this document and it says… ”To me the much bigger question is what’s been happening over the past 17 months.”… ”General Treasurer Gina Raimondo said in an interview on the Dan Yorke show on Wednesday… “How has the governor and his staff in his capacity as chair of the EDC board been monitoring this investment? A company does not run out of money overnight.”… Would you expect that there would be, on a deal like this, when you talk about monitoring the deal, when you use that word, does that mean that at some point the board of EDC is given information as to how this risky loan is performing?
-I have no idea… I do not know, even as I sit here, how the governance of the EDC, I don’t know the ins and outs of how the governance of the EDC works… I don’t know what information the board is supposed to see, Governor sees, counsel sees, executive director sees, I have no idea.

Ergo, she has no idea what she is talking about but does not mind dragging Chafee through the mud to score a political point. That sort of realpolitik is sadly part and parcel of a political system that traffics in media hype rather than actual ideological standards, treating the contestants as rock stars as opposed to political thinkers. Consider Raimondo’s comments about her own education in law, a point emphasized by her political campaigns.

-Okay. If you recall back to those days at Yale when you were in Evidence class, do you remember past recollection recorded?
-I never took Evidence. Don’t you know they don’t actually teach law at Yale?
-What do they teach, networking?
-Pretty much, yeah.

How encouraging.

Raimondo’s private sector line of work is bitterly referred to as ‘vulture capitalism’ by those who have run afoul of people in her line of work. There are success stories, such as when Facebook went from a college start-up to a multi-million dollar company. But there are thousands of shattered dreams and broken lives also, far more than the successes. She has already set her Wall Street cronies loose on the public sector employee pension system. The fact she even allowed PawSox owner Larry Lucchino to entertain the idea of a taxpayer-financed stadium this summer despite economic analyses forecasting doom shows us this is a person who would not blink an eye while selling out her voters as long as she can curry favors. Carcieri may have been foolish and Chafee swamped, but Raimondo is someone who knows how to get ahead regardless of the consequences as long as she can benefit.

LESSONS LEARNED?
There are lessons to be learned from this mess. It may turn out in all probability that Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein finds for the defendants and rules that the State was not conned by Schilling, they merely made a very bad financial decision. With the disclosure about Chafee’s friend Mr. Nelson and Raimondo’s warnings from the private sector, it seems clear that there was a reasonable level of insight about Schilling and in fact the politicians just let their egos get ahead of them.

But the type of reform really needed goes well beyond political parties and into the realm of revising our basic norms of government. 38 Studios is not an aberration, it is symptomatic of something deeply embedded in the corruption of Rhode Island’s political culture. The one who was the voice of reason and sanity ended up as a reviled one-term politician, now walking a Quixotic trail towards the Presidential primaries with little support or media hype. The majority of the culprits in this rip-off are going to probably get off scot-free. And the type of people that create these kinds of economic nightmares now have one of their own in power, biding her time and eyeing advancement to Washington DC.

Karl Marx, the prophet who told us capital is a system of contradictions leading towards deeper and wider economic disparity, famously told us “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

Online voter registration bill passes RI House


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

The House floor saw heated debate Wednesday as representatives discussed the implications of bill H6051, which would allow electronic voter registration. The action would make Rhode Island the 28th state to do so, following a trend that has saved other states money and time, as well as helped to clear voter rolls during elections. Supporters of the bill said that it would bring Rhode Island into the 21st century. Opponents were not as kind.

“I don’t want everyone to vote that’s not well informed on the issues,” said House Minority Whip Joseph Trillo (R- District 24). “So I don’t want to register everybody just because I want bodies to go into a voting booth and vote. You Democrats don’t care about that! You’ll take them by the thousands! As long as they can breathe, walk, take them into the voting booth!”

RI House of Representatives, post-session on 6/17/2015
RI House of Representatives, post-session on 6/17/2015

“An uninformed voter is a manipulated voter,” he added.

Trillo’s concern, as did many others, stemmed from possible voter fraud using an electronic system. The legislation would operate using one’s existing driver’s license or state identification card, which already has their signature on it. Those eligible would be able to register because their signature would already be on file at the DMV, making it easier for them to be verified by the Secretary of State. Their local board of canvassers would then notify them that their registration has been confirmed.

Language in the bill that states that the Secretary of State’s office “may” verify a registrant sparked the debate. Many opponents believed that the Secretary’s office should be required to verify everyone who registers to vote, but those who supported the bill stated that not only is it an undue burden on administration, it is unnecessary because of the cross-referencing done by the board of canvassers. Representative Stephen Ucci (D- District 42), stated that the verification is normally only used to analyze voter trends that may be suspicious.

“You have to look into this in the totality of our voting system,” Ucci said. “Let’s join those other 20 something states that have done this, and get ourselves on the right path to getting people to vote.”

“A person is still required to have a state license or state ID, which you don’t need in person,” Representative Aaron Regunberg (D- District 4), who is the main sponsor of the bill, added. “The system has existed in dozens of states, registering millions of voters, and there has not been a recorded successful incident of fraud.”

Other key points in the debate included accessibility to registration, as well as modernizing Rhode Island’s system. Many spoke about how there are people who do not have the time to go to their town or city hall to register, because they are working during office hours. Going online to vote, rather than paying for an envelope and stamp to mail in registration, is free, making the process more accessible to low-income voters. Putting the process online and making it easier would, in their eyes, serve as an incentive to both register and vote.

Regunberg’s legislation also includes a provision that would enroll Rhode Island in agreements with other states that would allow them to reference data in order to update voter rolls, either registering people who have recently moved into the state, or expunging those who have moved or died.

The bill passed with overwhelming support, in a 63-10 vote. In an interview after the meeting, Regunberg said he was very excited that the legislation passed, especially because it will be one of many solutions to get people out and voting.

Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/
Photo courtesy of http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/

“There’s a whole bunch of things, I think this is one part of it that will absolutely, for a generation of people who are much more used to doing these things online, who don’t really use snail mail, who don’t really understand those more antiquated systems. I think it will make it more accessible. It makes it more convenient for everyone,” he said.

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, who helped to craft the bill, provided a statement about its passage as well:

“This legislation will make it easier for citizens to register to vote and update their voter information, and it will improve the accuracy and integrity of Rhode Island’s voter rolls. I thank Speaker Mattiello, the bill’s sponsors, Representatives Regunberg, Handy, Keable, Blazejewski, and Barros; and the entire House of Representatives for their support of this legislation.”

John Marion, the Executive Director of Common Cause RI, was also involved in the bill’s drafting process, and stated that this is a huge step forward for Rhode Island, not only in terms of modernization, but also in terms of system management, and accessibility. As far as systems management is concerned, the electronic process makes everyone’s jobs easier and more cost effective. In some states, the cost per voter has gone down to less than ten cents per registration. But to Marion, those benefits are only secondary.

“The real benefit is to the voters. This is going to allow people easier access to registration, and not just new registrants, but this has a lot to do with people who are moving and don’t want to change their registration,” he said. “Because this is not replacing the current paper based system, it’s a complement to that, it’s going to capture more people, ultimately.”

Addresses of convenience


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
One of several public records listing Gablinske as living at an address other than where he is registered to vote.
One of several public records listing Gablinske as living at an address other than where he is registered to vote.

One of the nice things about owning several properties is that when it comes to politics, you have lots of choices about where you can say you live. I’m not talking about the formal definition of legal residence, but “addresses of convenience.”

Having an address of convenience gives you the choice of where to vote or where to run for office. You can shop around to find the most advantageous choice. Not necessarily a legal choice, but one that is rarely ever challenged.

We have lots of examples, such as Republican Kernan “Kerry” King who ran against Gina Raimondo for general treasurer in 2010 even though he was actually a legal resident of Florida and was even collecting a $50,000 a year homestead property tax exemption on his Sarasota County home. He was claiming his Saunderstown house as his legal residence on his campaign declaration.

In my state Representative District (36), we now have a carpetbagger state Representative, a Tea Party Libertarian named Blake Filippi. Filippi claims he lives in his mother’s house on Block Island even though he has listed his mother’s house in Lincoln as his legal address on dozens of legal documents including his Massachusetts lawyer’s license. He told Bob Plain he is currently living in a Providence apartment.

Addresses of convenience. It’s nice to be able to pick and choose. It’s not just Republicans and Libertarians that do it; Democrats also do it.

Take Doug Gablinske, for example. He made a big splash in Rhode Island politics during his two terms in the RI House representing District 68 in Bristol as one of the most vociferous DINOs (Democrat in name only), leading the attack against public workers.

As a result of the 2010 US Census, Gablinske’s district boundaries were changed. In an e-mail to me he said, “I was carefully gerrymandered out of District 68, with the input of Rep. Morrison into the redistricting process, who was afraid I was going to run against him in 2012.  The gerrymandering is obvious, as the line moved over one street, to redistrict me out.”

His home at 45 Kickemuit Avenue in Bristol is no longer in District 68, but moved instead to District 69. Gablinske and his wife Patricia moved with the times and changed their voter registration to 44 Greylock Road which is Gablinske’s mother’s house, solidly within District 68 where they have cast their ballots in 2014.

In his e-mail to me, Gablinske asserted that his change in registration had “nothing at all to do with that and everything to do with helping to care for my 86 year old mother, which is where she resides and I own the house with my siblings.”

Despite the change in voter registration, Doug Gablinske kept using his address as 45 Kickemuit Avenue on many campaign contributions he made since re-registering at Greylock Road (example).

There are a dozen major political donations by Gablinske listed in the Board of Elections database for 2014. Gablinske’s residence shows up as Kickemuit on five of those major contributions; his business address on Metacom Avenue is listed on the other seven.

Greylock Road is not listed on any of these donor files.

I asked Gablinske about the checks written from his business address (it is illegal for businesses to make direct donations to Rhode Island political candidates). Gablinske said that he keeps three checkbooks, one for each of these three properties and acknowledged that it would be illegal if he made a donation through his appraisal business.

He added: “For the record, at your request, I reside at both 44 Greylock Road and 45 Kickemuit Avenue and my voter address was changed to 44 Greylock Road, on may May 8th, 2014.  My brother Wayne Gablinske, sold his house on Sandra Court, Bristol on February 27, 2015.  He has now moved into 44 Greylock Road to care for my mother, so I have returned to 45 Kickemuit Avenue and am changing my voter address back to that address, all of which is perfectly legal.”

Even though he checked his voter registration to Greylock Road in his old district, Gablinske did not make a run to regain his lost House seat in 2012 or 2014, apparently content to run his appraisal business and engage in lobbying. Gablinske said in his e-mail to me, “I have no plans to run for public office…in any district!”

Gablinske lobbyist registrationAfter losing the 2010 Democratic primary, Gablinske started to work with Terrance Martiesian’s lobbying firm, filing reports with the Secretary of State since 2011 that he lobbied the General Assembly on behalf of the RI Mortgage Bankers at no charge.

Although, on paper, Gablinske is lobbying for the bankers for free, Martiesian’s lobbying firm is billing the RI Mortgage Bankers Association $50,000. What Gablinske gets out of the arrangement does not appear to be covered in the reports to the Secretary of State.

Gablinske asserts that he gets nothing from Martiesian and lobbies for free for the Mortgage Bankers Association because he sits on their board and co-chairs their legislative committee. As an appraiser, Gablinske obviously does a lot of work with mortgage bankers but, he says, “you are trying to connect dots, that do not connect.”

If Gablinske decides the time is right to try to return to the General Assembly since he’s apparently not getting rich from his peculiar lobbying practice, it would be interesting to see which address he uses.

Either address – Kickemuit or Greylock – could be challenged by some sharp-eyed voter based on all the conflicting public records and even Gablinske’s own statement that he lives in both places. But any such challenge would have to be filed very quickly.

After Rep. Donna Walsh learned about Blake Filippi’s declaration of residence and filed a complaint, she was told by BOE Director Bob Kando that under the Board of Election’s rules, there is only a 24-hour window to file a challenge to a candidate’s declaration of candidacy.

While the bizarre way the Board of Elections rules are written gives candidates the edge to get away with running for a seat in a District but not living there, there is the matter of state law and voting.

Under the Rhode Island General Laws, it is a felony to vote or attempt to vote anywhere “other than in the…representative district, or voting district in which the person has his or her ‘residence’”…. Gablinske will have to make up his mind where he really lives before the next time he votes.

One added irony about Gablinske’s flexible residency is that during his time in the State House, he was an outspoken supporter of Rhode Island’s voter ID law.

Honor American vets, democracy with elections on Veterans Day


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

Veteran[2]One thing all veterans have in common is their commitment to defend our democracy, namely the right to vote and self-govern. The right to vote defines our nation and the values we project internationally. It is the American brand, our trademark as the shining city on a hill.

The importance of these values has been palpable in Afghanistan and Iraq. From 2004 to 2005, my fellow veterans protected Afghani and Iraqi citizens as they chose their elected officials and their future. While the path to those first elections might have been imperfect, the sacrifice of our servicemen and women to protect the process was nothing less than honorable.

If voting is worth the lives of Marines in Iraq, isn’t it worth a day off in the United States of America? I’ll share Veterans Day with Election Day so that every American can make it to the polls. There is no better way to honor our veterans’ service than by voting.

And holding elections on Veterans Day won’t dilute the meaningfulness of the day, On the contrary, it will highlight the Americans who protect our freedom to vote in the first place.

It’s time for another People’s Pledge


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

tableAs regular readers of RI Future know Common Cause Rhode Island pushed for a People’s Pledge in the race for governor last year. Despite some skeptics the three leading Democrats agreed to the Pledge in April. Up until the final days the Pledge held and we saw not a single TV or radio ad run by an outside group in the primary. The one violation was quickly dealt with and represented only 1/10,000th of the total spending in the race.

Today we wrote letters to the party nominees and asked them to negotiate another Pledge. While we didn’t literally offer our table again, we stand ready to facilitate a negotiation between the candidates. Last time we called for a Pledge we were armed with evidence from the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren U.S. Senate race. Common Cause research showed that the Pledge reduced the amount of negativity, the amount of undisclosed money, and increased the percentage of small dollar donors. Now we have evidence from Rhode Island that the Pledge keeps outside money out of the race. And there is a great survey by Lake Survey Partners showing bi-partisan support for the People’s Pledge.

Let’s hear from the candidates between now and November 4th and insist on a People’s Pledge!

NBC 10 Wingmen: The primary elections, and more


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

This week on NBC 10 Wingmen, Justin Katz, Bill Rappleye and I talked about the primary elections. And, yes, we managed to squeeze in some anti-union rhetoric, as well.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

You can also watch the lt. governor’s debate here:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

wingmen

Lies, truthiness and one-liners: Democrats debate for governor


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
dem debate
Click on the image to read WPRI’s news story on the debate.

After a summer of spending millions to attack and fact check each other in TV commercials, the three leading Democrats running for governor took the opportunity to do so once more at their last debate before the primary.

“My campaign alone has created more jobs in Rhode Island than Narragansett Beer,” Clay Pell quipped of Gina Raimondo’s pseudo-claim in a TV ad that her venture capital investment in Narragansett Brewery helped create more than 1,000 jobs in Rhode Island.

This was the line of the night. But a close second was when moderator Tim White pushed back about Pell’s talking point about not taking any money from lobbyists or PACs. White pointed out that Pell is independently wealthy and that several high level NEARI employees are volunteering their time for him. Rarely does a debate moderator win applause, but this was a question begging to be asked that was unlikely to be addressed by any candidate.

The big lie of the evening came courtesy of Raimondo when she was accused of standing with Wall Street. She replied, “I’m from Smithfield, I’ve never worked on Wall Street.” Wall Street, of course, in this context, is not a physical address.

Angel Taveras’ watershed moment may have been when he asked the TV camera “would you hire someone who has had nine jobs in eight years?” He spent much of the debate on the attack against both Pell and Raimondo, but did not  – notably – dispute Pell’s claim to be the “progressive Democrat” in the race.

The surprise of the evening, for me, was that all three pledged to support the primary winner. It may be a good exercise for all Democrats to spend a few minutes each day until the primary envisioning their preferred candidate campaigning for the others, and vice versa.

Why felons can run for office, Buddy Cianci edition


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

obey buddyBuddy Cianci, the 73-year-old former mayor can probably think of no better way to go out than dying on a Kennedy Plaza throne and being brought down to Waterfire on a shield. Many people thought they have seen the last of him following five years in prison, but I’m pleased he is eligible to run for office regardless of his criminal history.

Buddy’s political career couldn’t be defeated after his first conviction, when some legal and political wrangling got the law bent for him to get back in office. His first conviction was, in some ways, like many others in Rhode Island: a guy loses his temper and gets violent.  Whatever the true details, it had nothing to do with his mayoral duties or ability to run the city. Nobody but a Buddy Cianci, surrounded by a political machine, could possibly have gotten reelected for office after being sentenced to five years felony probation in 1984. In fact, a constitutional amendment was passed just a year later- amending the lifetime ban down to one where Cianci would need to wait three years after completing his probation.

In 1990, Cianci’s machine returned to power. A court even ruled that the three-year wait didn’t apply to people convicted prior to 1985.  His criminal history, however, did not influence his political views. He didn’t push for new policies that took a rehabilitative approach to social problems. Many mayors do not, and typical to the position the Providence Police served their role in responding to the social dilemmas we still face, i.e. poverty, substance abuse, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, mental illness, and crumbling public education.  Arrests lead to convictions lead to lifetimes of de-citizenship for those other than Buddy Cianci.

In 2005, a group of activists in Rhode Island came together to promote a more inclusive democracy and expand voting rights to people on probation and parole. This was especially important as Rhode Island disenfranchised people of color at higher numbers than the Deep South and is a national leader in lengthy probation sentences. Tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders lived and worked in the state, raising children, being good neighbors, yet could not take part in the democracy.

Buddy was not quite yesterday’s news in 2006, when the final proposals were being crafted. He had been indicted in 2001 after “Operation Plunderdome” exposed a classic political kickback scheme. He was amidst his five-year federal prison sentence for racketeering when we drafted the constitutional amendment regarding voting rights – and we considered the right to run for office as well. Based on some people’s well-founded concerns, and the need to avoid a “Buddy” debate, the limitation on running for office was left in place. Back then we just wanted to vote, and none of us wanted to be a politician anyway.

The three-year post-sentence ban ensured that Buddy would be ineligible for the last mayoral race. People expected that to be the end of him. After all, he wouldn’t be eligible for another mayoral run until he was 73. Who even makes it to 73?

The most fundamental aspect of a democracy is the right for a community to choose its own leaders. Eligibility requirements, such as residency for instance, should be limited to things ensuring that a person truly is a representative of the constituency. It may make sense to create policies that bar people with particular criminal histories from being barred from specific occupations. We do this all the time, and it is only the blanket bans that push the bounds of legitimacy and legality (well framed by the EEOC guidelines on employment for people with criminal convictions).

The poetic irony of those up in arms over Buddy’s eligibility is the fact that tens of thousands of Providence residents also have felony convictions. A significant percentage of children in Providence schools have a parent in prison, on probation, parole, or long since moved on from that past. Walk into any business and there is a good chance that someone with a conviction history is working there. They are cooking your food, fixing your vehicle, selling you products, and every other imaginable thing. Buddy did not take up the mantle for the challenges of other folks with conviction histories, thus he is not “representative” in that regard – but at this point we are all so intertwined that, generally, the conviction itself is irrelevant as to one being a good or bad person for the job.

People are free to elect bad leaders. Employers are also free to give people second chances. I confess to having never listened to Buddy Cianci’s radio show since his release from prison, nor have I tried his pasta sauce. He very well may be an out-of-touch old man who would surround himself with cronies, and the children of former cronies. He may paralyze the city, as it expends half its resources trying to be sure he doesn’t corruptly exploit the other half.

The city had over a decade to create a policy that barred people convicted for malfeasance in office for getting that same job back. Look to Cicilline, Lombardi, Taveras, Solomon and the like regarding that issue. It was really that simple and, who knows: perhaps there is still time?

I know first hand that people change. Some change through prison, others just pass adolescence, mourn the passing of a loved one, spend time in quite meditation, or any of the myriad ways we grow as human beings. Some people may not even want a “changed” Buddy as mayor; in fact, they want the same guy back in office.  Either way, views on the integrity of every candidate belong in the campaign.

In the end, his eligibility is just like freedom of speech: I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.

Conservatives shouldn’t scapegoat their losing streak


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
General Assembly Races (02-12)

Justin Katz is really out in right field with this post. He starts off by making a decent point:

Even if every Rhode Islander disagreed with a person’s policy suggestions, that doesn’t mean that those suggestions are wrong or are not the wisest thing that the state could do, in a particular instance.

That’s right, though too often this can fall into a Jeremiah-wannabe trap, where someone expresses their unpopular opinion, is criticized, and essentially says “just you wait and see.” They can feel vindicated by the criticism, rather than addressing it. Here, Katz is responding to a point (as he perceives it) that the failure of Republican and conservative candidates in the state proves that conservatives are wrong.

I don’t actually think that’s the full argument. I believe the argument is that people generally vote for what they feel is best for them, and that if Republicans were putting forward policy proposals that appealed to the people of Rhode Island, they’d see victory. Anyhow, Katz comforts himself with:

a poll that Bryant University’s Hassenfeld Institute released, this week, finding that 82% of Rhode Islanders would grade their legislators negatively for effectiveness.

That’s not really true;  the pollster (Fleming & Associates) finds that 43% of polled Rhode Islanders graded their state elected leaders negatively for effectiveness. 39% said “just fair.” The poll groups those answers together to create the “negative rating” that was widely reported. Except “just fair” might be read as the neutral opinion; weighting the poll in the affirmative (the addition of maybe an “abysmal” option could’ve balanced the poll, as well as given more information on those who chose “poor”). I understand it’s standard to lump the negative and neutral ratings together, but I can’t find a decent explanation as to why it’s done. We also need to consider what constitutes an “elected leader;” is it all elected officials or just legislative leadership and the governor? Finally, the poll sample has double the representation of the elderly as actually live in Rhode Island, which is going to make the results more conservative.

I’m in agreement with Marc Comtois on this, the results of the Hassenfeld Institute poll “really don’t tell us anything new.

Katz then comes up with this gem:

the poll results only reinforce what could be inferred from the low turnout for elections.

So, this is the sort of opinionated thing that isn’t backed by data. If you look at page 385 (page 383 in the PDF) of the Official RI 2012 Countbook, you can find the eligible voter turnout going back to 1988. Averaged together, that gives us 61.77% for the 13 elections. That’s not high, but it’s far above the average for the United States from the same time period, which is 48.86%. The low point is the 49% turnout in 2010, a year when Democrats were demoralized, both nationally and locally. If you’re into that sort of thing, here’s a chart plotting turnout by year, and against the OECD average (which decayed 11 points from 1980 to the elections held before April 2011).

Voter Turnout (1988-2012)
(via Samuel G. Howard)

Katz might feel that turnout is low (and will no doubt point to the recent Woonsocket special election), but that’s not true. It’s consistently higher than the national average, and not appreciably tied to the national mood (it may be tied to the Democratic Party mood). Rhode Island could certainly boost turnout by rolling back voter ID, increasing poll operation hours, redesigning the ballot, instituting robust early voting, and/or instituting compulsory voting; but somehow I don’t see Katz leaping to advocate for any of that. In fact, decreased turnout helps the Republican Party, because Republicans win when Democrats don’t vote (see 2010).

Katz is right that policies aren’t proved correct by election results. But elections are where policies get debated and given mandates. In a given RI general election, anywhere from around a fifth to two-fifths of General Assembly seats aren’t contested; and those that are contested aren’t necessarily contested by a Republican. Suppose we accept two positions: 1) Rhode Islanders are fed up with their state government, and 2) Republicans will be the primary beneficiaries of that discontent (by no means assured). The problem is that Republicans can’t field enough candidates to capitalize on that. Here’s a graph illustrating that problem:

General Assembly Races (02-12)
(via Samuel G. Howard)

Democrats field roughly the same number candidates each year, leaving around four seats uncontested. The number of Republican candidates leapfrogs wildly, but we can make this rule of thumb: if the Republicans run more candidates they have a greater likelihood of winning more seats. Former Chairman Mark Zaccaria’s strategy of “quality over quantity” was disastrous, especially in a presidential election year. When Republicans don’t run, they can’t win, and cede the General Assembly to Democratic Party by default. Every year they leave votes on the table, votes that could tell them where their support is, what policies they advocate are popular, and what paths might advance their goals. Instead of realizing this, Katz puts the final cherry on top:

The emerging question — which is beginning to cross the threshold from private conversations to public speculation — is whether we’re living under a legitimate representative democracy.  It sure does seem as if the public is tuned out and hopeless, sensing that nothing can be changed through civic processes.

Not only is this bullshit, this is dangerous bullshit. This is the kind of rhetoric that seeks to illegitimate elections before they happen. It’s along the lines of the belief in voter fraud that people hold; a federal investigation found three instances of mail ballot procedure violations but no fraud. Because the right can’t win in this state because of a myriad of factors (its own incompetence, the power of incumbency, the unpopularity of its positions, etc.) then surely it must be because the public isn’t listening and/or because the government is illegitimate or somehow rigging the system.

That’s not what’s happening in Rhode Island. The Democratic Party is winning a majority of voters who show up, and the Republicans are losing. Quite possibly this is because the majority of Rhode Islanders are Democrats or Democratic partisans. But the lesson for conservatives like Katz is this: just because you consistently lose elections doesn’t make the rightfully elected government illegitimate.

Ken Block didn’t vote until 2000


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
Ken Block

Ken BlockKen Block, the Barrington millionaire who recently switched from the Moderate Party to the Republican Party to run for governor, didn’t registered to vote until October of 1999, according to state and Barrington Board of Elections.

He was eligible to vote on Nov. 8 of that year – one day after the nation-changing, SCOTUS-decided election between Al Gore and George Bush. Both offices said he has had a consistent record of voting in general elections since 2000.

But, according to Block’s campaign website, that means he lived in Rhode Island for at least 8 years without registering to vote. His website says he moved to Barrington is 1992 and indicates he has lived in state since 1991. (I don’t know where Block lived prior to that, or if he voted and/or was registered to vote there)

Last week, GoLocalProv reported on what it called an “investigation” into Clay Pell’s voting record (For the record, if you call the Board of Elections, they will give you this information). Since then it has done two additional posts on Clay Pell with no evidence it has investigated other candidates as well.  Ken Block is a occasional GoLocal “mindsetter” and the right-leaning site highlights his news releases often.

If Block wishes to comment, I will update this post.

 

Dirty tricks, broken promises and voter suppression in 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

voter suppressionThe Justice Department is challenging the legality of North Carolina’s and Texas’ voter ID laws on civil rights grounds, and they have good reason. These laws disproportionately disenfranchise people of color, latinos, immigrants, women, queer people, students, seniors, the disabled, and, particularly, the poor – demographics that have a harder time than many getting an accepted ID.

The nation-wide conservative push for this legislation is a politically-motivated attack on universal suffrage and a threat to American democracy. Like poll taxes and literacy tests these laws belong in history books on the Jim Crow South, certainly not in 21st Century Rhode Island. Unfortunately, House Democratic Party leadership seems to be throwing universal suffrage under the bus for their own electoral advantage against progressive candidates, whose lower-income and minority supporters are less likely to have accepted IDs.

When Gordon Fox was running for reelection last year, he said that voter ID was the biggest complaint he heard from the constituents in his diverse East Side district. So he pledged to do something about it, promising to sponsor new legislation to “include a ‘sunset provision’ in the law.” Last session, that campaign promise went unfulfilled.

But Attorney General Eric Holder’s suit against North Carolina has brought voter ID back into the progressive crosshairs, and the grumbling on Hope Street has begun to grow louder. This year, Gordon may find that his constituents aren’t so easily outfoxed.

It’s well established: voter ID laws effectively disenfranchise many black, latino, female, queer, young, old, disabled, and poor voters who are otherwise eligible but disproportionately lack the right kind of ID. Further, the only “evidence” to justify these laws are anecdotes told by politicians, which are not supported by real evidence. That’s why the laws have been labeled “voter suppression” and likened to the disenfranchisement tactics of Segregation. And it’s no accident that these laws have been the pet project of the tea party and reactionary Republicans across the country in recent years; the disenfranchised groups all tend to vote left. Don Yelton, a Republican Party precinct captain in North Carolina, openly admitted this in a recent interview on the Daily Show. Voter suppression is a political game – and the biggest loser in this game is the ideal of popular government.

Embarrassingly, Rhode Island was the only state in which Democratic Party politicians passed this sort of voter suppression law, and it has made us into a right-wing talking point. When Fox passed this law, he even rejected a personal appeal from the chairwoman of the national Democratic Party.

Worse, against popular pressure and his very own campaign promises, earlier this year Fox actually succeeded in revising the law to make it harsher!

The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America (RIPDA) collected more than 1,800 signatures on a petition for the repeal of the Voter ID law. According to RIPDA’s Sam Bell, after collecting these signatures they met with one of the Speaker’s legal advisors, who arranged a meeting with Fox for January of this year. This was a “promise he refused to honor,” Bell regrets. When the repeal bill came up, RIPDA, the NAACP, the ACLU and other pro-voting groups put together a strong testimony at the hearings.

In spite of this overwhelming support for a full repeal of the draconian law, Fox offered what initially seemed to be a compromise bill far to the right of the sunset he had pledged to introduce: the law would be frozen in its 2012 form, and the even more onerous requirements scheduled to come on line in 2014 would be dropped. As Bell recounts, “although we [the pro-repeal groups] were severely disappointed, we felt it was best to support this holding action.”

This, it turned out, was a tragic mistake. In a cowardly political maneuver, House leadership decided to keep the amended version of the bill secret until the minute before it would be voted on, leaving the members of the Judiciary Committee and the public no time to read the actual text. And with good reason: the revised bill included a provision that sharply tightened voting restrictions. With the revisions, not only would fewer forms of ID be accepted than in 2012—fewer forms of ID would be accepted than under the original law’s much tighter 2014 limits! Such a draconian bill would never have passed if the democratic process had been respected, so Fox and his friends resorted to trickery.

In a display of brazen dishonesty, leadership portrayed the amended bill as just a “freeze” of the current law. This story seemed plausible. Several committee members were visibly furious about how weak this leadership-described “freeze” compromise was. “This sucks!” exclaimed Representative Joe Almeida. But the leadership neglected to inform the Judiciary Committee about the part that clearly “sucked” much more: the provision they’d snuck in to dramatically increase voting restrictions. Thanks to the leadership’s deception, even strong opponents of voter ID on the Judiciary Committee ended up inadvertently voting for this assault on our basic democratic rights.

What makes the voter suppression law so valuable to Gordon Fox that he’s willing to lie to defend it?

In most states, Republican politicians support voter ID measures in order to disenfranchise their Democratic opponents’ voting base. The same partisan politics clearly aren’t at work here in deep-Blue Rhode Island, but perhaps a similar motive is behind the law nonetheless.

Consider this: in the upcoming Democratic Party primary campaign for governor, the conservative party establishment is expected to get behind state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, whose voting base will be heavily rich and white – demographics likely to have driver’s licenses. Raimondo’s chief opponent may be Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. With many of his black, latino and low-income supporters turned away at the polls, Taveras would be skating on a broken ankle. A strict voter ID law is a serious advantage for Raimondo and other establishment Democratic Party candidates, and a serious disadvantage to progressive, insurgent challengers. The upcoming gubernatorial race is just one example of the benefits of voter suppression for conservative incumbents; these candidates will have a much easier time getting re-elected if they disenfranchise large blocs of their progressive challengers’ voting base. Fox and his friends – at the expense of universal suffrage – are playing a Republican political game in a Blue State: they are refusing to play fair.

But the Speaker can’t outfox his constituents this time. If Gordon Fox wants to serve the interests of his racially diverse, progressive constituents, he needs to fulfill his campaign promise of sponsoring a sunset to this odious law. And to prove that he and the Party leadership aren’t playing a vicious game of disenfranchisement for political advantage, the sunset will need to be a fast one: the law must be fully and permanently repealed before the next election cycle.

If the Speaker has a change of heart and pledges to support the repeal of the voter ID law at the beginning of the upcoming session, the progressive will gladly work with him to restore voting rights in the Ocean State. But if he hesitates, he’ll find himself up against a coalition much larger, much more militant, and much more pissed off than last time.

Voter ID is the greatest threat to the right to vote in this state in over a hundred years. Rhode Islanders historically haven’t taken very kindly to being taxed without being represented. Gordon Fox would do well to remember that.

Welcome to the Jungle


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
Edwin Edwards

The greatest divide between Americans is political party; outdoing race, income, and education gaps. Instead of viewing issues in black and white, it’s red and blue. It’s natural then that political observers would look for solutions to our growing partisanship. One I’ve seen advanced is the nonpartisan blanket primary. It has many pseudonyms, but the one I like best is “jungle primary”. The idea is that instead of holding a primary for each party, all candidates are grouped into a single ballot; regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof). The two highest vote earners then proceed on to the general election.

In theory, this looks alright, and the Wikipedia article (linked above) has examples from real elections to demonstrate various campaign dynamics. The jungle primary already exists in Louisiana, Washington, and California; so all the examples are from American elections.

Let’s run through the political calculus first. Since the political parties can’t pick and endorse a candidate, they can’t control who runs under their banner. Remember, there’s no limit on the number of candidates, regardless of political affiliation. Ostensibly, this should mean that candidates should focus on attracting as wide a spectrum of voters as possible, forcing candidates to move to the center to pick up the most votes.

However, one only needs to win the second most votes to go to the general election. And in primary elections, which have reduced importance in voters’ eyes, the winner is determined by who can get their voters to the polls. And determinedly partisan voters turnout more in primary elections (which are, after all, about choosing parties’ candidates). Thus, there’s an incentive to move to heavily partisan positions to attract the most voters from your party; leading to a general election featuring two radicals rather than two moderates. We can already see this dynamic in regular primaries: candidates tack towards partisanship during the primaries and then tack center in the general election.

Edwin Edwards
Former LA governor Edwin Edwards, architect of that state’s jungle primary

The classic example of the failure to select moderates is from Louisiana, where David Duke, the former KKK Grand Wizard, knocked out a moderate Republican incumbent in the jungle primary for governor. Republicans should’ve waltzed to a reelection victory. But Duke (who ran as a Republican) mobilized voters who shared his views, and the structure of the jungle primary meant he went onwards to lose spectacularly (his opponent and architect of Louisiana’s jungle primary, Edwin Edwards, makes Buddy Cianci look like a boy scout; it had been suggested that the only way Edwards could win another election was to run against Adolf Hitler).

Another issue is that it can produce two candidates of the same party. Now, in some races, this leads to one or both candidates tacking center to gain voters of the unrepresented party. But in a place where one party’s dominance is so complete that the other can only succeed in extraordinary circumstances, why bother? Take the 2010 races for US Congress in RI. The general election would’ve seen exactly zero Republican candidates, if the votes had stayed the same. The same would’ve held true for Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. Demoralized Republicans may have well sat out the election in the face of so many one-party races, which could have further eroded support for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille. We should expect Democratic dominance to worsen in Rhode Island, should the jungle primary be put in place; at least in the immediate short-term.

Proponents might counter that the victorious candidates would’ve been the more moderate ones. Fine. Let’s examine the 2010 race for US Congressional District 1. A jungle primary would’ve produced a general election match-up between Anthony Gemma and David Cicilline. Gemma was an incompetent candidate in 2010, but the depths of his incompetency have only recently been revealed. This was a man who recklessly cast aspersions on the legitimacy of Rhode Island elections without proof. If he were supposed to be the “moderate” candidate in 2010, we have to ask ourselves how well he would’ve served Rhode Island should he have triumphed over Cicilline. The moderate candidate is not always the correct one.

The jungle primary also punishes parties with multiple candidates. For instance, if multiple candidates see a chance to win the partisan vote, and they run, they split that vote up. So while that bloc of voters could be a majority of all voters, a handful of relatively similar candidates could end up ensuring that none of them even make it to the general election. Hypothetically, it becomes possible where a party becomes tired of this situation and sets up a primary to select a single candidate to contest the jungle primary.

And if it gets to that point you’ve caused parties to reinvent the primary. This is unnecessary, because the primary is supposed to serve as the party primary. The primary is a function of the political party. The state operates the primary on behalf the political party. There’s nothing inherent to a political party that requires that it even hold elections, it just wouldn’t be very popular if it didn’t (although there is tricky language that the state’s passed mandating that primary elections be held like general elections “as nearly as may be” and prevents political parties from holding conventions and caucuses to elect candidates).

That primaries are for political parties is exactly why you’re required to temporarily affiliate if you’re unaffiliated and cast your ballot in a primary. For that moment, you’re a Democrat or Republican. If the Moderates needed a primary, the state would create one for them. And this gets to a more troubling part of the primary system: state law determines who has one and what form it takes. Parties can request changes from the General Assembly, but the will of the state is the ultimate arbiter of how those primaries work. The jungle primary excises the political party from a process held on behalf of the party.

“Good!” you may say. “After all, political parties are a stain on American democracy, George Washington warned us not descend into political factionalism, etc., etc.” Yes. But they’re also a remarkably effectively organizing tool, such that there are virtually no democracies that operate without them. Factionalism in the United States predates the Declaration of Independence; it’s how any group of people organizes themselves to take on complex tasks like passing items. Parties wouldn’t collapse, they’d figure out new ways of organizing around the constraints.

The final argument against the jungle primary is that there’s a better system in existence for achieving a more representative result. It’s called a run-off election, and it’s what a jungle primary is trying to be without succeeding. The major difference between round one of a run-off election (where multiple candidates compete with the hopes of being one of the top two vote earners) is that a properly-operated run-off election ends if a candidate receives a majority in the first round. Primaries, by their nature of being nominating contests, can’t end in that manner (nor would you want them to, given that they take place so far from election day).

Take the last election for mayor of Central Falls. Because candidates participated in a jungle primary that took place on election day in November, the city was unable to elect a mayor on the date they should have. They had to wait until December. However, it was a foregone conclusion that James Diossa would win, since he annihilated his opponents in the primary. Under a rational system, Diossa would’ve been declared the winner in November. As it was, Central Falls had to wait another month, plus face a conflict over the expense of polling places.

This is because the jungle primary is wedded to the form of the primary, without regard for its purpose. And if we lose the sight of what the purpose of our elections are for, then why bother holding them in the first place?

Rhode Island elections are broken, on purpose


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

It’s necessary for me to respond to Bob’s post about our elections. Here’s the key takeaway:

…why assume our elections and or party structure is broken when it’s much more likely that a state with a strong blue collar, union tradition and a pristine, well-protected environment would attract anything other than a bunch of liberal-minded voters?

So why then are we seeking ways to make our politics more inclusive of of a party system that doesn’t represent our community’s political ethos?

A simpler and more holistic solution would be to make local elections nonpartisan. Of course, this has the same snowball’s chance in hell of happening as does doing away with the master lever or instituting mixed-member proportional voting…

The problem with this is it makes a number of assumptions. First, that we’re attracting pro-environment, pro-union, working class Americans. We’re not. Those people were born here, many back when there was an economy that supported them and that they could in turn support. That economy has been hollowed out, both by market forces and by government forces that helped destroy it.

The other thing is that we really can’t say what RI voters are like or what their policy priorities are. A third of incumbents go unchallenged every election cycle; and even in contested elections, many Rhode Islanders never even given a chance to vote for a Republican or a Democrat (it’s often a choice between party affiliated candidate and independent candidate). We know Democratic presidents win significant victories among Rhode Islanders, but then Donald Carcieri won re-election in a year that saw presidential-year level Democratic turnout and a depressed Republican turnout. I’m always hesitant to label anyone a “DINO” because it appears to me that the Democratic Party of Rhode Island has always encompassed interests as varied as the economically left, socially liberal sort to the economically right, socially conservative sort.

But let’s say that Bob’s description of Rhode Islanders is accurate. How then are we to conclude that Rhode Island’s electoral system isn’t flawed? If we have such voters, why are they electing candidates that are anti-union and anti-environment? If it’s because they support the Democratic Party candidate even when such a candidate is a “DINO”, then we have a problem: we are electing candidates who are antithetical to the party they purport to be in.

However we split the problem, we’re seeing the issue: our elections are causing trouble and aren’t representative.

Now on to solutions.

I want to be emphatic in this: nonpartisan elections are terrible. Full stop. The best time to inform voters about their choices is on the ballot. Our ballots are stripped of information, containing only directions as how to vote. We are not informed of party platforms, candidate policies, or virtually anything else beyond candidate affiliation. Candidate affiliation is the one piece of information that people can rely on. If we strip it, we lose the last piece of information beyond the candidate’s name.

A lot of “good-government” reformers instituted nonpartisan elections in the early part of the 20th Century with the specific goal of suppressing the Socialist Party in municipal elections. Why? Because a lot of people of the time understood what the Socialist Party stood for, and they would vote for its candidates, even if they knew nothing about the candidates. After Socialist Party candidates won in a few cities, the reform effort stepped up, and sold nonpartisan elections as a way to remove corruption. In reality, it tosses elections over to monied interests.

If voters can’t tell what party you belong to, they can’t tell what values you’re supposed to have. A lot of voter contact is educating voters on candidate policy. And voter contact isn’t just a free operation. It costs a lot of money (and time, which equals money). People who have a lot money have the advantage in contacting voters, meaning they get to define themselves better to voters. They also get the chance to define their opponent. Nonpartisan elections are going to exacerbate this.

If we want to elect regular people to office, we have to do two things: clear away the unequal financing of elections and provide protection for regular people to risk the run without suffering economic damage. The Citizens United decision severely restricts us on the former. The latter is difficult because we are the major roadblock. Think about healthcare for the legislators. We get really angry because one representative collects it without paying anything, even though she works for it. Let me put it this way, your job does not involve dealing with the complaints about government from roughly 13,000 people yearly. You also don’t have to spend money to keep your job, nor try to convince 13,000 people that you should keep it.

Officeholders are exceptional in Rhode Island precisely because they can hold office. Why is it this way? Because it was designed that way. Officeholders were supposed to be the well off, which is why we made sure that you needed a level of wealth before you could vote or hold office well into the 19th Century (a commenter here once suggested that our poll tax made it all the way to the last constitutional convention). Nowadays, the poor pay, the weird hours, and the cost of running an election act as a way to keep people out of office. Nonpartisan elections only increase the barriers to regular people participating in politics.

Beyond that, political parties exist for a reason. Their removal isn’t going to make them less necessary. Want evidence? Nebraska’s Unicameral legislature is nonpartisan. Here’s an article in which virtually everyone interviewed admits that the party system still exists, it isn’t overt. Parties were created to help advance agendas, and we shouldn’t pretend like they’ve totally corrupted politics. People always point to George Washington’s farewell address with its warning against factionalism. I always point out that he gave that address with his faction in power. The oppositional faction (the forerunners to the Democrats) would take control four years later.

George Mason Prof. David Schleicher look at electoral competition in big cities was really original, and really interesting (also, he says that nonpartisan races exacerbate the lack of competition). In a lot of ways, it strengthens the party system. One of the most astounding ideas to me was basically forcing the disaffiliation of local parties. Basically, you prevent anyone from running under the banner of Democrat or Republican in a local election. So instead, depending on your locale, you might the Providence Progressive Party, or the Conservative Party of East Greenwich.

I think in Rhode Island, we could go one step further: institute a ban of same party affiliation at all three levels, but allow voters to belong to a party on each level. So I might belong the the Providence Progressive Party, the Rhode Island Action Party, and the United States Democratic Party. Thus, for Providence office, I’d appear on ballot as a Progressive. For state office, I’d show up under the Action Party banner. And if sought federal office, I’d appear on the ballot as a Democrat. It would really shatter our whole understanding of politics, and would make the coattail effect on down-ticket races evaporate.

Now, that’s a radical suggestion, and I understand that. I understand that there are reason things like this don’t get passed. And there are two main forces arrayed against massive changes. One is the political establishment, and by this I mean all those who don’t want to change the system because they understand the current one. There’s a lot of people who know how to work everything just so, and big changes will mean adaptation. If you have a 20-year or more career in office, big changes are naturally going to frighten you. The question is whether we can appeal to the politician (who is supposed to make good policy) and tamp down the person (who cares about their own self).

The other thing is what I think of as institutional inertia. We hear this usually expressed as “that’s the way it’s always been.” People invent these myths about how government works, and we can’t change it or else who knows what will happen. So instead of really reorganizing government, we make little cosmetic changes, and leave the big issues still in place. Just like master lever abolition, nonpartisan elections will leave in place problems of gerrymandering, lack of voter education, the outsized influence of money, lack of competition, etc., etc.

One of my favorite movies is The Prestige. And one of my favorite lines is “man’s grasp exceeds his reach.” That applies wonderfully here. What we reach out to change in Rhode Island is far short of what we can change in Rhode Island. The beautiful thing about democracy is that it is not natural, it is not set in stone. It is entirely human-created, and entirely changeable to the needs of its citizens. States are laboratories of democracy, and we get to run experiments with democracy. Sometimes those experiments will fail. This is the nature of experimentation.

tompaineThis is why the next constitutional convention could be the most vital thing that will happen in Rhode Island in many years. We could make cosmetic changes to our democracy, change the paint, give it a bit of tune up, maybe reupholster the seats. Or we could tear it apart, see how every little bit works, how they fit together, and then rebuild it as as a completely different kind of beast. If we are truly a “lively experiment” we must not fear to experiment.

I think it’s worth ending on this Thomas Paine quote and thinking about how it could apply to our own future constitutional convention: “We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

What is mixed-member proportional representation? (Part 3 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
The German Bundestag uses MMP
The German Bundestag uses MMP

Imagine that in 1994 voters had approved similar constitutional amendments to those they did. The House would be reduced to 75 districts, and the Senate would be reduced to 38. However, both chambers would actually end up expanded; as the House would receive 75 additional seats and the Senate 38 additional seats.

These seats wouldn’t be attached to districts, but rather they’d be apportioned based on the total vote a party collected across all races for each chamber. Thus if the Democrats won 60% of all votes cast in Senate races and 70% of all votes cast in House races, they could expect a roughly proportional number of seats in the Senate and House.

The results of the district races would be unchanged, and the legislature would grow above the 150 seats in the House and 76 in the Senate based on those results. Thus if an independent candidate won a race, they’d still take their seat, but the legislature would grow by one seat to accommodate them while keeping the party balance roughly even to the vote for parties.

The non-districted seats would be filled from a list of candidates selected by the parties. How the parties selected these candidates would be entirely up to them.

What I’ve just described is roughly how the West German Bundestag set up as its electoral system following World War II. Most of its state legislatures did the same.

Initially, the Bundestag used the system described above, where the votes cast in the district races were used to calculate how the list seats should be apportioned. However, this has since been changed to having a separate vote for party preference. This allows voters to think strategically in their votes in the district races, while still being able to vote for their favorite party. Unfortunately, we can’t do more than guess how voters would select the favorite party, so I’ve chosen to use the original Bundestag system.

There’s a bit more though. It’s not as simple as “you get 40% of the vote, you get 40% of the seats.” There are multiple ways of calculating how many seats a party should get. I chose the D’Hondt method, which is a highest averages method. The D’Hondt method favors large parties and disadvantages smaller parties, which I thought would be appropriate to how our electoral system is already setup.

Many electoral systems also feature a “threshold,” requiring a party gain a certain proportion of votes before it can gain seats. Typically, this is set at 5%. In this case, I’ve left out a threshold. I feel if this really were implemented, there would be a threshold, but I felt it would be more interesting to see whether any third party could break into the General Assembly without that extra hurdle. Currently, Rhode Island political parties require 5% of the statewide vote in either the US Presidential race or the Governor’s race to be recognized as a state party.

Post continues on next page (or click below)

Trends from last 6 RI elections (Part 2, 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

Senate_ChmbrIn 2002, the General Assembly was re-shaped as a result of constitutional amendments approved by voters in 1994. Ostensibly the amendments were passed to increase competition for seats in both chambers; yet over the past six general elections 32.02% of Senate seats have gone uncontested on average, along with 37.33% of seats in the House.

While common wisdom might be that this type of apathy has benefited Democrats, that’s only half true. In the House of Representatives, both parties have benefited proportionally from this apathy; an average of 37.34% of House Democrats have not faced a general election challenger since 2002. House Republicans have an average of 36.04% over the same period. The difference is negligible.

The Senate is where there is disproportion. Since 2002, an average of 35.74% of Senate Democrats have had uncontested general elections. Senate Republicans have only averaged 18.06%. Why this might be is unclear to me; with a larger district, Senate candidates should require more resources to reach their constituents, meaning House races should be cheaper and thus more accessible.

Alternatively, the large Senate districts mean a larger pool of potential candidates, and the prospect of well-gerrymandered districts combined with a Democratic advantage in voter registration could assist Democrats in generating opponents for Republican candidates while keeping Republicans from contesting Senate elections.

The data gets more revealing of our current state of affairs when one calculates statewide votes cast for each party in each chamber of the General Assembly.

Democratic control over the General Assembly chambers has been extremely disproportional to the actual votes they’ve received. While Democrats typically win about 65% of the vote across Rhode Island when the results of all districts are added together, their control of the chambers is about 20 points higher, hovering around 85% of all the seats in each chamber.

At the same time, Rhode Island has seen a number of third parties compete for seats in the General Assembly; the Greens, the Socialists, the Libertarians, and the Moderates. Only the Moderates have captured above a percentage point of the statewide vote when calculated across all districts.

One final trend has emerged over the past six elections since the General Assembly was reduced. There’s been a growth in votes cast for independents since 2008, with all independent candidates capturing above 4.5% of the vote each of the last three elections. In the three elections prior, independents never managed to eke out above 3.7% of the vote, and were often well under 1%.

It’s possible that there’s a growing discontent with the Democratic Party, which combined with a dislike of the Republican Party, is boosting independents. It’s also possible that as the Millennial Generation began voting in the late 2000s, it’s turned more towards independents than its predecessors. Remember, Millennials were becoming aware of politics in the era between the Clinton Impeachment and the Iraq War; both of which were extreme blows to the credibility of the political establishment. Alternatively, I could be dead wrong.

You can take a look at the spreadsheets I created for yourself:

Post continues on next page (or click below)

What If RI had a different electoral system? (Part 1 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
Example ballot for a mixed-member proportional representation system (via Wikipedia)
Example ballot of a mixed-member proportional representation system (via Wikipedia)

Rhode Island is entering the 2014 election cycle with major decisions to make. First, there will be the election of all of the state’s general officers. Second, there will be the usual elections of the entirety of the the General Assembly; commonplace as it may be, it has a major impact on Rhode Island. Thirdly, there is a requirement to ask whether Rhode Islanders want to hold a constitutional convention.

The last that is the most important. A lot of things will be at play here. There is impetus for reform across the political spectrum. Which means many competing interests as to what should be changed and why and how.

There’s also the issue that there’s an established political set that may not want to see large-scale reform, and that will also matter.

Then that each delegate will be elected from across the 75 Rhode Island House districts drawn after the 2010 US Census, meaning that many of the dynamics that go into House races will apply to the race for the delegates.

Finally, we should take into consideration that a constitutional convention cannot fundamentally transform power dynamics. What it can do is transform how those dynamics play out. Thus, the abolition of slavery and acknowledgement that all Americans were equal didn’t suddenly equalize all Americans. What it did do is prevent the enslavement of black Americans. It took a hundred years of resistance to bring about legislation that would guarantee equal access to rights, and even then the structures built up during the whole of American history continue to discriminate.

What I specifically want to look at in this series are constitutional changes that transform elections; which can best be described as transforming how (and which) citizens can access the power of the state. Specifically, I want to create a picture of how the General Assembly would look under a different electoral system; one that prized balancing the General Assembly to the votes for each party.

This system is known as mixed-member proportional representation (MMP). It’s not the be-all and end-all of electoral systems, but it’s better than the current system, which is known as plurality voting or “first-past-the-post” (FPTP). I’ll explain the difference in a bit. But first, I want to talk about the last six elections in Rhode Island.

This is Part 1 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 2 is a retrospective of the last six elections.

Rhode Island’s Electoral College Votes on Monday


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

The state’s remarkable year in presidential politics will come to an end this Monday at noon and you’re invited. Rhode Island’s Electoral College will convene at the State House to cast ballots for president and vice president .

The historic ceremony will begin precisely at noon when the Kentish Guards in colonial military garb escort  the state’s four presidential electors, the state’s Congressional delegation and other dignitaries to the House Chamber, where the event will take place.

“This is the culmination of a year-long journey that sent Rhode Islanders to the polls in near-record numbers. The entire state can take pride in what they have achieved.”

Because seating in the House Chamber is limited, please RSVP to aralphmollis@sos.ri.gov or 222-4293. Capitol TV will televise the ceremony live on Channel 15 on Cox Cable and Full Channel and Channel 34 on Verizon. In addition, TV monitors will be set up in the State Room to accommodate anyone who cannot be seated in the House Chamber.

The process began in 2011, when we introduced legislation creating a regional presidential primary with Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut. The initiative brought Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and the Gingrich campaign to Rhode Island in the days before voters went to the polls last April. The end came when more than 446,000 votes were cast in last month’s election, the second highest turnout in state history.

Title 3, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code outlines the Electoral College process. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. The Electoral College will meet in every state and the District of Columbia on Dec. 17 to cast ballots for president and vice president.

By federal law, electors representing the political party of the candidate who wins the popular vote for president in each state officially elect the president and vice president. Rhode Island’s Electors are state Rep.-elect Marvin L. Abney of Newport, Emily A. Maranjian of Providence, L. Susan Weiner of East Greenwich and Mark S. Weiner of East Greenwich.

The Rev. William L. Shaw of the Union Baptist Church in Pawtucket will provide the Invocation and the Martin Middle School choir of East Providence will perform the national anthem to open Rhode Island’s ceremony.

On Jan. 6, 2013, Vice President Biden will preside over a joint session of Congress. The ballots of the electors from each state will be opened in alphabetical order by state and read aloud to Congress.

Speaking to the Speaker


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
State House Dome from North Main Street
State House Dome from North Main Street
The State House dome from North Main Street. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Winners in political races have it easy. They thank everyone and move forward. The Silver Medalists analyze what went wrong and fade into the shadows. Is it possible to write a post-election column as the loser and not sound self-serving, shrill or sour? I’m going to do my best.

From the beginning, this race was about the way that the legislature hasn’t been working effectively for the citizens, voters and taxpayers.

My analysis of the way the system functions is this:

  • On Election Day, 75 men and women are voted into the Rhode Island House of Representatives.
  • Shortly after that a number of them meet. They horse trade over issues and bills and power. Then they determine who will be the Speaker. You’re either on the team or you’re off.
  • In January, the 75 Reps vote on the Speaker and the Rules of the House. Currently, these rules give the Speaker the authority to set the agenda and move legislation on and off the floor at his or her discretion
  • And for the next two years, all of the Reps who are not part of the “Leadership” beg for scraps and line items. The true outsiders get nothing.

The system, as a voter in Mt. Hope said, isn’t broken. It works great for those in charge. But it doesn’t work so well for Rhode Island. We, the people, elected you to be our Representatives, not to give away your power.

The deals that representatives make are supposed to be in the best interest of the state as a whole, not the special interests and campaign donors. Payday lending rates of 260% annual interest are usurious and unjustifiable.  Votes on social issues, like Marriage Equality, ought to be held early every session rather than suppressed.

Our State’s business climate is not just dependent on tax rates, tax breaks and loan guarantees. Your business should not depend on the whim of a Speaker and the uninformed consent of the Legislature.

Our children should not be educated in a system that is overhauled in the middle of the night on a budget vote with no public debate, discussion or even planning. Children need more than institutions and buildings, they need books and materials. Students need more than testing, they need teachers who have the time and permission to teach them on their own terms.

I hope that my challenge to Gordon Fox reminds him, and every other Speaker who follows, that the power that they wield derives from the people.

You are not in charge. We are.


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