unusualmusic_lj_archive

The LGBT related initiatives did poorly.
In Arizona, the same-sex marriage ban appears to be passing. With 99% of precincts reporting, the results were 56% to 44%. This initiative is currently projected to win; this is an initiative that needed 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself was called for Obama.
In Arkansas, the ban on gay and lesbian couples adopting children appears to be passing. With 96% of precincts reporting, the results were 57% to 43%. As of this moment, this initiative has been called; this was an initiative that needed 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself was called for McCain.
In Florida, the same-sex marriage ban appears to be passing. With 99% of precincts reporting, the results were 62% to 38%. As of this moment, this initiative has been called; this was a constitutional amendment that needed 60% of the votes to pass -- the state itself was called for Obama.
And in California, we had Proposition 8. As of this moment, with 89% of precincts reporting, the constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman is ahead 51.8% to 48.2%. The constitutional amendment hasn't yet been called -- but the amendment needs just 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself has been called for Obama.
Here in my odd world of California, there is a weird comparison of initiatives between California initiatives can be made between Propositions 2 and 8.
Proposition 2 is an initiative that was described in the initiative as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

So in my mind, perhaps the saddest commentary on "liberal" Californians sense of equality and fairness is to say that in my home state where, to this point, 63.3% of its voters found the mistreatment of farm animals something worthy of being legislated against, and 52.8% of voters believed eliminating the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry worthy of a state constitutional amendment.

Proposition 8 Spending Surpasses $73 Million

CBS 5 Voter Guide: A Look At Ballot Measures, Candidates

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ― Spending for and against a ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California has surpassed $73 million, almost twice the total that was spent in the 24 states where similar measures were put to voters since 2004, campaign finance records show.

Opponents of Proposition 8 had a slight lead in contributions as of Monday, having raised $37.6 million. Supporters of the gay marriage ban had raised $35.8 million.

A little less than $33 million was spent on campaigns to pass or defeat gay marriage bans in the 24 states where they appeared on ballots in 2004, 2005 and 2006, according to the National Organization on Money in State Politics.

Experts have said the California measure has become the most expensive social issue campaign in U.S. history and is the costliest election this year outside the race for the White House. About 30 percent,or $22 million, of the donations reported by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 have come from outside the state, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.MORE

As the 2006 election and these subsequent events conclusively demonstrate, mindlessly supporting and electing more Democrats for its own sake doesn't solve or even mitigate anything. But it's also true that actions which result in handing Republicans control over any branches of the Government -- including supporting third-party candidates or abstaining from the process altogether -- makes matters worse still. Nobody who finds the above-documented events objectionable can rationally embrace a course of action that directly or indirectly empowers those who are the prime forces behind these events: namely, the mainstream GOP in its current incarnation.

...

All of that, in turn, leads to this pressing question: what is the best course for those who want to battle against these civil-liberties-destroying, rule-of-law-trampling, war-making policies that the GOP leadership pushes and the Democratic Party leadership supports, enables, and/or passively accepts? In a two-party system where blind support for either party will do nothing but perpetuate these policies, how can they be undermined?

The campaign we announced back in March to target "Bad Democrats," which has now evolved into Accountability Now and the Strange Bedfellows coalition, is designed to develop strategies for addressing that dilemma (I first announced and detailed how that coalition works here). Grounded in the premise that the Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress for the foreseeable future -- a premise virtually nobody disputes -- the primary objective has to be to alter the behavior of those who control the Congress.
Increasing the Democrats' margin of control doesn't achieve that goal. It does the opposite. Conveying to Democrats that you will support all of them no matter what they do, no matter how egregiously they trample on your values, only ensures that they will ignore your political priorities and values even more.

Fusion Voting

Voting issues instead of personalities

Fusion Voting is an old and time honored system used throughout the United States in the late 1800's and early 1900s. Fusion voting allowed some of the most progressive political leaders in America to be elected to public office because the Populist Party and Democratic Parties were able to "fuse" their nominations. Under fusion voting more than one political party can nominate the same candidate for the same office in any particular election. Therefore, a voter could, for instance, vote for Joe Solidarity for governor as either a Populist or as a Democrat as both parties are able to nominate the same candidate. Joe Solidarity's name could appear on the ballot twice for the same office, once as a Populist and then again as a Democrat.

This is what the ballot would have looked like:

1
Jack Bigbucks Republican
Joe Solidarity Populist
1
Sam Poor Socialist
1
Betsy Lost Independent
1
Joe Solidarity Democrat

The voter would mark one choice for each office just as the voter does now.

In this example the voter could vote for Joe Solidarity as either a Democrat or a Populist. The voter in effect chooses both the candidate and the party. First the voter chooses the candidate to vote for. Then the voter looks to see if that candidate is on the ballot for more than one party and, if so, chooses which party to vote for. In choosing the party, the voter declares his support for the principles of that party. The votes are tallied separately for each party, and Joe Solidarity gets the combined total votes from both ballot lines. If the race was especially close, the winner could see that without the votes cast on the "third Party" line, he might not have won. Third parties thus have leverage over that candidate.

A few months earlier, the WFP operation hit Westchester County. Volunteers trawled suburban streets delivering the message: "We're telling State Senator Nick Spano that New Yorkers need a raise in the minimum wage." A few residents cursed and slammed doors. But more often than not they agreed, and received a sheet of paper, a pen and a chance to handwrite a plea to the Senator. "It's about time!" exclaimed an expensively groomed woman as she took a clipboard.

That wasn't the first or last time Spano, a high-ranking Republican, heard from his constituents--and the greeting wasn't always so polite. A few weeks earlier, Spano had endured an "accountability session," a public event community organizers use to extract commitments from elected officials. In a YMCA hall packed with some 150 union members and other activists, filled with cries of "$5.15 is not enough!" Spano expressed surprise at the turnout--and, knowing he had little choice, signed a poster-size pledge to push legislation raising New York's minimum wage to $7.10. "I am on your side," Spano declared. "I will deliver this personally to the majority leader."

But it was not just because he was caught on the spot that Spano came around on this issue--he knew that the Working Families Party, which organized the session, had a card to play: the ballot line in elections throughout New York State that it has wielded since 1998. In New York, election laws allow "fusion"--candidates for any public office can run as the nominee of more than one political party. The votes candidates receive are tallied separately by party, then combined. Like many candidates in New York State, Spano was hungry for the extra boost of that additional ballot line, which could make all the difference on election day. With the WFP's progressive seal of approval, Spano could expect some votes from people who might never otherwise support a Republican.

...

But the Working Families leadership was satisfied. In exchange for the endorsement of Spano and other Republicans in a tight race, state Republicans relented after years of opposition and hiked the minimum wage, which raised pay for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. By wielding the power to make or break one of its top leaders, Working Families pushed the Republican Party to take a progressive stance.

...

Items on the party's legislative agenda include universal healthcare, rent regulation, a living wage and closing the income gap through progressive taxation. Founded and led by a coalition of labor unions and community organizations--including the Northeast regions of the United Auto Workers and the Communications Workers of America (CWA), locals of the garment and hotel workers' union UNITE HERE and the service workers' SEIU, ACORN and Citizen Action--Working Families claims an organized bloc of voters committed to economic populism, and the party uses them to get major-party politicians to follow the Working Families agenda. Its organizers strive to appeal simultaneously to Nation-reading liberals, people of color alienated by the Democrats, and working-class whites.

The WFP's ability to reach that third group, which Republicans have so successfully wrested from the Democrats, says a lot about what fusion can accomplish. A poll of New York State CWA members found that non-Democrats were likelier than Democrats to use the WFP ballot line to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in 2000--of the 38 percent of that group who went for Clinton, eight in ten cast their vote under Working Families. Votes on the WFP line helped Democratic challenger Tim Bishop beat a conservative incumbent Republican Congressman on Long Island--in a district that went overwhelmingly for Republican Governor George Pataki on the same ballot.

WFP executive director Dan Cantor and a leadership circle of labor union political directors, community organizers and staff hunt for practical legislative and policy campaigns that will resonate with the party's target constituencies. "What issues do you want to move?" asks Cantor. "What moral disgrace brings issues into the electoral moment?" They then put those issues into play with a one-two punch: a grassroots field operation anchored by local chapters in the state's biggest counties, coupled with the ability, through fusion voting, to cross-endorse Democrats or Republicans for public office. Targeted politicians can't afford to ignore the party's agenda.