Comments on: Organizational Mobilization

By: neil

neil — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:16:34 +0000

The basic point is that Republicans have a durable advantage because their party has more of a real social role in more people’s daily lives.
Ugh, down that road lies madness.

By: Steven Teles

Steven Teles — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:32:29 +0000

Just to clarify slightly. The option isn’t “everybody stops gerrymandering or no one does.” If you’ve got divided government, my argument is that Democrats should push for non-partisan districting commissions. This is the case fairly widely, so in practice I am in favor of non-partisan districting in a quite considerable number of cases.

By: Kenneth Fair

Kenneth Fair — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:16:19 +0000

“I think the Democrats need to find ways, as part of Dean’s state party building project, of rebuilding the Democratic party as a genuine source of solidaristic benefits at the local level–to make the Democratic party a more profond part of people’s daily lives–more Democratic softball teams, drinking clubs, speed-dating scenes, church social issues discussion groups, hunting and fishing groups, etc.”
I’ve been advocating something like this for years now. There’s a simple way to put it: Let’s put the “party” back in the Democratic Party.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:46:00 +0000

If you want to talk about disenfranchising people, what happens when the Republican parties collapses into irrelevance due to the changing demographics in the US?
The Republicans currently cannot realistically compete in state wide elections in about 15 states. Every year the number of black, Asian, and Hispanic voters is increasing and they vote overwhelming for Democrats. Thus, every election cycle there will be more states where the Republicans cannot realistically compete.
There were over 30 district where the Republicans did not run a candidates. If after the 2008 election of a Democrat president (Hillary Clinton) and more than 60 Democrat Senators, I can see the number going to 60 seats with no competition.
It is also a matter of time before the state Republican parties in Mass, VT, NJ, RI, etc collapse for lack of support.
There current system is built to keep a third party from getting started. What happens when the Republican Party fails? Do you really want to live in a country where the Democratic Primary is the deciding election? Will the Democrats move for strenghting McCain-Feingold since they benefited from it in 2006 and will they push for a new �Fairness Doctrine� in order to control the debate?
I do not really care for the current Republicans but I would like a country where there are alternatives on Election Day. However, it likes most of the Democratic Party would prefe a one party system.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:32:20 +0000

“Uh, no—it’s a not-so-roundabout way of saying that the issue is a Prisoner’s Dilemma, one in which the Republicans have consistently defected, so under the morality of tit for tat the Democrats should defect in response.”
Shall we apply this to the Geneva Conventions? Cutting people’s heads off in the war on terror?
And what is this “Republicans” have constantly defected? The 1970s and 1980s had Democrats gerrymandering freely away. The only time either party pretended not to was when forced by courts or when a sudden switch made the incumbents interested in protecting their own skins at the expense of other members.
Once a good algorithm is in place it would be very hard to justify reversing it. So you do it one state at a time. That is how you fix things in the real world.
Look, if you want to say that gerrymandering isn’t a form of intentional disenfranchisement, so be it. We can argue on that basis. But saying that it is horribly sleazy and wrong, but that the ruling party should do it anyway is just silly. The ruling party will always be the party able to effect change, and will always be the party not interested in change. That is why people like me mistrust the government.

By: liberal

liberal — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:31:51 +0000

Sebastian Holsclaw wrote, “Since gerrymandering is done on the state level and Constitutionally a function of states, saying that you support the status quo until there is a nationwide solution is just a round-about way of supporting the status quo while getting in some conscience-soothing rhetoric in.”
Uh, no—it’s a not-so-roundabout way of saying that the issue is a Prisoner’s Dilemma, one in which the Republicans have consistently defected, so under the morality of tit for tat the Democrats should defect in response.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:46:00 +0000

So elliottg, if you are correct about me, am I a good model?
But for the record, I don’t think you are correct. There is a difference between not having the power to effect change (a position that Mr. Teles and I share) and being willing to advocate change only if it is proposed at some point in the future in an unconstitutional or otherwise deeply unrealistic fashion. For example it would be one thing to say that you didn’t like torture and that it should be outlawed (even if you can’t personally outlaw it), and a totally different thing to say that torture is wrong in theory but shouldn’t be outlawed until it can be substantially proven that it never works. When you make a conditional statement where the conditional is virtually impossible, you aren’t really coming out ‘against’ something.
Saying, “I will support the Democratic Party when it stops worrying about corporations, advocates much lower social spending, and cuts taxes” does not actually count as support for the Democratic Party.

By: elliottg

elliottg — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:04:03 +0000

“a round-about way of supporting the status quo while getting in some conscience-soothing rhetoric in. ”
A phrase that seemed to define you Sebastian before the latest electoral setback.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:57:00 +0000

“For the record, Teles has now said twice that he vastly prefers the total legal elimination of gerrymandering — but that, UNTIL that is accomplished, the Dems have as much right as the GOP to gerrymander during those periods when they actually do gain control of state governments (including the governorship). That really is tit for tat, and it is obviously justified (since both parties will continue doing it, rather than just one) until the superior solution is applied.”
Since gerrymandering is done on the state level and Constitutionally a function of states, saying that you support the status quo until there is a nationwide solution is just a round-about way of supporting the status quo while getting in some conscience-soothing rhetoric in. Furthermore the justification for that tortured stance is precisely the same “we have to do what it takes to win, so damn political liberty” justification that has been so roundly damned here on this blog for more than a year.
The turnaround is positively whiplash inducing.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:52:12 +0000

“I have to admit to a large degree of ambivalence about unionization in the public sector, but mainly because I’m an advocate of government and am concerned about things that gum up its works or make it difficult to experiment or be flexible (and in the process diminish citizen’s impression of the efficiency of government).”
Blink. Blink.
Are you saying that unions interfere with the ability to experiment or be flexible? That they decrease efficiency? That they gum up the works?

By: Steven Teles

Steven Teles — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:16:09 +0000

Yes, I do think one implication of my argument is to encourage greater unionization. I have to admit to a large degree of ambivalence about unionization in the public sector, but mainly because I’m an advocate of government and am concerned about things that gum up its works or make it difficult to experiment or be flexible (and in the process diminish citizen’s impression of the efficiency of government). I’m most concerned about encouraging unionization at the very bottom, for jobs like janitors and farm workers, where the possibilities of genuine employer exploitation, and the likelihood of low political participation, are highest. I think those are the areas where I’d focus first.

By: Ty

Ty — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:02:30 +0000

Democrats riding a wave of the anti-corruption vote appear not to have learned the lesson from the Republicans.
Pelosi just lost credibility in my opinion by nominating Murtha to be her second in command.
Pelosi is trying to create a leadership that is more in tune to her liberalism. I am glad the moderates are standing up and fighting this nomination.
http://www.beyonddelay.org./files/Murtha.pdf

By: Bruce Moomaw

Bruce Moomaw — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:10:28 +0000

For the record, Teles has now said twice that he vastly prefers the total legal elimination of gerrymandering — but that, UNTIL that is accomplished, the Dems have as much right as the GOP to gerrymander during those periods when they actually do gain control of state governments (including the governorship). That really is tit for tat, and it is obviously justified (since both parties will continue doing it, rather than just one) until the superior solution is applied.
It should also be noted that Schwarzenegger’s supposedly “nonpartisan” anti-gerrymandering initiative in California (which he’s now proposing to re-submit) contained a huge and carefully designed Trojan horse — namely, the requirement that district lines should follow city boundaries whenever possible, thus automatically reducing the strength of the Dems simply because their voters tend to be disproportionally concentrated in cities (the same factor that caused Labor to lose the 1952 British election despite getting a plurality of the nationwide vote, and the same thing to happen to Australia’s Labor Party in 1996). There are a number of ways to minimize this; one of them, of course, is simply to ignore city/rural boundaries when defining districts.

By: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP

Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:34:30 +0000

Your argument, though it doesn’t say so specifically, is a powerful one for Dems working to revive the union movement. It was through unions that Dems were seen as the party of the working man/little guy. We’ll never be able to rebuild a progressive consensus in this country until unions are powerful again, and unions are the logical organization for the party to be seen as a part of people’s lives (the way the Republicans use churches).

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:19:38 +0000

“In order to be disenfranchised by gerrymandering a person needs to
A) Want to vote
B) Live in a state where the people he is likely to vote for did not control the state after the census.”
“Losing an election, even when it was a relatively foregone conclusion due to the demographic composition of your district” is not “disenfranchisement.” Having your vote cast and counted in a lopsided contest is entirely different from being prevented from voting at all.
That said, I oppose gerrymandering no matter who it benefits due to the incumbent-protecting advantages mentioned above.
“Wholesale vote denial of hundreds of thousands by voter ID could in theory be worse than gerrymandering. The dozens of people we are actually talking about in the ID debate don’t even come close to the millions effected by gerrymander.”
Um, where besides your rectum are you getting these numbers?

By: Tom Hilton

Tom Hilton — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:52:18 +0000

Okay...the comment software doesn't like links. My post from a year ago is here: http://tehipitetom.blogspot.com/2005/11/churches-proposition-73-and-permanent.html

By: Tom Hilton

Tom Hilton — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:51:04 +0000

“I think the Democrats need to find ways, as part of Dean’s state party building project, of rebuilding the Democratic party as a genuine source of solidaristic benefits at the local level–to make the Democratic party a more profond part of people’s daily lives–more Democratic softball teams, drinking clubs, speed-dating scenes, church social issues discussion groups, hunting and fishing groups, etc.”
This is exactly right. I wrote something along those lines a year ago, and everything since has made me more convinced of the necessity of this kind of outreach. (I’ll be posting a more detailed description of what I mean in the next day or two.)

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:07:58 +0000

BTW, Sebastion, ‘C’ is incorrect. Think about it.

By: elliottg

elliottg — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:21:15 +0000

Your arguments are thin Sebastian and you must be willfully ignoring the evidence. In Georgia there would have been large-scale disenfranchisement had not the federal courts put a stop to it. There were reports of people in Arizona who lived innursing homes who could not obtain the required ID. Having worked the polls, I know for a fact that anything that slows down or impedes the vote will disenfranchise some people. The idea that there is a large amount of voter fraud at the polls is laughable; the voter fraud is in the absentee ballots. Several documented cases happened in 2000 with the military getting some late ballots in, but noone wants to talk about that.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:36:26 +0000

I’m actually unaware of any significant non-anecdotal evidence showing disenfranchisement under modern voter ID laws. This is the same standard that Mr. Kleiman uses for “voter fraud”. And I’ve been involved in a number of discussions of the topic both here and elsewhere.
In order for someone to be disenfranchised by ID laws they have to:
A) Want to vote (that excludes a huge number right there.
B) Not engage in anything that requires an ID, such as cashing benefit checks, cashing checks of any type, driving, etc.
C) Be incapable of getting an ID.
In order to be disenfranchised by gerrymandering a person needs to
A) Want to vote
B) Live in a state where the people he is likely to vote for did not control the state after the census.
Under a gerrymander, even people voting in a district where their candidate wins may be negatively impacted because they were concentrated in such a way to make it so that people with similar views only get one candidate instead of three.
Wholesale vote denial of hundreds of thousands by voter ID could in theory be worse than gerrymandering. The dozens of people we are actually talking about in the ID debate don’t even come close to the millions effected by gerrymander.
Its all about the power. A consistent theme on this blog has been about the corruption represented by willingness to use any means to keep yourself in power.
Less than six days after a Democratic Party win, we are already seeing that at work by its supporters.

By: elliottg

elliottg — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:46:14 +0000

“Gerrymandering is essentially about fairness to the electorate. It is far more disenfranchising than, ahem, voter ID for example.” I do not believe this to be true. Voter ID actually prevents some people from voting entirely by raisng the cost an extraoridnary amount. Gerrymandering lowers the benefit of voting by purposely creating non-competitive districts. Since the act of voting is, in general, a waste of time, in terms of actually influencing the outcome of the election, the disenfranchisement from not voting or by having to wait in an extraordinarily long line is much greater than going to the polls and knowing that your vote doesn’t count for much. In addition, no gerrymander can address all of the offices that people vote for so the disenfranchisement associated with gerrymandering addresses one race while cynical voter ID laws prevent voting in every race. Are you unaware of this Sebastian or are your true colors showing through?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:49:46 +0000

“And as for gerrymandering districts, sebastian, it was nice of you to be against it when you were not called upon to do more than wring your hands and clutch your pearls but simply benefitted from it.”
I’m not sure what you expected me to do more than speak against it. I’m not actually in charge of the world. Teles and I are personally in similar positions of non-power.
Teles, however seems to have done a happy pirouette from loathing gerrymandering in Texas to loving it other states based soley on who is in charge. This is understandbly human, but also the precise “win at all costs” mentality which he thinks has been so damaging to US politics. Sad to embrace it within a weak of winning. The reversal in rhetoric is neck-snapping. It is mitigated slightly by a bone tossed in the direction of election commissions–but even that is deeply discounted by pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about implementing it every place at once.
Gerrymandering is essentially about fairness to the electorate. It is far more disenfranchising than, ahem, voter ID for example. The thing about getting rid of it in some states (by initiative in the West perhaps) is that can be seen as an issue of fundamental fairness to the electorate of other states–you don’t have to convince the entrenched politicos if you make their resistance seem as deeply crass as it really is.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:48:21 +0000

Sebastian: “For the record, I am a Republican who was against gerrymandering when Republicans were in power. It would be absolutely trivial to design a non-partisan algorithm that defines districts. You don’t need “non-partisan districting commissions” The fact that states don’t do so is a travesty. The party in power will always cheat to maintain power. Sad to see that embraced whole-heartedly after less than a week. ”
For the record, Sebastian, you *are* a Republican, who supports the Republican Party, even after the last six years of unmitigated sh*t from that party.
You don’t have a moral leg to stand on, when you claim to be against only specific things. This isn’t a case of accepting 10% bad for 90% good, but of accepting 90% bad for 10% good.
You’ve accepted so much that your claims to non-acceptance aren’t credible.

By: aimai

aimai — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:56:54 +0000

Well, I was for Dean for DNC chair, and he won the popular vote for that, precisely because it was clear that his vision was the right one and that he had the guts to carry it out. As all the other commenters have pointed out there are lots of other things that need to be done to make sure that the republicans can’t suppress the vote again by simply neglecting and screwing poor areas and threatening voters. I’d like to see some serious enforcement of laws against lying to voters, fake flyers, robo-calling etc…
And as for gerrymandering districts, sebastian, it was nice of you to be against it when you were not called upon to do more than wring your hands and clutch your pearls but simply benefitted from it. I’m opposed to gerry mandering even though it began in my state) not because I’m opposed to permanengly neutering the republican party–I think the War in Iraq and the massive fraud and corruption of the party as it now stands, the viciousness of its anti-equality agenda, and its t heocratic tendencies almost require us to ban it as anti american at this point–but because gerrymandering leads to incombent protection and I’m against races in which there are no challengers.
aimai

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:55:19 +0000

“Second order of business, in my mind, is gerrymandering. Republicans have done this quite effectively in a number of places, and Democrats need to do so as well. To do that, we need to win control of state legislatures.”
Whew, it is nice to see the mask come off. All that pretense about being worried about how anti-democratic gerrymandering is must have gotten really taxing.
For the record, I am a Republican who was against gerrymandering when Republicans were in power. It would be absolutely trivial to design a non-partisan algorithm that defines districts. You don’t need “non-partisan districting commissions” The fact that states don’t do so is a travesty. The party in power will always cheat to maintain power. Sad to see that embraced whole-heartedly after less than a week.

By: Steve Teles

Steve Teles — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:28:50 +0000

I should make clear that I think non-partisan districting commissions, as a general matter, are vastly to be preferred to competitive gerrymandering. That’s the first-best, and Democrats should always state that. But until there is some sort of general mechanism to encourage this across states, playing hardball is the second best, and Democrats shouldn’t apologize for it.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:45:53 +0000

“Where Democrats win complete control of a legislature, we should gerrymander the hell out of it.”
Amen.
I’m so sick of this cr*p in the press saying that the Democrats must be “nice” for this reason or another.
And Democrats need to do these things for a fundamental reason. People like to disparage it as a thirst for revenge, hence an emotional disturbance that can be poo-pooed. But in fact, it’s simply a good strategy: tit for tat. An agent that repeated cooperates in the face of a long string of defections in an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is going to get wiped out.
People in the press are too stupid to understand or too disingenuous to admit that. Of course, this is the same “fourth estate” that largely treated the amazing amount of Republican dirty tricks in the election from a “they both do it” or “he said/she said” vantage point.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:37:01 +0000

“I think the Democrats need to find ways, as part of Dean’s state party building project, of rebuilding the Democratic party as a genuine source of solidaristic benefits at the local level …. The basic point is that Republicans have a durable advantage because their party has more of a real social role in more people’s daily lives.”
I pretty much agree with this, but I’m not sure what the source of Republicans’ grassroots support is other than their connection with the Religious Right. And that’s a very strong thing that’s going to be difficult to rival.

By: shmuel

shmuel — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:04:58 +0000

It is all fine and dandy except that the Democratic victory will be short lived if it is not followed by a 2008 Presidential victory. If we again have a slow and grey candidate as we had in 88, 00 and 04 – as seems currently a real likelihood – the congress will have one arm tied at best.

By: elliottg

elliottg — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:51:50 +0000

The Democrats need to create a bill that works to guarantee voters the opportunity to vote within a prescribed time. Waiting for hours to vote is ridiculous and generally doesn’t happen for Repubplicans. Do an academic survey on how long it took to cast a ballot this last election and I guarantee that there will be a statistically significant skew against the Democrats.