A Democratic wedge issue for 2008
Nov. 10th, 2004 10:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcThe Republicans savvily got the lazy conservative vote out by getting "protect traditional marriage" initiatives in several states. Almost certainly it got Bush the popular vote, and arguably put him over the top in several states like Ohio. Shitty, clever politics.
The reality is that the politic discourse in the US is biased towards individualism and therefore selfishness. And really, those who have more are more inclined to have the time and energy and resources to protect their stuff (economic, social, cultural or political capital), whereas those who have less are often too busy trying to get by and make do--thus their issues are almost always low down on the policy agenda.
So I've been thinking, what kind of issue would lend itself to a ballot initiative/referendum, but would appeal to as many (or better yet, more) Democraticish voters? Racism, sadly no. Sexism? No. Classism? Waddya mean--everyone's middle class in America, non? Even education won't do it; the discourse on public, secular schooling has never been consistent across the US (or Canada for that matter), so it's as likely to bring out the Jaysus crew.
But what about . . . elections? My sense is most Americans are unhappy with the process, if not in their state then in some other state. How about a series of ballot initiatives to standardize presidential voting? Or to establish non-partisan (rather than bi-partisan) public election commissions--or just a national one for presidential voting?
If there is strong support for such an initiative, no state would be stoopid enough to take it on as a "states rights" issue.
But here's the key--and why a lot of such initiatives fail. Keep it simple. Make it a clear yes/no question. Make it a choice that only the transparently aggerssively partisan would be stoopid enough to challenge. And make sure it'll stand any state or federal constitutional challenge.
It'll get people to the polls. AND it'll make election drama much less likely.
The reality is that the politic discourse in the US is biased towards individualism and therefore selfishness. And really, those who have more are more inclined to have the time and energy and resources to protect their stuff (economic, social, cultural or political capital), whereas those who have less are often too busy trying to get by and make do--thus their issues are almost always low down on the policy agenda.
So I've been thinking, what kind of issue would lend itself to a ballot initiative/referendum, but would appeal to as many (or better yet, more) Democraticish voters? Racism, sadly no. Sexism? No. Classism? Waddya mean--everyone's middle class in America, non? Even education won't do it; the discourse on public, secular schooling has never been consistent across the US (or Canada for that matter), so it's as likely to bring out the Jaysus crew.
But what about . . . elections? My sense is most Americans are unhappy with the process, if not in their state then in some other state. How about a series of ballot initiatives to standardize presidential voting? Or to establish non-partisan (rather than bi-partisan) public election commissions--or just a national one for presidential voting?
If there is strong support for such an initiative, no state would be stoopid enough to take it on as a "states rights" issue.
But here's the key--and why a lot of such initiatives fail. Keep it simple. Make it a clear yes/no question. Make it a choice that only the transparently aggerssively partisan would be stoopid enough to challenge. And make sure it'll stand any state or federal constitutional challenge.
It'll get people to the polls. AND it'll make election drama much less likely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 02:12 am (UTC)On the referendum, one would have to pick a solution that only the obviously power greedy wouldn't support. For example, if every state had a vote on changing the US constitution to a national popular vote for selecting the president, it would probably pass easily--compelling the necessary number of state legislatures (2/3+1? 3/4+1?) to pass the constitutional amendment. No more "swing states" and candidates need to appeal to all voters. No more ignoring the Dakotas and Mississippi. Or Vermont and New York. Because every vote would count equally.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 11:54 pm (UTC)You keep making these good points. It's tied to that damned evangelical "Jesus is my PERSONAL saviour" brand of Christianity too. Just thinking back on your comment about the Amish and Quaker communities and the way they exhibit faith in works. My Mennonite brothers and sisters, Amish cousins and Quaker friends of the family also find rededmption in community which makes them less likely (traditionally) to fit in with the Bushes religous voting block.
keep 'em coming
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 02:13 am (UTC)J
Dangling ...
Date: 2004-11-10 06:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 06:23 pm (UTC)*I'm Elise and I approve this message*
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 09:26 pm (UTC)Guantanamo plus probablement . . .