Democrats Against Democracy

Last week Allen Clifton, co-founder of Forward Progressives, wrote a column with the terrifying title Bernie Sanders Is Already Making It More Likely Republicans Win The White House In 2016.

How dare Bernie do such a thing! Hasn't Senator Sanders read any newspapers over the last six or seven years? Didn't anybody tell him that Hillary is going to be the nominee? Or is the grumpy old Senator from Vermont under the mistaken impression that the primaries have any other purpose than to reinforce what the party leaders have already determined to be our preference? (note: that was sarcasm you just read.)

Geeeshhh! Give me a freakin' break! What is Clifton so terrified of? This...

.. what I ultimately fear Sanders is going to do is get liberals worked up just enough to where when he eventually loses the Democratic primary election to Hillary, it's going to cause many to become apathetic and refuse to show up in 2016 to vote for the "not liberal enough/basically a Republican" Hillary Clinton.

Well, guess what, Mr. Clifton: It didn't take Bernie Sanders officially entering the race for many of us on the left to recognize that Hillary is no progressive. There were reasons why we didn't support her candidacy in 2008, and nothing since then has convinced us that we were wrong.

Let's get this clear from the start: If Hillary is nominated and loses, she will have lost it on her own accord, and not because she will be forced to debate an actual liberal before facing the Tea Time Circus. As Harry Truman so perfectly put it, "When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican will win every time."

Please continue the rest of this rant at Daily Kos....

California 30-38

No, "California 30-38" is not a sports score, and, no, it's not a highway designation. 30 and 38 are competing propositions in the November 6 election, and Californians are in such agreement about the problem they each seek to address, that we're going to send them each down to defeat. But let me explain what they are first, and then tell you why we're probably screwed.

Here's the basic problem: Our state is broke. Our June 2012 budget gap was about $16.6 billion. The budget deal worked out between Governor Brown and the legislature balanced the budget with about $8.1 billion in spending cuts, $2.5 billion in "transfers," and the last $6 billion in new taxes "pending voter approval."

Prop 30 was placed on the ballot by the Governor as part of that budget deal. The $6 billion hole is filled by increasing the tax on incomes over $250,000 (or $500,000 for couples filing jointly) for a period of seven years, and a 1/4 cent per $1 increase in sales tax for four years. The funds go into an "Education Protection Account" within the state General Fund. Because it's within the General Fund, it increases the Prop 98 guarantees to education (K-12, plus Community Colleges), but also frees up some existing funds for other purposes.

The Prop 30 taxes go into effect immediately to cover the $6 billion gap in the current year's budget. If it fails, the budget deal included "trigger cuts." We will have a balanced budget this year, no matter what. Those $6 billion in automatic cuts include $5.3 billion from public schools for the current school year. Ever wondered what would happen if thousands of teachers got laid off in the middle of the school year? Or if your local school district defaulted on its bond payments? You might just find out if Prop 30 fails to pass.

Prop 38 is an alternative tax plan, not negotiated by the legislature, but put on the ballot by Molly Munger, who has spent about $33 million of her own money to pass it.  (Coincidentally, Molly's brother, Charles Munger Jr., has spent about $22 million of his own to lead the fight against Prop 30). Prop 38 raises income taxes on just about everybody (incomes over $7,000) for twelve years, but leaves sales tax alone. The money goes into an "Education Trust Fund," but this one is outside of the General Fund, so it is in addition to the Prop 98 guaranteed funding from the (diminished) General Fund. Prop 38 does not include Community College funding, but does include early childhood education.

Prop 38 could be an interesting alternative to the Governor's plan, except for one fatal flaw: It takes effect next year, leaving the "trigger cuts" in place for this year. Prop 38 might help in the future, but the chaos the trigger cuts would cause in education this year would do incredible harm to 100% of public school students in the state this generation. But I will vote for it anyway.

Yes, I will vote for 38, AND I will vote for 30. The proponents of each have campaigned as though we have to make a choice, and can only vote for one or the other. That is not true. And this is why I say we are doomed.

California law provides for a way to reconcile two propositions passing which each address the same issue: The one with the most votes prevails. Yes, if you vote for 30 & 38, and they both pass, you don't get two tax increases, you only get the one with the most support.

Prop 30 was headed for victory, until the Mungers, Molly and Charles, put over $55 million of their fortunes into ads against 30 and for 38. Now support for 30 has dipped to 46% approval. Meanwhile, Prop 38 only has 39% of voter approval in current polling. Now, it's been a while since I was in school, but in the old days 46+39 equaled 85% in favor of one or the other. Even if we assume there's some overlap in support, there's clearly a majority in favor of some tax increase.

Despite the fact that the majority of Californians agree that we need to enact one or the other tax increase to save our schools, and our state's competitive edge, both propositions will fail because we're being presented with the election as a "choose one only" option. The majority are for saving the state, but those who would rather destroy California than pay one cent more in taxes win by dividing and conquering the majority. Which, the conspiracy-minded might wonder, may have been what the Mungers had in mind all along.

If you're a Californian voter, I hope that you'll join me in voting for both propositions, 30 & 38, and may the better solution prevail.

Here's my quickie ballot guide to the rest of the California initiatives:

30 - taxes/budget	Yes
31 - budget reform	No
32 - special exemptions	No
33 - auto Insurance	undecided
34 - end death penalty	Yes
35 - human trafficking	Yes
36 - 3 strikes reform	Yes
37 - GMO labeling	Yes
38 - tax rates	Yes
39 - business tax	Yes
40 - redistricting	Yes

Propositions "R" Us

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"

Two Week Warning - Get Out and Vote!

It's hard to believe two weeks from now, as I write, we'll be starting to see the mid-term election results coming in. Even harder to believe that I've blogged so little about this election (see It Ain't Over Till it's Over). It's not that I don't care, or that there's nothing to say; perhaps there's so much that it's overwhelming.

To recap for newer readers, I call myself "left-of-center, Independent." I left the Democratic party in disgust around late '94 or early '95. I was registered as Green for several years, but have most recently registered as "Decline to State." Simply put, I have always rejected the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils" when there are multiple "3rd party" and independent options on the ballot.

But this year, much as I expected and hoped for more from President Obama and the great Democratic majorities in Congress, I am terrified of the possibility of the Republicans taking back either (or both) houses of Congress.

This year's Republican nominees are not the principled conservatives we debated with in the past. These are fringe candidates with dangerous ideas, not just to turn back the small progress the Democrats have made in the last 21 months, but to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries, on our fragile democracy.

These are candidates who want to repeal not only the new health care reforms, and the new student loan reforms, but who want to repeal Medicare and turn your Social Security over to the same Wall Street fat-cats who put us into our current economic mess. These are candidates who question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1964 went too far. They don't just question Roe v. Wade, they've vowed to ban all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

But I'm sure you've read all that, or seen it on TV or online. My only point here is if you're staring in disbelief at candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino, just imagine having to hear from them for the next two, or four, or six years, or more.

Maybe you're disappointed in the Democrats too. I know I'm sure as hell overdue for an economic recovery myself. The rebuilding of our future may still have a long way to go, but at least we've stopped digging the hole.

This year, this left-of-center independent is proudly voting a full Democratic ticket, and I'm encouraging everybody who's concerned for their future to do the same. The stakes are just too high to sit this one out.

Post Election Hangover

Yesterday was election day in California, and I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised with the results on most of the ballot propositions - an area where I was preparing myself for bitter disappointment.

Despite putting $46 million of our (ratepayers) money into Prop 16, PG&E's power grab attempt went down to defeat, along with Prop 17, Mercury Insurance's "please make us give you a discount" attempt. Nobody is giving you something for nothing, and just enough people saw through these two corporate abuses of democracy for what they were, and by slim margins turned them down. Good for California and good for Californians! We're not as dumb as we might look.

My one really big disappointment was the passage of Proposition 14, deceptively and cynically titled, "Increases Right to Participate in Primaries." The idea here is to eliminate the power of political parties, by putting all primary candidates on a single ballot. The top two vote getters then face off in the November general election.

Now, if you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a registered independent, and all for breaking the stranglehold of the two major parties ... if it is to open up the process to more choice. But nature abhors a vacuum, a rule that also applies to political power. In this case, party structure is simply replaced by money and name recognition.

The diagram from the official voter information pamphlet (shown here) says it all. Instead of several party primaries, each with maybe four or five candidates selecting their nominee to face off in a general election where again there will be a half-dozen candidates, each representing a different party, we'll now have a primary with a confusing dozen or more candidates leading up to a general election choice of only two ... and both potentially of the same party!

Supporters say this will give us "more moderate candidates" as everybody will have to play to the middle. But to rise above a field of 15-20 candidates in a state the size of California, it will only give us better connected and wealthier candidates. More corporate shills to continue the status quo.

Speaking of which, the Republicans nominated two former Silicon Valley CEOs for top office; eBay's Meg Whitman for Governor and Hewlett Packard's Carly Fiorina for Senate.

In her victory speech, Whitman, who will face off against former Governor Jerry Brown in November, said that she was ready to "shake up" the Governor's office with thinking from "outside Sacramento." Whitman (who spent over $70 million of her own cash to secure the nomination) said she'd be a different kind of Governor because she isn't "beholden to anybody."

Now, if she were following a Democratic Governor, or even a Republican "career politician," that might be a good argument. But she's hoping to follow the non-politician, self-funded millionaire, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Has she not been paying attention? Probably not. She's so new to this "democracy thing" that she's rarely bothered to even vote in her adult life.

The one thing I can say for Whitman, however, is that she at least was a successful CEO, not that that will automatically translate to governing success. On the other hand, Carly Fiorina, who will be trying to unseat Senator Barbara Boxer in November, just about destroyed Hewlett Packard. When they finally fired her, their stock value was about 1/3 what it was when she was hired. Along that path, she laid off over 30,000 employees, sent thousands more jobs from California to Asia, and accepted a $20 million golden parachute to leave Silicon Valley. Ummm... she's seeking to represent me?

At Fiorina's celebration, a spokesman for the California Republican Party expressed his joy at having these two candidates to run against the Democratic "professional politicians." He says he welcomes the perspective of these leaders because they'll remove the shackles of oppressive regulation from businesses. How he managed to say that with a straight face while millions of gallons of oil having been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for the past 50 days show that he learned some acting skills from the current Governator.

This post is getting quite long ... sorry, that's what happens when I don't blog for a while ... so I'll end it here, but in coming months I'll explain why I fully support Jerry Brown, our once and future Governor, and our Senator Barbara Boxer. And where, and why, I will likely not be voting a straight Democratic ticket in November.

Term Limits? No, thank you.

Back in May, I wrote here of my fantasy of repealing California's Term Limits. Term limits, I wrote:

... only help [the politicians] escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

Yesterday, one of my YouTube buddies, Frank (aka Ockteby), made a vlog reviewing the problems of entrenched politicians; representatives who no longer represent. I agree completely on the problem, but not on the solution. Here's my response to Frank:

California's Sham Election

On May 19 California voters will have special election on six propositions (1A-1F) placed on the ballot by the legislature in an attempt to solve our enduring budget crisis (we are now ten months into the fiscal year, with no final approved budget). Of course, the legislature could have actually done their jobs and come up with a workable budget solution on their own, but they've now, once again, failed to do their jobs and have put it to the citizens of this great state to do it for them. Can you tell that I'm just a little upset about this?

Prop 1A - Rainy Day Stabilization Fund - NO
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea; put money away in a special fund in case of a fiscal emergency. Except, the time to start this fund would have been a decade ago. It's pouring now, and yet 1A would immediately grab control of a chunk of the state's non-existent budget, forcing further cuts in needed services. Further, according to the League of Women Voters of California, "If Prop. 1A passes, the Governor would be given new power to make mid-year cuts and suspend COLAs in state programs without legislative oversight."

Prop 1B - Education Funding Re-payment - NO
Some years ago California voters approved a measure that would guarantee that Education's share of the state budget, as a percentage, would never be decreased. For the last several years, however, the Governor and legislature have broken that rule, "borrowing" billions from education with the unfulfilled promise to pay it back. 1B again promises to pay back the $9.3 billion owed... but not until 2011. The legislature already has the ability and the obligation to pay this money back, the proposition only grants them more time, and another two years to ignore the will of the people from previous elections.

For me, this is the most upsetting of the measures, and it is galling because the CTA (California Teachers Association) is endorsing this nonsense. Basically, the school bully took their lunch money on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday the bully took their money again. Then, on Thursday, the bully said to CTA, "We'll pay you back next week if we can have your lunch money again today." And now the CTA is telling the principal that bully is their best friend. Fear of deeper cuts if 1B fails is what drives this, but why should these guarantees be any more valid than the guarantees the legislature and Governor have already ignored? The CTA are fools and are complicit in the legislature's abrogation of their duties.

Prop 1C - Lottery Modernization - NO
Okay, if it were just "modernization" of the lottery, that would be fine. But they are so convinced that modernization is going to bring in new revenue that 1C will allow the state to borrow $5 billion (IE: sell bonds) from these future earnings to balance this year's budget. Never mind that most reasonable financial experts say that in the current market we probably won't be able to sell the bonds, or that the interest we'd pay if we do sell them would be unbearable, or that the lottery money was already guaranteed to education (see 1B, above). Idiocy upon idiocy. We're close enough to bankrupt already, thank you.

Prop 1D - Children's Services Funding - NO
How could I recommend a "no" vote on a proposition with a title like that? Because it's a lie. It takes away Children's Services Funding. 1D allows the state to take back the money that now funds each county's First 5 Commission and programs (as approved by voters in Prop 10) and use it to "achieve state General Fund budgetary savings" (according to the official voter information guide from the state). First 5 does great work throughout the state, and I've been pleased and proud to work with several First 5 programs in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties; programs that will likely close down in July if 1D passes.

Prop E - Mental Health Services Reallocation - NO
As with 1D taking back voter approved funds for Early Childhood Education, 1E takes back voter approved funds for Mental Health. As with this entire package of propositions, it demonstrates the Governor's and the legislature's disregard of the will of the people while at the same time asking the people to approve of their disregard. They have failed to do their job, and are now looking to us take the blame. They cannot accept responsibility for cutting spending (or raising taxes) and so they've wiped their hands clean and when First 5 folds, and mental health facilities close, and classrooms return to overcrowding, and the state's credit rating takes a [futher] dive from pawning worthless bonds, they can say, "It was the will of the people."

Prop 1F - Elected Officials' Salaries - YES
This, like the rest, is completely unnecessary. Elected officials have (in theory, at least) enough common sense not to give themselves raises in years of fiscal emergency. But, one self-serving State Senator thought it would score him points with voters to put it in writing. Ordinarily I'd like to tell him screw himself and recommend a "no" vote here, but I'm afraid that if 1F fails the legislature will take that a showing of support and give themselves unearned and undeserved raises.

So, what happens if 1A-1E fail? We don't know. Certainly nothing good. The legislature will certainly have to cut programs, and it won't be pleasant. But that is the job we elected them to do. We have let them slide, with late budgets, and ignoring previously passed propositions, for far too long.

But they are using this uncertainty to get our support for propositions unfairly. A co-worker of mine said it was like, "They're holding a gun to our heads." We agreed, pretty much, on the above analysis of the situation. She's giving in to the fear and voting "yes" on the full slate; I'm daring them to pull the trigger and voting "no."

So, what could help now? What propositions should they have put on the ballot?

Fantasy Proposition 1 - Majority Rule!
California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage. In this way, both parties have become complicit in a dance that doesn't allow them to blame others for fear of taking their share of the blame. And there's plenty of blame to go around. The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies.

Fantasy Proposition 2 - Repeal Term Limits
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, and say that term limits help us remove these do-nothing politicians. On the contrary, it only helps them escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

More information:
League of Women Voters of California election site - Their press release is one of the best written analysis' of the measures I've seen

no on proposition 1d
no prop 1d & 1e coalition
courage campaign
vote no on 1a

Final Pre-Election Blog (maybe)

Driving around doing my Sunday errands today I was stopped at an intersection with a few people holding up signs in favor of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that would deny same-sex couples the right to marry (see my No on 8 vlog here). The slogan on their signs was, "Prop 8 = Free Speech."

Having nothing else to do while waiting for a long signal, I rolled down the window and and asked, "How does Prop 8 have anything to do with free speech?"

"The people voted against gay marriage in 2002, and judges overturned it!" was his reply.

"Because it was found to be unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with free speech," I answered. "Obviously you still have the right to be as intolerant as you like," (maybe I shouldn't have said that?)

"They already have all the rights!" he said, thankfully changing the subject from my accusation of his intolerance.

"Let me ask you something," I attempted, "What would you do if somebody decided that your marriage could only be called a 'partnership'?"

He turned away. I guess I stumped him.

"Would you call that equal?" I tried again.

"Have a nice day," he told me between clenched teeth.

"Can you answer the question? Would you be satisfied if your marriage were reduced to a 'partnership'?"

A scowl was all I got from him.

"Of course not," I answered. "So you're a hypocrite as well as a liar," (I have a tendency for going too far), "Have a nice day!" The light changed and I drove off.

On the brighter side, I had a nice talk with a McCain supporter at Trader Joe's (I was wearing an Obama shirt, of course). We each agreed that it looked like an Obama victory, but that we didn't trust the polls either way. So, if you haven't voted yet, be sure to get out there on Tuesday and do what you've got to do!

When are flip-flops okay?

This posting is not for or against any particular candidate or party. It is just a general observation about the way each side of nearly every electoral battle abuse the waffler argument.

You've heard it every day and from every direction; "Candidate X sways with the wind, first he was for Z and now he's against it. This proves you can never trust candidate X." And, often times, they're right.

But they're also often wrong.

Are politicians never allowed to change their minds? Are they never allowed to reconsider an issue or to grow intellectually? Are they never allowed to admit that they were wrong in a previous decision?

To me, a change in position could be a sign of maturity. But even when a candidate does come to a change of position over the course of time and through deep introspection, they've been trained to try to hide that fact. "Well, this is really how I always felt, you just misunderstood my previous position." So much for maturity.

I guess what I'm saying is that if a candidate makes a gradual shift from one position to another, I'm willing to accept that it might not just be swaying in the wind. I will hold off on accusations of being a waffler for a unidirectional shift that doesn't appear too sudden.

But a shift that occurs over the course of a single news cycle, and shifts back depending on the make-up of the audience being addressed, is a problem.

In other words; it's not the flip that concerns me - it's the flip-flop. And especially the flip-flop-flip.

So, let's all be mature, and allow candidates to grow and change their minds, and appreciate that. But watch out for people with no anchor at all.

Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - 2.10

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.10 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.

And here are this week's entries... Jason Kirk presents What Would Nate Dogg Pledge Allegiance To posted at Brick Cheney.

Bryan Norwood presents Iraq Intel Failures posted at Movement of Existence.

Doug Ragan presents What Do The Candidates Really Believe? posted at I'm a Pundit Too.

More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.

Voter Generated Content

A new term entered into the political and viral video lexicons over the past few days, "Voter Generated Content." Although I'm quite sure there have been previous examples of voter generated content, the video that led to the coining of the term, and is causing all the big fuss this week is this:



The video, "Vote Different," uses Apple's famous 1984 advertisement announcing the introduction of the Macintosh. Big Brother from the original ad has been replaced with Hillary Clinton, representing the Democratic establishment, and the hero is now wearing a t-shirt with the logo from Obama Barack's presidential campaign.

Why is this video creating such a stir, when other voters have been making vlogs and home-made ads promoting their candidates (or bashing others) for a couple of years already?

Because this one is well-produced, and has had over 1,000,000 million hits in just a few days. This one is causing a stir, because it is the first "voter generated content" that has garnered major media attention, and that candidates have to respond to.

This is an exciting development for democracy that opens up the debate to every citizen who has the skills to get their message out there, without the need to be a part of any official committee, party, or FEC filing - And it will be seen as a dangerous development for democracy that takes away any ability to control a candidate's message, control who pays how much for a candidate's campaign, or any verification or spurious charges.

While I think many of the fears are over-stated, and I tend to agree more with the positive and exciting elements of voter generated content, I am also jaded enough to realize that within weeks each major campaign will have staff dedicated to generating mock-voter generated content.

Candidates who want to get a negative message out to the masses, but want to maintain an arm's distance from the message (plausible denial), will be planting videos through volunteers who have no official connection to the campaigns. It will soon become difficult to tell the difference between authentic voter generated content and the candidate's own stealth campaigns.

Still, this danger is better than the alternative of trying to regulate what individual vloggers and viral video hobbyists can say or do in their original content.

Digital democracy is exciting, but nobody said that it wouldn't get messy.

Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Edition 2.6

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.6 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away. Once again, a day late, but that's only to ensure your reading pleasure...

Only a handful of postings made it into this week's edition, but I assure you, they're all well worth reading.

Barry Leiba presents Abusing the USA PATRIOT Act posted at Staring At Empty Pages.

Rick Sincere presents AEI, Brookings Sponsor Election Reform Conference posted at Sincere News and Thoughts.

David Parker presents Helen Keller and "subversive verses" posted at another history blog.

Rich Brooks presents National Leadership Award from Congressman Tom Reynolds (and the follow-up, Congressman Tom Reynolds: Shame On You!) posted at flyte: web marketing strategies for small business.

vjack presents Cultural Divisions and the News Media posted at Atheist Revolution.

The next edition of the Carnival will be posted (we hope) on Monday, April 3rd, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, April 1st, at midnight -- April Fool's themes are welcomed!. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.

A step toward a national primary; A step away from democracy

The 2008 presidential candidates are all drastically re-thinking their primary season strategies, now that California has moved its primary up to an early date of February 5. As a Californian, I'm supposed to be thrilled with the idea, and agree with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that:

Moving our presidential primary election from June to February means California will have the influence it deserves when it comes to choosing America's next presidential candidates.

But is it true that California previously had no influence on presidential primaries? And is this step toward a national primary actually a good thing for our democracy? I think it's possible that the answer to each to each of these questions is "no."

First of all, California has always had plenty of influence on the race, the question is simply, "What type of influence?" While the average voter has had to wait until June to let their voice be heard at the primary ballot box, California has always played an early and important role in the money primary.

Whether it's wooing liberals in Hollywood, talking to visionary libertarians in Silicon Valley, or reassuring traditional values ranchers in the Central Valley, candidates from every party and all political views come to California to meet, greet, and get a check from the leaders of the Golden State's three major industries.

While the average Californian doesn't get the same opportunity for face time with candidates the way they do in New Hampshire, we certainly are made aware of their visits, and have the chance to support our favorites by voting with our checkbooks.

So, the early primary doesn't really give us that much more voice in presidential matters. In fact, by forcing Californians to go on record earlier in the primary season, we actually get less of a chance to see how our candidates perform as they stump across the country, debate, and demonstrate their leadership skills and ideas.

And that, in fact, may be bad for our democracy. As more and more states join the rush to be among the early deciders, to "make their voice heard," we head a step closer towards establishing a single, national primary (or, at least a small number of "Super Tuesdays" that shorten the primary season to a handful of weeks).

This does not favor democracy. This does not favor debate, deep discussion, or the evolution of ideas. A national primary favors one thing above all else, and you know what it is: Money. It favors a recognized name and reputation, yes, but those things are just a part of money and establishment.

No room for underdogs or dark horses here. A pretty face, well recognized, and ready with a short sound-bite is all that will matter in the national primary.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like the idea of testing a candidate, and getting to know him or her over a period of months, through a series of local and regional elections that get larger and more complicated throughout the year. Seeing who gets burnt out, and who gets stronger, is a big part of deciding who you think can lead the nation in times of adversity and stand up to greater challenges.

So, we Californians now have an early primary. Yippee. I'm so happy to live in such exciting times.

The Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Round Thirteen

Welcome to Round Thirteen of the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.

Phil for Humanity presents Lobbyists Rule America - "Wake up America!" says Phil, the lobbyists are in charge and they don't represent you or me.

David, The Good Human, presents After Six Long Years..... Bush no more - I wish I could be as optimistic as David is.

Bill Losapio presents The Hegelian Relief Valve - "The decline of real freedom and liberty is planned." I hate to say it, but I've had similar thoughts.

Gracchi presents The Virtues of Democracy - "Democracy is not a system for providing perfect government but for providing legitimacy." And therein lies the rub.

Abu Sahajj, Wa Salaam, presents American Criticisms of Democracy - The electoral college is the antithesis of democracy.

John, Hell's Handmaiden, presents Bent out of shape over the elections - "... why Third Parties in the United States aren't going to get very far anytime soon. In a word… myopia."

Barry Leiba, Staring at Empty Pages, presents I see no bipartisan Bush here - Don't expect the new, friendly, compromising Bush to last past Thanksgiving.

Satire Department:

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Bush and Cheney's Blunderland - A song parody to the tune of Winter Wonderland.

Jon Swift presents Election Proves Voting Is Irrational - "Can voters really be trusted? There is quite a bit of evidence that they don't really know what they're doing."

Avant News presents Top GOP Losers Reconsider Suicide PAC - DOH! News of the future.

As always, thank you to all who submitted excellent posts. There's simply no way I could include them all and still make this something you'd want to read. Editing is tough, but hopefully what's left here is well worth your reading.

Thank you for joining us on our bi-weekly look at the decline of democracy (and occasionally hopeful responses to it). I'll be taking a break from posting the carnival for a bit (probably through the holidays/end of the year). More information on future carnivals (when they are announced) will be posted here and on the carnival home page.