Comics With Problems
Pursuant to Rachel's thesis last night about the campaign we could have seen as a country had the focus been on President Obama's actual record in office, Laura shared this set of comics that includes the title "If Kids Could Vote."
It reminded me of a recent hypothetical presented by Chris Hayes in which the Bronx borough of New York City received the same political attention as a swing state like Ohio:
In fact, I like to imagine what politics would look like if there was no electoral college, and candidates had something to gain by, say, garnering the votes of the people that live in my home borough of the Bronx. The Bronx has nearly 1.4 million residents, more than 11 entire states. No presidential candidate cares about what people there think because New York is safely blue, but if they did, they might actually do some campaign events there and set up some field offices and they would find an issue landscape very different from the one we’ve been talking about nationally. More than 30% of the borough’s residents live in poverty, so the social safety net is not an abstraction.
A 2011 poll from The New York Daily News found that nearly one half of the borough’s residents were “worried about winding up on the street.” Can you imagine a national political campaign that talked about homelessness? The homeownership rate in the borough, as of the last census, was just under 20%, which means the vast majority of residents live in rental housing and are concerned with safe, clean, affordable rental housing, another issue vital to millions and entirely ignored in our national political conversation.
Think about what a radical sight it would be simply to see the residents of the Bronx, mostly black and brown, immigrants and non native English speakers at a campaign rally with the President of the United States, with the elevated subway line rumbling by and the large, brick, multi-unit rental buildings dotting the backdrop. That tableaux is as American as this image of miners in coal country, or these workers at an auto plant, but it is an image you will never see as long as we have a system in which it is rational for candidates for the highest office in the land to ignore more than half the country.
Leave a Comment:
The Washington secretary of state's office sent a letter Tuesday telling Republicans and Democrats to provide the names and addresses of any voters whose ballots have been collected by the parties or affiliates.
State elections co-director Katie Blinn sent the letter to the state party chairmen, their counterparts in the Democratic and Republican parties in King County, and the campaign managers for gubernatorial candidates Rob McKenna and Jay Inslee.
Voters in King County had previously been warned by election officials not to give their ballots to groups offering to collect them but to instead mail ballots themselves or drop them off at official locations.
It's not illegal for parties to pick up voters' ballots, but Blinn said there are concerns about the potential for intimidation and tampering.
Blinn contacted state political officials following reports about the "GOP Victory Van" program, which sought to help suburban voters in King County return their ballots. Blinn said there were similar ballot collection efforts by Democrats in 2010.
The secretary of state's office drew a distinction between ballot collection and voter registration drives.
"Taking voters' live ballots is really a different matter. We have never seen it at this level, before this year," Blinn said.
Kirby Wilbur, the state Republican Party chairman, said that by collecting ballots from supporters, the GOP was simply copying what Democrats did in 2010, especially in support of Sen. Patty Murray's successful re-election effort.
The gubernatorial race this year is especially hard fought, with the Republican McKenna and the Democrat Inslee running nearly even in most recent polls.
"I saw no complaints two years ago," Wilbur said. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Wilbur said Republicans have the information the secretary of state is seeking, but he questioned whether the party needs to provide it to state officials.
"They have no legal authority here. It's not illegal. We'll deal with them after the elections," he said.
Good grief. Who gives their ballot to a third party! I live in WA state--no need to hand it over, you can even mail it WITHOUT A STAMP and it will be delivered. People are so stupid.
A Pennsylvania electronic voting machine was taken out of service after being captured on video changing a vote for President Obama into one for Mitt Romney, NBC News has confirmed. Republicans have also said machines have turned Romney votes into Obama ones.
It's not that I think that candidates shouldn't pay attention to the rest of the country but every time I hear this I keep thinking the same thing...
You want someone like Mitt Romney to walk through the Bronx...and meet people...and speak to them...seriously...
Lets stop and think about this for a moment shall we
Just tell him it is like being a missionary in France!
That is a thought worth keeping!
Imagine Mitt walking around the rural south and being asked 'what's a fetus, does it taste like squirrel?'
I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit...
I can't rap my head around that one.
NBC and the major free airwaves have to agree to carve out some time for pure news - right now, there's virtually nowhere to go for just news or a clean debate - rachel, you come as close as anywhere I can find, but as excellent as you are, it's still not covering the whole debate* and not being heard by the whole spectrum.
laura in santa monica
* example: just how little coverage and voices heard from the american hispanic pov - people TALK about them, but as a segment, they are hugely underrepresented
Couldn't agree more. Even political junkies want far more diversity in coverage. There are so many different American stories that need addressing and all of them are related to the major issues of the day. You can't solve problems unless you're looking at the whole problem. Anyone who has dealt with a serious illness understands the only thing you can do is gather all the factual information available, list out your best options, take action and adjust accordingly. If we can't even reach the first step of this process and have an easily accessible, comprehensive source for cutting through the spin to get to the factual information we need, there's no way we can engage the other steps to actually solve problems.
Wouldn't it take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college in favor of a popular vote for president? That would be a heavy lift. States with smaller populations would lose a lot of clout and they would not be in favor of ratifying such a change. Virtually all the action would be in the big cities - the Democratic strongholds - so Republicans would not be in favor of it, either.
But yes, I too think it would be a great idea.
If we deny the pundits the satisfaction of saying, we told you they wouldn't show up to vote, then we can spend the next four years doing as much as the first four but making sure everyone knows every single detail about it. I hate to even mention negative scenarios but even if Mitt Romney wins we cannot let Republicans get away with distorting president Obama's true record over the last four years and all he has actually achieved. Rachel's opening segment last night proves how easy it is to undeniably demonstrate this solid record. Back to back news clips of all that President Obama has done is all it takes. I still believe enough in this country know how bad Republicans put us in the ditch, know we've had a steady recovery and understand that everything they didn't think was perfect about it, is largely a result of Republican obstruction.
Because of this, this country will reelect the President and ensure we continue to get the same sort of leadership that: Got Osama bin Laden. We will continue to engage in economic policies that have proven to work and therefore ensure we are fully out of the ditch and fully employed, instead of going back in the ditch with the policies that dug it. We won't have to worry about government making decisions about women's health care. We will add another two or three solid Supreme Court judges to a court that desperately needs more quality judges. We will ensure that all of those struggling with illness in a far less than perfect health care system will continue to reap the benefits of Obama care(s) including; (no longer have to pay for preventive care, health screenings and annual checkups, women no longer have to pay more for health insurance premiums than men, insurance companies are no longer able to stop paying for our care once we reach the limit they set, small businesses will continue to get past cuts for providing health insurance to their employers, coverage for pre-existing conditions, Obama care will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 20 years and to many others to name.) We will ensure immigration reform is comprehensive and not written by Arizona standards. We will have a better chance getting big money out of politics. I could go on but I'll leave the rest for us to work on over the next few years. Besides I'm sure MSNBC will continually be on this, making sure we know exactly what we have.
Isn't it interesting it took Maddow, on election eve, to point out what she considers the Pres' accomplishments. He spoke of none of them consistently. Rather, he focused on negatives. If you have nothing to run on, attack.
You also attack if you perceive a weakness in your opponent. Romney opened by trying to run on his record at Bain rather than his political record. He had to do that because he left office in MA after one term with a 59% disapproval rating and a $1 billion deficit. His successor in the office is still in office today, and a lot of Romney's claims about how well MA is doing happened under him.
Americans aren't happy with investors right now, especially not the kind who buy up companies, break them up, and then ship their jobs overseas - all the while making a huge personal profit. That's Romney's track record at Bain.
I would have attacked him, too.
Every time that I discuss with someone about the end of the electoral college, the answer is the same: Wow, it will be impossible, it is much complicated.
Well, democracy is not an American invention, and is not something that only exists here. All around the world we have elections, and some are more complicated than here. Pick Brazil, for instance. There, the vote is mandatory. At the last presidential election, 106 million people voted, and the number of real problems were minimal. And we are talking about a third world country, with lots of infra structure problems, extremely poor areas, corruption, things like that, and still works.
Why won't work here?
Our middle school here had the kids vote and they voted for Obama/Biden!! Smart kids. Plus at the high school, most of the kids who are following the campaign are excited about Obama winning again. When teachers asks today who would you vote for only 2 kids in my daughter's class said Romney, everyone else said Obama. I am proud of these kids, since this is a Red state.
I'd like to see the electoral college re-imagined as a body of delegates representing urban, suburban and rural zones. In today's electoral college, rural states like Wyoming just don't have the same influence a state like New York has, but the rural areas of New York paired with rural districts in Wyoming, et al, would provide some sort of commonality. I wonder if Dallas and LA have more in common than Dallas and Waco? Suburban Cleveland and suburban Macon might have a lot in common. It's the state-level breakout that should be challenged. I'd be opposed to using election districts because of gerrymandering. It might be time we recognized some of the basic differences in political interest based on urban vs rural interests and needs. Mount Holly, NJ has little interest in funding Newark and Camden schools, and city folk are little interested in crop subsidies and grain research. The media are primarily urbanites, to brush it wide, so the voice of other interest groups might develop if those interest groups had a distinct vote. I too was impressed with Chris Hayes' statement about getting the delegates to come to the Bronx. I live in Cliffwood Beach, NJ. God forbid any of the candidates would walk our streets or hear out concerns. It's just not right. The system is broke, poorly structured for the way we live today. I'm hoping for the system to find its way. A Democratic super-majority in the Congress would only delay the inevitable. We need structural change. I hope someone has the balls (or the ovaries) to make it happen.
I think I disagree, at least to this extent: If this is to be a republic, it is the responsibility of each of us to vote with shared interests in communities of which we may not literally be part; to educate ourselves about issues crucial to those living in distant states; and to link our parochial self interests to as many others as we can.
Many of us give a real damn about the strangers who live in the Tri-State region, those who suffered far more from Sandy than those of us a few miles south of them did. We could wrap ourselves in self-righteous pride about how carefully we studied the multi-layered weather forecasts, and how diligently we prepared (for the nth time) for power outages, no water, trees down everywhere, etc. We were ready, as we have been before; and we voted pre-Sandy. What we do now is put the flashlights back into the cupboard, store the generators, pick up broken tree limbs, kiss our kids, and send our $ to the Red Cross on behalf of others.
Ours must be a community of shared interests, or we are goners.
Where's Chris Hayes???????????
ME TOO!!!