There was a special election on February 6th for a State Senate district on Long island in New York. Now, that may seem like a trivial issue, but in reality State legislative elections affect all of us as much or perhaps even more than national elections. In nearly all states (Iowa and Minnesota being the exceptions), state legislatures draw the boundaries of districts for the House of Representatives. Control of redrawing boundaries after each census (and sometimes, highly unethically, between censuses, as in Texas in 2003 and Georgia in 2005) allows state legislatures to dictate how many national districts will go to each party.
What? Surely it is the people who elect their representatives! Well, yes and no. People are predictable. The number of people who split their ballots, or who cross party lines, is relatively few. A district that voted for Kerry by more than 3% or for Bush by more than 6% in 2004* will vote for that party at least nine times out of ten. So, state legislatures generally draw districts that favor the party in control of the legislature. (Occasionally, as in California in 2001, they draw boundaries that are simply meant to favor the incumbents.) What does this have to do with a special election in New York? A lot. The New York State Senate has been Republican-controlled for a long, long, long time while the State House has been Democratic-controlled for even longer. In this special election, the Democrats came one seat closer to winning control of the New York State Senate, and,w ith it, the ability to redistrict new York in their favor in 2011.
Right now, New York has 23 Democratic Representatives and 6 Republicans. Current projections indicate that New York will lose two seats in the 2010 census. If the Republicans still control the State Senate in 2011, the Democrats will have to compromise, and one or possibly even both of the two lost seats will be Democratic-leaning ones. On the other hand, if the Republicans lose control of the State Senate, the Democrats will be able to ensure that both disappearing seats are Republican, and may even be able to carve up another Republican district enough to squeeze a Democratic gain out.
That's -3 GOP, +1 Dem. I'd say each special election in the New York State Senate matters quite a bit. The composition is now 33 GOP, 29 DEM, and two GOPers have reportedly been considering switching parties. (The Lieutenant Governor, a Democrat, breaks ties.) Will New York see its first Democratic-controlled State Senate in decades soon?
*Bush districts get a wider margin because he won the popular vote nationwide; if Bush and Kerry had tied, it would be 5% and 5%.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Blue to Red: A Detour to the North
As some of you may know, in Canada, and traditionally around the world, blue is the color of the right and red the color of the left. We Americans just got it switched around. This diary is about Canada, about the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and about the MP who recently switched between them.
His name is Garth Turner, MP for the riding of Halton. He was a Progressive Conservative before the PC Party was all but wiped out in 1993 and recently reentered politics as a Conservative in 2006. For voicing a dissident opinion on floor crossings and the environment, Turner was kicked out of the Conservative caucus and sat as an Independent for a while before the announcement came today that he would be joining the Liberals.
Now, I don't have a huge problem with Liberal policies, but I do have a problem with the Liberal Party. I think Garth Turner is perhaps the most dishonest politician in Canadian politics if he claims he will find the Liberals a party any more conducive to internal discussion than the Conservatives. Turner's reason for refusing to consider rejoining the Conservatives was a leadership that did not listen to the people, and the Liberals are even worse than the Conservatives on this point. For Turner to join the party that sees itself as "entitled to rule" (every single leader of the Liberal Party since 1900 has served as Prime Minister) and therefore tailors its platform to the most hotbutton issues while creating a front of unity is so disgustingly hypocritical that I have lost all respect for Mr. Turner.
I considered Turner something of a hero in Canadian politics when he left the Conservatives. I agreed with many of his position, and I was glad to hear him call for openness within and among parties as well as making MPs more accessible and more accountable for their actions. As an Independent, he made himself an example to be followed and brought issues that really mattered, as opposed to politicking, to the table. But, by joining the Liberals, Turner has surrendered that call for openness (the Liberals have certainly never made it), that call for accountability (the Liberals argued against accountability when it was in the Reform platform), and those issues that matter (Dion prefers do-nothing measures like the Kyoto resolution to real environmental policies). Turner has made himself no more than yet another politician ighting the reelection fight with every vote, not really caring about the issues or the common good.
I endorsed Garth Turner for reelection. Today, with his endorsement of the Liberals, I de-endorse him and instead endorse any non-Conservative who stands against him.
His name is Garth Turner, MP for the riding of Halton. He was a Progressive Conservative before the PC Party was all but wiped out in 1993 and recently reentered politics as a Conservative in 2006. For voicing a dissident opinion on floor crossings and the environment, Turner was kicked out of the Conservative caucus and sat as an Independent for a while before the announcement came today that he would be joining the Liberals.
Now, I don't have a huge problem with Liberal policies, but I do have a problem with the Liberal Party. I think Garth Turner is perhaps the most dishonest politician in Canadian politics if he claims he will find the Liberals a party any more conducive to internal discussion than the Conservatives. Turner's reason for refusing to consider rejoining the Conservatives was a leadership that did not listen to the people, and the Liberals are even worse than the Conservatives on this point. For Turner to join the party that sees itself as "entitled to rule" (every single leader of the Liberal Party since 1900 has served as Prime Minister) and therefore tailors its platform to the most hotbutton issues while creating a front of unity is so disgustingly hypocritical that I have lost all respect for Mr. Turner.
I considered Turner something of a hero in Canadian politics when he left the Conservatives. I agreed with many of his position, and I was glad to hear him call for openness within and among parties as well as making MPs more accessible and more accountable for their actions. As an Independent, he made himself an example to be followed and brought issues that really mattered, as opposed to politicking, to the table. But, by joining the Liberals, Turner has surrendered that call for openness (the Liberals have certainly never made it), that call for accountability (the Liberals argued against accountability when it was in the Reform platform), and those issues that matter (Dion prefers do-nothing measures like the Kyoto resolution to real environmental policies). Turner has made himself no more than yet another politician ighting the reelection fight with every vote, not really caring about the issues or the common good.
I endorsed Garth Turner for reelection. Today, with his endorsement of the Liberals, I de-endorse him and instead endorse any non-Conservative who stands against him.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Weighing the Escalation and the Escape
Unsurprisingly, there has been much talk recently about how to improve the situation in Iraq. This has been an issue since 2004, when John Kerry vaguely supported an increase in troop numbers and George Bush mumbled sweet nothings about staying the course. To tell the truth, despite the prominence of Iraq in the 2004 Presidential election, neither candidate made any real effort to define their position on Iraq. Today, things are different. Politicians are dividing into two camps about Iraq, and the people are following suit. We have two choices, the escalation and the escape.
The Republicans have become associated with the escalation and the Democrats with the escape, though in reality it is only some Republican politicians who support the escalation. (Arizona Sen. John McCain most vocally supports it, followed by the President, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and most Senate Republicans.) The escalation, interestingly, was a part of John Kerry's plan for Iraq in 2004, though now he opposes the escalation. I would be hesitant to call Kerry a flipflopper for this, however: the situation in Iraq has changed drastically sicne 2004, and it is the position of many Democrats that the escalation might have succeeded in 2003 or 2004, but that we have allowed violence to become too rife in Iraq for it to succeed today.
Democrats have claimed wide bipartisan opposition to the escalation, and, while I would not call the Democrats plus a half-dozen Republican Senators "widely bipartisan", they are certainly in the majority in both the Senate and among the people. The Democrats have also coalesced around their alternative plan, the escape; even Democrats who once supported the Iraq War such as Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton have changed their tunes. Some have disputed whether Cantwell and Clinton have politics in mind or have in fact changed their opinions. I must remind the public that 70% of you supported the Iraq War at its outset, and 70% of you oppose it now, so Senators really, truly changing their minds should not be viewed as politicking.
The escalation relies on the assumption that a few more troops (and not many; the escalation is unlikely to even have a visible impact to the Iraqis unless all of the new troops are stationed in one place) will be able to quell most of the violence in Iraq. The idea seems faintly ludicrous to me: an increase of 20,000 soldiers will not suddenly make the various sectarians who have embedded themselves in Iraq more hesitant. While the President talks of securing Baghdad (and maybe if all 20,000 went to Baghdad they could secure it as long as they were there), the rest of Iraq would only continue to spiral into chaos, a spiral that would engulf Baghdad as well as soon as the entire army leaves. The only way the escalation can permanently reduce violence even in baghdad itself is if it becomes a permanent military stakeout. I, for one, do not want the American military stationed in Iraq indefinitely, draining our resources and our manpower as well as our ability to respond to real threats. Perhaps others think differently.
The escape relies on the assumption that the United States can somehow accelerate the process of strengthening the Iraqi government. This, too, sounds farcical. We have had approaching on four years to establish a strong Iraqi government and have not managed to do so, and the changes in policy advocated by escapists are so minor as to be unlikely to cause any change whatsoever, let alone the radical shift needed for the Iraqi government to be able to stand on its own. However, the strengthening of the Iraqi government is not the crux of the escapist argument. The escapists merely add the strengthening of the Iraqi government as an addendum to various timetables of withdrawal, ranging from "almost immediately" to "over a period of two years".
That is an interesting facet of the escapist argument: we need not actually strengthen the Iraqi government before we can leave. An Iraq in chaos is not, perhaps, the great legacy the American people would like to leave, but, as they say, you reap what you sow, and the US has done little but sow discord in the Middle East for decades. An Iraq in chaos will collapse into three separate nations, they argue who oppose the escapists. (I fail to see the problem; three stable nations are better than one unstable one.) Iran will gain influence (too late for stopping that one). Frankly, the United States is better off withdrawing and letting Iraq collapse, then dealing with what arises from the ashes of Iraq separately. Those who fearmonger about the power of Iran are delusional: Iran is no threat to American security, or to American sovereignty, and a strengthening Shi'ite power will encourage other, Sunni Middle Eastern nations to rally against Iran. I feel pity for the people of Iraq, but at this point there is nothing we can do.
Am I heartless? Perhaps. I endorse the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and laugh at those who say that throwing soldiers at a problem will fix it.
The Republicans have become associated with the escalation and the Democrats with the escape, though in reality it is only some Republican politicians who support the escalation. (Arizona Sen. John McCain most vocally supports it, followed by the President, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and most Senate Republicans.) The escalation, interestingly, was a part of John Kerry's plan for Iraq in 2004, though now he opposes the escalation. I would be hesitant to call Kerry a flipflopper for this, however: the situation in Iraq has changed drastically sicne 2004, and it is the position of many Democrats that the escalation might have succeeded in 2003 or 2004, but that we have allowed violence to become too rife in Iraq for it to succeed today.
Democrats have claimed wide bipartisan opposition to the escalation, and, while I would not call the Democrats plus a half-dozen Republican Senators "widely bipartisan", they are certainly in the majority in both the Senate and among the people. The Democrats have also coalesced around their alternative plan, the escape; even Democrats who once supported the Iraq War such as Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton have changed their tunes. Some have disputed whether Cantwell and Clinton have politics in mind or have in fact changed their opinions. I must remind the public that 70% of you supported the Iraq War at its outset, and 70% of you oppose it now, so Senators really, truly changing their minds should not be viewed as politicking.
The escalation relies on the assumption that a few more troops (and not many; the escalation is unlikely to even have a visible impact to the Iraqis unless all of the new troops are stationed in one place) will be able to quell most of the violence in Iraq. The idea seems faintly ludicrous to me: an increase of 20,000 soldiers will not suddenly make the various sectarians who have embedded themselves in Iraq more hesitant. While the President talks of securing Baghdad (and maybe if all 20,000 went to Baghdad they could secure it as long as they were there), the rest of Iraq would only continue to spiral into chaos, a spiral that would engulf Baghdad as well as soon as the entire army leaves. The only way the escalation can permanently reduce violence even in baghdad itself is if it becomes a permanent military stakeout. I, for one, do not want the American military stationed in Iraq indefinitely, draining our resources and our manpower as well as our ability to respond to real threats. Perhaps others think differently.
The escape relies on the assumption that the United States can somehow accelerate the process of strengthening the Iraqi government. This, too, sounds farcical. We have had approaching on four years to establish a strong Iraqi government and have not managed to do so, and the changes in policy advocated by escapists are so minor as to be unlikely to cause any change whatsoever, let alone the radical shift needed for the Iraqi government to be able to stand on its own. However, the strengthening of the Iraqi government is not the crux of the escapist argument. The escapists merely add the strengthening of the Iraqi government as an addendum to various timetables of withdrawal, ranging from "almost immediately" to "over a period of two years".
That is an interesting facet of the escapist argument: we need not actually strengthen the Iraqi government before we can leave. An Iraq in chaos is not, perhaps, the great legacy the American people would like to leave, but, as they say, you reap what you sow, and the US has done little but sow discord in the Middle East for decades. An Iraq in chaos will collapse into three separate nations, they argue who oppose the escapists. (I fail to see the problem; three stable nations are better than one unstable one.) Iran will gain influence (too late for stopping that one). Frankly, the United States is better off withdrawing and letting Iraq collapse, then dealing with what arises from the ashes of Iraq separately. Those who fearmonger about the power of Iran are delusional: Iran is no threat to American security, or to American sovereignty, and a strengthening Shi'ite power will encourage other, Sunni Middle Eastern nations to rally against Iran. I feel pity for the people of Iraq, but at this point there is nothing we can do.
Am I heartless? Perhaps. I endorse the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and laugh at those who say that throwing soldiers at a problem will fix it.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
An Inauguration
I suppose I should begin with why I have created this blog and maybe a bit about myself.
I created a blog primarily because I have an excess of free time. That probably strikes anyone reading this as highly fortuitous; I myself find it often boring and repetitive. For that reason, I've decided to translate my keen interest in politics, both in my native United States and elsewhere, into a blog. I will probably be focusing primarily on politics in the United States and Canada with frequent cameos by British politics and occasional cameos by other topics and politics in other countries.
I am a college student, a freshman at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, United States. By itself, that probably makes you immediately label me as a liberal; I am, though not always in the traditional American sense. I consider myself strongly socially liberal on almost every issue, but not so much economically leftist. This is an important distinction that i will be drawing when discussing politics on this blog. There is left-right politics, and there is liberal-conservative politics, and they are distinct. While I wholeheartedly endorse liberalism, I only occasionally endorse leftism.
As for world parties, I am a supporter of the United States Democratic Party, the Canadian Green Party, the British Liberal Democrats, the Australian Greens, the French UDF and the Japanese Democrats. I don't know quite enough about the politics of other countries to form definitive opinions of their political parties, and I generally try to withhold judgment until I can make a clear decision. That should get you through what my political biases are liable to be.
For now, I think I'm finished. Not to worry, my faithful and non-existent readers, the next post will contain political substance.
I created a blog primarily because I have an excess of free time. That probably strikes anyone reading this as highly fortuitous; I myself find it often boring and repetitive. For that reason, I've decided to translate my keen interest in politics, both in my native United States and elsewhere, into a blog. I will probably be focusing primarily on politics in the United States and Canada with frequent cameos by British politics and occasional cameos by other topics and politics in other countries.
I am a college student, a freshman at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, United States. By itself, that probably makes you immediately label me as a liberal; I am, though not always in the traditional American sense. I consider myself strongly socially liberal on almost every issue, but not so much economically leftist. This is an important distinction that i will be drawing when discussing politics on this blog. There is left-right politics, and there is liberal-conservative politics, and they are distinct. While I wholeheartedly endorse liberalism, I only occasionally endorse leftism.
As for world parties, I am a supporter of the United States Democratic Party, the Canadian Green Party, the British Liberal Democrats, the Australian Greens, the French UDF and the Japanese Democrats. I don't know quite enough about the politics of other countries to form definitive opinions of their political parties, and I generally try to withhold judgment until I can make a clear decision. That should get you through what my political biases are liable to be.
For now, I think I'm finished. Not to worry, my faithful and non-existent readers, the next post will contain political substance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)