Last week, 21st Century Democrats held its 13th annual Signature Gala in Washington, DC. At the event, we launched our new 21st Century Leaders In Action program, which provides support and recognition to a network of leaders who share ideas and collaborate to implement bold progressive policies. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin and Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema were the first progressive standouts to be included in what will be a constantly expanding network of leaders from around the country.
The awardees in attendance spoke about a number of important issues facing our county, but I was struck by their focus and passion regarding voter participation and electoral reform. Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin (District 20) started the ball rolling with a discussion about the importance of protecting voter's rights and encouraging civic participation - video here. He described two laws he has passed since being elected to the State Senate in 2006. The first was an interstate compact that would create a direct popular election for President and the second gave 17 year olds the right to vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the general election. These kinds of electoral reforms strengthen our democracy by making every vote count and brining new voters into the political process.
Next up was Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has done a great job cleaning up the mess left by her Republican predecessor, Ken Blackwell. At the gala, she reiterated her commitment to ensuring that every vote is counted through the use of back-up paper ballots and post-election audits. Secretary Brunner also discussed the State's new Voting Rights Institute that does outreach to voters and operates important programs aimed at engaging more Ohioans in electoral politics. Watch the video here.
Finally, Congressman Ellison (MN-5) took the stage and forcefully articulated the injustice of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing Indiana to infringe upon Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to vote by requiring photo IDs. He called out this back-door poll tax for what it is: a Republican scheme to disenfranchise students, minorities, the elderly and the poor. Thankfully, dedicated progressives like Keith Ellison are standing up against these Jim Crow era laws. He recently proposed legislation that would ban photo ID requirements to vote and last week introduced a bill to allow same-day registration in all federal elections. Check out video of his speech.
The struggle to protect the right to vote demonstrates why we must elect more progressives like Secretary of State Brunner, Congressman Ellison, and State Senator Raskin to office. We are searching for new 21st Century Leaders In Action across the country to include in our network. If you know someone who is making big strides towards achieving a progressive vision for America, please tell us about them either in the comments or by contacting us directly.
Mark Lotwis is the Executive Director of 21st Century Democrats
Sometimes a single demographic variable is very predictive, but often you don't get much deterministic information until you combine two or more cross-tabs. The big three R's are Religion, Race and Region. Wealth alone doesn't seem to have a huge effect on voting, except at the really high levels. However, the combination of wealth with Religion or wealth with Region (rural) is very significant.
One of my favorite blogs is by Andrew Gelman, a bayesian over at "Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science". I haven't been there for a while, but found these two posts really interesting:
- Opiate of the Elites
- Rich-poor voting gap in rural areas
Paul Krugman shows some very nice graphs that illustrate voting trends for white Democrats showing that wealth and religion are the main drivers.
Andrew Gelman produced the graphs, and he has told the story before. Now he has a book on the topic. Gelman's point is that there is a significant correlation between religion and the likelihood of voting Democratic or Republican, but the correlation is deterministic only for wealthy, white voters, not poor white voters.
My post mentioning loyalty the other day got me thinking more about how people make decisions in primaries in general. From 30 years of door-knocking, phone calling, reading polls, and watching focus groups, and with added insights from people like Drew Westen, George Lakoff and many others, I feel like I have as good a working knowledge as anyone about how regular voters make their choices in primaries. But I think activists are a more complicated stew of factors, and the decision-making becomes more individualistic depending on your priorities.
Since we have such a good cross-section of activists who are part of the OpenLeft.com community, I'd love to know how you make your decisions in primary races (in general, not necessarily in this year's Presidential primary or any other particular race).
Here are all the factors that I can think of that are part of the equation for people when looking at candidates:
-Their stands on specific issues
-What they seem most passionate about
-Courage they've shown in their career
-How good a campaigner they are
-How good their chances of winning the general election are
-Whether they inspire you
-Their personal demographic identity (women, black, Hispanic, LGBT, etc.)
-Whether you have any past personal history with them
-Other personal characteristics you like or don't like (toughness, sense of humor, etc.)
-Who their supporters are (staff, contributors, consultants, other politicians who've endorsed them, etc.)
-State or region (many people will go with someone from their own state or region, or oppose someone because they think "well, a Northeast liberal won't win" or "I'm so tired of Southerners running things," or whatever)
-Whether they have a military background
-Their age
-Their experience level
-How much distance they put between themselves and the progressive movement as opposed to fully embracing it
My questions for you:
-What am I missing in terms of factors you care about?
-What matters most to you?
-Do you feel like you can define why you pick a candidate, or do you feel like it's more an overall instinct based on a lot of different factors?
Since I guess I should answer my own questions, I can say that no one issue matters more to me than others, that I believe in a broadly progressive agenda and just have never been driven by one or two issues. Issues in general matter a lot, if there are big differences (e.g. Lieberman vs. Lamont, Edwards vs. Wynn), not so much where the differences are more nuanced. What they are most passionate about, their courage, the quality of their campaign, and how good their chances are- these are all very big for me. And if I have a strong positive personal history, that matters too.
Drinking Liberally Shot of Truth
By Amanda Milstein
Last year my New York City voter registration was not processed, and I was concerned that I would be cast out of my social circle for my failure to vote. From blog posts listing their favorite candidates, excursions to canvass in swing states, and to lively in-person discussions about their political opinions, it was clear that my friends felt strongly about politics. My failure to vote in my first year out of college, accidental or not, made me an oddity, and it was clear that I would feel ridiculous if I let it happen again.
Other young people are influenced by the same social pressure that I felt: the blogs are buzzing with talk of the increased youth vote in New Hampshire and Iowa, and CIRCLE reports that "Young adults voted for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate in races for the House of Representatives (58% vs. 38%), the Senate (60% vs. 33%) and governor (55% vs. 34%)."
Why are young people voting for such large numbers for Democrats, and why has the number of youth voters increased so dramatically?
Lose weight. Floss regularly. Vote more. What's your New Year's resolution?
Nothing against health and hygiene, but in 2008 voting should be the priority for everyone's resoluteness. Given how many states, officials and corporations work to make it harder to cast your ballot, it's all the more important that you set your mind to it and make it a New Year's pledge.
And fortunately, there are some groups that want to help you vote.
We've highlighted the Working Assets / CREDO online voter registration widget in the past (add it to your site if you haven't already). And we're also big fans of the Women's Voices Women Vote efforts. But sometimes it's not about registering -- it's about knowing you're registered.
Enter Voter Search.
If you're a New York State voter, you can enter your name, birthday and zip and this clean, easy site will tell you what the Board of Elections knows about you (or thinks it knows about you).
It will tell you when your next election is and whether you're eligible. It basically confirms what so many people, in an age of apartment-hopping, job-switching and bureaucracy-suffering don't know for sure: can I vote?
So here are my questions:
1. How do we get these built in other states? (Or do other states already have them?)
2. Why don't Board of Elections just do this already?
3. Have you checked your status yet?
I learned about this site from one of the guys who created it at Drinking Liberally. He asked whether liberal drinkers would want to confirm their status while having a few drinks. Now that Rudy's, the dive bar home of the original DL, has wireless internet, why not? Note: the bar is not responsible for spills on your keyboard.
Congress has not been living up to my expectations this week, not in the least. The vote on FISA was another let down from a Congress that has already failed to push forward aggressively on ending the War in Iraq and agricultural reform. But this week also brought a "Reporkcard" from the Club for Growth grading members of the House on their votes against earmarks. Overall Democrats have an abysmal record and I don't understand why we are handing the Republicans this issue on a silver platter.
This was originally posted at DailyKos as a diary. Here's the original link: http://www.dailykos....
Aaaarrrrrraaaaauuuuugggghhhh!
They're coming to you blog, to your diary, to your comment section. That's right! It's the Invasion of the Kossack Snatchers. They're here to take away your vote! They're the Memeiban!
In response to the potential "logistical nightmare" of counting ballots by hand in February's primary election, San Diego county is starting a huge push for absentee voting. Reported today in the Union-Tribune, San Diego County's registrar of voters will send out postcards to more than 1 million voters pushing the absentee option, hoping to offset the number of paper ballots cast on election day. This, of course, is in response to Secretary of State Debra Bowen's ruling that only one touch screen machine per polling place would be allowed following her extensive study of potential security problems.
While San Diego has a particular love affair with Diebold which sets it apart from many other parts of the state (Diebold is, by contract, required to replace any decertified machines), it seems unlikely that it will be only San Diego that makes this sort of push for absentee voting. So what does this mean?
STATE BLOGS
