Ravings from a Man in an Old White House

In the same week that saw them reach an all time low in the polls at 25%, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labour Party has suffered its fourth humiliating election defeat in a month, according to the Guardian. First were the twin defeats in local council elections and the London mayoral election. Then came the by-election to fill vacancy created by Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody’s death. Now comes the by-election to fill the vacancy created by Boris Johnson’s election as Mayor of London. In the 2005 election, Labour came in third behind the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats. It was never expected that Labour would do well, but they still managed to disappoint. In the past week, there had been discussion suggesting that Labour would fail to get 5%, meaning they would lose their deposit. Candidates must pay a deposit when filing for election, which is repaid if they surpass 5%. The purpose is to discourage frivolous candidates. As I said, it was expected that they might lose the deposit. It was also mentioned in the run-up that Labour might come in fourth, behind the Greens. In fact, Labour took fifth with 3.07% of the vote, behind even the racist British National Party. Brown won’t be able to blame turnout for the abysmal failure; as with the other defeats, turnout was high for the type of election it was: 50%.

Brown will avoid a fifth humiliation by not running anyone in the David Davis by-election, but there is still some embarrassment to be had from it. It has been said that a key factor in Labour’s decision not to participate is that it cannot afford to bankroll the campaign. This has a ring of truth to it because the party is in serious debt, with party leaders being on the hook personally for the debt. I haven’t heard anyone ask it (I presume that that would be different if I lived there (would that it were)), but how can you trust a party to administer your economy if they are not clever enough to use a business form that allows them to limit liability. One suggestion is to use the campaign fund to pay the debts, leaving them to raise money from scratch going into the last two years before an election that they are predicted to be crushed in.

By the way, anyone who believes in omens will be interested to note that the Labour candidate, Richard McKenzie, won 1,066 votes: 1066.

After 20 years of Roosevelt and Truman, the conservative movement in this country was a moribund bunch of marginalized, bitter, disorganized grouches. Just who made the biggest difference in turning the movement around is debatable, but William F. Buckley, Jr. would be at the top of many people’s lists. Buckley was a powerful and uncommonly intelligent voice in American politics for decades. He motivated generations of Americans, and helped recruit many to the conservative movement. While most remained conservative, many became moderates or liberals. Whatever the case, he had a long-term effect on them. The man was one of those people, like Barack Obama, who could challenge otherwise disengaged people to think about the world around them and take an interest in their governance. After being so inspired, most were most likely to retain a life-long interest in politics and policy. He was a man who could challenge you to rethink your positions. Even if you did not come around to his way of thinking, you were better off for the challenge.

In the early days, Buckley showed that being a conservative did not mean being an isolationist and anti-Semite. He was also able to break down preconceived notions for later generations and for me in particular. Buckley made me aware that conservatives could be intelligent, cultured human beings whose motives were not mean-spirited. He helped me see that having a conservative viewpoint did not make me a bad person. At this point in my life, I do not hold as many ideologically conservative views, but I continue to have a basically conservative approach to politics. Even so, the lesson that one is not defective for holding certain political views remains very real for me to this day.

Bill Buckley was a man who for whom well-reasoned beliefs and debate were more important than party. We could use more people like him in American politics, and he will be sorely missed.

Because I’m a dork, I have been nearly certain since junior high school that the November 2008 general election would be a significant one for Illinois voters. This was not the result of clairvoyance or some intuitive understanding of the long-term course of Illinois politics. Rather, the source was Section (b) of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. That section provides that a proposal to call a Constitutional Convention for revising the state constitution must appear on the ballot at least once every 20 years. The last proposed call was on the ballot in 1988.

The 1988 proposal was soundly defeated. In part, this was due to when it was called. I’m not sure why 1988 was picked; the Convention that gave us the current document was voted on in 1969. If the legislature proposed the Convention, it may have been done to coincide with the presidential election year as presidential elections have significantly higher turnout numbers than other elections. High turnout makes it more difficult to get a majority of all voters in the election because voters who give a damn about the issue are a smaller portion of the electorate.

The other, and arguably more important reason it failed was that there was no motivation to have a convention in 1988. I believe that has changed since the late eighties. Today, we have seen our state government utterly fail. Our leaders failed to produce a budget for an embarrassingly long time. The Governor abused the special session provisions of the constitution and relevant statutes to keep legislators in Springfield over holidays while he commuted between Chicago and Springfield regularly at taxpayer expense. He is now suing the Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan, for holding special sessions earlier than the Governor ordered. The Governor has alienated the other elected members of the executive, Democratic members of the House of Representatives, many Democrats in the Senate, and all the Republicans. Gov. Blagojevich’s only friends are President of the Senate Emil Jones and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership. His Lieutenant Governor, Pat Quinn has openly called for giving Illinoisans the right to recall their Governor because of his corruption and poor leadership.

Many voters agree with Quinn. Public opinion of the Governor and the General Assembly is very low. I believe that this disaffection can be harnessed to bring about the kind of change that can, if not prevent, then at least make less likely the kind of dysfunctional politics we have seen in recent years.

Even so, managing a “yes” majority is a tall order.¹ The 1988 proposal received about 41% approval of those voting on the question; it needed 60%. The other possibility for approval, a majority of all voters at the election, also failed (it received around 38%). With turnout expected to be unusually high, the task is even more difficult.² Frankly, what’s needed is money and organization. I am probably going to write to Madigan and Quinn to suggest they get involved in organizing a “vote yes” campaign. If anyone has suggestions on who else to contact or how else to approach this, please post it below.

1. To call a Convention, the proposal to call it must receive a three-fifths majority of those voting on the proposal or a majority of all people voting at that elections. The key principle is that voters are not required to vote for every office on the ballot. Many people will vote for President, but skip Water Reclamation Commissioner. To see how this works for the Convention, imagine 100 people show up to the polls at the general election. Of those, only 5 vote on whether to call a Convention; three in favor, two opposed. On that vote, the Convention will be called because three-fifths of those voting on the question approved it. Another example using our 100 voters. This time 51 voters said yes, and 44 said no. While 51 is less than 60% of 95, the question is still approved because a majority (51) of voters in the election (100).

2. I may be looking at this wrong. As I mentioned, almost 40% of people voting voted “yes” when there was no strong move to do so in 1988, which means support need only increase by less than 12 points.