By Ryan Rossi

Many of us remember the epic movie “Old School” from our high school and college days – in fact it has remained popular nearly a decade later. Perhaps one of the most often-quoted lines is the memorable “earmuffs” – invoked by Vince Vaughn to signal his son to cover his ears to the inappropriate vulgarity looming nearby. While this remains comical in context, many of us found ourselves doing a similar action in recent months; mention “debt ceilings” or “taxes” and the public seemed to pull an “earmuffs” moment, blocking themselves from discussion as the impasse stretched into the eleventh hour. The leadership in Washington once again served us a do-or-die moment, where failure to act could have had severe global consequences. Curiously, is the debt ceiling really the worst of our problems?

The short answer is, yes – but only because politics has made it so. Only the truly ignorant will argue that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have no economic impact in the days ahead. It is abundantly clear that the government should have raised the limit, simply to settle last year’s accounting. Not acting on this would have caused the United States to default on our debt, which sounds scary enough – because it is. We currently borrow our money from the international bond market, and our Treasury bonds are among the most secure investments in the world. Defaulting would mean a severe rise in interest rates, which would lead to foreign investors becoming unwilling to lend or keep their money in the U.S. economy. As a result, the government would no longer be able to spend to keep any needed programs operational, or pay government salaries. The every-day American would likely not be able to finance a home, a car, hold a credit card, and the like. 401Ks and savings accounts would likely be reduced in value due to rising interest rates.  Not a comfortable scene, indeed. Yet, if these outcomes were not the result of failing to raise the debt ceiling, then why hasn’t it been done yet? Is this really an issue at all?

I would argue that it isn’t – it’s merely a political scoreboard. Politicians in Washington know that there isn’t a choice, but have framed the debate around these “negotiated deals” – some offering a plan to raise taxes, entitlement cuts, some cutting spending overall, or combinations of the three. But that’s a discussion that should have taken place after the ceiling was raised, not used beforehand as political leverage in order to gain affections from a public who are still dealing with the realities of the worst recession in decades. We need to reduce the budget deficit and debt in the long term; there is little doubt about it. We need to reform entitlement programs to sustain their existence not for the current elderly population, but for my generation – the current 20-something year olds; there is little doubt about it. This public isn’t stupid; they’re simply wondering why we are needlessly at the brink of another economic meltdown when real unemployment still hovers around 20%, and over 14 million Americans cannot find work. These are the real ongoing consequences of American’s inaction on the obvious.

The United States raised the debt ceiling, avoided default, and instituted a deal to “reduce” spending over the next decade. Congress made this choice seem hard, but it was not. As for the 14 million Americans who will remain unemployed? It’s going to be awfully hot wearing earmuffs through the end of summer.

By Ryan Rossi

The 2010 midterm election has provided an analysis that is both obvious and tiresome – the American public has rejected the leadership the country has been receiving, and is searching for a way to balance and counter it. While this is true to a degree, there is an underlying generational issue that persists. When considering the demographic of 18-29 year olds who voted, evidence suggests that their turnout was about the same as it has been during previous midterm elections and perhaps even slightly less – neither a surprising nor unexpected development. Traditionally, this age bracket (to which I belong) does not turn out heavily for midterms – and while that may seem unfortunate, it has nonetheless been a familiar trend through decades of American politics. What makes this notably disappointing, however, is how my generation failed to turn out to vote in the numbers they impressively displayed in the election of 2008 – a drop of nearly 60% in a span of just two years. As a result, it forces the question to be asked: will my generation ever gain confidence in the politics of the United States?

The answer is not complex. One need only view the characteristics of my generation to uncover the answer. We are an impatient group by nature – often wanting things now, and never later. Waiting is only understood as something that is both unnecessary and inconvenient. Our smallest problems frequently become our largest ones – the largest become our smallest. We like to be spoken with and not spoken at – the latter will only serve to deafen us. As a result, the older age groups almost always tell us what we want to hear, rather than what we need to hear. Our parents often struggle to define their role in our lives, constantly blurring the line between being a parent and being a friend; some try endlessly in their pursuit to gain in our affections – to be just like “one of us” – more like our roommates from college than the people who once had the responsibility of raising us into adulthood. We, in turn, are often found directing our parents on what to do, and they just as often can be found listening. We excel at online social networking, but frequently fail at interpersonal social skills – we can effortlessly begin and end relationships via text message, but will avoid meeting in person to discuss the reasons why. Finally, we like our country, but we don’t necessarily love it. We see how it is operated and how it is maintained, but we all collectively reason that there’s nothing that any of us can do to work to change it. To be clear, I am not criticizing my peers in this analysis, but rather providing clarification. These characteristics, in concert with the volatile and stagnant leadership of American politics create the perfect recipe for my generation’s continuing disinterest and disconnect. This simply will not do.

As a result, I challenge my generation to be bold. I challenge them not merely to renew our interest in our common future, but rather to begin that interest anew. I challenge them to be dedicated at this turning point in history – to recognize the need to prove ourselves worthy of the world that awaits us; to carry on the message that a nation built on our ideals and our principles will not fall behind the others, but compete and rise ahead. I challenge them to be courageous, and not complacent – trustworthy, and not dishonest. I challenge them to be patient, persistent and unafraid; to stop debate and begin discussion. There is a choice to be made – to embrace the promise of progress, or continue to accept the status quo. This choice is critical to our survival. If there is a lesson to take from the close of this decade that stretches far beyond politics or partisanship – beyond what is Democrat or Republican – it is that too many of us have lost our way. And so, a new generation must now begin to set a course to find our way again – to take ownership and assume leadership, to shift our efforts in taking what is broken and making it complete. To be sure, this will be a difficult endeavor. It will take sacrifice, responsibility, and resolve – but it can be done. An entire nation waits to see what we will do – we cannot fail them. We cannot fail to try.

Your Ballot in Plain English

A Guide to Florida’s 2010 Referendum & Amendments

Robert P. Watson Ph.D.

 Ballot Amendments and Citizen Initiatives

Why are there amendments on the ballot?

All state constitutions – like the U.S. Constitution – are meant to be living documents. As such, in the face of serious issues and events it may be necessary to amend the constitution. The Florida Constitution provides for a process that allows individuals to propose amendments to the state Constitution. If approved by the voters, these amendments will be added to the state Constitution.

What is a citizen initiative?

This is the process that permits individuals or groups to get an amendment or referendum placed on the ballot by securing enough voter signatures beforehand.

What is the process for placing an amendment on the ballot?

There are several steps required. The first is for the individual (or group) seeking to propose an amendment to register with the Florida Division of Elections as a political committee. The proposed amendment must then be submitted to the Division of Elections for review to determine if it is written in the proper legal format. For instance, the petition form circulated among voters for their signature must be clearly marked as a “Constitutional Amendment Petition” and state the name of the sponsoring political committee. State law requires that the title of an amendment on the ballot be no more than 15 words long and the summary description of it not exceed 75 words. There are a few other requirements as well.

How does one go about getting signatures?

Petitions must include the signee’s name, legal address, date of birth, voter registration number, signature, and the date of the signature. Only one voter/signature per page is permitted. Once the petition forms are completed, they must be submitted to the Supervisor of Elections in the county where the signee resides along with a fee (approximately 10 cents per signature) to cover the cost of validating the signatures (there is a process to request a waiver of the fee). Petitions are due by February 1 of the year of the election. The petitions are also reviewed by the Division of Elections, State Attorney General, and Florida Supreme Court.

How many signatures are required?

Eight percent of votes cast in the previous presidential election. Additionally, the petitions must come from at least half the state’s congressional districts. (Once the petition signatures are obtained, they are good for four years from the date signed.)

2010 Referendum

Referendum: Balancing the federal budget

Wording
In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the Federal Government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the U.S. Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?

In plain English
The federal budget deficits and debts have soared since 2001. This referendum is “nonbinding” which means it would simply send the message to Washington that Floridians want the federal budget to be balanced.

Why vote for the referendum?
The national debt is in excess of $12 trillion and much of it has occurred only since 2001 on account of tax cuts, the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the interest on the debt. Except for Bill Clinton, all other recent presidents have failed to balance the budget. This is only a “nonbinding referendum” which simply sends a message to the White House and Congress that Floridians want the federal budget balanced.

Why vote against the referendum?
Ironically, Florida’s considerable budget shortfall (the state is constitutionally required to balance its budget annually) this past year was remedied in large part with federal stimulus funds, which also prevented the loss of jobs (teachers, police officers…) in Florida. Even though several White Houses and Congresses have not balanced the budget, some previous White Houses and Congresses have used deficit spending during times of war and crisis, and it is difficult to balance the budget deficit without increasing taxes.

2010 Amendments
(Amendments 3, 7, and 9 were removed from the ballot)

Amendment 1: Repeal of public campaign finance requirement

Wording
Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns and candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.

In plain English
Public financing provides funds for candidates for elected office who meet certain requirements. This helps underfunded candidates be more competitive. A vote for this amendment would end public financing.

Why vote for the amendment?
The Florida Legislature opposes it largely because it finances candidates who might otherwise not be able to afford to campaign for elected office and because of the costs associated with funding campaigns. Some also see public financing as an infringement of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Why vote against the amendment?
In 1998, 64 percent of voters approved this measure, which is widely seen as one of the most important campaign finance reforms in Florida’s history. Most election reform groups favor public financing because it helps finance candidates who might otherwise not be able to raise enough money to make the election competitive and because candidates who accept public financing must agree to campaign spending limits. In 2005, the Legislature increased the spending limit amount by over 300 percent, thus watering down the reform.

Amendment 2: Homestead ad valorem tax credit for deployed military personnel

Wording
Proposing an amendment to… require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the U.S. military or military reserves, the U.S. Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States…

In plain English
If passed, this would provide additional property tax relief for military personnel serving overseas.

Why vote for the amendment?
This would reduce property taxes for military personnel, who might find it difficult to maintain their properties while serving abroad. It is also a way of supporting those in uniform.

Why vote against the amendment?
It is estimated that, had this amendment been in place this past year, the state would have lost $13 million in revenues. This reduction in revenues will be very difficult to remove in the future.

Amendment 4: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans

Wording
Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum…

In plain English
Florida governments have comprehensive land use plans. Any major changes to those plans would now need to be approved by a citizen referendum (vote).

Why vote for the amendment?
The measure was supported by Florida Hometown Democracy and backed by the Florida League of Cities, the Sierra Club of Florida, and others who believe the amendment is necessary to deal with problems of overdevelopment and underfunded infrastructure in Florida by giving the voters the say as to whether or not certain major land use changes shall occur.

Why vote against the amendment?
Opponents maintain the amendment will slow or prevent changes in comprehensive land use plans and remove the decisions from local planners and officials who have expertise in such matters.

Amendment 5: Standards for Legislature to follow in legislative redistricting

Wording
Legislative districts… may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous… compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

In plain English
If passed, legislative districts would need to be designed in accordance with standards, in a way that reduces “gerrymandering,” and after each census.

Why vote for the amendment?
At present, the State Legislature determines how legislative districts are drawn and the primary rationale they have used is politics. They design districts to favor their own reelection and the party in power. The amendment is sponsored by FairDistrictsFlorida.org and has been supported by the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and other groups. Most election reformers argue that the “gerrymandering” of districts is one of the reasons incumbents rarely face competitive challenges.

Why vote against the amendment?
The amendment is opposed by the Florida Legislature who wants to keep the process of “reapportioning” legislative districts in their own hands. They maintain the new standards would be difficult to implement.

Amendment 6: Standards for Legislature to follow in congressional redistricting

Wording
Congressional districts… may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous… compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

In plain English
If passed, congressional districts would need to be designed in accordance with standards, in a way that reduces “gerrymandering,” and after each census.

Why vote for the amendment?
The same arguments exist for Amendment 6 as for Amendment 5, except that this amendment is for congressional rather than state legislative districts.

Why vote against the amendment?
The same arguments exist for Amendment 6 as for Amendment 5, except that this amendment is for congressional rather than state legislative districts.

Amendment 8: Revision of the class size requirements for public schools

Wording
The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms… K through grade 3 (18 students); grades 4 – 8 (22 students); and grades 9 – 12 (25 students). Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students… K through grade 3 (21 students); grades 4 – 8 (27 students); and grades 9 – 12 (30 students)…

In plain English
Voters approved classroom size limits in 2002 and this amendment, if passed, would remove the present limits. Slightly larger classroom size limits are proposed.

Why vote for the amendment?
The current classroom size limits were passed by Florida voters in 2002 and have been phased in. The Florida Education Association opposes the amendment because many studies suggest students learn better in smaller, less crowded classrooms.

Why vote against the amendment?
The state estimates it has spent roughly $16 billion since 2002 to implement the class size limits. The amendment was sponsored by the Florida Legislature who believes the limits are too inflexible and cost too much money.

By Steve West

We need to keep the partisan extremists out of Congress. We need to do it now. There is nothing more important in the short term that will affect the long term future of our country.

We need to counter the Tea Party with a reasonable message that will provide facts to voters while not rabble rousing at the same time. I have an idea for a campaign that I would call the KNOW SOMETHINGS (with a doff of the hat to the No Nothings). This campaign would particularly aim at the middle segment of the voting population that needs to be convinced and reassured that government of the people and for the people can be reestablished in this country before it’s too late. I am certain that there are millions of frustrated rational people who understand that we are in trouble and need to make radical changes, but they have no clear and united voice as the Tea Party has given to their frustrated, but irrational minions. We need to offer an alternative that delivers a clear and truthful message to help voters understand that their own self-interest lies in unity and not division.

I was just reading Plato’s Atlantis this morning, here is an excerpt that recount the condition that were afoot at the end of that great civilization - one could think he wrote it today:

“For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well affectioned toward the gods,who were their kinsmen; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, practicing gentleness and wisdom in various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another.

They despised everything but virtue, not caring for their present state of life, and thinking lightly on the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtuous friendship with one another, and that by excessive zeal for them, and honor of them, the good in them is lost, and friendship perishes with them.

By such reflections, and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, all that which we have described waxed and increased in them; but when this divine portion began to fade away in them, and became diluted too often, and with too much of the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, then, they being unable to bear their fortune, became unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see, they began to appear base, and had lost the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they still appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were filled with unrighteous avarice and power.”

I’ll spare you the last paragraph where Zeus calls a council of the gods to punish them since Plato’s unfinished story of Atlantis abruptly ends here. The point is that gods or no gods, man keeps doing this to himself. The story has been repeated over and over that future generations lose sight of the REAL values and principles of their founding fathers and mothers and a minority of individuals with greedy motives bring down the society, no matter how great or moral it’s past, as the first great society described to Plato by his great uncle Solon from words passed on to him from some 2500 years ago - about an even more ancient society that was brought down 2500 years before that.

I only bring in the little history lesson to illustrate that we are not unique and we are not in a unique position. Great societies have risen and fallen throughout human history. If “those of us who see” don’t push back those blinded by greed and self indulgence we are all in for a fall. We do need to take our government back, but we need to do it in a manner that befits our real history and the true intentions of that brilliant gathering of minds we call our Founding Fathers.

By Ryan Rossi

Over the course of the last several years, United States foreign policy has undergone stabilization in some areas, while becoming noticeably more unstable in others. This is not an accidental phenomenon, but rather the result of a series of decisions that have been made by the previous administration, inherited by the current administration, and now left for further development in the coming decades. There is little doubt that during George W. Bush’s years in office, American foreign policy served as an aggressive attempt to control Middle Eastern affairs – a systematic plan to dismantle “unstable” governments in the region and replace them with functioning democracies that might resemble the rest of the western world. Unfortunately, this approach was short-sighted, and has left us with the circumstances we face today – an unstable Iraq, a seemingly uncorrectable Afghanistan, unfulfilled support from Pakistan, continued conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and a nuclear ambitious Iran. These are just the examples that receive the majority of our attention as there are surely others.

While it is true that President Obama was certainly handed a difficult set of global difficulty in 2008, the course our country takes over the next decade remains crucial, especially in regard to American prestige, and more importantly, American influence abroad. What we can be certain of, is that we can no longer afford to falter in our policies – to move forward without uncertainty, to create policy based merely on popular opinion. Nor can such policy be created without a precise and pragmatic approach, both of which are necessary for our global survival. But while such decisions require our constant attention, we must also rely on our general global instincts – our natural ability to know what’s right or what’s not for the United States, and the discernment to recognize the difference.

The opportunity to start our foreign agenda anew must be seized immediately. Though there are many places where we could begin this effort, none requires more attention than the war in Afghanistan. The truth has been avoided time and again, and to a degree, blame must be shared by both administrations. While almost all settle on the notion that it was a necessary war to wage in 2001, it has seen far too much inconsistency since its inception. The Bush administration almost entirely neglected our commitments there because of their distraction with Iraq. President Obama has attempted to renew our efforts, but the results – at least so far – have hardly been successful. The facts are clear: we must seriously reconsider our approach to this conflict; to recognize if winning is worth the life of our fellow citizens; to determine whether winning is a realistic goal altogether. And if the victory we seek is possible, it will only come with the support of the local Afghan tribes, not from flashes of American military might. In the final analysis, it will be the decision of the people of Afghanistan – whether they want to transform themselves, or whether they return to the control of corruption and tyranny.

This world often offers us a mysterious paradoxical lesson – that sometimes it is in losing that we often find our greatest victory. If we must leave Afghanistan, it will not be a loss for us, but rather a realization that our intentions were truly for the benefit of all people, and that our pursuit for peace was not all in vain. Let us hope the leadership in the United States can recognize this challenge, and consequently follow the right course.

By Yury Konnikov

With one day left until the primary elections in Florida, both Republicans and Democrats continue cannibalizing their own candidates, undermining the entire purpose of a primary. This reinforces the point that Florida’s primaries are simply a reflection of two-party monopoly politics and a waste of taxpayer money.

Let’s examine some recent illustrations. In Orange County, seven candidates are competing for the Republican nomination to run against incumbent Democrat Alan Grayson for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Naturally, this log-jam of primary candidates occurs due to the Republican Party’s partnership with Democrats in monopolizing all “viable” political expression. The result is many people, with no common vision or views, compete in largely negative and high spending primaries to get access to the ballot and “viability” of the two parties that create such stagnant and narrow electoral conditions. One candidate, Ross Bieling, has openly spoken of the unfair cold shoulder he is receiving from the Orange County GOP, being outright ignored by party officials as they close ranks behind anointed nominee Daniel Webster, a former state senator. Bieling cites an example of this in how none of his e-mails to Orange County GOP chair Lew Oliver have been returned.

In Palm Beach County, the local Democrats are certainly keeping up with their Republican counterparts in cannibalizing their own primary candidates. In a local primary race for Florida House District 86, an individual came to the local party’s office to volunteer for underdog Carole Kaye, but was greeted by local party Executive Board member Bunny Steinman who told him the office was Lori Berman’s, the establishment’s endorsed candidate, and attempted to recruit him to her campaign. Reiterating his desire to volunteer for the candidate he supports, he was instead offered Berman’s literature. The office is the Palm Beach County Democratic Party’s south county office, which Steinman manages, and officially must be a common resource without bias for or against any Democratic primary candidates.

As previously noted, these incidents prove that party bosses, or “activists” as they are often referred to in the media, have absolutely no intention of upholding the original intention of primaries. Instead, primaries, and particularly Florida’s closed primaries, are merely tools by which these bosses, and those who influence them, push certain candidates and manipulate the public into validating their choices. Which begs the question, what is the point of primaries? If party “activists” want to choose who they want as their candidate then they need to abandon the taxpayer funded primary system and create party organizations that are member-driven, funded, and operated and figure it out themselves.

Observe this important point; at a meeting of the local Democratic or Republican Executive Committee you will see as many elected officials and candidates as “activists”, if not more. This is not a sign of a member-driven organization, in fact, its not even a sign of a political party. It is a demonstration of an organization that is so entrenched in the workings of the electoral system it helped design, that everyone seeking to “viably” express themselves must pay homage to it and exploit it not only for ballot access, but “viability” among the press, the public, and moneyed interests.

Even wealthy, self-funded candidates like Rick Scott, who has poured nearly $50 million into his campaign to purchase the Republican nomination for governor, cannot escape the reality of monopoly politics while attempting to drown opponents in money. Today, he complained of being shutout by the Republican Party of Florida which he claimed had only $50,000 in its federal account because it wasted all of its money helping anointed candidate Bill McCollum. The RPOF’s chair, John Thrasher recently sent out an e-mail blasting Scott for linking McCollum to the Jim Greer scandal. Later, McCollum openly thanked Thrasher for his support.

A similar example is visible in the Democratic Senate primary where billionaire self-funder Jeff Greene is coming up against the party establishment’s protection and support of Kendrick Meek. However, a greater victim is candidate Maurice Ferre who, despite being at least equally qualified, has been ignored by the press, the party, and even excluded from debates because he doesn’t possess the big money to be considered “viable.”

Clearly the role of the two “major” parties in funneling almost all “viable” political expression through themselves defines and drives our stagnant, money dominated electoral system. It is precisely these features that create a safe, attractive investment environment for moneyed interests. These interest will always attempt to invest in the incumbent, due to the ridiculously high incumbent re-election rates, and sometimes give a little to the challenger. When incumbents die, retire, or are perceived as vulnerable, prospective candidates scramble to consolidate the support of the party establishment and moneyed interests to discourage potential primary competitors. Ultimately, the two-party system produces only two “viable” candidates for the general election, and even that is only in the races considered “competitive”.

In the end the greatest victims aren’t the candidates who are on the receiving end of this undemocratic system, but the voters themselves and the public at large. The only solution is comprehensive electoral reform.

A friendly reminder to all eligible voters that tomorrow, Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 is a primary election day in Florida. Please take the time to visit your local polling precinct, if you have not already and vote. If you do not know your precinct and district information you can look them up by simply going to the website of your respective county superivosr of elections. Simply put your county’s name and the phrase “supervisor of elections” in Google or another search engine and that should be the first link to come up. On the site you should see a tab labeled “Election Information” which will help you find the necessary information.

Note that if you live in a district where the only competition is a primary race between two candidates of the same party, with no other candidates of any other affiliation on the ballot, then all voters regardless of affiliation may vote in that primary, otherwise known as a “universal” primary.

Happy voting!

By Yury Konnikov

Democratic State Senator and Attorney General candidate Dave Aronberg once opined that Democrats should, in one way, become “more like the Republican party, where we don’t have these brutal, competitive primaries where we all destroy each other.” It seems he was alluding to the Republican Party’s well known habit for stacking behind certain candidates during primaries in order to discourage competitors and save money for the general election campaign. For example, disgraced Republican Party of Florida Chair Jim Greer attempted to anoint Charlie Crist as the sole candidate for the party’s nomination for a Senate seat while ignoring other candidates. After Crist’s defection to no party affiliation, the party’s leadership has coalesced around Marco Rubio, completely ignoring any other filed primary candidates. Unfortunately, Aronberg is blind to the fact that undemocratic behavior is not limited to Republicans. The “Democrats” cannot grasp the concept of internal democracy either.

In 2009, despite the presence of Michael E. Arth’s candidacy in the Democratic primary, Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman endorsed Alex Sink minutes after her announcement of candidacy. This hypocritical undermining of the primary process even took the form of state party staff attempting to remove Arth’s materials at a party function at which he was legitimately displaying them. In a blatant double standard, party bylaws prohibit leaders of local Democratic chapters from endorsing candidates, but do not apply to state party leaders.

Local clubs and their leaders still manage to play their own tricks to skew the primaries in favor of their anointed candidates. One need look no further than the incidents of club presidents prohibiting candidates from speaking while justifying it under the pretense that clubs are not required to give candidates equal time. However, this can go beyond simply unequal speaking time and can include restricting access to resources that, on paper, should be accessible. A good example is the race for Florida House District 86, a heavily gerrymandered district where the primary winner will have no opposition in the general election. Both candidates in the primary, Lori Berman and Carole Kaye, are entitled to use the Palm Beach County Democratic Party’s office, but since Berman pays the rent, Kaye has been prohibited and her literature removed from the office. Interestingly, the United Haitian American Democratic Club has now catching the wrath of the party for supporting Kaye’s candidacy in her defense.

Primaries were originally developed and proposed by individuals such as Robert La Follette Sr., an accomplished governor and senator from Wisconsin, a charismatic figure during the height of the Progressive Era in the early 1900s. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, pushed for open primaries where all voters, regardless of party registration, could have a voice in candidate selection. La Follette pursued these measures to break the stranglehold that Republican and Democratic party bosses, and their sponsors from moneyed interests, had over who received nominations. In principle, primaries are supposed to give the power over candidate nominations to the voters.

Unlike what Fighting Bob proposed, Florida is a closed primary state which prevents non-affiliated voters from voting in party primaries, but uses their tax dollars to operate them. However, taking that aside, closed primary elections are supposed to put nominations in the hands of the voters registered with those parties. If that is the case, then the games of party bosses endorsing candidates, restricting speaking time and use of common resources is nothing but a shameless corruption of the primary. Instead of suggesting Democrats be more like Republicans, as clearly neither party supports internal democracy, Aronberg should have noted what a waste of taxpayer dollars primaries are, particularly when party bosses do not even have enough faith in the process to run it fairly. Over four elections, between 2002 and 2008, these elections averaged a meager 23% turnout, offering little value for the service even to most voters.

It seems the solution is not primaries, though parties should be free to pursue such methods if they choose to pay for them. The solution is to eliminate the privileged status of the Democratic and Republican parties in state law and have equal, accessible requirements for all parties to register and for candidates, affiliated or unaffiliated with parties, to obtain ballot status through much more accessible qualification requirements. For example, a small non-refundable fee, a party constitution, as well as much lower petitions for candidacy not indexed to population and lower filing fees not indexed to the salary of the elected office sought. Parties should then take on the responsibility of recording their members themselves, not through taxpayer funded voter registration forms. As such, they should also decide among themselves and their members on how and who to nominate, whether through internal democracy or not. This would eliminate the logjam of candidates, who have nothing in common, vying for the nominations of the two monopoly parties to use as election vehicles for “viable” political expression. More importantly, it would eliminate the hypocritical undermining of democracy observed in every primary election.

By Steve West

The Republicans are 99% accurate when they say that big government gets in the way of individual freedom and is inefficient to boot. The only fault to the theory is that they are describing big government the way they run it.

One thing the Democrats need to do right now is to make the clear distinction between the leadership during the Republican years and the current leadership. There are so many case examples that it is easy to choose a focused handful (Chrysler, Banks, Nukes) and start hammering away on the true and accurate theme that there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between, not only the philosophies, but the management of government.

Using the past, both recent and historical, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats usually better the lives of the citizenry more effectively while Republicans narrowly focus on bolstering the fortunes of the wealthy and the corporations that make them so. It was the Republicans after all that popularized the term “supply-side economics”, otherwise known as “trickle down.”

I know that everyone is certain that the Democrats are going to lose seats in both houses this November. I believe that this will not happen if they stand up and tell the truth about issues instead of demurring while Republicans say whatever they please and repeat nonsense until enough people believe that it must be true.

About 80 political junkies, elected officials, and voters attended the Civic Forum on Electoral Reform in Boca Raton on March 20th. The non-partisan event was organized by the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform to introduce the public to the broad concept of electoral reform with the goal of improving democracy in Florida and the nation as a whole. Kicking off the event, moderator Jayne King, cited electoral reform as “the most important ignored issue in America.”

Speaking at the event were Dr. Robert P. Watson on gerrymandering and fair redistricting; Fred Markham on campaign finance reform; Carolyn Thompson on voting rights; and Michael E. Arth on ending the winner-take-all system and replacing it with ranked choice voting for all elections.

Attendees participated in a form of rank voting, called instant runoff voting, to elect their favorite ice cream flavor. Chocolate won. If a winner-take-all ballot had been used, Butter Pecan would have won, and far less than a majority would have been represented.

Among the proposed solutions to the electoral malaise were delegating redistricting to an independent commission with public consultation, or making it obsolete with proportional representation; public campaign financing based on granting funds to candidates who limit spending and private fundraising, or eliminating private funding altogether; implementation of instant runoff voting for both single member and multi-member races; and allowing Supervisors of Elections to improve voter access.

Organizers stressed that this Civic Forum was merely the first and that the issues covered were only some of the various reforms that would need to be implemented to realize “pluralistic, competitive, and representative democracy.” The group is working on a white paper detailing these and other reforms and will be advocating implementation to decision makers upon completion.

The Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform is a non-partisan group of concerned citizens advocating electoral reforms for the enrichment and expansion of democracy.

# # #

For more information about the Florida Initiative for Electoral Reform and its efforts to enrich and expand democracy, please visit http://www.thinkactlead.org/flier.html.