P4P Conversation with David Daley, author of RATF**KED

rat fauked

On Sunday, June 4th, the Politics for the People book club spent an hour in conversation with David Daley, the author of RATF**KED: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy.  The book outlines the Republican Party campaign begun after the 2008 Presidential election, called REDMAP, to (rather inexpensively) win a sufficient number of state legislatures to control the redistricting process after the 2010 census (the redrawing of district lines is done state by state every 10 years, following each census).  It is a modern day whodunnit, and examines one of the myriad ways in which our political process is currently run by the political parties at the expense of the American people.

You can listen to the full recording of our conversation at the end of this post, or take a look at the highlights below.

Our first audio clip is my introduction of David Daley and includes an overview of the book and how the Republican Party took the dark art of gerrymandering to a whole new level.  He calls is the “…biggest heist in American electoral political history”.  I ask David if gerrymandering is fundamentally a controversy and fight about which party is going to win over the other.  If so, why should independents be concerned about leveling the playing field between Republicans and Democrats?  It is a rich exchange. Have a listen.

**

Politics for the People book club members then joined the conversation with their questions. Tiani Coleman, the President of New Hampshire Independent Voters shared that in reading the book, “…we were able to see how gerrymandered safe districts have created a very partisan, polarized House, where many voters don’t have a real voice because their vote makes no difference, and where the outcome is not reflective of the majority will of the voters.  Do you agree with Larry Lessig that “equality” or lack thereof, is the flaw?  And do you think creating more competitive districts will fully provide that equality to all voters?”  Give a listen to their conversation where David shares his thoughts on open primaries and the importance of competition:

**

PJ Steiner, a leader with the Utah League of Independent Voters, talked about efforts he is involved with to reform redistricting.  They discuss the issue of independent commissions.  You can hear their exchange here:

**

Dr. Jessie Fields and David talk about how redistricting and gerrymandering impact the African American community, talking about the recent Supreme Court decision in NC.  Jessie expresses concern about the way the African American community is taken for granted by the Democratic Party.  She asks how can we give more power and weight to the voter?  Is the 14th Amendment relative to redistricting reform?  You can listen to their conversation here:

**

Phil Leech, a member of Voters Not Politicians in Michigan talked about how fortunate he feels that they have the right to citizen initiative and referendum in Michigan where they are actively pursuing redistricting reform.  He asked David to speak about the prospects for fair redistricting on the national level given that so many states do not have an initiative process.  David shares that there is no easy answer even though “…voters of all stripes and parties” support reform.  Listen here:

**

Julie Leek and David talked about Julie’s experience at a civics forum at her home church in NC and the hesitancy of a state Supreme Court Judge to address the issue.  You can hear their exchange here:

**

Our final question came from Independent Voting’s general counsel, Harry Kresky.  Harry raised concerns with the Supreme Court’s ruling n the North Carolina case.  It seemed the court was evaluating whether the lines drawn went further than necessary to get the “desired outcome”.  At what point does the judiciary itself become implicated in gerrymandering if outcome is the standard?  Listen to Harry and David’s fascinating exchange here:

**

You can listen to the entire Politics for the People book club conversation with David Daley:

 

Stay Tuned

we will announcing our next

Politics for the People

Book Club Selection Soon

 

 

 

Reader’s Forum—Al Bell

DSC_7664

Al Bell at 2017 National Conference of Independents

I was forced several times in reading Ratf**ked, by David Daley, to stop and reread the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It contains 52 of the most powerful words in the vast heritage that has brought us to this point in The Great American Experiment. The unprecedented We, the People… leads off this statement of vision, purpose, mission—and that foundation quietly emerges time and again throughout Mr. Daley’s book. It is an echo, as it were, of the point of the whole story.

Ideas generated by the current selection of the Politics4thePeople book club clearly demonstrate the value of exchanging ideas and hearing different voices, a key quality that powers the club. While there have been fewer posts (so far) on this selection than some in the past, their content is highly instructive and provides valuable insights that aid the rest of us in processing what the author is telling us.

Dr. Jessie Fields provided an excellent overview of the essence of the Republican Party’s successful campaign to gerrymander legislative districts at state and federal levels to enable the party and its candidates to select voters rather than the reverse. The responsible perpetrators express pride in what they have done. That mentality is a pathetic distortion of Americanism. It perverts everything we stand for.

Then, comes along Lou Hinman’s pointed commentary that makes explicit what haunts many of us in the independent voting movement: both parties have become cynical masters of political intrigue and gamesmanship by which they collaborate in crowding out any voices they do not wish to hear from We the People. Lou clearly unmasks the mutual game of chicken the major parties play in controlling our political process. As Mr. Daley points out, the Democratic party is belatedly tuning in to the power of Maptitude as a means of unraveling as much of the Republican party’s advantage as possible. The game remains the same; just the actors change.

The bottom line here is that the Democratic and Republican parties, over many years, have jointly shanghaied our democratic republic. While they properly share the blame, the Republican party currently owns the front lines, paid for in cash.

Oh, one more question. Why, exactly, did We the People let them do it? That is a question for another dialogue.

I would be negligent in failing to note the significance of Arizona in this tale of woe as told by the author. Citizens established Arizona’s Redistricting Commission by initiative. State Republican leadership sought to eliminate it via court action and lost at the Supreme Court. More recently, our Republican Legislature enacted laws to seriously impede citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizens are now organizing, seeking to reverse that action. Mr. Daley describes the earlier challenges faced in the Arizona redistricting process with considerable insight. It was not flawless, but it is easy to envision a significantly more political—and Republican dominated—outcome had the Legislature remained in charge of the process. Politics will always be a factor. The real question is, can such deliberations at least avoid political considerations as the sole driver? The Arizona example says yes. So far.

I will come to our author’s defense for focusing on the Republican party in this sense. The GOP has initiated a new level of political weaponry, escalating quickly from muskets to machineguns. Whether Mr. Daley has it right or not about the Democratic party’s leadership default in this case, he reveals the new weapons of political war that currently victimize our nation. That naturally leads to the question of what to do about it.

The author suggests seven strategies to reverse or at least mitigate this cynical onslaught against our electoral processes. They include:

  1. Support Democratic efforts to recapture enough legislative seats by 2020 to enable them to lead a “permanent gerrymandering disarmament plan”. In other words, lead toward the high ground, don’t just recapture lost ground.
  2. Seek establishment of even more independent redistricting committees at state levels than now exist.
  3. Wherever possible, seek initiatives to reverse gerrymandering practices.
  4. Continue to push for Supreme Court decisions that impose controls on gerrymandering and reverse the most egregious cases of it (now an active arena; see the current North Carolina case).
  5. Experiment in at least one state with multi-member districts to defuse the partisan control mechanisms.
  6. Enrage and engage more voters in supporting redistricting reforms to enfranchise voters instead of parties.
  7. Aggressively motivate progressive voters to vote in mid-term elections in contrast to historic minimum turnouts in such elections to wrest control from the Republican vote gathering machine.

None of these is easy, nor are they feasible everywhere. However, chinks in the armor can be achieved one initiative, one state, one city, and one court case at a time. It will take a long time, certainly more than anyone aggrieved by the current system would prefer. Mr. Daley offers ample motivation to start down that path.

Another tactic strikes me as having value in reinforcing his suggestions. It consists of a relentless effort by many of the public interest organizations and their memberships in the U.S. to conduct media, public education, and political campaigns at whatever level or levels they may operate. Campaign messages could make any or all of the following points. It would make sense to target Democratic and Republican transgressions similarly, wherever they occur.

  1. Depriving any qualified voter from exercising his/her franchise is unconstitutional and cynically anti-American. It is an insult to the very foundation of our nation. It blatantly denigrates the sacrifices of the more than 1.3 million Americans whose lives have been lost in defending our right to self-governance under the Constitution.
  2. Perpetrators of the so-called RedMap system manifest a perverse rejection of the basic premise of our Constitution: that it belongs to all of us. They have a right to their opinions, but they have absolutely no standing to destroy the very foundation that underpins every citizen’s rights, including their own! They do not own our vote; we do. At least, so we thought.
  3. Spending dark money to intimidate candidates, structure legislative districts that cut citizens of any political persuasion out of an effective voice in electing our leaders, and imposing voting districts that advance this mentality, is cowardly behavior. It reflects a pathetic lack of confidence in the legitimacy of their positions and seeks, instead, to avoid challenges by neutering other voices. It is logically incomprehensible and solidly hypocritical for passionate believers in competitive free enterprise concepts, to throw obscene levels of money at arbitrarily suppressing the competition of ideas. There is a name for governance structured this way and democratic republic isn’t one of them.
  4. The RedMap system is a tool for destroying this nation and the governance it so desperately needs in these times of overwhelming division, complexity, rapidity of change, global challenges, uncertainty, technological breakthroughs, and all of their cumulative and profound social and economic implications. Intentional destruction of governance systems for essential dialogue and reasoned negotiation is irredeemably Anti-American.
  5. Disenfranchisement by any means is essentially a form of theft and extortion. It seeks to slice targeted Americans out of the governance process. It is anything but a legitimate source of pride.
  6. We often hear that “all is fair in love and war”. Many would readily add: “and in politics, too.”

No it isn’t.

Of course, politicians and their supporters, past and present, have demonstrated atrocious behaviors in politics. At some level, that will continue by Republicans and Democrats alike (see Mr. Hinman). Still, real American leaders set points beyond which they will not go. The stakes have become so great because of cumulative misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by both parties that it is time to talk openly and loudly about the price we are paying for their hypocritical behavior. If they will not, we must.

One can say many things about such behavior. It is fundamentally inexcusable. No amount of rationalizing doubletalk can explain it away. Those who perpetrate this approach to our governance structures are exhibiting unpatriotic behavior in the extreme. We must not “give a pass” to those who are numb to the needs of our nation and proud of disenfranchising their fellow citizens by playing clever games. Why would we allow them to hide behind their arrogant defenses? Let’s call them out for behaving as enemies of the people. We the People.

Reinforced by David Daley’s clear documentation, we cannot repeat his message too often and in too many places. Today it is the Republican party. Tomorrow, by its own admission, the Democratic party intends to storm down the same path. Thank you, David Daley, for bringing such a clear picture of this Anti-American swamp to our attention. Now it is up to us.

All of this is enough to make you want to be an independent voter! Hmmm.

Al Bell lives in Peoria, AZ and is an activist with Independent Voters for Arizona.

*Reminder*

Conference Call with David Daley

Author of RATF**KED

Sunday, June 4th at 7 pm EST

Call: 641-715-3605
Pass code: 767775#

 

Ratfucked book image

Reader’s Forum—Tiani Coleman

20170318_conf_187

 

In the book Ratf**ked:  The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy, by David Daley, we get behind-the-scenes insights into how we’ve arrived at such a partisan, polarized Congress, where the American People are its victims.  The book is a piece of investigative journalism, wherein we’re able to witness how the Republicans were able to more than counteract the Democratic wave of 2008; when Obama was elected in 2008, Republicans were afraid that demographic trends, combined with Democratic control of the White House and both chambers of Congress would leave Republicans in the dust.  But Republicans hatched a plan, called REDMAP, that changed everything for at least a decade, if not more.   While all eyes were on Washington, Republicans (through the Republican State Leadership Committee – RSLC) were raising a lot of big money and putting it into relatively inexpensive, targeted state house, senate and governor races, knowing that the Census of 2010 would bring on new redistricting, and if they could get control – at the state level — of redistricting (the reapportionment and drawing of boundaries for U.S. House Districts), they could regain control of Congress.  It worked beyond their wildest dreams, even with unintended consequences.

The book provides example after example, of how this was done.   In PA, for example, in 2008, their U.S. House seats were 12-7 for Democrats.  In 2010, it flipped 12-7 for Republicans, and the Republican majority grew to 13-5 in 2012.  But in 2012, “Obama won 52% of the vote [in PA]; Democratic house candidates won 51 percent of the vote[,but only] . . . 28% of the seats.”  In NC, Democrats entered the 2012 election with 7/13 seats, and even though they won 50.6% of the votes, the Republicans took 9/13 seats, which became 10/13 in 2014.  This was done across the country by using the Voting Rights Act as a reason to pack minorities into the same district.  Some people think that’s just the way it is, with minorities and Democrats in higher population centers, but when you look at the extremely crazy district lines, you recognize that it’s a very deliberate attempt at getting certain political outcomes by compacting the Democrats and spreading Republicans out among many low-Democrat districts.  It gave Democrats some ultra-safe Districts where they wouldn’t have to pay any attention to anyone other than their base, and it usually resulted in some Republican safe Districts, as well as Republican-leaning districts.  No wonder why so many people feel like their vote doesn’t count.  It doesn’t!  If you’re part of a supermajority in a safe district, your vote is being wasted on voting for someone who will win anyway; you can’t use it to try to help someone win in a close race; and if you’re in the minority in a supermajority safe district, your vote will never change the outcome.

Daley shows how redistricting has caused the American “middle” to collapse.  The districts are so lopsided that the middle doesn’t matter.  Of all 435 seats in Congress, only a few dozen are competitive.  This means that the only real challenge candidates face happens in the primaries, where ideological partisans fight to convince rancorous partisans that they are the most liberal, in the case of the Democrats, or the most conservative in the case of the Republicans.  So the members of the House have become extremely polarized, only responding to its extremes.  They go in with their minds made up and will only be punished for cooperating amongst competing interests.  The Republican leadership at the time REDMAP was formed seemed to have helped create an uncontrollable monster that ultimately toppled many of them, too.  Moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats are an endangered species now.

Redistricting is currently before the Supreme Court.  In North Carolina, gerrymandered districts were recently struck down for being race-based.  The Supreme Court will soon hear a Wisconsin case to determine if the Court can find a standard to strike down gerrymandered districts for being partisan-based.  With the technology we have at our disposal, it looks like it may be possible to enact a standard, according to an efficiency gap, or deviations between the vote totals and the districts created, as well as showing that the districts created are against all odds that they aren’t a deliberate attempt at getting political, pre-determined results.  If not, we’ve really got to change things so that redistricting can’t continue to destroy our Democracy.  But even if the Court finds a standard, it will help, but won’t completely solve the problem.  While the book showed that moves towards a more independent process, such as independent redistricting commissions, help a little, they still have a lot of partisan interference behind the scenes, and even when they’re caught, the solutions are less than fair.

Larry Lessig is quoted as saying, “political corruption denies a basic equality:  the equality of the citizens.  Once you see equality as the flaw, then it’s obvious what the bugs are.”  I feel like I’m an independent because I finally saw equality – or inequality – as the flaw.  In my opinion, as long as we allow parties to control our elections, and the majority winners to get the spoils of chairmanships, committees, redistricting privileges, multitudes of appointments, fundraising advantages, etc., our government will always be about which party is in power.  The book pointed how the Democrats plan to try to replicate what the Republicans have done, instead of working to change the system!  If we really want to give equality to the citizens, we need to give all voters an equal say in the election process, even when they don’t belong to a party.  This not only means creating districts that are as competitive as possible, but it means having preliminary elections where voters and candidates who are not part of the two major parties aren’t shut out, but have an equal voice and role.  The role of polarization and partisanship could change quite a bit with nonpartisan primaries.

Tiani Xochitl Coleman is a mother of five, a graduate of Cornell Law School, and president of NH Independent Voters.

Tiani recently had an oped published n the Concord Monitor entitled, “Voters shouldn’t ignore what the parties are doing–we need reform”.

*Reminder*

Conference Call with David Daley

Author of RATF**KED

Sunday, June 4th at 7 pm EST

Call: 641-715-3605
Pass code: 767775#

 

Ratfucked book image

Political Gerrymandering and the Constitution

 

New York Times

POLITICS

When Does Political Gerrymandering Cross a Constitutional Line?

Sidebar

By ADAM LIPTAK               MAY 15, 2017

16bar-1-superJumbo

The Supreme Court building in Washington, seen from the Senate. Congress requires the Supreme Court to hear appeals in some areas of election law, and Wisconsin officials have filed such an appeal.  Credit:Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

The Supreme Court has never struck down an election map on the ground that it was drawn to make sure one political party would win an outsize number of seats. But it has left open the possibility that some kinds of political gamesmanship in redistricting may be too extreme.

The problem, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a 2004 concurrence, is that no one has come up with “a workable standard” to decide when the political gerrymandering has crossed a constitutional line.

Finding such a standard has long been, as one judge put it, “the holy grail of election law jurisprudence.”

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will consider an appeal from a decision in Wisconsin that may have found that holy grail. The case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, arrives at the court in the wake of a wave of Republican victories in state legislatures that allowed lawmakers to draw election maps favoring their party.

The case started when Republicans gained complete control of Wisconsin’s government in 2010 for the first time in more than 40 years. It was a redistricting year, and lawmakers promptly drew a map for the State Assembly that helped Republicans convert very close statewide vote totals into lopsided legislative majorities.

In 2012, Republicans won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote for Assembly candidates but captured 60 of the Assembly’s 99 seats. In 2014, 52 percent of the vote yielded 63 seats.

Last year, a divided three-judge Federal District Court panel ruled that Republicans had gone too far. The map, Judge Kenneth F. Ripple wrote for the majority, “was designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats.”

The decision was the first from a federal court in more than 30 years to reject a voting map as partisan gerrymandering.

Most cases reach the Supreme Court by way of petitions seeking review, which the justices are free to deny. The Wisconsin case is different. Congress requires the Supreme Court to hear appeals in some areas of election law, and Wisconsin officials have filed such an appeal.

That means the Supreme Court is very likely to weigh in on the fate of political gerrymandering, probably during the court’s next term, which starts in October.

There are two basic ways to inject partisan politics into drawing legislative maps: packing and cracking. Both result in what Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, calls “wasted votes.”

Packing a lot of Democrats into a single district, for instance, wastes every Democratic vote beyond the bare majority needed to elect a Democratic candidate. Cracking Democratic voters across districts in which Republicans have small majorities wastes all of the Democratic votes when the Republican candidate wins.

In an influential article, Professor Stephanopoulos and his colleague Eric McGhee applied a little math to this observation. The difference between the two parties’ wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes cast, yields an efficiency gap, they wrote. In a world of perfect nonpartisanship, there would be no gap.

The gap in Wisconsin was 13.3 percent in 2012 and 9.6 percent in 2014.

The Wisconsin voters who sued to challenge the Assembly map argued that gaps over 7 percent violate the Constitution. That number was meant to capture the likelihood that the gap would endure over a 10-year election cycle, but critics say it is arbitrary.

Adopting it, they say, would transform American elections. A 2015 report from Simon Jackman, then a political scientist at Stanford and an expert witness for the plaintiffs, found that a third of all redistricting plans in 41 states over a 43-year period failed the 7 percent standard. Elections in 2012 and 2014 in Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming featured efficiency gaps of more than 10 percent, Professor Jackman found.

Judge Ripple did not ground his opinion on the efficiency gap, relying instead on a more conventional legal test that considered discriminatory intent, the map’s partisan effects and whether they were justified by other reasons. But Judge Ripple did say that the efficiency gap corroborated the majority’s conclusions.

The case seems to be making Republicans nervous.

In a supporting brief, the Republican National Committee urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. The efficiency gap, the brief said, “is a tool that advances the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.”

The gap, the brief said, is a product of geography rather than gerrymandering. Democrats have packed themselves into cities, effectively diluting their voting power, while Republicans are more evenly distributed across most states, the brief said.

Most people acknowledge that the distribution of the population explains at least some part of the gap. “Wisconsin’s political geography, particularly the high concentration of Democratic voters in urban centers like Milwaukee and Madison, affords the Republican Party a natural, but modest, advantage in the districting process,” Judge Ripple wrote, for instance.

Partisan gerrymandering, he wrote, amplified that advantage.

Using computer simulations, Jowei Chen, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, has tried to disentangle any natural advantages enjoyed by Wisconsin Republicans from those created by gerrymandering. He found that it was not hard to draw maps favoring neither party.

Justice Kennedy may have been looking for a “workable standard” even simpler and cleaner than one that must take account of natural advantages. But if there is a holy grail in this area, the test identified in the Wisconsin case is almost certainly it.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

 

*Reminder*

Conference Call with David Daley

Author of RATF**KED

Sunday, June 4th at 7 pm EST

Call: 641-715-3605
Pass code: 767775#

 

An Independent Reviews RATF**KED

The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy

By Dr. Jessie Fields 

Jessie Fields

Dr. Jessie Fields at the 2107 National Conference of Independents

 

David Daley does a fine job of exploring the politics of redistricting and the current escalation of gerrymandering, a very old corrupt standard practice of elected officials determining the electoral districts from which they are elected, drawing the lines of state legislative and congressional districts. The author examines in detail the resulting high level of voter disenfranchisement at the state and national level, the effective takeover of our political process by party operatives who determine the outcome of elections by packing Democratic leaning minority voters into dense urban districts and spreading so called Republican leaning voters over more districts which Republican legislators can be assured to win though by smaller margins. Throughout the book Daley touches on the racial and economic divisions this practice perpetuates.

The book pivots through the years of the Obama presidency and examines the 2010 Republican Party escalation of partisan gerrymandering that targeted districts in key states to successfully control the state redistricting process which resulted in unprecedented victories for the Republican Party and their domination of a majority of state legislatures and of Congress.  The author also points out the complacency of the Democratic Party, its focus on presidential elections and the Democratic Party’s reliance on demographics to win elections.

A solution to gerrymandering is unlikely to come from either of the two parties. The Republicans may have perfected it in 2010, but both sides have had a long, successful history of manipulating redistricting for their own advantage. A political party is built to win elections, after all – as well as to raise money and employ consultants and operatives. Their leaders always believe they can win the next one, and that reformers will stop howling once their side regains power. Too often, sadly, that’s true.”

Independent voters have been and remain committed to nonpartisan political reform including redistricting reform. The source for reform has come primarily from voter ballot initiatives and the book highlights the fights to maintain such initiatives in states like Arizona, where the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and the voter initiative was upheld by a 5-4 vote of the court.

Other examples of the passage of redistricting reforms by popular vote are Florida’s “nonpartisan Fair Districts Now coalition” which in 2010 passed two reform initiatives with 62 percent support. In 2015 Ohio voters by 71% passed a ballot initiative that, though limited, established a less partisan plan for drawing state legislative districts.

However California, in my estimate the state that has led the country in electoral reform victories with its redistricting commission and nonpartisan top two elections initiatives, passed by the voters in 2010, is not mentioned except in a quote in the chapter, “Democrats” from Martin Frost, a former Texas Congressman who was gerrymandered out of office.  

“When Democrats controlled the House for the four decades before the 1994 Gingrich revolution, redistricting worked with a wink, he said; it was an incumbent protection racket on both sides. .. “That’s why prior to the referendum in California – prior to the commission – everyone got reelected.” “The numbers back that up.”

The overarching theme of the book is in the subtitle, “The True Story Behind The Secret Plan To Steal America’s Democracy”.  It expresses the stealth aspect of the reality of what is happening to American democracy. A centerpiece of the theft and destruction of democracy is partisan gerrymandering in conjunction with closed partisan primaries. If the primaries locally and nationally were open and every voter, no matter party affiliation or non-affiliation, including independent voters could vote the threat of being “primaried” by a far right wing Republican would not exist.

The relationship of opening the primaries to all voters along with redistricting reform is underestimated, both are needed. Partisan gerrymandering hinges on the district being dominated by identification with one political party, so that whoever wins that party primary wins the general election. If the primary is open to all voters the candidates who are successful are more likely those that appeal to a cross section of voters. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in states with nonpartisan open primaries. A massive continuous infusion of systemic democracy reforms and initiatives that take power from the parties and put it in the hands of the voters are needed to save our democracy. I could not agree more with Daley that “.., it will require creative state and local solutions, inventive uses of the referendum and initiative process, and new alliances of frustrated citizens which defy party boundaries, rooted in the belief that fair elections which reflect an honest majority are as important as which side wins. It will take people to stand up and say that our democratic values matter too deeply to ratfuck.”

The book was completed before the end of the 2016 presidential election, and in it Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, postulates alternative scenarios if the election was won by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or “a Republican” given that gerrymandering has given the Republican Party a congressional majority for the rest of this decade. Donald Trump is now president. He was elected because large segments of the American people are in revolt against the establishment and are looking for ways to change politics. This popular revolt was also expressed in the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders.

The gerrymander is yet another example of a political barrier that must be overcome. Voters are becoming more independent and less easily sorted by party identification. Independents say strongly “do not put me in that box”, 43% of Americans now identify as independents, they are the hoped for bridge to a new and more inclusive American democracy.

~Dr. Jessie Fields is a physician practising in Harlem, a leader in the New York City Independence Clubs, and a board member of the All Stars Project and Open Primaries.

***

Conference Call with David Daley

Author of RATF**KED

Sunday, June 4th at 7 pm EST

Call: 641-715-3605
Pass code: 767775#

  • Independent Lens

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 339 other followers

  • Featured Links

  • Categories

  • Facebook

  • Links