A conversation about the Australian election with a reader from Down Under

Bukko Boomeranger and I had quite the conversation about the Australian election in the comments to John Oliver explains trade.  I found it so engrossing that I first responded "Just for you, I might cover it [the Australian election] next week," and finished with "I'll respond to the rest of your comment when I feature it in a post about the Australian elections."  Here are his comments with my responses about ranked-choice voting, mandatory voting, and the outcome of the election.

Here's Bukko's first comment, which he posted before the voting began.

Ah well -- soon off to accost voters (national Parliamentary election today.) It's good fun. Citizens expect to pass through a line of people waving flyers telling them what various parties recommend in Australia's ranked multiple-choice voting system. I try to make it funny, with quips like "If you're sick of the big parties!" or "Who's leaning Green today?" And when the polls close, I'll be "scrutineering." That means watching the Australian Election Commission's paid workers when they unseal the ballot boxes, dump the paper ballots onto a table, sort them by which candidate got the voter's #1 choice, then eliminating the piles with the fewest votes. THOSE ballots are shuffled onto the candidates that each voter marked as their #2 choice, so the person's vote is not entirely ignored. From then, it goes to the top 2 vote-getters, and the winner at that polling station is determined. Combine the results from polling places across the electorate, and bingo! we have a winner. It's pretty quick -- less than 2 hours -- and honest, with observers from Labor, us Greenies, sometimes the Liberals (the conservative party), Socialists or other minor parties looking on. Much better than black box electronic voting. It's one of the reasons I have a bit of faith in this country, because everyone has to vote (or face a small fine) and the counting is done transparently, so who's in Parliament can be said to represent the will of the people.

I knew that Australia had mandatory voting, but I didn't know that the country also had ranked-choice voting.  While I'm not a fan of mandatory voting with fines for not voting, I am in favor of other ways of increasing turnout, particularly by reducing barriers to access.  That's why I was thrilled when Proposal 3 passed here in Michigan allowing same-day registration and no-reason absentee voting.  On the other hand, I am definitely a fan of ranked-choice voting, which I mentioned as an election reform before.  I am so glad to see that it works so smoothly in a major country like Australia.

On the gripping hand (yes, a Motie reference), I'm not sure I'd like to walk through a throng of volunteers trying to get me to vote for their party or candidate on the way to the polling station.  It's bad enough seeing all the lawn signs on the way in, and I'm a fan of lawn signs and have placed them myself the night before an election.

That was about the process.  Follow over the jump for the outcome, which came as a bit of surprise.

CBS News, CNN, and CNBC debate Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz running for President as an independent

Last night, Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said he's considering independent run for president on "60 Minutes."  That prompted a flurry of analysis and speculation on the cable news networks, beginning with CBS's own digital news service, which focused on the negative reaction to the announcement in Democrats fear Howard Schultz presidential run would help Trump win.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told "60 Minutes" he's seriously considering and independent presidential bid in 2020, and he's already facing a backlash from the left. CBSN political reporter Caitlin Huey-Burns has more on the reaction.

After having lost the previous election in the Electoral College while earning a plurality of votes, Democrats are in no mood for splitting the anti-Trump vote.  Three years ago, I wrote that 2016 could be a good year for minor party candidates and it was.

First, the Libertarians achieved "major-party" status in Michigan, even if the party didn't qualify for federal matching funds.   Second, The Greens won more offices than Libertarians in Michigan, seven to the Libertarians' three.  Finally, the minor party share of the vote exceeded the last "good year" for minor parties, 2000, when 3.75% of the vote went to candidates from outside the two major parties, 2.74% of which was cast for the Green Party ticket.  In 2016, 5.73% of the vote was cast for minor party and independent candidates, 3.28% of the total to the Libertarians and 1.07% to the Greens.  I'm sure that's the best showing for the Libertarians in the history of the party.  One has to go back to 1996 for a better showing by a third party, 8.40% for the Reform Party, the largest chunk by far of the 10.05% that went to minor party and independent candidates that year.

While 2016 was a good year for minor parties, it was not a good year for Democrats and they don't want to repeat that performance when they feel like they will need every available vote to defeat Donald Trump.

Follow over the jump for video segments from CNN and CNBC.

Update to 'Vox explains how proportional representation can solve gerrymandering and help minor parties,' the second most read entry for the seventh year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News, plus minor parties

The second most read entry of the seventh year of the blog was Vox explains how proportional representation can solve gerrymandering and help minor parties, posted November 9, 2017.  It ended the blogging year with 12,974 raw page views, 12,714 according to the default counter.  It was the first entry to earn more than 10,000 page views the year it was posted and was the number one post between December 2, 2017 and March 4, 2018, when Suit against John Oliver and HBO dismissed passed it to claim the top spot.

Before I explain how this entry climbed to number one and stayed there for three months, I'm will do the same thing here that I did in Update to 'Suit against John Oliver and HBO dismissed,' top post for the seventh year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News, following up with an update to the subject of the original post.  Fortunately, three articles about using proportional representation in the U.S. were published just this month.

The first one by David Wassel in The Hill, asked What is to be done with congressional districts? Try proportional representation in response to the lawsuit fighting gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.

But maybe districts themselves are the problem. Fortunately, an alternative is available: proportional representation. It’s an idea that is beginning to attract the attention of more and more political commentators, grassroots groups and others. Under this system, both major parties (as well as minor ones) might pick slates of 18 nominees in regional geographic primary elections. Instead of voting for one representative in 18 separate districts, a statewide congressional election would be held with each voter casting votes for up to 18 candidates from the various slates. In Pennsylvania, we do this in judicial elections when there are multiple court openings. The number of seats awarded to each party would be determined by the percentage of the vote received by that party, statewide.
...
Proportional representation offers an opportunity to remove politics as much as possible from this particular process while injecting some much-needed clarity and certainty.

Are there problems with this proposal?  Of course; nothing is perfect and, as with drawing districts, there are always trade-offs. But this system is both fairer and more reflective of actual voter intent. It would eliminate, instead of just minimizing, the wasted votes because partisan voters are overwhelmingly concentrated in particular districts. And how better to address the problem of unfair advantage, the basis of the court’s decision to scrap the old map?

The biggest difficulty is political feasibility. Vested interests will cling to status quo, or make cosmetic changes, at best. Anything new is always frightening. But the voters in Pennsylvania deserve an intelligent and workable solution to this problem — one that might become an example for other states facing such challenges.

Next, the U.S. Centre of the London School of Economics analyzed the effect of proportional represenation in Maryland’s electoral maps show how proportional representation could solve the problem of gerrymandering.*

This week the US Supreme Court hears a case concerning the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in Maryland. Examining current, past, and alternative electoral maps, Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann, and Charles Anthony Smith find that by making districts more competitive, some redistricting plans can actually work against one party or the other. Only the introduction of proportional representation with multi-member districts, they argue, would mean a truly fair electoral system for Maryland.
...
The last alternate, PR plan, divides Maryland into two districts, with district one containing five seats, and district two containing the other three seats.  The larger district includes the more heavily populated region of the state.

Using a neutral electoral formula for seat allocation (one that does not provide a bonus to the largest party), this system would assure two seats to Republicans (assuming two party competition), and would nearly assure them a third seat in the larger district, for a total of 38 percent of the seats, about as proportional as you can get (responsiveness is trickier to estimate for multi-seat districts and is excluded from the table, but it is insignificant, given the low disproportionality).  Moreover, every voter contributes to their party’s seat share.  The votes of rural Democrats and urban Republicans are as valuable as anyone else’s, and racial groups don’t need to be packed into districts to have an equal and effective voice in choosing representatives.

Maryland’s Democratic gerrymander is an excellent case for understanding the dynamics of disproportionality.  Still, it is highly unlikely that a majority of Supreme Court Justices will recognize the direct connection between individual political equality and greater proportionality, indeed greater proportionality than our current electoral system can provide.  But the Justices have before them two clear cases of extreme partisan gerrymandering, each designed by the other political party.  And they have a discernable and manageable standard, symmetry, which provides direction to how the problem might be remedied.   We hope that all voters, regardless of partisan preference, are soon relieved of the very real discrimination that gerrymandering causes.  And we hope that one day soon, party leaders will consider the electoral remedies available to them to advocate for greater political equality.

The authors note one problem with proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives but mention a solution.

Multi-seat districts are currently prohibited for Congress, but there is a bill in committee, the Fair Representation Act, that would facilitate multi-seat Congressional districts.  Several states previously elected their Congressional delegates using multi-seat districts, though they used discriminatory plurality formulas.  Several state legislatures, including Maryland, still use multi-seat districts to elect some members.

The Fair Representation Act includes ranked-choice voting in addition to proportional representation in multi-member districts.**  So do two plans from California.  Follow over the jump for those.

Ezra Klein of Vox explains how third parties are the Underpants Gnomes of U.S. politics

I'm generally positive about minor parties, last expressing that sentiment in Vox explains how proportional representation can solve gerrymandering and help minor parties.  However, they will not solve all political problems, as I described in On American political parties held captive by their interest groups and ideologies.  One of the problems I did not mention appeared in a video I used in a comment on Republicans Will Have to Make a Choice at Booman Tribune.

"I await a third party movement."

I'll let Ezra Klein of Vox answer that for me.

Here is Third parties are the underpants gnomes of American politics.

Could a third party fix the hellscape of fail that is the United States Congress? Ezra Klein explains.

My summary was "No, although that's not really what I think you're after." My response could have been more pointed.  I could have done for liberals what Pizza Man Cain wants a third party for conservatives, never mind three already exist did for conservatives, pointing out that the Green Party already exists and he could join them.  As it was, I trolled the person asking the question gently another way.

By the way, be flattered.  I was going to post this in response to Brodie, but I decided you were more deserving.  Besides, this comment will land directly below his anyway.

I can throw shade and still be civil.  I think that's a good skill to have.

Minor parties for the sixth year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News

I ended Michigan recount for the sixth year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News by telling my readers that I would "examine top posts about minor party candidates next in this series."  With only a couple of hours left in the day, here is the retrospective I promised.

The sixth most read entry posted last year and the seventh most read of all time is 2016 could be a good year for minor party candidates with 3640 page views, 3773 according to the raw counter.  As I have done repeatedly, I'll be a good environmentalist and recycle to tell the story of its page views, this time from Monthly meta for May 2016.

The top post of May 2016 was "2016 could be a good year for minor party candidates" from May 14, 2016 with 3669 page views, 3676 according to the raw counter.  It also came in second for most comments with 6.  It earned its page views from being shared at the Coffee Party Facebook page, where it got more than 3400 page views in the first 24 hours, and helped attract 3440 page views the next day, 883 the first hour.  The entry also ended the month as the second most read of all time, knocking "Corn questions from 'Food, Inc.' worksheet" out of the top ten after it had briefly re-entered the leader board at the start of the month.

It did turn out to be a good year for minor parties, both in the top twenty on in the real world.  Follow over the jump for three more entries plus an update on the story.

Party's over as judge orders Michigan recount halted

>
I told my readers at the end of Dueling rulings mean Michigan recount continues for now "All parties involved (pun intended) will be back in the same federal court that ordered the recount to begin on Monday to argue their cases.  Stay tuned."  That happened and WOOD-TV reported the result was Federal judge agrees to end Michigan recount after 3 days.

A federal judge who ordered Michigan to start a second look at presidential votes has dropped his decision, effectively ending the recount.

Well, phooey.  I was hoping to see it finished, although I worried that the party might end prematurely.  Still, it served its purpose, as the Detroit Free Press as reprinted in USA Today passed along the following from Jill Stein's campaign.

But attorneys for Stein argued the recount must continue, stressing that thus far it has shown numerous voting problems across the state, particularly in Detroit, where more than half of the precincts' ballots cannot be recounted due to problems that have not been disclosed. They also argued that Stein is an aggrieved party if she participated in an election that was plagued with mistakes or fraud. And the voters of Michigan have a right to know that, too, they said.

"There is no way of knowing whether fraud occurred without conducting the recount," Stein's attorney, Hayley Horowitz, told Goldsmith during the hearing, arguing it is "way to early" to know if fraud was an issue.

After the hearing, Stein told the Detroit Free Press that so far, the recount appears to be exposing problems with Michigan's election process, particularly in low-income, minority communities.

"It is revealing some really troubling aspects of how elections are run here," Horowitz said of the recount. "We think that's part of the reason the recount should continue — to continue revealing those problems so that the people of Michigan can see how their election operates."

It also got some people's votes counted properly, as the Detroit Free Press reported in Clinton gains 65 votes in Ingham County recount.

Ingham County completed its presidential election recount Wednesday, with Hillary Clinton gaining a net increase of 65 votes over President-elect Donald Trump.

Clinton’s vote total increased by 138 in Ingham County, while Trump gained 73 more votes than were recorded on Election Night, according to the county’s recount report.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who requested Michigan’s statewide recount, lost two votes in Ingham County in the recount. Libertarian Gary Johnson gained two votes, according to the report.

Only 23 of 208 precincts in Ingham County were not recountable.  Meanwhile, Oakland County also finished its recount of Election Day ballots and was working its way through absentee ballots when the order to stop came down.  It found only 26 of 520 precincts not recountable.  Both of those are more acceptable than potentially one-third of Wayne County's precincts.  As I wrote, both Barb Byrum, Ingham County Clerk, and Lisa Brown, Oakland County Clerk, run tight ships, and I'd support either one for Secretary of State in 2018, especially over Janice Winfrey, the Detroit City Clerk, and Cathy M. Garrett, the Wayne County Clerk.

Since I started this week with a song, I'll end it with one, Peggy Lee - The Party's Over.


Regular programming resumes tomorrow.  I might have something on the Michigan Legislature's lame duck session, Al Gore meeting with Donald Trump about climate change, or I might start writing about entertainment awards early.  It depends on how I feel and what material is available.  Stay tuned.

Dueling rulings mean Michigan recount continues for now

I concluded The party starts as Michigan recount begins as ordered with "As for the hearing in Lansing and the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, stay tuned.  This party might end prematurely."  WXYZ has news on both court hearings in Dueling rulings confuse recount.

Dueling court rulings are confusing the current status of the Michigan presidential recount.

Mark Brewer is right, the federal courts have primacy over state courts, so the recount continues, as WOOD-TV reports in Presidential election recount underway in West Michigan.

Throughout the state, local clerks are keeping one eye on the recount and one eye on the courtroom.

All parties involved (pun intended) will be back in the same federal court that ordered the recount to begin on Monday to argue their cases.  Stay tuned.

Federal judge orders Michigan recount to begin today

When I promised that I would return to reality today, I didn't expect this news on the Michigan recount happening over the weekend: Decision pending on Michigan election recount from WXYZ.


The result of that hearing was Judge orders immediate start of Michigan recount from the Detroit Free Press via USA Today.

A federal judge early Monday morning ordered a recount of Michigan's presidential ballots to begin at noon on Monday, and for the state to "assemble necessary staff to work sufficient hours" to complete the recount by a Dec. 13 federal deadline.

Lawyers for Green Party candidate Jill Stein urged the action in an emergency request, and U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith held a rare Sunday hearing in federal court. It lasted three hours, and Goldsmith issued a written opinion just after midnight Monday morning.

Goldsmith said a state law requiring a two-business-day waiting period to start the recount probably violates voting rights. Stein has shown "a credible threat that the recount, if delayed, would not be completed" by Dec. 13 — the federal "safe harbor" deadline to guarantee Michigan's electoral votes are counted when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

"With the perceived integrity of the presidential election as it was conducted in Michigan at stake, concerns with cost pale in comparison," Goldsmith said in his opinion.

In ordering the recount to begin at noon Monday, rather than Wednesday morning under the two-day waiting period the state planned to observe, Goldsmith ordered the recount, once started, "must continue until further order of this court."

I have two reactions to this news.  First, it makes me more optimistic that Stein moving her legal efforts in the Pennsylvania recount to federal court might work.  Newsy reports on this part of the story.

The campaign said the state court system is "ill-equipped to address this problem."

Second, I'd normally post Professor Farnsworth, but I think that would be premature.  Instead, I'm going to echo Dame Shirley Bassey covering Pink, "Get This Party Started!"


I'll keep my readers updated on the progress of the recounts.

Michigan recount still on as Trump fails to stop it while Schuette still trying

I promised to keep my readers updated on the Michigan recount yesterday.  I mentioned one development in the comments to The Michigan recount is on!

Trump and the Republican Party have objected. Let's see if they prevail, in which case my optimism was premature.

WXYZ had the first word on this part of the story in Trump objects to Michigan recount.

Donald Trump and the Michigan Republican Party have filed an objection to a recount of the Michigan vote.

That was yesterday.  The Detroit Free Press reported today Deadlock: Board vote means Michigan presidential recount may proceed.

Michigan's Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2-2, along party lines, Friday, on President-elect Donald Trump's objection to Green Party candidate Jill Stein's request for a recount of all presidential ballots cast in Michigan.

State election officials said earlier that a tie vote would mean a hand recount of all of the roughly 4.8 million ballots would proceed. But lawyers for Trump have asked the board for a stay of its decision, and the board has not ruled on that request. The board was also still deliberating Friday on whether a hand recount should be conducted, as requested by Stein, or a machine recount, recommended by Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, who said it would peed the process, save money, and reduce the chance for error.

A recount can't start until Tuesday at the earliest, and Friday's court challenge filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette puts even that start date in doubt.

Trump failed to stop the recount.  However, he's not alone.  In an earlier Detroit Free Press story on the Board of Canvassers meeting, the other part of the story intruded.

But the Michigan Board of State Canvassers declared a one-hour recess just as the 9:30 a.m. meeting began, as news broke that Attorney General Bill Schuette had filed a lawsuit asking the Michigan Supreme Court to halt the recount before it began. Shortly before 10:30 a.m., the board voted to go into closed session to consider the Schuette legal action.

Follow over the jump for that part of the story.

The Michigan recount is on!

When "I promise[d] to return to reality after midnight" at the end of One last People's Choice nominees entry about songs in speculative fiction movies, I was hoping to post that Jill Stein had indeed filed for a recount in Michigan yesterday.  I got my wish, as WOOD-TV reported last night Jill Stein officially requests presidential vote recount in Michigan.

The first statewide recount Michigan has had to complete in 60 years could begin as early as Friday.

WXYZ has more on the Stein campaign's rationale along with quotes from the press conference in Michigan recount to get underway

Michigan will soon be recounting the presidential election.

It's on!  As the WOOD-TV reporter noted, all three states would have to flip to Clinton to change the outcome, which is exceedingly unlikely.  However, it's worth doing just as an audit of the election.

Follow over the jump for more details in reports from Tuesday.

Greens win more offices than Libertarians in Michigan

While I'm waiting for the final national popular vote to be counted and certified, I'm following up on a contest I highlighted in Michigan Green candidates from the bottom of the ballot to the top.

I'll start at the bottom of the partisan ballot by repeating what I wrote in June.

The most interesting in terms of practical effect are running for the lowest offices.

Finally, the Libertarians nominated three candidates for Ypsilanti Township Park Commissioner, Elizabeth Ceader, Lawrence W. Johnson, and Kalyn Sterzik.  Of this group, Johnson had previously run for Ypsilanti Township Trustee in 2012 and lost.  He and the rest may have more success this year.  There are currently four Democratic candidates on the August primary ballot for seven slots with no Republican candidates.  Unless another party nominates candidates or an independent files for the office, all three appear likely to be elected, serving as the opposition to the Democrats.

Even if these three are the only Libertarians elected in Michigan this year, 2016 would still be a good year for minor party candidates.

The Greens did nominate two people for these positions, Stuart Collis and Shauna McNally.  While the possibility of all three Libertarians serving has dropped, there will still be three minor party members of the board, at least one of which will be a Libertarian.  I personally think the Greens are a better match for the constituency than the Libertarians, but I have my doubts that they will be able to pull enough votes away from the Democrats, who I expect will all get elected, to pick off more than one of the Libertarians.  Still, this will be an interesting contest to watch for no other reason than seeing what happens when minor parties actually can compete and win.

I was right and wrong about this contest.  I was right that the Greens were a better fit for the constituency than the Libertarians, so I was wrong that only one of them would win.  According to the Washtenaw County Clerk, both did, leaving only one Libertarian to serve as opposition to the Democrats from the right.  Here are the candidates listed in decreasing order of vote totals/percentages with the party identifications added and the winning candidates names and numbers bolded.

Debbie Swanson (D)   17888    19.37%
Gloria C. Peterson (D)    17544    18.99%
David L. Streeter (D)   17051    18.46%
Edward Burnett (D)    17042    18.45%
Shauna L. McNally (G)      5009    5.42%
Elizabeth Corder (L)    4719    5.11%
Stuart Collis (G)     4580    4.96%
Lawrence W. Johnson (L)    4163    4.51%
Kalyn D. Sterzik (L)    3888    4.21%

It looks like I misspelled Corder's name, but that's because the Libertarian Party did, too (the error has since been corrected).  Still, congratuations to McNally, Corder, and Collis, all of whom get to represent the "minor parties" in local government.

By the way, they're not alone.  Jesse Torres was elected to the Holly Township Parks Commission as the only elected Green Party official in Oakland County.  She came in sixth for board with seven members (the seventh will be either a qualified write-in or an appointee).  Korie Blyveis was re-elected as Newburg Township Clerk in Cass County; she ran unopposed and still got 370 votes.  She was one of three Greens in local office in the state before last Tuesday, the others being Scott Klein on Hamtramck City Council and David Newland on the Bellaire School Board Trustee.  Finally, Tom Mair won a seat on the Grand Traverse County Commission, beating a five-term Republican incumbent.  That probably makes him the highest ranking elected member of the Green Party in the state out of seven.

On the other hand, no other Libertarian candidates won offices in Michigan as a result of last week's election.  Even adding Corder to the two elected Libertarians in Michigan gives them a grand total of three to the Greens seven.  Surprise!  The party that came in fourth in the statewide presidential contest beat the one that came in third when it came to getting candidates into office, including defeating them in the one local race where they competed head to head.

*The Libertarians can take some consolation from achieving "major party" status, a topic I'll save for tomorrow.

John Oliver and Keith Olbermann examine minor party candidates

Earlier this month, I shared how Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers mocked Gary Johnson and Bill Maher warned against voting for him even as newspapers endorsed him.  I pointed out this was exactly what should be happenning in a good year for minor party candidates.

Now, John Oliver spreads the attention and the mirth not only at Johnson, but also Jill Stein and some other minor party candidates for President in Third Parties.

Third party candidates want to be serious contenders, so John Oliver considers them seriously as potential presidents.

What I saw actually made me think better of Gary Johnson.  First, he proved he was smarter and better prepared than Rick Perry.  Asking Perry what three departments he'd eliminate led to his infamous "Oops" moment.  At least Johnson could name them off the top of his head.  Second, I didn't know he climbed Mt. Everest.  Regardless of his politics, that's impressive.  Third, he actually has the right attitude of humility about his accomplishment; one does not conquer the mountain, one merely survives the experience of visiting.  Just the same, his metaphor for expressing himself is downright strange--but that's Johnson.

As for Stein, Oliver shows she can do more musically than play the bongos; she sings better than I expected, although AutoTune may have done wonders for her.  However, Oliver exposes how she is even more tolerant of bad weird ideas than Johnson.  I found that disappointing.

While Oliver came to the conclusion that all of the candidates are flawed, so voting for Johnson, Stein, "Joe Exotic," or any of the candidates in last night's Free and Equal debate will not be any better than voting for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Keith Olbermann actively warned his viewers against voting for any minor party candidate in This Election is Too Important Not to Vote for Hillary.

Don't like Hillary Clinton? Desperate to change the system? That's fine. But those impulses must wait.

I'm not quite that adamant.  If any of my readers live in a safely Red or Blue state, voting for Johnson, Stein, Darrell Castle, or Evan McMullin will not matter; go right ahead, you're throwing away your vote harmlessly and in the case of Johnson will likely end up qualifying the Libertarians for public election funding.  On the other hand, those who live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, or Ohio have votes too valuable to waste.  Think hard about your vote this time, and then work to change the system between elections.  That's more likely to get the results minor party voters say they want.

As for Keith, he may be scared, but at least he remembered his tag line--"watch this space."

Free and Equal debate tonight

Last week's debate, which prompted Keith Olbermann to declare Trump a threat to democracy and people to stream Janet Jackson's 'Nasty' in response to Trump insulting Clinton, wasn't the last debate of the campaign.  Like 2012, the Free and Equal Debate for minor party and independent candidates will be.  Take it away, Denver Post!

Actor Ed Asner will moderate a presidential debate being held Tuesday on the University of Colorado, organizers announced Monday.

Asner, the seven-time Emmy Award-winner best known for his performances in “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Lou Grant” and the animated film “Up,” will lead a discussion between presidential candidates Darrell Castle, of the Constitution Party; Gloria La Riva, of the Socialist Party, and Rocky De La Fuente, an independent candidate, the Daily Camera reports.

Unlike four years ago, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who have been invited along with Evan McMullin, Bill Kristol's better joke, probably won't attend.  That's disappointing.  If any of them were likely to show up, I'd be tempted to put together drinks and a drinking game for the event.  It would be worth it for the B-list candidates.  For these C-listers, I'm not going to bother.

Clinton lead over Trump shrinking in Michigan

When I last reported on the state of the presidential contest in Michigan, Clinton had leads of 17% and 15%.  That was at the start of July.  The situation has changed dramatically since then, as WXYZ reports in EXCLUSIVE POLL: Presidential race between Clinton & Trump too close to call in Michigan.

The race for U.S. President has narrowed considerably in Michigan and is now too close to call!

The Detroit Free Press explains what happened.

Where she led among every age group a month ago, she now trails with voters 50-64 by 41%-33%. And what had been a 24-point lead among voters 18-34 has dropped to 7 points, 31%-24%, with Johnson picking up support to match Trump’s (24%).

Also, where Clinton led among black voters, 85%-2% over Trump in August, that is now 74%-2%, with the poll showing some support migrating to Johnson and Stein and the undecided number growing from 10% to 14%.

And in the most populous part of Michigan — Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties — where Clinton held a 53%-27% edge over Trump in August, she now holds a 47%-32% margin. Undecideds remained at 11%.

Clinton's support among people from union households fell from 49% to 41%, where Trump’s rose from 29% to 37% — though she appeared to continue to hold a wide margin among union members themselves. The UAW, Teamsters, AFL-CIO and others have endorsed Clinton.

On the one hand, EEP!  FiveThirtyEight now gives Clinton 71.4% chance of winning the state, down from 93% in August.  On the other, it's now time to do something about the situation.  Fortunately, there is a campaign field office just a mile away.  The manager there has been asking me to phone bank and canvass since it opened.  When Clinton had a more than ten point lead, I didn't think she needed my help.  Now, she does.  Time to start volunteering!

Trump and Stein visit Detroit

I concluded Presidents on Labor Day by mentioning two presidential candidates who campaigned in Detroit over the weekend.

The first WXYZ clip also mentioned Donald Trump's visit to Detroit on Saturday.  I'll have more on that visit as well as that of Green Party nominee Jill Stein tomorrow.  Stay tuned.

I begin with WXYZ, who reported Saturday Trump's visit leads to protests in Detroit.


Mike Duggan had a busy weekend.  Not only was he in the Labor Day parade marching next to Bill Clinton, he was in the protest as well.  He wasn't alone.  The Detroit Free Press showed him next to U.S. Representative Brenda Lawrence in Protesters gather outside Donald Trump's Detroit appearance.  Another Democratic politician involved was Rasida Tlaib, who was quoted in Arab-American News' Detroiters say no to Trump.  If Tlaib's name looks familiar to my readers, she was one of the people who organized the demonstration when Trump was greeted by protesters in Detroit the last time he visited.  Any time Trump comes to Detroit, he should expect her to organize a demonstration against him.

Green Party nominee Jill Stein also visited Detroit on Saturday.  Follow over the jump for a report on her visit.

Michigan Green candidates from the bottom of the ballot to the top

I concluded yesterday's Hillary Clinton rebuts Trump in Warren, Michigan with "I will give the Green Party its due."  I'll start at the bottom of the partisan ballot by repeating what I wrote in June.The most interesting in terms of practical effect are running for the lowest offices.

Finally, the Libertarians nominated three candidates for Ypsilanti Township Park Commissioner, Elizabeth Ceader, Lawrence W. Johnson, and Kalyn Sterzik.  Of this group, Johnson had previously run for Ypsilanti Township Trustee in 2012 and lost.  He and the rest may have more success this year.  There are currently four Democratic candidates on the August primary ballot for seven slots with no Republican candidates.  Unless another party nominates candidates or an independent files for the office, all three appear likely to be elected, serving as the opposition to the Democrats.

Even if these three are the only Libertarians elected in Michigan this year, 2016 would still be a good year for minor party candidates.

The Greens did nominate two people for these positions, Stuart Collis and Shauna McNally.  While the possibility of all three Libertarians serving has dropped, there will still be three minor party members of the board, at least one of which will be a Libertarian.  I personally think the Greens are a better match for the constituency than the Libertarians, but I have my doubts that they will be able to pull enough votes away from the Democrats, who I expect will all get elected, to pick off more than one of the Libertarians.  Still, this will be an interesting contest to watch for no other reason than seeing what happens when minor parties actually can compete and win.

Follow over the jump for more on the Green candidates as I work my way up the partisan ballot.

2016 could be a good year for minor party candidates

Monday at Kunstler's blog, I linked to CNN's Gary Johnson: GOP Trump Alternative?

Smerconish talks to Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson, who will probably be on all 50 state ballots and is polling at 11% but is usually left off of polls.

It was in response to another reader touting Jill Stein.  I agreed with him, but thought that Johnson would make a bigger splash.  I concluded my comment by wrting "I can already tell this will be a good year for minor parties."

I'm not alone in thinking this.  Within the past few months, several articles have expressed the same hope.  March saw the Washington Post opine that Americans should make room for third-party candidates.  That article touted Bloomberg, who later declined to run.  He figured that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and he would have acted as a spoiler.  He didn't want that.  On the other hand, if he thought Sanders was going to win the nomination, he'd probably have run.

The pace picked up in April with three articles, beginning with The Huffington Post declaring Why 2016 Could Be A Record Year For Third-Party Candidates, And What Pollsters Can Do About It.  The answer is include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in those states where they are on the ballot.  The same month NBC News wondered Third Time's the Charm?: Minor Parties Hope for 2016 Wins.  Also in April, The Atlantic wrote There's Still Time for a Serious Third-Party Presidential Run.  Yes, if it's the Libertarians or Greens, who will have ballot access in a majority of states; the Libertarians might have ballot access in all of them.  No, if it's William Kristol's quixotic crusade to draft someone like Romney as an Establishment alternative to Trump; the deadline to get a true independent on the ballot in Texas has already passed.  Besides, any idea Kristol favors is likely to be a bad one.

The speculation continued this month, as FiveThirtyEight asked Could An Independent Candidate Succeed In 2016?  Of all the answers to the question, I agreed most with Harry Enten, who said "this year pretty much meets all the criteria for at least a moderately successful third-party candidacy."  For me, that means that the Libertarians and possibly the Greens could reach the threshold of five percent of the popular vote to qualify for public financing in 2020.  The Constitution Party does not have ballot access in enough states to meet that criterion.  It's very unlikely that even one of the minor parties will qualify for the debates with the major party candidates.  As Gary Johnson pointed out, that requires fifteen percent in several polls before the debates.   While minor parties have earned Electoral College votes before, that happened when they had concentrated regional strength, such as the Dixiecrats and the American Independent Party, and could win pluralities in three-party contests.  Neither the Libertarians nor the Greens meet that criterion; their support is more diffuse.  Consequently, none of the minor parties will win the presidency, but they'll certainly overperform compared to any election since 2000 and possibly even 1996, but not 1992.  None of these candidates is Ross Perot.  Even he didn't win any Electoral College votes.

Finally, USA Today reported Presidential transition could include third-party candidates under new law.  Don't make too much of it.  That just reflects a change in the language of the law extending transition services to any qualified candidate, not just the Democratic and Republican ones.  Still, it is a sign of the times.

On American political parties held captive by their interest groups and ideologies

In the comments to Dark Age America: The End of the Old Order, Purple Tortoise asked the following.

Given the widespread obvious discontent, I have been surprised to see that no mainstream politician has really gone for grabbing the populist center and run on reining in the banks, restricting offshoring and immigration, and ceasing involvement in foreign wars. It seems like it would have been a great vote-getter to me. What am I missing?

Tortoise was quite obviously playing with Greer's idea that fascism is a totalitarianism that grows out of a disenfranchised center, a topic I elaborated on in The Archdruid on Fascism, part 2.  Neither Greer nor anyone else answered him directly for five days, so I decided to chime in.

What you're missing is that none of the top four parties in this country will support that combination of positions. Each party will support some or even most of them, but will find at least one of them anathema, so there is no home for that platform among them.

The Republican Party won't consider reining in the banks or ceasing intervention in foreign wars; the closest one got to those positions in the GOP was Ron Paul, who was interested in "Ending the Fed," but I don't know what he thinks about other big banks. I don't recall his son Rand continuing that policy. Both are still anti-interventionist, and both make the mainstream power brokers in their party furious. Note that Ron Paul didn't even get as far as either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in the 2012 primaries. [His son Rand] is going to have an uphill fight getting through them in 2016 as well.

The Democratic Party won't support strong restrictions on immigration; they're having enough trouble on illegal immigration. Restrictions on immigration would be considered an expression of racism, and the Democrats include racial and ethnic minorities in their coalition, some of whom would be most displeased by an anti-immigrant stance.

The Libertarians would find restrictions on the banks, outsourcing, and immigration against their principles. The party actually advocates for open borders for both money and people.

The Greens might go for restricting immigration except that they don't want to be seen as racist, either. Since being pro-redistribution and anti-racist are both Left positions, it's hard to be anti-immigrant and be seen as Left in the U.S. these days.

The largest party in the U.S. who might be for all those things is the Constitution Party. Any politician in that group who can wrap those ideas in a flag while carrying a cross will get away with them. Pity the party is the personification of amateur hour in politics.

Neither Purple Tortoise nor Greer had anything to say about my comment, but they had the excuse that it was approved on Wednesday morning, and Greer and all of his readers were probably already looking forward to his next essay.

Just the same, consider Purple Tortoise's question and my response an explanation of why, despite Duverger's Law working, people are frustrated by the major parties and may not even be able to find a fit in the minor parties.  Not all possible combinations of positions can be accomodated within them, so those who do have those collections of views have no one to represent them.  Getting rid of the current two major parties won't solve that problem.

Duverger's Law works, a response to Kunstler

This past January, Kunstler expressed his dissatisfaction with America's two-party system in The Disenchantment of American Politics — And the Coming Uproar, in which he posed what he thought was a rhetorical question.

The mature two-party system may prove to have been a transient product of America’s industrial heyday, which is now over despite the euphoria over stock bubbles, shale oil, computers and other new technology. If the two old parties dry up and blow away, will anyone shed a tear for them?

For me, it wasn't rhetorical, but one that needed not only an answer--yes, there will be people who will shed a tear for their disappearance, even if they aren't the majority of Americans--but refutation of sorts.

The current two-party system has lasted since the end of the Civil War, which predates the U.S.’s industrial heyday, but does coincide with the rise of American Industrialism. Before that, the country had other two-party systems, first the Democrats (then calling themselves the Republicans, but the party of Jefferson is still today’s Democratic Party) and the Federalists, then the Democrats and the Whigs. Now it’s the Democrats and the Republicans. As you can see, it’s always the Democrats, who are the oldest continuously active organized political party on the planet, and an economically conservative rival. The Democrats survived being on the wrong side of the Civil War, while the Whigs, as you pointed out, disintegrated over slavery, failing to renominate their own sitting President. The Federalists got on the wrong side of a war, too, supporting the British in the War of 1812. Unlike the Democrats, that killed them. Based on that history, I’d put my money on the current GOP disintegrating first. Hey, they’re vampires–throw them out into the sunlight and they’ll burn up by themselves.

The Democrats can be killed, but not as long as the current GOP is around to keep the members in line. Take away their opposition, and the party will splinter, just as it did during the time between the fall of the Federalists and the rise of the Whigs, and again between the fall of the Whigs and rise of the Republicans. Even then, the party survived enough to maintain continuity. Right now, that could happen, as the GOP is like the old Democratic Party when Will Rogers observed that he was “not a member of any organized political party; he was a Democrat” and “Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they’d be Republicans.” The GOP is fractious, while the Democrats are united.

As for what has kept the two-party system going, it’s called Duverger’s Law, which “asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system,” according to Wikipedia. One of the predictions that can be made by this is that if one of the major parties is ideologically out of step with an area, then one of the minor parties will step up to fill the void. I’ve observed that happening twice, first in Louisiana, where the Democratic Party only contested one seat out of six in the state’s congressional delegation and again in the City of Ann Arbor, where there were no Republican candidates in a city that elected a Republican Mayor 20 years ago.

So, who took over as the opposition? In Louisiana, it was the Libertarians, who were more in line with the state’s conservative leanings.

In Ann Arbor, a “Green Tea” party calling itself the Mixed-Use Party arose. It employed Libertarian means to Green ends. They were also more in line with that city’s environmentalist ethic than the current GOP.

Duverger’s Law works, which means that as long as the U.S. is a representative democracy operating within a republic, with first-past-the-post elections, there will be two major parties, and therefore a two-party system. Of course, that condition won’t last forever.

Mind you, the question really being asked by Kunstler is whether the two major parties as currently constituted deserve the support of the American people.  That's a question that Greer attempted to answer in Fascism and the Future, Part Two: The Totalitarian Center and I responded to in The Archdruid on Fascism, part 2.  Greer's answer is no, but also to be careful of the alternatives.  As I told Fabius Maximus, "When you wish for a “Radical Center,” be careful what you wish for. You might get it in ways you don’t want."

Examiner.com article on Green Party candidates

Green Party Candidate for U.S. Senate Chris Wahmhoff.
Michigan Green Party nominates pipeline protester for U.S. Senate

This past weekend, the Green Party of Michigan held its convention in Detroit to nominate its nominees for federal, state, and local offices ranging from U.S. Senator and Governor down to Trustee for Washtenaw Community College and announced the candidates on its website Monday.

Among the nominees is one who is willing to stand up for his political and environmental convictions.  Chris Wahmhoff, who is the Green Party of Michigan nominee for U.S. Senate, spent his thirty-fifth birthday skating inside a pipeline under construction in Marshall to protest tar sands.  He faced trespassing charges that have since been dismissed.

Wahmhoff followed in the footsteps of 2012 Green Party nominee for President Jill Stein, who had been arrested for trespassing during a protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in the middle of her election campaign two years ago.

Wahmhoff, who will be facing Democrat Gary Peters, Republican Terri Lynn Land, and Libertarian Jim Fulner, along with likely nominees from the U.S. Taxpayers Party and Natural Law Party, joins ten other candidates who will appear on Washtenaw County ballots in November.

If Wahmhoff looks familiar, he should.  He was the star of Civil disobedience against tar sands in Marshall, Michigan, where I misspelled his name as Wahmoff (in my defense, so did WOOD-TV) and then had a cameo in Eleven charged in protests against tar sands pipeline, where I spelled his name properly.  In the first entry, I wrote "I hope Wahmoff has a good lawyer.  He'll need one."  It looks like he got one, as the charges were dismissed.