Monthly Archives: April 2019

Foreign Elections — Spring/Summer 2019

The next two months will see several elections in our allies/major democracies. 

This weekend is the election in Spain for both houses of their parliament.  In Spain, the lower house is elected by proportional representation on a provincial basis.  While there is a nominal 3% threshold in each province, the (fifty) provinces range from one seat (in which whomever finishes first gets the seat) to thirty-six seats (in which case the threshold makes a real difference as it would take slightly over 2.7% to win a seat).  In the Senate, most of the provinces get four seats.  While voters directly elect most of the members of the Senate, the catch is that voters have one vote less than the number of seats (i.e. three votes in a province with four seats) which translates into the largest party getting three seats and the second-place party getting one seat.  The regional parliaments also get to appoint the remaining fifty-eight members of the Senate.  For this election, there are five national parties (ranging from two Democratic Socialist parties to a Trumpian nationalist party) and several regional parties. 

There are three things to look at in the results from Spain.  First, is there a natural majority for either of the two main blocs (the two Democratic Socialist parties vs. the two center-right party)?  Second, how does the Trumpian (Vox) party perform?  Third, how do the regional parties (which want increased local autonomy/independence) perform?  From the traditional American foreign policy, we would prefer a result that creates a strong functional government capable of being a partner with us.  Russia (and our current administration) would prefer a divided election result with strong performances by Vox and the regional parties pulling Spain further away from NATO and the European Union and potentially splitting Spain (one of the larger European countries) into several separate countries focused on their grievances with each other rather than building a strong Europe. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Foreign Elections — Spring/Summer 2019

Moulton in

Rep. Seth Moulton thinks he should be the next President of the United States. OK, then.  We now have 17 announced candidates, and only 4 still to hear from. 

Definitely running:

  1. Rep. John Delaney
  2. Sec. Julian Castro
  3. Gov. Jay Inslee
  4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  5. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
  6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
  7. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  8. Sen. Kamala Harris
  9. Sen. Cory Booker
  10. Sen. Any Klobuchar
  11. Andrew Yang
  12. Sen. Bernie Sanders
  13. Gov. John Hickenlooper
  14. Rep. Beto O’Rourke
  15. Rep. Tim Ryan
  16. Rep. Eric Swalwell
  17. Rep. Seth Moulton

Potential candidates who have shown some interest: Continue Reading...

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Moulton in

McAuliffe out

Only 5 still to hear from.

Definitely running:

  1. Rep. John Delaney
  2. Sec. Julian Castro
  3. Gov. Jay Inslee
  4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  5. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
  6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
  7. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  8. Sen. Kamala Harris
  9. Sen. Cory Booker
  10. Sen. Any Klobuchar
  11. Andrew Yang
  12. Sen. Bernie Sanders
  13. Gov. John Hickenlooper
  14. Rep. Beto O’Rourke
  15. Rep. Tim Ryan
  16. Rep. Eric Swalwell

Potential candidates who have shown some interest: Continue Reading...

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on McAuliffe out

The Supreme Court and the Census

If you have been a follower of this site since the beginning, you know that we think that the Census and redistricting are very big things.  Getting an accurate count and fair lines tends to help the Democrats win elections. 

At the same time, we have also been big followers of the Supreme Court.  For good or evil, both sides of the political spectrum have learned that, if you lose the battle in Congress or with an executive agency, you can turn to the courts to continue the battle.  And many of these fights ultimately get decided by the Supreme Court.

By the time that this posts, we will be at the end of the first week of the last argument session of the October 2018 Term.   (For brief explanation of argument sessions and review process, see appendix.)  On Tuesday of next week, the United States Supreme Court will hear a case that combines our focus on the Supreme Court and our focus on the Census — U.S. Department of Commerce vs. New York Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court and the Census

Delegate Selection Plans — Wyoming and Update

As more delegate selection plans are posted on-line, we have two states that have confirmed that they are switching from a caucus to a state-run primary.  The first is Minnesota.  Previously, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party had informed the Minnesota Secretary of State that it would be participating in the state-run primary, but we now have the draft plan which bases delegate allocation on the results of the primary.  The other state is Washington.  When we looked at the draft plan for Washington last month, the Washington Democrats had submitted two plans — one based on the caucus and one based on the primary.    Since then, the state of Washington finalized the scheduling of the primary for March (moving it up from May) and, at last weekend’s state committee meeting, the Washington Democrats opted for the primary-based plan.

With these two changes, we were down to a handful of states.  Yesterday, Wyoming released their draft plan for 2020.  Wyoming is keeping with a caucus system using, as in the past, a county caucus as the first step.  While there is not a specific set date in the plan, it does indicate an intent to hold the county caucuses on a weekend in March which would be earlier than the mid-April date from 2016.  To meet the goals of making access to the caucuses easier for voters, Wyoming is tentatively calling for allowing those who are unable to attend the county caucuses to participate by submitting a “surrogate affidavit.”  The exact details of how this will work is still being discussed and is not clear from the current draft.  (The name suggests a proxy vote, but my hunch is that — either at the final plan approved by the state or the final plan as amended in response to the national Rules and By-laws committee requests — it will be more like a typical absentee ballot.) 

The Wyoming plan uses the preference vote at the county caucuses to elect state convention delegates.  It uses a separate preference vote at the state convention to allocate the national convention delegates.  This part of the plan is clearly contrary to the national party rules.  In relevant part, Rule 2.K.5 requires that the delegate allocation be locked in based on the final preference vote at the first determining step.  In Wyoming’s plan, the first determining step is the county caucuses.   As such, assuming that Wyoming does not correct this part of the plan in the final draft, it is likely that the Rules and By-laws Committee will require a change prior to approving Wyoming’s plan.  Given what the other states are doing, Wyoming will probably be given the option of using either the raw vote totals (which they have used in the past) or the state convention delegates won.  As noted in previous posts, using state convention delegates won eliminate the effect of high turnout in some parts of the state but can also penalize candidates who are get just over 15% of the raw vote state-wide (as those candidates are likely to miss the threshold in some of the counties converting 13% of the vote in those counties into 0% of the delegates potentially causing the candidate to slip beneath 15% if the delegates won state-wide).  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Plans — Wyoming and Update

Swalwell joins the fray

Rep. Eric Swalwell today became the 16th candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Only 6 still to hear from.

Definitely running:

  1. Rep. John Delaney
  2. Sec. Julian Castro
  3. Gov. Jay Inslee
  4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  5. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
  6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
  7. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  8. Sen. Kamala Harris
  9. Sen. Cory Booker
  10. Sen. Any Klobuchar
  11. Andrew Yang
  12. Sen. Bernie Sanders
  13. Gov. John Hickenlooper
  14. Rep. Beto O’Rourke
  15. Rep. Tim Ryan
  16. Rep. Eric Swalwell

Potential candidates who have shown some interest: Continue Reading...

Posted in Delegates | Comments Off on Swalwell joins the fray

Ryan running, Bennet, Swalwell close

Rep. Tim Ryan announced last week that is running for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President. Sen. Michael Bennet seems very close to running, in spite of, or maybe because of, his recent cancer diagnosis. And Rep. Eric Swalwell is likely to announce this week. We now have 15 announced candidates, and only 7 still to hear from.

Definitely running:

  1. Rep. John Delaney
  2. Sec. Julian Castro
  3. Gov. Jay Inslee
  4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  5. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
  6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
  7. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  8. Sen. Kamala Harris
  9. Sen. Cory Booker
  10. Sen. Any Klobuchar
  11. Andrew Yang
  12. Sen. Bernie Sanders
  13. Gov. John Hickenlooper
  14. Rep. Beto O’Rourke
  15. Rep. Tim Ryan

Potential candidates who have shown some interest: Continue Reading...

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Ryan running, Bennet, Swalwell close

Delegate Selection Rules — Alaska, Maine, and Utah

At this time last week, eight of the eighteen states that had used caucuses or party-run primaries in 2016 had released their delegate selection plans for 2020.  This week three of the remaining ten released their plans and they are a very mixed bag.

This week, we start out west in Alaska.  In 2016, Alaska used a traditional caucus process with the caucuses occurring at the legislative district level.  When it came to allocating delegates to the national convention, Alaska used the raw vote totals from the legislative district caucuses to allocate the “district-level” delegates, but used the votes of the state convention delegates to allocate the pledged party leader and at-large delegates.

For 2020, Alaska is switching to a party-run primary that will allow early voting (either electronic or by mail-in absentee ballot).  Additionally, the party will run voting centers in key locations that will be open for at least four hours on the primary/caucus date (although there is conflicting language in the draft concerning the times that these centers will be open).  All of the delegates to the national convention will be allocated based on the results of the party-run primary.  (Like many “primary” states, Alaska will continue to use the local caucuses to choose delegates to the state convention which will elect the actual national convention delegates.) Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Alaska, Maine, and Utah

Brexit — Referendums and Legislation

Over the past several months, like many outside the United Kingdom, I have observed the chaos that has been the process of negotiating and ratifying the terms of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union over the terms of the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (a.k.a. Brexit).  While it is easy as an outsider to have my own opinions about what is in the best interest of the U.K. and the rest of the world in terms of the ultimate outcome, the subject of this post is mostly about what lessons that we can draw from this chaos for our own politics.

The first lesson of Brexit is the difference between the Brexit referendum and the typical referendum in the U.S.  In the U.S., a referendum is typically a vote on a legislative-type proposal.  In other words, we are being asked to approve (or reject) a specific statute or constitutional provision or tax or bond.  By contrast, the Brexit referendum were about two concepts — staying in the European Union or leaving the European Union with the terms of continued membership or departure to be defined at a later date.  While there are always problems with voting on a specific proposal (no proposal is ever perfect and a referendum is essentially a take-it-or-leave-it vote in which you can’t just approve the good parts), a vote on a concept leaves it to the future to put meat on the idea. 

The U.K. is now dealing with the problem of defining what Brexit really means.  And that requires reading the tea leaves of what the slim majority that supported Brexit really wanted.  And, in such circumstances, the final version may differ significantly from what voters thought they were approving in the original referendum. Continue Reading...

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Brexit — Referendums and Legislation