A few days ago, I laid out some thoughts on people in politics who perhaps we could do without. I gave campaign managers a pass, saying they were earning a living the same as the rest of us.
A day hadn't passed before I gave it a second thought. In a world where money runs politics, this IS one place we could stop the flow of dollars.
Make it illegal to be paid to work on a person's campaign. If you want to campaign for someone, do it because you like the candidate, and for no other reason. This will reduce the influence of money, as the poor man will have just as much resource as the rich man in assembling a campaign staff.
We have campaign spending limits, and that might be good. But, if that is a reflection of our distaste for people buying their way into office, let's take it another step.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Georgia Heading for Govt.-Made Disaster?
Ran into a person from Georgia yesterday who painted not not-pretty picture of what is going on in that state. "It looked crazy," he said of one news report, which showed "cucumbers yellow for as far as you can see." They were rotting on the vine, that farmer losing $80,000 in cucumbers, alone, and the cucumbers were just one of his crops. (Most likely, the other crops were not ready for harvest.)
And, why the loss? What brought it on? A little law called HB87, which hasn't even gone into effect yet. It calls for police to detain and question folks who might be in the U.S. without proper paperwork. "Just the thought of being arrested -- a lot of people are scared," my friend from Georgia said.
Georgia is one of the few states that has passed harsh laws against undocumented immigrants this past year. Yesterday, a judge blocked provisions of the law that call for police to question folks about their immigration status. Other portions of the law, including one saying many businesses must use E-Verify, remained intact.
What's going on in Georgia isn't getting much play in Utah, but the loss of the crops is significant. Georgia uses more illegal migrant labor than most any state, if not the most, and for that state to have passed a laws cutting into the workforce there, is significant in and of itself.
I don't know how bad the crop loss is (or will be), because I neither live there nor have read much of the news, but I know there is much concern in Georgia.
They might have as much of a shortage of farm workers as 11,000.
When the Georgia legislature passed the law, "They didn't for see that the crops would be damaged," my friend said. "It's ridiculous." He said those steering clear of coming to Georgia include legal migrants who simply do not want to be harassed.
The story of the shortage of farm labor "has taken over the news" in Georgia, my friend said. How serious is it? Will enough crops being lost to call it a disaster? If so, it will be a government-created disaster.
The judge's decision follows similar decisions after similar laws in Arizona, and Utah. While many hail the judge's ruling, it did not come fast enough to save some of Georgia's crops. The bulk, though, I'm sure are still to be harvested, so we will now see if the migrants will come in now that the judge has lifted their fear of being stopped and questioned so easily.
And, why the loss? What brought it on? A little law called HB87, which hasn't even gone into effect yet. It calls for police to detain and question folks who might be in the U.S. without proper paperwork. "Just the thought of being arrested -- a lot of people are scared," my friend from Georgia said.
Georgia is one of the few states that has passed harsh laws against undocumented immigrants this past year. Yesterday, a judge blocked provisions of the law that call for police to question folks about their immigration status. Other portions of the law, including one saying many businesses must use E-Verify, remained intact.
What's going on in Georgia isn't getting much play in Utah, but the loss of the crops is significant. Georgia uses more illegal migrant labor than most any state, if not the most, and for that state to have passed a laws cutting into the workforce there, is significant in and of itself.
I don't know how bad the crop loss is (or will be), because I neither live there nor have read much of the news, but I know there is much concern in Georgia.
They might have as much of a shortage of farm workers as 11,000.
When the Georgia legislature passed the law, "They didn't for see that the crops would be damaged," my friend said. "It's ridiculous." He said those steering clear of coming to Georgia include legal migrants who simply do not want to be harassed.
The story of the shortage of farm labor "has taken over the news" in Georgia, my friend said. How serious is it? Will enough crops being lost to call it a disaster? If so, it will be a government-created disaster.
The judge's decision follows similar decisions after similar laws in Arizona, and Utah. While many hail the judge's ruling, it did not come fast enough to save some of Georgia's crops. The bulk, though, I'm sure are still to be harvested, so we will now see if the migrants will come in now that the judge has lifted their fear of being stopped and questioned so easily.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
A Partial Wrap of Immigration, Border News
Okay, say I was to try to write a wrap on all the immigration, border, and Mexico drug war news. What follows is too incomplete to be that, but it does offer a few interesting tidbits.
PEARCE FACES RECALL
Russell Pearce, made famous for his legislative efforts to reign in the illegal immigrant in Arizona, now faces a recall. The necessary signatures for the recall were validated Wednesday. Pearce supporters are saying he will easily win the election. In addition to his immigration legislation, Pearce was embroiled in the Fiesta Bowl scandal, being accused of taking trips and game tickets from Fiesta Bowl officials. He filed amendments to his financial disclosure reports as a result.
-- Source: New York Times
10-YEAR COST OF SECURING BORDER SET AT $90 BILLION
For the first time, the price of securing out southern border has been established. The Associated Press, using Freedom of Information requests, has determined $90 billion was spent securing the Mexico border during the past 10 years. What results have been reaped? The Associated Press determined there are fewer illegal immigrants, but there has been little impact on terrorism and no stoppage of the supply of drugs entering the U.S.
Source: The Associated Press
ARPAIO RIDES AGAIN
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans to open another crackdown on illegal immigrants this Thursday.
Source: Topix.com, which was, in turn, sourcing phx.com
GEORGIA LATINOS FLEEING AS HB87 TO TAKE EFFECT
Latinos and immigrants are fleeing Georgia as many provisions of HB87 are to take effect Friday, barring a court stay. Some communities are being said to have become "ghost towns." HB87 calls on local law enforcement authorities to check the immigration status of people and arrest anyone found to be in the U.S. illegally. Georgia has been one of the country's hot spots for migrant workers. Hall County, where many come for agricultural work, grew 72 percent from 2000 to 2010.
Source: Gainesville (GA) Times
GEORGIA SHORT MAYBE 11,000 AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
An unscientific survey says Georgia is short about 11,000 workers in its agricultural fields. Many fear the risk of deportation there, now that HB87 is set to take effect.
-- Source: The Associated Press
GEORGIA TURNING TO CRIMINAL LABOR
Georgia is turning to laborers on criminal probation to fill the void as migrant workers are refusing to show up. But, the probationers are not required to take jobs they consider too oppressive, so many of them are turning down the agricultural jobs.
Source: The Associated Press
PEARCE FACES RECALL
Russell Pearce, made famous for his legislative efforts to reign in the illegal immigrant in Arizona, now faces a recall. The necessary signatures for the recall were validated Wednesday. Pearce supporters are saying he will easily win the election. In addition to his immigration legislation, Pearce was embroiled in the Fiesta Bowl scandal, being accused of taking trips and game tickets from Fiesta Bowl officials. He filed amendments to his financial disclosure reports as a result.
-- Source: New York Times
10-YEAR COST OF SECURING BORDER SET AT $90 BILLION
For the first time, the price of securing out southern border has been established. The Associated Press, using Freedom of Information requests, has determined $90 billion was spent securing the Mexico border during the past 10 years. What results have been reaped? The Associated Press determined there are fewer illegal immigrants, but there has been little impact on terrorism and no stoppage of the supply of drugs entering the U.S.
Source: The Associated Press
ARPAIO RIDES AGAIN
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans to open another crackdown on illegal immigrants this Thursday.
Source: Topix.com, which was, in turn, sourcing phx.com
GEORGIA LATINOS FLEEING AS HB87 TO TAKE EFFECT
Latinos and immigrants are fleeing Georgia as many provisions of HB87 are to take effect Friday, barring a court stay. Some communities are being said to have become "ghost towns." HB87 calls on local law enforcement authorities to check the immigration status of people and arrest anyone found to be in the U.S. illegally. Georgia has been one of the country's hot spots for migrant workers. Hall County, where many come for agricultural work, grew 72 percent from 2000 to 2010.
Source: Gainesville (GA) Times
GEORGIA SHORT MAYBE 11,000 AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
An unscientific survey says Georgia is short about 11,000 workers in its agricultural fields. Many fear the risk of deportation there, now that HB87 is set to take effect.
-- Source: The Associated Press
GEORGIA TURNING TO CRIMINAL LABOR
Georgia is turning to laborers on criminal probation to fill the void as migrant workers are refusing to show up. But, the probationers are not required to take jobs they consider too oppressive, so many of them are turning down the agricultural jobs.
Source: The Associated Press
Political Careers Should be Last Consideration
I trusted our Legislature to act fairly in redistricting. Yes, I do feel they are good and honorable souls.
But, then, came this one-two punch. First, the editorial from KSL, noting the legislators are considering divvying the Salt Lake Valley among the four Congressional districts. KSL's Con Psarras said the move seems "motivated by the desire to preserve and expand Republican Party dominance."
Horrors, I thought, can the legislators really be considering this? After beginning their work with a pledge to be fair? My mind raced back to the accusations out of Washington, DC, and New York City that Utah is the most gerrymandered of all states.
Precisely because it did in 1991 what it is again considering doing in 2011, I would imagine.
Punch two came the next day, when I heard of an article in the Tribune that had published a couple days earlier. "Protecting incumbents part of redistricting," read the headline. That, alone, is enough to tell us the Legislature has taken a wrong turn, straying from its pledge to be fair. Of all things to be considered in redistricting, political careers should be the last. That the politicians are considering doing this underscores the fear I had going in. See, it is the legislature, itself, that is allowed to draw the boundaries. And that is wrong. It is inherently wrong. You don't let legislators draw their own boundaries. There is too much temptation to draw them to their own benefit. They might be good and honorable people, but that does not mean you put them in a situation where they might be tempted.
The Trib article told how Sen. Michael Waddoups first drew the lines with a mind to not divide communities. He did a nice enough job, only to find his fellow legislators upset, since a third of them were tossed in districts with other incumbents.
We can't have that, they apparently told him.
So, he redrew the map, coming up with one that neatly put most all the existing senators in their own districts, albeit Sens. Ross Romero, of Salt Lake City, and Pat Jones, of Holladay -- both Democrats -- were pitted against each other in the same district.
Waddoups' map also places Sens. Dan Liljenquist and Luz Robles to face off against each other. That's a district gerrymandering down from Bountiful, where Liljenquist resides, to Rose Park, where Robles lives.
And, here's the catch on this one, as pointed out by Tribune columnist Paul Rolly. "So why are Republicans being protected except Liljenquist?" Rolly asks. "Well, he just happened to be the guy who ran for president against Waddoups in the Senate Republican caucus last fall."
Now, pardon, but the lines being drawn will last 10 years. Some of the legislators being protected might not even run in 2012. All this protecting them, then, will be of no avail and we will be stuck with lines drawn just for them and yet they aren't around to enjoy them in a singe one of the elections.
Draw the lines for the people, not the politicians. They'll still be around. And, they ought to be your interest, anyway, not the politicians.
Yet another couple or few days passed after I read the Tribune article. I went back to the KSL editorial. I read how Rep. Ken Sumsion has said, for example, he wants to draw Congressman Rob Bishop's district so it include coal and gas lands, saying it makes sense because Bishop is "probably our best congressman on land issues."
Con Psarras in his KSL editorial jumped Sumsion for the thought. "That statement alone is evidence of a mindset that clearly puts political interests above all else," Psarras said. "Districts that will exist for at least a decade should not be designed to accommodate a particular politician's skill set."
No, don't draw the lines for a politician. Draw them for the people. Besides, this area that would be tossed into Bishop's district typically votes Democratic. Is the idea to put those people into a district that has enough Republicans as to overpower the Democratic vote?
Well, going back to the notion the legislators are good and honorable men, I do believe they are. I really do. And they did pledge to be fair. Since then, though, they've let their guard down, and are considering political careers, not people's interests. What they are considering ought to be enough reason for us to be clamoring for a changing of the state constitution, to strip them from doing the redistricting.
Or, at least we should be crying against them drawing the lines unfairly this time, in 2011. This is a matter worthy of public protests, ala the outpouring when the Legislature passed HB477. If we don't let them know what they're doing is wrong, they are going to do it. I perceive that left to their own, they cannot see that what they are doing is even wrong.
But, then, came this one-two punch. First, the editorial from KSL, noting the legislators are considering divvying the Salt Lake Valley among the four Congressional districts. KSL's Con Psarras said the move seems "motivated by the desire to preserve and expand Republican Party dominance."
Horrors, I thought, can the legislators really be considering this? After beginning their work with a pledge to be fair? My mind raced back to the accusations out of Washington, DC, and New York City that Utah is the most gerrymandered of all states.
Precisely because it did in 1991 what it is again considering doing in 2011, I would imagine.
Punch two came the next day, when I heard of an article in the Tribune that had published a couple days earlier. "Protecting incumbents part of redistricting," read the headline. That, alone, is enough to tell us the Legislature has taken a wrong turn, straying from its pledge to be fair. Of all things to be considered in redistricting, political careers should be the last. That the politicians are considering doing this underscores the fear I had going in. See, it is the legislature, itself, that is allowed to draw the boundaries. And that is wrong. It is inherently wrong. You don't let legislators draw their own boundaries. There is too much temptation to draw them to their own benefit. They might be good and honorable people, but that does not mean you put them in a situation where they might be tempted.
The Trib article told how Sen. Michael Waddoups first drew the lines with a mind to not divide communities. He did a nice enough job, only to find his fellow legislators upset, since a third of them were tossed in districts with other incumbents.
We can't have that, they apparently told him.
So, he redrew the map, coming up with one that neatly put most all the existing senators in their own districts, albeit Sens. Ross Romero, of Salt Lake City, and Pat Jones, of Holladay -- both Democrats -- were pitted against each other in the same district.
Waddoups' map also places Sens. Dan Liljenquist and Luz Robles to face off against each other. That's a district gerrymandering down from Bountiful, where Liljenquist resides, to Rose Park, where Robles lives.
And, here's the catch on this one, as pointed out by Tribune columnist Paul Rolly. "So why are Republicans being protected except Liljenquist?" Rolly asks. "Well, he just happened to be the guy who ran for president against Waddoups in the Senate Republican caucus last fall."
Now, pardon, but the lines being drawn will last 10 years. Some of the legislators being protected might not even run in 2012. All this protecting them, then, will be of no avail and we will be stuck with lines drawn just for them and yet they aren't around to enjoy them in a singe one of the elections.
Draw the lines for the people, not the politicians. They'll still be around. And, they ought to be your interest, anyway, not the politicians.
Yet another couple or few days passed after I read the Tribune article. I went back to the KSL editorial. I read how Rep. Ken Sumsion has said, for example, he wants to draw Congressman Rob Bishop's district so it include coal and gas lands, saying it makes sense because Bishop is "probably our best congressman on land issues."
Con Psarras in his KSL editorial jumped Sumsion for the thought. "That statement alone is evidence of a mindset that clearly puts political interests above all else," Psarras said. "Districts that will exist for at least a decade should not be designed to accommodate a particular politician's skill set."
No, don't draw the lines for a politician. Draw them for the people. Besides, this area that would be tossed into Bishop's district typically votes Democratic. Is the idea to put those people into a district that has enough Republicans as to overpower the Democratic vote?
Well, going back to the notion the legislators are good and honorable men, I do believe they are. I really do. And they did pledge to be fair. Since then, though, they've let their guard down, and are considering political careers, not people's interests. What they are considering ought to be enough reason for us to be clamoring for a changing of the state constitution, to strip them from doing the redistricting.
Or, at least we should be crying against them drawing the lines unfairly this time, in 2011. This is a matter worthy of public protests, ala the outpouring when the Legislature passed HB477. If we don't let them know what they're doing is wrong, they are going to do it. I perceive that left to their own, they cannot see that what they are doing is even wrong.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Kick Some Politicians Out of Political Process
There are three kinds of politicians in the world. There are the ones who run for office. There are the ones who seek to influence the ones who run for office. And, there are the ones who campaign for the ones who run for office.
As kind of a subset of that last group, there are the ones who seek to manage the ones who run for office. You know, the political bosses: all the campaign managers, consultants, party heads and power brokers. Yes, the ones who sometimes figure they are smarter than the ones who run for office. They pick up the candidates like pieces of a board game and move them around.
We don't usually refer to all these groups as politicians, of course. But, well, aren't they? A person who seeks to influence a politician is dealing in politics, isn't he? And a campaign manager is about as political as a person can be.
It's some of these ones who seek to influence the ones who run for office and also some of these ones who seek to manage the ones who run for office that I wish to address at this present time. To them, I say, Step up, and let me bend your ear (as in, twist it) so it hurts just a little.
Now, not everyone who seeks to influence the man running for office is a bad person. Sometimes, it's just an honest soul needing an honest change, and appealing to government to make it happen in an honest way.
But sometimes, the influencer is a little more devious, contributing to the campaign of the one running for office, or just giving flat out giving the one running for office a gift of some kind, as if to say, "I've been nice to you, now you be nice to me." Now, not all gift giving is bad, but some do to it expecting a return. There's not a formal agreement between the influencer and the influenceable elected official, but things just kind of come to be understood: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
And, as we said, the campaigners, including the power brokers, are also among those who can be spoken of a politicians, as they delve into the political process to get their political candidate elected. Some of them, again, are honest souls, seeking no more than to forward their candidates. Some of them are very good folks, indeed, supporting causes, fighting for right, and seeking to place not themselves, but other people -- good people -- in office. No, I have no quarrel with them.
But, some of them . . .
Well, here we have government and it's suppose to be a serious thing, and all . . . and some of them reduce it to that board game I was talking about. I suppose, I could fire off my anger at the guns for hire, the political bosses who care not what candidate hires them, only that they have the job. But, I give them my pass. They take a job just like the rest of us take jobs, and there is nothing wrong with being employed.
And, I guess I could take out my wrath on a different set of political bosses, the party bosses, since they often support candidates not on virtue of who the candidate is, but simply for no more reason than that that candidate belongs to their party. The party boss -- and party campaigners -- can argue that their party has a set of values, and they are simply seeking to elect people with those values. But, there are those among their party who actually don't hold those values, and those among the other party who do.
But, no, it is not them at which I direct my greater displeasure. It is those who use go about getting someone elected in an ill fashion, those who are devious and mean as they proceed about the whole thing, spreading rumors about their opponents and all. It's this -- the methods they use more than their ill regard for which side they are on -- that puts them on my bad list.
Politics is often a dirty word. So, in deciding who is a "politician," when we are using the word in a negative way, I say we include all those who abuse the system, either by seeking influence in a way it shouldn't be sought, or by seeking the election of friends by methods that oughtn't be employed.
The ones who peddle influence upon the ones who run for office and the ones who peddle the ones who run for office. It is some of them that draw my ire. So, then, of course, I sometimes wish we could somehow kick them out of the whole process. Yes, I do sometimes wish we could kick some of the politicians out of the political process.
As kind of a subset of that last group, there are the ones who seek to manage the ones who run for office. You know, the political bosses: all the campaign managers, consultants, party heads and power brokers. Yes, the ones who sometimes figure they are smarter than the ones who run for office. They pick up the candidates like pieces of a board game and move them around.
We don't usually refer to all these groups as politicians, of course. But, well, aren't they? A person who seeks to influence a politician is dealing in politics, isn't he? And a campaign manager is about as political as a person can be.
It's some of these ones who seek to influence the ones who run for office and also some of these ones who seek to manage the ones who run for office that I wish to address at this present time. To them, I say, Step up, and let me bend your ear (as in, twist it) so it hurts just a little.
Now, not everyone who seeks to influence the man running for office is a bad person. Sometimes, it's just an honest soul needing an honest change, and appealing to government to make it happen in an honest way.
But sometimes, the influencer is a little more devious, contributing to the campaign of the one running for office, or just giving flat out giving the one running for office a gift of some kind, as if to say, "I've been nice to you, now you be nice to me." Now, not all gift giving is bad, but some do to it expecting a return. There's not a formal agreement between the influencer and the influenceable elected official, but things just kind of come to be understood: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
And, as we said, the campaigners, including the power brokers, are also among those who can be spoken of a politicians, as they delve into the political process to get their political candidate elected. Some of them, again, are honest souls, seeking no more than to forward their candidates. Some of them are very good folks, indeed, supporting causes, fighting for right, and seeking to place not themselves, but other people -- good people -- in office. No, I have no quarrel with them.
But, some of them . . .
Well, here we have government and it's suppose to be a serious thing, and all . . . and some of them reduce it to that board game I was talking about. I suppose, I could fire off my anger at the guns for hire, the political bosses who care not what candidate hires them, only that they have the job. But, I give them my pass. They take a job just like the rest of us take jobs, and there is nothing wrong with being employed.
And, I guess I could take out my wrath on a different set of political bosses, the party bosses, since they often support candidates not on virtue of who the candidate is, but simply for no more reason than that that candidate belongs to their party. The party boss -- and party campaigners -- can argue that their party has a set of values, and they are simply seeking to elect people with those values. But, there are those among their party who actually don't hold those values, and those among the other party who do.
But, no, it is not them at which I direct my greater displeasure. It is those who use go about getting someone elected in an ill fashion, those who are devious and mean as they proceed about the whole thing, spreading rumors about their opponents and all. It's this -- the methods they use more than their ill regard for which side they are on -- that puts them on my bad list.
Politics is often a dirty word. So, in deciding who is a "politician," when we are using the word in a negative way, I say we include all those who abuse the system, either by seeking influence in a way it shouldn't be sought, or by seeking the election of friends by methods that oughtn't be employed.
The ones who peddle influence upon the ones who run for office and the ones who peddle the ones who run for office. It is some of them that draw my ire. So, then, of course, I sometimes wish we could somehow kick them out of the whole process. Yes, I do sometimes wish we could kick some of the politicians out of the political process.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
As an Economist, I Can't Figure This One Out
As an economist, I'm lost on this one. I just cannot figure out why America's entrepreneurs are not jumping to make cars powered by natural gas, and why they are not rushing to open stations selling natural gas? I mean, when I gas up, it costs me about $3.50 a gallon, yet I'm told natural gas would be about $1.30 a gallon. Natural gas is abundant in America, and it burns cleaner.
Why then, as a nation, are we not jumping all over this? Why aren't we demanding an immediate switch from gasoline?
Save at the pumps, and end our dependence on the Arab world, to boot? What is holding us back?
Given it was time to buy a new car, and we could buy it at the same price as a gasoline-powered model, who wouldn't buy a natural gas-powered vehicle? It seems we all would, if only they were available, and fueling stations in place.
Opportunity knocks, and no billionaire answers?
Now, someone out there has floated an idea to help kick start this conversion to natural gas. There's this proposal called HR1380, aka the New Alternative Transportation to Give America's Solutions Act of 2011. That's right, it's a bill to give tax incentives to makers and buyers of natural gas vehicles. When it was introduced back in April, some were saying it would sail through, and quickly. It gathered in about 157 co-sponsors in the House and won favorable comments from President Obama.
But, now it has stalled, and, if I understand, co-sponsors are dropping off. Some say the oil industry got to them, but I don't know but what they just said, "If this is such a good idea, why does it take government subsidies (tax credits are a form of that) to make it work?
I'm with that. Good question. Isn't it said, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door"? That might be a simplistic way to put it, but it's still one of the principles of economics.
So, I'm lost on this one -- and I'm an economist. (Well, I make payments on a house and still have money left for groceries. That's kind of an economist.)
Why then, as a nation, are we not jumping all over this? Why aren't we demanding an immediate switch from gasoline?
Save at the pumps, and end our dependence on the Arab world, to boot? What is holding us back?
Given it was time to buy a new car, and we could buy it at the same price as a gasoline-powered model, who wouldn't buy a natural gas-powered vehicle? It seems we all would, if only they were available, and fueling stations in place.
Opportunity knocks, and no billionaire answers?
Now, someone out there has floated an idea to help kick start this conversion to natural gas. There's this proposal called HR1380, aka the New Alternative Transportation to Give America's Solutions Act of 2011. That's right, it's a bill to give tax incentives to makers and buyers of natural gas vehicles. When it was introduced back in April, some were saying it would sail through, and quickly. It gathered in about 157 co-sponsors in the House and won favorable comments from President Obama.
But, now it has stalled, and, if I understand, co-sponsors are dropping off. Some say the oil industry got to them, but I don't know but what they just said, "If this is such a good idea, why does it take government subsidies (tax credits are a form of that) to make it work?
I'm with that. Good question. Isn't it said, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door"? That might be a simplistic way to put it, but it's still one of the principles of economics.
So, I'm lost on this one -- and I'm an economist. (Well, I make payments on a house and still have money left for groceries. That's kind of an economist.)
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
One Community, One Vote
One community, one vote. Every community deserves their own voice, so give each its own state senator. Let it not matter if the community has but 20 residents, or 2,000.
Instead of divvying up the senate districts by population, how about creating them solely on the basis of which are separate communities? The Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation would have it's own senator, and Hildale would have its own, or be packaged with another polygamist community. However many distinct communities there are is how many districts there would be. If some senators represented only 20 people each (that would be Skull Valley), so be it.
Now, don't so quickly walk away from this idea, saying the Goshutes and the residents of Hildale hardly deserve equal representation with the all of Salt Lake City. You could divide the cities into districts, as well, with the Avenues, Olympus Cove, and Rose Park being just three of the areas in the Salt Lake Valley that could be considered separate communities.
Here's why this idea is worthy of consideration: Communities often have needs of their own, and therefore deserve a voice of their own. The prairie dogs so affect a portion of Southern Utah as to put livelihoods there at stake, yet those living along the Wasatch Front hardly follow the issue. Rural communities need voices of their own because they have issues of their own. As the system is now, their voices are often lost. At the ballot box, their votes are cast in with those of the larger communities and they never get someone from their community elected. Oh, if their community's thinking is enough in line with the thinking of the larger community, they will have someone elected from time to time, but the further their community's way of thinking is from that of the larger community, the less likely they will ever have someone elected.
Having a senator for each community is a way to ensure the voice of the small is not washed away by the voice of the large.
Go ahead and tell me when the last time someone from Hildale was elected as a state senator. I haven't studied, to know, but guess it hasn't happened. You may not agree with their beliefs -- including the practice of marrying off teenage girls in arranged marriages -- but that does not mean they shouldn't be allowed representation.
People who live next to our national parks and our rural mining areas ought to have a say, an elected voice, in what happens in that area. For better or worse, they are caretakers, so to speak. The cities will still have more of a voice in what is done with the land than the folks who actually live there, having more representation, but at least give the rural folks a voice in what happens to the land they live on and next to.
Representation by community would give rise to better representation of ethnic groups, as ethnic groups often are communities, and to minority religious groups, such as the polygamous groups in Utah.
How far you divvy up the municipalities would be a matter to consider. If you divide them up too much, you are going to have a very large legislative body. Perhaps, it would be best with this chamber of the legislature to allow for large districts in metropolitan areas.
Socio-economic lines should be considered. Perhaps even have overlapping districts, all renters living in one area being in one district and all the landowners of the same area being in a separate district.
This idea of representation by community, with population being set aside, takes its inspiration from the U.S. Constitution and each state having two U.S. senators. No one complains that it is unfair that Rhode Island and Montana have as many senators as California and New York. The Founding Fathers saw fit to give their existing governmental territories each equal representation in the Senate, while allowing larger populations to have more representation in the House.
So, we say every vote should count, yet votes from small communities often don't? Let's change that. Let's help ensure that, indeed, every vote does count, that every community does have a vote in one of our legislative chambers. One community, one vote.
Instead of divvying up the senate districts by population, how about creating them solely on the basis of which are separate communities? The Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation would have it's own senator, and Hildale would have its own, or be packaged with another polygamist community. However many distinct communities there are is how many districts there would be. If some senators represented only 20 people each (that would be Skull Valley), so be it.
Now, don't so quickly walk away from this idea, saying the Goshutes and the residents of Hildale hardly deserve equal representation with the all of Salt Lake City. You could divide the cities into districts, as well, with the Avenues, Olympus Cove, and Rose Park being just three of the areas in the Salt Lake Valley that could be considered separate communities.
Here's why this idea is worthy of consideration: Communities often have needs of their own, and therefore deserve a voice of their own. The prairie dogs so affect a portion of Southern Utah as to put livelihoods there at stake, yet those living along the Wasatch Front hardly follow the issue. Rural communities need voices of their own because they have issues of their own. As the system is now, their voices are often lost. At the ballot box, their votes are cast in with those of the larger communities and they never get someone from their community elected. Oh, if their community's thinking is enough in line with the thinking of the larger community, they will have someone elected from time to time, but the further their community's way of thinking is from that of the larger community, the less likely they will ever have someone elected.
Having a senator for each community is a way to ensure the voice of the small is not washed away by the voice of the large.
Go ahead and tell me when the last time someone from Hildale was elected as a state senator. I haven't studied, to know, but guess it hasn't happened. You may not agree with their beliefs -- including the practice of marrying off teenage girls in arranged marriages -- but that does not mean they shouldn't be allowed representation.
People who live next to our national parks and our rural mining areas ought to have a say, an elected voice, in what happens in that area. For better or worse, they are caretakers, so to speak. The cities will still have more of a voice in what is done with the land than the folks who actually live there, having more representation, but at least give the rural folks a voice in what happens to the land they live on and next to.
Representation by community would give rise to better representation of ethnic groups, as ethnic groups often are communities, and to minority religious groups, such as the polygamous groups in Utah.
How far you divvy up the municipalities would be a matter to consider. If you divide them up too much, you are going to have a very large legislative body. Perhaps, it would be best with this chamber of the legislature to allow for large districts in metropolitan areas.
Socio-economic lines should be considered. Perhaps even have overlapping districts, all renters living in one area being in one district and all the landowners of the same area being in a separate district.
This idea of representation by community, with population being set aside, takes its inspiration from the U.S. Constitution and each state having two U.S. senators. No one complains that it is unfair that Rhode Island and Montana have as many senators as California and New York. The Founding Fathers saw fit to give their existing governmental territories each equal representation in the Senate, while allowing larger populations to have more representation in the House.
So, we say every vote should count, yet votes from small communities often don't? Let's change that. Let's help ensure that, indeed, every vote does count, that every community does have a vote in one of our legislative chambers. One community, one vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)