Mediaboss Marketing

Californias ballot measure system has provided a vital check on the state legislatures big government ideology. The defeat of Prop. 15, which would have dramatically raised taxes on businesses, and the passage of Prop. 22, which keeps hundreds of thousands of contracting jobs legal, are great grassroots victories for economic freedom.

Yet at the end of this long proposition season, a brief look at the dangers of this direct democracy system is warranted.

Prop. 15s outcome may amount to little more than a stay of tax execution. Tax-increase proponents will almost certainly be back with another referendum in 2022 to try their luck again. Given how close the results were this year, it seems like only a matter of time before they succeed. With unlimited at-bats, almost anyone can hit a home run.

It seems unfair that voters can reject several efforts to overturn Proposition 13s tax protections, only to see them disappear from an especially well-funded or lucky ballot measure victory in the years to come. If voters pass a version of Prop. 15 in 2022, shouldnt there be some sort of rubber match to determine whether the will of the voters is fleeting or lasting?

Proponents of the status quo would likely say that opponents are welcome to challenge a new tax in a future election with a ballot measure of their own. Yet is this whipsaw back-and-forth really the best way to govern?

Majority rules, cloaked in popular appeals for democracy, is a core tenet of the lefts governing philosophy. But should a simple majority be enough to tax away the property of a minority of Californians? Pure democracy is little more than two hungry sharks and a surfer deciding what to do in the water. At what point are individual rights to property and liberty more important than the will of the majority?

The Founders recognized the threat of pure democracy to foster populist passions and violate inalienable rights. As a result, they created a republic. They made changing the U.S. Constitution exceedingly difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or the support of three-quarters of state legislatures. Yet in California, the state constitution can change with just 50 percent plus one of the votes.

Even the majority rules justification for the ballot measure status quo fails on its own merits. Prop 15received7.7 million Yes votes and 8.3 million No votes. If it received the bare majority of votes needed to pass, that only represents 33 percent just one-third! of the states25.1 millioneligible voters. Majority rule in theory is almost always minority rule in practice.

This minority rule is especially problematic when you consider that a tiny number of government union bosses are initiating and funding many of these ballot efforts that infringe on Californians liberties. Two union giants, the California Teachers Association and the SEIU,spenta combined $30 million to try to pass Prop 15. (Mark Zuckerberg chipped in a further $12 million.)

Changing the ballot measure threshold to successfully pass tax hikes to a two-thirds majority (as whats required in the state legislature) or even 50 percent of alleligiblevoters seems like a commonsense protection from the tyranny of the well-funded union minority. In fact, this reform sounds like a great idea for a future ballot measure. To pass, it would only need the votes of about one-third of eligible voters!

Jordan Bruneau is the communications director at the California Policy Center.

Originally posted here:
The risks and benefits of Californias direct democracy - OCRegister

Health workers protest against economic hardship and poor working conditions during the COVID-19 outbreak in Harare, Zimbabwe. Philimon Bulawayo/Reuters hide caption

Health workers protest against economic hardship and poor working conditions during the COVID-19 outbreak in Harare, Zimbabwe.

The pandemic has had a chilling effect on freedom around the globe, according to a new report from Freedom House, a nonpartisan group that advocates for democracy and whose founders include Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie.

The notion that democracy is being "impinged upon in this pandemic is not surprising. The idea that people's freedoms are being curtailed is absolutely true and objectively verifiable and is happening," says Margaret Kruk, professor of health systems at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who was not involved with the report.

Certain countries show how a global health emergency can have far-ranging repercussions on the overall health and well-being of a country but also how countries can rally and do the right thing.

The report, Democracy Under Lockdown: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Global Struggle for Freedom, was published in October in partnership with the survey firm GQR. Researchers surveyed nearly 400 journalists, activists and other experts in governance and democracy from March to September to find out how the pandemic is affecting freedom in 192 countries.

The picture looks bleak. Since the outbreak began, the condition for democracy and human rights has grown worse in 80 countries. The report points to clear cases where governments have used COVID-19 as a pretext to shut down opposition, marginalize minority groups and control information.

It is too early to say whether these infringements will persist after the pandemic, Kruk says. According to the report, 64% of survey respondents agreed that the impact of COVID-19 would have a negative impact on democracy over the next three to five years.

"I would just caution that in the middle of a pandemic, assessing something as big as the future of democracy seems a bit premature to me," she says.

Still, Kruk says, "we should carefully monitor" these abuses "just as the virus has to be carefully monitored."

Here are three highlights from the report.

According to the survey, 59 out of 192 countries saw some kind of violence or abuse of power as a result of lockdowns and other pandemic measures. "Police were using the quarantine as an excuse to beat people or forcibly take them into custody," says Sarah Repucci, coauthor of the report.

She cites cases in Zimbabwe as one of the most egregious examples. The country has been using "COVID-19 restrictions as an excuse for a widespread campaign of threats, harassment and physical assault on opposition" she says. In July, the U.N.'s human rights office received reports of Zimbabwean police using force to arrest at least 12 nurses and health care workers protesting on the street for better salaries and work conditions. According to the authorities, these protesters were breaching lockdown restrictions. In a July tweet directed to Zimbabwean officials, the U.N. said COVID-19 measures "should not be used to clamp down on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and right to peaceful assembly."

Some authorities are using the virus as pretext for a political agenda that was already in place. "There have been a lot of crackdowns on minority groups who had already been a target before the pandemic, such as Muslims in India," explains Repucci. "They've been scapegoated throughout COVID-19 as being spreaders of the virus."

Indeed, in April, NPR correspondent Lauren Frayer reported that Muslims say they have faced increased discrimination, harassment and attacks in India. The violence has been fueled, victims and observers say, by right-wing Hindu nationalist TV channels, misinformation on social media and statements from ruling party politicians.

At least 91 of 192 countries had some kind of restriction on news media during the outbreak, according to the survey. "That's really an alarming figure," says Repucci. "The media is the only way that people can get information that is not just the government line. Even if the media might have certain biases in certain countries, they serve a really important role for getting people information."

In an effort to control information, governments have cracked down on the media, from preventing journalists from covering COVID-19-related press events to harassment, intimidation and arrests. The report cites examples from around the world: In Nigeria, a journalist who covered the alleged collapse of a COVID-19 isolation center was detained by the authorities and threatened with criminal prosecution on false news charges in May. In Tanzania, a journalist was suspended for allegedly reporting about a COVID-19 patient without the patient's consent in April. And in Singapore, the government is using its new anti-fake news law to take down social media posts and news stories that clash with government messaging.

One of Freedom House's measures of democracy in the report is transparency around coronavirus information. According to survey respondents, the U.S. has not been great at that. The Trump Administration has been criticized for using a number of tactics to control the narrative around the virus. This includes scapegoating, pushing unproven cures and downplaying the severity of the crisis.

What the U.S. does in this pandemic matters, says Repucci. "So many countries look to the U.S. as a model."

In response to these charges, White House spokesman Michael Bars emailed NPR this statement:

"The Administration's coronavirus strategy is fundamentally rooted in the bedrock objective of saving lives and helping our country our schools, businesses, churches and other institutions safely open and stay open .... [W]e now have more information on how to better treat patients and protect the most vulnerable through increased care, life-saving therapeutics, state-of-the-art testing, mitigation techniques to prevent community spread and hospitals that are better prepared."

Only one country reported a positive trend over the past few months: Malawi.

"They had a really bad election in 2019 lots of fraud and people just assumed that the result was going to stand," Repucci says. "But then it was contested and it went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court actually surprised everyone with a show of independence from the ruling party and said, yes the election was fraudulent, it needs to be redone."

In June, Malawi was successfully able to hold a rerun election, voting out the ruling party and transitioning to a new regime. It's notable that the country was able to keep its democratic process on track despite concerns about the coronavirus, explains Repucci, because half of the 22 countries that held an election this year were affected by the pandemic. According to the report, officials in seven countries moved the election date and four changed election rules, citing COVID-19.

Another country surprised Repucci: Tunisia. "The activists we surveyed were largely positive about the government response," she says. Working quickly to shut down schools, mosques and transportation, Tunisia was one of the first countries in the Middle East to contain their COVID-19 outbreak, according to a July report from the Brookings Institution, a think tank. And Tunisia's communication strategy was widely lauded for being "transparent and extensive," according to the report. The government broadcast daily press conferences on TV and the radio; it also created a website and two Facebook pages with coronavirus information.

"People felt that the government was in control and that they had instituted measures [to control the virus] that were necessary," says Repucci, "and in the process of that, the government was able to refrain from serious infringements on freedom."

More:
How The Pandemic Is Affecting Democracy And Freedom : Goats and Soda - NPR

President Donald Trump and his supporters seem determined to end democracy as we know it.

President-elect Joe Bidens margin in Pennsylvania more than 58,000 votes, as of Friday morning already exceeds the margin (44,292) by which Trump won the commonwealth over Hillary Clinton in 2016. That, however, wont stop Trump from attempting to steal a national election that hinges on electors from Pennsylvania.

Longtime Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg told CNN last week that he believed the current GOP strategy was to throw the kitchen sink at the wall and see what sticks. The ultimate aim, he said, was to hinder the certification of results so theres no winner declared, and that lets the Pennsylvania Legislature name the slate of electors.

A couple of my friends, retired U.S. Army civilian attorneys and Pennsylvania natives, predicted this election-stealing strategy before the election.

One friend predicted that heavy reliance on mail-in ballots by Democrats, resulting in a lower in-person turnout on Election Day, would result in a lopsided vote in favor of Trump on election night. He predicted that Trump would prematurely claim victory based on the early vote totals and claim fraud when mail-in ballots reversed the result. For this reason, my friend said he planned to vote in person.

He turned out to be right.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Legislature blocked early counting of mail-in votes. Trump claimed victory in the early hours on Wednesday morning after the election when only a fraction of mail-in votes had been counted.

Another friend predicted that the GOP would use the fact that more Democrats than Republicans voted by mail as a reason to disqualify as many mail-in ballots as possible.

And, indeed, vote suppression is one avenue that Republicans pursued to undermine the will of Pennsylvania voters.

The Republican National Committee and Trump campaign brought a lawsuit to ensure that technical defects such as the absence of a privacy envelope would disqualify ballots.

Republican plaintiffs subsequently expressed outrage that elections officials in Montgomery County gave voters all voters regardless of party affiliation an opportunity to cure, or correct mistakes on, their mail-in ballots in keeping with a long-standing county practice. I do not understand how the integrity of the election was affected, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Savage, a George W. Bush appointee, said in that case.

Some Republican elections officials resisted an order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to count mail-in ballots that arrived within three days of the election.

Vote totals suggest that this strategy failed, as the ballot rejection rate was much lower at approximately 0.3%. Voter education and the opportunity to cure defective ballots appear to have played a role in the lower rejection rate.

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

My one friend further predicted that the Republican objective was not just to disqualify a limited number of votes but to attack the entire Pennsylvania voting process. Like Ginsberg, my friend expected litigation aimed at blocking certification of voting results so electors could be selected by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Legislature.

Last Monday, the Trump campaign sued Kathy Boockvar the commonwealths top elections official to prevent her from certifying Biden as the winner of Pennsylvanias 20 electoral votes.

The Pennsylvania voter registration and mail-in ballot procedures ensure voter identification and ballot integrity. Those of us who have moved to Pennsylvania in the last few years are thoroughly familiar with the strict proof of identification and residence documents required to obtain a valid drivers license and voter registration. Those of us who applied for mail-in ballots likewise had to provide proof of residence and identity. I commend elections officials for devising procedures that allowed Pennsylvania citizens to vote by mail safely and securely during a pandemic.

Trump complained about mail-in ballots in Philadelphia, repeating an unsubstantiated accusation of fraud. The counting of ballots in Philadelphia was livestreamed. Members of both parties were given access to observe the processing of ballots and counting of votes. There was complete transparency.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnanys accusations that Democrats welcomed fraud and illegal voting were nothing short of slanderous. Neil Cavuto of Fox News recognized this when he broke away from her press conference at Republican National Committee headquarters, telling viewers, I cant in good countenance continue showing this.

All properly cast votes, including those mailed in by Election Day and received within three days of Election Day, should be counted. Attempts to nullify the voice of Pennsylvania voters undermine democracy.

We may expect Trump to incessantly repeat his claim of voter fraud. Trump follows advice often attributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Trumps erratic behavior as president, his attacks on government institutions and career officials, and his personal dishonesty have greatly eroded trust in government and undermined democratic institutions and democracy.

I believe that there is some element of truth in Trumps assertion of election fraud the problem is that Trump is the one who is committing the fraud. His insistence on halting the vote-counting and blocking certification of the vote are strong indications of fraud.

As it was 244 years ago, Pennsylvania is again at the crossroads of U.S. democracy. May the will of the voters prevail.

Any strategy to remove that choice from the voters of Pennsylvania is a betrayal of our democracy. Should that strategy be successful, we should all fear the consequences.

Gregory Hand, a Manheim Township resident, is a retired U.S. Army civilian attorney (1989 to 2017). He served as an Army judge advocate in Germany and as a local prosecutor in Dubuque, Iowa, from 1980 to 1989.

Read the original post:
Trump and GOP seek to erode US democracy in its birthplace [opinion] - LancasterOnline

NewsOpinionColumnistsDemocracy is about much more than simply voting.

Sunday, 15th November 2020, 7:00 am

The public needs to have access to information upon which to base their views, they must have freedom to challenge those in authority, and should feel safe to publicly express their opinions without fear of violence or intimidation by the state, their employers or angry mobs. And they need to have faith in the adherence to rule of law by those in power.

However, assuming these and other fundamental requirements of a free society are in place, the simple process of casting and counting votes is the ultimate expression of democracy. Instead of suffering under some tyrant, fearful lest we offend them and find ourselves locked up in a Kafkaesque nightmare, we, the people, get to choose who runs the country and they know they must ultimately answer to us.

A dangerous path

So, Donald Trumps refusal to concede defeat to Joe Biden and his lies about widespread voting fraud international election observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) described the US election as well managed and dismissed baseless allegations of systematic deficiencies, notably by the incumbent president are extremely serious.

If he succeeds in overturning the verdict of the US people, democracy in America is over.

Speaking to CBS's 60 Minutes news programme, Barack Obama said he was troubled less by Trumps predictable refusal to admit defeat than by the fact that other Republican officials who clearly know better are going along with this, are humouring him in this fashion. "It is one more step in delegitimising not just the incoming Biden administration, but democracy generally. And that's a dangerous path, the former US President said.

The rise of the Nazis

In a Twitter thread, Professor Timothy Snyder, a Yale University historian and author of On Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom, spelt out just how dangerous.

What Donald Trump is attempting to do has a name: coup d'tat. Poorly organised though it might seem, it is not bound to fail. It must be made to fail, he wrote. Coups are defeated quickly or not at all. While they take place we are meant to look away, as many of us are doing. When they are complete we are powerless.

He drew a comparison with the turmoil in Germany that led to the rise of the Nazis. Creating a myth of a stab in the back by internal enemies, as Republicans are helping Trump to do, justifies violence against other citizens, as in interwar Germany, he wrote.

Honourable Republicans

Thankfully, honourable Republicans still exist in America. Cindy McCain, wife of the late Arizona Senator John McCain, told NBC News that Trumps defeat of Biden in her normally Republican state after she endorsed the Democrat was because voters were looking for empathy, compassion, a leader that would listen to them and care about them, and care about the issues that were important.

By his refusal to accept the election result, Trump has demonstrated that he does not care about democracy.

Instead, like any wannabe despot, all he cares about is power for its own sake. He certainly does not care about issues important to the ordinary people he seeks to rule with the power of one of the worlds dictators that he seems to so admire.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

More:
Donald Trump is trying to bring about the end of democracy in America Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Social unrest is mounting in Angola since the first large protest on October 24th and the death of Dr Silvio Dala in the hands of the police. At the previous protest the urban youth came in hundreds only to be met with threat and kidnapping. Many were taken in by police and several journalists were taken in custody for no apparent reasons except the purpose of doing their job. But it would seem that the regime does not like to show its real issues to the world.

Angola would like to portray itself to the world as a democratic and lawful country, and yet its ruling political class is misplacing its political interests first, placing those of the bottom million people last. This is a non-resolved issue simply because there is no real desire to.

Since the new president's arrival in 2017, the climate of uncertainty and tension in Angola has escalated. Even before the COVID, economic situation was catastrophic where the local currency lost more than 40% of its value in a few months. Today it is at breaking point where people feel they have nothing else to lose. Some lost their businesses, are unable to pay their loans, people just can barely afford to make ends meet. The country is governed by an elitist class who appoint themselves to these positions and only see self-interest. Those so-called authority within the political party hiding beneath masks, calling themselves guardians of Angola.

This nations independence, that was fought with sweat and blood of the common people, in now jeopardized by a political class that works selfishly for their own personal gains and the future of their off springs who will continue their legacy.

The fundamental principles, as for Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Angola (1992), state that;

" Angola shall be a sovereign and independent Republic, based on the dignity of the individual and the will of the Angolan people. The Republic of Angola shall be a sovereign and independent nation whose primary objective shall be to build a free and democratic society of peace, justice and social progress.

These are words we appreciate, but the reality is that democracy in Angola is far from being felt and understood, in particular when our livelihood is dependent on it. It almost feels like we are disposable bodies to service the government when it serves them well. November 11th was no exception. Who can defend the countrys constitution if the government does not even protect the survival of its people and their interests? November 2020 was a milestone for us to realize that the 45th anniversary of independence, the right to speak and demonstrate will continue to be silenced and even denied by force. This year on camera at least one young demonstrator reportedly died fighting for that right.

Justifying that COVID measures required the prohibition of protests, head of police gave a strict warning on television a few days before Angolas Independence Day. Instead of creating a feeling of unity and hope for better days, the authorities issued a decree that stated loud and clear that protests would not be tolerated, withholding the right of demonstration. Yet, according to the constitution, this right could only be prohibited in a state of emergency such as a war, which clearly was not the case.

Go here to read the rest:
What happened to democracy in Angola? - Open Democracy