Mediaboss Marketing

When voters cast ballots for state representatives last fall, millions of Americans essentially had no choice: In 42 percent of all such elections, candidates faced no major party opponents.

Political scientists say a major reason for the lack of choices is the way districts are drawn gerrymandered, in some cases, to ensure as many comfortable seats as possible for the majority party by creating other districts overwhelmingly packed with voters for the minority party.

"With an increasing number of districts being drawn to deliberately favor one party over another and with fewer voters indicating an interest in crossover voting lots of potential candidates will look at those previous results and come to a conclusion that it's too difficult to mount an election campaign in a district where their party is the minority," said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who has tracked partisan competition in elections.

While the rate of uncontested races dipped slightly from 2014 to 2016, the percentage of people living in legislative districts without electoral choices has been generally rising over the past several decades.

About 4,700 state House and Assembly seats were up for election last year. Of those, 998 Democrats and 963 Republicans won without any opposition from the other major political party. In districts dominated by one party, election battles are fought mostly in the primaries; the winner from the majority party becomes a virtual shoo-in to win the general election.

Some states had a particularly high rate of uncompetitive races:

In Georgia, just 31 of the 180 state House districts featured both Republican and Democratic candidates, a nation-high uncontested rate of 83 percent. Republicans hold almost two-thirds of the seats in the Georgia House of Representatives.

In Massachusetts, just 34 of the 160 state House districts had candidates from both major parties, an uncontested rate of 79 percent. There, Democrats hold four-fifths of the House seats.

About 75 percent of the state House races in Arkansas and South Carolina lacked either a Democratic or Republican candidate. Under an Arkansas law passed this year, the names of unopposed candidates won't even have to be listed on future ballots. Unchallenged candidates will automatically be declared the winners.

Voting for unopposed candidates "just seems like an extra step in the process that we could eliminate," said the sponsor of the Arkansas law, Rep. Charlotte Douglas, who hasn't faced any opposition the past two elections.

She added: "You hate to say that it doesn't count, because any vote counts, but it's unnecessary."

There are far fewer uncontested U.S. House races. Less than 15 percent of the 435 districts lacked a Republican or Democratic candidate last year.

But some of the same states were atop that noncompetitive list: Five of Massachusetts' nine U.S. House districts lacked Republican candidates. Three of Arkansas' four districts lacked Democratic opponents. And in Georgia, which has 14 U.S. House districts, four Republicans and one Democrat ran unopposed by the other major party.

There are reasons for unopposed elections aside from gerrymandering. Some states, particularly in the South, have political cultures that place less importance on partisan competition. Incumbency also poses a deterrent to potential challengers.

University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said the large number of uncompetitive districts in his home state may be due less to gerrymandering than to naturally segregated demographics, with Democratic-inclined black residents living in different areas than Republican-leaning white voters.

Yet Georgia's Republican-led Legislature has continued to tinker with the district lines they drew after the 2010 Census in what some Democrats contend is an attempt to lessen competition.

A 2015 law, which was recently challenged in court , altered the boundaries of 17 Georgia House districts, including two narrowly won by Republicans the previous year.

This year, Georgia Republicans again sought to change the boundaries of several state House districts, including a couple won by Republicans by single-digit margins last November. Some of the proposed shifts sought to move heavily black precincts where voters overwhelmingly support Democrats from Republican-held districts into ones occupied by Democrats. Although the bill passed the House, it died in the Senate.

Republican House Speaker David Ralston has said lawmakers were merely "trying to put communities of interest together." Democratic House Whip Carolyn Hugley criticized it as gerrymandering intended to create safer Republican seats.

"Every time our candidates get close to winning in these areas, then they come in to readjust them. It's the same as moving the goal post further and further back," Hugley said.

Several Democratic Georgia lawmakers teamed up with Republican state Sen. Josh McKoon this year to propose a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan citizens' redistricting commission. But the measure never made it beyond a House or Senate committee.

McKoon said Georgia's current redistricting process "is horribly broken" and believes a commission could draw more logical boundaries.

"When you're drawing the districts with an eye to representing communities of interest rather than partisan strength, you're going to have more competitive districts," he said.

------

Follow David A. Lieb at: http://twitter.com/DavidALieb

See more here:
Democracy with no choices: Many candidates run unopposed - Enid News & Eagle

Once, at least a few young people celebrated the origin of democracy in Thailand, but no more. (Bangkok Post file photo)

The vast majority of Thais may not have been aware that yesterday marked the 85th anniversary of the day their country first tasted democracy.

The efforts of those who risked their lives to achieve the stunning success of the bloodless coup of June 24 which overthrew the absolute monarchy and put Thailand on the path to democracy has been almost erased from the public's memory.

Even a plaque commemorating the events of Friday, June 24, 1932 mysteriously disappeared recently.

There was public outcry about that, of course, and after a weeks of intense pressure to investigate who was behind the missing plaque, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha ordered a probe on April 19. But two months later there is still no word on how far the investigation has gone or where it is heading.

Umesh Pandey is Editor, Bangkok Post.

But, this is precisely what we can expect from authorities who are quick to crack the difficult cases, such as the spate of bombings across the capital. However, when it comes to simple cases like the vanishing plaque -- which few Thais even knew existed -- they are unable to get to the bottom of it.

June 24, 1932 was not just another day for most Thais. Now, more than eight decades later, the country's progress as it marches toward democracy has been as unsteady as when Khana Ratsadon -- a group of military and civil officers that later became a political party -- moved to usher in democracy all those years ago.

In the intervening years Thailand has seen nearly two dozen constitutions and as many attempted coups. Some were successful and others weren't. This has left the country weak in terms of its functionality, with the powers-that-be, especially the military, quick to take a heavy hand.

In fact, few countries have seen as many coups as Thailand -- a regrettable pattern that has stalled its attempts to settle on democracy. This has put it behind other countries that moved toward democracy at a later point in time but stuck with it. Some of those nations, like India or Indonesia, have even become regional powerhouses.

Thailand's role and importance on the world stage has also been gradually dwindling. The country that was at the forefront of the formation of the now 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is now mired in obscurity and notable for its lack of progress in areas like human rights.

However, Thailand is strategically located and its role as a key broker in regional geopolitics can be restored. It can continue to play an important role in the development of the region, but only if its leaders show the will and determination to let the country develop as it should.

As long as the military thinks it needs to intervene in political matters, the country will not be able to learn from its mistakes and will remain stuck in time.

As Thailand enters the 86th year of its transition toward democracy, one hopes the military government that seized power on May 22, 2014 will stick to its never-ending roadmap and restore basic democracy by next year at the latest.

Although there are indications that a general election may take place sometime late next year, history has shown it is not wise to take anything for granted. We had such hopes before, but the 2014 coup shattered many of those. Now, whenever the military regime makes a promise, we know we have to take it with a pinch of salt.

The recent decision by coup leader Gen Prayut to ask the public a set of questions about what kind of people should lead the country in the future took many pundits by surprise. Some have taken this as an indication that the roadmap to the election may be delayed again.

Hopefully, the spirit of those who orchestrated the events of June 24, 1932 is respected and we get the chance to choose who our future leaders will be.

After 85 years of stumbling on the path to democracy, now is the time to make sure we don't deviate from it. Maybe then Thailand can become a respected player on the world stage and also in regional affairs.

Continued here:
Respecting the spirit of democracy - Bangkok Post

It would be understandable if Republicans were doing this because its what most Americans want them to do. But its not. Only about 25 percent of Americans approved of a similar version of this bill, the one passed by the House. By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, people would prefer that the Affordable Care Act be kept in place and fixed, rather than junked for this cruel alternative.

The Senate bill is by far, the most harmful piece of legislation I have seen in my lifetime, said Senator Bernie Sanders. At age 75, hes seen a lot.

Remember when Republicans used to pretend to care about crafting the peoples business in sunlight? Its simply wrong for legislation that will affect 100 percent of the American people to be negotiated behind closed doors. That was Mike Pence in 2010.

Why are they doing it? Why would the peoples representatives choose to hurt their own people? The answer is further evidence of our failed democracy. About 75 million Americans depend on Medicaid. This bill will make their lives more miserable and perilous in order to give the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans a tax cut.

And where are the 75 million now? They are nowhere. The sad fact is, the poor dont vote. Up to 80 percent of low earners do not show up at the polls, and its even worse in midterm congressional elections. The Republicans can screw the poor, whose population is disproportionately large in red states, because those citizens will not fight back.

So, little surprise that Republicans are also working to make it even harder for the poor to vote. They can seek to disenfranchise one class of Americans, and get away with it from the safety of gerrymandered seats.

The symptoms of democratic collapse from the opioid crises of people who long ago checked out of active citizenship to the stagnation of class mobility cry for immediate action.

It takes the median worker twice as many hours a month to pay rent in a big city today than it did in the early years of the baby boomer era, as Edward Luce notes in his new book, The Retreat of Western Liberalism. Add towering increases in health care and college costs to that and youve got an unclimbable wall between low-income limbo and a chance at the middle class. The United States, once known for our American Dream, now has the lowest class mobility of any Western democracy, according to Luce.

What is Congress doing? Nothing on wages. Nothing on college tuition. And the health care bill will most surely force many people to choose between buying groceries and being able to visit a doctor.

Our fake democracy reveals itself daily. Less than a third of Americans support President Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. In a truly representative government, you would see the other two-thirds, the common-sense majority, howling from the halls of Congress.

Most Americans are also against building a wall along the Mexican border. They would prefer putting taxpayers billions into roads, bridges, schools and airports. But the wall remains a key part of President Trumps agenda.

Trump is president, of course, despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million people. Almost 60 percent of the public is against him now. In a parliamentary system, hed be thrown out in a no-confidence vote. In our system, hes primed to change life for every citizen, against the wishes of a majority of Americans. Try calling that a democracy while keeping a straight face.

See original here:
Our Fake Democracy - New York Times

President Donald Trump listens to a demonstration during the "American Leadership in Emerging Technology" event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on June 22, 2017.Jabin BotsfordThe Washington Post/Getty Images

In 1997, Fareed Zakaria wrote an important article for Foreign Affairs detailing the rise of illiberal democracy around the world. He contrasted the term with liberal democracy, which he described as marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms what might be termed constitutional liberalism is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. He then wrote a book on the subject.

Twenty years later, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted out the following: years ago @FareedZakaria wrote the book re illiberal democracies. i never thought this would fit the US but we r getting too close 4 comfort. I am a big fan of Richard (and Fareed), but I disagree with Haass on this one. America remains a strong liberal democracy however messy and dysfunctional even in the age of Donald Trump. Heres why.

1. Free Press Endures

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the press has been aggressive in fact-checking and challenging him at every turn. At times, a bit unfair; 80% of the coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, compared to just 41% for President Obama's. Many U.S. journalists have decided that professional responsibility demands a much more confrontational approach to this White House. The result has been coverage that is sometimes unfair and over-the-top. This drives Trump up the wall, because theres little he can do about it. In an illiberal democracy, the state uses all sorts of tools to dominate the press and shape public opinion. Trump has friendly news outlets that help maintain support from his base, but the rest of the media is in no danger of falling under Trumps sway.

2. Americans Love Going to Court

Americans go to court. A lot. And a lot of Americans become lawyers. As of 2009, for every 100,000 people, the U.S. has 380 lawyers. For comparison purposes, Japan has just 23 lawyers per 100,000 people; France has 70 (2010 and 2006 figures, respectively). More important than the number of lawyers is the continued faith Americans have in the legal system as of 2016, 61% of Americans say they have at least a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government, as opposed to the 51% of people who are confident in the executive branch and 35% of people who trust the legislative branch. In a liberal democracy, individuals and organizations can slow and alter the crafting of law and regulations by tying things up in court. And Americans are game in the first two weeks of Trumps presidency, his Administration was sued 55 times (compared to five lawsuits over the same time against Obama and Clinton, and four against George W. Bush).

3. The Courts Remain Independent

And the courts continue to limit executive power. In an illiberal democracy (see Russia and Turkey) the fix is already in when the gavel falls. For example, to tighten his grip on power, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has purged the judicial system in Turkey after last summers failed coup attempt, banishing more than 4,000 judges and prosecutors (25% of the countrys total). Trump would probably settle for ditching the judges that have struck down his travel ban no fewer than eight times in various courts (and by both Democratic and Republican-appointed judges). Maybe add the federal judge that blocked the Administrations ability to withhold funds from sanctuary cities , jurisdictions which ban law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, or arresting people for immigration enforcement.

4. There's No Deep State

To hear Trump and his surrogates tell it, any political defeat or unflattering news story about him should be attributed to a deep state hell-bent on trying to oust him. But there is no deep state in America, just a deep bureaucracy. Its made up of professional civil servants who have dedicated years of their lives (in 2015, a full-time permanent federal civilian employee had an average of 13.7 years of service ) to specific policy goals, whether from the left or right. Asking career officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to suddenly stop believing in climate change because the man elected in November doesnt much care for science was never going to get much traction. There are obviously people in the White House and throughout the executive branch that are sabotaging political and policy moves they believe harm the nations interests, as they define them. Vladimir Putin doesnt have this problem.

The bigger problem may be that the state isnt deep enough: As of this week, the Trump White House has only managed to confirm 44 of the 558 Senate-confirmable positions in the federal government. One hundred and five people have been formally nominated, five are awaiting nomination, and 404 jobs have no nominee whatsoever. Obama had confirmed at 170 by the same time into his own presidency; George W. Bush, 130.

5. Congress Has Its Own Agenda

Finally, Republicans in Congress have an agenda: Repeal Obamacare as they promised; roll back Obama-era regulations; and cut taxes. If Trump can help, great. If they can do it entirely without Trumps input, that might be even better. And if they start to believe that Trump will prevent them from passing their agenda and maybe cost them control of Congress? Theyll cross that bridge only if they feel they have to. But they are not a rubber stamp, as in an illiberal democracy. And the Senate voting 98-2 for more sanctions against Russia (and congressional oversight over them) last week against Trumps wishes offers more proof.

Any democracy can become illiberal. But its dangerous to argue that Trump has already created one. If illiberalism one day really does threaten Americas constitutional liberalism, it will be that much harder to raise the alarm if the charge has already been raised and dismissed.

See original here:
5 Reasons Why America Is Still a Strong (If Dysfunctional) Liberal Democracy - TIME

Rev. William Barber, the activist preacher known for helping to lead the fight against strict voter laws in North Carolina, will march with other faith leaders in Washington on Friday to mark the fourth anniversary of the 2013 Supreme Court decision that all but neutered the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The march comes after two of victories for voting rights advocates in North Carolina, where Barber is the outgoing head of the state chapter of the NAACP. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature had relied on racial gerrymandering in how it drew two congressional districts. In a separate case, it let stand a lower-court ruling that found a state voting law which required strict identification, reduced the early-voting period and barred same-day registration discriminated against African American voters.

Still, Barber, president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach, and interfaith movement, said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that efforts to make it harder for people of color to vote are continuing and the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions will not aggressively challenge stricter voting laws enacted largely in states controlled by Republican legislatures.

The truth is homegrown voter suppression poses a greater threat to U.S. democracy than Russian election tampering, Barber said.

Voting rights advocates have said that the 2013 decision, Shelby v Holder, resulted in a slew of new laws restricting access to voting. The law, one of the landmark pieces of civil rights legislation, protected African Americans and other people of color from discriminatory practices in states. The court decision effectively struck down a requirement that states with a history of discrimination seek prior approval from the Justice Department before making changes in voting laws and procedures.

In the 5-4 decision, the majority essentially argued that the countrys racial climate had changed since the law was enacted and that Congress should come up with new criteria to determine which states needed extra scrutiny. So far Congress has not moved to restore that provision of the Voting Rights Act, called Section 5. Barber said that issue also will be addressed in remarks before the march, scheduled to start at 10 a.m. and circle the Supreme Court.

For nearly four years, the leadership of the Senate and the House have not brought for one bill to fully restore the Voting Rights Act, said Barber said. This is the real hacking of our democracy; the real hacking of our election system.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, as of May, at least 99 bills to restrict registration and voting have been introduced in 31 states, and more than a third of those bills have seen some type of legislative action. The center notes that although bills introduced to expand voting access outnumber those that would restrict access, more legislation to limit participation is advancing toward passage.

Trump has falsely claimed that millions of people voted illegally in the presidential election, citing it as the reason he lost the popular vote. He has created a commission charged with studying both voter fraud and suppression.

Under former president Barack Obama, the Justice Department frequently sided with voting rights advocates in challenging voting restrictions, but less than two weeks after Sessions took over the department, it dropped its position that Texass strict voter ID law was intentionally discriminatory against voters of color.

Myrna Perez, who directs the voting project at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said civil rights lawyers have been fighting Texas officials for five years over the voter ID law.

Weve won this case several times, she said, but state lawmakers respond with a new law. What I think is really salient about this is that one of the things that Section 5 did was prevent the kinds of gamesmanship were seeing right now.

Penda Hair, legal director of Forward Justice, a law, policy and strategy center focused on civil rights and social change in the South, agreed that getting rid of the pre-clearance requirement has made it harder on lawyers to fight the states.

In states around the country, she said: Courageous clients . . . have go through years of litigation. Previously, the burden would be on the state to go the Justice Department to prove that the changes they wanted to enact were not discriminatory, she said. The burden that has been put on private activists to do what the Department of Justice used to do is tremendous.

See the original post:
Activist calls voter suppression greater threat to democracy than ... - The Denver Post