In California Latino Votes made the difference

Unlike 1994, the Latino vote made the critical difference in keeping California in the Democratic Party column on election day in 2010.   Democrats actually increased their majority in the State Assembly.

According to exit polls, Latinos made up 22 percent of the California  electorate Tuesday,  compared with 18 percent in 2008 and 12 percent in 2006. Brown won 64 percent of the Latino vote, while Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman won 30 percent. The Latino vote was higher and more partisan toward Democrats than had been predicted by the Field Poll just days prior to the election. 

The poll also showed 42 percent of voters identifying themselves as Democrats, 31 percent as Republicans and 27 percent as nonpartisans or minor-party members.

The one group that has consistently voted Republican in California  is older, White, males.

In 1994 The voters of California voted 62% to 38% in favor of Proposition 187, the Save Our State initiative to restrict illegal immigration.  A number of groups including FAIR, the Republican Party, and the Perot organization worked together to qualify the initiative. Significant parts of this proposition became federal law in the 1996 welfare reform laws.

    In 1994 California had a population that is 56.3 % White, 26.3 % Latino, 9.4% Asian, 7.4 % African American, and 0.6% other.  However, according to exit polls, the voters in this election were 80% white, 9% Latino, 7 % African American, and 4 % Asian. Exit polls show that Latinos voted against Prop. 187 by 3 to 1, African Americans split their vote 50 -50, and the Anglo electorate passed the proposition by over 60%.

   In the 2000 census California had a population that was 47.6 % White, 32.4% Latino, 10% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.4% Black, and 2.7% Mixed race.

  

In 1994 The voters of California voted 62% to 38% in favor of Proposition 187, the Save Our State initiative to restrict illegal immigration.  A number of groups including FAIR, the Republican Party, and the Perot organization worked together to qualify the initiative. Significant parts of this proposition became federal law in the 1996 welfare reform laws.

    In 1994 California had a population that is 56.3 % White, 26.3 % Latino, 9.4% Asian, 7.4 % African American, and 0.6% other.  However, according to exit polls, the voters in this election were 80% white, 9% Latino, 7 % African American, and 4 % Asian. Exit polls show that Latinos voted against Prop. 187 by 3 to 1, African Americans split their vote 50 -50, and the Anglo electorate passed the proposition by over 60%.

   In the 2000 census California had a population that was 47.6 % White, 32.4% Latino, 10% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.4% Black, and 2.7% Mixed race.

Obama: Don't sit this one out.

7 days until the election

There are just 7 days until the election: This is not a time when progressives can stand on the sidelines.

In a week most pundits are predicting massive Republican victories  in the mid-term election. These poll-based predictions assume a model of a very different electorate than turned out in the 2008 election.  What the pundits don't tell you is that if they are wrong about who turns out to vote next week, their predictions will also be wrong.

Frankly the stakes could not be higher. A Republican takeover of the House of Representatives or the Senate would put an end to  any chance of meaningful reform until after the 2012 election. More over the limited gains of the last two years would be put at risk.  Republicans  have made it perfectly clear that their primary goal is to repeal all of the legislation  --from health care reform  to student loan reform to the modest reforms that  were intended to rein in the Wall Street speculators who were the primary cause of the economic crisis that we still suffer from today--  that the current congress passed and the president signed into law.

Such a result would further diminish the prospects of restoring the economy and would legitimize the campaign of obstruction, vilification, and mendacity that they have carried out for the last two years. Further,  a Republican wave would bring into political office a new class of political extremists representing the worst elements of the right-wing fringe.

This group would immediately join with other Republicans and  Democratic deficit hawks to cut Social Security  and  Medicare benefits.  Some think that nothing can be done, but each of us can take steps between now and the election to change the character of the electorate and push back against the right.

4 things you can do now!

Friends don't let friends forget to vote

We are counting on you to spread the word far and wide that getting up early or staying late at the polls on November 2 matters.  Make sure  all of your friends and associates know that you are not standing on the sidelines in this election and they shouldn't either. You can use the forward to a friend button at the very bottom of this email message to let others  know what you think.

Use your FACE BOOK page (or other social media) and friends list to spread the word. Here is a link to some ICONS that you can post on your page to let others know why you are voting.

Join with others in local efforts to turn out progressive voters.

In most communities there are progressive and labor  efforts to get the progressive vote out. In states where early voting has begun there are efforts to get progressives to the polls early as well. In Sacramento this would be the Sacramento Progressive Alliance. 

Participate in the Progressive Election Forum on Oct.28.

Election Forum : Can the student vote make a difference?

Sacramento State U.   Thursday. Oct. 28, 2010.

12 Noon – 2 PM.  Orchard Room. University Union.

Speakers include Prof. Jim Shoch, Dr. Ami Bera, and student advocates.

Discussion of the candidates and the propositions.

Sponsored by.  Sacramento Progressive Alliance. DSA,  the Sac State Coalition,  Calif. Faculty Association (NEA,SEIU),

Note; We have been working on the issues of Prop. 25 for over a year now. 

VOTE 

If your state has early voting take advantage of it now. If not, make sure you vote on November 2nd.

Making History

Non-voting does not equal Golput!

I always get irritated when anyone refers to those who do not cast their vote as 'Golput.' Even in the media it is very often we see a passage like "Golput rate reached 30%." You may not like math, but the number cited is the non-voting turnout rate. Non-voting turnout is simply non-voting turnout, which is 100%-turnout rate. Become a Golput is one reason, among many reasons, for not voting. People may have other reasons not to vote; lazy (in academic jargon, the benefit to go to the ballot is smaller than the cost), no candidates matches one's preference, unregistered to vote, unable to be present, and so forth.

The Golput original term was brought to the vocabulary by this person. Back in the 1970s, Suharto 'simplified' the political system by allowing only 10 parties to compete in 1971, then reduced to three in 1977-99. Golput was an expression that no one, including the government, can take away one's political right. So Golput was a resistance movement against an undemocratic election. Even Prof. Budiman himself admit that the current election is already democratic, hence Golput is no longer relevant. Well, you may choose not to vote because you don't like the candidates for any reasons. But the fact is your not being stripped off your rights.

Of course, no one has the patent or copy rights to the term. So anyone can basically use the word, even if it has already been distorted from the original meaning. At your own risk (of embarassment), you may also claim that all non-voting voters have one interest, which you can represent, and think that all of them will vote for you. Wanna try?

An ugly system, but compared to what?

Many people, including some friends, tend to complain (or at least criticize) the current election system that makes individual candidates, rather than parties, are competing with each other. Well, the thing is election is the key element of democracy. The more direct the election (i.e. choosing individuals rather than parties), the better it should be. Of course, there are some caveats. Individual competition leads to distorted signals, increased searching costs, or 'supermarket effects' (where too many choices may lead to not choosing at all). But when we are to say one system is bad, we need also to ask, "compared to what?"

Here is my idea. Assuming that: 1) we still want democracy (not despotism or authoritarianism), 2) Arrow impossibility condition exists, 3) Plato's philosopher Republic is simply not attainable, then we may want to consider, I am proposing two possible alternatives:

1. Random assignment. A lottery is assign to (s)elect leaders or representatives. All eligible citizen will have equal probability to be leaders or representatives.
2. Take turns. Just like (1), but do a random assignment only once in the beginning. Then design a mechanism where each will take turn every a certain period. (Oh wait, who will have the authority to design the system?)

What do you think? For me, I still like the competitive election better.