The California Supreme Court has granted a hearing on the challenges to Prop 8, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Four of the seven justices voted with the majority in the original ruling overturning the state’s previous voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage. Of these four, one voted against yesterday’s 6-1 decision to grant a review of the challenges to Prop. 8. In other words, of the six to vote to grant a review, half were in the previous ruling’s minority. That breakdown of the votes for further review is probably not good news to proponents of equal marriage rights. We won’t know till well into next year, as the hearing is scheduled for March.
Handing California and western environmental policy advocates a big win, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman wrested control of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from Michigan Congressman John Dingell Thursday morning.Waxman won the gavel fight for control of the committee over the more senior Dingell by a vote of 137 to 122.
MPR has a very interesting interactive web feature showing photos of disputed ballots in the US Senate race in Minnesota. Highly recommended, and the reason behind my subject line will become apparent if you go to the MPR feature.
Britt Dysart, a lawyer who practises in Fredericton and president of the New Brunswick Liberal Association, reflects on the difficulties a PM faces in assembling, shuffling, and holding together, a single-party cabinet. The item begins:
From the day someone dreamed up the concept of an executive council, premiers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state [of course, a PM is a head of government] have at some time or another suffered from the shuffle demons.
While there might be a few exceptions to the rule, generally speaking every caucus member from outside of cabinet wants in. Those within cabinet generally want to stay.
That makes shuffling a cabinet, which happened this week [in New Brunswick], one of the most difficult job a premier faces. [continue at original source...]
Some signs suggest the State Supreme Court will grant a review of Proposition 8, which took away the right the same court granted earlier this year for same-sex couples of marry.
The case petitioners are seeking to argue before the court is that the proposition amounts to a “revision” rather than an “amendment” to the state constitution, because it strips a fundamental right. I am no legal scholar, so I won’t pretend to assess the legal value of that argument. However, with the decision so recent, and 4-3, and with California justices subject to periodic retention elections (and potentially subject to a recall-election petition), I would not put good money on their being willing to insist on their earlier decision and overturn the measure.
And then there will also be the legal question–if Prop. 8 is not overturned–of whether the marriages performed between the time of the Court’s ruling in spring and the fall election would remain valid.
Yet another interesting angle is that the state’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, is a proponent of inclusive marriage rights, but his job title would require him to defend the state’s newly enacted constitutional amendment stripping that right if it comes before the court.
It is really hard to over-state just how uncompetitive California’s single-seat legislative districts are.
Here are some stats (calculated by me from the LA Times day-after report, so don’t consider them “official”):
State Assembly (80 districts)
68.59% mean winner’s share
7 (8.8%) uncontested (i.e.winner with 100%)
65.10% mean winner’s share in contested seats
12 (15.0%) won with 55% or less
1 won by less than 50%
51 (63.4%) won by the Democrat
State delegation to US House (53 districts)
71.06% mean winner’s share
7 (13.2%) uncontested
66.77% mean winner’s share in contested seats
6 (11.3%) won with 55% or less
1 won by under 50%
35 (66.04%) won by the Democrat
State Senate (20 of 40 districts up this year)
64.45% mean winner’s share
none uncontested
4 won with 55% or less
0 won with under 50% (but one at 50.02%)
12 (60%) won by the Democrat
That’s uncompetitive! And unrepresentative: I do not know what the Democrats’ statewide vote was–these sorts of things are largely secret in American democracy–but it wasn’t 66%, or even 60%.
With the outcome of Prop. 11, which would create an “independent” commission to redraw district lines for the Assembly and state Senate, still uncertain (but most likely approved), can anyone convincingly argue that it is possible for an “independent” commission to improve this situation significantly? I have my doubts…
________
Evidently the footnotes plug-in is not working well with the new Word Press software. Sometimes the footnotes do not appear at all. Sometimes they appear, but with “aa” for each footnote marker, instead of numbers. Sorry; I might be able to fix it–one of these days.
The details are rather fascinating. Please follow the link, and if so inclined, come back here to discuss!
Although I am planting this under Coalition governance, the government technically is not a coalition. Or is it? Only one party is in cabinet, but others have “ministers outside cabinet,” an innovation pioneered by the previous Labour government (and much criticized at the time by National). More precisely, it’s a minority government, but with a series of signed agreements with other parties.
Sure, MMP means that, mostly, outcomes in terms of the inter-party dimension (how many seats each party wins) are the same as if the system were just a (closed-list) PR system.
The one obvious way in which MMP is different is the rules may permit a party to enter parliament through winning a district, even if the party’s overall popularity was not enough to clear the party-list threshold. That’s how the Progressive and United Future and, most importantly, the ACT and Maori parties will be in the just-elected New Zealand parliament, despite not having cleared 5% of the party-list vote.
Here is another difference, and it comes on the intra-party dimension:
Elsewhere in Christchurch, Labour can thank the personal following of their incumbent MPs for not being routed. National won the party vote in Port Hills and Waimakariri, but the popularity of Cabinet Ministers Ruth Dyson and Clayton Cosgrove meant they held onto their seats. [...]
Dalziel [Lianne Dalziel, another Labour member who survived in her district] said Labour would look at whether Christchurch showed anything other than the national trend. “If there were issues in Christchurch that people responded to in a particular way then all of us would be very interested to know what those were and act on those,” she said.
In other words, candidate popularity and local issues still count, and likely to a greater degree than they would in a purely closed-list PR system. Naturally, these seats did not change the overall balance of seats won by Labour or any other party. However, they do allow the districts to have an advocate within the party. And they encourage the party to nominate appealing candidates and attend to local issues.
Ted Stevens has now fallen behind, though plenty of votes still remain to be counted. (More at 538, where a separate item also notes that one academic study suggests Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman may yet be defeated.)
Three states’ electoral votes in 2008 were won with less than a majority and with at least one third-party/independent candidate having more votes than the margin between the top two. One other state was likewise won with less than a majority, with two candidates combining for more than the margin.
Indiana
Won by Obama with 49.92% over McCain’s 48.96%
Obama margin over McCain: 26,163
Bob Barr: 29,196
Missouri
Won by McCain with 49.44% over Obama’s 49.24%
McCain margin over Obama: 5,868
Ralph Nader: 17,769
Bob Barr: 11,355
Chuck Baldwin: 8,181
(Cynthia McKinney: 958)
Montana
Won by McCain with 49.66% to Obama’s 47.16%
McCain margin over Obama: 12,136
Ron Paul: 10,499
Ralph Nader: 3,570
Bob Barr: 1,300
North Carolina
Won by Obama with 49.70% over McCain’s 49.38%
Obama margin over McCain: 13,692
Bob Barr: 25,408
It is very likely that votes for Ralph Nader (at 3.03 times the margin) cost Obama the electoral votes of Missouri and that votes for Bob Barr (at 1.86 times the margin) cost McCain the electoral votes of North Carolina. As for Montana and Indiana, as well as the vote totals of Barr and Baldwin in Missouri, because I will not assume that all Barr/Baldwin/Paul votes would have gone to McCain or all Nader/McKinney to Obama, it is harder to say, but an affect on the outcome is certainly possible.
Fortunately, the choice of President did not hinge on these states. But it is well past time that we did away with the electoral college and plurality voting.
Source: Dave Leip, with an assist from good old Wikipedia (where, unlike at Leip or the media sites I checked, someone bothered to enter the individual candidate totals for candidates not named McCain or Obama.)
The results of Saturday’s election in New Zealand are now clear (albeit preliminary). The National Party has won 59 seats in a parliament that will have 122 seats. With 62 seats needed for a majority, it will be an easy government to form. The Act did better than I imagined possible, with 5 seats.
The Maori Party slightly exceeded expectations, winning 5 of the 7 Maori districts, creating two overhangs (given only 2.2% of the list vote).
The only real questions are whether (1) National and its leader (soon to be PM) John Key will negotiate cabinet seats with Act, or simply rely on a confidence-and-supply agreement, and (2) how closely tied to Act National will be willing to appear. If the answer to the second question is ‘not too much’ we might see some sort of cooperation agreement with the Maori Party and with United Future (though the latter has only one seat, making it not sufficient by itself to give National a majority on any legislation). Key will be speaking with all three parties as he prepares to name a cabinet. Key still is saying he does not want Act’s Roger Douglas in the cabinet:
“I made it clear on the campaign trail I was going to lead a centre-Right government that was moderate. I do not believe that’s compatible with having Mr Douglas in Cabinet.”
Thus he will need understandings with UF and Maori to resist Act’s otherwise considerable leverage, given the latter’s showing.
It looks to me as if we’ll see a single-party minority cabinet (perhaps with a Maori ministry outside cabinet), to preserve National’s flexibility and prevent its being too tethered to Act.
The Green Party had a strong showing, with 8 seats on 6.4% of the party-list vote. But it obviously will be in opposition, along with Labour, which won 43 seats.
The party vote for National was slightly below most late polls, at 45.5%. Labour’s was 33.8%. Labour leader–and PM since 1999–Helen Clark, has resigned her party post.
The variable threshold produced some odd results, in addition to the five seats made possible by the Maori Party’s dominance of the Maori districts. While Act will have 5 seats on only 3.7% of the list vote, New Zealand First will have none, despite 4.2% of the list vote. The difference is that while NZF came much closer to the 5% list-vote threshold than pre-election polls had suggested, it failed to win a district plurality. Act, on the other hand, won one district (Rodney Hide’s reelection in Epsom), and hence qualified for full list proportionality. The single seats won by both United Future and Progressive Party also stem from their leader’s continuing ability to win their own districts; each of these parties failed to get 1% of the vote.
Obviously, under any MMP system, a party that wins a district must be permitted to enter parliament with that victory. But allowing a lower party-vote threshold for a single district win has always struck me as anomalous. Again, I am not referring to the Maori seats, which are a separate issue. But having two parties in the range of three to five percent, but the smaller one with five seats and the larger one with none is a very odd outcome. So, electoral-systems designers, it is now your mission to design a fair way to ‘correct’ this anomaly. I would suggest lowering the list threshold (for future elections, obviously) to 2.5%, which is about what it takes to win 3 of 120 seats. I doubt this one would fly, so the orchard floor is open for alternatives. One other before I ‘plant’: one could require two district seats to open up a sub-5% party to list representation (following the German example, where the threshold is 5% or three district wins).
California Proposition 1A on last week’s ballot passed, 52.2% to 47.8%. This measure allows the state to sell bonds to finance a high-speed rail system. Good news!
If one compares the map of counties in which the measure won or lost with the route map (cool graphics there!), one finds only a loose correlation. Sure, the measure won in the big population centers that would be connected by the rail system (those in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County). It also won in Kern and Fresno Counties (Bakersfield and Fresno, Central Valley population centers, would have stops), and a few other counties along the route. However, it much of the rest of the Central Valley (including the counties where Sacramento and Modesto, which would have stops, are located), while passing in some locales quite distant from the route (e.g. Mendocino, Monterey, and Santa Barbara). The biggest percentage win was in Modoc County, about as far from any proposed station as one could be and still be in the state. It lost, 52-48, here in San Diego County, which would be on an eventual extension (running close to Ladera Frutal!), but not the preliminary route.
Despite the passage of the bonds, this system is still a long way from being built. But it is a step in the right direction.
Nebraska is one of two states to allocate its presidential electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district, plus two to the statewide winner. The other is Maine. In the years since these states went to this districted system, no split had resulted. Till now. Barack Obama has won the electoral vote allocated for the district centered on Omaha. That gives him 365.
________
As this planting takes root into the virtual soil here at laderafrutal, polls are opening for New Zealand’s general election. It is noon Friday here, 9:00 a.m. Saturday there.
The election, held under mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) pits the National and Labour parties against each other for the leadership of an expected coalition or minority government. Either party likely would need the active or tacit cooperation of at least two smaller parties. One of those smaller parties, the Maori Party, could end up holding the balance of power, although the most recent aggregates of polls (‘08 Wire and Curia) suggest there is a good chance that a right-wing governing formula can be assembled without need to deal with the Maori Party. There is also some (evidently diminishing) chance that National could form a majority government on its own. (more…)
If by my laws you walk, and my commands you keep, and observe them,
then I will give-forth your rains in their set-time,
so that the earth gives-forth its yield
and the trees of the field give-forth their fruit.
--Vayikra 26: 3-4
F&V time: This blog's date function is so set as to start a new day at approximately local sunset.
(Why, if we have "day" and "night," should a new "day" start in the middle of the night?)
F&V Coordinates: A compass may be helpful for navigating the orchard--a Political Compass, that is.
