With Ballot Measure 90, Oregonians can challenge the exclusion of over one third of the state’s voters while, at the same time, fight rising partisanship in the Congress, and increasingly in our country. E pluribus unum, the concept of “Out of many, one,” is being made meaningless by the partisan divide.

The current closed system in Oregon confers a second-class status on more than 650,000 independent voters who are barred from first round voting. Measure 90 opens the election system, giving an equal shake for all voters. What’s more, it goes beyond the borders of Oregon.

A national nonpartisan movement is underway, and Oregon can make that movement both more visible and more sustainable. Measure 90 is a local initiative with national implications.

Nationally, patriotic progressive leaders have been fighting entrenched party bosses to adopt nonpartisan primaries, working to save open primaries where they are under attack, empowering black and Latino voters to use their votes independently, litigating the question of whether taxpayers should fund exclusionary primaries and pressing the good government and third party sectors to support the rights of independent voters. Progress is being made.

We are veterans of this movement and the political wars that have shaped it. Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, led efforts to allow independents to vote in primaries in 1994, and to bring a nonpartisan open primary to Arizona in 2012. Successful on the former, falling short on the latter, we garnered 34 percent of the vote against extreme opposition from an amazing set of fellow travelers — including from the Koch brothers (who spent millions), a right-wing legislature known for legalizing discrimination against the gay community, the notoriously anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio and, sadly, the League of Women Voters.

Jacqueline Salit, founder of IndependentVoting.org, which organizes independent voters in 40 states, brought the issue of nonpartisan elections to Michael Bloomberg during his New York City mayoral campaign in 2001 and partnered with him over 10 years in efforts to win passage of the reform there.

Facing overwhelming opposition from the parties, The New York Times, and the entire universe of good government groups, we saw the depths to which party stakeholders would go to control the nominating process. After intense dialogue — and eight years — the good government group Citizens Union came over to the side of nonpartisan open elections, hopefully a harbinger of a broader realignment. Meanwhile, Mike Bloomberg — to his credit — remains committed to the issue, including in Oregon.

From these and other experiences, we saw the importance of a bottom-up movement — fueled by new kinds of independent grassroots organizations. Movement-building — paired with the aggressive pursuit of state-by-state open primary initiatives — is what’s needed to transform America’s political culture.

As we write this piece, leaders of the Republican National Committee (RNC) are busy accusing independent voters of being untrustworthy; of “lack[ing] a brain, a heart.” Some are advocating for closed primaries in every state. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer’s recent public support (in the recalcitrant New York Times!) for nonpartisan elections of the kind Measure 90 would enact, provoked outraged responses from fellow Democrats entrenched in the old system.

With 42 percent of the country now independent, a national movement for nonpartisan reform creates an alternative power base to the outdated and often undemocratic practices of traditional party politics. Even Schumer, a convert from the opposition, emphasizes the importance of a national movement.

Measure 90 is not only a crucial reform fix to an exclusionary system; it is an opportunity to strengthen an emerging coalition — one that weaves together the business community; independent voters and their organizations; forward-looking institutions of the good government movement; pro-democracy leaders of the third party movement; students; independents in communities of color; pro-reform philanthropists; as well as Democrats and Republicans who are themselves disenfranchised under the current system if they live in districts controlled by the party they don’t belong to or simply want their country to be fully democratic.

Nonpartisan political reform is obtainable. But it also must be sustainable. That’s why this emerging movement needs recognition and support. It provides the key to passing Measure 90 in Oregon and to giving the American people a tool for taking control of our democracy.

Read the original article here

Pew Research Center released a survey last month which was encouragingly called “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” Encouraging, that is, for the growing number of Americans eager to find a way out of the partisanship which has come to dominate public policy making at nearly every level of government.

The study — a 150-page analysis — was quickly digested by reporters eager to get a leg up on the latest political trends just as the Republicans held their first televised presidential debate in South Carolina which, notably, holds both an early primary and an open primary in which independents are allowed to vote.

“Voters More Complex than Red/Blue” wrote ABC political director Amy Walter. “The Misunderstood Independent,” echoed Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post.

The fifth study of its kind conducted by Pew since 1987, the survey aims to give a broad overview of the character of electorate and sorts Americans into eight cohesive groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation.

Three of the eight classifications that emerged from this year’s study were dedicated to independent voters — up from 2 classifications in the 2005 survey. More importantly, the presence of independents was evident across all five of the remaining classifications including those meant to define Democratic and Republican voters. In those groups, independents comprised 15 to 34 percent of their total makeup. Independents are everywhere it seems.

Pew acknowledged this in their report stating, “In recent years, the public has become increasingly averse to partisan labels. There has been a sharp rise in the percentage of independents — from 30 percent in 2005 to 37 percent currently.”

The survey also encouragingly pointed out that contrary to much theorizing that independents comprise “the center” of American political life, they remain a diverse lot with strong opinions. “The growing rejection of partisan identification does not imply a trend toward political moderation, however. In fact, the number of people describing their political ideology as moderate has, if anything, been dropping,” wrote Pew, acknowledging that while independents have come to played a central role in the last three national elections, this does not a “center” make.

Pew’s findings amplify our own, discovered not through polling, but through the activity of organizing independents over the course of two decades. Independents are not in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Rather, they want to move beyond the confines of parties altogether.

Perhaps more so than any other group of American voters, independents are attuned to the fact that partisanship is not a behavioral issue, it is a structural one. Since partisanship is produced by the structure of politics, addressing the issue of partisanship meaningfully means changing the political structure. That’s why reforms like open primaries and nonpartisan elections are so popular among independents.

Sarah Lyons is the Director of Communications for IndependentVoting.org, a national association of independent voters and activists based in New York City.

Read the original article here

Independent voters in Utah are coming together to play a historic role in the 2014 midterm elections. Traditionally we are typecast by the media as “swing voters”, but this year rather than quietly accept this indignity we’ll be working on primary election day June 24th to be visible at a time when we are most invisible. Like Dr. Seuss’s fictional Who’s would say, “We are here, we are here, we are here!”

Primary elections are pivotal in the democratic process and are often the most competitive. But in Utah, independents are compelled to affiliate with a party or accept an abridged ballot. We could stand pat and limit ourselves to voting on issues and ancillary races, but that is acquiescing to an abridged ballot – one largely devoid of candidates — for the simple reason that we would not join a pre-approved political organization. When phrased in these raw terms, the anti-democratic nature of our political structures is hard to miss. Our right to freedom of association naturally encompasses freedom from compulsory association!

This is the plight of the American voter (independent or partisan): first class taxpayers when funding elections – but second class voters at the polls. A recent Gallup poll shows 42 percent of Americans identify as independent. In Utah, it is 44 percent by voter registration totals and was as high as 51.5 percent in 2012. The issue is increasingly urgent as the impact of the individual vote is marginalized by partisan primary systems.

In the last year we witnessed the latest showdown between the parties and the people with the “Count My Vote” initiative for direct partisan primary elections. The initiative did not propose to place all voters on equal footing, but some progress was better than none and independents supported it. Soon the power brokers huddled and crafted a ‘compromise’ allowing independents to select a primary ballot of one of the parties. However, we already could change voter registration 30 days before the primary election. Only a small paperwork barrier was removed. Legislators and party bosses comfortable with their grip on power, indicated during the CMV compromise (at first secretly and now openly) that they would eliminate the new law either through legislation or in court.

Utah independents are organizing support for nonpartisan reforms to our broken system of partisan primaries. For example, in a Top-Two nonpartisan open primary, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on a single ballot made available to all voters. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election. In California, such a system was enacted by voter initiative and has resulted in more competitive elections, less legislative gridlock and candidates’ attentiveness to their entire constituent base.

On primary election day June 24, Utah independents will be making ourselves seen and heard in new ways. We will be holding an informational picket that evening at Trolley Square in Salt Lake, writing letters, petitioning, and bringing attention to this flaw in our election process. We believe, like the revolutionary founders of this country, “that all men are created equal.” We hope to lead the way to a government less hampered by partisanship and more able to advance the business of our state and country.

While parties are moving to make all elected positions subject to partisan elections (and party control), we are moving to make all elections nonpartisan with equal access for all voters. Join us in removing the partisan barriers to a more perfect union.

Read the original article here

Independent voters are coming together in Ohio to play a role in the mid-term elections, but it’s not the role we are usually cast in by the media as “swing voters.”

Instead, on primary day, May 6, we’ll be working to be visible at a time when we are most invisible.

Primary elections are a critical juncture in the democratic process. They are often the most competitive elections. But in Ohio, independents are forced to join a party in order to weigh in on candidates.

If independents want to remain strictly independent, we can limit ourselves to voting on issues, but that amounts to accepting an abridged ballot — one devoid of candidates — for the simple reason we did not join a pre-approved political organization.

When put in these straightforward terms, the anti-democratic nature of our democracy is hard to miss.

This is the independents’ plight: We are first-class taxpayers when it comes to funding the administration of elections but second-class voters.

NUMBER GROWS
A recent Gallup poll shows 42 percent of Americans identify as independent, making the issue all the more urgent as a large and growing segment of the electorate is marginalized in its voting powers by partisan primary systems.

Ohio independents support alternative approaches to the current system of private party primaries.

In a top-two nonpartisan primary, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are on a single ballot and all voters vote on this ballot. The top two vote-getters go on to the general election.

In California, such a system has resulted in more competitive elections, less legislative gridlock and candidates being more attentive to their entire constituent base.
REACHING OUT

On primary day, Ohio independents will be making ourselves seen and heard in new ways. We will be holding an informational picket at the secretary of state’s office in Columbus, calling on state legislators, writing letters, getting signatures and bringing attention to this flaw in our elections process.

A change is clearly needed so that the voices of millions of independent voters who do not now have full voting rights can be heard. We hope to lead the way to a government less hampered by partisanship and more able to move ahead with the business of leading our country.

Read the original article here

Independent voters are coming together in Ohio to play a crucial role in the midterm elections, but it’s not our typical “swing voter” role. Instead, on primary day, May 6, we’ll be working to be visible at a time when we are most invisible.

Primary elections are a critical juncture in the democratic process. They often are the most-competitive elections. But in Ohio, independents are forced to join a party first. If we want to remain independent, we are forced to limit ourselves to a ballot including only issues, simply because we did not join a pre-approved political organization.

This makes the anti-democratic nature of our current “democracy” hard to miss.

This is the independent’s plight: We are first-class taxpayers for funding elections, but second-class voters.

A recent Gallup poll shows that 42 percent of Americans identify as independent, making the issue all the more urgent, as a large and growing segment of the electorate is marginalized by partisan primary systems.

Ohio independents support alternative approaches to the current system of private-party primaries. In a “top two” nonpartisan primary, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are on a single ballot and all voters vote on this ballot. The top two vote-getters go on to the general election.

In California, such a system has resulted in more-competitive elections, less legislative gridlock and candidates paying attention to their entire constituent base.

On primary day, Ohio independents will be holding an informational picket at the Secretary of State’s Office in Columbus. We will also be calling on state legislators, writing letters, getting signatures and bringing attention to this flaw in our elections process.

A change is clearly needed so that the voices of millions of independent voters who do not have full voting rights can be heard. We hope to lead the way to a government less hampered by partisanship and more able to move ahead with the business of our country.

Read the original article here

Scientists call it a “multiple independent discovery.” That’s when simultaneous breakthroughs are made by researchers and practitioners working independently of one another. It’s happened in evolutionary biology, in calculus and physics, and now we’re happy to report it’s happened in the arena of electoral reform and political culture change.

The two of us made this simultaneous discovery, having come from very different places. One of us (Peace) is a political insider, a former Democratic Party power broker and a veteran of California’s bruising legislative battles and partisan dysfunction of the 1990s. The other (me) is an outsider, an independent, a community organizer and agitator, whose resume includes the upset election of billionaire Mike Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, the left-right coalition that founded Ross Perot’s Reform Party and Lenora Fulani’s 1988 independent presidential run. Both of us have a history of defying conventional wisdom and resisting traditional political outcomes.

Operating in very different worlds, using very different tools, we nonetheless made the same discovery: To change American politics, you must strip away partisan control of the electoral process and empower all Americans, including independent voters.

We first crossed paths during the 2010 campaign to enact Top Two Nonpartisan Primaries in California. Peace was the author of Proposition 14 and the founder of the Independent Voter Project, which was pioneering new forms of on-line activation of independent voters. I was the president of IndependentVoting.org, a national leadership and strategy center for the independent movement with deep roots in California. Proposition 14 passed with 54 percent of the vote as political party leaders — major and minor — kicked and screamed all the way.

The passage of Proposition 14 was a game changer. The traditional good government movement had hit a wall, unable to relieve the crisis of partisanship. Campaign finance reform was reaching a dead end, the No Labels approach to bi-partisanship was ineffectual, and President Obama had abandoned any effort to be a post-partisan reformer. Meanwhile, our independent reform movement succeeded at radically remaking California politics. We both saw an opportunity to up the ante on a national level. Three months ago, we joined forces to found EndPartisanship.org.

EndPartisanship.org has a two-part mission. First, we are building a broad and diverse coalition of organizations and voters who believe in the simple premise that no American should have to join an organization or party in order to exercise full voting rights. Second, we are going to court to challenge the taxpayer funding of elections that do not meet this standard. The lawsuit, being filed this week in Federal District Court in New Jersey, does not seek a specific remedy. It is challenging the ways in which the state of New Jersey has conferred favored status on political parties and party-affiliated voters. Who conferred that status? The state legislature, which is entirely controlled by — you guessed it — the Democratic and Republican parties.

This lawsuit, combined with a coalition-building effort that is already attracting democracy advocates from perhaps the broadest spectrum of reform organizations ever united behind a single cause, raises cutting-edge questions about how we can achieve an electoral system in which every voter has the full right to participate without being compelled to join a political organization. These fundamental questions will be addressed by the courts but ultimately must be answered by a new reform coalition and by the American people.

We expect our partnership to be attacked. Both of us are controversial and unconventional. We know full well that opponents of nonpartisan reform will want to use that against us. For our part, we welcome those attempts to divide and discredit, because that gives us the opportunity to show the American people just how resistant the parties and the partisans are to democratic change.

The two of us and our respective organizations — the Independent Voter Project and IndependentVoting.org — have framed a new paradigm for political reform. It relies very substantially on organizing the unorganized, in this case organizing independent voters. We are in the earliest stages of that up-from-the-bottom process, surely. But no one can deny the role that independent voters can play in the fight to end partisanship. This movement to end the favored status of political parties will be hard fought. We invite everyone who believes in these fundamental principles to join us in the next phase of “multiple independent discovery.”

Read the original article here

The U.S. and Russia have reached a deal over dismantling Syria’s store of chemical weapons. Getting there required going down some new roads politically. And philosophically.

The day after President Obama’s address on Syria this past Tuesday, David Frum wrote in the Daily Beast that the speech displayed a split personality, as he argued for and against military intervention. This echoed Dan Senor’s insistence on ABC’s This Week that the issue was “binary.” To bomb or not to bomb.

In the days that followed, events took quite a different turn. The Syrian government, spurred on by Russia, its main supporter, said it was ready to place all of Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and not to use such weapons in the future.

Credit goes to President Obama for not allowing binary logic to force his hand. His decision to take the issue to Congress created space for a conversation with the American people about what to do. Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin participated. The former gave an interview to Charlie Rose and the latter published an op-ed in the New York Times. Some have commented that the President looks less anguished having escaped from the binary box his “red line” helped create.

Not everyone supported the process that led to the settlement. Pro-intervention New York Post columnist John Podhoretz wrote a piece headlined “Feckless Obama Embarrasses the Nation.” But an extended conversation among the American people, Congress, and world leaders is far from embarrassing. It is welcome. It’s clear that neither side in the Syrian civil war is particularly appealing. One is accused of using chemical weapons, while the other summarily executes prisoners of war in violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention. And yet, the most rigid and vested of commentators declare that it is a simple question. To bomb or not. Yes or no. And, of course, if the settlement unravels, they will be the first to say “we told you so.”

The “yes or no” approach to viewing the world goes back to Aristotle who set Western philosophy and civilization on its logical course by asserting that something must be “A” or “not A.” He established the law of the excluded middle. This principle has been central to how we are taught to understand politics. Maybe we need a new way of thinking, a way that leads to new possibilities, like peace and harmony, rather than seeing our leaders, our country, and our world pushed by “logic” into bloody military conflicts to avoid looking indecisive.

Some argue that Russian President Putin’s initiative was an effort to play President Obama, by allowing the Russians to continue supporting Assad without being accused of supporting the gassing of innocent people. More important, we would argue, is that Obama’s going to Congress opened up new possibilities for the two countries to find a mutually agreeable way to de-escalate the conflict and move towards a resolution of the chemical weapons “crisis.”

Well before he ran for president, Obama spurned the trap of “either/or” thinking. In The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, he wrote:

For it’s precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It’s what keeps us locked in “either/or” thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace ‘socialized medicine.’ It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off of politics.

For independents like us, it was such appeals to put aside ideology (what is more binary than “left and right”?) and work together for a more humane and secure country and world, which got us to vote for him in the first place. That vision almost perished in the ensuing years of hyper-partisan warfare inside the beltway. Maybe Obama has decided to go postmodern as an alternative to war. That would be good — no two ways about it.

Read the original article here

Our democracy is in disrepair. The Supreme Court recently crippled the pre-clearance remedy of the Voting Rights Act. Efforts are underway in a number of states, north and south, to limit voting by imposing stringent identification standards. The 40 percent of Americans who are independents are barred from participating in primary elections in most states, unless one of the major parties invites them. Our rigged system of redistricting is manifestly partisan. There is unprecedented gridlock in Washington and alarming levels of corruption in State legislatures.

This sorry state of affairs has not gone entirely unnoticed. Recently, President Obama appointed a Presidential Commission on Election Administration, in response to breakdown and conflict in the electoral arena. Its mandate is to “promote the efficient administration of elections,” an understatement of the problem if there ever was one.

Unfortunately, the Commission appears to be the usual status quo defending effort, bipartisan by Washington standards. It’s led by co-chairs Robert F. Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and Benjamin L. Ginsberg, who served as national counsel to the Romney presidential campaign and is now counsel to the Republican Governors Association. The gap between the magnitude of the problem and the narrowness of the Commission’s mandate is ridiculously wide, like opening an umbrella in the middle of a hurricane. This fact has drawn comments by a range of democracy reform advocates in the context of the Commission’s poorly attended hearings. Common Cause wrote to the Commission that:

“The problems we saw on Election Day presented as long lines, inadequate poll worker trainings, and too few options to cast a ballot. But it is what is underneath these problems that should be the focus of our reform. The root cause of the problems we saw were antiquated voter registration systems, under-resourced election offices, and restrictive voting laws and deceptive practices targeted at minimizing participation by specific populations.”

At the Denver hearing, Wendy Underhill, senior policy specialist of the National Conference of State Legislators, raised the voter identification issue in the most diplomatic way, even though it’s a controversy that has embroiled the parties, the courts, and millions of voters. “While this topic is not in your executive order, it might still be of interest to you.”

Catana L. Barnes, Independent Voters of Nevada president, described how independents are excluded from voting in primary elections and reminded the Commission that it was created to improve the experience of all voters. She quoted President Obama’s instruction on the right to vote:

“When any American, no matter where they live or what their party, are (sic) denied that right…we are betraying our ideals…”

At the Commission’s hearing in Miami on June 28, the Florida ACLU executive director, Howard Simon, stated:

“Too often the rights of voters are lost in a tug of war between the major political parties jousting for perceived partisan advantage by manipulating election laws. This discussion should not take place with blinders.”

Long lines, antiquated equipment, and poorly trained poll workers surely make for a less than positive experience at the polls. We all want voting to be more efficient and less time consuming. But these upgrades, however necessary, will not change what our electoral system produces—a government paralyzed by partisan gridlock. Americans are not simply waiting on long lines. They are waiting for the government to do its job.

Outside the Beltway and outside the Commission’s hearings, Americans are taking some matters into their own hands. In the Aug. 26 issue of The Atlantic, Ron Fournier reports that while significant numbers of Americans born between 1982 and 2003 participate in community service, “They don’t see politics or government as a way to improve their communities, their country, or the world.” Forty-five percent of these “millennials” call themselves independents, rather than Republicans or Democrats. In California, independents joined with reform-oriented rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, voting to replace party primaries with a “top-two” system—in effect a public primary in which the power of the voters, rather than party incumbency, is enhanced. In 2012, the first full year of its operation, eight incumbents were defeated, as compared with only one in the previous five election cycles combined.

In South Carolina, a coalition of independents and African-American legislators won dismissal of a lawsuit brought by right-wing Republicans in Greenville County who were seeking to close the primaries, exclude independents, and marginalize black voters. California recently adopted a nonpartisan redistricting process, also by referendum. Fair Vote is seeking passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly recognizing, for the first time, the right to vote. The Brennan Center advocates removing legal barriers that prevent persons convicted of a crime from voting even after they have served their time.

There is no small fix that can improve the electoral process. Instead, there is a deep need to fundamentally reform the political process by opening it to all voters. The president and the Commission should rework the Commission’s official mandate, expand its membership to be more diverse, and explore the deeper problems at hand.

(Harry Kresky acted as counsel for the coalition in the South Carolina litigation referenced in this article.)

Read the original article here

I was on a plane two weeks ago headed to California to visit my daughter when I first heard Bill O’Reilly’s televised rant justifying the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. I watched as my fellow passengers, primarily white, received their daily dose of racial polarization. It was a very disturbing experience.

O’Reilly’s exoneration of Zimmerman was not based on Florida law, but on the rates at which Black males commit homicide—a rate he points out is 10 times that of the Latino and white populations combined. Never mind that Martin was the victim, not the perpetrator. Of course, he threw in for good measure that 73 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock.

These circumstances, according to O’Reilly, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or decades of discrimination and poverty, but instead are the by-product of “Black culture,” a code phrase, as we all know, for Black inferiority. O’Reilly appears to miss the fact that Black culture does not exist independently of American culture, even as the majority of Blacks are relegated to the sidelines of America’s prosperity—living in poverty! Any indictment, true or false, of Black culture is an indictment of American culture.

In his rant, O’Reilly admonished Black leadership for failing to run ads telling young Black girls to avoid becoming pregnant. Why haven’t they advocated for strict discipline in public schools—no matter, by the way, how lousy the system is—and insist on mandatory student uniforms? Is he serious?

Black kids and their families don’t need lectures. They know very well how the O’Reillys of the world see them. And they carry the burden—physically, psychologically and emotionally—of a poverty and deprivation that they are often accused of producing but which is instead the birthright of being Black in America.

The problem with traditional Black leadership isn’t their failure to engage O’Reilly’s fantasy of what he calls Black culture. No, it’s that traditional solutions—like the current organization of public education or the traditional partisan approaches to Black empowerment—do not yield development. If there’s anything about Black culture that needs to change, it’s the willingness to accept these old solutions.

I have spent the last three decades, along with my colleagues at the All Stars Project, in the poor Black and Latino communities of this country. The so-called immorality of the Black community is not the issue—we are no more or less moral or immoral than any other community. At the All Stars, we engage a by-product of poverty: underdevelopment. It is hard to grow and develop when one is relegated to the sidelines of a society, denied access to the mainstream.

We have also invested in introducing the poor, Black community to our white, wealthy donors to help bridge the gap that the O’Reillys of the country exploit for political gain. That can be done. That is being done. But the O’Reillys of the world are too blind to see it.

What each brings to the table—the young people’s struggles and their hunger to be included and the donors’ experience and sophistication—creates a new kind of possibility for Black and white America to come together. Black kids who live in the projects and in impoverished areas don’t have the opportunity to be part of the larger world, to be part of the mainstream, as Dr. Martin Luther King said.

However, if given the opportunities and the chance to grow, the toughest kids in our community embrace development. Poor Black and Latino kids want desperately to be smart and successful. They know that they’ve been earmarked to be left behind. That’s a very painful, confusing and infuriating experience for both the kids and their parents! That’s the truth of Black culture. That’s the truth of American culture. That’s what we need to change.

Read the original article here

The corruption scandal washing through New York is making headlines, but serious efforts to reform the system are not making headway. That’s because the people responsible for the corruption–politicians of both major parties–are also in charge of reforming it. This situation makes the case of the fox guarding the chicken coop look positively enlightened. At least we all know the fox is going to eat the chickens and we don’t have to call in the U.S. attorney or the FBI to tell us!

I’ve been a political Independent for 30 years for two simple reasons. First, I believe the partisan system is structurally corrupt–whether or not money changes hands–because it is designed to hoard power and to put special interests above the development of our total community. Second, changing those practices, those patterns of partisan self-interest, is going to have to come from outside of the party system. That’s why I’ve been a fierce advocate for the reform called nonpartisan elections.

In a nonpartisan system, candidates run without the authorization of any party and are not competing for a party line, and all voters make their choice in a first-round primary. The top two finishers, regardless of their parties, compete in the general election. The corruption now alleged against state Sen. Malcolm Smith, Councilman Dan Halloran and others is caused by the fact that they tried to bribe Republican Party leaders to allow Smith, a Democrat, to run in the GOP primary. The solution? Eliminate the gateway they supposedly tried to bribe their way through. No gateway, no bribe. That’s what a nonpartisan election system does.

I am among a group of Black and Latino activists–Independents, Democrats and Republicans-who began fighting for this reform in 2001. We recognized that a growing number of young people of color were becoming Independents, and if we wanted to encourage their participation in the democratic system, we had to have a system that included them. Nonpartisan elections achieve that. The Democratic and Republican parties, along with nearly every good government group and almost every elected official, fought us every step of the way. These foxes know how to guard their coops!

When I look at the list of New York City elected officials who have been indicted or convicted in recent corruption scandals, I am struck by several things. Many were a part of attempts to upend the partisan power divide in Albany. They set up independent caucuses or groups that broke the rules of party allegiance. This does not make them immune from wrongdoing. But it has, apparently, made them a target for investigation. If we think we can rely on the FBI to make democracy healthy, we’d better think twice!

The “foxes-that-be” are now promoting reforms to “clean up the system.” Don’t be fooled. You can’t clean a pigsty; it’s meant to be dirty. You have to set up something new. In fact, the first wave of “reform proposals” coming out of Albany appears to strengthen–not loosen–the hold of the two major parties on the process.

The Democratic and Republican mayoral candidates are hurling attacks at each other’s ethics, putting out press releases and posturing as anti-corruption fighters for the people. But why should the people believe them? They’ve been part of the problem for so long, it’s hard to see them as part of the solution, especially since they don’t put anything on the line to achieve change.

One mayoral candidate, the Independent Adolfo Carrion, did. He left the Democratic Party to get outside the system. He’s running with my backing on the Independence Party line and will be on the ballot in November. Many Democratic-elected officials are telling him to drop out, that he’ll shake up the system too much.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of the poverty and the failing schools and the fact that our kids have no hope. To me, that’s a much greater corruption than handing someone a paper bag filled with $10,000 in cash. For my money, I think it’s time to shake up the system. Will you join me?

Dr. Lenora Fulani is a founder of the Independence Party and the country’s leading Black Independent. She hosts regular meetings in Harlem that are open to the public titled”Interviews By a Black Independent.”

Read the original article here