BP      Jack McCullough      JulieWaters      kestrel9000      Maggie Gundersen      odum      Sue Prent 
                          

Chittenden 3-4: The election that never ends

by: odum

Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 17:00:00 PM EST


Call it "I know you are but what am I" politics. Call it also a parable for those of us outside of Burlington who are talking about Dem/Prog fusion or cooperation to have a sense of just how herculean a task we're taking on.

Question: Why are we still talking about this race?

From the UVM Cynic on Tuesday:

Ram cited quotes from Zuckerman saying he had heard Ram only worked one or two days a week at her job at a preschool program in the summer.

Ram also mentioned a statement from Pearson saying that she had not put forth any ideas about student leadership when they met for coffee a year earlier.

"I think those are both lies and false allegations directed at my campaign, and I stand by that," Ram said.

And:

Ram said she will "have to be very aware that there is some tension between the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party, and that will play out in our relationship."

Zuckerman said that Ram's campaign is responsible for that tension.

"This campaign that [Ram] waged certainly created a great deal of tension. Tension between Progressives and Burlington Democrats that I have not seen for eight or 10 years," Zuckerman said.

Elections are adversarial in nature. And of late, part of that process at the "macro" level has been to be the first one to peg your opponent as a sleazebag. Unethical. You don't see that so much at the local level because politics becomes more personal and less institutional. Nobody wants to call their neighbor a sleazebag, right? Because if you do that "personal" quality becomes the other kind of personal. And if you push those kind of boundaries in a local election, you're playing a slash-and-burn strategy, tromping on community cohesion in order to win, and that's a problem.

odum :: Chittenden 3-4: The election that never ends
Welcome to the just passed(?) Chittenden 3-4 race between incumbent Progressives Chris Pearson, David Zuckerman and Democrats Kesha Ram and some other guy. The race went to Zuckerman and Ram, and I have never seen a race at any level where the charge of "liar" was thrown around for such frivolous reasons. Ram:

In response to Pearson's comment, Ram said that she is "frustrated by all of these blatant lies and negative attacks."

Zuckerman:

"If my opponent is telling people that I am going to be moving out of the district in two years, she is lying based on information that she heard directly from me, and that is a very, very serious situation,"

There's no question that this became personal very quickly. Pearson and Zuckerman took the candidacy itself as a personal attack, and there's no question they responded with ferocity.

But folks on every side in the district asked some obvious questions of their candidates that simply can't be considered personal. Would Ram be running if Pearson and Zuckerman were Democrats? How to reconcile Zuckerman's re-election bid against his intention to move out of the district in a few years? Both obvious questions that clearly took on a personal bent needlessly. (For the record, I believe the answer to those questions were probably "yes" and "whatever" in that order... in any event, there's nothing wrong with asking questions - especially obvious ones staring you in the face).

But those questions stirred the pot. What followed were frivolous questions that still get cited but were really meaningless. Were Pearson and Zuckerman starting a whisper campaign about Ram's level of employment? Why was Ram running with a "sponge" candidate? (That last one was asked by a lot of folks who should know better... you run a "sponge" who has no intention to win in a multi-member district to "soak up" the votes of people who will only vote party lines, so their votes have as much impact - picking two ballot names -  as those of others. Otherwise they essentially cast half-a-vote, and the resulting math can hurt a lone partisan candidate if the race is tight. It's weird, but its common knowledge). Ram's running mate turned out to be the worst sponge in history, though, when he publicly went all limp and said he didn't want the position - doing nothing but reflecting badly on Ram. Meanwhile, the conspiracies abounded. Ram was a tool of the Leahy crowd/City Dems/Democracy for America to take down these dangerous Progs - apparently because the obvious truth (that Ram wanted to be a State Rep) was too boring (although it should be said that Ram's choice of Ian Carleton for Campaign Treasurer was just asking for that kind of response).

So we had a scenario where everyone was already taking things too personally from the get go. That sort of thing only gets worse.

If you think all this is a bit much, better sit down.

Here's how out of hand this has gotten. From Haik's blog:

Blurt's November 7 2008 blog round up links to stories by Max Bookman on Zuckerman, Pearson, and Ram.

Most of the comments are in the Ram piece. The ones from David Zuckerman and (Democratic City Councilor) Ed Adrian are interesting...

From Dave:

"...But I have to wonder...had Chris and I been Democrats would Kesha have run against us in a primary? Would people like Ed and Maurice worked so hard to defeat us? Do party labels matter that much? If they do, is that not a sad statement about our democracy?

From Ed:

"...Dave has also worked very hard at reaching out to the community and I applauded him for his efforts publicly on the FPF on October 30, 2008

where I stated the following:

"I have known Dave Zuckerman for over a decade when we shared a regular card game with a group of other folks. I am a founding member of his CSA, he came to our wedding and I consider him a friend. He has worked hard and I wish him the best of luck. Remember that each and every one of you in the Chittenden 3-4 legislative district can vote for two people for the Vermont House. I would encourage all of you to join me in voting for Kesha." *** I should note that as of November 5, 2008 I became, not due to my own choice, a former member of Dave's CSA...."

I hate when people assume we know what acronyms stand for. Ed mentions "FPF." That's Front Porch Forum, a neighborhood email update. He also mentions "Dave's CSA." CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. Some kind of hippy-zippy food buying group thing.

But anyway. Is Ed Adrian trying to imply that Zuckerman kicked him out of a food co-op because he helped Kesha Ram defeat Chris Pearson? Whoa Nelly. Ed Adrian is running for mayor, by the way.

Amazing, huh?

Zuckerman responded in the comments:

In Vermont we all have many business and personal relationships that cross our political philosophies. That is part of what makes our political scene more "civil" in most instances. However...there are also some unwritten codes that I have observed in my 12 years of being in politics. One of them is
that folks tend not to use their personal or business relationships for political gain at cross hairs to the business relationship or without chatting about it first. And this is where Ed crossed the line.

In his posting you will see that while it was couched as being friendly etc. it was also a political ploy (and it was part of their overall strategy to get people to vote for Kesha and me...which was an effective one...so kudo's to them).

I have no problem with folks endorsing whoever they want to over and around friendships. Those are political decisions. But to use a friendship or business relationship as a tool for partisan politics was beyond ok.

I might add that only 2 weeks (give or take) earlier, I had had a discussion with Ed asking him that we separate our business relationship from politics at CSA pick-ups because it made some other members uncomfortable (without placing blame on him or me, we just get heated...and we enjoyed it...but other members did not). So it was on the heals of my asking him to separate our politics from our business relationship that his email was sent out. From that, the next time I was to see him (I thought) other than the heat of election day was at the next share pick up on wednesday. Sure the timing was not great...but it was the next scheduled pick up. I wanted to do it in person to try to explain all of this rather than through emails and blogs.

And this is the hard part, because the Front Porch Forum post that Zuckerman cited as justification for Adrian's expulsion and is terming unethical was this one:

WHY I SUPPORT KESHA RAM
By Ed Adrian, City Councilor - Ward 1, Brookes Ave,
Tue, 28 October 2008

I have been somewhat surprised about the lack of political discussion on the FPF and hesitant to disturb that tranquility.  Thus in return for your brief attention and bearing with me through this posting, I offer two humorous website links at the bottom to get you through the last days of the presidential campaign.  

As we head into the final days of this campaign, I have been asking myself why I support particular candidates actively.  Yes I am a democrat and I like to support my fellow democrats.   However, while I may vote for a democrat, I do not always support him or her publicly.  Every once in a while through a

candidate comes along who is so extraordinary that I will go out of my way to provide as much support as possible for that candidate.  Kesha Ram is such a candidate.

I think that one of the best indicators of how well any individual will serve as a public representative is reflected by how well they run a campaign.  What kind of organization do they have, who supports them, how much do they want the job and how hard are they willing to work to get it.  Most importantly are they willing to get out there and touch base, in person, with as many people as possible. Kesha has assembled an impressive team in this race.  Her literature, management and messaging is all topnotch.  Most importantly though, Kesha has worked her heart and soul out in getting to meet the community over the last 5-6 months.  

I believe that the same energy that Kesha has put into her campaigning will readily translate into responsive action for her future constituents.  In my opinion, assuming your ideologies are roughly in sync with a candidate, constituent services and communication is the single most important attribute for a local official to provide to his or her community.

Kesha also draws on some unique life experiences.  As a woman and an ethnic minority she has seen the world through eyes not shared by any other current member of the Vermont House.  Now this is not to say that someone should vote for Kesha simply because she is a woman and/or a member of an ethnic minority.  

However, if a person as candidate is looked at for everything that they bring to the table these are two assets that certainly are worth considering when casting a vote.  In this instance much more defines Kesha then her gender or ethnicity.  

Kesha is a graduate of the UVM class of 2008.  In her last year at UVM she served as president of the student government association and managed a budget of 1.4 million dollars.  Kesha has spent the last year serving on the City's Environment and Energy Coordinating Committee.  She was one of only 65 students in the nation awarded a Truman Scholarship.  She has been endorsed by Democracy for American and is the youngest person ever to have been endorsed by Emily's List.  Her background provides her the unique ability to advocate for green jobs, affordable childcare, reproductive choice and the freedom to marry.  

I have known Dave Zuckerman for over a decade when we shared a regular card game with a group of other folks.  I am a founding member of his CSA, he came to our wedding and I consider him a friend.  He has worked hard and I wish him the best of luck.  Remember that each and every one of you in the Chittenden 3-4 legislative district can vote for two people for the Vermont House.  I would encourage all of you to join me in voting for Kesha.  

Now as promised here are the links -

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf....  (Send it to yourself and your friends.  You will not be disappointed.  Guaranteed!)

http://www.funnyordie.com/vide... (For all you Ron Howard fans out there).

Best,
Ed

I don't get it. The last part reads like an endorsement of Zuckerman. It praises the Progressive Rep and reminds folks that they get to vote for him too. In fact, it reads as a partisan Dem giving other Dems permission to split their vote between Ds and Ps.

I really don't get it, and I can only assume that the reason I don't get it is that those of us reading things like this are looking at the tip of an iceberg. What iceberg? Okay, there's the old Prog vs. Dem you-poked-me-first-no-you-poked-me thing playing out in the comments at Blurt, BurlingtonPol and elsewhere - but in this case I think there's another iceberg under there. A more personal one. One that we were never meant to see.

Never. Meant. To. See.

Clearly there's so much history and animosity and warfare going on that people can't think straight. The problem is that these people - all of them - Zuckerman, Adrian, Ram, Pearson - are in positions of authority. In other words, its their jobs to think straight, even if vengeance and personal vindication are so much more satisfying. They lose that luxury as part of the price of being public servants. It's about sublimating the self in the interests of the community, and it comes with the turf. Reading all this is embarassing. And the bungle moments are even worse. Did nobody tell Ram's running mate not to act like a dolt to the press? Did Zuckerman think he could kick somebody out of his CSA over politics and have it not go public?

I like Dave. I like Kesha. The little contact I've had with Chris and Ed have been extremely positive, and I like them too. To all I say: Move On.

If Mr. Pearson and Mr. Zuckerman are concerned more about the community they live in than their war, they'll stop fighting the election. If Ram is more concerned about the community she lives in than the war, she'll stop worrying about getting the last word. If Adrian wants to be mayor, he'll get as far away from all this as he can. In other words; everybody needs to start acting like grownups unless they like this neighbor vs neighbor crap among those who purport to be allies on the issues - and it is supposed to be about the issues, yes?

And for those who wonder why I express concern about the political dynamics of Burlington creeping out into the rest of the state, I offer you Exhibit A.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
My comment I wrote about David Zuckerman's shots at Dems over this race were somehow deleted from GMD by the morning. Pure censorship.  

Wha...? n/t (0.00 / 0)


undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
the comment was rated low enough to automatically hide it. (4.00 / 1)
You're new, so here's the explanation.  If a comment is rated very low, then it will be hidden from people who don't have an account as well others who have similar ratings on their comments.  It's a feature of SoapBlox and no one has deleted your comment.  

It didn't seem to me that what you said was too out of line from a theoretical point of view.  Both Lieberman and Zuckerman have trashed Dems.  I think you hit a strong nerve, however, because comparing anyone to Lieberman is kind of like comparing them to Benedict Arnold.  Zuckerman isn't a turncoat on his party.

If you backed up your comment by making a case for it; or if you put it in context so it wouldn't have come off the way it did, then it may have been rated a "3".  People who post on GMD are pretty much independent-minded and even if we're of like mind, there's an expectation to speak your mind.  Just keep it respectful and be prepared to back up what you say.  

Welcome to the conversation, Politico.  I hope it moves uphill for you from here.  

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


[ Parent ]
geez! (0.00 / 0)
what did I miss?

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Should hidden comments be made visible to the original poster? (0.00 / 0)
The low-rated poster could then see who down-rated them and any replies to their original post... perhaps we'd be saved from the censorship charge that always subsequently comes up.

(I rated Politico's comment a "1" and posted a reply explaining my reasoning, as did Jack. Sounds like he didn't see the replies)  


[ Parent ]
Nate's right (0.00 / 0)
I troll-rated it, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did. I thought it was a gratuitous attack on Dave Zuckerman in a thread that had nothing to do with him.
As to the substantive point you raised, nobody expects people from outside the party to support our party and its positions. Agree with him or not, and substantively we mostly do, most of us around here would agree that Dave is perfectly within his rights to stand up for his party, even if it means attacking ours.
Lieberman, on the other hand, has thrown in with the R's, spoken at their convention, and viciously attacked our candidate, yet he expects the support of our party to keep his committee chair, seniority, and privileges. If he wants to get favors from someone, he can go back to the R's and take what they'll give him.

[ Parent ]
Scary. (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the post, JO.  My gut is telling me that this really isn't a Burlington dynamic.  It seems like, as you suggest, a bit too much of personal anger getting out of control.  If we recognize this, I think we can avoid emotional spillover.


Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


Yes (0.00 / 0)
It just got too big for me to keep ignoring. And believe me, I've been ignoring it.

But this is a mass case of poor impulse control. I was just thinking it was time to pull out the hose, since it seems to be going on and on, without a sign of the usual conciliatory post-election rhetoric.

undercaffeinated


[ Parent ]
Thank you Odum (4.00 / 2)
well, now most of it is all out there.  Of course there is more.  But believe it or not, some of us (I think many cited above) are beginning to try to move on.

I am guessing Kesha would rather move on with the excitement of being newly elected.  I know I would rather move on to being a dad again and getting ready for the new session (once we know who the Speaker is going to be). I imagine Ed wants to move on to running for Mayor and Phil is probably ready for all of this to go away as well.  I can not speak for any of them but myself.  We all got heated (actually not Phil that I know of).  We all had challenges.

If people want to play this out some more go ahead.  Most of it has been explained and re-explained on the other blogs mentioned.

Sadly it did not go well in chitt 3-4 (I mean along this thread, I am not trying to make a political statement about who won).  But I think just about everyone would probably rather it move on.

I have been setting up a discussion in Burlington for the 4th of Dec. details to come later.  The idea is to continue (and maybe move further) along the discussion that John Odum and I had on VPR the other day.  Can we get along?  If so how?  What are the differences between the elections and actually serving and deliberating on laws that impact everyone?  Can we move forward with or without resolving some of the issues from the past?  And other Q's along these lines.

We will see.  I hope that folks keep a bit tempered about this sub story. I am not sure it does any of us any good to keep it going and going and going (can anyone say energizer bunny?)

peace-


Well, it would be a sick irony... (4.00 / 2)
...if my "I cant believe they're still fighting about this" point got hit (causing me to write this post) right as it was actually ending. I wrote this because I thought there was no end in sight, given this week's Cynic piece.

Er... uh... hope I haven't actually extended it...

undercaffeinated


[ Parent ]
Let's just say, maybe we should set our eyes toward the Randolph event. (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure the post-state committee meeting is a firm get-together yet or if there's some kind of agenda.  I'd like to participate in something like this so long as it's a productive use of time.  For example, it appears that there is strong support for IRV, so what do you say about this:

1.  Hand out copies of the failed IRV bill;
2.  Make a plan to get IRV back on the bill schedule;
3.  Designate best people to lobby key legislators;
4.  Begin formulating a coordinated effort to keep the heat on during the session;
5.  Create a contingency plan in the likely scenario of a veto in order to help ensure an over-ride.

It doesn't have to be IRV; I'm just saying, if we're going to meet, let's do something.

As far as Dave's suggestion, here's my thought:  No need to meet to hash out what's already been turned into crispy, burnt political hash.  If it's a touchy-feely, 2 of your guys, 2 of our guys panel discussion, let's skip the formality and meet at a bar where we can soak the wounds in some wine.  Then it will be more likely that everyone will share a group hug or start brawling in the natural process of venting whatever lurks in our inner political hearts.

My vote is for the Randolph meeting.  Burlington costs $20 for gas round-trip, and I'd hate to come home with nothing to show but a black eye, or an awkward, mostly-male bonding experience.  Julie, if you come, can I just give you a hug instead?  :)

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


[ Parent ]
Agree that MOVEON is the best approach (0.00 / 0)

Also agree w/John that it would be ironic if his post had the opposite effect.

However, I read w/interest:

I might add that only 2 weeks (give or take) earlier, I had had a discussion with Ed asking him that we separate our business relationship from politics at CSA pick-ups because it made some other members uncomfortable (without placing blame on him or me, we just get heated...and we enjoyed it...but other members did not). So it was on the heals of my asking him to separate our politics from our business relationship that his email was sent out. From that, the next time I was to see him (I thought) other than the heat of election day was at the next share pick up on wednesday. Sure the timing was not great...but it was the next scheduled pick up. I wanted to do it in person to try to explain all of this rather than through emails and blogs.

Now my understanding from Ed is that he is the one who decided to "separate" the CSA business between the two of you because Ed kept catching you, David, spraying Round Up between the rows of vegetables. It's true. Honest.

In any case, glad that's all over with and the air is finally cleared. . . 



sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.


[ Parent ]
Ouch! That's not exactly leaving the air very clean. (0.00 / 0)
Irony?  This can of worms just keeps spilling over.  Ed's "Round Up" allegation is pretty huge as a whole separate controversy.  It's a claim that shouldn't be aired without evidence, don't you


Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


[ Parent ]
Doh! I get it! (4.00 / 1)
It stings twice as much when you don't get the joke -- ya got me, Caoimhin!  
Now my understanding from Ed is that he is the one who decided to "separate" the CSA business between the two of you because Ed kept catching you, David, spraying Round Up between the rows of vegetables. It's true. Honest.

I kinda feel like I grabbed the electric fence a second time after getting zapped the first time.  

Sometimes I actually get a joke.  It's true.  Honest.

Really...  I do.  Honest.  :)  

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


[ Parent ]
Sorry about that -- (4.00 / 1)
Sometimes snark is even more subjective than it is subtle. Unfortunately, my comment window gives me the option to submit "bold" or "italic," but there's no option for submitting "deadpan."

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.


[ Parent ]
I got it the first time (4.00 / 2)
and enjoyed it

[ Parent ]
Veggies (4.00 / 2)
The fact of the matter is Dave and his farm grow fantastic veggies. (I have never made even a joke to anyone about "round-up" and although I got it, a :) at the end of the joke would have been nice instead of an "It's true. Honest")

I wish Dave and his family the best in their farming and political ventures.  I for one am moving on and looking forward to building new bridges and repairing old ones.

Best,
Ed

eadrian@comcast.net
233-2131


[ Parent ]
isn't this a perfect case in point (4.00 / 1)
of why it's so destructive to go without a fusion party or an IRV vote? Was there actually any reason to run against the two Progressives here? I mean, was there any thought that the Democrat would vote differently on anything that mattered? Or that another vote in the Democratic caucus would matter one way or the other?  These questions of ambition and personality should be settled in primaries so we can get down to the business of electing small-p progressives/small-d democrats. I never understood the first thing about this race, and it made me very glad I don't live in a part of the state where this dynamic is in play.

Indeed (4.00 / 1)
A primary at this level would've solved much. Another point for fusion.

Is somebody keeping count of the points?

undercaffeinated


[ Parent ]
Either IRV or coin toss (4.00 / 2)

Coin toss:  Unless the Progressives and the Democrats will agree to pick one primary and back the winner, IRV is the the most practical solution.  It is hard to see all the candidates on the left lining before filing deadlines and agreeing to respect the annual coin toss determining whether everyone is running in the Progressive or Democratic primary.

Nope.  This is a job for IRV.  The Chitt. 3-4 election this year was an anomaly. However, it can certainly happen again and the fact is, with Vermont's constitutional officers needing a majority vote to assume office, IRV is the most effective and democratic solution to respecting voter's choices. It is the most effective and democratic solution to respecting voter's choices particularly with the type of policies and the type of representative government that they want in addition to the people they want to effectuate those policies.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.


[ Parent ]
consitutional officers (4.00 / 3)
For the discussion about IRV in tandem with the Dem state meeting I wanted to help (since I wont be there :)

The majority requirement only applies to three of the constitional offices, Gov., Lg. and I beleieve Treasurer (but I could have the third one wrong here).  The others do not require the majority (Salmon won the auditors race 2 years ago under 50% in a three way with Martha Abbott and the recount.)

There is debate about whether IRV falls within constitutional muster for the 50% (after all...it leads to a 50% winner and there is nothing in the constitution that says only one voting round on election day.)  There are lawyers on both sides.

But the reason we passed the bill to only apply to the Fed races was many fold.  One, it would have only applied to one race this fall (Welch) and therefore it would have given voters and clerks the opportunity to experience it without doing 7 or 10 offices and creating the theoretical chaos.  Two the constitutional argument could not even be brought into question (since some people thought it applied to all state offices or not or which ones, whatever).  In the work inside the statehouse, sometimes KISS (keep it simple stupid) is applied to open the door.  The thought was let people experience it, then they would go..."ohhh, I see....it is not as complicated as Douglas is making it out to be...I get it."  Or some such thought.  And we could move on to more offices.

As for an over-ride.  The argument coming from a couple D's, led by Jim Condon from Colchester is "if it ain't broke dont fix it" and "IRV is not perfect, there are mathematical situations where it could lead to a bad outcome". While the second is true in an extreme minority of circumstances, we tried to make the point that the current system is not perfect either. In fact most political scientists and mathematicians agree there is no perfect system for voting.  Every single one has a mathematical scenario where it can end up upside down.  But some (like our current system) have more likelihood than others (like IRV).

I believe in fact that the National Association of Political Science Professors uses IRV to elect their own President.  I give this example because if you are going to the Dem convention you will need the ammo (for those few that are not on board).

Good luck.  I hope you can swing a few votes.  I was (as were many of you) very pleased that we made progress on this issue passing the House and Senate last year.  Obviously it was the Gov. who stood in the way (big surprise there).  And we could not muster the votes for the override.  I do not know if we made enough progress with numbers this election cycle...but with your work maybe we can get the votes we need.  Good luck and thanks!


[ Parent ]
Nothing in the Constitutional prohibiting IRV (4.00 / 1)

The majority requirement only applies to three of the constitional offices, Gov., Lg. and I beleieve Treasurer

Correct, which is why I said "with Vermont's constitutional officers needing a majority vote to assume office, IRV is the most effective and democratic solution to respecting voter's choices." In other words, IRV is more important for these three offices than any of these others due to the unique constitutional dynamic.

IRV is a better solution for the three Constitutional officers (Gov. Lt. Gov. & Treasurer) because of the majority requirement. These three offices have two problems that others do not.  They share the problem of the left splitting the vote AND they have the problem of two major party candidates facing a legislative vote even when there are only two viable candidates as opposed to three or four.

For every other office/election, IRV solves the third/forth party and more than two viable candidate problem which exists regardless of the majority vote problem we have particularly w/Gov and Lt. Gov.

The Constitutional argument against IRV is a made up legal problem used as a cop-out for concern trolls and those opposed to IRV.  Nothing in the VT Constitution prohibits the employment of an IRV system.  The Constitution say "major part the vote" it does not demand that the vote come through any one formula. If a candidate receives a major part of the vote through IRV, then there are not constitutional implications UNLESS one is an opponent of IRV with the ability to creatively read VT's Constitution beyond the plain language of the document. 

The argument coming from [some D's & some Republicans too -cl] is "if it ain't broke dont fix it" and "IRV is not perfect, there are mathematical situations where it could lead to a bad outcome" . .  

 With all due respect to the IRV opponents and my colleagues in the Democratic Party, BULLSHIT.  Elections VIRTUALLY ALWAYS lead to "bad" outcomes.  We just saw a couple in 2008.

The issue is, if we are going to have shitting outcomes no matter what, what is the fairest way to have them and is there a way to have less of them!  IRV, particularly with the three constitutional officers, serves both of those purposes, i.e., definitely a fairer process and - to my partisan liberal view, less shitty outcomes too.



sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.


[ Parent ]
Not so sure about that (0.00 / 0)
I don't think it's necessarily a bogus argument. Analyses of IRV show that there are some circumstances in which someone can win under IRV even if that candidate would not have won a head-to-head race against each of the other candidates. We can disagree about how important that is, and whether it's enough to say we shouldn't adopt IRV, but it's not an illusory or specious argument.

[ Parent ]
heh (4.00 / 1)
There was something about "lawyers on both sides" of this argument...?

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Which is why Jack and I picked a totally separate (4.00 / 1)

policy rational to dispute rather than the "lawyers on both sides" constitutional issue that the Honorable Representative referenced in his comment.

I think Jack and I agree for the most part on the impact IRV has on the election process.  I agree with both Jack and Wes that there are instances, and this is a mathematical fact, where an electorate achieves an outcome that is counter intuitive AND different than the ultimate result we would ever expect a mere plurality to adopt in a non-preference ballot scheme. 

The point, however, is that plurality voting and preference voting - both theoretically and in practice - can and do give us shitty choices and shitty results. The shitty choice problem with plurality voting, particularly where there is a majority vote requirement, happens much too frequently.  

My point, and the goal which I believe Jack, Dave and all of us share, is how to employ the most representative, fair and democratic system that gives voters the type of government they most want and the people they most want to run it. To achieve this goal, I both recognize Arrow's model and my conclusion is pretty close to the observation that Wes gives us in his comment:

However, most election theorists/mathematicians agree that the "Plurality With Elimination Method" (IRV) is the most fair and democratic, and is the least egregious violator of voting theory.  Mathematically... the closest we can get to democracy (when there's more than two choices on the ballot) is through the use of IRV.

The point is not that IRV is "perfect." The point is that IRV is better than non-preference balloting, it is better than a basic "most votes wins" system when that system necessarily defaults to (and generally always returns to after brief departures) a two party system. We then have a default two party system that is notorious for watering down its candidates and its voter's choices. IRV is both the "least worst option;" and in most cases, it is a good option that will best the other approaches in the "most fair and democratic" test.



sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.


[ Parent ]
I've Posted A Few Times About This In The Past... (4.00 / 1)
From last April:

In 1972, Kenneth Arrow won the Nobel prize in Economics for his "impossibility theorem": namely, he proved that it is mathematically impossible to have a free, fair election when there are more than two choices on the ballot (this relates to the four major criterion of voting theory: Majority, Condorcet, Monotonicity, & Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives).  

However, most election theorists/mathematicians agree that the "Plurality With Elimination Method" (IRV) is the most fair and democratic, and is the least egregious violator of voting theory.  Mathematically... the closest we can get to democracy (when there's more than two choices on the ballot) is through the use of IRV.

My extended diatribe on voting theory can be read here; if even you disagree with my subjective conclusions from this stuff, the mathematical facts (ie, what won Arrow the Nobel prize) are, well, mathematical facts.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
Actually ... (0.00 / 0)
when choices are restricted to just two, that's the least free or fair election.

And there's this mathematical jive that tells us if we can control how everyone else votes then we can create outcomes that don't make sense. No shit.

What are elections? They are the process by which we use our vote to decide the makeup of our governments for a particular cycle. Elections are run on the basis they're beauty pageants, but they're not. In the end a system is needed with a well defined line that says "Okay, in our constitutional democratic republic we have now democratically selected our representatives to our republican form of government." (Hopefully with some progressive form of voting.)

So what is most free and fair? Fewer choices or more? Merely receiving more votes than one's opponent(s) or receiving the nod from a majority?

Math cannot define "free" or "fair".

But we can.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
Eh? (4.00 / 2)
I hope you're not reading that my point was that there should only be two choices... that's a million miles away from my thinking.  I didn't say that, and certainly Arrow or his peers have never said that.

And no, math cannot define "free" or "fair", but in this form of political theory, intelligent, reasonable people came up with several notions of criteria that must be (or should be) met that helps us identify "free" and "fair" elections; then many interested people used mathematic formulas to figure out how various voting methods met those criteria.

Your ability to disagree and assert your righteousness, even when someone is taking a position that supports yours- albeit articulated differently than you perhaps choose to articulate it- is just awe-inspiring.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
Getting touchy .. aren't you? (0.00 / 0)
So you agree there shouldn't be only two choices ... apparently we agree.

Math cannot define 'free' or 'fair' ... apparently we agree.

Where we appear to part is the validity of the mathematical formulas in coming up with exceptions to the rules in how folks vote ... to date I've found them suspect. Read what you quoted above; and you'll see the lead-in I used for my opening and closing in my post.

So why the touchiness on your part? I didn't refer to you while I commented on the line of thought you introduced. Instead of attacking me for having a point of view, why don't you elucidate your thoughts? Isn't that what conversation is about?

In short ... other than do what any other interested poster on this board does ... wudded-I-do?

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
I Don't Know If I'd Say I'm "Getting Touchy" (0.00 / 0)
You titled your comment "Actually..." which, as I read it, starts you off with the tone of disagreement and trying "right" my "wrong" stance.  Whether or not that was your intention, you should at least consider the manner in which your wording creates an adversarial environment.  My response was colored by the fact that I see you in many, many disagreements and arguments on this site; since I was originally stating something that, as far as I can tell, is in agreement with your position on this issue, I just don't quite get how you jumped in challenging my assertions.  As a side note, I agree with a lot of your positions and assertions on GMD, but often find your tone, language, and tact off-putting.

The tone of my reply to you was more based on my inability to really understand your (or anyone's) disagreement, doubt, or "questioning of the validity" of the math.  Math is a pretty concrete thing; it's a "hard science".  When numbers add up, unless you throw away all logic and rational thought, you really can't disagree with it.  It's comparable to questioning the science of evolution, climate change, carbon dating.... whether one is inclined to view the issues from this stance or other, more emotional ones is entirely up to the individual, but in the end science and mathematic formulas- when they add-up soundly- are just plan truths, not opinion with room for debate.

And you seem to be/were once heavily involved in advocating for IRV; I don't know why someone in such a position would wholesale right off the mathematical (logical) fact- recognized and agreed upon by the scientific community the world over, as witnessed by Arrow's Nobel Prize in Economics for this work- that justifies IRV as the best way to hold elections when there's the possibility for more than two choices on the ballot (and again, I entirely support more than two choices).



-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
I didn't make the comments personal .. you did .. (0.00 / 0)
but moving on:

Rather than one or the other of us laying claim to right or wrong, why don't you provide a specific of where math supplies a valid claim vis-a-vis styles of voting? This way we have something solid to work with.

My claim about all these mathematical claims, yes ... even those Nobel prize winners, is they're based upon assumptions that themselves aren't proved or meet the criteria for a mathematical theory.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
Free and Fair Elections (0.00 / 0)
None of what follows is being made up by me, but is coming straight from what I learnt many moons ago in school.  We will look at 4 of the most commonly used voting methods and then see how "free and fair" they are when there are more than one choice- a plurality of candidates- on the ballot.

I'll start with what's known in voting theory (yes there is a branch of political philosophy that focuses itself on voting theory) as the Fairness Criteria.  These are the basic tenets of how political scientists define a "free and fair" election (of course, none of this gets into- nor was meant to get into- what happens before the voter gets to the voting booth):

Majority Criterion.  Simply put, if there is a choice on the ballot that is the selection of a majority of people then that choice should win.

Condorcet Criterion.  If there is a choice that is preferred by the majority over the other choices, that one should win.

Monotonicity Criterion.  If choice X wins an election, and in a re-election all the changes made to the ballot are favorable to X, then X should still win after the re-election.

Independence-of-Irrelevant-Alternatives Criterion.  If choice X wins, and then one or more of the other (losing) choices drops out, choice X should still win.

The task of people studying voting theory is to play out various possible scenarios with various voting methods to see which of the above criteria is met, and to see which of the above criteria is violated (which is where math helps us see (it doesn't define) which methods are more "free and fair" than other methods.

We also need to remember one important thing about preference ballots: the transitivity of individual preferences, which is fancy talk simply pointing out that if a voter prefers choice A over B, and choice B over C, than we can take this to also mean the voter prefers choice A over C.

Plurality Method.  This is how we vote here in the U.S. (with a couple of local exceptions).  Plurality Method simply states that the choice with the most first place votes wins.  Lets say we have an election and there are 4 choices on the ballot.  Lets say the results look like this:

A gets 14 first place votes

B gets 4 first place votes

C gets 11 first place votes

D gets 8 first place votes

Using the plurality method, the obvious winner is choice A, who got more first place votes than any other choice.  This is so popular and wide-spread not only because it is simple and straight-forward, but also because it seems to be an extension of the idea of majority rule, namely, whoever gets the most votes in an election between two candidates is the winner (50% + 1).  But if we look at the above results, we see that there are 37 votes cast, and so 19 first-place votes would be needed to arrive at majority.

In the above example of plurality voting, we can see that we have not violated the Majority Criterion because the choice with the most first place votes wins.  However, what we've failed to do is to take into account the preferences of the voters; notice that while choice A does get the most first place votes, the majority actually voted for someone else, meaning, a majority of voters preferred someone other than the winner.  If the above election had used a preference schedule, lets say the expanded results looked like this:

A gets 14 first place votes, 0 second place votes

B gets 4 first place votes, 8 second place votes

C gets 11 first place votes, 27 second place votes

D gets 8 first place votes, 2 second place votes

In this example, while choice A does win using the plurality method, we can see that choice A is in no way the overall favorite: choice C is in fact the overwhelming preference of the voters.  Yet choice C does not win using the plurality method.  Because of this, the plurality method is in violation of the Condorcet Criterion (the choice preferred by the majority of voters does not win).  So the plurality method fails to produce a fair outcome.  There are all sorts of possible nuances to how this could play-out, but the most glaring and obvious is that this method sets-up (as we've seen too much in VT) a scenario where people may not be voting for their actual preference, but rather voting against their least favorite choice by voting for who has a "realistic shot" ("realistic" often framed by media messaging, etc).... the point being that in a "free and fair" election, we each vote for who we think is the best choice, and the winner is the candidate who is preferred by the majority of people.

The second method we'll look at is the Borda Count, which was developed by a French military man in the late 1700's.  Apparently, this guy had little more to do with his time than devise complicated mathematical solutions to everyday problems.  His idea for how to have fair elections:  assign points to each ranking on a preference schedule: 1 point for first place votes, 2 points for second place votes, 3 points for third place votes (etc).  The choice that receives the least amount of points in this system wins, as it will clearly be the choice preferred by the voters (this can also be done by reversing the points- 4 points for first, 3 for second, etc if there are 4 choices; the winner has the most points in the end).  By figuring the winner in this way, Borda reaches the best compromise choice on the ballot by figuring out who (or what) is the most preferred choice on the ballot- he completely satisfies the Condorcet Criterion.  But suppose we hold a vote in which the preferance ballots return looking like this:

# of voters-  6       2       3

1st choice      A      B       C    

2nd choice     B      C       D  

3rd choice     C       D      B  

4th choice     D       A      A    

If we used the Borda Count here, we find that choice A gets 26 points (6 for first place, and 20 for forth place), choice B gets 23 points, choice C gets 25 points, and choice D gets 36 points.  So, choice B is the winner! with 23 points it is clearly the choice preferred by a majority of voters.  However, what Mr. Borda and his method fail to consider is that with 11 voters (6+2+3) choice A actually received a majority (6 votes, which is obviously more than 50% of 11).  So the Borda Count fails at a crucial point: it does not necessarily select the choice that actually wins, i.e., it is a violation of the Majority Criterion.  Also, the Borda Count violates the Condorcet Criterion, since it is true that a plurality does not imply a majority, but a majority does imply a plurality (i.e., if one has a plurality of votes that doesn't mean one has a majority; however, if one does have a majority than one also must have a plurality).  More fancy talk, simply meaning if you violate the Majority Criterion you automatically violate the Condorcet Criterion at the same time.

A bit more complicated still is Copeland's Method, also known as the method of pairwise comparisons.  In this headache, each choice is independently compared to each other choice, head-to-head.  A point is awarded to each time in which one choice is favored over another, and you go through this until every possible head-to-head choice is accounted for.  Whoever (or whatever) has the most points, wins.  Quickly, if I mark my ballot, in order of preference, like this:

Choice A

Choice B

Choice C

Choice D

It would be tallied like so: A vs B- 1 point for A; A vs C- 1 point for A; A vs D- 1 point for A; B vs C- 1 point for B; B vs D- 1 point for B; C vs D- 1 point for C.... so in the end A gets 3 points, B gets 2, C gets 1, and D none.  You go through this with every friggin' ballot and eventually one of the choices is a winner.  It's highly involved and if practiced on a mass scale inevitably expensive (in terms of money and time).  Without wasting a bunch of my time by drawing up an intricate example, I'll just say that it's quite easy for one of the choices to drop out (either during or immediately after the vote).  This situation throws the whole count off and it would have to be re-calculated.  When this happens, it is not at all uncommon for the choice that was the winner to suddenly find that it is now the loser, which is a violation of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion (a fair election will be a consistent election).

Finally, there's the Plurality With Elimination Method (popularly known as Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV).  Using this method, the voter ranks their choice in a preference ballot.  If no choice receives a majority then the last place vote-getter is eliminated; their second, third (etc) choices are then re-assigned to the other choices (so the voter's ballot isn't thrown out, just their vote for that losing choice- the voter's second choice then becomes their first choice, etc).  This process repeats until one of the choices has a majority.  IRV ends up violating, very subtly, the Monotonicity Criterion.  Imagine we take a straw pole right before the election and the results look like this:

Number of Voters     7    8    10    4

First Choice              A    B      C     A

Second Choice         B    C      A     C

Third Choice            C    A      B     B

When we go through the steps of IRV, we find that choice C eventually wins.  Now, though this straw pole was supposed to be a secret, the results get leaked.  Because everyone loves to be on the winning team, several voters switch their vote when the election comes and instead of those 4 people who voted for choice A as their first choice, they vote for choice C (bandwagon jumpers- we can only assume they're Yankee fans!).  Anyway, surely this is good news for choice C, since all that has happened is that the results of the election now give it more first place votes.  However, choice C still didn't win a majority, and so IRV does its thing.  However, if you go through the steps (now with the 4 voters in that far right column joining the 10 voters immediately to its left) you find that suddenly choice B has won!  Because choice C loses although the only changes were in it's favor, we've discovered that we've still failed to find a consistent, fair method for choosing the winner.

In the end, IRV is most certainly the least egregious violator of the Fairness Criteria.  For this reason, it is (and should be) preferred as the most fair, consistent way to hold an election.  This helps illustrate how Arrow won his Nobel Prize: there is no known method for voting, when there are more than 2 choices on the ballot, that does not violate at least one of the Fairness Criterion.  However, as anyone who's ever studied these things knows, IRV is the least egregious violator when compared to other methods, which means IRV is the most "free and fair" way to hold an election.

Douglas and other detractors of IRV like to claim that it isn't always fair and that the "math can get fuzzy", but as we saw in the first example here, this is also true, and in fact, more so true, of the plurality method that we use today.

"Free and fair" is not a mathematical concept, but when we're counting votes, we are using math.  Set-up any known method for holding elections and count away; with more than two choices on the ballot, you're guaranteed to come across a situation in violate of the international parameters of what is accepted as "free and fair".  However, using IRV you get the most consistent, and the fewest possible scenarios of "unfair" outcomes.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
On "free and fair" ... and the math ... (4.00 / 1)
okay, let's drop the "free" part as it probably isn't relevant to this discussion ...

I would put the definition of a fair election as containing three requisites:

1) everybody is playing by the same rules, and
2) everybody's vote is counted, and
3) everybody's vote is counted as the voter intended it to be counted.

This differs with what you wrote in that I don't think "fair" has much to do with majorities. Whether or not majorities are important comes into play when deciding which election system to use.

So a fair election could strive for a simple plurality, a majority or any other style of counting ... as long as everybody is playing by the same rules, their votes are counted, and their votes are counted as they intended them to be counted.

Why is this definitional difference important?

Because there are folks who see nothing wrong with a plurality winner. To them the concept of voting fairness doesn't include the word majority.

Plugging in numbers into a formula doesn't change this idea of "fair". All the math can tell you is: if these are the numbers going in, over here are the results coming out. The numbers don't prove or disprove anything ... they reflect a state of being.

The numbers can't prove a better election result. They can't prove a candidate was the preferred choice as opposed to some other candidate being voted against or just random selections being made on the ballot.

Now back to my earliest post on this: one can come up with numbers in an attempt to prove any point in this endeavor. I've been over-exposed to folks who show me some numbers and say (paraphrasing) "See? With IRV you get really screwy results."

But one would have to come up with real life numbers to actually prove that point!

No matter what numbers you want to put out there, I'm going to say your point is meaningless unless your point is that an election was decided based upon a true and accurate counting of people's ballots. Even results that might appear screwy (I counted ballots on the 4th that had McCain, Pollina, Dubie, MacDonald, Winters and Davis ... that's conservative R, progressive I, malleable R, progressive D, very conservative R and progressive P) aren't screwy at all ... they're the results of people's ballots being counted as they were intended to be counted.

I've found the use of mathematical theories regarding voting methods wholly unconvincing because of this simple reality.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
OK (2.50 / 2)
My point was merely that there is a scientific, mathematically-based philosophy (body of thought) around this issue that is engaged-by the international community.  That body came-up with an agreed upon standard (set of criteria) for what we're looking for from a voting method ("fairness"); if you want to write your own set of requirements, outside of the agreed upon international academic one, so be it.  I am merely presenting a piece of that body of thought which concludes that IRV is the most sound ("fair") way to hold an election with more than two choices on the ballot.

Perhaps my point is meaningless in Rama-land, but it is the point (and the conversation) that happens, throughout the rest of the world, around this topic.

My original comment was a reply to Jack, who pointed out that IRV can give you screwy results; my point was that every method can give you screwy results, and if we look in-depth, IRV actually gives you less screwy results.  How this turned into whatever the hell you're talking about (honestly, I don't quite get your point) is a mystery to me.  Again, I think IRV is the best way to hold elections, you think IRV is the best way to hold elections... and yet, here you are challenging my stance somehow.  I really just don't get it.  

If there is or is to be a group/movement/coalition working to get IRV implemented in VT, I hope you're not in charge of it; attacking or marginalizing those on your side is not an effective organizing strategy.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
I don't know why ... (1.00 / 1)
you had to drop to "Perhaps my point is meaningless in Rama-land".

But you did.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
? (4.00 / 2)
Because you said
why don't you provide a specific of where math supplies a valid claim vis-a-vis styles of voting? This way we have something solid to work with.

to which I replied with a lengthy enumeration of just that, which included a listing of what is meant by "fair elections" among people who study, debate and think about these things professionally.  You replied by writing your own definition, ignoring what I presented (and you continue to ignore that what I present isn't my opinion so much as the agreed upon stance of professionals, the world over, in this line of thought).  You even went as far as to say that what I presented was "meaningless"; well, it may be meaningless to you, but it's exactly the opposite of that to, again, the international community of thinkers who study and look at this stuff for a living.  All of which led me to conclude that, despite asking me for specifics and valid claims on voting methods, all you really want to do is define and control the conversation towards your own ends.

Which led me to realize that, as I've witnessed countless others on this site do, I had fallen into Rama-land.  So, if you want to have a debate (and please, for the love of god, remind me how two people on the same side of an issue can debate), I'm fine with that, so long as there's sense to what we're talking about.  In the meantime, I'm taking the first flight out of this back-n-forth to nowhere.

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com


[ Parent ]
And so you decided to make it a personal issue ... (0.00 / 0)
yeah ... and then blame me for you making it a personal issue. Okay. (Why don't you quote where I've talked about you and not the issue of these mathematical theories you're advancing?)

In case you haven't noticed the only point I'm disagreeing with you on is the validity of the various math theories you appear to be presenting.

I didn't realize you were expecting me to be restricted to the definitions you accept as correct. I don't find those definitions as fait accompli!

Hell ... for that matter I didn't realize you were expecting me to just accept whatever you said because we're in agreement on IRV in general.

And your offense at meaningless?

No matter what numbers you want to put out there, I'm going to say your point is meaningless unless your point is that an election was decided based upon a true and accurate counting of people's ballots. Even results that might appear screwy (I counted ballots on the 4th that had McCain, Pollina, Dubie, MacDonald, Winters and Davis ... that's conservative R, progressive I, malleable R, progressive D, very conservative R and progressive P) aren't screwy at all ... they're the results of people's ballots being counted as they were intended to be counted.

Of course you didn't want to present any counter argument or different perspective, did you?

So there is debate. You'd just rather not engage in it.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)


[ Parent ]
Noooooooooo!!!! (4.00 / 1)
Wes! Abort! For the love of god....abort!!!! Get outta there!!! Get ouuuuuuut.....!!

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the feedback (4.00 / 2)
Didn't understand the rating system, and I was not happy about all of the post-election feuding.  How do you do the ratings anyway?

click on the drop down box right nex to the "Reply" link. (0.00 / 0)
Click on the arrow then select you choice.

It's not required or anything.  Generally, it's a good way to let others know if they've spoken well or not.  0s and 1s aren't thrown around casually.  

Debate can get heated, but the general rule of thumb is, don't write anything you wouldn't say in a face-to-face situation.  That doesn't mean you gotta be a prude.  Just remember that tomorrow's another day and people remember if things get personal.  

It's also helpful to know that there's about 700 visitors to GMD every day, so you have an audience.  You can use your name, too, if your comfortable with full disclosure.    

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com


[ Parent ]
Contributing Editors:
Caoimhin Laochdha
Christian Avard
greenvtster
JDRyan
mataliandy
NanuqFC

Front Pager Emeriti:
Kagro X
Vermonter







GMD Links
Vermont Daily Briefing
Rational Resistance
VT News Guy
VT Digger
Minor Heresies
What's the Point?
Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more
Mulish Behavior
Political Animal (with Steve Benen)
Reason and Brimstone
Blazing Indiscretions
sneigwh
Dohiyi Mir
Blier Watch
five before chaos
Blue Hampshire
Blue News Tribune
Burlington Pol
Norsehorse
Rip & Read
Integral Psychosis
VT Secession
She's Right (conservative)
VT Bloggernaut
Morgan's Gov. race blog
Bureaucracy Blog
Austanspace

National

Congress Matters
Daily Kos
Open Left
BlogPac
Talking Points Memo
My Left Wing
MyDD
Docudharma
Glenn Greenwald
Firedoglake
Atrios (Eschaton)
Think Progress
Driftglass
Pam's House Blend
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Plum Line (Sargent)

Legacy Media Blogs

Vermont View
vt buzz
Blurt (7 Days)

Non-political

Candleblog
iBrattleboro
WKVT 1490 AM
Vermont Mornings
False 45th
Bosox Wally
Welcome Campground
Yorick Lives
The Sap is Running

International

The Irish Independent
Comment is free...(Guardian UK)
Al Jazeera
Pulse Media
Global Voices
All Voices
Vermonters for a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine
About GMD   Contact Us

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search


Active Users
Currently 2 user(s) logged on.

    follow the 50SBN on Twitter




    Specialized Feeds:

    Google Reader or Homepage
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe in Rojo
    R|Mail
    Add to Technorati Favorites!


    RSS FEED





    Powered by: SoapBlox