Town Meeting Day is just over, and one of the new subjects seems to be election reform. I’d say we’re due to look at the question from a number of perspectives, and there’s a lot to talk about:

First, we have instant runoff voting (IRV). As you know by now, Bob Kiss was elected Mayor of Burlington in the state’s first use of IRV. Bob ran first but only gathered 39% of the vote on the first round, but in the runoff, with all but the two leading candidates eliminated, he came in with a solid majority. The voting was smooth and fast, with final results in by 9:00. What’s more, the true results are available online, so you don’t have to worry about shenanigans, fraud, or hanging chads.

I’m all for runoff voting for one reason:

I’m sick of the D’s and P’s killing each other off in general elections and handing seats to the Republican. I’m not sure that instant runoff is the way to go: the fact that it’s cheaper than holding a separate runoff election doesn’t necessarily convince me, but if that’s the horse with the best chance of winning I can certainly get behind it. VPR covered the issue tonight, and if you missed it, follow this link.

We’re also looking at same-day registration. S. 164 has now passed the House, with proposals of amendment, and is back at the Senate to consider whether to accept the proposed amendments or appoint a conference committee. I think it’s safe to say that the people working to get this bill passed didn’t get everything they wanted (who does?) but they are still encouraged by this move to make it easier to get registered and vote, even on Election Day. I’m skeptical that same day registration will result in significantly more registration, much less higher voter turnout or significantly different results, but how do you argue against more democracy?

Finally, speaking of more democracy, Rick Hertzberg had an interesting piece in the New Yorker last month about a move to abolish the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. This one is clearly pie in the sky, but it’s worth thinking about. The campaign, known as the Campaign for a National Popular Vote, calls for a critical mass of states to adopt an interstate compact by which they would agree to instruct their electors to vote for the national winner of the popular vote. Aside from the general idea that the Electoral College is undemocratic (not a trivial complaint, I would think), the supporters point out, among other things, that the arguments in favor of the Electoral College are spurious and that a nationwide popular vote will end some serious shortocmings of the current system, not least of which is the fact that both political parties ignore the majority of states and concerntrate all their efforts on the states they think are in play in the election. As I say, it’s pie in the sky, but worth thinking about. If you to go the web site you can actually download their book.

I think it’s clear that George Bush has knowingly and intentionally violated the law in numerous ways, including his invasion of Iraq, which violated internation law; his violations of American citizens’ constitutional rights; and his policy of torturing prisoners, which violated both domestic and international law. You can undoubtedly add to this list.

The question, though, is whether pursuing impeachment is a good idea from any number of perspectives. Josh Marshall, who is one of the most astute political analysts I read every day, has a new column out in which he sets forth why he doesn’t think we should be rushing to impeach Bush.

Here’s how he starts out, and you can read more by following the link.

Since talk of impeachment is in the air, it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to go on the record with their points of view on this momentous question. So let me devote this column to explaining why I think it’s a bad idea on both policy and political grounds.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Here’s the entry from Peter Freyne’s column last week. You really have to wonder if the Republicans want Vermont to be the kind of place where outside organizations like the Swifties tell lies about our candidates, whatever the party, don’t you?

Parke Goes Swift-Boat — It looks like Vermont TV viewers will be guaranteed a slew of out-of-state attack ads. The other Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Greg Parke, a commercial pilot for a private charter outfit, has just picked up the support of the truthless “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” outfit that trashed John Kerry’s Vietnam war record.

In a fundraising letter put out this week by Friends of Greg Parke, John O’Neill, the Swift Boat Vets leader, zeroes in on Bernie Sanders.

“Sanders is as radical as they come,” writes O’Neill to donors. “In fact, he’s so far to the Left that he calls himself an ‘independent’ because he thinks Democrats are ‘too conservative.’ His record in the House of Representatives — particularly on defense matters — is disgraceful.

“He’s consistently fought President Bush on issues of national security — most specifically he voted against the use of force to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

“And even though we are in the middle of a global war on terror, Bernie Sanders proudly says he’s ‘leading the charge against the Bush Administration.’

And proud of it! I know, I know. With enemies like this, Ol’ Bernardo won’t have to break a sweat. It’s free advertising!

Once more the town of Hardwick has sad news, as another Hardwick native has been killed in Iraq. Christopher Merchant was only 32 and left four children, ages nine to fourteen. Once again, we in Vermont are left to wonder why our sons, brothers, and members of our communities must die in a futile and ill-conceived war against an enemy who never threatened the United States.

In addition, we can wonder whether the kind of democracy we have in the United States, in which the government spies on its political opponents, is what Bush has planned for Iraq.

Small wonder that Bush’s popularity is at an all-time low and towns in Vermont are voting to support impeachment.

It’s so unusual to have good news to report that I have to write about this right away. The Senate Health & Welfare Committee voted 5-0-1 (Ed Flanagan absent) to support the emergency contraception bill. It will probably go to the floor for action on second reading Thursday, then, assuming it passes, to third reading Friday. Of course, things could delay it, but I suspect they’ll want a clear calendar before they take next week off for Town Meeting.

This is very encouraging news. Please call the Sergeant at Arms at the State House, (800)322-5616, and leave a message for your senators asking them to vote YES on H. 237 when it comes to the floor.

( – promoted by odum)

Today’s Washington Post carried a story about the national controversy over emergency contraception, with more than sixty bills pending in state legislatures to either encourage or discourage its use. While things look bad in some states, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee is taking testimony on H-237 later this week. The committee is scheduled to take action on the bill tomorrow, Tuesday, and if the committee passes the bill it could be on the floor later this week.

Of course, none of this would be necessary if the FDA weren’t sitting on emergency contraception to mollify the extreme right, people who believe that pregnancy is a suitable punishment for having sex.

If things line up right in Vermont, the bill, which has already passed the House, will pass the Senate and be on its way to Governor Douglas for his signature.

( – promoted by odum)

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance.

You have to read this article from this week’s New Yorker. It’s more than a profile about Alberto Mora, who just left his job as general counsel for the U.S. Navy. The article is a profile in courage of a man who came to his job as a conservative, a Reagan Republican, yet who instantly had the correct reaction when he learned of torture at Guantanamo. He did everything he could to stop it, challenging his boss and pushing his point so hard that the bosses who run the Defense Department just cut him out, all the while lying to his face.

There are three important things that this article confirms. First, it shows us that it’s possible to find someone with radically different political views who is yet utterly committed to principle and the rule of law. People like that are scarce in the Bush Administration, and they’re clearly trying to squeeze them out, but they’re still there.

Second, as the actual memo makes clear, no matter what the Administration says, and no matter what games they play about adopting policies, or crossing their fingers when they sign legislation, the United States has a legal obligation to follow the provisions of international law that prohibit torture, and that the government actors who are ordering and condoning it are potentially liable criminally.

Third, there is no question about aberrant conduct by rogue elements in the armed forces. Torture is the policy of the United States government, and that policy has been set in the Defense Department and the White House. This is simply intolerable.

The New Yorker, and Jane Mayer, are to be commended for the courage to publis this article.

I’ve been thinking about this since I heard last week, and I want to write some more on the topic of the Progs and the Dems, but I do have some initial thoughts.

First, like many people in the state, I got an e-mail from David a couple of months ago asking for my views on whether he should run, and I spent a month starting to write, letting it sit for awhile, going back to it, and I finally finished it and sent it off a couple of days before his announcement. I don’t flatter myself that I had anything to do with his decision, but he did what I was hoping he would do.

With regard to this particular choice, my concerns were both that we would lose David as a progressive voice in the State House, which would be a great loss, and that a three-party race would make it more likely that the Republican candidate would win. In a two-way race I think Peter Welch is hard for any of the declared Republican candidates to beat. Not impossible–Peter has to run a great campaign to win it–but he’s got the inside track.

When I’ve talked to Progressives about their role, and it happens a lot, it seems to me that they have one point exactly wrong. What I’ve heard from Progressives is that by staking out a position to the left of the Democratic Party they are creating pressure for the D’s to move to the left so as not to lose the Progressive voters. I don’t see why this should be so. It has seemed to me that the D’s will never get to the left of the P’s, so that giving left voters a non-Democratic Party alternative to the Republican candidate pushes the D’s to the right (or “toward the center” as some might say) because that’s the only place we’ll find the voters that won’t go to the Progressive. As I say, this seems to be the opposite of what they want to do, but the logic of winning elections seems to force that result.

I’ve started spending some time reading the platforms of the Democratic and Progressive Parties, and I want to think some more about where they are compatible and incompatible, but I do think that it is incumbent on all progressive people in Vermont to address our shared goal of a more progressive future.

Oh, yes, and there’s one other thing. Having made this pragmatic decision, I think David Zuckerman and his supporters are well within their rights to  expect a more progressive impetus from the statewide Democratic Party in this year’s campaigns.

( – promoted by odum)

It’s a hell of a thing when the Vice President shoots a man and it’s the best thing that could have happened to the Administration, but I’m afraid that’s where we are these days.

I’m watching Washington Journal on C-SPAN right now and they’re asking callers to nominate the top news story of the week. You won’t be surprised to hear that the Cheney shooting is at the top of the list. After all, it’s not every day that we hear of a Vice President taking a deadly weapon to a millionaire, is it?

But wait a bit, think about what we’re not hearing. The time on the news programs, the space in newspapers, and the attention of the public are all finite. While you’ve been reading and hearing about Cheney, how much did you see of this story from the Washington Post?

Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff testified that his bosses instructed him to leak information to reporters from a high-level intelligence report that suggested Iraq was trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, according to court records in the CIA leak case.

Cheney was one of the “superiors” I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby said had authorized him to make the disclosures, according to sources familiar with the investigation into Libby’s discussions with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Not much, I’d guess.

For that matter, how much did you read about the story that a NASA PR guy, fresh from the Bush-Cheney campaign, was tailoring NASA’s public statements to match the Administration’s religio-political opinions on creationism and the Big Bang? Or that George Deutsch, the 24-year-old PR guy, lost his job after it turned out he’d lied on his resume when he was hired?

Yes, as I say, it’s been a hell of a week.