Opinion: Democrats Need To Ditch The Corporate/Centrist Wing, Not The Electoral College

Once it became clear Sen. Bernie Sanders would not be able to overcome the inevitability of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, I knew I’d be unhappy with the election results. Like most, I fell for the punditry that said Clinton would win both the electoral college & popular vote. As you know, Trump won the electoral college, Clinton the popular vote. How is this possible? One state: California.

If you subtract California’s votes you’ll see that Trump won the popular vote in the rest of the country. Though it seems archaic, and it is, the electoral college was designed to prevent one state’s popular vote from overriding the rest of the country. It works.

This mismatch between the electoral and popular votes came about because Trump won several large states (such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by very narrow margins, gaining all their electoral votes in the process, even as Clinton claimed other large states (such as California, Illinois and New York) by much wider margins.

In fact, the very nature of the way the U.S. picks its presidents tends to create a disconnect between the outcome in the Electoral College and the popular vote. The last time a popular-vote loser won the presidency in the Electoral College was, of course, in 2000, when George W. Bush edged out Al Gore 271-266 despite Gore winning some 537,000 more popular votes nationwide. The other electoral-popular vote mismatches came in 1876 and 1888; in all four instances the Democratic nominee ended up the loser. (In the 1824 election, which was contested between rival factions of the same party, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, but because he was short of an Electoral College majority the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which chose runner-up John Quincy Adams.) (Pew)

After this loss, many of my fellow left-leaning Americans want to abolish the electoral college and go to a popular vote.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder called for an end to the electoral college voting system on Friday.

With Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the election, he said it was now time to change the way the U.S. elects its presidents.

“I’m in the process now of writing an article that says there’s a simple solution to it and we have to just abolish the electoral college,” Holder told “Real Time” host Bill Maher.

He acknowledged such a move would require a constitutional amendment, which Maher quipped would mean “some heavy lifting.” “But so all right, it involves heavy lifting, let’s lift heavy, let’s do it,” Holder replied. (Huffington Post)

Interesting, Holder is willing to do the heavy lifting to amend the constitution, but doing the heavy lifting to enact Sanders’ populist policies was deemed too difficult by the neoliberal establishment during the primary. Corporate-friendly old-guard conservative Democrats (looking at you McCaskill) are the problem, not the electoral college. They want to abolish the electoral college so the DNC doesn’t have to change at all, allowing California voters to give them a plurality every four years.

Sorry DNC, I’m not going to be your enabler…2012 was my last time. I do agree with Sanders we should examine the question of changes:

Q: Would it be good to change the Electoral College?

A: I think you ought to think about this. … I think we want to rethink that. (USA Today)

But looking at it doesn’t mean the answer is change, it might stay largely the same.

The recent non-scientific Sunday Poll had the largest ever response: 568! A good week is 32-35, so clearly the responses were more than regular readers. I let it continue because the results stayed consistent throughout the 12-hour voting period.

Q: Agree or disagree: We should ditch the Electoral College system in favor of a plurality vote

• Strongly agree 301 [52.99%]
• Agree 39 [6.87%]
• Somewhat agree 22 [3.87%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [0.18%]
• Somewhat disagree 5 [0.88%]
• Disagree 29 [5.11%]
• Strongly disagree 170 [29.93%]
• Unsure/no answer. 1 [0.18%]

Though I have zero evidence, my suspicion is most of the responses were based on partisan views and last week’s results. That’s not a valid reason to change the constitution. Besides, how would Democrats get a bill through congress to send to the GOP-controlled legislatures? Ridiculous. Now who’s being pragmatic?

The centrist neoliberal corporate-sponsored wing of the Democratic Party needs to go away — local, state, and national. This election may just be the thing to accomplish it. Maybe…

— Steve Patterson

Election Recap

Here’s a recap of races & measures covered before the recent general election. As before. in reverse order:

Challenger Rasheen Aldridge defeated inch,bent Rodney Hubbard for 5th ward special election for Dem Committeeman

Prop S for Senior services (info)

Both tobacco tax measures failed (Prop A, Amend 3)

Proposition A 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 1,210,199 44.738%
NO 1,494,886 55.262%
Total Votes: 2,705,085

Constitutional Amendment 3 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 1,107,716 40.760%
NO 1,609,953 59.240%
Total Votes: 2,717,669

Voters will need a photo ID

Constitutional Amendment 6 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 1,700,139 63.139%
NO 992,555 36.861%
Total Votes: 2,692,694

Taxing services won’t be an option

Constitutional Amendment 4 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 1,522,189 57.056%
NO 1,145,709 42.944%
Total Votes: 2,667,898

Limits placed on campaign contributions

Constitutional Amendment 2 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 1,877,477 69.947%
NO 806,676 30.053%
Total Votes: 2,684,153

Voters overwhelmingly renewed a sales tax for streams

Constitutional Amendment 1 3237 of 3237 Precincts Reported
YES 2,203,717 80.138%
NO 546,181 19.862%
Total Votes: 2,749,898

All the judges were approved. no surprises is state rep races or citywide offices.

If anyone doubted that Missouri is a red state, Tuesday’s results confirmed it! Republicans won all statewide offices and Sen Blunt renamed his seat in the U.S, Senate. Missouri will likely become a right-to-work state and give huge tax credits causing our state to have a budget crisis like neighboring Kansas.

And the presidential race…

Many were expecting it to be historic, possibly a landslide victory. It was, just the opposite of what many expected.

Here are Missouri’s results for the last three presidential elections:

2008

• McCain 1,445,814 (49.36%)
• Obama 1,441,911 (49.23%)

2012

• Romney 1,482,440 (53.76%)
• Obama 1,223,796 (44.38%)

2016

• Trump 1,585,753 (56.877%)
• Clinton 1,054,889 (37.836%)

As you can see the GOP vote total increased each time, but the Democratic vote total dropped each time.  Total statewide voter turnout is also dropping.

The City of St. Louis is a tiny, but loyal, blue eco camber in a big red state that getting redder every election. Totals for 2008 aren’t available, but here are the last two:

2012

• Romney 22,943 (15.93%)
• Obama 118,780 (82.45%)

2016

• Trump 20,281 (15.72%)
• Clinton 101,487 (78.69%)

Does this mean Democrats stayed home? Not exactly, in Missouri and other states we don’t pick a party when we register to vote — there are zero “registered” Republicans & Democrats in Missouri. Zero. However many people are party loyalists.

Turned off by the partisan wars in Washington, 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as independent rather than affiliated with one of the two major political parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center. Self-identified Democrats accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, Republicans 23 percent. (NPR)

There are more Democrats than Republicans, but Independents are a larger group than each. Just because we vote for a party’s presidential ticket doesn’t mean we’ll automatically vote for that party’s ticket 4 years later. Democrats fail to understand this simple concept. Our vote can’t be taken for granted.

For a long time many have felt Clinton wasn’t the candidate to take on the GOP in 2016, far too much anti-establishment feelings on both the left & right.

In June 2015, more than a year before the convention, I shared a quote from a Salon article on my personal Facebook timeline:

Clinton resists change. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party who seems to feel the tectonic plates of our politics shifting, perhaps because he’s expected the change for so long. His is still an improbable candidacy, but less improbable than it was a month or even a week ago. If he clears out the second tier, his battle with Hillary could become epic, forcing not just her but the Democratic Party to choose between the middle class and the donor class; between corporate and democratic rule; the battle over trade carried over into a presidential election.

Democrats picked the donor class and corporate rule. There were plenty of red flags, but they were ignored. Many of my “friends” gave me a hard time for not supporting Clinton, on Wednesday some blamed me because I voted Green in the presidential race. According to them I was idealistic, they were pragmatists.

If every Green voter in Missouri had voted Blue our 10 electoral college votes still would have gone to Trump! I looked at the results from the six battleground states that made Trump president-elect: Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Only in Michigan & Wisconsin would the results have been different if every Green voter had gone Blue, for 26 additional electoral college votes. Clinton still far short of 270.

Last Monday I wrote:

“In Missouri, Illinois, and most states, voters can vote for the ticket that best represents their values. Voters in battleground states like Florida & Pennsylvania, on the other hand, have a much tougher choice as their vote will help determine the final winner.”

They did. The DNC and loyal Clinton supporters are blaming everyone but themselves. I remain an independent voter looking for progressive candidates that share my views. Wednesday I’ll talk about the Electoral College vs. popular vote.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should The Electoral College Be Retained Or Ditched?

In Tuesday’s election Donald J. Trump exceeded the magical number of 270 electoral college votes, a simple majority of the 538 total. Why 538?

Each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives, for a total of 538. (The District of Columbia gets three electors even though it has no representation in Congress.) (Source)

Thus, as states were added to our union, the total number of electoral college votes increased. U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, do not get a vote in the presidential election.

• 50 states, each with 2 senators = 100
• 435 members of the house = 435
• District of Columbia = 3

Although President-Elect Trump exceeded 270 electoral college votes, Hilary Clinton received more total votes. Clinton received 59,938,290 votes to Trump’s 59,704,886 votes. 

Before Tuesday, the person who won the popular vote but didn’t win the presidency had occurred just four times:

1. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less than 50 percent of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives.
2. In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184.
3. In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168.
4. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of 271 to Gore’s 255. (history.com)

I ask that when you vote on today’s question you don’t just base your answer on your satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the recent results:

This poll will remain open until 8pm tonight.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 11/10/2016 (185-194)

City hall will be closed tomorrow for Veterans Day, so the St. Louis Board of Aldermen will meet today, review the agenda here..

The following ten Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting:

1. B.B.#185 – Krewson – An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Airport Commission and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment making certain findings with respect to the transfer of up to One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars of excess moneys that the City, the owner and operator of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, intends to transfer from the Debt Service Stabilization Fund (“DSSF”) in accordance with Section 516.B of the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Indenture of Trust between the City, as Grantor, and UMB Bank, N.A., as Trustee, to the “Annual Budget”, for current expenses of the government as detailed in EXHIBIT “1”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; containing a severability clause; and an emergency clause.
2. B.B.#186 – Krewson – An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Airport Commission, the Board of Public Service, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, establishing and authorizing a public works and improvement program (the “Airfield, Building & Environs Projects”) at Lambert-St. Louis International
   Airport, consisting of capital improvement projects to and for the terminal complexes, concourses, parking facilities, taxiways, runways, and associated Airport buildings, structures, and facilities, roadways and environs including certain equipment and vehicles, and other associated Airport improvements, as more fully described in the attached EXHIBIT A, entitled “FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROJECT/EQUIPMENT LIST”; and containing a severability and an emergency clause.
3. B.B.#187 – Krewson – An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Airport Commission, the Board of Public Service, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, establishing a public works project for the Lambert Airport Road Traffic Flow Improvement- Along Lambert International Blvd., Airflight Drive, Air Cargo Road Intersection Improvements, including Pan Tilt Zoom cameras, and signal optimization for intersections of Pear Tree Lane, Natural Bridge Road, Shops Drive, Cypress Road, and the entrances and exits to Terminal 2; and containing a public work emergency clause.
4. B.B.#188 – Krewson – An Ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the Director of Airports and the Comptroller to enter into and execute the “First Amendment to Wine Concession Agreement AL-354” (“First Amendment”) to the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport® Wine Bar Concession Agreement AL-354, between the City and Taste Inc., d/b/a Vino Volo; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
5. B.B.#189 – Bosley – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission on November 2, 2016, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map and in City Block 971, from both, “C” Multiple-Family Dwelling District and “G” Local Commercial and Office District to “C” Multiple-Family Dwelling District only, at 2601 Dayton, and containing an emergency clause.
6. B.B.#190 – Baringer – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map, from “A” Single-Family Dwelling District and “F” Neighborhood Commercial District to the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District in City Block 5753.05 (4650 Hampton and 4601-21 Sulphur); and containing an emergency clause.
7. B.B.#191 – Coatar – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map and in City Block 784 (1302-24 & 1324R Russell & 2128 Dolman), from “J” Industrial District to the “E” Multi- Family Dwelling District, so as to include the described parcels of land in City Block 784; and containing an emergency clause.
8. B.B.#192 – Vaccaro – An ordinance requiring the Corrections Commissioner to post a quarterly report on the City’s Division of Corrections website regarding administrative segregation of inmates at city detention centers; and containing a severability and an emergency clause.
9. B.B.#193 – Cohn – An ordinance approving a blighting study and redevelopment plan dated October 25, 2016, for the 3400 Meramec St. Redevelopment Area after finding that said Redevelopment Area (“Area”) is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri; and containing a severability clause.
10. B.B.#194 – Ortmann – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2901-2909 Indiana Ave. Area, after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri; and containing a severability clause.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

Readers: Reduce The number of Vehicle Lanes on Eads Bridge

The recent non-scientific Sunday Poll was about the Eads Bridge,specifically the configuration of the top level.

Tere are the visuals from the poll:

Again, those voting were self-selected so the results aren’t scientific or representative of the regional mindset — just of 46 individuals. Still, these 46 do represent a small segment of the region — those interested in local infrastructure.

Q: How should the top of the Eads Bridge be configured in the future?

• 4 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only (existing) 12 [26.09%]
• 3 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only 5 [10.87%]
• 3 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side 5 [10.87%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only 3 [6.52%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side 14 [30.43%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, equal width 3 [6.52%]
• 0 vehicle lanes, pedestrians full width 1 [2.17%]
• Unsure/No Answer 3 [6.52%]

Just over a quarter supported the maximum number of vehicle lanes (4). A smaller number (21.74%) supported reducing driving lanes from 4 to 3. A whopping 43.47% voted to reduce vehicle lanes from the existing 4 to 2. Only one person (2.17%) voted to eliminate cars altogether.

I support the option that happened to receive the most votes: “2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side.” Why?

The pedestrian width is barely the minimum required while 4 vehicle lanes greatly exceeds demand. While I recognize the greatest pedestrian demand is on the Arch side, the North side is also interesting,

So why not just make it all pedestrian? That would be as bad as it is currently, just in a different way. When driving, I like to use the Eads Bridge to cross the Mississippi River — it is the only non-interstate bridge crossing the river downtown.

If anything, I think it is worthwhile to examine the configuration of the top deck and see if a change should be made in the future.

— Steve Patterson