Bonifaz: A Candidate for the Rest of Us

[MelissaB]

Bonifaz: A Candidate for the Rest of Us

by David Swanson



http://www.opednews.com

John Bonifaz is seriously considering running for election next year as Massachusetts Secretary of State, or more properly, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A victory for him would be a victory of national importance for election reform and voting rights.

John's Voters' Bill of Rights includes "a guarantee of open and transparent elections with verified voting, paper trails, and access to the source codes for, and random audits of, electronic voting machines …a guarantee that we the people, through our government, will control our voting machines — not private companies."

John is apparently not planning to model his service on that of Katherine Harris or Ken Blackwell.

But John Bonifaz is also not your typical liberal candidate. He is one of the nation's leading experts on voting rights. Further provisions in his Bill of Rights reflect that background. They include:

--election day registration;
--early voting;
--ensured absentee voting;
--publicly financed elections and campaign spending limits;
--instant run-off voting;
--cross endorsement voting (fusion voting);
--proportional representation;
--redistricting reform;
--eliminating language barriers;
--non-partisan election administration;
--and support for congressional re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and for a constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote.

Are you getting the picture? Electing Bonifaz Secretary of State would mean putting in office someone who actually cares deeply and passionately about the right to vote and who knows more about protecting that right than does almost anyone else alive.

More great stuff here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_051113_bonifaz_3a_a_candidate.htm

Okay, I really wanted to bold every word in this article. :)

[MelissaB]

1. Can I just post the whole damn article? No?

...snip

I began working with John again in May of this year, when he and I were two of five people who co-founded a coalition called After Downing Street. John was the driving force behind this project, which was launched when he sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers laying out a case for an investigation into grounds for impeachment of Bush. Bonifaz's argument focused on evidence that Bush lied to Congress in a formal statement on March 18, 2003, which provided the reasons why Bush claimed war was necessary.

[MelissaB]

2. I'm going to kick my own thread. I'm shameless in Alabama. I'd love to

have a candidate like this.

[Sapphire Blue]

3. K & R!!!

[IndyOp]

4. M - what is cross endorsement voting (fusion voting)?

What he is supporting is revolutionary - finally, the US would meet the minimum standards of the Carter Center for democratic elections!

:kick:

[MelissaB]

5. I didn't know either, so I googled.

From John Bonifaz's website:

4. Expand voter choice
Instant run-off voting: Voters should be able to rank their choices of candidates, ensuring majority support for those elected and allowing greater voter choice and wider voter participation.
Cross Endorsement Voting (Fusion voting): Voters should be able to cast their ballots for major party candidates on a minor party's ballot line, placing power in the hands of the people and broadening public debate on the issues of the day.


http://www.johnbonifaz.com/votersbillofrights

[MelissaB]

6. Here's more.

...snip

What enabled these third political parties to beat the odds of the winner-take-all system? There are many reasons but one that is less well known is a nominating strategy called electoral "fusion." In a fusion candidacy two or more parties combined forces to run a single candidate on multiple party lines in the general election. Fusion is more than an endorsement. It is a multiple-party nomination in which typically a dominant-party candidate runs on the lines of an established party and a third party. The votes are first tallied separately so that each party to the alliance has a precise accounting of its contribution to the outcome, then they are added together to determine the candidate's total share of the balloting.


All but lost to voters and parties today, the strategy was used throughout the nineteenth century, but most notoriously by the People's Party, to make organized opposition manifest at the polls. The fusion tally demonstrated exactly how much the candidate's support derived from dissident constituencies and showed exactly how many votes the candidate stood to lose by failing to remain accountable to that constituency after the election. By amplifying dissenting voices within the consensus-building imperatives of winner-take-all elections, fusion provided what one nineteenth-century proponent described as a "mechanism for achieving proportional representation" by other means.


Fusion was outlawed at the turn of the twentieth century by Republican legislatures as part of a reform initiative to weed corruption out of the electoral process. The reforms, which included adopting the secret ballot, implementing personal registration and ballot access laws, and moving to direct popular election of senators and presidential electors, installed unprecedented obstacles to third-party participation in elections. Combined with the changes that accompanied industrialization, urbanization, and state building, the reforms brought the vibrant third-party activity of the 1900s virtually to an end-except in states where fusion remained legal. When states quashed third political parties, in part by laws prohibiting fusion, they raised the cost of political dissent. They also narrowed the democratic aspirations of the voting public.


Why is it time to bring fusion back today?
The first and most obvious reason is that it gives voters a weapon against the "wasted vote" dilemma. Fusion is a protest vote that counts. As such, it opens new strategic possibilities for third parties. Rather than simply "spoil" elections, they can combine forces with the weaker of the two established parties and run a single candidate on multiple party lines. This would have the advantage of fortifying and consolidating political opposition rather than splitting it.

More: http://www.nmef.org/commentary.htm

[IndyOp]

8. That is cool - something that 3rd party folks can do besides 'protest

by not voting' - a very not smart behavior (IMO).

This way the Dems and Greens and 'PDA Party' and 'DSM Party' can all run the same person and the number of votes given by the Greens and PDA and DSM Party will have an impact on the person while in office.

THIS is a BIG TENT approach - each group gets to stay true to its message and to unite with those with whom they share common goals.

:kick:

[IndyOp]

7. Thanks. I read that part of Bonifaz's site --

I understand instant run-off voting: I mark my Green friend Julie #1, and the local Dem #2. If Julie doesn't have a majority of the #1 votes, then all of the people who voted for her have their #2 votes counted.

I don't get cross-endorsement voting -- cast ballot for major party candidates on a minor party's ballot line?

Maybe I'll do a little research tomorrow...

[north houston dem]

9. I'm a big fan of his. kicked and recommended.

:kick:

[New Earth]

10. he should definately do it!

he's be great :)

[MelissaB]

11. Voters' Bill of Rights from his (John's) website

Voters' Bill of Rights

1. Count every vote
The right to vote includes the right to have our votes properly counted.
We must ensure that every citizen's vote will be counted. This includes a guarantee of open and transparent elections with verified voting, paper trails, and access to the source codes for, and random audits of, electronic voting machines. It also includes a guarantee that we the people, through our government, will control our voting machines — not private companies.

2. Make voting easier
We should enact election day registration here in Massachusetts, removing the barrier of registration prior to Election Day. Six states have election day registration. They have a higher voter turnout in their elections and have no evidence of voter fraud. We should be encouraging greater participation in the political process, starting with election day registration.
We should also ensure absentee voting for all, allow for early voting, and remove other barriers that make it difficult for people to vote.

3. End the big money dominance of our electoral process
In a democracy, public elections should be publicly financed. In Maine and Arizona, publicly financed elections has enabled people to run for office who would never have dreamed of running under a system dominated by big money interests. We, as voters, need to own our elections, rather than allow the process to be controlled by the wealthy few.
We also need to enact mandatory limits on campaign spending. In 1976, the Supreme Court wrongly struck down mandatory campaign spending limits for congressional elections. A federal appeals court in New York has recently revisited that decision and ruled that campaign spending limits in Vermont can be constitutional. That case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Massachusetts should help lead the way with campaign spending limits for our elections.

4. Expand voter choice
Instant run-off voting: Voters should be able to rank their choices of candidates, ensuring majority support for those elected and allowing greater voter choice and wider voter participation.
Cross Endorsement Voting (Fusion voting): Voters should be able to cast their ballots for major party candidates on a minor party's ballot line, placing power in the hands of the people and broadening public debate on the issues of the day.
Proportional Representation: Voters should be allowed their fair share of representation, ensuring that majority rule does not prevent minority voices from being heard.

5. Ensure access for new citizens and language minorities
The right to vote does not speak one specific language. It is universal. No one should be denied the right to vote because of a language barrier.

6. Level the playing field for challengers
Redistricting reform — Incumbent legislators should not have the power to draw their own district lines. We must transfer this power to independent non-partisan commissions and create fair standards for redistricting, thereby promoting competition in our electoral process and improving representation for the people.

7. Ensure non-partisan election administration
The Secretary of the Commonwealth must be a Secretary for all of us, regardless of party affiliation. The Secretary should not be allowed to serve as a co-chair of campaigns of candidates. To ensuring the people's trust in the integrity of our elections, the Secretary must conduct the administration of elections in a non-partisan manner.

8. Make government more accessible to all of us
Democracy is not just about our participation on Election Day. We need to participate every day and our government needs to be accessible to us every day. This means a government that is open and transparent, that encourages people to make their voices heard, and that enlists citizen participation in addressing the major issues of our time.

9. Re-authorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965
We must continue the fight to protect the right to vote and to end voting disenfranchisement schemes. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for congressional re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

10. Amend the US Constitution to ensure an affirmative right to vote
One hundred and eight democratic nations in the world have explicit language guaranteeing the right to vote in their constitutions, and the United States — along with only ten other such nations — does not. As a result, the way we administer elections in this country changes from state to state, from county to county, from locality to locality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for a constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote in the US Constitution.



http://www.johnbonifaz.com/votersbillofrights

[druidity33]

12. WOW!

This man is SMART! We need him to open up other Dems eyes... somebody send this bill of rights everywhere!

[welshTerrier2]

13. i heard Bonifaz speak today

he was on a panel with Barney Frank about the Iraq war ... i'll be writing a thread about the details tomorrow ...

i knew only a little about Bonifaz before i went ... he was GREAT ... actually, he was much better than Barney !!!

btw, not only does he "get it" about Iraq, he also "gets it" about election fraud and electronic voting machines ...

very, very impressive ...

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. I LOVE that guy! I'll donate to his campaign!

Anyone who protects voter's rights is OK in my book. :thumbsup: