Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
March 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Joe Balyeat

Calling It the Short End of the Stick Don't Make It So

by: Matt Singer

Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:49:13 AM MDT

The most common Republican refrain of the past five years has been that they were cheated in the last round of redistricting. Sen. Joe Balyeat raises the concern again, saying that the redistricting in which Republicans got short-changed caused them to become more partisan.

This allegation of gerrymandering is interesting, but the data just don't back up the claim. The most salient data point the right has raised is that Republicans won the vote by overwhelming margins in contested races in Montana in '06. What they don't note is that Democrats contested more races and actually underperformed in terms of victories compared to share of the vote in these contested races -- the opposite of what you'd expect with hard-core gerrymandering.

As I've noted before, the Tribune did an analysis of the new districts after the redistricting and found that the new maps had a high number of swing seats and a rough parity of safe seats for the two parties, creating a map, in other words, that should be highly responsive to changing views among the electorate.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Balyeat Actually Has a Very Good Idea

by: Matt Singer

Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 09:00:38 AM MST

Talk about a subject line that I never thought I would write. Wow. Sen. Joe Balyeat (R-Gallatin County) has a bill worth supporting. SB 280 is a very simple concept: fusion voting. Alternately known as open ballot voting and as cross-endorsement, fusion allows for candidates to seek and publicly hold the endorsement of multiple political parties -- even appearing on the ballot multiple times.

It's already the law in several states and has a history in much of the U.S. (it's the reason why the Democrats in Minnesota are known as the Democratic Farm Labor Party -- they were three parties that merged following the repeal of fusion).

And here's why the concept makes so much sense. I'm a Democrat. But I'm not foolhardy to believe that Democrats are perfect. Here's the thing, though, the Democratic Party's core interest (just like the Republican Party's) is to elect its own -- leaving few purely electoral routes for accountability.

Fusion voting can easily provide independent checks while maintaining the basic structure of the two-party system.

The possible range of third party alternatives is virtually endless (although the actual number that will emerge is limited by the reality of ballot access laws). Third parties could include a sportsman's party, dedicated to protecting the environment and the Second Amendment; a party that focuses on working class economic issues, much like the Working Families Party of New York; or a rural populist party. Hell, there could even be an "integrity party" that would be essentially bipartisan, but dedicated to rooting out corruption (not that Montana has much need, frankly).

Curious how this helps the Democrats? Check out this backgrounder, complete with polling data, from the Working Families Party of New York. In that state, third parties have held Reagan Democrats who no longer want to vote D, but still prefer the D candidate. It's also allowed for better local outreach. And it's no secret to people who follow youth politics that young people like third parties. Third party endorsements could help mobilize young people -- the same young people who put Tester over the top.

So why is Balyeat sponsoring something that I think is good for Democrats and good for progressives? Probably because it's also healthy for little-d democracy. And folks of Balyeat's type tend to be ardent defenders of the initiative process and other little-d reforms. On top of that, Balyeat would probably like to run on a joint Republican/Constitutional line.

I've heard this concern from some folks -- won't Republicans use cross-endorsement to beat us? That's what I call a question motivated by fear rather than opportunity.

A fusion system, harnessed properly by Democrats and progressives, will result in more Democrats being elected and those Democrats being held more accountable. That sounds like a pretty good combo to me.

Discuss :: (3 Comments)

Show Me the Study, Senator Balyeat

by: Matt Singer

Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 09:43:08 AM MST

In a story about how our tax reductions worked out even better for Montanans making over $500,000 than we could have ever hoped, we get this gem:
Balyeat said economic studies have shown that reducing upper-income tax rates leads to wage growth in all income-earning sectors.
Where is this study, Senator Balyeat? I've never seen a solid economic study that confirms that lower marginal rates at the top lead to wage growth. Hell, since supply-side economics got invented, wage growth for most income-earners has actually been stagnant, as money has gone from wages to capital returns.

Even more shocking? Dan Bucks shares this:

Dan Bucks, state revenue director, said the 2003 analysis was based on 2001 income-tax data and that the economy has grown dramatically since then. However, the income growth went mostly to people who were already rich, he said - thus the much-higher-than-expected tax cut for wealthy Montana households.
So the reason rich Montanans are getting a bigger than expected tax cut? Because they were making more money than expected.

Man, those rich folks sure have it rough.

Don't worry, though, Dave Budge can still cherry pick data to deny the overwhelming proof that economic inequality, social immobility, and other general dangerous economic events are actually taking place.

So I'm happy.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox