Category: Common Sense

The headline reads: “Judge denies instant election runoff. Though illegal, [San Francisco] voters’ wish not granted for . . . mayoral ballot.” A wish? Maybe that was the problem the judge mistook the law for “a wish.” A common error.

Eighteen months ago, San Francisco voters changed the way they vote. They enacted that change into law. The new system is called “Instant Runoff Voting.” Designed to end the so-called “wasted vote syndrome” where your vote might be “wasted” if your favorite candidate is not likely to win.  Instant Runoff Voting also makes certain the winner has majority support. Voters rank their choices: first, second and third. Votes for the last-place candidate get re-assigned to the voters’ second-choice candidates, and this process continues until someone obtains a real majority.

Yet, after 18 months to implement the new voting system, city officials haven’t done so. Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass told the judge they just couldn’t manage the election under the new system. “We don’t want another Florida.” Suing the city to enforce the law, Steven Hill with the Center for Voting and Democracy said, “We’ve seen a lot of fumbling and bumbling going on.” No doubt. But is it just bumbling going on here?

It has been suggested that a politician with high negatives like San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown might lose, heaven forbid, under the new system. But we’ll never know, because Mayor Brown’s officials ignored the law. And the poor judge, well, he doesn’t know the difference between the law and a “wish.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The media talks about the California recall as if voters there are the victims of a natural disaster or suffering in some war-torn province. Words like “chaos” and mayhem” are thrown around so regularly that I have to keep reminding myself I’m not watching a retrospective on the LA riots of a decade ago. In fact, I think even those riots may have gotten better reviews.

Why are the media and the political elite so anti-recall? Seems they like democracy only when the people butt out of it. Former President Clinton went to California to oppose the recall. Like everyone else, he didn’t defend Governor Gray Davis. Even the guy who can spin anything can’t spin the Davis, uh . . . performance.  Yet, the elite want Californians to simply grin and bear it. Otherwise, as the former prez warned, they risk becoming “laughingstocks.”

Are Californians laughingstocks? Should we be ashamed of a political system where voters have such awesome power that they can not only elect their leaders, but also fire them? Few countries in the world have such a crazy, chaotic system. I mean, no one was going to recall Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. The world may be laughing at us. But in America, we’ve long chosen the chaos of freedom and democracy over the calm and order of boss rule.

Thank you, California, for reminding us that even with all the problems of democracy, it is the best form of government, and that the answer to those problems is more democracy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Big problem. They’re doing too well. Cassandra Stevenson of Connecticut has just started college. She’s 15. Her sister, Samantha, is 19 and has a master’s degree in astrophysics. “Homeschooling is more like college than a public or a private school is,” says Cassandra. “You learn what you want to learn and what you need to learn. The curriculum is fitted to you.” That’s exceptional. But your average homeschooler still does pretty well.

A National Home Education Research Institute study found that the typical homeschooler’s academic achievement easily tops that of the typical public-school student. The Institute estimates that as many as 2.2 million children now benefit from homeschooling.

See the problem? Robert Rader does. He’s the executive director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Call it Status Quo United for short. Rader agrees that “parents have the right to educate their children at home.” On the other hand, he worries that “children don’t always get the rigorous structure and up-to-date educational techniques, which are applied in public schools.” Uh, hello. It’s that so-called “rigorous structure” that parents and kids are escaping from!

Mr. Rader doesn’t seem to realize that he and other educators might learn from the homeschoolers if effective education is really their goal. If you want process, call Mr. Rader. He’ll process your kids for you. If you want results well, a great many families have figured out how to get those . . . at home. Mine too.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey, I recall those taxes. And the politicians in California will recall them too. Or at least pretend to, until the recall vote on Governor Davis has safely passed.

Okay, let me stop punning for a minute and give you the background. Recently I discussed the California recall effort. I said that even if Davis survives, Californians benefited just by putting the recall on the ballot. Politicians there have become more hesitant about increasing taxes, at least while Davis’s fate is still open. In response, a guy I’ll call Glenn wrote me. Glenn says, “You are right that the message carried by the recall vote was ‘no big tax hike to pay off YOUR screw up’ and the [politicians] heard it.

I was one of those trying to get signatures on the recall petition, and until Davis announced the triple-whammy automobile tax hike, I could hardly get anyone to more than ho-hum my pitch. The day after the announcement, I picked up ten signatures on my block, two from people who wouldn’t even open the door to me the first time around.” I appreciate Glenn’s comments, especially since he started out saying “you are right,” which I always take as a good sign. The politicians in California are now talking about dropping the new car tax, but it looks like a block-and-feint. As soon as Davis is safe, if he is, the car tax could be back on line.

In the long run, the only way Californians can keep runaway politicians at bay is to keep their feet to the fire. Thank goodness the people there have initiative and referendum. And term limits.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Politicians have lots of experience with scandals. But they don’t usually hope for them. But, according to political science professor Jim Penning of Calvin College, Michigan career politicians should pray for a good scandal.

It’s like this. Michigan career politicians are becoming extinct because of the term limits law voters enacted back in 1992. Politicians hate the law, of course, and spend most of their waking hours plotting against it and muttering under their breath. Professor Penning observes that the plotting just isn’t going so well. “It will be very difficult,” he says. “Voters need to see the downside of term limits before they’re willing to change.” Voters aren’t seeing the downside.

Dang voters have seen only good things come of term limits. Government has not collapsed. Professor Penning reports, “We just got a budget compromise, so government looks like it’s running pretty smoothly.” Darn the bad luck! But career politicians shouldn’t lose all hope that term limits will be tarnished in the eyes of the public. “A major scandal might do it,” says Penning.

Yes, maybe, just maybe, politicians can act scandalously breaking laws and behaving immorally and the public will get so angry with the sorry state of the legislators that they’ll toss out the term limits and let politicians stay in office term after term for the rest of their lives. Now we know why this guy is a professor. He’s right about one thing. Scandal is something politicians know how to do. They’re experts.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I guess it’s tough for the career politicians. Sure, in the absence of term limits, they get to cling to office like a barnacle to a rusty hull. On the other hand, they do have to spend time campaigning, and that can be a drag. Especially if getting reelected is your top priority.

It certainly is for Congressmen Charles Stenholm and Roscoe Bartlett. To save trouble, they would change the Constitution to lengthen terms in the House from two years to four. The Founders wanted the House of Representatives to be a more popular legislative body than the Senate. So they kept the House terms shorter. But Congressman Bartlett says the Founders “would be appalled if they knew we never shut down our campaigns.” Mmm, I guess. They might shake their heads at a lot of things politicians do today. Doesn’t prove we should start handing out scepters and crowns.

Congressman Stenholm, who first gained office in 1978, says that for his first decade in power he thought the Founders were smart to provide for two-year terms. But then he realized all the time he had to spend raising money. The possibility of stepping down doesn’t occur to him. Eric O’Keefe, author of Who Rules America , a book on term limits, says, “Whatever time they spend raising money, no one is asking them to do it. And they don’t need to. Unfortunately, most would ride to reelection without spending any time on it at all.”

What difference would four-year terms really make? It’d give career politicians twice as long to build their bank accounts to crush any challengers.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.