Send a Message
to Bob Richard

Comments

22

Joined

Mar 23, 2008

Bob Richard Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Secretary of State in California i...

The real problem is capitalism. Socialism is the real solution. Vote for socialist candidates (Greens when there is no socialist on the ballot.)  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #16)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Attorney General in California in ...

The real problem is capitalism. Socialism is the real solution. Vote for socialist candidates (Greens when there is no socialist on the ballot).  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #31)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Controller in California in 2010?

The real problem is capitalism. Socialism is the real solution. Vote for socialist candidates (Greens when there is no socialist on the ballot).  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #17)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Insurance Commissioner in Californ...

The problem is capitalism. Socialism is the solution. Vote for socialist candidates.  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #15)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for State Assembly in California (Dist...

Vote for "none of above" by leaving this one blank. There's no socialist or Green candidate on the ballot.  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #1)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for U.S. House in California (District...

The problem is capitalism. Socialism is the solution.  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #1)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Treasurer in California in 2010?

The only socialist candidate on the ballot for State Treasurer  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #24)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in California in 2010?

The only socialist candidate on the ballot for U.S. Senate  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #198)

Greenbrae, CA

Who do you support for Governor in California in 2010?

The only socialist candidate on the ballot for governor  (Oct 15, 2010 | post #460)

Marin Independent Journal

Can progressives find room to compromise?

There's a good response by single payer advocate Esther Wanning in the June 24 Independent Journal.  (Jun 24, 2008 | post #1)

TwinCities.com

Analysis by St. Paul city attorney's office claims instan...

NC Voter doesn't have a shred of evidence for her claim that the potential challengers to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom blamed IRV for Newsom's popularity. They (primarily Supervisor Chris Daly and former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez) just decided that Newsom couldn't be beaten under any election method. Gonzalez, by the way, is a major IRV proponent. Daly may be too; I don' know.  (Jun 19, 2008 | post #8)

Eureka Times Standard

Adopt instant runoff voting

When she's not bashing IRV, "ncvoter " is an advocate for paper trails and adequate auditing standards. In that role, she doesn't say "there are no federally certified voting machines" that meet these requirements, throw up her hands, and quit in despair. Instead, "ncvoter " went to work. Because of the efforts of many people like her, progress is being made toward more reliable and secure election results. Yet when it comes to replacing our unfair plurality voting method, "ncvoter " is willing to let the voting machine companies tell us what we can and cannot have. As communities adopt IRV, they are finding out the same thing election protection advocates have found: we have to push the vendors hard to get them to provide the tools for better elections. But that's no reason to quit.  (Jun 12, 2008 | post #5)

Eureka Times Standard

Adopt instant runoff voting

Hannah points out that voters wouldn't have to wait until November to have a winner. It might make more sense to hold the instant runoff in November instead of June, when turnout is higher.  (Jun 12, 2008 | post #4)

Marin Independent Journal

Three things to learn from Tuesday's primary

I disagree with you on Lesson Two. The prolonged primary campaign helped the Democratic Party as much as it hurt -- maybe even more -- by energizing its rank and file to a degree rarely seen in American politics. Once the factional cuts and bruises have healed, Senator Obama will be a much stronger candidate for having been in such a closely competitive contest with Senator Clinton, and the party faithful will be more fully mobilized. For more on this see Rob Richie's FairVote blog entries for May 5 and May 10, and Alan Wolfe's op-ed in the May 11 Washington Post. There are ways in which the process hurt the Democrats. But most of the punditry about this has been directed at proportional representation (PR). It’s fascinating to see many of the standard arguments against PR recast to fit the circumstances of a sequence of primary elections. For example, assertions about how winner-take-all elections are “decisive”, while PR elections don’t produce a “clear winner”, become “get it over with quickly”. Never mind that “quickly” means before millions of party members have an opportunity to weigh in. It may well be true that the (roughly) proportional allocation rule used by the Democrats prolongs the primary season. But I think that it is not the length of the season that hurts a party in the long run. What hurts is the winner-take-all political process in which getting the nomination for your candidate/faction/ caucus is more important that the party itself and — especially — more important than the party’s program. So I think PR is being made a scapegoat here. The real culprits are the kind of political parties and kind of campaigning that result from a two party system: big tent parties and attack mode campaigns that are vehicles for careers as much as for coherent policies.  (Jun 8, 2008 | post #2)

Q & A with Bob Richard

Hometown:

Larkspur