I think straight party ticket ballots generally only do a disservice to Indiana voters.

At best, it enables a kind of impulsive loyalty to a vague label that can mean very different things to different people.

At worst, it facilitates voter ignorance, allowing good candidates to be glossed over while other candidates are voted in based on affiliation instead of qualification.  (I was surprised in my own limited experience as a candidate how many people in Richmond said they thought I was probably a better person for the job than some of those running in their own party, but wouldn’t vote for me because of my party affiliation on the ballot.)  And as Doug mentions, political parties aren’t a concept that the state or federal Constitutions help us navigate very well, so baking them into our electoral process doesn’t seem quite right.

If someone wants to vote only for candidates of a particular political party, that’s fine, but let it be because they’ve researched who those candidates are and what they stand for, and then made their choices well in advance of election day.  And if this change to election law hurts Democrats because Democrats were winning on party loyalty alone, then so be it; that’s a problem for the party and its candidates to take up with voters.

We certainly don’t need to be adding new ways to complicate the process or confuse voters, which is why Chris Hardie supports a recent legal challenge, initiated locally in Richmond by a number candidates and voters, to the recently amended Indiana Code 3-10-6-7.5 which says that you can’t hold an election for an office when a candidate is unopposed.  As noted in recent articles in the Palladium-Item and in today’s article, the challenge hopes to undo this bit of legislative hand-tying before the ballots are printed for upcoming Richmond city election.

Here’s the full statement Chris’s campaign released to the media earlier this week:

I support the legal challenge filed by local Democrats and Republicans. I think it’s an important part of the democratic process for voters to retain the direct power to put candidates into office, even when those candidates are unopposed. While I appreciate efforts to streamline ballot printing and reduce costs, we cannot do so in a way that removes any candidate from the view of voters on Election Day.

If you would like to voice your own support for allowing all eligible candidates to be voted for on election day, even when running unopposed, please contact your Indiana state legislator.

But we can’t let the shared pastime of grumbling about the machinations of politics and the wearing complexity of government trick us into forgetting that, right now, for the future of our city, this is the election that matters.

Why?

As I campaigned during the primary season and met with concerned voters, business owners and community leaders, and as I’ve observed the economic, social and cultural forces at work in our area, I’ve come to see that the next four years are going to be a critical time in the history of Richmond, Indiana:

• We’re having basic conversations now about “what are the essential functions of a city government?” that will affect policy, legislation and quality of life for decades to come.  The decisions we make now about what government should do for us, and what it shouldn’t do, will determine the path that Richmond takes when it comes to economic development, upkeep of infrastructure, and caring for the needs of all citizens who live and work here.  And when we decide now that something is or isn’t a part of what we want the City of Richmond to do for us, it will be much more difficult to change that decision later.
• Richmond faces unprecedented challenges in unprecedented economic times.  Things we’ve taken for granted in the past about the way job creation, governance, energy costs and community building (and how you fund those) are changing right under our feet, and the way we react to those changes could make all the difference between barely surviving and thriving as a city.
• Citizens are looking for new models of leadership and collaboration at all levels of government.   The frustration with national, state and sometimes even local leaders is palpable – voters are tired of broken promises, wasteful spending, political bickering and unwieldy government agencies that, in the end, don’t work for the people.  The people we elect to serve in City government now will determine whether Richmond sets its own course and actually works to serve the people who live here, or whether we slip back into business as usual.

Of course, these factors are just the beginning.  Every time the Mayor’s office decides how to spend the time and resources of City employees, every time the City Council meets to discuss a proposed tax abatement or new ordinance, or to set the budget for the coming year, we will be making decisions that ripple throughout the community and into its future.  Richmond is not a fragile town, but it is a place that needs those ripples to be of energy, creativity, and new perspective, not “wait and see” or “that’s not politically expedient” or “here’s how we’ve always done it, there is no alternative.”

I’m running for City Council because I think I can be a force for good at a critical juncture in the history of a community I love and call home.

I’m running because I can see no greater calling at this point in my life than to help make Richmond a stronger, more vibrant place to live.

I’m running as one way to celebrate the fact that, at least for now, the voters of Richmond still have the power to set the course for our future, and put into office officials who will honor the hope and trust placed in them.

If you’d like to join me as the results come in tonight, I’ll be on the third floor of the Richmond Municipal Building sometime after 6 PM.

All morning, I’ve been out at the voting centers greeting voters as they arrive.   It’s been a little wet and chilly, but well worth it in terms of the great exchanges I’ve had with people.  Some things I’ve heard and seen:

• “If you win, can you promise you’ll make it stop raining?”
• “This is the first time I’ve ever voted on a Democratic ballot – it was the one with some good candidates to choose from.”
• “The Republican ballot is boring.”
• A number of people have mentioned seeing me on the P-I Live! episode I recorded with other At-Large Democratic candidates and basing their vote on my performance there.
• When I thank people for voting, a number have said “It’s an honor” or “It’s a privilege”
• “Oh hi, are you a greeter here today?  Wait, you’re running for office?”
• “It means a lot to me that you are standing here and other candidates aren’t.”
• A small number of people have expressed pessimism about Richmond’s future, but still feel compelled to do their part and vote.
• Most people have expressed excitement about moving Richmond forward.  ”We just need some new people in office to make it happen.”
• “Don’t let me down!”
• “Now, win this thing and do a good job!”

I’ll do my best.

It’s somewhat odd and slightly disconcerting to know that by standing in front of the voting centers as people go in, I’m making an impression that might actually affect their vote a few minutes later. It’s great to know that face-to-face interactions count for something, but one always wants to hope that voters are basing their decisions on research and carefully formed opinions, not a last minute handshake.  Perhaps I’m not yet ready to succumb to the realities of modern electoral psychology.

Regardless, I’ve been honored and humbled by each person who has let me know that I got their vote today.

More soon!

At a local business networking event tonight, someone noted that they’d heard a rumor I might be getting involved in politics locally.  We had a good conversation about it, and I thought I’d use it as a jumping off point to share a little more about my own political aspirations.

Sometime during my college experience, I decided that I was going to run for the Presidency of the United States of America.  I was mostly serious. I mean, I announced it on the Internet for crying out loud, so you know I wasn’t just messing around.  I figured out that I would be old enough to be elected President in the 2012 elections, and I dreamed my dream from there.

I’ve since figured out that national politics is probably not for me, at least not anytime soon.

It’s not because I dismiss the importance that the political process at that level plays – indeed, I think it’s having quite an impact on our lives every day, and needs people of integrity, values and passion to participate.  But when I wrote about the things that I thought a successful politician needed to be or do, I didn’t realize how incompatible they are with the current state of the national political scene:

This will mean not campaigning about issues, but rather exposing the wounds of our culture and offering suggestions for healing. This will mean recognizing positive social interaction as the most important part of successful citizenship and promoting such interaction to the end that the will of the people may be more clearly and immediately heard. This will mean refusing to propose “programs” and budget changes as possible solutions to our country’s many problems, but rather addressing the problems at their source and empowering the individual citizen to get passionate enough, excited enough, and angry enough to enact positive change. This will mean refusing to participate in the handicapped, ineffective political process, but instead inventing new and creative ways to create a government that is truly belongs to its people and not to its own members or processes.

What I believe now is “right here” is the place I can be most effective and rewarded in my desire to contribute something significant in my time on Earth.  In other words, changing the world is, for me, no longer about going “out there” and making a difference for “those people.”   It’s not that I don’t care about out there and those people, it’s that I know I can help them the most by being attentive to the land I call home.  This feels more sustainable (“what if we all cared more deeply and actively for the people and places in our own communities?”) than what national and global politics tend to be about (“what if we all went out and tried to make laws and coerced agreements about how everyone should live, enforced with fear and oppression?”).

The sayings are cliche, but it’s because they ring true: “All politics is local.”  “Think globally, act locally.”

None of this negates my passion for politics at all levels.  I can’t help but follow the daily goings on of Washington D.C., the dreams, successes and missteps of our President, the behind the scenes power plays in Congress, the drowning pool that is our news media.

And that translates very much to the local level – even though there may not seem like a lot that can stir one’s blood in a City Council meeting in Richmond, Indiana, or in the finer points of comparing two mayoral candidates, this is where I now find the real fascination with political influence and maneuvering.  These are the people who live around me, who know this place for what it is, who have to look me and our neighbors in the eye every day and think about how well we’re doing.  Local politicians are the ones who can (if they want) care enough to actually make a difference.

So am I going to get involved in local politics?  A run for Mayor or City Council, maybe?   I don’t know.  There’s certainly part of me that thinks I have some skills and perspectives that could make a positive difference in the community, and I would be honored to be able to pursue them in that context.  But there’s another part of me that wonders how it might limit me, how it might change my ability to actually get things done.  What would I have to sacrifice?  How frustrated would I be with enmeshing myself in the political realities of a firmly entrenched governmental and social structure that isn’t serving all of its citizens (let alone other forms of life) very well?

And then there’s the possible meanness.  The person I was talking to at tonight’s event noted that Richmond is a town where people can get beat up upon pretty badly when they dive into the political scene.  Whether it’s party politics or personal agendas, fear or ego, I could imagine that things could get pretty nasty pretty quickly.  I’m not afraid of standing up for what I believe, and doing so against tough challenges, but I’d need a good reason to put myself in those particular tough situations.

All of these considerations plus some logistical concerns (e.g. a business to run) lead me to no firm conclusion at the moment, and if I figure that if I’m going to jump into politics, I need to be darn ready and sure about it.  The last thing I want is to have another “I will run for President!” moment only to realize later that I would have been more effective following another path.  But there remains a rumbling in my heart and mind that says “hmm, you might be able to do that, do it well, and make a difference that matters.”

I will pay attention to this rumbling and see where it takes me, be it toward politics or in some other direction entirely.  Stay tuned.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Congratulations to President-elect Obama, and to all of the people who put themselves into the political spotlight during this campaign to seek change in their communities at all levels. May the integrity and dreams of a better world that got you this far continue to ground you in the years to come.

Flash mobs are interesting to me for a few reasons:

They’re usually groups of strangers who don’t necessarily have anything else in common, coming together to do something out of the ordinary for just a few moments.

They tend not to be activists protesting anything, and generally aren’t trying to make any particular statement beyond an artistic one.

Participants in flash mobs make themselves vulnerable to the surrounding passers-by. In the “freeze frame” versions, they’re sometimes photographed, touched, pushed, even hit. But they are putting themselves out there to be a part of something bigger than what one person can do alone.

Most notable is the wide range of reactions that the mobs get from those who aren’t in on the action. Some people have that “wow, is this the end of the world?” look on their faces, while others are just in gleeful awe that their understanding of the space around them has been challenged. Still others go about their business, pretending not to notice, or in some cases, are actually oblivious.

I’d like to think that I’m aware enough of what’s going on in the world around me that if all of the sudden people stopped moving in mass numbers in a public space, I would notice. (Depending on which M. Night Shyamalan movie I’d seen recently, I might also run like hell.)  I also really appreciate the notion of creating something totally unexpected, something that redefines reality, even if just a little bit.

As we head into Election Day here in the U.S., I find it worth thinking about the power of mobs of strangers to create unexpected outcomes in our public life, and the choices that the people around them make about whether or not to notice, or to care.

What part will you play?

You can watch more Flash mobs on YouTube.

The problem is, McCain has done nothing to question the underlying thinking and assumptions that have fueled these fires. By passing them by he essentially reinforces the dangerous framing, and does little toward any truly just treatment of the issues that have come up.

Take the exchanges in this town hall meeting, for example. A man says he’s scared of an Obama presidency, and McCain says that you wouldn’t have to be scared of an Obama presidency, but doesn’t say why, or why whatever there was to be scared of in the first place isn’t really a legitimate concern.

A woman says she’s worried because Obama is an Arab. McCain says no, he’s a decent family man. So, according to McCain, being an Arab man is the opposite of being a decent family man? Not only is this a minimally effective request for respect toward Obama, it’s essentially an endorsement of the racist premise of the remark.

No, the recent tempering of the tone doesn’t seem to be much more than a shift in political strategy and perhaps a move that makes McCain himself feel a little better about getting up in the morning. But until some of the underlying awfulness that’s driving things can be confronted, there will be only temporary peace without any sort of justice.

I know this practice is not at all constrained to Republican politicans, by the way. It’s rare that a candidate of any political persuasion confronts a difficult or controversial issue head on at a level that really moves the conversation forward, so I know I shouldn’t expect much here. But I do expect better than this.

I’ll note too that it shouldn’t be lost on anyone interested in framing that while all of that was going on, President Bush was cautioning in his speech about the financial crisis that “anxiety can feed anxiety.” WOW – is it possible that an administration that has based much of its public relations around major policy decisions on feeding Americans with anxiety and fear could now be admitting that maybe this isn’t always the most useful practice?

Is it possible that John McCain and George Bush are both realizing at the same time that when your citizens are so riled up with misinformation and doubt about their future, they don’t ALWAYS decide to act exactly how you want them to? Let’s see how well that works out for them.

UPDATED on 10/13/08 to add this great segment from On the Media: Smear Campaign.

• That we have to choose between a candidate from the Republican party and a candidate from the Democratic Party.
• That within a given political party, we have to choose a single candidate who is the best and only choice.
• That the party conventions are a time when the will of the people is represented and expressed in the form of a meaningful vote, and not just a time for the powerful and well-connected to party on someone else’s dime.
• That we have to vote for the person who can win, instead of voting for the person that best reflects our own values.
• That we must choose the candidate with the most political experience, since the presidency is no place for on-the-job training, instead of choosing a candidate who could be the most effective once in office.
• That we have to choose between efficient, accurate, secure electronic voting machines with no paper trail and slow, unreliable, corruptible traditional voting methods that leave a written record of our choice.
• That it is possible choose a President who will represent us individually and work to address the concerns that affect us on a day-to-day basis, instead of working on those concerns ourselves within our community.

What other false choices are we asked to make? Feel free to add your own in the comments.