Alabama Musings

Unicameral Legislature makes sense to me (0.00 / 0)

But a single delegate per county wouldn't work because of the population issues.  Unlike the US Senate, I believe Alabama would need to assure urban areas have just as much representation per capita as rural counties.

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:08:55 AM CST

*Ahem* (0.00 / 0)

Seriously?

 I first came to learn of Artur Davis by looking into what he has done on the Federal Level for his district, and what kind of action we can expect from him as our Governor. Needless to say I am impressed and very pleased by not only how he has shown repeatedly his passion for his district, but the best interests of the Alabama people.

Would you mind elaborating on this assertion?  I mean it all sounds nice, but what does it mean exactly?  How has Davis repeatdly shown his passion for his district and bhe best interest of the Alabama people?  Since you don't reside or vote in his Congressional district, I'm wondering if you believe his vote against health care reform showed passion for his district?  I'm also wondering if you believe his vote against hate crimes legislation was in the best interest of the Alabama people?  How could anyone from Alabama vote against hate crimes legislation and access to affordable health care?  I maan, really?

Gag me with a big ole spoon!

While being a Democrat is awesome and the right thing to be morally, after all Jesus was a Democrat, Congressman Davis has shown repeatedly that he is willing and able to reach across the aisle to work with those on the other side as equals with valid viewpoints, not opponents to be slaughtered or hung out to dry because of their party affiliation.

Now you are on target and on point with this one.  Congressman Davis has shown repeadetly that he is willing and able to reach across the aisle to work with the other side and sell out the DEMOCRATS who elected him. 

Davis  supports a constitutional revision.  Woo Hoo!  Lots of people support a constitutional revision on both sides of the aisle. 

This sounds like talking points straight from the gop/states rights/I&R play book to me.

  Imagine it…a Democrat that would call for free and more autonomous local government, direct representation, and a smaller state government while most opposition is simply calling for article by article revisions…in other words they like the inept and bloated pile of crap constitution we have now.  

What the....???

Or how about this: since so many people are completely fed up with the way Montgomery has destroyed our democracy in this state, why not set up a modified parliamentary system where the legislature elects from amongst themselves a Governor that remains in the Chamber, and follows the Westminster system? That would be a real diversion toward true representative democracy.

BTW, Montgomery is the State Capitol so I don't understand your assertion that a city which happens to be the state Capitol has destroyed our democracy.  Who exactly  is Montgomery?

Anyway, I support Artur Davis for governor not because he wants to change us to the parliamentary system, he does not, he at least has true vision on how to make Alabama’s educational institutions better, and how to make our future brighter.

Artur Davis has a true vision on how to make Alabama's public schools more segregated with this support of Charter Schools, so I fail to see his vision or how it make Alabama's educational institutions better.  Better for whom?  Better how?

I hope why I don't support ____ post,diaries and comments are welcome and promoted at Left in Alabama too. :)

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:09:10 AM CST

Honestly ... (4.00 / 1)

We'd much rather you boost your own Democrat instead of bashing someone else's.  Positive energy and all that ...

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 15:11:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't have a parliamentary system under the U.S. Constitution (0.00 / 0)

The constitution requires every state to have a small r republican form of government.

 I can also tell you appointing judges won't fly. All problems with partisan election of judges aside Alabamians are used to being able to elect all judges on the ballot. Any constitution that does not have directly elected judges from Supreme Court to district simply will not pass in a popular vote in Alabama. And it's not just us. For whatever reason it is primarily Southern states with elected Supreme Courts. Moving them into non-partisan elections is a good idea but you'll never get rid of judicial elections in Alabama, nor should you. The people should have the ability to hold them accountable for bad decisions like overturning the Exxon verdict.

 The problem with the whole one representative per county thing (though that would be a legislature that would lean heavily towards my populist bent) is that there are Supreme Court cases mandating legislatures be apportioned by population. Now, one wonders why the U.S. Senate is allowed to do it and states aren't but of course, no one is willing to file that case brief. I'd wouldn't opposet having a Senate elected by county and then a house elected by apportioned districts. Not to mention such an outcome would lead to a complete and totally Democratic controlled state senate for perpetuity.

---

by: jacool @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:41:33 PM CST

Judicial elections (0.00 / 0)

One good thing about the constitutional reform theme of this diary is that it lets us mention some things we would hope to see in a document and some things that might not happen.

There are two models worth exploring for judicial elections in this state.  One is the non-partisan elections mentioned by jacool above.  This will hopefully take party identification out of the race (though in this state it will not end the fight between the trial lawyers and BCA for the court).  It might also take some money out of the race.  The other model worth exploring are retention elections.  In these, judges are appointed by the governor for a term.  When that term is up, they are subject to a vote of the people to retain or dismiss them.  If the people do not vote to retain, the process starts again.  Of course, there are some issues to consider--what would the threshold be for retention (50% or 60%), would there be a need for term limits, etc.

Speaking of appointments, I would also consider exploring if some of the lower constitutional offices of the state (ag. commisioner, treasurer, auditor) were appointed rather than elected.  Might not happen, but it is worth exploring--it would provide some continuity between those offices and the administration.

And a historial note on districts--Alabama is one of the states to be mindful about redistricting.  Prior to 1960, the state was not redistricted for population shifts, allowing major cities (Jefferson County) to be underrepresented while the Black Belt was overrepresented.  This benefitted the Big Mule-Black Belt coalition that dominated state politics.  However, courts finally forced that districts account for population in the '60s.  Something to remember when we talk about that.

---

by: csduke @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:00:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have always like the one county- one state senator idea... (4.00 / 1)

and then of course leave the house with districts apportioned according to population...  Would that fly?  I believe it would because New York has a system based on counties.  I also agree with you about judicial elections.  Make them non-partisan... perhaps even publicly funded?  There are already different limitations on campaign financing for judges because of ethics law; someone with a law degree could explain whether limiting judicial candidates to public funding would be legally viable.  I think you could make it politically viable if sold well.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 01:15:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

Now, I understand what you mean by a republican system, but non-commonwealth countries have rpublican parliamentary systems as well. With the emphasis we place on parties in this state, the parliamentary system, coalition government, and focus on constituencies, a parliamentary shift could lead to a better and brighter Alabama.

On the note about minion elections, I was thinking that only the Legislature and Governor should be elected, with the Governor appointing with the advice and concent of the Senate a cabinet of all the positions that are elected now.

The Senate could benefit with one senator per county and leaving the House as is.

I am not a paid Davis worker if that is where that jab was going, but I have done independent research that is part of the public record that shows that Congressman Davis is a man that has helped his district and individuals on many important issues to them. He works with constituents on a personal level.

As for voting against things, you are forgetting that most Alabamian's don't have a quality education and depend on Fox news to tell them what is best for them. I gaurantee that more people are calling in, writting, and bitching about the issues you mentioned and how he should vote against them. In which case he was doing as he was elected to do, represent his district.

Unlike most people, Congressman Davis is not a Trustee, meaning a condescending overlord, but rather a Delegate that votes how his people want him to. If you and I both feel passionately about the issues that he voted against, we need to organize his district better then and try to get their voices heard over those of the confused older people whom are connected to his office after being scared to death about the government wanting to kill them with healthcare reform.

Robo-calls should be made illegal as they do nothing but propagate lies and unduly bother people.

In life we can argue about what needs to be done, or we can do. If you need me, I'll be out in the world making a difference.  

---

by: intellectualAL @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 12:46:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Davis doesn't vote how his constitutents want him to. (0.00 / 0)

I can guarantee Davis' constitutents aren't calling,writing and b$#ching telling him not to vote for health care reform and hate crime legislation.

The people who are calling in writing and b*&tching don't live in his district and didn't elect him, so he is most definatley NOT representing the interest of his consitutents.

You said (empahsis mine);

Unlike most people, Congressman Davis is not a Trustee, meaning a condescending overlord, but rather a Delegate that votes how his people want him to. If you and I both feel passionately about the issues that he voted against, we need to organize his district better then and try to get their voices heard over those of the confused older people whom are connected to his office after being scared to death about the government wanting to kill them with healthcare reform.

Uh, NO.  Congressman Davis needs to stop listening and pandering to the voices of those confused older people whom are connnected to his office after being scared to death about the government wanting to kill them with healthcare reform.  Congressman Davis should listen to the voices of the people who elected him not the oppressors. 

Congressman Davis is not a Delegate, he is the ELECTED Representative by the people, of the people, for the people of the 7th district.

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 13:23:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me get this straight.... (0.00 / 0)

Congressman Davis is only to represent those in his district that voted for him, or is he supposed to represent everyone in his district?

I promise you the only people calling him are the ones that are bitching about the Democratic Agenda, not encouraging him to vote for it.

The Rules of being a delegate say you have to follow the will of the majority, and if you care to admit it, Alabama is still a conservative state with Republican values.

Whether we like to admit it or not, Democrats will not stay in power from Alabama unless they are fiscally conservative, Christian, and willing to fight to "Keep the government outta medicare."

I called all of our delegation to urge them to support healtchare, cap n trade, and other things, but the only one that would even listen to me was Congressman Davis.

Emperor Rogers won't take my calls any more, Sessions is to drunk to answer the phones, Shelby is confused and won't talk to constituents, and Devis' people are the only ones that would listen.

Whether people want to admit it or not, Congressman Davis is absolutely what is best for Alabama. 

In life we can argue about what needs to be done, or we can do. If you need me, I'll be out in the world making a difference.  

---

by: intellectualAL @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 15:59:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Davis is supposed to represent the people, (0.00 / 0)

All the people and not just the callers, b$%chers and moaners.

FYI the government is medicare.

Congressman Davis did not listen to you on health care.

I'm glad Davis' people listen to you.  I wish they would listen to his actually constitutents too.

What good is having democrats in power if they vote and govern like republicans? 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 21:00:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Typo correction (0.00 / 0)

Should read: I'm glad Davis' people listen to you.  I wish they would listen to his ACTUAL constituents too.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 10:49:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Alabama is not a Republican state (0.00 / 0)

It is a Democratic state as it always has been except for Reconstruction. That might change depending upon the 2010 elections but for now the state remains Democratic as it always has been

---

by: jacool @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 07:40:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We have the right amount of elections (0.00 / 0)

I can accept the argument that judicial races should be non-partisan. I can't accept the idea that they can't only be appointed or only have retention elections. If a judge makes a bad decision the people have to be able to throw them out. With elections we have that.

 Plus there is something about giving too much power to the governor. Alabama has only had two governors who have really ever imposed their will on the legislature. I'd just as soon keep it that way especially with the dearth of talent we can draw on in statewide elections

 Judges should be elected. All the cabinet posts should be elected. If a governor is to have power in Alabama it should be because their own political acumen and public charisma is such that they can impose their will. It shouldn't be because they have a vast appointment power which they can use to draw people to their side.

 We have a constitutionally weak governor's office. I'd like to see it kept that way.

---

by: jacool @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 05:51:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]