安全回家，票投安怡

2022年8月5日

2023年纽约州众议院第40选区共和党候选人廖安怡社区筹款餐会

Crown One, 34-20 Linden Pl, Queens, NY 11354

Sharon，你好！

侯会长，黄会长，陈会长，你好！大家好！

我是纽约小房东的会长，叫何徳邻。

今天是Sharon竞选的餐会。

我想问大家一个问题，其实好几个问题。

大家记得严志文是谁吗？记得吗，陈会长？记得Glenn Hirsch是谁吗？或者Melinda Katz?  这个记得了吧，Ron Kim?

严志文是一名外卖郎。他是今年4月28日送外卖的时候给Glenn Hirsch打死。为了什么？原来就是为了鸭酱。

严志文就跟我们一样，一个普通的人，他每天就是工作。想的，就是赚钱。他从来没说要小孩读什么哈佛耶鲁。很简单。就是赚钱，买房，跟小孩在一起。但是，就是工作的时候，回家的时候，给人打死。这样，你觉得他有什么错吗？没错吧？他无辜吗？绝对无辜。跟我们一样，就工作而已。

他也从来没想过什么堕胎控枪的。很简单的事情，对吧？你们有没有想过回家的时候，工作的时候回不了家？他就是这样的一个情况。

而且，那个疑犯，Glenn Hirsch，店家知道他的地址啊。但是，要等多久才把他拘捕？前前后后一共35天。疑犯你都知道在哪了，还可以等35天。才拘捕这个人。但是，拘捕了之后怎么样了？两天就放了他出来了。

是谁把他放出来了？

就是Melinda Katz。你知道Melinda Katz怎么样上台？2019年我们Queens有87万选民。投票给3万5，就是百分之4。百分之4的人投票给Melinda Katz。最后把疑犯放了的就是她。但这说明了什么？就是有百分之96的人没有投票（口误，百分之90的人没投票。其他5万5票由6个候选人瓜分）。百分之96的人的沈默让严志文的疑犯可以待35天，而且两天就给放出来了。所以，你不可以说你的那票没用。因为就是那个时候有百分之96的人没有投票。

现在让我们看看为什么那个时候Melinda Katz可以把他放出来？就是因为Ron Kim。

因为有一个保释改革法。Ron Kim投票的。Ron Kim让严志文的疑犯那么简单就给放了出来。Ron Kim今年为什么可以去大选？就是刚才侯会长说的，62票。他赢的就是62票才可以去大选。我们·今天是62票的好几倍吧？

如果我们想回家看小孩，麻烦你记得这一次一定要投票。因为，我们已经失去了第一个机会。现在，Sharon是我们最后的机会，最后的希望。如果大家以后工作的时候想回家的，记得要投票给Sharon。

谢谢。

（832字）

将来教会和当今政治

2023年4月2日上午11時

紐約基督教華人同工會

220-16 Union Turnpike, Oakland Garden NY 11364

演講稿

感謝紐約同工會，丘放河牧師，楊恩光牧師，楊東龍牧師和顧奇偉牧師，今天邀請我來分享當今政治和將來教會。剛才我們唱那首“我們成為一家人”的詩歌的時候令我深為感動。因為新冠疫情，我已經有3年沒有唱過這首詩歌、與朱自由牧師和師母做禮拜了，甚為懷念（1）。

今天的題目有兩部分，第一個是關於我們常說的政教分離，第二個是分享我在聖經裡面看到的教訓。

首先我們來看一下政教分離的真義。

常言政教分離，其實乃翻譯當時方便記憶的簡語，所以簡而不全。清末民初時（天演论至第一版中文圣经，1896年至1919年），中國翻譯了很多外來概念，美國憲法裡很多概念也在此時翻譯為中文。當時非常流行的一個翻譯習慣是模仿漢詩的格式：四字一句。政教分離就是在此背景下變成一個詞，重點明確、易記難忘，但是，以偏蓋全。

美國憲法明確闡述不容許政府管制宗教，但沒有規定宗教不可管制政府，這是一個單向而不是雙向的制約。

美國憲法第一修正案的原文是：Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion。按此翻譯，就是不容許國會立法規管宗教，宗教的建立、宗教機構、宗教規則、宗教財產、內部運作等。這裡 establishment of religion所指的不單是宗教，還包含其他的東西，譬如宗教的建立、宗教的機構、宗教的規章、宗教機構的財產，等各種各樣的內部運作也包含在內。我以前也忽略了這個字，以為只是宗教。但是感謝邱牧師的點明，實際上還有establishment在裡面。這一點的重要性在哪呢？我們可以來比較一下中國和美國之間的區別。

中國的憲法說公民有宗教信仰自由的權利，政府則肩負了管理宗教的責任，所以設立國家宗教事務局。但是美國憲法令到連宗教事務局都沒有設定。教會裡面的運作也沒有管束。

但在新冠期間，美國用緊急行政令來破壞第一修正案裡面不能立法規管宗教和運作等這個本意。大家很有可能聽過顧牧師說過的故事，說市政府不讓教眾在教會崇拜，之後顧牧師智退政府苛吏。大家也很有可能記得最後是在Brooklyn的猶太教教會告了市政府，在聯邦最高法院得直後，讓所有的宗教團體都可以開放禮拜。如果大家留意當時的訟書，又或者當時的媒體報道都會覺得當時政治是針對宗教，但實際上針對的不是宗教本身，而是教會。

近年教會的危機是什麼呢？

捐獻人減少了7%（2）。

在2000年，46%的家庭對教會有捐獻，到了2018年已經跌到了29%（3）。

教眾從2000年的70%跌到了2020年的47%（4）。新冠當時的禁閉教會令將會有世代性的影響。對一個小學生來說一年不去教會已經是一個很長的時間。如果是3年，對一個小孩來說這樣會有一生的影響。所以，政治對教會的影響非常巨大。

在美國基督教教會其實涉政頗深。其他宗教團體也參與政治。有些學區改變學校的膳食，就是因為廟宇介入的結果。

如果大家在南方住過也應該體會過教會是非常的有組織地去參與政治。譬如幫教眾登記選民，邀請候選人去教會作見證，募款，租車載人投票，為候選人禱告等等。

那我們有什麼辦法可以保護我們的教會？用選票！

主禱文說：願你的國降臨，願你的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上。參與政治是執行我們常常對神的許願。

雖然選舉的結果未必是我們想要的結果，但我們手中的選票會拉近今天俗世和我們期望的距離。我們投票的意願，我們的訴求，我們對訴求的堅持，對現今以至未來候選人的支持和影響，這個才是重點。

我也想分享一下聖經的金句。

首先看一下當時的背景。羅馬第一任皇帝奧古斯都（Augustus，主前27年至主后14年）的時候，羅馬約有4500萬人，其中只有400萬人是公民，也就是說大概只有10%的人有選舉權（5）。而且選舉也在主前27年也就是奧古斯都當上皇帝的時候也消失了。大部分的基督徒在當時絕對不是羅馬公民。而且，那時已經離上一次選超过一個世代。在門徒彼得時代，再沒人記得凱撒的選舉，或者西塞羅的辯才了。

所以當時的基督徒可以自己管理的社會只有教會。如果我們想要從聖經裡面理解，神想我們如何管理我們自己的社會的時候，我們身處其中的俗世的時候，我們要從當時的背景來理解。

彼得前書第五章第二節，“你們應當牧養你們中間神的羊群，要按神的意思照顧“，這裡中文用的照顧，英文用的是oversight，而希臘文用的是ἐπίσκοπος epi-skopos。這裡英文翻譯得比中文要好一點。因為希臘的原文是由俯視的意思，引申為監督，引申為照顧。中文的翻譯沒有什麼錯，只是缺了之前兩層的意思。這段經文的重點是，神不单要我们照顾，也要监督的意思。

哥林多前書第14章27節，“如果有人說方言這應該只有兩個人或三個人而且要輪流說“。重點是輪流，也是民主社會的一個關鍵。神一早已經告訴了我們基督徒這個民主的關鍵，來管理我們自己的教會。歐洲經過皇權時代之後，距最后一场雅典民主举行在主前322年的选举已经超过一千九百年。整个世界不单是没有人记得雅典民主是怎么样，而且没有任何文明可以代雅典民主言。连记载雅典民主的文字也没几个人能读。民主已經是非常陌生的概念。在皇權之後再經歷的民主，就是借用新教徒管理教會的辦法移植到社會俗世之上。殖民時代的基督徒是運用了神的話語來管理新世界，擺脫皇權。我們現在只是一脈相承。

在哥林多前書第14章第40節，“一切事都要行的端正，並且要按住秩序行“，神說教會需按秩序來運作，教會乃眾人之事，眾人之事就是政治（6），政治又要如何按秩序而行呢？選舉。

哥林多前書14章29節，”傳道的也應該兩個人或三個人講，其他的人應當分辨”。分辨這個字在英文版用的是discern，希臘文的是διακρινέτωσαν diakrinetosan（7）。因為英文翻譯不是很好。只可以用希臘原文了。這裡的原義不單是分辨，這個字中英文就說得很清楚和準。同時它還帶有多一個含義，就是批判的意思。倘若考量是本意，ἀναθεωρέω anatheoreo是首选，如希伯來書13:7。神告訴我們作為基督徒，不單要去分辨，而且我們也需要批判我們的領袖，選舉就是讓我們可以有批判領袖的秩序。

為了將來的教會，為了“願神的旨意行在地上”，我們必須帶領我們的教眾讓我們身處的俗世按秩序行，分辨領袖，參與投票。

再次感謝紐約同工會邀請我來分享，謝謝。

(2,492字）

—

（1）“刚才。。。。怀念”一句，不在演讲稿原文。这句是事后扑上。

（2）https://data.givingtuesday.org/fep-report/

（3）https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/08/16/charitable-donations-us-lowest-rate-decades/10278836002/?gnt-cfr=1

（4）https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

（5）有說當時投票票數可能只有不超過五萬票，公民的百分之一，人口的千分之一。

4500万和10：https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/whp-origins/era-3-cities-societies-and-empires-6000-bce-to-700-c-e/37-comparing-the-roman-empire-and-t-betaa/a/read-the-roman-empire-beta

（6）政治 Politics從πόλις而來。 πόλις，意譯是城，字譯乃聚眾之地。 Politics是philosophy of human affairs （阿理士多德，論政治）眾人之事。

（7）聖經用 διακρινέτωσαν diakrinetosan，而非 ἀναθεωρέω anatheoreo 考虑，分析，如 Hebrews 13:7。

Why Can’t America Happy Talk With Pakistan And Save 2010 Election?

Did anyone foresee that US-India relationship has an impact in 2010 election?  Or that it may cost $20B annually?  US Secretary of State Clinton is visiting Pakistan for three days to have a frank and open discussion and is in no time to have a “happy talk”.  Pakistan is the most important ally to US in the anti-terrorism war.  Therefore, US should be happy to have such an important ally and Pakistan should happy to see it is an important ally to the most powerful country on earth.  What made this strong Pakistan-US relationship to the point where there is no time for happy talk?  What sours the relationship?  Is US able to fix it?  Is US going to find a new friend?

The sore point is about the future of Afghanistan.  US want to remove terrorist heaven in the area and be done with it.  The core interest of Pakistan is its relations with India.  The US’ version of the Afghanistan future is not advancing Pakistan’s interests with India. 

Pakistan, relative to India, has no strategic depth.  Of all its fronts, Afghanistan is the only front where Pakistan can develop, cultivate and incorporate as Pakistan’s back.  That was why Pakistan would have supported US’ interests in Afghanistan during the Soviet Union’s Afghanistan invasion and created resistance forces where Pashtuns, Pakistanis cousins, had the controlling stakes.  If US’ version of Afghanistan is to dilute the influence of Pashtuns, open Afghanistan to more international players (say India) or US itself develops a stronger ties with India and marginalizes Pakistan as a result, then this ally relationship may not be simply a bargaining chip for Pakistan, but actually may become contrary to the self interest of Pakistan. 

US have developed an undisputable interest with India in the eyes of Pakistan.  Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons (not just capability, unlike Israel).  However, US scold Pakistan and promise to assist India to develop civilian nuclear abilities (Hyde Act).  Of course, US see India as a counter weight to China.  However, in doing so, US are compromising its anti-terrorism objective by alienating Pakistan. 

If India serving as a counter weight to China is more important than losing Pakistan, then can US find a replacement ally in the area to fight terrorism?  Ironically, the only player adjacent to Afghanistan available in the area is China.  All other countries are either unavailable (Is Iran available?  At what price?) or they have their own problems to deal with, say Turkmenistan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan.  Do these countries listen more to Russia or China since they love their Shanghai Organization so much?  Do US want to invite China to extend its influence to Afghanistan?  Or have US ever invited China to play in Afghanistan?  Can US impose this arrangement to Pakistan, i.e. can US tell Pakistan to fight a war and strengthen Pakistan’s nemesis at the same time?  Worse, what if this arrangement actually is eroding the supporting base of the Pakistan governing elite?

More likely than not, Clinton’s trip means this relationship management has gone beyond the authorities of Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.  If this frank and open discussion is meant to be a give and take negotiation, then we can wait and see if a resolution will come.  If this frank and open discussion is meant for Pakistan to rant and move on to live with this arrangement, then this military campaign in Afghanistan will drag on as other NATO allies plan to return home.  If Clinton’s trip is meant to facilitate Obama’s final decision on Afghanistan’s troop level, then considering its fiscal policy consequences and electoral consequences in 2010 and possibly 2012, Clinton is actually carrying one heavy responsibility.

What Does Your Wallet Or Your Politics Care If Japan Were Ready For Change?

The 2009 general election in Japan is the first time any opposition party won a mandate with meaningful margin.  Does it matter to the United States/Obama?  What does your wallet care about a Japanese election?

DPJ won this election with a landslide, 60% of the seats.  LDP, the incumbent who lost, still has 20%.  However, its electoral power is greatly reduced.  DPJ should have no difficulty in implementing changes it advocates. 

Election result often is a reflection on the perception of their economic lives for most voters.  This one is no different.  Challengers have no experience in governing.  And the voters do not care.  They want the incumbent out. 

Opposition DPJ promises more government checks for babies to lift fertility rates (negative population growth) and for seniors (20% for Japan vs 13% for US).  How are they going to pay for this when the labor force is shrinking and Japan has been avoiding the talk of an immigration policy?  if you think Obama is irresponsible in drowning your grand children with eternal debts or that French were crazy, then consider Japan’s public debt ratio: 162% back in 2007
and expect to be 200% in 2009.

Japan will eventually do what Obama is already doing, lower the exchange rate.  It will make the bonds they are making worth less (I do not know want to say worthless), not that they aim to cut down the prices of their products (Honda NYSE:HMC, Toyota NYSE:TM, Nissan not trade outside of Japan, Mitsubishi NYSE:MTU, Sony NYSE:SNE).  Will these companies be more profitable?  At least they will have one more factor.  Will Walmart’s (NYSE:WMT) spreadsheet make a dent (Yes it operates in Japan)?  Probably not. 

Reforms to boost productivity is obvious a step they will have to take.  However, the easiest way to score points for DPJ is to shrink the power of bureaucrats.  Opening trade barrier is not one of them.  Americans will probably continue to make most of their money through large heavy industrial sales or trading outposts in Japan.  How much can Obama lean on them? 

DPJ advocates for more fraternity in the face of US led capitalism which makes “human dignity is lost”.  Is DPJ socialist?  The NYT speaks well of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.  Japan will be more interested at balancing itself between China and US rather than an ideological shift, although US never really helped with Japan’s ambition in the international politics (like getting a seat in UN Security Council).  After all, The NYT editorial mentions America twice and China 9 times.  All references about China are about its economic power.  And China can afford to make large inter-governmental purchase that US cannot in the near future.  Will this be a geopolitical shift?  Hardly, if Japan recovers quickly with great confidence about itself.  If Japan recovers with pace and DPJ wins re-election, then a whole new generation of voters will mature through the benefit of China trade.  That will make a shift.

USA Election 2000 – Iranian Edition (And Your $$)

The Iranian election becomes another election mess.  The American (the first edition) version requires a Supreme Court to give a final answer.  Iranian one?  A Supreme Leader gives a final say. 

And the Supreme Leader says the incumbent wins.

In a situation like, just like the American original version, a decision made by that few individuals, the decision is ultimately political, whatever the cloak it is actually.  In the American original version, it is under the cloak of law.  In the Iranian version, it is under the religious leader’s cloak.  Note that the Supreme Court Justices are life time appointments just as well.

What ticked?  Not bribe.  As usual, what is the alternative of the decision?  Supreme Leader weighted between incumbent and challenger.  Who is a bigger threat to the Islamic Republic?  Or for that matter, to the power of clergy?

Challenger is always about “change”.  Incumbent is always about “you know what you get.  Don’t rock the boat.”  This applies to any institution (note, not necessarily a country), any selection process (note, not election), any candidate. 

The next question is: what about the protests?  Supreme Leader is confident he can manage the internal crisis.  If the protests get any worse, it will be between a Tiananmen Square (Iranian Edition) and End of Soviet Union (Iranian Edition).  Certainly, Supreme Leader thinks the worst scenario is Tiananmen Square.

Alright, so what does one care about this latest news episode?  Political instability drives up the prices of commodities, in particular, the commodities the geography produces.  So, in this case, oil.

Oil will become more expensive, if this goes on.  The only way oil does not increase further is traders believe the recession is so bad there is no demand for oil anyway, i.e. demand will decrease even if the quantity of supply is not being affected by the political instability of Iran. 

Oil exploration companies’ stocks go down (not up).  The core material of their product gets more expensive, so their profit margins get squeezed.  Consider the following company, BP:

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=1&chdet=1245437692449&chddm=10220&q=LON:BP&ntsp=0

The companies that get affected less so are the American oil exploration companies who have less exposure to Middle East (or think about the Canadian oil companies).  And if you happen to own renewable energy companies’ stock, you should see prices going up for your stocks.  Given today is Friday, one may be tempted to clear their stock inventory just in case the next episode of this Iranian Election comes up and affect the portfolio. 

The things that really distort the prices of stocks affected by Iranian election are: Obama’s announcement on health care and Obama’s announcement on the merger of OTS and OCC.

Bradley Effect Or McCain Effect?

Is Bradley Effect still there?  How can we find out?  If we check the last polls before the election, Obama was having double digit leads.  However, his popular vote is 53% against 47%, 6% lead. 

 

Here is a list of polls I gathered:

 

Polling Company	Start Date	End Date	Obama	McCain	Total	Diff
Reuters/Zogby	1-Nov	3-Nov	54	43	97	11
Gallup National Polls	31-Oct	2-Nov	55	44	99	11
Fox News National Polls	1-Nov	2-Nov	50	43	93	7
CNN National Polls	30-Oct	1-Nov	53	46	99	7
Ipsos National Polls	1-Nov	1-Nov	50	42	92	8
ABC News National Polls	30-Oct	30-Oct	54	41	95	13
CBS News National Polls	30-Oct	30-Oct	54	41	95	13
Average			52.86	42.86	96	10

 

CNN previously quoted polling experts  that the Bradley Effect is worth about 6%.  

 

Average of these last minute poll is about 10%.  The actual margin is now 6%.  Is the Bradley Effect 4%?

 

Bradley Effect is a voter claims to support an African American candidate and then votes differently.  Did voters really change their minds this way?

 

The average of the polls for Obama is 53%.  He gets 53% (52.86%).  For this, the voters are consistent.  However, the interesting part is this: the margin shrunk.  What happened?  All the “Other” category voters’ changed their minds.  The Undecided voted for McCain.  The Greens and Libertarians voted for McCain.  So, instead of claiming for Obama and voting against Obama, they claimed something else and voted for the strongest candidate against Obama.  

 

McCain gets 43% in the polls (average is the same as median and mode).  However, the popular vote is 47%.  So, if you are not an African America candidate and running against an African American candidate, you can count on getting extra votes on the election day, 4% of popular vote.  

In the case of McCain, it is for every 100 votes committed to a pollster, he gets 9 extra votes.  

 

For an African American candidate, he has to live by “You get what you see”.  He probably cannot expect a measurable vote coming out from the Undecided category in the last days.  This would be consistent with Obama’s strong push in the last few days of the campaign.  

 

Can we now replace the Bradley Effect with this statement now: “if you are running against an African American candidate and you are not an African America candidate, you can count on getting extra votes coming from other third party candidates or previously uncommitted voters on the election day”. 

 

If we can get more empirical results, then it is obvious that Democrats will have even more incentives to suffocate other third parties in the future.  This is not about Nader anymore. 

 

Instead of Bradley Effect, are we now moving into the era of McCain Effectt. 

What Makes President Obama Not A Sure Thing

Are these undecided voters the key to this election?

As of today (2008.11.03), Obama has 228 electoral votes where the state has >10% polling margin and 50 electoral votes where the state has >5% polling margin.  The difference less than 5% (either way) is 128 electoral votes.

Given the Bradley Effect, and the potential of undecided voters going for McCain, Obama may still get defeated.  What are in play for this result?

1) Bradley Effect – voters misinform pollsters

2) Undecided voters for McCain – not willing to misinform, nor to be McCain voter out right

3) Polling methodology – too many people are not using land lines – greater and greater difficulty in forming a good sample to represent the population

4) First time voters – first time voters have lower voting participation rates; less responsive to GOTV.  Given the huge ratio of first time voters this year, this factor is more important than before;

5) Voting machine – no more funny ballots.  And are the votes auditable?

6) Voter suppression – prevent voters who fit your opponent’s voter profile to vote.  Depriving sufficient resources or space to a few specific precinct or county maybe good enough, especially when coordinated with GOTV at other places.

7) Voting irregularities – fraudulent voter registrations, fraudulent voters.  This list is not short.

These are all technical, minute issues.  However, there are quite a few of factors for anyone to play with now, right?  Any one of these can deliver us a dramatic event (or even traumatic) fit for Hollywood. 

Typically, only the last 2 factors are in play.  This time, we got seven factors!! Five of them have never been seen before.  Too many unknowns.  And there is no time to have an academic debate to discover the truth.  So, there can only be offense for Obama since no number is completely good this time around.

John Manley Smells Blood? Or Avoided His Own Peril?

John Manley is gauging his support level.  With Bob Rae around, it will be a difficult race for Manley.  Bob Rae is a veteran: he knows how to build an organization for it.  And Bob Rae probably expected Manley to return for this election.  How did Bob Rae come to this conclusion?  Well, not that he read this or this.  it is just very reasonable.  Bob Rae probably saw the “dual use” of everything Manley did.  And, Harper helped Manley to get to this point. 

 

This is exactly what Harper wanted and what Harper planned.  

 

Age may become a factor for Bob Rae in the next round.  So, time will soon wear Bob Rae out.  This maybe the last time Ignatief can run a leadership race since he did not spend that much time in Canada.  But then, how many years do you need in Canada?  Manley has been preparing this race for elections now.  He could be contemplating about joining in the race this time.  But the variable is: is it the time I should return?  Not: should I return?

 

John Manley did not want the leadership then when Paul Martin left because he saw a defeat.  He could not have saved the party from another defeat and so he saved himself from being at the position of Dion’s.  He was preparing himself to be a white knight to enter the stage when the party is at the bottom.  Now is his chance, or so thinks.

 

John Manley is now facing a different world, namely a world defined by the election financing law that he did not have.  He has good access to big donors.  However, does that matter when the donation is penny on the dollar of the donation amount these donors can actually give?  This is a new game that John Manley has to live with: quantity translates into dollars; not dollar buys into quantity.  

 

That means he has to have a ready made organization.  He can rely on his old riding Ottawa South’s David McGuinty.  John Manley passed on the seat to his pal David McGunty, brother of the provincial Premier Dalton, to keep it from falling to the hands of enemy.  Now, he can burrow the infrastructure there. 

 

Why is John Manley declaring it now?  Yes, leadership review will be held early next year.  So, he needs some time to prepare and get to the spot light.  Also, Ignatief, Bob Rae and John Kennedy cannot exactly start a race since they are still supposed to be loyal to Dion.  It is only when someone declares to be contender can they actually get out of the closet.  John Manley is forcing everyone to enter into the ring.  If these people do not, then they will have to forfeit the entrance ticket.  So, John Manley is simply asking: “if no one else wants take the crown, then please let me have it.”  

Obama, 1 Up Over Karl Rove

Voting lines are long.problems/index.html.  Not much news about voter intimidation.  But then this is early voting, not the big day.  Is America ready for the big news that is only 11 days away?  Some people are preparing for the transitions to the next administration.  Some people are already sensing potential presidential candidates for 2012: Hilary Clinton sensed the potential desire of Bloomberg for 2012.

 

Bloomberg got his way to run for the third term of NYC mayor.  Less than two weeks ago, Clinton said Bloomberg’s third term is “disturbing”.  Really, it would not have been disturbing if Clinton won the Democrat primary.  It is disturbing because give the kind of difficulties the future administration will face, the next President may end up being a one term president.  For that reason, Bloomberg’s presidential big would be a problem for her.  

 

Given the turn out in the early voting, Democrats already see some success in their new and healthier operating model.  Expanding the base is ideal.  When it goes to the final stage, the operation is about turn out.  Candidates locked up their supporters.  How can they actually get them to the voting precinct? 

 

Obama is experimenting something new: get them early and get them young.  Voting is a habitual product, just like so many other products, such as carbonated drinks or auto insurance.  We already saw how Obama got the young voters.  We are now seeing how to get them early (early to the poll).  

 

This is labor intensive.  Given the labor cost in America is so high, this is an expensive operation.  Expensive enough that Republicans never resorted to it before.  Now, Obama does not only have a good certainty what votes they reached even though the ballots are not counted, but also what votes McCain got.  Obama got a piece of insurance on these votes.  These votes are of course the solid supporters.  He can now have more flexibility to do his offense to McCain.

 

This is the kind of operation that shows to aspiring candidates that non profit groups are important.  Or more to the point, candidates and non profit groups need each other.  This kind of operation is labor intensive only people who got a commitment to a cause would be able to help.  

 

 

 

Will he shift even more to the center?  Will he attack McCain more aggressively?  Or will he simply swamp him hardly in the battleground states, especially the ones that do not allow early voting?

Electioneering 102: A Lesson From Green Party of Canada

The federal election in Canada concluded on 2008.10.14.  The incumbent party won another mandate.  There are a lot of interesting content in this election to fill the media.  However, for the purpose of Electioneering, this story may not make the cut to the paper, let alone to the headline.  This case study lesson is experienced by the Leader of Green Party of Canada.  This biggest contribution of this race is: how to choose a spot to run.  The most applicable lesson of this is still city councilor.  

 

Green Party of Canada has been increasing its vote share ever since the turn of the millennium.  In 2006, they got 4.48% of the votes and no seats in the parliament.  After that election, the Leader of the party then did not run in the leadership race again.  It then became an open race and Elizabeth May won the leadership.  She was an Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada, with government bureaucrat experience, a law degree and a recipient of Order of Canada.  She ran a by-election earlier, against all parties and got the second largest votes in that race.  

 

Green Party has long held the position that they are unable to win a seat because they are excluded from the televised debates.  This election proves that a televised debate did not help.  

 

May was looking for an epic race.  This could have been the first sign of trouble.  An election is not about making a statement.  Election is about finding the most representative will of the people.  By being the leader and possibly the first elected officer of a party, May’s election is more important than any other candidate.  There is a lot of media attention, political resources, volunteer resources, and money involved in a leader’s race.  Therefore, it is only prudent to maximum the vote, not to dramatize an epic.  

 

If you are running in a city councilor race (or county board, school board, etc), you run to win.  Any other objective is mischievous, and misleading the voters.  It is true that people run elections for all kinds of reasons, some of them noble too.  However, it is only when you aim to win would you be serving your voters, be honest to your voters, donors, volunteers and other kinds of supporters.  Furthermore, if you do not run to win, your result tends to sink, even if you got some special interest groups’ backing because your true primary motives usually affect your plan, execution and result.  For instance, since your real motive is a geography A, you divert more resources to that area instead.  However, that area may be a contestable area.  if the votes are already secured, no need to get vote there.  However, you are doing it there to serve your personal interests.  So, your volunteer hours are lost, your lawn signs are wasted.  Alternatively, you may be interested at a specific donor group.  Similarly you wasted your campaign.

 

Liberal party delivered their promise not to contest against May in order to maximize her chances to a seat, wherever her choosing.  This promise is also unlikely to be offered in the next election since the leader of Liberal party is also in his trouble.  And no one should plan a race with the expectation that this offer will be made twice anyway.  

 

May placed this epic over at Central Nova, where the incumbent runs a dynasty there: 2 generations of incumbent, close to 10 elections.  This is where the second problem is.  One should contest in a place to win, not a place to dramatize.  By being the leader, she can choose any leader she wanted.  She should have picked a riding where

 

1)       The Liberal candidate is not the incumbent, however strong enough that the votes actually matter in her race;

2)       The Green votes are decent, say above the 2006’s record of 4.48% votes;

3)       Incumbent votes are actually weak; below 50% is minimum requirement.  The lower the better. 

4)       Since there are 3 major parties contesting in every riding in Canada, an ideal riding is where all three parties split their votes, i.e. around 30% each.  Of course this is unrealistic.

 

Election is a contest of organization, stamina of the salesman (candidate), branding (party), money (fundraising) and product (platform).  A leader got the luxury of choosing a riding, which most people cannot afford the infrastructure investment to do.  Building up a local political network to support is not easy.  However, this is fairly accomplishable if you were interested at a city race.  Changing a house from this corner of the town to that corner is not too difficult.  What is the ideal demographic for you?  Ethnic group? Income class? Age group? Occupation?  Family status? 

 

If she spent 30 minutes to look around the >300 ridings in Canada, she maybe able to see that there are multiple ridings where Liberal is the incumbent, however with >25% of votes; Green votes are above 5%, and the incumbent got votes around mid 30%.  

 

With 30 minutes of your time, you can see that Welland is one such riding where the incumbent is Conservative.  Vancouver Kingsway is another one, where the incumbent is NDP.  There are probably others.  These 2 may not deliver an ideal environment for victory.  However, the point is there are potential sites to choose from.

 

If May knew that it wasn’t going to be a victory, then dramatizing an epic is not a bad option.  However, in your case, don’t run.  An election is costly not only to you, but also to your supporters in forms other than money.  

 

If you plan to remove a low performing incumbent, then get all the prospective candidates together.  Gamble all resources in only one person.  So, all your prospective candidates may want to have a quasi primary to determine who will have the best shot.