Maybe it's time to give I.R.V. a try, at least in Philly municipal-level elections, to show the state why the idea has merit?

As Hendrink Hertzberg writes:

... the Presidential candidate of America’s Green Party in 2000, Ralph Nader, got about 2.7 per cent.

For the past seven years, Americans (and the world) have been suffering from the head-pounding hangover of that 2.7 per cent: President George W. Bush. Even though a clear majority of us — 51 per cent — wanted a left-of-center government, we got, with the help of a little nudge from the Supreme Court, a very, very right-of-center one.

In Australia, the consequence was precisely the opposite.

and

OK, so the Philly mayor's race has gotten kind of dull. There's still a LOT at stake in the Nov. 6 election, to add to mansei's recent post. Here's the scariest example, and it's recent:

Pennsylvanians who will soon put two new justices on the state's highest court can choose between candidates including a follower of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or an admirer of former liberal justice William J. Brennan Jr.

An interesting conversation in light of the fact that the winner of Philly's mayoral election took only a plurality. Promoted by MDC.

The talk of strategic voting got me thinking. The current mayoral election in Philly is a good example of a situation where Instant Runoff Voting would make it more likely that the eventual winner would enjoy true majority support.

For example, someone may think Rep. Dwight Evans is the best person of the five for the job, but may also be nervous about recent polls and prefer to do "strategic voting" instead. As many of you know, under I.R.V., an Evans supporter could designate him as their first-round choice, and if he didn't finish first or second, the person's second choice would get the second-round vote. Etc.

I am not an expert, but I wonder if the legislature could permit I.R.V. for Philly only, or if the city council or charter could simply authorize it.

This is a report from TPM Muckraker.com on a national study -- the timing on this coming out is handy for Sen. Fumo:

A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. ...

"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.

State Rep. Mike McGeehan is being non-partisan in his release (see below), but I'm guessing his action was prompted at least partly by the abusive Republican robo-calls in the Jim Gerlach vs. Lois Murphy race (see Jill Porter's Nov. 1 column for details).

McGeehan bill would play ‘terminator’ to ‘robo-calls’
News conference Tuesday in Harrisburg

HARRISBURG, Nov. 17 – At 10 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 21 in the Media Center at the state Capitol in Harrisburg, state Rep. Mike McGeehan, D-Phila., will announce the introduction of legislation that would add automated political messages to the types of calls banned by the state’s Telemarketer Restriction Act, commonly known as the “Do Not Call” Act.

If you or a friend got mail from the "Progressive Policy Council" recently that attacks Bob Casey, you won't be
surprised to know that right-wingers are behind it. TalkingPointsMemo.com's Muckraker investigative unit has uncovered the truth.

Would you believe that a group called the Progressive Policy Council is represented by a man who was the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney '04? What are the odds?

You can read much more here.

If you want to see why Bob Casey is the clear choice for progressives in this Senate race, check out the issues chart at

Courtesy of the Pittsburgh City Paper's Chris Potter:

After months of political ads and campaigning, it's easy to forget why anyone goes to the polls at all. So as a public service to voters who want to put aside the partisanship and bickering of Washington, City Paper offers this partial list of highlights from Sen. Rick Santorum's career.

To see LibertyPA's 1-page chart that includes reasons to vote FOR Bob Casey as well as reasons to vote against Santorum, visit www.capitalstonewall.org. But the list below is also good. :-) Great for forwarding.

I have a hard time picking the best, or should that be worst, from the Top 20 reasons - this one is as good, er, bad, as any:

I help out with the PA House Democratic Campaign Committee in Harrisburg, and I am thrilled to see people showing interest in defeating Republican incumbents in Philly and the suburbs. I've posted contact info below to help you connect up with Democratic candidates for the state House. The Philly region is the best example of what a recent post by DanielUA correctly said about poll numbers: Pennsylvania Wants Democrats in the State House

Majority is within reach
We are only eight seats away from taking the majority back. And with the stomping that Rendell and Casey are going to deliver to Swann and Santorum at the top of the ticket in Southeast PA, that is definitely doable.

Congress in the balance
Taking back the state House now would put us in solid position to hold onto it and avoid another Republican gerrymander of PA's congressional seats after the 2010 census.

In response to Hannah Miller's post of Aug. 10 ("Bob Casey is a friggin' feminist"), I wanted to give everyone a look at this excellent chart from Liberty PA that compares Casey and Santorum on key issues.

A sample:

Casey SUPPORTS emergency contraception
Santorum BELIEVES states should have the right to ban birth control

Casey SUPPORTS greater access to family planning
Santorum voted AGAINST $100 million to reduce teen pregnancy

You get the idea. Casey's not perfect, but he's a major, major improvement over Santorum, he gets us one seat closer to a Democratic U.S. Senate -- and he can win.

(Before posting, I checked the site going back to Aug. 2, the date of this article, and I didn't see it.)

Bob Guzzardi wants Philadelphia's John Perzel out as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House. He's planning on spending at least $100,000 of his own money to help to achieve that goal this fall.

Guzzardi said he is targeting six races in southeast Pennsylvania this fall that he hopes can help tip the balance of power away from the current leadership. In four of the races he is supporting Democratic challengers over Republican incumbents. In every case he is supporting new faces over old incumbents.

Guzzardi likes Democrat Brendan Boyle over Republican incumbent George Kenney in Philadelphia's 170th District. He's behind Democrat Bryan Lentz as Lentz goes up against Republican incumbent Tom Gannon in Delaware County's 161st District. Democrat Rick Taylor is his candidate in a race against Republican incumbent Gene McGill in the 151st District of Montgomery County. Guzzardi is also supporting Democrat Chris King against Republican Matt Wright in a race in Langhorne's 142nd District.

First, a question (I'm in Harrisburg): Are Santorum's TV ads running on network affiliates in Philly, or only in the 5 other (less expensive) TV markets in PA?

Some are questioning whether Santorum was actually in the room with the senior citizens in his new Social Security ad -- there's speculation he shot his part (out of state perhaps?) in front of a green screen. For example, check out this column from the Scranton paper.

The Casey campaign hasn't taken a position on whether the ad is fake, but they say "we do know that Santorum's rhetoric on Social Security is fake. ... Watch this video to see Santorum's rhetoric on Social Security then and now."

Wow. He must be really desperate for drug-company cash, given that lifting the reimportation ban on drugs from Canada is wildly popular with the people he's supposed to represent. (Polls in the 60s, 70s, or higher, I believe. Republican free trade? Not for us "little people.")

The Senate voted 68-32 today to lift the ban. (Specter voted Yes.) The AP says it will probably come out of the bill in conference with the House, but without this step, the end-the-ban provision wouldn't even have a chance. The full roll call is here.

There's more good news from Harrisburg:

Pennsylvania will not be jumping on the bandwagon of 20 states that have put gay marriage bans in their constitutions anytime soon.

... The failure to address this issue before the summer break delays it for at least three years since the process of changing the constitution is a lengthy one. It requires the House and Senate to pass an identical bill 90 days before the general election in two separate legislative sessions before it can be placed on the ballot for voters to ratify.

... (Opponents) said the House-passed version of the amendment could have had far-reaching effects that could have negatively impacted the lives of thousands of unmarried heterosexual couples who live together as well as gay and lesbian couples.

You have probably heard that a new Quinnipiac poll in PA says "by a 55 - 35 percent margin, voters support raising the state sales tax if it means reducing local property taxes."

WELL, the poll didn't ask some key questions:

A. Would you be more or less likely to vote to re-elect your legislator if he or she voted to raise the sales tax?

(This is why a sales tax hike didn't pass -- the reps with real races this fall aren't suicidal. Their opponents' mailings this fall wouldn't have mentioned the sales tax hike's connection to cutting property taxes. And it was extremely unlikely the Senate was going to go along if the House *did* pass a sales tax hike, leaving House members hang out to dry without even getting what they wanted policy-wise.)

It's only fair to mention that the Senate Judiciary Committee did strip out the worst part of the proposed constitutional amendment (H.B. 2381) today (the part banning civil unions and interfering with a wide range of legal protections). BUT no one knows what will happen in the full Senate.

Keep in mind that the House version would affect unmarried straight people too. Here's one example: It could result in Terri Schiavo cases right here in PA -- you saw how bad the Schiavo case got, and Michael Schiavo was clearly married to Terri. Imagine the mess when a partner has a power of attorney, but there's a "no legal union" or "no legal status" amendment to muck things up...

More below...