Search Results for: ’

A few weeks back, the state legislature heard some testimony regarding the new DUI provisions enacted into law with the passage of I-502. These provisions were the most controversial aspect of the initiative among traditional drug law reformers, but throughout the entire campaign, there were very few actual numbers around to convey what the actual risk was.

For instance, how easy is it to be at the 5ng/ml limit? How long do people usually stay there? Is it an accurate measure of impairment? There have been a few studies on this, but far from any kind of consensus.

Also, how many people get marijuana DUI’s already? How many more are likely to get them now that prosecutions could be easier to obtain under I-502?

From the Seattle Times, here was what we learned about the latter set of questions from the testimony:

There has been no jump in “green DUIs,” said the Washington State Patrol’s toxicologist, Dr. Fiona Couper, at the hearing in Olympia Wednesday of the House Public Safety Committee. Seattle DUI attorney Patricia Fulton reported “absolutely no effect” in her defense practice.

This runs contrary to what other DUI attorneys have been saying.

A Seattle attorney whose practice consists solely of medical marijuana cases said more people are coming to him for help fighting charges of driving under the influence of marijuana, even before the new limit took effect.

“I’m seeing one to two a month and have been for a year,” attorney Aaron Pelley said. “Prior to that, I didn’t see really any.”

Pelley believes state patrol officers had been ramping up their enforcement of “green DUIs” in anticipation of the passage of I-502, the law making possession of up to an ounce of marijuana legal. And, now that it’s on the books, he suspects there’s been a “huge spike of number of people being tested.”

What’s the truth here? My guess is that Pelley, who’s been outspoken publicly about the DUI provisions, is generating more business for himself as a result, not that there are more people getting nailed.

So there isn’t much evidence the worst case scenarios are taking root, there’s still a concern with the basic effects of the new law:

Blood testing is not new and not done casually. It’s done at a medical center, and takes money and time. Couper said 1,000 to 1,100 drivers were tested last year statewide, with the median result slightly below 5 nanograms. About one-third also tested positive for alcohol.

If those numbers stay constant in 2013, it would mean that about 500 people tested for marijuana will have a much harder time defending themselves in court against a DUI charge than before I-502 became law. It’s possible that many of these are egregious cases where the DUI is deserved. But it’s also possible that many of them involve innocent medical marijuana patients being harassed. At this point, without more specific numbers, it’s not clear how much of each case we’re dealing with. And assurances from the police that they’ll only go after impaired folks requires a lot of skepticism given the history of DUI enforcement. What’s promising is that this issue has been generating a lot of media attention and that we’ll hopefully be able to highlight any cases where people get trapped in a truly unfair prosecution.

——————————————————

Going back to the first set of questions above, how much is 5ng/ml, and what level of impairment does that really imply? Kiro7 recently aired an investigative report where they took 3 volunteers, had them smoke a popular and potent strain of marijuana, and let them drive around on a closed course. The video is here:

There are a couple of takeaways from this, but the main one is that even at 4, 5, and 7 times the new 5ng/ml legal limit, these volunteers drove fine. This was after consuming .3g. Of course, once they started smoking more than what people normally smoke in a sitting, their abilities tailed off.

Another key point is that even after these volunteers smoked themselves silly on nearly a gram of high quality marijuana and were driving like complete idiots, they all knew full well they were too stoned to drive (even the medical marijuana patient who was a heavy user). This is one of the main differences between alcohol and pot. People who drink too much alcohol become uninhibited along with their impairment, while marijuana users often become timid and cautious (although it was interesting to see that the medical marijuana user was a bit of an exception once they let her get behind the wheel). This is why alcohol-related reckless driving deaths are a frequent occurrence while it’s difficult to find too many instances of them with stoned drivers, even though impairment can occur from the over-consumption of each drug. People who are too stoned to drive often become reluctant to do it, and even if they do, they tend to drive really slow. People who are too drunk to drive often disregard the risks and drive very aggressively.

I’ve written in the past (sadly, the old Reload site is retired) about my own history with marijuana and driving, but didn’t discuss it much during the DUI debates of the I-502 campaign. My main reluctance has always been that it’s a difficult subject that generates mostly gut-level responses that don’t get us anywhere. This exercise provides enough data and visual evidence to at least begin discussing it rationally.

To recap, in my mid-20s for about 2 years, I smoked a small amount of pot at the beginning of nearly every drive I took (except for morning commutes, of course). There were two reasons for this. One, I was doing the hellish 520 commute from Seattle to my job at Microsoft and basically inched home at 2mph every day. And two, I’m a naturally fast driver and I found that pot would make me calmer and more relaxed as I drove. By that point, I’d already gotten somewhere around 7 or 8 speeding tickets in my life and was sick and tired of getting pulled over. Taking a hit off of a one-hitter made it far easier for me to obey the speed limits. In those two years, I was never pulled over for speeding – or for anything else – while stoned.

A one-hitter is a small smoking pipe, often made to look like a cigarette. Compared to what the volunteers in the Kiro7 experiment initially consumed, it probably only held about 1/3 of that, maybe .1g. I’d been wondering if the small amounts I was consuming in those days would even put me over the 5ng/ml limit. Looking at the data shown in the video, it probably was, but maybe not by a lot and probably for not very long.

From a safety standpoint, how safe this was is a matter of perspective and an interesting paradox. I always recognized two drawbacks to this. One, my navigational skills declined somewhat, so in the rare case where I was going somewhere new and was concerned I might get lost, I wouldn’t smoke. Two, my ability to react quickly and intelligently in the face of an emergency was also lessened. Thankfully, this never happened.

But to the outside observer, I was clearly a safer driver when I was stoned. Instead of being the guy weaving through traffic at 80 on I-5, I became the guy driving 55-60 in the right lane listening to some Percy Hill with a big fucking smile on my face. In my normal sober driving mode, I know I can drive safely at those high speeds, but to other drivers, I probably scare the shit out of some of them. And I draw the attention of the police, who like to give me very expensive speeding tickets.

After two years of this, I finally said “fuck it”, sold my car, and started taking public transportation for a little over 7 years. In 2010, after moving out to the suburbs, I once again have a car, but no longer smoke pot, so I have a radar detector in my Prius as I once again weave through rush hour traffic on I-5.

——————————————————

The rationale behind the inclusion of DUI language in I-502 was always clear, even if the result in Colorado showed that it probably wasn’t necessary to win at the ballot box. But the political implications of having drug law reformers concede too much on this point continue to worry me. Other states are considering and even implementing proposals far worse than what we ended up with here. And when there’s an unchallenged notion that stoned driving and drunk driving are the same, it’s difficult to avoid any of these outcomes.

The point of my story wasn’t to argue that stoned driving is good or bad, but to recognize that the issue is a lot more complicated than many people initially assume. From a regulatory standpoint, doing things that have worked or been accepted for drunk driving may not be the correct approach at all for stoned driving.

I’m not thrilled with Publicola’s “Isn’t It Weird That…” segment as a segment. I’d prefer they do straight reporting rather than shoehorn some (often supposed) hypocrisy into a post that doesn’t need it. But the actual reporting in this piece is worthwhile.

No statewide tax measure can pass without Seattle’s support, yet the proposal state house transportation director Judy Clibborn announced yesterday included zero dollars for the new 520 bridge (whose west side remains unfunded) and zero dollars for the new Alaskan Way tunnel (whose estimated revenue from tolls has been slashed from $400 million to just $165 million)?

It’s disgraceful that we’re having this conversation while even the barest discussion of raising revenue for education or social services is verboten, but it is the conversation we’re having. And I want to support this, I do. A car tab would probably be the most progressive piece of taxation in the state, the backlog is real, and the need to invest in our infrastructure is real.

But the need is real in Seattle too. At a certain point, Seattle isn’t going to be a piggy bank for the rest of the state unless they throw us a bone every once in a while.

Via The Spokesman–Review:

Spokane City Councilman Mike Fagan, in a fundraising letter for his anti-tax efforts, called Washington Gov. Jay Inslee “a lying whore.”

Fagan, and his co-lying whores, accused Gov. Jay Inslee (D) of lying about vetoing “any tax increase”:

“Candidate Inslee repeatedly promised to veto any tax increase. He said no way to higher transportation taxes in 2013….What a lying whore he turned out to be. In recent weeks, he’s made it clear he’ll sign any tax increase the Legislature unilaterally imposes.”

Holy shit…there are a couple of lies in this brief excerpt alone!

Prior to accusing someone of lying about some action (like not vetoing a tax increase) one really ought to wait until they take the action that contradicts their words. Inslee has not signed any tax increases into law. It is possible that Fagan is a victim of childhood lead consumption and, therefore, doesn’t have the IQ to really understand this distinction (if so, I’d blame his father). However given that two other people signed the letter—his father, Jack Fagan, and admitted liar and initiative whore, Tim “Biggest Lie of My Life” Eyman, it seems more likely at least one of them was aware that Inslee has taken no such contrary action.

Fucking liars!

Secondly, Inslee did not promise to veto “any tax increase.” This is so easily debunked, that even The Seattle Times gets a piece of the action of making liars out of the Fagans and Eyman:

While running against GOP gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna last year, Inslee said, “I would veto anything that heads the wrong direction and the wrong direction is new taxes in the state of Washington.”

However, Inslee never ruled out increasing taxes for transportation and did say he supports sending a tax measure to the ballot to raise money for transportation.

He also has opposed new taxes, although he’s been open to extending existing taxes.

Man…what a bunch of Fucking Liars!

And given that Fagan was lying in order to raise money…that pretty much makes him and is co-liars LYING WHORES.

Fagan and his co-lying whores have even embarrassed the state Republican party:

“There is no question that’s beyond the pale and is uncalled for. No matter what the issue is, it’s uncalled for, and I would condemn such a thing,” GOP Chairman Kirby Wilbur said.

Eyman promises no apologies:

“Kirby Wilbur, thanks for the advice, but no he (Inslee) doesn’t deserve an apology,” Eyman said.

Queue the tearful, “Second biggest lie of my life” apology from the lying whore in three, two….

A bill to let people apply to clear their records of a nonviolent, misdemeanor marijuana offenses has passed the House Public Safety Committee.

As expected, Washington State’s House Committee on Public Safety voted this morning to approve House Bill 1661, moving it towards a full House vote. The bill would allow those convicted of a cannabis possession misdemeanor – up to 40 grams for those 18 and older – to have it removed from their record. The committee voted 6-5 in favor of the bill.

The primary sponsor of the measure, Rep. Fitzgibbon, says the chances are “really good” that it will pass the House. Newly elected Governor Jay Inslee hasn’t stated his position on the bill, but it would be unlikely for him to veto such legislation. Its fate in the Republican-controlled Senate is less than certain, but its passage isn’t an impossibility, especially considering that the measure has several Republican sponsors.

Sounds like a good idea in the wake of our passing I-502. It was illegal then, but it was also unjust. Since the people of Washington recognized that, it’s time to fix the problem for people who got caught up in the system before it got fixed.

So if you’d like to contact your legislators, you can find them here. If you want to ask the members of the Senate Law and Justice Committee to pass this, you can find them here. Something tells me that Pam Roach* will be tough to get but you can at least try with her and the rest of the GOP members.

If Inslee isn’t sure you can contact his office here. Or, I guess you could just ask him to pardon those people. It’s probably better for the bill to pass because it sets up a system, but if it doesn’t pass, that would be better than nothing.

[Read more…]

I’ve already had my piece on Pam Roach’s state workers can’t lie bill. I haven’t been following it, and I have no idea if it’s going anywhere. But the Daily O gives her the quote of the day when discussing it.

“It’s good enough for God. He gave us a commandment that said, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.'”

-Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, arguing for her bill that calls for discipline against state employees deemed to have lied.

I, for one, can’t wait for the no coveting by state employees law next. And for that matter why only apply it to state employees if you think you’re doing God’s work? Why not have a Deuteronomy 23:19 law and outlaw interest?

“You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest.

I mean that might be kind of tough for Pam Roach who just today voted (with I think all the R’s and several D’s, but that’s just a quick tally in my head since the website doesn’t break it down by party) to make it easier for payday lenders. As Senator Nelson explains in a press release:

In 2009, we passed payday lending reform. It put safeguards on a predatory lending product, allowing borrowers to make reasonable payments and not end up buried in high-interest loans.

But the payday industry is back, marketing this new consumer installment loan as having a ‘36 percent interest rate.’ In reality these loans include massive fees and penalties that take the rate as high as 220 percent. As a former banker, I’m confident that if a money lender can’t make a profit at 45 percent interest, as allowed in existing law, they have a failed business model.

As a legislator, I am shocked that a majority of my colleagues in the Senate voted to sidestep effective protections for Washington families and instead put high-interest lenders back in charge of people’s lives.

You know, like God intended.

Look, I don’t think the Bible, or any other holy text, is a particularly good guide for legislating. We’re a secular democracy. To say nothing of what version to use, or what interpretation? But if Pam Roach thinks her lashing out at state workers is God’s work instead of the business of a diverse group of people who swore an oath to two inherently secular documents (the US and state constitutions) then we can judge her by her own standards on the rest of her actions in the legislature.

I don’t know why I didn’t get this fundraising appeal from the state party.

On the eve of Washington State Democrats’ annual crab feed in Olympia, the Dems have set out to feed State Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, to the wolves.

Tom is Senate majority leader, head of a coalition of 23 Republicans and two dissident Democrats (including himself) that has taken tenuous control of the Legislature’s upper chamber and started to move a conservative agenda of GOP-backed bills.

“We’ve shown State Senator Rodney Tom the door. Now, it’s time to send him packing,” Democratic State Chairman Dwight Pelz said in a fundraising letter sent out Friday. It asks Democrats across the state to give $5 (or more) to a “Rodney Tom Retirement Project.”

Feed to the wolves is a pretty harsh of a way to describe fundraising to help recruit someone who will caucus with the Democrats. I mean compared to the people who will probably be kicked off social services in Tom’s budget, having to retire to his Medina home with more chances to make money doesn’t seem too bad.

But more to the point, it sounds like a good use of money for the Dems. If you’d like to contribute to the Rodney Tom Retirement Project, you can. It’s a Democratic seat, it ought to be held by a Democrat.

Oh hey! Remember last week when I was called an elitist in the comments of a post where I said that Seattle isn’t the overspending hellhole that many in the state legislature imagine, because I turned the arguments against Seattle on one of those legislators? It turns out what elitist means now is that Seattle has a paid sick leave and safe leave law. Because that’s the I-Hate-Seattle group’s latest target in the legislature.

Senate Bill 5728 would take Seattle’s law off the books by declaring that the Legislature has the sole responsibility for sick-leave requirements. Senate Bill 5726 would scale back Seattle’s law by prohibiting cities from requiring sick leave for employers based outside the city.

Both bills were introduced Tuesday by Centralia Republican John Braun and are supported by Senate Majority [sic] Leader [sic] Rodney Tom, D [sic]-Medina.

No Seattle senators have signed on.

FYI, the Seattle law applies to people who work in Seattle. So if a Bellevue (or out of state???) company has a Seattle branch, they won’t count under the first bill. Both bills are clearly just to punish Seattle for being decent to people who work here. When this — or the parking rate hikes or the head tax or, or, or — pass, local governments in the rest of the state say how they’re going to poach jobs. Now Senators from the rest of the state are putting the lie to that.

But buried in the hatred of Seattle there is a good idea. I’m all for the state getting into the sick leave and safe leave business. If there was a companion bill to make the Seattle requirements statewide, then that would be awesome! But now they’re saying people working in Medina or Centralia who have to work sick or after an case of domestic violence won’t even be able to petition their local governments.

To be clear, while the Seattle Times piece doesn’t mention it, the bill also preempts Seattle’s paid safe leave. According to Seattle’s FAQ on the law (bold in the text):

An employee can use safe leave for the following reasons:

• An employee’s place of business has been closed by order of a public official to limit exposure to an infectious agent, biological toxin or hazardous material.
• An employee needs to care for a child whose school or place of care has been closed by order of a public health official to limit exposure to an infectious agent, biological toxin or hazardous material.
• For reasons related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking that affect the employee or the employee’s family member.

Rodney Tom, John Braun, and the rest of the GOP Senate should be demanding those employee protections for the whole state. Instead they’re trying to take it away from people who have been sexual assaulted or stalked who work in Seattle. I get that they hate Seattle, but this is too far.

You can find Tom and Braun at the link (if you want to contact them, the form is kind of a hassle, and you have to make up an address if they don’t represent you so FYI, it’s firstname.lastname@leg.wa.gov). And you can find your legislator here.

– Happy Valentines Day. The only saint’s day where you don’t say “saint” in front of their name, I think. I blame the massacre for that.

– Can we enact mild signature gathering reforms now that there’s evidence of signature gathering fraud?

– Rubio has fallen victim to one of the classic economic blunders. It’s called Say’s Law, and it’s not, in fact, a law. It’s more like a guideline. The idea is that supply creates its own demand, which is true enough during booms, but not so during busts.

– Seattle’s failure to embrace transit-oriented development, even when bribed to do so by a corporate entity to whom they pretty much never say “no,” continues to be maddeningly counterproductive.

– Currently, Washington sends approximately $15 billion each year to out of state oil and gas companies. With a booming clean energy economy, those dollars could be invested with Washington companies to create Washington jobs. States and regions with climate policies in place have seen strong growth in their clean energy economies, including California and New England.

– Loved reading about these Negro Leagues players, especially Hilton Smith.

I’m glad for the policies that Obama embraces when he uses the phrase Wives, Mothers, & Daughters. The Violence Against Women Act and Paycheck Fairness are crucial steps forward.

But we can’t stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, our mothers, our daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. And I now urge the House to do the same. (Applause.) Good job, Joe. And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year. (Applause.)

Yay for those policies! Still, when we watched that part of the State of the Union at Drinking Liberally, I asked Darryl if Obama realized that women were watching the speech too. That phrasing makes it sounds like the women who’ll benefit from the VAWA and the Paycheck Fairness Act aren’t listening.

I’m sure it polls and focus groups well, but it’s not as inclusive as it ought to be. So I’m glad to see that Melissa McEwan has started a petition to ask the president not to use that particular phrase.

Defining women by their relationships to other people is reductive, misogynist, and alienating to women who do not define ourselves exclusively by our relationships to others. Further, by referring to “our” wives et al, the President appears to be talking to The Men of America about Their Women, rather than talking to men AND women.

Please embrace inclusive language, Mr. President.

– Everybody with a special election ballot, get it postmarked or dropped off by today.

– Cheney is a jobless former vice president who’s been wrong about everything, and who has criticized Obama since before he became president. That he’s still hailed as a newsmaker tells us only bad things about the news industry.

– Is Tim Sheldon’s wife really upset that the Democrats aren’t going to fundraise for him anymore? I don’t know what’s awesomer that she wants to defend her being a Democrat in the same paragraph as she quotes Sarah Palin, or the obnoxious sexism.

– We have a new King County Council member.

– More Biblical families.

– I feel like it says something about our conversation at the moment that lower costs of health care aren’t in and of themselves as important a story (and headline writer in particular) as the deficit.

– Yum

It’s strangely sectional, but I love it when the national media notice Washington people in Congress (for good things; it’s the worst when it’s for something awful). So I’m glad to see The Raw Story notice how ably Maria Cantwell handled the stupid arguments against the tribal portions of Violence Against Women Act (h/t).

Cantwell noted that Native American women experience domestic violence and sexual assault at a rate far above the national average.

“However, less than 50 percent of the domestic violence cases in Indian country are prosecuted because of a gap in our legal system,” she explained on the Senate floor. “This isn’t about politics. This isn’t about a debate on what is a good way to win votes somewhere in America. This is about the life or death of women who need a better system to help prosecute those who are committing serious crimes against them.”

[…]

Cantwell denied the tribal provisions would violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. She noted the U.S. Department of Justice would partner with tribal courts and non-tribal Americans would have the ability to appeal their case to a federal court. The legislation also specifically prohibits tribal courts from violating Americans’ rights.

The suggestion that Gov. Gregoire could be Obama’s next Secretary of the Interior has turned out to be wrong. Instead, another woman will get the job:

Sally Jewell, a retail executive and outdoor enthusiast, is President Barack Obama’s pick to oversee the national parks and vast energy reserves on public lands as Interior secretary, an administration official said on Wednesday. […]

Her private sector experience, most recently as chief executive of outdoor retailer REI, drew praise from conservationists and some industry groups…

And the Republican reaction to the nomination?

…Jewell’s nomination drew skepticism from some Republicans in Congress.

“I look forward to hearing about the qualifications Ms. Jewell has that make her a suitable candidate to run such an important agency, and how she plans to restore balance to the Interior Department,” said U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Jewell has been a leader in land conservation in the Pacific Northwest, but she worked in the energy and finance sectors early in her career.

(By, “restor[ing] balance.” Murkowski means “increased drilling while opposing laws to cap greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.”)

Gregoire is not out of the running for two other cabinet positions, as was recently pointed out:

Gregoire, who has made energy issues a cornerstone of her gubernatorial tenure, is likely headed for one of three Cabinet-level jobs that are vacant now or will soon become vacant: Energy secretary, Interior secretary, or head of the Environmental Protection Agency. As a former head of Washington state’s Department of Ecology, Gregoire is steeped in experience in energy and environmental issues. Her enthusiastic support for renewable energy has won plaudits from environmentalists, but she’s also known for her ability to speak effectively about the realities of the fossil-fuel economy.

Either remaining position, EPA or energy secretary, seems like a good fit to Gregorie’s experience, strengths, and interests.

My money’s on energy secretary. Gregoire has a long history of doing battle with the Department of Energy over the Hanford clean-up. More recently, the battles have turned into happy agreement, adoring joint statements, and public praise.

That’s the tell.

– I’m glad the teachers refusing to administer the MAP test is getting national attention.

– This stereotyping is why I’m not comfortable with American elites like Packer and Wills talking about the South. Even if, like Wills, they have southern roots, they ignore the basic fact that racism and right-wing politics are national problems.

– There is nobody more surprised than me that my first reaction to hearing that sequestration might lead to the cancellation of the Blue Angles was “oh, sad.”

– While Hadiya Pendleton went to a good school and was shot in an upper middle class neighborhood not far from the president’s Chicago home, her assailants are reportedly gang members, and the plague of gang violence — which springs from generations of chronic, festering and unanswered urban poverty and violence – has been ignored for too long because it rarely touches the people deemed to matter in our country.

– If there’s a toll, Mercer Island will be the next Alcatraz. You know, you have to pay a modest toll to leave.

We’ve seen a run on vote rigging attempts in Republican controlled blue states. Republicans in Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have flirted with, and have had rejected, plans to change their electoral vote allocation from a winner-take-all system to a congressional district allocation system. Republicans in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin are expected to join the fun. (And probably be rejected.)

It makes sense for Republicans to selectively change the state laws in their favor, especially given their excellent job of gerrymandering congressional districts following the 2010 census. Yeah…the voters get fucked, but that never stopped a Republican from power-grabbing.

Changing a handfull of blue states to congressional district allocation, while maintaining the winner-take-all system in red states, would have given Mitt Romney the presidency. Even as the popular vote went to Obama.

With Sen. Rodney Tom’s Republican Senate majority, Washington state has taken it’s first step to becoming a blue state controlled by Republicans. Surprise, surprise…House Republicans are trying to join other Republican-controlled blue states in their Presidential election-rigging effort:

The proposal, House Bill 1091, would divvy up Washington’s electoral votes by results in each of the state’s 10 congressional districts, with the remaining two votes going to the statewide winner.

In 2012, that would have given Obama nine electoral votes from Washington while Romney would have taken three.

Supporters say that would be a fairer result for more conservative parts of the state that are constantly outvoted in statewide elections by the Seattle area.

In one sense, these whining Republicans are correct. Under some conditions, allocating electors by congressional district (with the two additional electors going to the state popular vote winner) is a fairer system than the winner-take-all system. Those conditions are:

• Every state does this, rather than just selected blue states.
• Congressional districts are not gerrymandered. That is, all states have in place a rigorous, non-partisan redistricting process.

Under those conditions, a universal congressional district allocation system is fairer because all but 100 of the 538 electoral votes are allocated by smaller, and thus more representative, voting blocks. That wold be fairer than the current system that has some bizarre artifacts:

The [current] system has the effect of making your vote count a lot more in “swing states” — states where the majority could conceivably vote for either candidate — than in other, more politically predictable states. It is a virtual certainty, for instance, that Georgia will vote for Mitt Romney, so an individual Georgian’s vote for Barack Obama doesn’t mean a lot — Georgia’s 16 electoral votes are going to be cast for Romney. Conversely, an individual voter’s choice for Romney in ultra-blue New York won’t stop that state’s 29 electoral votes from going to Obama.

This raises the questions, what do we mean by a “fairer” system? Here are some ideas:

• A fairer system would give each person’s vote an identical weight in determining the election’s outcome.
• Consequently, a fairer system would elect the winner of the national popular vote.

Democrats remember how unfair it felt when George Bush lost the popular vote, yet became President. And Republicans would have collectively “gone postal” if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote but lost the presidential election.

What I am getting at is that the fairest system of all is to elect the President by popular vote. The system we have now, fails 8.7% of the time (four out of 46 elections where the national popular vote was known) by putting in office the loser of the popular vote.

We used to believe that the only way to change the system to elect the President by popular vote was to amend the Constitution. Now we know better. The National Popular Vote compact system achieves the same thing by letting states exercise their constitutional right to allocate electors as they wish:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

This works when a coalition of states is formed that controls 270 or more electoral votes. Then, by each member state’s law, the slate of presidential electors for the state is elected according to the result of the national popular vote. If the coalition does not control 270 votes, the states revert back to their old system (winner-take-all for most states).

There doesn’t seem to be a downside–unless you believe it’s okay for a candidate to lose the national popular vote and still be elected President. Since the compact makes no changes to the electoral college itself, no Constitutional amendment is necessary.

Back to the Washington state Republicans trying to rig the vote. The new bill, HB 1091, actually does two different things. It changes the way we allocate electors now. It also cancels Washington state’s participation in the interstate compact.

Of course! Why would we expect consistency from Republicans? They were never interested in making the presidential election as fair as possible. They’re only interested in advantaging Republicans.

So sad…Washington state Republicans have still have not shown any ability at true leadership. Fuck ’em. And fuck Rodney Tom for joining ’em.

– I’m not thrilled with Hagel, but oh my God, how disingenuous is his GOP opposition?

– Sure, or there’s a more general correlation between seniority and wanting to preserve Senate traditions. And when the next group becomes the senior Democrats they might also be opposed to filibuster reform.

– The worker comp system is designed to help injured workers get back on the job. But the Republicans’ changes only make it harder for middle class workers to regain their health and get back to work.

– The Clinton-Obama interview on 60 Minutes was nice.

– King Tom

– As a last resort, Janet asked me to go with her to get an illegal abortion in Cicero, a suburb of Chicago, known mostly as the birthplace of Al Capone. She’d heard about “the doctor” from her uncle, a lawyer who practiced in Chicago and was the family’s black sheep. Although I wasn’t keen on going, I felt someone needed to accompany her.

– What comes within 1/2 a mile of the coal trains in Seattle (pdf).