Soros, France, US Cong & "Monopoly

[cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Soros, France, US Cong & "Monopoly Politics"

One and All, the following post may interest Soros watchers and US
campaign funding politics so we pass it on. Incidently, Soros is front
page French news (today's Liberation) over the Malaysian-Asean finance
affair. The Libe article is favorable to Soros, and cites Albright
defending him as "most respected and having done a lot for many
countries" (paraphrased)-- including Free Burma of course, subject for
Soros pressure to block Slorc entry into Asean.

Metta, Dawn Star
EuroBurmanet Paris

ps EuroBurmanet is staying on the net, and soon updating backlog


shill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> From: Steven Hill <shill@xxxxxxx>
> 
>                           For Immediate Release
>                     (please post around the Internet)
> 
>                                July 27, 1997
> 
>                      M O N O P O L Y   P O L I T I C S
> 
> NEW REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT CAMPAIGN SPENDING IS
> A MINOR FACTOR IN DECIDING MOST U.S. HOUSE ELECTIONS
> 
> REPORT  PREDICTS LOPSIDED "LANDLIDES" IN  238 RACES AND WINS IN 360
> 
> The Center for Voting and Democracy today released its new report on
> elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. "Monopoly Politics" predicts
> winners in 360 House races well over a year before the November 1998
> elections. The comprehensive report explains how -- and exactly why -- the
> great majority of U.S. House elections will be non-competitive in 1998, as
> they have been in previous elections.
> 
> "Monopoly Politics" lists near-certain winners in the 1998 U.S. House
> elections simply based on the presidential performance in the district and
> results in the past three House elections. The report includes a series of
> factsheets that demonstrate the consistency of voters in federal elections
> -- a consistency that is unshaken by vast disparities in campaign spending.
> 
> "All the talk of how campaign finance reform can provide a 'level playing
> field' overlooks one glaring fact," said the Center's executive director Rob
> Richie, "The voters are not equally balanced in most districts. Either
> because of redistricting -- and let's remember that in our country the
> legislators use sophisticated computer techniques  and polling to
> gerrymander their own favorable districts -- or  because of other factors,
> demography is destiny. American voters are much more rational than we often
> give them credit."
> 
> Richie added, "While our findings challenge some of the conventional wisdom
> about campaign finance reform, they also suggest that campaign reform is
> still important, because big donors are buying influence, even if they
> aren't buying elections. Which is worse? Asking for money to help win a
> competitive election, or asking for money for an election you have no chance
> to lose? But if we want competitive elections and if we want to give
> citizens a reason to get involved in politics, campaign finance reform is
> simply not enough. We have to reform our methods for structuring voters'
> choices -- first through better forms of redistricting, but as soon as
> possible through forms of proportional representation as used in most of the
> world's democracies."
> 
> "Monopoly Politics" contains an analysis of innovative redistricting methods
> used in Iowa and New Jersey. It lists the 75 out of  435 seats that are
> truly up for grabs, with well over half of total seats predicted to be won
> by "untouchable" incumbents -- incumbents who repeat their 1996 landslide
> victories in 1998. Using the same method, the Center last October listed 219
> "untouchable" incumbents: all were re- elected, 209 won landslides and only
> three won by less than 10%. This year's more exhaustive report likely will
> be even more accurate.  The report's factsheets also include analyses of:
> the entrenched nature of incumbents first elected before 1990; open seat
> races in 1996; U.S. Senate elections; and how representatives' voting
> behavior is impacted by the partisan nature of the district they represent.
> 
> The report also provides information on proportional representation voting
> systems. Proportional representation -- or "full representation," as the
> Center likes to call it -- describes systems of voting in which more voters
> are very likely to directly elect a representative of their choice. The term
> "proportional" comes from the principle that any group of voters -- as
> defined by their cohesive voting behavior -- should be able to elect
> representatives in proportion to their support in the electorate.
> 
> Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair last week became the latest to support
> proportional representation, asking his Labor Party to adopt a proportional
> system for 1999 elections to the European parliament. Of the world's 37
> major, full-fledged democracies -- democracies with at least three million
> people and a high human rights rating from Freedom House -- 31 use a form of
> proportional representation to elect their main legislature. Counting the
> United Kingdom, another three use "PR" for at least one nationally-elected
> legislative body. Only Canada, Jamaica and the United States exclusively use
> winner-take-all elections in single-member districts. Congresswoman Cynthia
> McKinney soon will introduce her Voters' Choice Act to restore states'
> opportunities to use proportional systems to elect the House of Representatives.
> 
> "Monopoly Politics" is available to the general public for $10 a copy.
> 
> The Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-partisan, non-profit
> organization that focuses on voter participation and fair representation. It
> has received funding this year from George Soros' Open Society Institute.
> For information on "Monopoly Politics," please contact the Center at (301)
> 270- 4616, email at <fairvote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, web site at
> http://www.igc.org/cvd.
> 
>                                         - 30 -