Connecticut
Random Observations About the CT U.S. Senate Debate #ctsen #snark
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 08:32Last night, I attended the Monday Night Rumble organized by the Mertens for U.S. Senate campaign. Many of my friends from Social Web Week and other social media activities in Connecticut were there and some helped organize the event. I’ve been offering suggestions to them about using social media to promote civic engagement and it seemed like the Monday Night Rumble would be a good way to watch the debate.
At various points during the debate, they would mute the television projected on a large screen in the back of the upper room of Anna Liffey’s in New Haven. Mertens would provide his answers to the questions that McMahon and Blumenthal had been asked. As a general rule, they seemed much more intelligent than the responses coming across the television.
There was also a screen up in the corner of the room showing a twitter feed of the #ctsen hashtag. Unfortunately, the font was too small on the screen for me to easily see from where I was sitting. Instead, I checked tweets on my cellphone.
The best tweet of the evening went to Helen Ubinas:
Um. What with Linda McMahon's heavy breathing before every question? Half expect her to say, "Dick. I am your mother." #ctsen#debate
Paul Bass’ live blogging the debate also particularly stands out.
State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield also provided some great tweeting of the debate. His tweets included:
That death penalty question hit me in the gut #ctdem
Gary has been a leading voice for doing away with the death penalty. Sitting in Anna Liffey’s, a block away from where Steven Hayes is being tried, John Mertens differed from both Blumenthal and McMahon on the death penalty. They both support it, Mertens gave a good explanation of why he does not support it.
At the end, Gary said,
Ah screw it...neither candidate decisively beat the other so stop saying one or the other put the smackdown #ctsen
Just about every debate ends with the most fervent supporters of each candidate saying their candidate won the debate. I tend to agree with Gary. Neither candidate on the stage in Hartford decisively beat the other, but the debate did include more than just two sides. McMahon also talked about issues as being two sided. I tweeted:
McMahon wants bipartisan discussion about #hcr. I guess she doesn't want unaffiliated voters in the discussion or supporting her. #ctsen
Several friends in different minor parties retweeted this.
Warren Mosler, the other too often overlooked U.S. Senate candidate who will be on the ballot in Connecticut this November also attended the Monday Night rumble. After the debate, he was given a chance to respond to both John and to the major party candidates. There was a serious discussion about the issues, in which various members of the audience also participated.
The Mertens campaign plans to have continued debate parties like this as long as all the candidates are not allowed to participate. All in all, the Monday Rumble demonstrated that people who believe Attorney General Blumenthal has a serious opponent in this race are wrong. Actually, he has two serious opponents, John Mertens and Warren Mosler.
Back home, I stumbled across the article in the Hartford Courant announcing that Jeff Levine’s position as Senior Vice President of Content at The Hartford Courant and Fox CT has been eliminated.
One can only surmise that CT1 Media is now being a little more upfront about doing away with any valuable content. It fits with the way they ran the debate. Perhaps this is in preparation for the paper and television station to be sold to WWE.
My recommendation to Mr. Levine? Start taking steroids and perhaps you can become an independent contractor to that small business in Stamford that is creating ‘jobs’.
QuePublishing Joins PodcampCT Sponsors
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 10/05/2010 - 06:03QuePublishing, “providing practical advice on computers and technology” has become a sponsor of PodcampCT. They are contributing several books that will be given away to lucky PodcampCT attendees.
This list includes:
- Social Media Marketing: Strategies for Engaging in Facebook, Twitter & Other Social Media
- Facebook Marketing: Designing Your Next Marketing Campaign, 2nd Edition
- Facebook for Grown-Ups
- Sams Teach Yourself Tumblr
- Sams Teach Yourself Twitter
- USING WordPress
- Blogging to Drive Business
- 2011 Social Media Directory: The Ultimate Guide to Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Resources
- USING LinkedIn
- All A Twitter
- It's Your World, So Change It: Using the Power of the Internet to Create Social Change
As I spoke with a representative of Que Publishing, I suggested asking PodcampCT attendees if they have read any of these books, or other Que Publishing books that would be of interest to other PodcampCT attendees and they are very interested in the feedback.
Have you read any of these books? Any other Que Publishing books about social media? Which ones did you like best? Why? Were there any that you didn’t like? What was wrong with them?
One of the things that I really like about Podcamps are that they are discussions, were everyone’s opinion is valued, and not simply presentations. Already, I am getting into some great discussions about Podcamp. Hopefully, we can get into some good discussions here about books Podcampers would like, and most importantly, I hope everyone signs up for PodcampCT before it is too late.
#FF #PCCT
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:24@PodcampCT @maryanncruz @miss60s @bermamot @JimAkin @copperdome @Betsy_RSHC @doncrouch @CTchrisadams
This Follow Friday (#FF) post is for people attending PodcampCT (#PCCT or @PodcampCT). Already, there are over thirty interesting people that have signed up. However, I couldn't list all of them here, so I thought I would select out a few.
I don't believe I know any of the people on the list above. If I do, we may have met at a Tweetcrawl, know each other in other contexts or stuff like that. This is part of the reason I chose them for this week's #FF. One of the things that I like about Podcamps and other unconferences is getting to know new people.
It is also worth noting that there are a bunch of people showing up from Rhode Island and Massachusetts. I skipped these people for right now, focusing on the Connecticut Podcampers. Since I've been to two podcamps in Western Massachusetts, many of the Massachusetts podcampers were also people that I already know.
It is an interesting group of people that are coming; technologists, marketers, non profit activists, and beyond. There are also some big name media personalities attending, but they already have their names out there, so I skipped them for this list. This too, illustrates one of the things that I value so much about Podcamps; meeting a wide diversity of people and encountering many new ideas.
If you are in the greater Connecticut area, will you be coming to PodcampCT? It is time to signup. For folks beyond Connecticut, check out other upcoming Podcamps, including those in New Hampshire, Kansas and Arizona.
NCSL - Redistricting 101
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 09/28/2010 - 11:01If you want to understand what is really involved in redistricting, there is probably no better place to go than the National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) National Redistricting Seminars. They had a seminar on redistricting in the spring in Austin Texas and are just wrapping up a redistricting seminar in Providence, RI.
"The National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation's 50 states, its commonwealths and territories." Around 250 legislators, staffers, and other interested parties attended the seminar in Rhode Island. Many were folks who have vast experience in redistricting and others were new to the process.
The first session was "The Redistricting Lexicon and an Introduction to Redistricting Law" presented by Peter Wattson, Senate Counsel in Minnesota and a leading expert in redistricting. Mr. Wattson has given this presentation many times, and several attendees had heard it before. They remained attentive, listening for new information for the coming redistricting. Others, like myself, soaked up as much as we could.
He started off differentiating between reapportionment and redistricting. He explained the need for redistricting and provided important background information. While we do not yet know the results of the U.S. Census, which will determine how many Congressional seats each state gets, it is expected that states in the Northeast are likely to lose Congressional seats as states in the Southwest gain. This reflects changes in where people live and seeks to maintain the important one person, one vote rule.
Mr. Wattson spoke about the history of gerrymandering, or creating districts to the advantage of one party or another. He described methods involved, including packing a district so that as many members of a minority party are placed in a single district, as well as fracturing, where the lines are drawn to break up the power of the minority across districts.
He then spoke about methods of limiting gerrymandering, including limits on what data can be used, who can create the districts, and what the review process should be. He also spoke about the different criteria considered for congressional districts from state legislative districts.
It seemed as if a general consensus of many attendees was that everyone will gerrymander as much as they can get away with. Related to this was the belief that whatever plans are created are bound to end up in the courts.
Perhaps the most important take away for anyone involved in redistricting is to make sure that the criteria used for redistricting is clearly understood and explained ahead of time. These include making the populations of each district as equal as possible, making sure that the plans do not violate the Voting Rights Act, respecting existing political boundaries, respecting geographical boundaries, like rivers or mountains, minimizing the changes from one redistricting plan to the next, and making the districts as compact as possible. In all of that, you can be sure that unless you have a true independent and nonparitisan commission, there will be efforts to make sure that the political power of different groups is also maximized.
Everyone should spend time learning more about redistricting, whether it includes attending an NCSL seminar, reading up on the web, or speaking with state legislators about how redistricting will be done in their state. There is a lot more to redistricting, which I hope to include in coming articles.
Starting to Look at Redistricting
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 09/25/2010 - 08:53Next year, State Legislatures around the country will be dealing with redistricting. Many people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the political districts they are in, but for some insiders, this is a crucial issue. Political districts can be drawn to support the party or parties in power. Insider partisan operatives seek to gain the upper hand in state elections in preparation for redistricting battles.
It is an important issue that I admit I don't know as much about as I would like. I understand the desire of incumbent parties to try and use redistricting to hold onto or strengthen their incumbency. I understand the basic rules of population equality, contiguity, and compactness, but there is a lot more that is worth exploring.
One starting point is The Redistricting Game, the created at the USC Game Innovation Lab for the USC Annenberg Center for Communications. The game takes you through several different redistricting scenarios, starting with the fundamentals of redistricting, going through partisan gerrymandering, bipartisan gerrymandering, looking at the voting rights act and looking at potential reforms, such as the Tanner proposal. The game is fun to play, but you have to be careful about your browser blocking it as a popup.
What is especially nice about the game is that it provides valuable links to articles and resources about redistricting. Included in this are links to Common Cause's Redistricting page,(Note: My wife is a senior organizer for Common Cause in Connecticut), FairVote's Redistricting page, as well as a link to an algorithmic approach, Splitline districtings of all 50 states + DC + PR.
While I like the idea of a shortest splitline algorithm, I am concerned that it may not take into consideration historical or geographical considerations of why a district should be drawn one way or another.
The game simplifies the process by using a state with four congressional districts and not delving into the issues of 151 assembly districts, such as we have in Connecticut.
For people more interested in redistricting issues, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is holding a National Redistricting Seminar in Providence, Rhode Island starting Saturday afternoon. Saturday is day in which various redistricting software providers. This includes big players like ESRI, ARCBridge's DISTRICTSolv, Caliper's Maptitude, and Citygate. Citygate's website states that they have been awared the "State of Connecticut Redistricting Software, Support and Training Contract".
Also listed is The Public Mapping Project. This is an open source mapping system which I hope to install and write more about later.
Various people have written various efforts at algorithmic redisticting, such as the shortest spline algorithm mentioned above. "A Programmer and Citizen" from Boston has B-Districting, a website with a blog, as well as various redistricting solutions. Check their Connecticut Congressional Redistricting map. It has some interesting similarities to the Splitline CT Map.
So, I'm off to play more of the redistricting game, try to set up the Public Mapping Project on one of my servers and then try to catch some of the NCSL National Redistricting Seminar. I hope to have lots of interesting things to follow up with soon.
Are you following redistricting issues where you live? Do you have helpful links? Know about other interesting conferences? Tried any interesting software? Share your experiences.