Washington Post endorses ranked choice voting

29
Apr/13
0

It’s great to see major media outlets support game-changing reforms like ranked choice voting (aka, “instant runoff voting”):

The next regular round of council and local elections is slated for next year. So it’s important to look beyond the personalities of the recent election to the processes that allowed a citywide representative to be elected by a tiny minority of voters. Unofficial returns from the D.C. Board of Elections show 49,869 people — less than 10 percent of the District’s registered 505,698 voters — participating in the special election. Moreover, the winner received just 16,054 votes, or less than a third of those cast. Clearly, it’s not much of a mandate when more than two-thirds of voters prefer someone else.

A better system would provide for an instant runoff, in which voters rank candidates in order of choice and it takes a majority, not a plurality, to win. If such a system had been in place Tuesday, the last-place candidate would have been eliminated and all ballots recounted, with the votes for the stricken candidate reassigned to the second choice of his voters. The process would have continued until a candidate reached a majority.

Click here for the original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/district-should-adopt-instant-runoff-elections/2013/04/24/71c581e2-ad19-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_story.html

 

Announcing PD43+: 30 years of Massachusetts election statistics

15
Apr/13
1

I have an exciting announcement.  Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and I have partnered to release PD43+: an elegant, searchable database of election, ballot question, and candidate data for the past 30 years of Massachusetts politics.  The information is based on several editions of Public Document 43, Massachusetts’ official report of voter registration, turnout, and elections.

Start exploring the data!  Visit PD43+ here: http://electionstats.state.ma.us

Media and blog mentions:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/new_websites_provide_access_to.html

http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2013/02/20/politics-in-the-blogosphere-2202013-edition/

Twitter mentions (live-updating):

https://twitter.com/search?q=electionstats%20ma&src=typd

Filed under: Adam's Projects

I work in IT: what recession?

7
Apr/13
1

Out of a job with time on your hands?  Learn IT.  From web design, web development and mobile app development; to system administration and networking: these jobs are fascinating, challenging, and will continue to be in top demand for decades to come.  A scarcity of skilled techs are driving employers to lure new recruits with plush perks and generous salaries.

Want to dive into the skills you need for web design and development?  Take free courses at Codecademy.

What are the economic advantages of learning IT?  Perhaps the following Boston Globe excerpts will convince you.

From “Boston-area tech sector is scrambling to fill jobs” (12/4/2012):

As he does most mornings, headhunter David Freier began a recent workday by hitting the phones. His target this day: finding a software ­engineer for a growing start-up in Cambridge.

By the afternoon, he had dialed about 150 numbers and had mostly gotten voice mailboxes, or people who just hung up on him. In the end, he had scrounged up just four qualified — and willing — candidates.

“We have to make approximately 300 percent more calls to fill one position than we did three years ago,” said Freier, who founded ICI Software Recruitment in the early days of the 1990s Internet boom. “This is the most . . . cold calling I’ve ever done.”

Headhunters such as Freier are madly scrambling to find enough talented engineers and developers for their clients — fledgling start-ups and established companies alike. The clients are so desperate to fill jobs they are piling on the pay and the perks for qualified candidates.

Those fresh out of college can start at $75,000, and seasoned developers are earning $140,000 annually. And salaries in the industry continue to soar, up by as much as 15 percent this year.

As for the perks, forget casual dress or Ping-Pong tables. Employers are offering­ free breakfast, gourmet lunch, health insurance for pets,iPads, and iPhones; at some start-ups, even the cold beer is on the house.

“It’s what you have to do to compete,” said Hemant Chowdhry of Alere Wellogic, a Waltham electronic health records company that is looking to hire 45 people — from Java engineers to mobile developers — in the next few months.

From “Where the jobs are now” (3/10/2013):

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

If you know your Java from your Flex, you just might be in the safest sector of all. “Some of the highest demand occupations right now for current job openings are in computer and information systems,” says Rena Kottcamp, director of economic research at the Massachusetts labor bureau’s Department of Unemployment Assistance. In fact, the nonprofit New England Economic Partnership projects that in 2013, Boston-based jobs in the professional, scientific, and technical services sector will pull ahead of the finance sector for the first time.

What it’s like to be a senior software developer

ZHENYA KOVALENKO

Thirtysomething / Somerville

Employer: Rakuten Loyalty / Boston

I GREW UP IN ST. PETERSBURG, Russia. Both my parents are electrical engineers. They thought it would be good for their kids to have that science education. The thought of [studying it in college] was pre-defined for me. I was always good at math. When I was in high school, we immigrated to the San Francisco area. I got my GED and got a degree in computer science from UC Davis, with a minor in fine arts.

Engineering is extremely dynamic. If you keep up to date, you are always needed. Just like any career, you soul-search and understand where your real passion is. I started with back-end work; I gradually moved into front-end work, which is what’s visible to anybody browsing the Web or playing with an application.

I’m really happy. I think I’ve found somewhere I can grow and be valued. The best part [of software development] is that you are usually surrounded by smart and talented, focused people who have the same goal as you — to create this amazing product.

When a project starts, you have teams working in two- to three-week sprints. A team could consist of a software engineer, a designer, and an information architect. Each team works on stories, or tasks, such as creating a log-in page. It’s research, writing code, testing. Every day we have a meeting so everyone knows what every other person is doing. At the end, you show everybody what you have accomplished. You have responsibilities; you have to be sure your solution does work and be ready to defend it.

As a woman in a male-dominated field, you have to fight a little more to stake your ground. You have to speak [up] and believe in what you’re speaking.

Zhenya’s Keys to Success

1. Don’t ever say, “I know enough.” That attitude won’t get you anywhere. Read a lot. Know your stuff and be passionate.

2. Be a good problem solver. There are millions of solutions, but finding the best one is an art.

3. Keep in mind what the top competitors are doing. Be on the lookout [for] better tools out there that will save you time.

Jobs to watch in Massachusetts

COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST

> New jobs 2010-2020: 5,711

> Average salary: $89,870

> The fine print:

Duties Analyze science, engineering, business, or other data-processing problems to implement and improve systems

Minimum Qualifications Bachelor’s degree

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (SYSTEMS)

> New jobs 2010-2020: 9,615

> Average salary: $106,590

> The fine print:

Duties Research, develop, and test operating systems software and general computer applications

Minimum Qualifications Bachelor’s degree

SOFTWARE DEVELOPER (APPS)

> New jobs 2010-2020: 7,050

> Average salary: $98,520

> The fine print:

Duties Develop and modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs

Minimum Qualifications Bachelor’s degree

INFORMATION SECURITY ANALYST

> New jobs 2010-2020: 3,043

> Average salary: $90,690

> The fine print:

Duties Plan, implement, upgrade, or monitor security measures for the protection of computer networks and information

Minimum Qualifications Bachelor’s degree

NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR

> New jobs 2010-2020: 3,817

> Average salary: $81,800

> The fine print:

Duties Analyze science, engineering, business, or other data-processing problems to implement and improve systems

Minimum Qualifications Bachelor’s degree

 

 

Filed under: Technology

Decriminalize drugs and watch addiction rates plummet

1
Apr/13
0

This incredible Business Insider piece cover’s the nation of Portugal’s move in 2001 to decriminalize every single illicit drug.

Click here for the full article.

Here’s an excerpt:

On July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge.

Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.

The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following ten years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member statesaccording to the same report.

One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

Here is the link to the full article:
http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7#ixzz2PFX5Jopy

Filed under: Social

WSJ Graphic: Ranked Choice Voting explained

6
Mar/13
2

A great visual showing how ranked choice voting works, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:

Project Prevention and its Critics

20
Feb/13
0

Project Prevention is a 501c3 non-profit founded in 1997 by Barbara Harris, who had adopted four out of eight children from a mother addicted to crack-cocaine.  Based on Barbara’s experience watching two of the children go through substance withdrawal, and on doing more research into the horrific plight of children of drug addicts (some of which she highlights on the organization Facebook page), Barbara decided to start a birth control incentive program.  Project Prevention offers $300 to anyone with a drug or alcohol addiction to go on long-term birth control or get sterilized.

This notion of sterilization has been a point of controversy in the media.  Some critics have emerged to denounce the program as “Hitler-style eugenics” or as targeting racial minorities.  Perhaps the most vocal critic is an organization called the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, led by Lynn Paltrow.  Their usual criticism is that Project Prevention serves as a “dangerous vector for medical misinformation” and promotes unfair stereotypes that demonizes crack moms.

Watch: Barbara Harris and Lynn Paltrow debate on CNN

I have done a lot of research on Project Prevention.  If you Google their name you will find loads of articles, videos, radio segments, in which the controversy is highlighted.  The media seems to adore the controversy and drama, and shock-value.

Even a usually scientific radio series fell into the “dramatic” aspects, proposing what kind of world we would have if drug-addicted children “never came to be”: http://www.radiolab.org/2012/nov/19/what-if-no-destiny/

My take on all this:

It seems on the one hand, Barbara Harris is fighting to save lives, liberate addicts from the burden of more children, and to help children live fulfilling lives where they are loved and can succeed.  On the other hand, we have Lynn Paltrow opposing Project Prevention based on intellectual interpretation, inferred motivation, concerns over media the perpetuation of unjust stereotypes, and reminiscences to historical oppressive measures like eugenics.

First, there appears to be a fundamental difference in what the two opponents are fighting for.  It seems that Barbara is fighting against the clear and present physical and emotional damage to children and the society at large who must then step in to provide for them.  Paltrow is crusading against Barbara to protect… what exactly?  Images?  Perceptions?  An ideology?  An average person’s perception of the “typical drug addict” when seeing a poster, or a news clip, about Project Prevention and its clients?

Second, there appears to be a fundamental disagreement about what the data actually show us about the life outcomes for children born from a substance-abusing mother.  It is as if Barbara and Lynn live in two separate realities.  How could this be?  Both have experience serving pregnant women in vulnerable situations.  Couldn’t the two of them share survey and study data to come to a basic agreement of fact?

On this, I would like Lynn Paltrow to produce some data, and if none really exist, to fund responsible research on drug- and alcohol-addicted women to determine if her notion that “for every bad story that Barbara has, I have a good story” holds up.  I found her video of a handful of self-selecting mothers to be just more anecdotal evidence in a sea of it.  We need hard data to come to any conclusion about if Project Prevention is responding to a very real problem or just perpetuating stereotypes.

I know the data linking child outcomes to parental drug abuse is not exactly abundant, but there is enlightening research being published by the US Department of Health and Human Services (here and here).  Moreover, to someone working in the field of fighting poverty, the link is obvious.  Sure, let’s say even 30% of the children of drug abusers have a positive outcome.  If the NAPW is waging this anti-Project Prevention campaign on their behalf, then they are still enabling the cursed lives of the other 70% to manifest.  So, they win their battle, but lose the war.  It just seems so short-sighted, and destructive to so many children.  I believe NAPW’s opposition to Barbara’s elegant response to this crisis is literally serving to aid and abet the crisis, allowing this river of at-risk kids to flow freely into the foster system, the prison system, and all the rest of it.  It is so incredibly sad.  It leads me to believe this organization might not only be a group of lawyerly intellectuals with Ivy League degrees, but actually have blood on their hands, being too detached and arrogant to recognize the chilling fruits of their own “advocacy” against a program like Project Prevention.

I can only conclude that Lynn Paltrow is married so tightly to her organization’s narrow mission of protecting the rights of pregnant women and only pregnant women that she is unable to speak from a more holistic, realistic, and frankly, heartfelt way that addresses children and their rights as well as factoring into her position the urgency of minimizing child abuse and breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty NOW while it is happening around us, spurred by a deep empathy for the pain of what it is really like to grow up in a drug-infested or otherwise broken home, or to bounce around among fake parents in foster care for many years.  My bet is that Lynn has not personally felt this deep kind of devastation and hopelessness to truly understand.  Perhaps it is a simple question of soul-searching.

This is not merely a problem of the NAPW, but one of many human service professionals with whom I’ve discussed Project Prevention.  There seems to be a bias toward protecting the rights of the drug users themselves, who are often viewed as society’s most vulnerable.  But this is not true — it is their children who are the most vulnerable.

Only recently has the notion of protecting the children of drug addicts been given institutional support, but not in the United States.  In 2010, the United Kingdom’s Home Office published Hidden Harm, a massive research project which validates the work of Project Prevention: “Reducing the harm to children from parental problem drug use should become a main objective of policy and practice” (intro).  Hidden Harm explains that the research literature contains a critical blind spot in this regard: “To anyone familiar with the hundreds of studies of problem drug users that have been conducted in the UK, it comes as a shock to discover that virtually none has focused on their children. We believe this is both due to a lack of awareness of the problem by researchers and policy makers and because carrying out research on the children of problem drug users is extremely difficult. ” (41).

Globe: Governor Patrick plans ambitious overhaul of state’s troubled public housing

14
Jan/13
0

Kudos to Governor Patrick!

Link to full article

By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff

Governor Deval Patrick on Thursday will propose eliminating the state’s troubled patchwork of 240 public housing authorities and replacing them with six regional agencies in an effort to eliminate waste and corruption from the housing program for low-
income and elderly people, state officials say.

Public housing, which shelters more than 300,000 people in Massachusetts, has been buffeted by controversy for more than a year since the Globe reported the inflated $360,000 salary of Chelsea’s housing director. Several other directors were forced to resign amid allegations of abuse of their position.

Patrick’s proposal, which is sure to be controversial on Beacon Hill, would consolidate public housing management — including budgeting, planning, and administrative functions — into six central ­offices, while leaving a corps of managers and maintenance workers at local housing author­ities.

Local boards would be cut, eliminating the need for more than 1,000 politically appointed commissioners.

“We think this would dramatically improve public housing for those who need it and at the same time save money by delivering it more efficiently,” said Lizbeth ­Heyer, the state’s associate ­director of public housing and rental ­assistance.

“The current public housing system is antiquated,” she said. “This is a very bold and smart proposal to transform it.”

Some legislators may find Patrick’s plan too bold. For ­decades, housing authorities have been run like separate fiefdoms in each town or city, each with its own board and a chief often selected for political rather than managerial skills.

“The interests are just too entrenched to make it happen,” said one member of a commission appointed by Patrick last year to recommend public housing reforms, who asked not to be identified for fear of alienating others in the housing industry.

“You would have a thousand commissioners calling their state reps and senators complaining bitterly,” the commission member said.

The president of the organization that represents public housing leaders said his group would strongly oppose elimination or consolidation of any housing authorities.

“We will be unveiling our own proposal soon, one that does not undermine local respon­sibilities,” said Richard Leco, adding that the group would go to legislators for support.

As the Globe reported in ­October, critics say that a significant part of the public housing problem in Massachusetts is the huge number of housing authorities, making it difficult for poor and elderly people to navigate the system while straining the leadership talent pool.

Only the state of Texas has more housing authorities than Massachusetts, making state or federal oversight of each individual authority challenging… Read the full article

 

Wait, I just bought a sandwich. You won’t serve me water?

26
Dec/12
0

You might be eating at an upscale steakhouse, a hip bistro, or McDonald’s.  No matter the venue, your frustration is the same.  You kindly order a meal.  The server says, “Would you like something to drink with that?”  You say, “Sure, I’d love a cup of water.”

“Sorry.  We don’t have cups of water.  We have bottled water.”

“Excuse me… what?”

“We don’t have tap water.”  (Translation: we don’t serve tap water because we don’t make money off of it.)

In Boston, this probably happens in 20% of the food places I might stop in, and it strikes me as disrespectful and cold.  Here I am patronizing this establishment, and they can’t spend a few additional pennies and seconds to provide a simple cup of water?  I have even offered to pay 25 or 50 cents for the “inconvenience,” but most of the time the employee won’t budge.

I see this refusal to serve water as unabashed anti-consumer trickery; a spritz of greed in the restaurant industry that we should simply outlaw, reclaim our common decency, and be done with.  But there’s a second problem with the practice: it corners consumers into supporting one of the most egregious rip-offs of the 21st century — the $1 billion industry of bottled water.  Consumer studies in areas with good public water systems consistently show two stunners: 1) blindfolded consumers cannot tell the difference between tap and bottled varieties; and 2) bottled water is neither cleaner nor healthier in any way.  (More on this.)

I’m never one to complain without providing a solution.  So, I did some research for a legal one.  However, I could not find a single law in the United States that bans the practice of refusing to serve tap water to a paying customer.  So I spent a few minutes to draft a simple model bill.  Feel free to edit to taste and file in your own municipal or state legislature.  Hopefully, that next drink will be on the house.

Senator Scott Brown opposes the DISCLOSE Act, again.

10
Aug/12
0

Well, it turns out our sitting senator once again voted against the needs of the electorate, just as he did in 2010.  His two arguments against the bill this year are repeated verbatim from 2010.  Namely, 1) the bill “does not do enough to require transparency, accountability, and fair play;” and 2) “key requirements of the bill would not have applied to labor unions and other special interest groups.”  He also cites that 450 groups from “across the political spectrum” opposed the bill, and generally thinks that “the legislation attempts to advance the political agenda of one party and of certain special interests to gain a tactical advantage.”

So, let’s go into his arguments.

1) The bill “does not do enough to require transparency, accountability, and fair play.”

Senator Brown criticizes the bill for not doing enough to promote good disclosure practices, yet, what is his proposed alternative? Absolutely nothing. He offers no examples as to what would supposedly make the bill stronger.  What’s worse, I’ve looked through his entire record of bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship as a US Senator.  He has sponsored a grand total of zero bills which address independent spending on campaigns in any way, let alone those shining a light on the hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money currently flooding our elections since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.  This fact suggests that he is arguing this point in obstinacy and bad faith.

2) “Key requirements of the bill would not have applied to labor unions and other special interest groups.”

This is where the propaganda begins. Although Senator Brown is mum on what “key requirements” he is specifically referencing, he is pointing to the requirement that a campaign-related donation to an organization must be a minimum of $10,000; otherwise a group is not burdened with reporting it.  His oft-parroted argument that labor unions have some special carve-out is blatantly false. The $10,000 threshold would allow any organization relying on small-dollar membership dues to skip disclosing every single donor, as these tiny amounts are not helpful to the public’s knowledge of special-interest campaign spending.  Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation illuminates further: “By setting the disclosure thresholds relatively high, the bill is intended to capture only contributions that, due to their size, could corrupt or appear to corrupt the political process. It is true that the names of average dues paying union members will not be listed on disclosure reports filed by unions, as individual dues will likely be far smaller than the $10,000 threshold. Neither will the names of donors to a nonprofit organization like the Sierra Club or a trade association like the Chamber of Commerce be listed if their dues or contributions do not exceed the $10,000 threshold. There is no differentiation based exclusively on union membership.”

For all of the campaign niceties about Scott Brown being able to work both sides of the aisle, working hard for the people of Massachusetts, and all the rest of it; in this instance, when it really matters to the health of our democracy and the power of voters to know who’s behind the hundreds of millions of dollars in post-Citizens United ad spending, Scott Brown has turned against us.  In this instance he walks lock-step with Sen. Mitch McConnell’s and the Republican Party’s campaign of misinformation against disclosure, helping to keep voters dumb.

Here is Scott Brown’s letter to me about the DISCLOSE Act:

Dear Mr. Friedman,

Thank you for your letter regarding the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE) Act (S. 3369). As always, I value the input of my constituents on all issues, and appreciate hearing from you.

The DISCLOSE Act was originally introduced in 2010, purportedly as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. While small changes were made to superficially address certain concerns, the newest version, introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), does not do enough to require transparency, accountability and fair play. Rather than reform our campaign finance laws and provide increased transparency, the legislation attempts to advance the political agenda of one party and of certain special interests to gain a tactical advantage.

My election to the U.S. Senate sent a message that the people of Massachusetts are tired of the politics-as-usual, but the action of the majority to force repeated consideration of the DISCLOSE Act ignores this message. One especially troubling aspect of the DISCLOSE Act is that it does not treat all organizations equally. For example, because of the way certain organizations are funded, key requirements of the bill would not have applied to labor unions and other special interest groups. Transparency that is good for some, should be good for all.

These and other troubling provisions are why more than 450 other groups from across the political spectrum—ranging from such ideological opposites as the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLU—opposed the bill. These groups recognized that the DISCLOSE Act was based on partisan politics instead of sound policy. I could not agree more. When dealing with rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, we should look to adopt a higher standard than the one in this bill. The people of Massachusetts expect and deserve better. It is for these reasons that on July 17, 2012, I along with 44 of my Senate colleagues voted against S. 3369.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

Gallup: Americans want goverment to create jobs, reduce corruption

2
Aug/12
0

The work of government process reform is more important than ever, as Politico reports:

Americans view reducing government corruption as the second-highest priority for the next president, behind only job creation, according to a new Gallup poll released Monday.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents said that reducing corruption in the federal government is an “extremely important” or “very important” priority for the next president, compared with 92 percent who said the same about creating good jobs….

Read the entire article here.