this past weekend i spent time with hundreds of progressive activists and leaders from across the state at the people’s congress.

it was an exciting and inspiring two-day conference that i hope will be the beginning of a political shift in hawaii.

i’ll talk more about the whole event later, but for today’s music monday video, i wanted to share a performance that we were honored to witness at the conclusion of the weekend’s work.

kupu hawaii is a non-profit organization that, “empowers future generations to create a more sustainable, pono Hawaii”. the kids who participate in the program come from difficult circumstances, bad homes, etc.

they were at the venue with us the whole weekend. the help prepare and serve us food, helped set up for us. and they were so kind, generous, and so excited about what were were undertaking at the people’s congress. these performances were their way of saying, “thank you” to us.

really, though the whole weekend was incredibly humbling and inspiring, it was the performance of these kinds that nearly brought me to tears sunday afternoon.

please check out and share the two videos, check out the organization, and if you can, please donate. kupu hawaii does amazing work.

Read more

during a discussion of the nodapl action taking place at standing rock, there was a question about whether president obama was planning to attend one last presidential holiday on oahu before leaving the white house.

it was our hope he would return, so protests could be organized near the residence he stays in in kailua. his silence on the issue has been hypocritical, heartless, criminal, and exactly what we’ve come to expect from this president.

alas, it sounds like he’s chosen to wait out his last days within the comfort and safety of the white house security perimeter.

still, the conversation reminded me of a similar protest progressives initiated back in 2010. we called for, among other things, an end to the war in iraq. the action was relatively small, but spirited. and peaceful.

Read more






holy shit!

i have a vague recollection of how it felt when i received acceptance letters from the handful of colleges to which i applied. this is more exciting. for years now, i’ve wanted to go back to school. i’ve wanted to advance my career in politics. just as importantly, i’ve wanted to prove to myself that i could do well in college studies (i didn’t fully apply myself in undergrad).

the final product of my application i thought was ok, but i wasn’t completely satisfied. reluctant to say much, i really wasn’t confident that i’d get accepted. after two failed attempts for a couple of different graduate programs at the university of hawaii and pretty embarrassing college transcripts, part of me was sure this attempt was another wishful effort.

in the end, the many hours spent on the various application parts, not to mention the three individuals who supplied my letters of recommendation, paid off. and i’m thrilled. i can attend a top “politics” school in washington d.c. and never have to leave hawaii!

but as the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for,” because now i have to decide if it’s worth the heavy financial debt load i would have to take on in order to pay for it. unlike undergraduate loans, i cannot defer any loans for this program. no, i wouldn’t have to make payments until six months after i graduate, but the “juice” will be running from the first day.

if i could be assured a high five-figure salary as soon as i graduated, there would be no question about what to do. but i’ve been in serious, stifling debt before. i remember that feeling of being trapped and it took me years to get out from under it. the program is exactly what i’ve been looking for, but can i honestly say it’s worth the financial burden i’d be taking on? i’m just not sure.

a quick and dirty calculation suggests i could be saddled with a more than $600 per month bill that i’d be paying for the next decade…. admittedly, i’m fishing a bit for words of encouragement. but i’m also looking for honest, sober advice.

i also want to offer my thanks to the three people who helped me get to this decision by writing recommendations that i have no doubt tilted the scales in my favor.

Read more

five or six weeks ago, about a month before the ghastly and depressing result of election day, i wrote a little about the electoral college.

why the electoral college

since trump’s victory, there have been more than a smattering of posts on facebook, commentaries in magazines and news papers decrying the electoral college as an old, undemocratic, and broken system for electing the president of the united states.

i’ll admit, my inclination toward the electoral college waned a bit, “maybe we should take a serious look at getting rid of it.” so, i’ve been reading as much useful content as i can find on the subject. historical articles and commentary on both sides of the issue. i’ll attempt to lay out both sides as i see them.

even the historical context for the creation of the electoral college seems to be steeped in controversy. whether you support the system, or not, there is a historical theme for you.

why the hell do we have this system in the first place

the constitution is the result of negotiations between representatives from the 13 original colonies. the election of the president is no different. some suggested the president should be elected by popular vote. others thought it better that the congress be tasked with the job.

for the founders, a direct democracy raised cause for concern. they feared the “tyranny of the majority.” and they worried that the average citizen would be unable to reach an informed, untarnished decision.

on the other hand, an election of the president by congress was also problematic. there was a concern that a president elected in the fashion would be beholden to congress, thus potentially tipping the balance between the three branches in favor of the legislative branch.

underpinning all this was a tension between the more populous “free” northern colonies and the less populous “slave” southern colonies.

in the end, a compromise was reached: election by the electoral college. included in the compromise was how representation in congress and the electoral college would be determined.

“according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

so, congressional and electoral college representation is identical and based on the census. every state gets at least three members in congress (one representative and two senators) and at least three electors in the electoral college.

why we should abolish the electoral college

the most immediate and obvious reason to do away with the electoral college is that for the second time in less than 20 years the popular vote result differs from that of the electoral college.

with the overwhelming majority of states apportioning their electors on a winner-take-all basis (except for maine and nebraska), even narrow popular-vote victories in a state result in massive electoral wins. this year, narrow trump wins in florida, ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan led to his decisive win.

because of this winner-take-all dynamic, candidates tend to focus their energy on a handful of states. they otherwise ignore any states they are either certain to win, or have no hope of doing so. and so the election is decided by a handful of states and voters who receive all the attention.

also, the structure of the electoral college creates lopsided voting strength for those who live in lower-populated states in comparison to the larger states. california, the state with the largest population, receives 55 electors (equal to the number of senators and representatives in congress). wyoming, on the other hand, receives just three.

according to the 2010 census, california had just over 37 million residents to wyoming’s 560,000. so, in california, each elector represents 677,000 residents. in wyoming, each elector represents just 188,000 people. voters in wyoming have nearly four times as much power as voters in california.

the electoral college operates contrary to the democratic “one person, one vote” principle.

so, the system by which we choose our president today is a result of concerns and political compromises made by the founders over 200 years ago. neither are relevant in the modern age.

why we should keep the electoral college

despite the flaws described above, there are good reasons to keep the system we have now. or, at a minimum, any attempt to do away with the electoral college should be carefully considered.

for starters, it’s important to point out that in the more than 200 years since the founders established the electoral college, it’s result has failed to mirror the popular vote just five times. that’s a 91% success rate. prior to the 2000 election, it hadn’t happened since 1888.

at both the state and federal levels, we are a representative democracy. and that representation isn’t directly proportional to “one person, one vote.” the house of representatives is based on proportional representation, but the senate is not; each state gets two senators regardless of population. remember, the united states is a federal republic. though imperfect, the electoral college is an integral part of that federalism. to do away with the electoral college would arguably leave little reason to retain the senate, since it’s creation is tied to the creation of the electoral college.

since it is mostly democrats, progressives who are calling for the abolition of the electoral college, consider what congress would be like without the democratic minority in the senate serving as the only bulwark against the republican majority.

with one exception, the electoral college has only contradicted the popular vote when the election has been within three points. despite clinton’s growing popular vote lead, the result is still less than one percent of the total. so, only when the election is a near tie does the electoral college become a frustrating aberration. and in these circumstances, it is indeed the smaller states that end up deciding the election.

the electoral college forces presidential candidates to have broad appeal across different regions of the country. a candidate cannot win by the south, or northeast, or west coast alone. they must establish their appeal beyond their “safe bets.”

though frustrating at times, the “winner-take-all” system that is currently in place further forces candidates to focus their attention beyond the large states. once a candidate reaches 51% in any given state, it makes no sense to continue to campaign in that state. instead, they must move on to other states. this mechanism further guarantees a candidate has broad appeal across multiple states and regions.

in a similar vein, were the electoral college abolished for a nation-wide popular vote, there’s little reason to believe candidates would campaign to everyone. instead, candidates would either focus all their attention in large cities (democrats) or in rural areas (republicans). in either case, direct campaigning would likely be replaced by even greater television campaigning via ads and interviews and by mass mailings. this shift of focus would also likely result in even more attention paid to fundraising and large donors.

another potential problem to consider with a popular nation-wide vote is the potential for a candidate to win the presidency with a plurality (unless run-off elections are established). the current system makes it virtually impossible to reach this result. however, in a popular vote, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that a candidate could win with 30% of the vote. or even less, if more candidates are in the race.

finally, despite the sorry, fear, and frustration democrats and progressives feel in the wake of this year’s election, it’s important to keep a couple of points in mind. one, had clinton focused more on white, working-class voters in wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania, she’d have won and this debate would be going on.

two, more than half the country didn’t vote for either of the two major candidates. opponents of the electoral college might blame frustration with the current system as a cause for the turnout. but remember, both candidates had high disapproval ratings. nearly 30% of the most cast in hawaii, a safe “blue state,” went to trump.


though i remain open to the debate and think having a thoughtful conversation on the subject is both important and healthy, i return to my original position. replacing the electoral college is both impractical and unlikely to lead to a perfectly fair, flawless presidential election.

also, the united states isn’t the only “democracy” that doesn’t directly elect its head of state. great britain is another example.

its important to remember how difficult it is to amend the constitution. given the added weight afforded the smaller-population states, it is highly unlikely enough states would ratify any constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.

in the end, i view this argument against the electoral college similar to that of enacting term limits. i think it is far more important and effective to focus on cultivating better candidates and focus on organizing. progressives and democrats need to do a better job of convincing voters of the virtue of their positions and candidates, rather than trying to change the system.

and, of course, the democratic party needs to realign its messaging and priorities with those of working people.

in the end focusing on these solutions, i believe, will have benefits that go far beyond problems in the process of electing the president of the united states.

Read more

i’ve been struggling since last night with what i should write about today. now it’s 2:30pm and i still haven’t settled on anything.

this is partly because when i think about it, my mind races with too many topics. and this is partly because most of the topics that come to mind would require some background reading. don’t get me wrong, i’m not opposed to doing the necessary reading and google searches. i just haven’t done them to this point.

also, i’m having to give larger amounts of time to an ongoing project or two.

all this is the long way of saying that there won’t be a substantive post today.

in the meantime, here’s a list of potential topics for the next several days. if there’s enough feedback from my relatively small audience on one or two, maybe i’ll know where to go from here.

  • a follow-up on my previous electoral college post
  • 3 questions from my therapist to contemplate
  • how the hell did we end up with trump
  • my photography aspirations (and how to get there, maybe)
  • what do we do next

of course, i’m also open to requests.

Read more