Vote, please

Texas had early voting - fast and easy, no line. We did our civic duty a couple weeks ago.

My hope through this divisive campaign season is: regardless of who wins, I hope there is a decisive win so we don't have to go through weeks of unpleasantness. It is probably too much to hope for that the people we elect can work together for the people they represent, rather than working so hard to make the other side look bad.
 
JamesTXSD":22qj5d3s said:
Texas had early voting - fast and easy, no line. We did our civic duty a couple weeks ago.

My hope through this divisive campaign season is: regardless of who wins, I hope there is a decisive win so we don't have to go through weeks of unpleasantness. It is probably too much to hope for that the people we elect can work together for the people they represent, rather than working so hard to make the other side look bad.
Click to expand...

Here Here Jim, :thup :thup

I voted!! And I still vote for: PEACE. SANITY. REASON. COMPASION. PEACE.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

HH_Cal_09_07_Jul.thumb.jpg
 
JamesTXSD":1zclp9n9 said:
It is probably too much to hope for that the people we elect can work together for the people they represent, rather than working so hard to make the other side look bad.
Click to expand...
I've thought about this sentiment a great deal in recent years. It seems like such a reasonable expectation, so why don't the politicians just do it? You won't like my conclusion, but here goes....it's like comics character Pogo said: "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Folks are always saying that they want politicians to work together, but that's not how they vote. Look at primaries. If a politician dares to support a proposal from the other side of the aisle, or dares to state that his/her objective is to "work across the aisle", they are nearly always vilified by their opponents in the next primary. Worse, the voters typically vote against such a "work together" politician and vote for the "true believer" candidate instead. It happens time and time again. This is the fundamental reason so many politicians fear primary challenges. It's interesting that one of the consequences of this is that often the more moderate candidate loses the primary; and therefore in the general election, the voters only have the option of voting for a far right or far left candidate. So the Congress gets more and more polarized leading to less and less "working across the aisle" since the moderates are stopped at the primary.

I'm afraid the enemy is us.....perhaps this state of affairs is a consequence of little more than the normal human tendency to have our cake and eat it too.
 
Folks are always saying that they want politicians to work together, but that's not how they vote. Look at primaries. If a politician dares to support a proposal from the other side of the aisle, or dares to state that his/her objective is to "work across the aisle", they are nearly always vilified by their opponents in the next primary. Worse, the voters typically vote against such a "work together" politician and vote for the "true believer" candidate instead. It happens time and time again. This is the fundamental reason so many politicians fear primary challenges. It's interesting that one of the consequences of this is that often the more moderate candidate loses the primary; and therefore in the general election, the voters only have the option of voting for a far right or far left candidate. So the Congress gets more and more polarized leading to less and less "working across the aisle" since the moderates are stopped at the primary.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis.
 
This is definatlly not intended to be a political point, only an observation.

Maybe this is why we need fewer politicians in DC and state capitals, and more reasonable, working, agreeing folk who are willing to make change.

Maybe reshape some things. Like take out the isle and put all the sets in one bunch and have them all wear the same uniforms so there are less differences and more sameness. (Differences are good -- not being able to accept differences --> Not Good.

See-- That is why nobody ever asked me how to run the country.

All the Same, All different!
3_Bellingham_Line_of_C_D_s_2009_917.sized.jpg

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

IMGP1828.thumb.jpg
 
Kevin: up until I read your post, I was admiring the level-headed reasonableness and depth of thought being demonstrated by folks who obviously think and believe very differently, but were attempting to find common ground. Nicely done.
 
forrest":1v8fd3z8 said:
Folks are always saying that they want politicians to work together, but that's not how they vote. Look at primaries. If a politician dares to support a proposal from the other side of the aisle, or dares to state that his/her objective is to "work across the aisle", they are nearly always vilified by their opponents in the next primary. Worse, the voters typically vote against such a "work together" politician and vote for the "true believer" candidate instead. It happens time and time again. This is the fundamental reason so many politicians fear primary challenges. It's interesting that one of the consequences of this is that often the more moderate candidate loses the primary; and therefore in the general election, the voters only have the option of voting for a far right or far left candidate. So the Congress gets more and more polarized leading to less and less "working across the aisle" since the moderates are stopped at the primary.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis.
Click to expand...

I agree. Very good points. One big reason that primaries have become so polarizing for both parties is the gerrymandering of electoral districts. When in power, each side seeks to create as many "safe" districts for their candidates as they can. If you are running as a D candidate in a guaranteed majority-D district, for instance, your only concern is D voters. Moreover, in the primary your only concern is D voters who are most likely to vote in primaries. The truest of the true believers in each party tend to be the most active campaigners and voters in the primaries. As a result, there is little incentive to position yourself to appeal to moderate D voters. If you can get to the general election, moderate D voters will presumably support you over any R opponent. There is practically no incentive for you to try to appeal to moderate R voters.

The US Supreme Court has given state legislators a largely free hand in drawing district boundaries. That's how we end up with some of these bizarrely-shaped districts. Not surprisingly, most state legislatures have been reluctant to hand redistricting over to more or less non-partisan redistricting bodies. It is perhaps the ultimate political irony that the one thing the two parties seem willing to agree on is creating safe districts. If a redistricting authority is bi-partisan (i.e, 50-50 D and R). each side will try to get as many of its own safe districts as line-drawing ingenuity will allow. Any remaining districts will be left more or less competitive. (This divvying up of districts is the ultimate political horse trading and should not be witnessed by anyone with a weak stomach.) Truly non-partisan commissions are probably the best idea.

Open primaries can also produce some moderating effect, since a primary in a safe district may result in two candidates from the same party making it to the general election. If that's the case, there is an incentive to appeal to voters outside the party.

As the OP said: "Vote." And if you don't like the rabid extremism, become a rabid moderate and participate in the primary process.
 
The answer is term limits

2-6 year terms for senators

6-2 year terms for representatives

1-6 year term for president (so the president works for the country and not re-election).

65 year old mandatory retirement age!
 
NORO LIM,

Although I agree with your general thesis, I don't think the major objective of gerrymandering is to create very safe districts, rather the objective is to create districts that are "just safe enough".

Perhaps an example will best illuminate what I mean. For discussion sake, let's say we have 4 districts each with a 50-50 R vs D voter population split. Let's assume for sake of discussion that the Rs are in control of the state legislature. In this example the goal of the R legislature would be to re-draw the 4 districts, to the extent they can, in order to rearrange the existing 50-50 vote such that the votes will fall 60-40 R in 3 of the 4 districts (making them "just safe enough" for the Rs) moving the resulting 30% (3x10%) of the vote from those 3 districts into the fourth district that will then vote 80-20 D.

So ironically the real goal of gerrymandering is to create one very safe district for the other party so that you can create several "just safe enough" districts for your party.
 
dotnmarty":10bqept7 said:
Gotta get rid of the electoral college.
Click to expand...

One outcome of eliminating the electoral college would be that the minority would no longer be able to govern the majority.

There are other issues involved and some would argue that the change would be worse than the current scheme.
 
smckean (Tosca)":15pdupdw said:
NORO LIM,

. . . the objective is to create districts that are "just safe enough".
. . .
Click to expand...

No argument here. As I said "When in power, each side seeks to create as MANY "safe" districts for their candidates as they can." Getting as many safe districts as you can necessitates cutting the margin as close as you safely can in each district. As you noted, part of the game is handing the other party as FEW as possible super-safe districts. The goal here is to maximize the wasting of your opponent's voters on overkill wins while minimizing the wasting of your own voters on lost causes. These gifts to the other side just increase the polarizing influence of gerrymandering on primary elections.
 
Back
Top