Dems to take the House

[mcnichol]

"It looks like it's going to be a 30-30-20-10 split in the Senate this year."

I, too, would truly love to see this in my lifetime. But, the way things are right now, I'm happy with yesterday's outcome.

[Miggy]

Hi Erika,
I'm modestly happy, too! I, frankly, don't think there's been enough change, but this is a decent start given who/what was on the ballot.

For clarity, I'm not saying anyone here has been disrespectful. I'm all for sharing and for political discourse. This is the shit that matters - we should all care and we do no one here any respect by staying quiet on matters of grave importance.

My message, though, was more of a personal note to anyone who is feeling excluded because of their policitcal beliefs. I had a good long time friend 'break up' with me over politics this election season and given how hard middle ground is to find these days, I don't think she'll ever come back. Quite frankly that sucks when it crosses personal lines.

I don't apologize for my beliefs any more than you should feel restrained in sharing yours. I'm just trying to put friendships and personal relationships in a different category so people don't get their feelings hurt.

-Mike

[erikamay]

I'm modestly happy, too!

mike. please restrain yourself.

again, your even-handed and considerate reasoning is making me more angry than aaron burr after a hot cream shave.

please look to wes for less rabble-rousing posts.

thank you.

[shando]

For me, so long as any single party maintains a 50%+ stranglehold on either (and especially both) Houses of Congress, then the Republic lost.

I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of this theory. Why is a two-party system worse than a multi-party system? Many other stable, enlightened democracies have systems, even parliamentary systems, where essentially two parties dominate. Plenty of other countries with multi-party systems devolve into areas where those parties become armed militias knifing each other for tiny bits of turf. Been to Liberia recently? Iraq?

No personal offense to anyone who holds these ideas, but the best I can deduce from these kinds of musings is "My pet theories about how government ought to work aren't reflected in either party, regardless of the fact that I haven't built a political constituency around these theories sufficient enough to have those theories enacted. Therefore the system is broken."

I cannot wait for the day the reports come back "It looks like it's going to be a 30-30-20-10 split in the Senate this year."

Why? To pass laws, one still needs to hit that 50% plus 1 margin. What would a 30-30-20-10 split lead to except for more factionalism, more sneaky vote swaps in our legislative bodies? "Hey, I know me and my party only represent 10% of the people, but we'll help you get your anti-abortion law passed if you support our national bake sale this Sunday."

The only three times that this country hasn't had a healthy back and forth to the two party system were:

a) during the first years of the Republic when partisanship and vitriol were worse than anything we can imagine even today. Alien and Sedition Acts anyone? The white dudes on our money, aka the Founding Fathers, hated each other.

b) after the Whig party collapsed in the 1850s, a political vacuum filled by the Republicans and an event that many people think contributed to the Civil War

and

c) times during the late 19th century when the Populists and Socialists at various times were in the mix, also a time of great inter-citizen strife (Haymarket Riot, Pullman strike, shit like that).


Personally, I find the two party system, for all it's flaws, does what we need it to do, namely put together groups of people into these two big clouds of constituents called parties that pass the legislation we, the people, would like them to pass. And if they don't, they get voted out. That's what I want the government to do and be.

If on the other hand, you have grand theories about the only purpose 'true' of government, calls for awakenings and all that, regardless of whether there's a constituency behind you, well, that way leads to the guillotine.

All we did last night is willingly hand the majority power to essentially bully through legislation to the other party. Maybe they'll bully through legislation you like, granted, but there was no great awakening or change that happened. The system remains controlled, brutal, and self-preserving. The pendulum may swing, but less has changed than we'd like to think.

The AIC political cynic,
Wes

Do third parties get crowded out in the "self-preserving" system? Sure. But the two major parties also co-opt the hell out of the smaller parties' ideas. What was once crazy Socialist thinking in 1900 became the New Deal. Many Libertarian positions on taxes have been taken to heart by Republicans. I believe going forward, Green ideas are going to come more pronounced within the Democratic caucus. But from my thinking, Libertarian (or Green, or Anti-Immigrant, or whatever) Party draws the percentage of votes they do because that's the percentage of people who actually find those ideas palatable.

Shannon, The AIC political cynic cynic

[Wesley]

As someone who is often at (sometimes extreme) political odds with many members of this community--and even within my own troupe--I can still say I love and respect all you guys and girls to the ends of the Earth...no matter how wrong you might be.

And despite the even more cynical tone my personal blogs took today, there is much to be gleeful for and I'm glad to see people excited about things politcal.

As an adult, I also recognize that this is the stuff that counts and it needs be discussed. While they say you shouldn't talk about politics in polite company, I personally find little more fascinating.

My only personal caveat is that you arrived at your position via thought and research. Nothing worse than a parrot with inherited beliefs or that just decides something emotionally without actually thinking about it. I fully accept AND respect anyone's beliefs so long as they arrived at them not blindly.

I do not let such beliefs taint friendships. So if I do not hang out with you people as much anymore it is simply because you raised my property taxes and I'm broke, not that I'm holding that fact against you on any personal level.

Everyone's rabble sufficiently roused?

[shando]

And for what it's worth, the Senate break down looks like it's going to be 49-48-1-1 with the two ones (Sanders and Lieberman) voting with the Democrats. Still have to hit 51 votes to do anything in the Senate regarldess of the hoped for philospher-king breakdown.

And on Sanders, the great state of Vermont just elected the first Socialist to the US Senate in history.

[erikamay]

And on Sanders, the great state of Vermont just elected the first Socialist to the US Senate in history.

yay! it's like we are european n'shit!

i'm buying colored denim pants to celebrate.

seriously. bernie is one smart policy wonk and i am personally excited about his election. i am hoping he brings some intelligent debate to the minimum wage and entitlement program discussions.

[Wesley]

I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of this theory. Why is a two-party system worse than a multi-party system? Many other stable, enlightened democracies have systems, even parliamentary systems, where essentially two parties dominate.

In pure form, it isn't. But I didn't say a two-party system per se, though that is what we have so the example by default. I'd be fine if it were 48-48 with 4 non-party affiliated independents. What I detest is a party with a 50+% share. I find any single party's ability to pass what it wants with no other buy-in unhealthy for a functioning representative system--including any party I affiliate myself with.
(I want an outlet so that my voice is heard, but power corrupts. Were I to have a party, I would in all honesty not want it to have 50+% control.)
And there is a big difference in dominate and utterly control. Two or three parties dominate the British House of Commons, but there are 11 named parties with at least 1 elected representative. As of now, our House is made up of 2 parties and 2 parties alone, not even a single independent, much less a third named party. We're not talking domination, we're talking unrivaled control.


Plenty of other countries with multi-party systems devolve into areas where those parties become armed militias knifing each other for tiny bits of turf.

Come now, Iraq and Liberia? Plenty do not do this. Why not cite fully functioning examples that like England, Canada, France, or Germany?


My pet theories about how government ought to work aren't reflected in either party...

Technically, no party really matches mine, but I think there is still PLENTY of room for a third or fourth party. Republicans tend to be conservative on both social and financial matters (well, until recently). Democrats tend to be more liberal on both. Are you saying there's no place for someone who is socially very liberal, but financially very conservative? Where does someone go who wants to see gays marriage and women have the right to choose while ALSO thinking taxes should be lowered and social programs trimmed back?
I've actually found this to be a fairly common stance, but most people like that don't have the courage to vote 3rd party because they've been told it's "wasting" a vote and so they give up one side of their beliefs or the other...they "vote for the lesser of the two evils." Not for who they actually want, but who they think can win or who they find less distasteful. A healthy system has voters voting for who they want and believe in, not playing games on the internet to swap votes and try to "beat" the system or select candidates they don't actually want, but think they'd want more than the guy who's likely to win.
The very way we talk about voting nowdays is a cancer in the system. We don't vote for people, we vote against other people. We don't vote our hearts, we vote for who we can stomach. We don't vote for good, we vote for the lesser of two evils. It's sad and sickening in turns.


Why? To pass laws, one still needs to hit that 50% plus 1 margin. What would a 30-30-20-10 split lead to except for more factionalism, more sneaky vote swaps in our legislative bodies?

Well, as someone who would really love to see FEWER BUT BETTER laws passed in general, I'd love to see a 25-25-25-25 split where to get 51 you'd have to have the buy in of members from at least 3 parties to do it. Besides, I don't think it would get much sneakier than it does now, what with parties hiding riders for a non-military program in a military bill to force it through. In fact, with three other parties watching your every move, I tend to think people would get away with less, not more (or at the least, what they did get away with would be made more public than it is now).


The only three times that this country hasn't had a healthy back and forth to the two party system were:

I don't buy the cause-and-effect here. No denial the founders weren't the best of pals, but we were founding a nation, coming off a war, still fighting on the frontiers. I can hardly say the country's strife was due to the lack of a two party system.
As for the Whigs and the Civil War, again, the Civil War had theoretical and philosophical roots dating back to the founding, and very direct ones to tax and trade acts in the 30's. Granted, the politcal fall-out of the 50's might have exacerbated things, but it did not cause the rift that became the Civil War.
And we still have inter-citizen strife to this day in many areas, due more to economic and class pressures than politcal affiliation (which is probably the underlying cause for the rise of those parties to begin with).
Again, there are many functioning examples of long-term 3, 4, 5+ party nations.


But the two major parties also co-opt the hell out of the smaller parties' ideas. ... Many Libertarian positions on taxes have been taken to heart by Republicans.

And many more have not. And for every co-opted idea, there are dozens left to linger. I still have beliefs on topics like drugs, social security, voting methods, and other issues that NEITHER big party will touch with a 10-foot pole. Probably ever. Where do I go to have these expressed?


But from my thinking, Libertarian (or Green, or Anti-Immigrant, or whatever) Party draws the percentage of votes they do because that's the percentage of people who actually find those ideas palatable.

Again, I largely disagree.
Granted, the Libertarians are nutcases who could use some better spin and PR, but they also get little to no coverage. I think many people remain fully undereducated about the stances of the third parties and so they ignore them for the devils they do know. I still remember telling people I voted Libertarian in 2000 to have them say "How could you vote for Nader?"
Ron Paul was a Libertarian, but couldn't get elected. Then he ran under the name Republican and without change many of his ideas at all won easily. It was the banner and all that came with it, not the ideas.
Another example, my ballot had 5 names for governor listed. Yet there were only 4 candidates allowed in the televised debate. The one without the money, the one without media access got the fewest votes. Odd, that.
I'd bet everything I have that if you put all the valid candidates in debates and switched to approval or ranked voting instead of "choose one person and don't waste it," you'd find a radical shift virtually overnight in the political make-up of our legislative bodies.
Yes, in some cases it is palatability. But since most people don't even know how third parties stand to know if they are palatable, I'd bet low vote totals are more due fear, a lack of education on behalf of the voters, and to a lack of money, national architecture, and access by the smaller parties than to the validity or palatability of their ideas.
The system is designed to perpetuate itself and the design is maintained by those already in power.

And don't forget, 65% of voters didn't turn out. Who knows their reasons. So these two ruling parties, they are voted in by about 1/2 of 35% in a good year. I hardly say this represents a valid mandate.

[Roy Janik]

I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of this theory. Why is a two-party system worse than a multi-party system? Many other stable, enlightened democracies have systems, even parliamentary systems, where essentially two parties dominate.

In pure form, it isn't. But I didn't say a two-party system per se, though that is what we have so the example by default.

[... Wes says a lot of stuff]

And don't forget, 65% of voters didn't turn out. Who knows their reasons. So these two ruling parties, they are voted in by about 1/2 of 35% in a good year. I hardly say this represents a valid mandate.

And for the first time in a long while, Wes makes a long-winded political post that I wholeheartedly agree with. Hooray.

[nadine]

.... someone who is socially very liberal, but financially very conservative?

Hah. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Lots of us around.
Actually fiscal conservative is economic liberalism, the belief in free trade and markets.

And don't forget, 65% of voters didn't turn out. Who knows their reasons. So these two ruling parties, they are voted in by about 1/2 of 35% in a good year. I hardly say this represents a valid mandate.

Australia fines people who don't vote. This could be a good way to fund education.

[arthursimone]

Germany has a terrific system that allows for multiple votes for multiple parties so even the most cynical voter can seek out and vote for viable candidates to represent them.

But even there, you cannot choose a Chancellor without a coalition majority, ie, Social Democrats joining forces with the Greens to form that magic 51%. It doesn't happen otherwise, someone somehow forms a majority to rule. It might not reflect the true sentiment of the majority of the voters, but hell, someone's got to rule. Otherwise you're left with a chaotic system like Italy. Now that's a system to get cyncial about. Maniacs.


If you believe in what Hegel wrote about, things have to get bad before people take action. Case in point, the two-party system here is a reactionary pendulum. As big a fan I am of the German system, we're kind of stuck in this country with that two-party system until some sort of dramatic shift happens.

Germany created its modern democracy based on a total clean slate following the Nazis; Hitler got power as a reactionary response to post WW1 chaos, solidified his party's power with dire consequences. Post WW2, germans said, "ok, this sucks," set up their inspired little system, they seem to doing pretty well, even though they disenfranchise radical parties that can't garner more than 5% of the party vote, even though have pendulum-esque switches in coalition power, same as us.

Ain't perfect, but that's why there are two houses of Congress, three branches of government. Ain't perfect how it works out, either, especially with the rise of mass media and the increase in the power of the Executive Branch. Ain't perfect and is always very frustrating and always needs protestors and cynics, but the only alternatives are chaos and, well, chaos that might lead to something better. But I'd rather not have to live through chaos.




all that being said, I'm glad those hubris-soaked, godfucking Republicans got bumped down a notch.

[Wesley]

As big a fan I am of the German system, we're kind of stuck in this country with that two-party system until some sort of dramatic shift happens.

Aye, but we stuck only so long as WE allow ourselves to be stuck. If you do what you've always done you get what you've always got. If we want to make a change, we must make it. People are lazy creatures of habit, but the dirty little secret is that we can create a dramatic shift just about anytime we want, every two years. We just don't because change is both hard and scary.


Ain't perfect, but that's why there are two houses of Congress...

The reason for two houses of Congress was all but destroyed on April 8, 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified allowing for the direct election of Senators. Repealing that travesty would be the first of my big three voting reforms.


all that being said, I'm glad those hubris-soaked, godfucking Republicans got bumped down a notch.

Agreed and amen.

[York99]

The biggest victory is in the amount of shake-up on the status quo... the biggest defeat is that this few incumbents voted out is a victory.

Voting should be largely based on kicking out old people and voting in new ones.

This blanket statement is full of holes, but it keeps me warm.

I stamp out, so you can't respond.

[arthursimone]

The biggest victory is in the amount of shake-up on the status quo... the biggest defeat is that this few incumbents voted out is a victory.

I too hate the bully power of party hacks and gerrymandered incumbents, but there have been many bright spots in this election to relish.

Big props to Internet-powered candidates and Howard Dean for an underdog 50-state strategy that bucked conventional wisdom but did just as well numbers-wise as DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel's targeted, party-favored and funded candidates... "Supercandidates" like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois were given zillions in campaign cash but lost while college professor Dave Loebsack in Iowa and activist Carol Shea-Porter (who wasn't on any major media's forecast as being competitive) in New Hampshire won with guts and determination.

We'll see how "Mr. Smith-ed" these folks become, but I have a feeling that dudes like Jon Tester will ride into Washington and join that inspiring group of folks who actually stick to their principles and make us proud.

[Brian Boyko]

You know, it's very strange -- I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it's over, I don't know what to do with the rest of my life.