In America, we are electing our Congressmen

[chris the jedi killer]

Get out of the thread, cretin!

 

How Rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :'(

Edited November 9, 2006 by chris the jedi killer

[Pop]

It's official, Dems have the Senate.

 

That's the game, folks.

[dewaybe2678]

It's official, Dems have the Senate.

 

That's the game, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i'm kinda glad the dems won this year. i supported bush 6yrs ago and 2yrs ago. but i think he made a mess of our foreign policy. only demy i would voted for lost im the primary two yrs i hope he runs again. no i'm a not a rep. i'm a ind. but i tend vote rep. when i don't the ind. running. i vote dem this year accept for state governor i like rick perry. i was to young to vote when bush was governor

Edited November 9, 2006 by dewaybe2678

[taks]

It's official, Dems have the Senate.

 

That's the game, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to tell you but it's not "official." the AP is not the body that decides VA's outcome. it does seem likely, however.

 

taks

[Pop]

It's official, Dems have the Senate.

 

That's the game, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to tell you but it's not "official." the AP is not the body that decides VA's outcome. it does seem likely, however.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but according to the Allen camp, assuming they're going to do what they said they'd do beforehand, Allen's going to have to concede. Barring any revelation or interference from the courts, it's in the bag.

[dewaybe2678]

It's official, Dems have the Senate.

 

That's the game, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, hate to tell you but it's not "official." the AP is not the body that decides VA's outcome. it does seem likely, however.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, but according to the Allen camp, assuming they're going to do what they said they'd do beforehand, Allen's going to have to concede. Barring any revelation or interference from the courts, it's in the bag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i heard the rep. in the senate rce in montana hasn't conceded either

[Colrom]

This state (California) really has a love/hate relationship with fiscal responsibility.  I can't believe we voted down three tax-reliant props and passed so many bond-reliant props that we will be paying back ~$70 billion over the next 30 years.

 

Sweet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

New Jersey has taken to voting for bond props and constitutional amendments for all sorts of stuff. This year is the first without bond props. We still had three constitutional amendments.

 

BTW, when the interest rate went down they refinanced the bonds to provide more money not lower payments.

 

Nuts.

 

Anyway, yipppee for my Dems! :joy:

[Sand]

We just need to keep adding in Democrats and Independents till the Republicans are no more but a bad memory. DOWN WITH THE REPUBLICANS!

 

Seriously, some of those Republicans need to join us in the 21st century. Three main reasons why Chet Culver, our Democrat Governor Elect, got voted in was because the Republican candidates for Governor and Vice Governor wanted:

 

1: Make a constitutional amendment that promoted bigotry.

2: Bring religious doctrine to our public school system, thusly breaking the separation of church and state.

3: Seeking to stop progress in medical science by inhibiting stem cell research and cloning of human tissue.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Sand

[Plano Skywalker]

it will be interesting to see how the House Democrats position themselves....obviously, the war will take up much of the talking points.

 

still, Democrats have their own "kooks" and their own version of flag-burning amendments, marriage amendments and any other devisive issue you can think of. will Pelosi careen to the left (which is where she has lived most of her political career) or try to be a Clintonian centrist? will she be able to hold together a moderate/liberal coalition, will she be able to get Republican votes on certain bills when she needs them? all of this remains to be seen.

 

in the Senate, there is a razor-thin majority and, all told, the Senate should not change its DNA all that much...plus, you don't have to have a majority to bottle up nominess....all you need is 41 senators.

 

the House Republicans had a cynical strategy of holding on to power: spend money like drunken sailors on every pork project you could think of and throw the religious right a bone every once in a while. that is not Conservatism. Conservatism wins at the polls....trouble is, it is not often found on the menu.

[alanschu]

We just need to keep adding in Democrats and Independents till the Republicans are no more but a bad memory. DOWN WITH THE REPUBLICANS!

 

Unless you're an idealogue that totally buys into their platform, I'm guessing that taks' idea of splitting the power is not a bad idea at all.

[Lucius]

You're back! :joy:

[Walsingham]

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

[alanschu]

You're back!  :joy:   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I've resigned myself to the notion that, at least for now, this forum is where I go when I'm bored.

 

 

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

 

I actually agree. People seem to label the Democrats as essentially being socialists, but IMO they are still more right-wing than what many countries consider as being the "right-wing" party.

 

                               D    R
<-------------------|------------------>
Communist                     Capitalist

[Lucius]

That's exactly right Alan, it's really preposterous to call the democrats for "pinko communists" or whatever some of the republicans do.

 

We have a party here, albeit very small fortunately, which would be very far out on the left on that scale, they're quite nuts btw. :crazy:

[dewaybe2678]

i thought all public offical are cons

[Dark_Raven]

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't the Labour Party and Conservative Party just about the same also?

[Enoch]

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a symptom of our system being set up with single-member, winner-take-all districts. Nobody agrees fully with the platform of any one party (well, maybe the producers at Fox News), but they don't want to start new parties because the best they could do is siphon off votes from whichever of the established parties their outlook is closest to. The system is set up so that the best ways to enact change are by working within the existing political parties to get one (or both) of them to adopt your position. It works reasonably well, but with the marked drawback of each voter always feeling like they're doing nothing but picking the lesser of two evils (which might explain the low turnout rates).

 

The only way to change this would be with a constitutional amendment, which takes a large majority with substantial motivation. It's tough to get the people excited about procedural matters like that.

 

Also, it's not as if European-style parliamentary systems are without their own set of faults. When there's a party, a party, a party, a party, a party, a :crazy: party, a party, and a party all trying to forge a consensus policy agenda, the result is hardly a model of stability.

[Walsingham]

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't the Labour Party and Conservative Party just about the same also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At the moment, yes. I don't think this is sustainable though.

 

As Enoch says, I wouldn't want a change to our system in the UK, or we'd have both parties teaming up with the LIberal Democrats to run things. And those guys REALLY annoy me.

[Lucius]

I don't think there's such a thing as european style, or perhaps it's just the UK that stands out. Personally I have no idea how they do it in France and south of that. Germany, and Scandinavia seems to bear a lot of resemblence though.

[taks]

I don't mean to be a smug foreigner, but how longw ill it be before you chaps realise and act upon the fact that both parties are almost exactly the same, but that neither actually does what you want?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think i've made several comments to that end (so have di and others). politicians are politicians. they're in it for their own gain. the power and money attracts that kind of personality/mentality. the populace falls for it. it has long been my belief that the term "democrat" and "republican" are nothing more than particular monikers that politicians use to gain what they want. i.e. different means to the same end.

 

taks

[taks]

I actually agree.  People seem to label the Democrats as essentially being socialists, but IMO they are still more right-wing than what many countries consider as being the "right-wing" party.

 

                               D    R
<-------------------|------------------>
Communist                     Capitalist

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in general, very true. however, the far left, the extreme liberals in the democratic party, are socialist anywhere in the world. they comprise a very small sub-group of the democrats, however. unfortunately, many of their ideas creep into mainstream politics on occasion.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

You think maybe that's because all their candidates are chosen by the most fanatical and bizarre subsection of the party?

[Arilou]

I actually agree.  People seem to label the Democrats as essentially being socialists, but IMO they are still more right-wing than what many countries consider as being the "right-wing" party.

 

                               D    R
<-------------------|------------------>
Communist                     Capitalist

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in general, very true. however, the far left, the extreme liberals in the democratic party, are socialist anywhere in the world. they comprise a very small sub-group of the democrats, however. unfortunately, many of their ideas creep into mainstream politics on occasion.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like what? When have the democrats advocating nationalizing private property?

 

I'd just like to take this moment and point out that our rightmost party in parliamnet is probably slightly to the left of the Democratic Party.

[Enoch]

You think maybe that's because all their candidates are chosen by the most fanatical and bizarre subsection of the party?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, Gerrymandering.

 

I'm assuming, for simplicity, a single-axis model of political preferences (as in Alan's neat little diagram, but with a general "Left/Right" rather than "Commie/Cappie"), and a normal, bell-shaped distribution of the the populace. In a normal 2 candidate general election, rational politicians would race to the center, positioning themselves as close to the median voter as possible. But, elections in the U.S. are actually 2-step processes. First, there is a primary election, where candidates who position themselves as pragmatic centrists are often defeated by more extreme pols. So there is a dynamic both pulling candidates away from and towards the center. Normally, the most "fanatical and bizarre" candidates who win the primary are defeated because the opposition is closer to the median voter.

 

But what if the district is overwhelmingly dominated by one party? If the only real threat to an incumbent is a primary challenge from within his/her own party, the incentive to cling to the median voter in his/her district is much weaker. Over the past 20 years, political Gerrymandering of "safe seats" has taken off, accelerated by computer models that make it very easy to "pack and crack" the opposition. (These terms refer to putting a huge number of your opponent's supporters into one district so that your party has a stable majority in all the other surrounding ones.) Even when one party doesn't have exclusive control of the districting process, there is often a bi-partisan Gerrymander to protect the status-quo incumbents.

[taks]

Like what? When have the democrats advocating nationalizing private property?

i'm not sure what you're getting at here? this would be a case of true socialism creeping into mainstream politics/law, btw. that the supreme court upheld this in the face of massive, and obvious, opposition was rather surprising.

 

taks