US midterm elections: Bush/Republicans huge winners

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by K6-III


His support of campaign finance reform and space keep him as an admirable figure in my eyes....

You mean the McCain/Feningold bill? That was nothing more than a ploy to get him elected President in 2000. It's actual effect was to move the money even further out of sight by moving it from national PAC's to the State party organizations, which is where most PAC money was going anyhow.

It's also very likely unconstitutional since in the late 90's the US Supreme Court had already held that money = free speech when it comes to campaigns because of the necessity to get on TV, radio and other media.

Even McCain all but admitted during the Senate debate that McCain/Feingold would likely be overturned once it hit the Supreme Court because of this; but he did need that campaign issue in 2000 and it would take longer than that to get challenges to it through the legal system so....

Much ado about nothing

A far better set of changes would have been to;

1. Raise the individual campaign contribution from the $5,000 it's been at since the early 70's to $10,000 then index it for inflation going into the future.

2. Outlaw donations to political campaigns by unions, businesses, law practices and non-profit organizations (already illegal, but often ignored in practice). Individuals only.

3. Mandate FULL disclosure of all contributions on the internet and to the news services within 24 hours of a contribution being given.

4. Require a photo ID to be presented at polling stations.

5. Requre the voters social security number be placed on voter registration cards so as allow more efficient purging of the dead/moved/felons from voter lists and cross referencing with drivers licenses (most new ones have the SS number on them).

This will have the effect of removing about 15% - 20% of the Democratic voters for any given year , but this does have to be done to maintain the credibility of the system.

We have direct experience with this since this year we received a fully functional voters registration card for a person who lived in our home long before we bought it 10 years ago. I understand from several neighbors that they had similar experiences, and of course our city clerk's a long time Democrat which suprised none of us. Makes one wonder just how many people have voted more than once because of this kind of "accident"

With those changes you don't limit anyones free-speech rights under the existing US Supreme Court rulings and there is FULL disclosure of who's contributing to who.

Dr. Mordrid

[Tomasz]

This was a great week for Republicans! Finally, enough voters mustered up enough sense not to vote for people who want to take their money away, give some of it to those too lazy and incompetent to work, and embezzle the rest.

Too bad that my state, California, couldn't come through and get that dimwitted crook Gray Davis out of the Governor's chair. All I can say is that here in Orange County, and most of the rest of the state, it was 2:1 Republican. Unfortunately, the two places that are the most liberal (San Francisco and Los Angeles) are the most populated.

John McCain is a total joke... this guy is not a true Republican by any stretch of the imagination... just look at his voting record. Besides, if you just watch his mannerisms, he reeks of insincerity.

Alan Keyes is a guy that I have more respect for, especially because of the way that he preaches the importance of morality, the right to bear arms, and the right to be free from the illegal taxation of income. I mean, I can stand sales taxes, but taxation of income is blatantly wrong.

This will have the effect of removing about 15% - 20% of the Democratic voters for any given year , but this does have to be done to maintain the credibility of the system.

Funny, but true. This is also the reason why democrats will do anything in their power to stop any form of reform in this system. Hell, then they couldn't go around registering dead people, illegal immigrants, peoples pets, etc. Furthermore, they wouldn't be able to drag native americans and other minorities to the voting booths in exchange for little favors and empty promises.

On a sad note, it looks like our friend Dick Gephardt will be stepping down from his post as house minority leader. I wish he would stay longer... a couple of more years of his leadership and the Democrats might end up with only 100 seats

Anyway, it's a good week to be a Republican!

[KRSESQ]

If the Supreme Court insists that money=free speech, fine. But it would be nice to see (at least on the congressional level) a law or Constitutional Amendment requiring that at least 51% of the campaign money spent in a particular state be raised in that state from private contributions.

Of course, Congress would never approve such a law or amendment. My Constitutional Law is a little rusty, but I believe that such an amendment could be enacted by 4/5 of the states ratifying it without Congressional approval. Does that sound right to you guys?

Kevin

[Joel]

But it would be nice to see (at least on the congressional level) a law or Constitutional Amendment requiring that at least 51% of the campaign money spent in a particular state be raised in that state from private contributions.

And while we are at it let's also impliment a policy that does away with giving millions of taxpayer dollars to the two major parties for campaign funds which gives them an unfair advantage over third parties.

Joel

[K6-III]

What would you say to a spending limit???

[Wombat]

I'd say they already have those, and people are getting around them through PACs and such.

[K6-III]

How about capping them to $100,000 strictly enforced????

All major party candidates (5%>) get guaranteed allocated time on all local networks...

[UtwigMU]

It's the voting system:

US and UK have majority system:
The candidate who wins in voting area (they are defined in such way that they have approximately equal population) wins.

Pros:
- each area gets representative
- you know who you vote for

Cons:
- smaller groups cannot have representative
- big parties rewarded, small penalized
- ultimately leads to 2 party system

One party dominates and forms goverment alone. Decide for yourself wether that's a pro or a con.

Lot's of European countries have proportional or mix between proportional and majority system.

Pros:
- each group of interests (even small ~3%) can have a representative
- the parliament resembles percentages of people who voted for each party
- more political parties - represents more opinions (depends how you view it.)

Cons:
- You vote for parties, not candidates.
- Small parties slightly rewarded, big slightly penalized

Parties are forced to form either moderate right, moderate left or central coalition. (Depends how you view it.)

On Italy: Their system, no matter how confusable it may be, works for them. Economy is stable, although the goverment is not always stable. (The stability of goverment does not influence economy.) Also Berlusconi's goverment is stable, but economy is now hicuping there.

Germany for instance has proportional system (IIRC with a few majority aditions) but their goverments are very stable.

IMO not all systems work well in all cultures/societies.

IMO proportional system would not work in USA because it would ultimately lead to particularisms based on race, religion or ethnicity. For instance in Bosnia there are only national parties of 3 nations, no other parties.

What would happen would be:
- black party
- white power nationalist party
- hispano party

and green, cristian, left/labour/socialist, moderate right.

IMO US is to diverse and big for proportional system to work.

IMO since US has presidential system, where people ultimately vote for president parties are of less significance.

On the other hand here majority system would not work.

IMO it's not well for one party to dominate all switches of power in one country and to be in power for too long (Kohl's corruption). There has to be an oposition capable of exposing leading coalitions mistakes and the parties in power should be periodically replaced.

[K6-III]

Instant runoff voting would be at least one thing that would provide third-parties with a chance without impacting stability...

[GT98]

I found this interesting article over on Yahoo...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=676&e=2&cid=676&u=/usatoday/20021112/ts_usatoday/4613281

WASHINGTON -- A majority of Americans support President Bush's push for war against Iraq and say Democrats are not tough enough in dealing with terrorism, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

The poll over the weekend also found that most surveyed believe that Republicans have a clearer plan for managing foreign affairs and the economy. Even a majority of Democrats in the survey say their party is too liberal.


The poll suggests that public support for Bush's leadership on Iraq and terrorism, and the Democrats' perceived lack of a plan for the economy, may have been significant factors in the GOP election sweep that gave it control of Congress.


''This election doesn't give Bush a mandate, but it certainly means that his political enemies should never underestimate him again,'' said Stephen Hess, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution.


Overall, 57% of those polled said Democrats are not tough enough on terrorism, while 64% said Republicans are. And 54% of Democrats polled said the party needs to moderate its liberal message.


''Democrats are holding back more than Republicans on attacking Iraq, and we need to clamp down on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites),'' said Democrat Bill Howard, 68, a retired equipment operator in San Angelo, Texas.


However, Democrats do not appear to be moderating their leadership after the elections. House Democrats are expected to elect a liberal, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, as their new leader over moderate Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee.

Pelosi is the only Democratic leader in Congress who voted against the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Now that Republicans are in control of Congress and the White House, their chance of staying in power will be determined by whether they can solve key problems.


Overall, 50% of those polled said the GOP has a clear plan for curing the country's ills; just 30% of respondents said the Democrats do.


And with one party in charge, three of four respondents, 74%, expect things to be accomplished. Among them:


* The creation of a Cabinet-level homeland security department.

* Making tax cuts that were enacted last year permanent.

But 52% of those polled oppose additional tax cuts being considered by Bush to stimulate the economy.

Cliff Notes: The Voters registered as Democrat's even think the party is too Liberal and now they have the only person who voted against going to war in Afganstain as their leader

Other interesting note....52% of people think that the additional Taxes shouldnt't be cut.....

[Dr Mordrid]

The whole issue with campaign finance reform is that because the Supremes have equated speech with money this holds for the entire US, inlcuding the States. As such trying to limit funding from outside that state is also unconstitutional.

What I find interesting as a side effect of the election is that the Democrats seem to be so mucn into recriminations that they are verging on eating their own children

Now...looking forward to 2004

If all goes well in the war on terror and the economy Bush will be re-elected in a walk. The Senate would also likely go even more Republican as many high seniority Democrats are retiring. Also bad for them is that far more Democrats will be up for re-election than Republicans and many of those won by less than 55% in their last run, which makes them sitting ducks if the Republicans get good candidates.

Dr. Mordrid