NationStates Jolt Archive

What will be the important issuses for this mid-term election, what will the people vote on? Personally I think the important issuse will be homeland securty, the War in Iraq, Economy, and other stuff.

I believe that Homeland Security will go to the Republicans because at least they're doing something about the terrorist. At least they're trying to push the terrorist out into the open so they can be captured or shot. The Democrats, they have no real plan beside "cut and run" and Diplomancy. Americans don't want diplomancy, they want to see action!

The War in Iraq, well I think that's going to be split. On one hand turning the Iraq militatry over to the Iraqi government (one branch a month) is a good move, and will win some points. However there's still bombings and insurgents in Iraq, so the Democrats will win points on that one.

As for the economy, Less and less people are jobless, so that's good, the economy isn't booming like it was in the 90's, but it's not too bad. However Bush still haven't vetoed a spending bill, so they'll loose some points on that. However, the Democrats will also lose points because they've got the "tax and spend" stink on them. So that'll cost them.

I don't know, this is a hard race. This would've been the perfect time for 3rd parties to take up some seats.

fascist or not

fascist or not

Umm... k, care to elaborate?

fascist or fascist

Corrected.

This election is about many things. For example, the democratic candidate is gaining ground in Arizona because the republican candidate, despite having perfect conservative credentials, has lost a lot of support from conservatives over his support for Bush's stance on illegal immigration. In Virginia, Webb has moved into a statistical dead heat with George Allen not because of the economy, the war, or issues like that, but because Allen made a smugly racist remark to one of Webb's aides.

In short, the midterm elections are about what the local voters are concerned with most. While some of the national issues that concern presidential elections will certainly factor in to many races, many other races will have unique issues that play out in differing ways.

Corrected.

hey they may also be ineffectual, but it isn't because they're fascists too. that just comes naturally to them, not as a product of their ideology.

Oh I forgot one, the illegal immigration. Really I don't see anyone winning this one. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are doing a good job of it, so once again, this would've been the perfect time for the 3rd parties to gain some ground.

Just remember, whoever wins, we lose. :(

hey they may also be ineffectual, but it isn't because they're fascists too. that just comes naturally to them, not as a product of their ideology.

They're both quite fascist.

We really do need a third party, but our system is stacked up against them. :(

Underwater Communism: The Wave of the Future? America decides.

We really do need a third party, but our system is stacked up against them. :(

Not to be unexpected. The peoples in power wouldn't want some upstart, honest party crashing congress. That just wouldn't be fair to the good people that payed good money for their politicians.

Not to be unexpected. The peoples in power wouldn't want some upstart, honest party crashing congress. That just wouldn't be fair to the good people that payed good money for their politicians.

What we need to do is have one party fall off the face of the earth and put in a party that'll allow 3rd parties.

What we need to do is have one party fall off the face of the earth and put in a party that'll allow 3rd parties.

One? Hell, let's take both parties and throw them in the oven.

One? Hell, let's take both parties and throw them in the oven.

Well, we need one to maintain control while the other one takes the place. Then we do the same thing to the other side. What the hell does it take to bring down a party anyways?

Not to be unexpected. The peoples in power wouldn't want some upstart, honest party crashing congress. That just wouldn't be fair to the good people that payed good money for their politicians.

to be fair, the people who designed the groundwork for the system just didn't know that they built a system that defaults to two parties in any particular district - they seemed to be operating under the delusion that they were going to avoid a system of parties entirely.

Just remember, whoever wins, we lose. :(

That's why we need to keep Congress and the White House split...the goal is to minimize the shit and maximize the (scant) good that comes out of the government.

to be fair, the people who designed the groundwork for the system just didn't know that they built a system that defaults to two parties in any particular district - they seemed to be operating under the delusion that they were going to avoid a system of parties entirely.

*pss* parties didn't exist at the time.

Well, we need one to maintain control while the other one takes the place. Then we do the same thing to the other side. What the hell does it take to bring down a party anyways?

We don't need no steeeenking control.

As for taking down a party...Guns and Fertilizer. ;)

That's why we need to keep Congress and the White House split...the goal is to minimize the shit and maximize the (scant) good that comes out of the government.
I say Congressional term limits. Keep our representatives from building up a massive power base and losing focus on who puts them in office.

to be fair, the people who designed the groundwork for the system just didn't know that they built a system that defaults to two parties in any particular district - they seemed to be operating under the delusion that they were going to avoid a system of parties entirely.

The system, as it was originally built, doesn't default to two parties. Over time, however, the system has developed (read: been manipulated and changed by the two major parties) into a system that doesn't allow for anything but the major parties.

The primary system, in particular, completely disenfranchizes some people - at least on particular votes. If I don't vote in the Republican primary in my county, I simply don't get to vote for certain offices - because Democrats don't even hold a primary. And since whoever whens the Republican primary is the only option on the ballot........

Of course, this means that I don't get to vote for any office in which the opposite happens, since I"ll be voting in the Republican primary.

Many of the restrictions on who can and cannot run in an election and how they can raise money are specifically targetted at keeping anyone not backed by one of the two major parties out of politics altogether - and they have been passed fairly recently in our country's history.

They're both quite fascist.

not in a technical sense. and not to say that the other doesn't suck for its own reasons. it just doesn't appear terribly inclined to lead the country on insane quests of national destiny.

The system, as it was originally built, doesn't default to two parties.

yeah it does. it's just a fact about single member district plurality elections.

*pss* parties didn't exist at the time.
Federalists and anti-Federalists. I'd be astonished if the founders didn't see a party system coming. They had foresight in many other matters.

Well?

Economy:

It's doing well for some but a majority are basically hovering. The Repubs have a bad perception problem as many don't think it's doing well.

Immigration:

It will be brought up as a side issue to try and detract people from Iraq and the endless spending that goes on.

Iraq:

Not too many supporters anymore. It will depend on who has the best plan. Stay the course probably will not work.

I expect doom and gloom ads from the repubs.

Education:

Schools are ok. The US will have to produce quality to be the quantity that India and China produces.

Health and drugs:

Insurance is getting cut or quality reduced as the prices increase all the time. Drug costs! Shrubbies little drug plan screwed me when Claritan was made over the counter. It cost more and it did less. The damn insurance company fought me tooth and nail over switching to Allegra

It will be an interesting election as the demos say we are not the shrub and many repubs are probably going to say we are not the shrub!

The mud slinging should be rather good as I read the Repubs are going to spend an ungodly amount of money to stay in control.

I wonder what wedge issue Rove will have up his sleeve. Don't thin the Ebil gay marriage thing will work this time.

yeah it does. it's just a fact about single member district plurality elections.

And you have something to back this up? Or you're just going to repeat it?

There is absolutely no reason that three different people couldn't run in the same election. There is no reason that independents can't get elected, other than money - and some have managed to get around that.

I say Congressional term limits. Keep our representatives from building up a massive power base and losing focus on who puts them in office.

That would be a great idea...except the term limits amendment would have to be passed by the same people who would be negatively affected it.

However, those lifer politicians have some advantages: Most of them pay more attention to lining their own pockets, living it up in Washington and getting reelected than they do passing legislation, which reduces the chance they will screw everything up with new laws or federal programs.

*pss* parties didn't exist at the time.

except, of course, they were already forming as soon as the revolution looked like it wasn't going to get them all killed.

That would be a great idea...except the term limits amendment would have to be passed by the same people who would be negatively affected it.

The other problem with term limits is that it leads to uncontrolled politicians. Politicians are kept in check (somewhat, anyways) by the threat of getting booted out. We already see that presidents, in their second term, often seem to feel as if they are no longer beholden to the voters. It could be even worse if we regularly had members of congress with that mentality (moreso than they already have it).

Well, we need one to maintain control while the other one takes the place. Then we do the same thing to the other side. What the hell does it take to bring down a party anyways?

Have a better message and a plan that people like.

The problem with the liberts is that they tend to insult people that argue with their platform.

I say Congressional term limits. Keep our representatives from building up a massive power base and losing focus on who puts them in office.

Nah. That didn't change much where it was implemented.

I saw outlaw the "controlled" debates that have been set up by the two parties.

No question should be off the table. You shouldn't be able to get a list of questions asked. The public should ask the questions.

Then you get to see how the candidate can think on his feet.

And you have something to back this up? Or you're just going to repeat it?

There is absolutely no reason that three different people couldn't run in the same election. There is no reason that independents can't get elected, other than money - and some have managed to get around that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

really though, it's just a sort of logical outcome of single member plurality districts. to win you need more votes than anybody else. therefore, what you do is form broad coalitions. if you form a broad coalition on the right and there are two coalitions running on the left, then your coalition wins (assuming at least some parity between left and right within the district). so the electoral pressure is heavily tilted towards forming just two parties in any particular district.

The other problem with term limits is that it leads to uncontrolled politicians. Politicians are kept in check (somewhat, anyways) by the threat of getting booted out. We already see that presidents, in their second term, often seem to feel as if they are no longer beholden to the voters. It could be even worse if we regularly had members of congress with that mentality (moreso than they already have it).

that's what representative electoral politics gets for you. a bad idea all around really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

really though, it's just a sort of logical outcome of single member plurality districts. to win you need more votes than anybody else. therefore, what you do is form broad coalitions. if you form a broad coalition on the right and there are two coalitions running on the left, then your coalition wins (assuming at least some parity between left and right within the district). so the electoral pressure is heavily tilted towards forming just two parties in any particular district.

Your own source states that it isn't necessarily inherent in the system - that even the person to come up with it never saw it as an absolute.

Meanwhile, your explanation simplifies things greatly and is based in the system that is currently in effect. You assume that all candidates or parties must fall into only two categories (right and left), and then draw from that idea the conclusion that two parties will thus develop. In this way, you are basically assuming your conclusion to reach your conclusion.

I am paying much more attention to my local elections than the ones for my state reps this time, mostly because when it comes to congress I have a choice between "idiot that I don't trust" and "asshole that makes me want to vomit".

Locally there is an election for people who are in the business of regulating things close to my heart, like the state tax code and homeschooling regulations, those things are on my top 2 list and those are what I am listening for.

Your own source states that it isn't necessarily inherent in the system - that even the person to come up with it never saw it as an absolute.

Meanwhile, your explanation simplifies things greatly and is based in the system that is currently in effect. You assume that all candidates or parties must fall into only two categories (right and left), and then draw from that idea the conclusion that two parties will thus develop. In this way, you are basically assuming your conclusion to reach your conclusion.

i never said that its an absolute - clearly there are districts where multiple parties run. sometimes even competitively. but it takes special circumstances to not get a two party system out of smpd. which is what i meant when i said it defaults to it.

how do you intend to stop people from forming coalitions to win a particular district? because if you allow them to do so, then the weight of numbers means that the opposition needs to try to make a bigger coalition to beat them. and each side will continue to attempt to absorb different factions in search of electoral success. it's just an arms race, and the rules don't allow you to have allies outside the coalition.

as for falling into two broad categories, that's just an empirical tendency. it exists in the world. but assume it didn't for a minute. let's say there are 8 parties running for a particular single seat a number of times. they are all about equal in the first race, and party #3 wins with 12.7% of the vote. next time, parties 2 and 7 decide to put aside their differences and run as one party. surprise, surprise, they win with 25% of the vote. lather, rinse repeat. eventually you wind up with two coalitions that are glued together merely for the sake of winning.

I am paying much more attention to my local elections than the ones for my state reps this time, mostly because when it comes to congress I have a choice between "idiot that I don't trust" and "asshole that makes me want to vomit".


So which one is getting your vote? Idiot or asshole?

So which one is getting your vote? Idiot or asshole?

well, neither of them are worthy of my time, but the idiot is the lesser of two evils, since the asshole is trying to run through legislation that could very well ruin my life.

VOTE IDIOT 2006

What will be the important issuses for this mid-term election, what will the people vote on? Personally I think the important issuse will be homeland securty, the War in Iraq, Economy, and other stuff.
All which are important, but will be swept aside in the usual Republican smokescreens.

I believe that Homeland Security will go to the Republicans because at least they're doing something about the terrorist. At least they're trying to push the terrorist out into the open so they can be captured or shot. The Democrats, they have no real plan beside "cut and run" and Diplomancy. Americans don't want diplomancy, they want to see action! "Cut and run?" that's about Iraq not the homeland. No one knows what the democrates would do because they haven't had a chance to do anything. I do believe everyone is sick of their civil liberties being cut down.

The War in Iraq, well I think that's going to be split. On one hand turning the Iraq militatry over to the Iraqi government (one branch a month) is a good move, and will win some points. However there's still bombings and insurgents in Iraq, so the Democrats will win points on that one.
Agreed

As for the economy, Less and less people are jobless, so that's good, the economy isn't booming like it was in the 90's, but it's not too bad. However Bush still haven't vetoed a spending bill, so they'll loose some points on that. However, the Democrats will also lose points because they've got the "tax and spend" stink on them. So that'll cost them. Don't forget the fact that the country is up to their armed in Debt because of the current group, with their "Borrow and spend"


I don't know, this is a hard race. This would've been the perfect time for 3rd parties to take up some seats.
I wish.

But none of this will be important, you know why?

BECAUSE THE EVIL GAYS ARE COMING!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! THEY BURN BIBLES KILL KITTENS EAT BABIES!! GAYS!!!!!!
-Republican message to the Religious right.

I see the Dems picking up control over the House and maybe within a seat of the Senate.

As much as the mid-terms are local, the same "Kick the bums out" mentality that gave the house to the GOP back in the day has manged to brew again. No matter how much the GOP tries, it is tied in with Bush and he just isn't all that popular now-a-days. You have to dance a dance of trying to distance yourself, but not too far or else you'll piss off the loyalists, but too close and you suddenly set your campain up as a referendum on Bush.

It should be interesting.

well, neither of them are worthy of my time, but the idiot is the lesser of two evils, since the asshole is trying to run through legislation that could very well ruin my life.

VOTE IDIOT 2006

Can't say as I blame you. In the end, it's that kind of thinking that informs a lot of our votes. Not, "which is the better candidate." More like "which one's more likely to only fuck me six days a week instead of seven."

Here in Ohio, it comes down to one issue and one issue alone, it seems: taxes. Both candidates for Senate are trying to look better on the issue of taxes, with homeland security coming in at a distant second. Each one is trying to come across as in favor of this tax cut or that tax cut.

For Governor, taxes are big, but our Democratic candidate came out in favor of family medical leave and blasted his opponent for opposing it. But by and large, it's been mostly taxes and jobs. Frankly, as up and down as the economy's been, it seems to be favoring the Democrats.

But if you want a real nut job, try reading up on Vernon Robinson, who, I believe, is running for the seat in the 7th district of North Carolina. His page looks like something The Onion or the folks at Landover Baptist would have done.

Can't say as I blame you. In the end, it's that kind of thinking that informs a lot of our votes. Not, "which is the better candidate." More like "which one's more likely to only fuck me six days a week instead of seven."

That's the way local politics usually is.

Immigration, terrorism, Iraq, etc.. I haven't hear any thing on gay marriage or abortion yet. Do they save that for the presidential elections?

I haven't been paying much attention to local or statewide campaigns, but does anyone know of any close campaigns in Illinois? At one point I thought Gov. would be, but i am not sure if that still holds up now or not.

Immigration, terrorism, Iraq, etc.. I haven't hear any thing on gay marriage or abortion yet. Do they save that for the presidential elections?

In most US states, advocating for gay marriage is a third rail issue. In some states, they voted 70 to 80 percent in favor of banning gay marriage.

I tend to concentrate on local issues, such as transportation. Bring that pork here, so our community can develop major sprawl.

In most US states, advocating for gay marriage is a third rail issue. In some states, they voted 70 to 80 percent in favor of banning gay marriage.

I tend to concentrate on local issues, such as transportation. Bring that pork here, so our community can develop major sprawl.

I'm hoping we can get some people in office that will re-open the mines down south near me. We need them, even if the coal is high(or maybe it was low) in sulphur.