Political pissing contests

[dhussdawg]

I was watching Good Morning America this morning, and they had Pelosi on there. I already do not like her for her crazy fringe leftist politics, but I saw a telling sign of politics today from her comments. She bragged about bringing democrats together in the House by blockading 90% of Republican laws. Now, I dont want anyone to think I am just picking on Dems because I know voting along party lines is the thing to do, but it is a huge problem in my book. So, Pelosi is basically bragging about having a pissing contest on the people's dollar. It doesnt matter rather you like the law or not, the rest of the democrats/republicans are voting against it so you have to. This is one reason why I hate political parties. I understand their need, but when it totally kills independent thought, I have to question its efficiency and ability to solve problems. Politicians do their little charades in Washington and get nothing done on our dollar, you gotta love it.

[champion110]

I was watching Good Morning America this morning, and they had Pelosi on there. I already do not like her for her crazy fringe leftist politics, but I saw a telling sign of politics today from her comments. She bragged about bringing democrats together in the House by blockading 90% of Republican laws. Now, I dont want anyone to think I am just picking on Dems because I know voting along party lines is the thing to do, but it is a huge problem in my book. So, Pelosi is basically bragging about having a pissing contest on the people's dollar. It doesnt matter rather you like the law or not, the rest of the democrats/republicans are voting against it so you have to. This is one reason why I hate political parties. I understand their need, but when it totally kills independent thought, I have to question its efficiency and ability to solve problems. Politicians do their little charades in Washington and get nothing done on our dollar, you gotta love it.

Yep. Been a problem for years. She has taken a page out of the Republican handbook. One complaint about the Democrats is that they don't stick together and have varying beliefs. That is the reason that I DO like Democrats. It doesn't win, though, so she is addressing it.

Our system is really screwed up right now. What you see in Washington is representative of the people - we are totally split. There are not many true independents, anymore. The ones that claim that usually fall to one side or the other (I am talking about candidates, not the public). The only way to win is with big money (which Nancy has plenty of) and a big machine (2 party choices for this).

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I was watching Good Morning America this morning, and they had Pelosi on there. I already do not like her for her crazy fringe leftist politics, but I saw a telling sign of politics today from her comments. She bragged about bringing democrats together in the House by blockading 90% of Republican laws.

WOW! Remember the DEMS/LIBS ran Congress for 40 straight years. They know all of the ins and outs of running and blocking the political process. The GOP has had to get on the learning curve of being in the majority.

[duckbillplatty]

I would hate to get in a pissing contest with Nancy Pelosi, her penis is probably HUGE.

[Champ967]

Let me un-retire briefly from Pawlitics to get yall's thoughts on real ELECTORAL REFORM.

Modern technology, air transportation, and the globalization of the world economy are continuing to make a person's physical location less and less relevant these days. Maybe we need to have serious national discussion about the impending OBSOLESCENCE of a bi-cameral Congress and legislative districts. Both of these, in my opinion, unnecessarily propogate the 2-party system and the corruption / gridlock associated with it.

What if .... ?

All of Congress were elected at-large with a dozen or more parties to choose from. Seriously ... Think about it before you write-off ol Champ as a leftist wacko (which I am :icon_wink: .)

Voters would be more likely to find a candidate that most closely represents their beliefs. Ideologies outside the mainstream could be represented in govt at the same level they are in the population. Pork-barrel spending would be obsolete. With no majority party, cooperation and consensus building would be crucial. Partisan grandstanding would be immaterial.

Legislative districts and a 2-party Congress were very important when we were a young coastal nation of farmers and craftsman. Regional distinctions were much more pronounced then. But does our current system of electing legislators still serve to reflect the will of the people? If that's the whole point (and I would submit that it is), then there may be ways to do it better.

[champion110]

Let me un-retire briefly from Pawlitics to get yall's thoughts on real ELECTORAL REFORM.

Modern technology, air transportation, and the globalization of the world economy are continuing to make a person's physical location less and less relevant these days. Maybe we need to have serious national discussion about the impending OBSOLESCENCE of a bi-cameral Congress and legislative districts. Both of these, in my opinion, unnecessarily propogate the 2-party system and the corruption / gridlock associated with it.

What if .... ?

All of Congress were elected at-large with a dozen or more parties to choose from. Seriously ... Think about it before you write-off ol Champ as a leftist wacko (which I am :icon_wink: .)

Voters would be more likely to find a candidate that most closely represents their beliefs. Ideologies outside the mainstream could be represented in govt at the same level they are in the population. Pork-barrel spending would be obsolete. With no majority party, cooperation and consensus building would be crucial. Partisan grandstanding would be immaterial.

Legislative districts and a 2-party Congress were very important when we were a young coastal nation of farmers and craftsman. Regional distinctions were much more pronounced then. But does our current system of electing legislators still serve to reflect the will of the people? If that's the whole point (and I would submit that it is), then there may be ways to do it better.

Champ, don't you think that we would just be trading regionality for special interests (which is already there, but could thrive even more in the system you describe). Plus, I think that people would stick to electing regional candidates for a while, because that is who can represent some of those pork barrells to them.

Interesting discussion.... Those are just honest questions from the ignorant on this topic.

I am still trying to picture Nancy's#%$#. I really think she would take that as a compliment.

[Champ967]

Politics is, by definition, divergent interests competing for scarce resources. (Or at least I would submit that as one definition.) Special interests were much more related to location in the past. Not so much these days. So why continue to force it?

I guess I dont have a beef with self-defined regional candidates. Culture is still tied to geography in a strong way. And if folks want to vote according to culture, aint nuthin wrong with that. But the existing system of congressional districts (and even state lines) is, by and large, arbitrary and self-serving.

Honestly ... it's hard to speculate exactly what would happen. But if democracy is good and discourse is good and and choices are good, why not more for everybody? If I think Jindal (for example) would be a good legislator for AMERICA, why shouldnt I get to vote for him? Just cuz he has a home address in Louisiana and I dont? That thinking seems quaint at best, obtuse at worst.

[duckbillplatty]

That's an interesting suggestion Champ967, I shall ponder that...

[CARTEK]

Yep. Been a problem for years. She has taken a page out of the Republican handbook. One complaint about the Democrats is that they don't stick together and have varying beliefs. That is the reason that I DO like Democrats. It doesn't win, though, so she is addressing it.

That's because half the party is wrong and the other half are just in the wrong party. If you stick together for the right reasons and ideas, sticking together is good. I'm sure the Democrats wish they could have stuck together back in the 60's to get civil rights legislation passed...oh, forgot the Republicans did stick together and vote overwhelmingly with some Democrats to get that passed. I couldn't resist...

[Bill Pup60]

Champ.....

If you truly mean elected "at large" I'm supposing you mean at large from all over the country. If so, what you'd wind up with is virtually all of the representatives coming from New York, LA, Chicago, etc.....the huge metro areas. And given the demographics of those areas, the vast majority of the reps would know and care very little about the needs and desires of the vast heartland.

Our system of government -- with all its warts -- was very thoughtfully designed by the founding fathers just to prevent the kind of government you are proposing. It has a lot of built in checks and balances to insure that all get a voice.

[Champ967]

Bill ... Allow me to propose a system of proportional representation. Let's say we were to create a uni-cameral legislature and set it at 500 seats. (I know this is pie-in-the-sky, never-in-this-lifetime stuff, but indulge me if you would.) If a given party receives 1/500 of the national popular vote, they get one seat. Get the picture?

Under such a system, I would disagree with your conclusion that major metro areas would produce "virtually all" legislators. But even if they did, so what? I reiterate my statement that geography is much less tied to political preferences than it once was. (Don't be fooled by your red/blue map. It's alot more complicated than that.)

As for the nation's founders ... they're dead. I wont question that they were doing the best they could within their own time and culture. Very little is left of that context though. Today's America is far removed from their tiny costal farming nation. So let's give them the respect they're due without falling in to ancestor-worship. They were no greater men than we, and certainly not psychic. Are you confident that the same men today would produce the same constitution?

Let me wrap up by refuting your implication that all get a voice. Two centrist parties, and the handful of well-monied interests that control each of them, get a voice.

[dhussdawg]

Do you really have a voice when your representative just votes along party lines every time? I know it is a hard problem to fix, but I think congressmen only think of their constituents when it comes to the big issues. They only do that because they know they will get voted out of office if they vote against the majority of their constituents. I doubt they even think about their constituents on the "smaller" stuff, they just think about how they can pork it up for themselves and their buddies.

[Champ967]

I would have no problems with party-line voting if there were more parties from which to choose. The 2 major parties currently manage to represent everyone and no one simultaneously. A vote along party lines in this system will always alienate half the population. With more parties, the "competive" aspect of passing legislation becomes obsolete ... consensus building becomes the new norm instead of the exception.

And with no legislative districts, pork spending also becomes obsolete as legislators are freed to focus on national priorities.

With all respect to dhuss, bill & others ... Most of the comments thusfar imply that your voting habits are based on maximizing your self-interests. I'm dont say that disparagingly -- that kind of thinking is a big part of being an American: we built our economy on that train of thought.

But does maximizing self-interest make for good citizenship in the political sphere? Is what's best for America merely an amalgam of what individuals think is best for themselves?

[DCDAWG]

Let me un-retire briefly from Pawlitics to get yall's thoughts on real ELECTORAL REFORM.

Modern technology, air transportation, and the globalization of the world economy are continuing to make a person's physical location less and less relevant these days. Maybe we need to have serious national discussion about the impending OBSOLESCENCE of a bi-cameral Congress and legislative districts. Both of these, in my opinion, unnecessarily propogate the 2-party system and the corruption / gridlock associated with it.

What if .... ?

All of Congress were elected at-large with a dozen or more parties to choose from. Seriously ... Think about it before you write-off ol Champ as a leftist wacko (which I am :icon_wink: .)

Voters would be more likely to find a candidate that most closely represents their beliefs. Ideologies outside the mainstream could be represented in govt at the same level they are in the population. Pork-barrel spending would be obsolete. With no majority party, cooperation and consensus building would be crucial. Partisan grandstanding would be immaterial.

Legislative districts and a 2-party Congress were very important when we were a young coastal nation of farmers and craftsman. Regional distinctions were much more pronounced then. But does our current system of electing legislators still serve to reflect the will of the people? If that's the whole point (and I would submit that it is), then there may be ways to do it better.

Intriguing idea, but I don't think it appreciates the lack of interest the vast majority of Americans have in politics. All these choices would require actual research and soul searching from a country in which maybe half of eligible citizens ever take the trouble to vote. While it might seem that all these more tailored parties would generate more participation from a supposedly alienanted electorate, I think it would intimidate them, much as all the choices created by the new Medicare law have kept seniors from signing up.

I think the two party system fits politically uninterested Americans just fine. They don't care enough about politics to see it in any way other than black and white. That said, the real problem is the way House districts have been gerrymandered to favor extremes. If each of these districts included more people of differeing viewpoints, I believe their representatives would be more responsive to them and less so to party.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

What if .... ?

All of Congress were elected at-large with a dozen or more parties to choose from. Seriously ... Think about it before you write-off ol Champ as a leftist wacko (which I am :icon_wink: .)

Israel does this. I forget how many parties they have but I think it is 40+ to chose from every election.