Democrats are winning, the system is just screwing them

Great Debates
21

There’s a flip side to that coin.

Firstly, the House knows that the Senate is there, to bail them of dumb ideas. The House can pass a “Let’s Make GeeDubya President for Life!” bill because they know it will never get through the Senate alive. They are therefore free to make more votes in gestures that they know will never see the light of day.

Plus, House critters are more vulnerable. A Senate Pubbie with 4 years to go before his next election can afford to take the long view. House Pubbies can’t, they start in fund raising five minutes after thier opponent gives his concession speech. So now they sit and watch how thier Party’s approval numbers head straight for the toilet while chewing their fingernails down to the first knuckle. Wondering how to make all those speeches they gave about how GeeDubya was anointed by God disappear down the memory hole.

As for whining, well, …we’ll see how tough they are when its their turn.

22

Hardly. The Senate has been, (as the founders intended), more cautious in recent years.

23

I’ve read the article twice now, and I cannot find any actual, specific cite of a systemic bias.

The nadir of this atrocious, stupid article is this paragraph:

In other words, if the framers of the Constitution back in 1789 had designed it different, BUSH STILL WOULD HAVE WON, just by a few less electoral votes. But in an alternate reality where the results were totally different, Kerry would have won. So, like, the system is like totally unfair!

What’s fascinating is that the author doesn’t mention, about the 2004 election, that Bush got a lot more votes. The popular vote was won by Bush. So how in the name of Christ was the result incorrect?

24

Which reminds me: What percentage of voters voted in the 2004 election?

25

As someone who finds the modern Republican party morally vacuous and dangerously rage-inducing, I have to agree with the folks who are saying that this article is one long whine. This is the system we elect governments under. It’s been the system we’ve been electing governments under for 225 years. The fact that the current demographics favor the Republicans doesn’t make the system any worse than it’s been for the past 2 1/4 centuries. It just makes the people who are complaining about it NOW look like whining pissants. In 10 years, the demographics may favor the Democrats (or whatever leftish party might possibly replace the Democrats). In another 100 years, the demographics will favor the Schlabotnik Party and their Boneless Cat auxiliary and work against the Sneadian Whigs. It’s the way the system’s set up, a necessary and pretty much unchangeable compromise (can you even imagine Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware and Rhode Island ever agreeing to lessen what little influence they have now?).

26

It was 60% or thereabouts. +/- 2%.

27

She makes it sound as though the government was specifically set up to favor Republicans. I’m sorry that we have a federal form of government where power is shared between individual states and a Federal government. On the plus side this form of government leaves places like California, Texas, and New York pretty much free to govern themselves but it also gives places like Wyoming, Hawaii, and Alaska more of a say then their population would demand. Frankly, our government was never designed to run on a straight majority rule and thank goodness for that. I’m curious as to whether this bias was a problem when the Democrats had control of the House and Senate for so many years.

I’d say that Jones was about 218 years late in her complaint but our government was designed to be amended. I have about the same amount of sympathy for the Democrats that I would the Republicans were they getting the short end of the stick. Instead of pissing and moaning about the “unfair” system why not court rural voters? Or are those who live in those red states completely alien beings who are somehow less than human?

Marc

28

Bullshit. You can’t argue with logic by characterizing it as “whining.” If you don’t have a logical counter to a logical argument, try something easier, like pro football, or wrestling or med school.

29

Easily.

Wyoming. Many cows. Few people. Mucho representation. You don’t think COWS should have the same representation in Congress as PEOPLE, do ya? Then you GOTTA be against this silly-ass system we got now that makes the stinkin’ COWS on your dairy farm have as much representation as a PERSON in another state. Cause if you don’t, it’ll only be so long before cows have RIGHTS. Then THEY’LL be milkin’ YOU!

30

In Soviet Russia, COWS milk…

Aw, fuhgeddit…

31

So the President was elected by about 31% of eligible voters.

Of course, one can assume that the eligible voters who didn’t vote would probably have voted in about the same percentages (Kerry vs. Bush) as the ones who did; but in a race as close as the last one, it would have been interesting if we had had as close to 100% turnout as possible.

It’s one of those things I’ve always found depressing, that our elected officials – local, state, and national – are chosen by the minority of the population.

32

If they’re chosen by a majority of the population that actually cares about voting, that has to count for something.

33

Upside, downside, as usual. Downside the first, of course, is that it reflects poorly on the entire basis for democracy and is a depressing fact for those of us with idealistic veneration for the principles of democracy, myself, in this instance. Upside is that people who actively give a shit are the ones who take the trouble to vote.

And, of course, the downside of that is that the people who give a shit oftimes just care about being sure that Adam and Bruce are prevented from doing something disgusting, perverted and immoral, such as get married.

34

And lest that be misunderstood: still worth it, still worth fighting and struggling for, still the greatest advance in human history since the French invented oral sex.

35

As you should know, I personally think Adam and Bruce should be allowed to have a fabulous and legally recognized cathedral wedding anytime they like. But if they cannot be bothered to vote for it, who’s to blame?

In any event, most of the anti-SSM amendments in 2004 were passed by overwhelming majorities. While I think this is regrettable, it clearly had absolutely nothing to do with “bias” in the electoral system, which as you might recall is the topic of the thread. When plebiscites are going 80-20, any system will come up with the same basic result.

36

No, you argue with “whining” by labelling it as “whining”.

You argue with logic by pointing out the inconsistencies - like how the system used to seem perfectly fair to the Democrats, and has had no structural changes enacted.

But suddenly it is unfair. As of 1994 or thereabouts.

:shrugs:

The linked article seems to have given up on the idea of attracting more voters, in favor of jiggering the system so that it won’t be necessary. Of course, if we did, and Republicans still win, that will be unfair too.

Congratulations, President Kerry. A few more victories like this, and your domination of US politics will be complete.

Regards,
Shodan

37

I’d like to invite the author to our humble little forum. Maybe, if he spent some time here, he would be able to put together a coherant argument.

or be banned for whining

38

Boy, you guys sure love that! Its like “Vikings kick field goal in final secods, win 21-20 in crushing, overwhelming landslide avalanche!”

Iraq? “Well, the election validated the President’s policy…” (No, really! They actually say that! I swear, I’m not making it up!..)

Taxes? “Well, the election clearly shows that a vast, vast majority of the American people…”

Trading Sammy S.? “Well, the election proves that was the correct decision…”

(In the darkness, a bent, misshapen figure hobbles along, clutching election results to his greying skin, muttering “Did we win, my precious?..”

39

It cannot be denied that in presidential politics, the Republicans have a nearly insurmountable advantage from the beginning. To see why, for the moment define “Southern” as those states of the old Confederacy. Let us look at all the elections since 1964 in which the Democrats did not nominate a Southerner at the top of the ticket:

ELECTORAL VOTES IN THE SOUTH
1968: Humphrey 25, Nixon 57 (46 to George Wallace)
1972: McGovern 0, Nixon 129 ( 1 faithless elector to John Hospers)
1984: Mondale 0, Reagan 138
1988: Dukakis 0, Bush 138
2004: Kerry 0, Bush 153

Total Northern Democrats 1964-2004 25
Their opponents 1964-2004: 615

Unless a Southerner is nominated, the Democrats start off each election with a deficit of what is now 153 electoral votes. This leaves 385 votes in play, of which the Democrats need 270 and the Republicans only 117. Getting 70% of the electoral votes in that part of the country that is actually in play is nearly impossible and indeed has not yet been done.

At the state level, things are much brighter for the Democrats and are roughly at parity with Republicans:

Democrats hold a 2705-2691 lead among state legislators, and trail 951-967 among state senators.

Democrats hold 22 governor positions to the Republicans 28, changing just 3 would make the two equal.

The Democrats are far from being in an impossible position. Consider the following:
1- The national electorate isn’t as simple as red vs. blue. There is a lot of purple
The 3d maps on the link are interesting,check it out. The bluest areas are in urban areas. As the nation becomes more urban, the Democratic constituency grows at the expense of the Republicans.

2- The Iraq war is the 900 lb gorilla of politics. The prospects of a good outcome seem to diminish each month. Voter dissatisfaction with the war is growing and may be a tidal wave by 2006.

3- Attempts at Social Security reform may backfire badly on the GOP. Florida has teetered on the knife edge between blue and red and may now fall into the blue camp.

4- Dissatisfaction over rising energy prices may translate into an anti-incumbent movement.

40

A word about dear, dear Mother Jones, if I might. If you had been on the left of things as long as I, you develop a certain affection for Mom, like the dotty aunt with too many cats and too many opinions. There’s almost never any good news in Mom, and she tends to scold. Its a somewhat Leninist viewpoint, implying that reform is impossible and radical action the only remedy.

This tends to alarm our wishy-washy liberal cousins, and distracts them from thier favorite topic, how radical and silly they were when they were young. The are compelled by a sudden urge to run out and vacuum their cars.

Alarmists are frequently wrong, this should be remembered. But alarmists are frequently right, and this should not be forgotten. In this particular instance, I think Mom is batshit pizza. Still love her, nonetheless. She never gives up, never says die, never prints recipes and has no idea who the fuck Paris Hilton is. Gotta love it.