Charlie-thanks for the welcome. There is a movement afoot here to
modify the electoral college. I am still undecided.
Dan M - I can tell that you are numbers guy and also very literal. I
appreciate that and can use your numbers for back up in discussions
with others.
I on the other had tend to be a global person with gut reactions. My
long term gut seems to be pretty good the problem is I tend to act on
short term issues and lose my shirt.
Dan you wrote:
At the time of Eisenhower's comment,
military spending was over half of governmental spending, and about
10% of
GDP. In 2005, it was roughly a fifth of the federal budget and 4% of
GDP.
On the Eisenhower quote I was referring more to his idea of a hand in
glove arrangement between business and government. At the time your
numbers are correct I am sure but then the entire industrial/business
landscape was quite different. Most high tech at the time was defense
based. GM and GE were the big businesses and they were defense
contractors. But his point was that a close relationship with
government and business could override the social contract between
national government and the people.
I agree with your analysis of the incumbent problem. I live in Texas
and the travesty of gerrymandering hit very close to home after a mid
census redistricting. I have heard from one source that incumbents
now have a 98% return rate due to this type of redistricting. What
ever happened to Newt's Contract with America and the pledge to not
run again not to mention a balanced budget? Once again incumbents who
do not have to worry about reelection are moving away from the social
contract to represent them and are more likely to pay attention to
the dollars offered to their campaigns by big business. Please also
note that there is very little interest in Congress or the Executive
branch to push civics education in our schools. Very little if any
dollars that I know of have been earmarked for that purpose in the
"No Child Left Behind" programs.
On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 1:07 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent
With the ongoing marginalisation of genuine
debate in favour of monochrome highly partisan ideology-damn-the-
reality politics in the US (with the UK and Aus hot on your heels) do
you see the need for a change in the voting system to represent a
multitude of policies (maybe even proportional representation and/or
Single Transferable Vote) to filter out the extreme edges and allow
the middle ground a fair go?
I think that a much simpler change in the voting system would have a
tremendously favorable result, while not introducing the problems
inherent
in true multi-party systems (the compromises come after, not before
people
are elected).
One thing that is a very recent trend in US politics is the
expansion of
"safe" districts. These "safe" districts are, at least partially, the
result of state legislatures redrawing the congressional district
maps every
10 years, after the census. One party, or the other, usually
controls the
state house, which is responsible for drawing up the map. This
allows the
map to reflect the interest of that party's politicians.
According to the Cook Political Report,
http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/
2006_house_comp_jun29.pdf
there are, currently, 361 seats in the House that are rock solid
for one
party, 29 that are likely for one party, 31 leaning for one party,
and 14
are toss ups. As far as I can tell, not one challenger is favored to
win....and only 10 challengers have reached the toss-up mark. (The
other 4
toss ups are vacated seats).
The second part of the inertia is the power of incumbency. One poll
question illustrates this. 66% of Americans think that, on the
whole, the
ethics and honesty of Congress is not-so-good to poor. But, only
33% of
Americans think this of their present representative.
As a result, the House tends to be filled with people who excite the
faithful in their districts, instead of people who appeal to a broad
spectrum. In the past, the middle of the political spectrum was
better
represented, because each party knew it needed candidates that
could fend
off challenges. In "safe" districts, this is a minor
concern....and the
overwhelming majority of districts are "safe."
One of the clear indications of this was the impeachment of
Clinton. The
Republicans lost seats in an election in which the party that is
not in
power (in the 6th year of an 8 year presidency) almost always gains
seats.
But, since the overwhelming majority of Republicans were in safe
districts,
they didn't bother to take the hint, and proceeded.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
