Closed primaries are how the parties manage to maintain a monopoly on the electorate. What would work better, in my opinion, would be a two-stage runoff. Everyone runs in the first stage, and the top two/three finishers compete in the second (unless there is one with a clear majority in the first).
The real problem, however, is campaign financing. As long as the corporate interests can keep the choice list down to two, they can control both sides of the ($)election at 'reasonable cost'.
Posted by pessimist at March 9, 2006 03:08 AMThe Dubai Ports Deal is Dead
BREAKING
GOP House Panel Votes to Block Ports Deal
WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.
By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.
Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.
The White House said the president's position was unchanged.
Posted by Christopher at March 9, 2006 04:27 AMI also agree with a two-stage general election. In Stage 1, three candidates advance. In Stage 2, the winner is determined. In each stage, voters rank the candidates from most to least preferred, and the rankings are used to deterine who advances via an elimination system (candidates with lowest rankings are eliminated).
Posted by Alan at March 9, 2006 05:07 AMI kind of think closed primaries are better. I know I've been tempted to change my registration to republican so I can vote for the guy most likely to lose. What do I know though--I would have chosen Bush over McCain as more likely to lose in 2000. If primaries are open, you can vote in both republican and democratic primaries right? I can see parties mobilizing their bases to vote for the guy most likely to lose on the other side.
Posted by CG at March 9, 2006 05:08 AMI don't think it'll matter, the subterfuge will continue.
Both DeLay and Cuellar voters used ES & S voting machines.
Let's get real folks, we should all be behind Gov. Bill Richardson's bill in NM, "guarantee a paper ballot for all voters".
Until electronic voting machines are a thing of the past we will continue to lose.
Posted by bbtb at March 9, 2006 05:50 AMIowa has a fascinating primary system - Iowa's primaries are 'closed' but you can show up at the voting site on the day of the primary and change or declare party, vote, then change affliation again the next day. (You can also do this for the infamous caucuses - and a number of GOP regulars did for Dean in 2004) I've done it to vote for Fred Grandy in a primary where the democratic candidate had no chance in winning and where the current GOP incumbent fellated fundamentalists.
With that in mind, Kos pisses me off. If his attitude is that 'others' shouldn't be meddling in Democratic Party decisions, then the fucking party should stop using public funds, public machines, and public workers to hold their private elections. I'm a fucking taxpayer and I've the right to participate in the primary of the candidate I think is best.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 9, 2006 06:00 AMidio,
Step awwwway from the coffee pot.
Just kidding. Just kidding.
I think we need a real three party system to deal a death blow to one party domination of the White House and both houses of congress.
Posted by snark at March 9, 2006 06:09 AMThe political parties are the problem. Anything that that reduces their stranglehold on the electorate is a good thing, that includes open primaries.
Posted by Ron In Portland at March 9, 2006 06:29 AMI can see the logic for a the two stage setup. Though I would also like to see a more representative politicial system, as it is the "winner take all" elections are a huge drag. I'd much rather a system that distributed the seats in Congress porportionally with the votes.
If thats not too clear, here's an example:
Repubs get 45% of the votes, Dems get 45% of the votes, Indepentents get 10% of the votes. Congress looks like the 45/45/10 that the votes show. Might not get an easy majority to pass legislation quickly but at least the majority of those that vote will get a chance to have the candidate with the same ( or similar) political ideals in Congress.
I'm sure there are problems with this my tired college student brain cannot comprehend at the moment. Feel free to shoot holes, I'm willing to listen to criticism.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at March 9, 2006 06:31 AMI like the idea of runoff elections. Until we get to that point though, the primaries should be closed to registered voters of that party. Changing your registration should be easy enough to allow some flexibility. I will not vote for the Republican candidate so why should I be allowed to vote in their primary? The concept of primaries was to break the power of the party bosses and allow the rank and file members to decide who should be on the ballot. That's still a good idea (but runoffs would be better).
Posted by MarvToler at March 9, 2006 06:37 AMI really do not believe that it matters how we vote until we get paper ballots. I have no faith that my vote will be counted by Diebold or the others.
To change the topics, did you know that if the minimum wage was raised at the same rate as CEO salaries that it would now be $23.03 per hour? Just imagine how much money would be flowing around in the American economy if people had that kind of money to spend...
And, in another brilliant move, Rumsfeld has been handed his own Special Ops Soldiers. Does anyone else think that it is a bad idea to allow Rummy control over any more of the military? Especially units like these?
Posted by Anjha at March 9, 2006 07:46 AMHave things to do, but I thought this proof of the extreme hypocrisy of the religious right was very telling.
Hypocrites. Hypocrites. Hypocrites.
Posted by Anjha at March 9, 2006 07:51 AMCouple of things:
An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending
If the national debt is caused by spending on programs for the poor as muck claimed last night, why would the debt increase so dramatically under Presidents like Reagan and Bush I an II who cut programs for the poor? No logic on that one at all.
and
Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
Shocker, I know, but as they say, "when something seems too good to be true, it usually is."
Posted by at March 9, 2006 08:29 AMAnjha, interesting link on the minimum wage. I've been looking at few things on the living wage recently and amazingly enough, when cities adopt living wage ordinances, they seem to defy the rules of economics that claim that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. In fact, living wage ordinances increase worker productivity and decrease staff turnover - two really good things that improve efficiency and actually increase the bottom line.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 08:44 AMPolitical parties are private organizations and should be able to control who gets to vote on internal matters (like which candidate to put forward). That said the ability to join the party should be made easier, including same day registration.
The real scandal is how those picked for the primaries get chosen. Very seldom is it just some bloke who decides to run. Usually the party insiders recruit someone which is why the blog-backed candidates haven't been doing too well so far. The bloggers need to join the inside elite if they wish to influence things in a practical fashion.
Much of the spending on social programs is on autopilot. The costs grow at a rate faster than inflation. Even when the media claims the Republicans are "cutting" spending on social programs, all they're really doing is slowing the growth rate. The spending still increases.
A great example was Arnold in CA last year. He said he'd give schools $5 billion in additional spending, but because of the tight budget he was proposing giving schools an additional $3 billion instead. The unions hit the TVs and the media started the printing presses that "Arnold cuts school spending." That was a lie. There were never any actual cuts.
The deficit increased under both Reagan and this Bush because Reagan had a recession in 1981 and Bush had a recession in 2001. They increased government spending and cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Which worked. Tax revenues surged. Unfortunately, government spending continued to surge as well.
Because that's what government spending does. It grows.
Posted by muckdog at March 9, 2006 10:32 AMHow long are Junior and his apologists gonna be able to blame the deficits on a shorter than average recession that ended over 4 years ago?
Posted by snark at March 9, 2006 10:42 AMMuck, Regan RAISED taxes 7 times. The economy did start to come back until after he raised taxes.
Posted by goose1 at March 9, 2006 11:09 AMI received a call from an Air Force recruiter today, which almost had me falling off my chair laughing. He asked if I would be interested in rejoining as an instructor. I told him, I'm 46, my vision is now 20/40, my right arm and left hand were completely shattered by a baseball bat in a mugging last May, and I have carpel tunnel syndrome from the freaking keyboard.
His response? “That does not seem to indicate an impediment to your return to the Air Force as an instructor. We need experience.”
My response. You need functioning drones. I am no longer one. This unit is damaged. End of conversation. He laughed and said he gave up.
I just sent in my vote for Tempe(AZ), city council. With the ballot in hand I called each GOP candidate, and personally told them I was voting for the Democrats because of GOP guilt by association to Bushco. Some tried to distance themselves from Bush on the phone, providing some humor.
Grass roots up, hey, it's a start.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 9, 2006 11:28 AMA great example was Arnold in CA last year. He said he'd give schools $5 billion in additional spending, but because of the tight budget he was proposing giving schools an additional $3 billion instead. The unions hit the TVs and the media started the printing presses that "Arnold cuts school spending." That was a lie. There were never any actual cuts.
He set a budget. He cut that budget. That is a CUT.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 12:38 PM
tempus, my ex is a pilot, too. I wonder how long it'll take him to get asked. He's signed up for test pilot, but he's your age with high blood pressure, so I'm not too hopeful. But I wonder, did you do AOCS in '81 or '82?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 9, 2006 12:47 PMEven when the media claims the Republicans are "cutting" spending on social programs, all they're really doing is slowing the growth rate. The spending still increases.
So muck if the Dem want to raise taxes as you say aren't they just increasing the growth rate?
Posted by goose1 at March 9, 2006 12:56 PMOn the minimum/living wage...
Raising the minimum wage may be well intentioned, but it does nothing to alter the underlying factors that keep some workers from achieving a living wage.
...the fundamental question lawmakers should be asking themselves is: What is the best way to help unskilled workers?
Supporters of a higher minimum wage typically claim that additional increases are needed because the "rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer.'' Although this is not entirely true, wage differences have widened over the past generation. But such bad economic policy as a mandated minimum wage for workers serves only to exacerbate that situation.
In many, if not most, instances those who get richer have earned that status or continue it through education, effort and hard work - opportunities which are available to everyone.
Increasing the minimum wage is not cost-free. Someone has to pay for it. Economic research indicates that those who pay the most are unskilled youth through fewer job opportunities, consumers through higher prices, and taxpayers through higher taxes or fewer services.
Raising the minimum wage may make for good political theatre. It may, temporarily, make some workers feel better about themselves. But the best way to increase one's paycheck is to gain the additional skills that demand higher wages.
Posted by muckdog at March 9, 2006 01:07 PMAnn: He set a budget. He cut that budget. That is a CUT.
Bzzzt. Wrong again, Ann.
Silly Goose: So muck if the Dem want to raise taxes as you say aren't they just increasing the growth rate?
Bzzzt. Tax hikes slow down the economy.
Posted by muckdog at March 9, 2006 01:13 PMSo muck if the Dem want to raise taxes as you say aren't they just increasing the growth rate?
Better yet, when someone with an ounce of sanity and fiscal restraint gets into the WH (i can hope for a Democartic administration, can't I?) and rolls back those irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, that's not a tax increase at all, it's a rollback. Totally different. Totally.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 01:13 PMBzzzt. Wrong again, Ann.
Sorry, muck, it is a cut. You can call it what you want but the reality is, he said he would spend it and then didn't. Therefore, he cut his original proposal. We can argue semantics all day, it doesn't change the facts.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 01:27 PMhttp://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
Silly Muck, Reagan's tax hike slowed the economy?
Posted by goose1 at March 9, 2006 01:34 PMEconomic research indicates that those who pay the most are unskilled youth through fewer job opportunities, consumers through higher prices, and taxpayers through higher taxes or fewer services.
Yes, economic research, aka: economic theories. When you study an actual community that has a living wage ordinance these theories don't hold true. Economic theories are interesting, of course, but not always true in fact.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 01:35 PMBTW, the wife and I got nailed by the AMT this year.
Beware.
Posted by snark at March 9, 2006 01:52 PMBut I wonder, did you do AOCS in '81 or '82?
iamcoyote: No, I did not. I was in England in until 1984. I hope your ex does not get the same laughable phone call.
Posted by tempus at March 9, 2006 02:04 PMrunoff voting is a great idea, as is proportional representation - i'm all for expanding beyond a 2-party system (here in bklyn, we have a third-party councilwoman - surprise, she doesn't suck up to real estate developers!)
but as far as primaries, why should a party's candidate be chosen by members of an opposing party?
Posted by benjoya at March 9, 2006 02:22 PMwhile we're at it, public campaign financing! free media time!
Posted by benjoya at March 9, 2006 02:23 PMBut such bad economic policy as a mandated minimum wage for workers serves only to exacerbate that situation.
I worked for minimum wage after getting a college degree and I wonder how much less I would have gotten from my employers if there hadn't been a mandated wage. Slavery 101 I suspect.
Snark: BTW, the wife and I got nailed by the AMT this year.
Welcome to the flat tax! We'll all be joining you within a few years.
Ann, you must be confusing "facts" with "fax." It's a common mistake California high school seniors make, so you're not alone. If a budget increases, it's an increase not a cut. Try a wiki lookup or dictionary.com if you're not quite sure what the meanings of "increase" or "cut" are.
Silly Goose: Silly Muck, Reagan's tax hike slowed the economy?
His supply side tax cuts and Congress' deficit spending stimulated the economy after the 1981 recession, and as the country recovered he raised taxes. But Congress kept deficit spending.
It's funny, while Reagan initially cut taxes (dramatically), he then raised taxes. On the otherhand, Clinton initially raised taxes (dramatically), then he cut taxes.
But most folks only remember that Reagan cut taxes and that Clinton raised taxes.
Posted by muckdog at March 9, 2006 04:36 PMHey muck, did you hear of all the new billionaires!
No...the rich ain't getting richer!
bb: The 3rd top billionaire runs online gambling.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 9, 2006 05:34 PMtempus, I just wondered since you said you flew F18s in GW1. I would hate to have my ex head to Iraq, he flew helicopters. Saved some lives in Japan, too. Good pilot. Always dreamed of being Chuck Yeager. But he's got 2 little kids now.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 9, 2006 05:47 PMIf a budget increases, it's an increase not a cut.
Yes, that's correct, but if you then in turn cut the budget, that's a cut. Perhaps you just aren't clearly articulating the situation, but your earlier post said:
He said he'd give schools $5 billion in additional spending, but because of the tight budget he was proposing giving schools an additional $3 billion instead.
That sounds like he budgeted $5 billion but then realized the budget was tight so changed the budget after it had been created. But maybe you meant something else and just couldn't express yourself clearly. I understand, you live in CA. I hear the schools aren't so good out there. But if you study really hard, maybe one day you'll actually master the English language.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 06:24 PMBut most folks only remember that Reagan cut taxes...
Actually, what I remember about Reagan was how much money he spent on parties at the White House, Iran-Contra and lying to the American people, arms for bin Laden, lying about a "welfare queen" in Chicago, defunding mental health programs, ignoring the AIDS crisis because it was a "gay disease." Those are the kind of things I remember about Reagan.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 06:53 PMiamcoyote:
There is no glory in flying, it is just killing from an altitude. I truly hope your ex is not asked to return.
You know the war is wrong, and being a pilot in a war that is wrong does not undo one's deeds. There are many things I did in 90 - 91 that will surely send me to hell, if there is a hell. But I have no kids to have to explain this to. Your ex does, so please, if you can, talk him out of it.
Posted by tempus at March 9, 2006 11:06 PMiamcoyote:
P.S. Flying a Piper Cub over hills, dales, and cornfields is paradise. God curse those that decided to put bombs, bullets and rockets on the things.
Posted by tempus at March 9, 2006 11:39 PM