Democracy

[BLAZER PROPHET]

As an independent, I really don't care all that much who gets elected. I wish for them the very best.

My #1 concern is for our country.

We live in a country where rules are made by majority rule. However, a series of checks and balances have been set up to ensure the minority retain some authority for the sake of all citizens. This keeps the majority rule from asserting too much power and harming too many citizens. Although contentious at times to the detriment of the citizens, our system of checks & balances works.

If I have one single concern for the future prosperity that this country will forever remain "of the people, by the people and for the people", it will be so only if the minority party retains cloture in the US Senate. Since special interest groups generally run both political parties, to allow one set of those special interest groups have years of unchecked power would be the single most ruinous thing ever to happen since the civil war and may very well end our style of democracy.

And for that, we all become losers.

 

[maxiep]

Periods of excess are generally met with an opposite reaction in subsequent elections. I think we could be in for a very interesting 2-8 years, but I have great faith in the common sense of the American people. I believe this is still a center-right country who is moving left just because the current group that represents the right has just been so inept. It's a vote for change for change's sake.

 

[CelticKing]

Jindal 2012

 

[Shooter]

As an independent, I really don't care all that much who gets elected.

That's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. "Independents" don't care who gets elected??? Since when?

I would hope that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, would "care" who becomes president of this country, and vote accordingly.

 

[ABM]

It's a vote for change for change's sake.

I believe you're right.

Also, I'd love to see a comparison between the number of 18-21's who voted in this election vs. those of that same age group from past elections.

 

[julius]

How many of you who are upset about the potential Democratic monopoly, were equally upset about the Republican monopoly that they had since 2001, until 2006?

 

[ABM]

How many of you who are upset about the potential Democratic monopoly, were equally upset about the Republican monopoly that they had since 2001, until 2006?

My biggest hope is for honesty and integrity. Might I reasonably expect to get that from either party??

 

[julius]

My biggest hope is for honesty and integrity. Might I reasonably expect to get that from either party??

Sadly, no.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

That's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. "Independents" don't care who gets elected??? Since when?

I would hope that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, would "care" who becomes president of this country, and vote accordingly.

OK, poor wording by me. I do "care", but don't see it as life & death.

Feel better?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

How many of you who are upset about the potential Democratic monopoly, were equally upset about the Republican monopoly that they had since 2001, until 2006?

Not me.

I'll leave the sheep to be upset.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My biggest hope is for honesty and integrity. Might I reasonably expect to get that from either party??

Just so long as we maintain our checks & balances, this will be so.

 

[maxiep]

How many of you who are upset about the potential Democratic monopoly, were equally upset about the Republican monopoly that they had since 2001, until 2006?

I like divided government. I thought having a monopoly on power was the worst thing that happened to the GOP--it allowed all their excesses to go unchecked. But given that monopoly, the Republicans never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That allowed the Democrats to at least stop the most far-reaching bills from being voted on.

And if I were a left-leaning Democrat (and these days are there any centrist Dems left?), I'd be worried about history. A Democrat monopoly under Carter and Clinton led to huge Republican victories in the subsequent elections. And Carter from 77-79 had a filibuster-proof Senate working with him, years that proved to be his most disasterous.

 

[julius]

Not me.

I'll leave the sheep to be upset.

That's how I felt. Although not the sheep comment.

As for the current potential scenario, where Democrats gain 60 seats in the Senate, I don't think that they're all in "lock step" with each other, and won't ever be able to take advantage of the "60 majority" thing. And eve if they have 60-40 lead, I doubt you'd find 60 democrats (or Republicans) that would agree with the same thing. Much less the President taking advantage of it (although, truth be told, Bush did).

That and I don't think they'll gain the seats needed to obtain the potential 60/40 split. There are too many things that have to fall in place for them to obtain that majority. It might be a 57-43 split.

 

[Dumpy]

My biggest hope is for honesty and integrity. Might I reasonably expect to get that from either party??

All we can say is that we didn't get honesty and integrity for the past eight years.

 

[maxiep]

That's how I felt. Although not the sheep comment.

As for the current potential scenario, where Democrats gain 60 seats in the Senate, I don't think that they're all in "lock step" with each other, and won't ever be able to take advantage of the "60 majority" thing. And eve if they have 60-40 lead, I doubt you'd find 60 democrats (or Republicans) that would agree with the same thing. Much less the President taking advantage of it (although, truth be told, Bush did).

That and I don't think they'll gain the seats needed to obtain the potential 60/40 split. There are too many things that have to fall in place for them to obtain that majority. It might be a 57-43 split.

There has never been a time in recent history when Democrats were more in lockstep. Conservative Democrats have been driven from the party. Anyone who deviates from 100% adherence to Democratic dogma aren't funded in their primaries. There are no more Sam Nunn's or even Al Gore's or Joe Lieberman's.

 

[mook]

Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming a de-facto parliamentary system. Give the government to one party, get outraged, throw the bums out, then give it to the other party.

Maybe that's what happens when things become hyper-partisan and there's a shrunken middle ground.

The ever-growing large pockets of extremists always vote for their extreme, and the small pocket of people in the middle vote for revenge.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming a de-facto parliamentary system. Give the government to one party, get outraged, throw the bums out, then give it to the other party.

Maybe that's what happens when things become hyper-partisan and there's a shrunken middle ground.

The ever-growing large pockets of extremists always vote for their extreme, and the small pocket of people in the middle vote for revenge.

That's why I'd like to see a viable third party.

 

[barfo]

If I have one single concern for the future prosperity that this country will forever remain "of the people, by the people and for the people", it will be so only if the minority party retains cloture in the US Senate. Since special interest groups generally run both political parties, to allow one set of those special interest groups have years of unchecked power would be the single most ruinous thing ever to happen since the civil war and may very well end our style of democracy.

That doesn't make much sense. Having a single party in power, with a filibuster proof senate, has already happened since the civil war, so how could it happening again be the single most ruinous thing since the civil war?

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

That doesn't make much sense. Having a single party in power, with a filibuster proof senate, has already happened since the civil war, so how could it happening again be the single most ruinous thing since the civil war?

barfo

Really doesn't need a response aside from what I said, so I'll say it again...

This country is now run via special interests (religious groups, unions, plaintiff attorneys...). If one side gets absolute power over the other, democracy is perverted and destroyed.

 

[julius]

Really doesn't need a response aside from what I said, so I'll say it again...

This country is now run via special interests (religious groups, unions, plaintiff attorneys...). If one side gets absolute power over the other, democracy is perverted and destroyed.

Is "now" run? It has been run by special interest groups for about 30 years now.

 

[Shooter]

If one side gets absolute power over the other, democracy is perverted and destroyed.

But it's the voters who determine if one side "gets power" over the other. If today Americans decide they want Obama to be president, with a Congress already controlled by the Democrats, that's democracy at work, isn't it?

 

[barfo]

Really doesn't need a response aside from what I said, so I'll say it again...

This country is now run via special interests (religious groups, unions, plaintiff attorneys...). If one side gets absolute power over the other, democracy is perverted and destroyed.

You still aren't making any sense. If it is run by special interests, what does it matter whether D's or R's have the majority? Or did you mean one special interest group gaining absolute power over the other special interest group?

barfo

 

[Ed O]

All we can say is that we didn't get honesty and integrity for the past eight years.

I think that a GOP partisan would extend that to the eight years prior, and then a Democrat would go back 12 years, etc.

The hyperbole about Bush and Co. "ripping up the Constitution" and being liars and cheats is pretty old, and the best thing about McCain losing would be that it would shut the whiners up for a while.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Periods of excess are generally met with an opposite reaction in subsequent elections. I think we could be in for a very interesting 2-8 years, but I have great faith in the common sense of the American people. I believe this is still a center-right country who is moving left just because the current group that represents the right has just been so inept. It's a vote for change for change's sake.

Agreed 100%.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I think that a GOP partisan would extend that to the eight years prior, and then a Democrat would go back 12 years, etc.

The hyperbole about Bush and Co. "ripping up the Constitution" and being liars and cheats is pretty old, and the best thing about McCain losing would be that it would shut the whiners up for a while.

Ed O.

It won't shut the whiners up, it just replaces one group of whiners with a different group of whiners.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Is "now" run? It has been run by special interest groups for about 30 years now.

I agree with this. My point was that as time goes along, special interests have more and more influence.

 

[mook]

It won't shut the whiners up, it just replaces one group of whiners with a different group of whiners.

barfo

I'm quite happy to be a whine-ee for a change.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

But it's the voters who determine if one side "gets power" over the other. If today Americans decide they want Obama to be president, with a Congress already controlled by the Democrats, that's democracy at work, isn't it?

Yes, yes it is.