Election results expected to be so bad, NY Times says CANCEL MIDTERMS
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Cancel the Midterms
DURHAM, N.C. — By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.
There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.
There are few offices, at any level of government, with two-year terms. Here in Durham, we elect members of the school board and the county sheriff to terms that are double that length. Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined. In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.
But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics.
The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.
The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.
These effects are compounded by our grotesque campaign finance system. House members in competitive races have raised, on average, $2.6 million for the 2014 midterm. That amounts to $3,600 raised a day — seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Surveys show that members spend up to 70 percent of their time fund-raising during an election year. Two years later, they’ll have to do it all again.
Much of this money is sought from either highly partisan wealthy individuals or entities with vested interests before Congress. Eliminating midterms would double the amount of time House members could focus on governing and make them less dependent on their donor base.
Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.
Why stop there, and keep the glaring harmful bias caused by the Senate upon the major urban centers and most populous states in the nation...
This is quite possible the worst idea I have ever heard. It completely ignores the checks and balances set up in the constitution to avoid...
The first rebuttal we'll hear will say, "That's not the way the founders intended the system to work!" True, but the founders never intended...
There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years. Doing so would relieve some (though, of course, not all) of the systemic gridlock afflicting the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more time and energy on governance instead of electioneering.
Continue reading the main story
This adjustment would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation — such as entitlement spending, immigration and climate change — that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle.
To offset the impact of longer congressional terms, this reform might be coupled with term limits that would cap an individual’s total congressional service at, say, 24 years, about the average for a member of Congress today. This would provide members enough time to build experience in the job, but also limit the effects of incumbency and ensure the circulation of new blood in the system.
The framers included an amendment process in the Constitution so our nation could adjust the system to meet the demands of a changing world. Surely they would not be pleased with the dysfunction, partisan acrimony and public dissatisfaction that plague modern politics. Eliminating the midterm elections would be one small step to fixing our broken system.
David Schanzer is a professor of public policy and Jay Sullivan is a junior at Duke.
DURHAM, N.C. — By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.
There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.
There are few offices, at any level of government, with two-year terms. Here in Durham, we elect members of the school board and the county sheriff to terms that are double that length. Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined. In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.
But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics.
The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.
The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.
These effects are compounded by our grotesque campaign finance system. House members in competitive races have raised, on average, $2.6 million for the 2014 midterm. That amounts to $3,600 raised a day — seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Surveys show that members spend up to 70 percent of their time fund-raising during an election year. Two years later, they’ll have to do it all again.
Much of this money is sought from either highly partisan wealthy individuals or entities with vested interests before Congress. Eliminating midterms would double the amount of time House members could focus on governing and make them less dependent on their donor base.
Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.
Why stop there, and keep the glaring harmful bias caused by the Senate upon the major urban centers and most populous states in the nation...
This is quite possible the worst idea I have ever heard. It completely ignores the checks and balances set up in the constitution to avoid...
The first rebuttal we'll hear will say, "That's not the way the founders intended the system to work!" True, but the founders never intended...
There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years. Doing so would relieve some (though, of course, not all) of the systemic gridlock afflicting the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more time and energy on governance instead of electioneering.
Continue reading the main story
This adjustment would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation — such as entitlement spending, immigration and climate change — that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle.
To offset the impact of longer congressional terms, this reform might be coupled with term limits that would cap an individual’s total congressional service at, say, 24 years, about the average for a member of Congress today. This would provide members enough time to build experience in the job, but also limit the effects of incumbency and ensure the circulation of new blood in the system.
The framers included an amendment process in the Constitution so our nation could adjust the system to meet the demands of a changing world. Surely they would not be pleased with the dysfunction, partisan acrimony and public dissatisfaction that plague modern politics. Eliminating the midterm elections would be one small step to fixing our broken system.
David Schanzer is a professor of public policy and Jay Sullivan is a junior at Duke.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
They would be happy with them if they had veto power over the candidacies...
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
It's how they do it in many of the leading European, Asian, African and South American countries where politics is 'civilized.'
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
During the American Revolution the better sort of American leaders saw how pols are and how inept and corrupt the Congress was. While Washington and the troops froze and starved at Valley Forge the Congress fought over its perks and socialized with the Brits in Philadelphia.
So Washington and Franklin and others created a short-lived House of Representatives to get rid of the bums as often as possible. In those days the states elected the Senate, the People picked the bums, and Electors picked the President. Electors weren't obligated to endorse who people voted for or approve fraud.
Two years is long enough to get the work done and too brief to make much mischief.
So Washington and Franklin and others created a short-lived House of Representatives to get rid of the bums as often as possible. In those days the states elected the Senate, the People picked the bums, and Electors picked the President. Electors weren't obligated to endorse who people voted for or approve fraud.
Two years is long enough to get the work done and too brief to make much mischief.
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a good while.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
This;
Is their core goal, the attempt at the creation of a virtual "Imperial" presidency. Every thing else in the article is rationalizations and bull shit.
But I'm not concerned about this misbegotten notion taking root. The media outlets are going to be universally against it. There is NO way in hell they're going to deprive themselves of the biennial infusion of campaign funds in the form of campaign ads...............no matter how partisan they may be.
Ishmael
Is their core goal, the attempt at the creation of a virtual "Imperial" presidency. Every thing else in the article is rationalizations and bull shit.
But I'm not concerned about this misbegotten notion taking root. The media outlets are going to be universally against it. There is NO way in hell they're going to deprive themselves of the biennial infusion of campaign funds in the form of campaign ads...............no matter how partisan they may be.
Ishmael
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
That is NOT the goal
They will ONLY espouse what they espouse now
Is that the RESULTS are LIKELY to be what they don't want it to be
D Brazzile is already WHINING about VOTER machines in NC
Yeah, there are so many reasons this idea will go nowhere. The fact it actually got floated is somehow funny to me, especially since one of the authors of this piece is a still-wet-behind-the-ears college kid.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Her constituents are not smart enough to point to the right picture on the MickeyD's cash register, how can you ask them to cast an electronic vote correctly?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
you MISS the point
the POINT is to make the election
seem
to be against the INTERESTS of the US and thus NEGATE the results...make em seem not legit
ONLY CAUSE THE RESULT SEEMS TO BE NOT WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE
Most people won't buy that shit. Many will, I'm sure, but not a majority. The election, and its results, will be seen as legitimate by the majority, which is what counts.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Only those who watch the biased, corrupt FAUX News to get all of their information...
Everyone else will "know" that it was voter suppression, election FRAUD!
..., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Racism, and Republicans lying about who they are and what they believe in and Democrat candidates who were snookered by Karl Rove into believing that they had to run away from our beloved and newly besieged President; it is time to circle the wagons and protect him from the radical Teahaddists who stole the election.
KOCH MONEY!!!
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
It would make more sense to look at the results in the cold light of day.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
I didn't see what you said
You are on IGGY, Anquan Oh!Fendy
Public Union Postal Worker puts Republican flyers in the trash...
FOX News has gotten to this one!
Actually, to be serious, I was watching Rachel Maddow the other evening, and I wondered why not one of the Democratic politicians I've seen during this campaign does as good a job as she does of defending the Obama administration, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate, et al. She's mostly shoveling shit, but she does it very well.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
It's "The Story" from the Big Playbook of Stories.
When they win, it's a MANdate, don't you dare think that's a bad thing!
When they lose, it was Pearl-Loined illegal money...
We have to get big money out of politics.
Just not our "honest" dough-ners.
When they win, it's a MANdate, don't you dare think that's a bad thing!
When they lose, it was Pearl-Loined illegal money...
We have to get big money out of politics.
Just not our "honest" dough-ners.
Similar threads
