> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > 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
