Do not get too far ahead of yourselves, democrats. Yes, you've won back power in the Senate and the House. But lets be honest, you didn't win by having better policies, or by running better campaigns - you won by not being republicans. Almost anybody could have won most of those seats. It would have said more about you if you didn't win.

Take the last Presidential election, for example. At that time, half the country believed what is now common knowledge; that the war in Iraq is a disastrous mistake and is being run by lying arrogant fools who are only getting us, and our troops, into deeper danger. Yet somehow you found a way to lose that election.

So let's not get too uppity, democrats. Most of you voted in favor of the war in Iraq, anyway. So lets talk about what you should really do with your new power.

The first thing I hear from you is how this congress is going to be the most honest and open congress ever. Yet when it comes time to revamp the lobbying laws we'll probably see how you guys will protect your own. The one issue that unites the congress, the thing that manages to "reach across the isle" is the need to keep that lobbyist gravy train rolling.

Do you really think that we expect the same people who benefit most from loose lobbyist, with gifts and trips galore, will revise the lobbyist laws? Congress doesn't serve the people, it serves the lobbyists of special interest groups and corporations. In this, republicans and democrats are exactly the same.

The only mandate for change that I see, one that will really make a difference, and the one thing that the previous congress demonstrated most clearly, is a change in the way lobbyists operate. No free trips, no fancy dinners, no hidden money in campaign contributions.

That is your mandate. So shut up and get to work.

Although I agree with your views on lobbying, why even vote for anyone if you have that pessimistic attitude? I wish there were lobbiers for that corn-ethanol fuel were making, or lobbiers for medical companies who are set out to really cure diseases and not just issue drugs for money.

Why vote for anybody, eh? that's a good question, actually. But I think you may be assuming that there are only two parties to vote for. Yes, unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans are running the machine in Washinton... but that machine is broken.

You're right, I don't want to vote for a Republican or a Democrat beacause all they do is get to Washinton and feed all their special interests groups who got them elected, while they ignore what's good for the People who actually did vote. Why should I vote for them?

I, unfortunately (again), vote for those who share my views and speak of things that are important to me... like fixing the system itself. These folks, like some in the Green Party and other independent parties, have a hard time on the National stage because they refuse big contrabutions for the huge coporations. But that is exactly why I vote for them.

One thing that needs to be fixed is the voting system. Voting for an independent should not just be a "spoiler" vote. They should use a "run-off" system, like we use here for elections in San Francisco, so that people can cast the vote for who they really want. Our last mayorial election was almost won by the Green Party candidate because of the fair voting that the run-off system creates.
(for more see Instant Runoff Voting).

I'd rather stick to what I believe and vote that way, rather than just casting a vote for the better of two evils. Or worse, not voting for the person I want because I think it will cause who I don't want to win, (an example of this is the effect a vote for Ralf Nader had on getting Bush elected over Gore. Nader votes took votes away from Gore.).

Yes and I was pissed that Nader did that. Even in 2004 when Michael Moore and Bill Maher begged him on Real Time with Bill Maher(my fav show) not to run because of how bad Bush was and he still did it! He should have sat it out to just get that prick outta office. I know the man has prinicples, but in that time we needed the person most likely to beat Bush in there no matter how senile or boring he was.

My personal views are liberal. So I tend to go with the left even though I will vote for who I think is better.

exactly. you know what I'm talking about. it shouldn't be that we have to beg people not to run for office. that's a completely backwards way of electing Presidents. Anyone should run for president who is qualified. AND we should feel that we can vote for ANY candidate without worrying about a "spoiler" vote.

The Instant Runoff Voting site I referred to in my previous post gives a quick description of how IRV works:

"The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1, 2, 3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote."

Like I said, I've used this system in San Francisco and it works. You can vote for who you want as your #1, (say Ralf Nader), then if he doesn't receive a majority of the #1 votes, your vote will default to your #2, (say Al Gore, or whoever). Thus the spoiler vote is eliminated from the equation!

FreeMindMuseum wrote:
exactly. you know what I'm talking about. it shouldn't be that we have to beg people not to run for office. that's a completely backwards way of electing Presidents. Anyone should run for president who is qualified. AND we should feel that we can vote for ANY candidate without worrying about a "spoiler" vote.

The Instant Runoff Voting site I referred to in my previous post gives a quick description of how IRV works:

"The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1, 2, 3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote."

Like I said, I've used this system in San Francisco and it works. You can vote for who you want as your #1, (say Ralf Nader), then if he doesn't receive a majority of the #1 votes, your vote will default to your #2, (say Al Gore, or whoever). Thus the spoiler vote is eliminated from the equation!

I'm from Ireland and thats how our elections work. You simply give a ranking of preference to the candidates (unless there are some you really don't want to get in, in which case you don't rank them at all) and the vote transference you just described is used until your vote is counted in favour of someone who gains enough to be elected, ensuring that even if your first choice dosen't get in your vote still counts for something.

This has been used in parliamentary elections where there could be up to a dozen candidates vying for 3 or 4 seats and it's never been accused of being overly complicated.

If people care they'll figure it out.