Scott Brown wins Mass. Senate seat!

[Garfield1966]

I am not sure how that would work. Can you give me an example of some country that has this system?

Not very up to date on world governments and their election process but the nearest one that comes to mind is England. Granted it's a parliamentary system but they have representatives from the districts. I believe they aver over 600 members of the House of Commons and then they have a much smaller more ceremonial House of Lords.

While they also have two parties that dominate (Labor and Conservatives) they do have other parties that get elected into office on a regular basis. While coalitions are rare, it does tend to limit the strength of the two dominate parties.

Regardless, I think it is self evident that the current system in place here does not work any more. Politics has turned into big business and our voices are no longer being heard. I think if the winner take all concept were abolished, we would have a better chance of exerting our will over our government as opposed to business and government asserting their will on us.

 

[Seatacus]

Regardless, I think it is self evident that the current system in place here does not work any more.

Gar, do you think our system ever worked at some point in our country's history? The reason I ask is that I think the US has come as far as it has because we have done something right.

 

[Garfield1966]

Yes I think the over all system is sound, its some of the nuts and bolts that need to be changed out. The checks and balance system is a very good idea. Each is designed to keep the others in line.

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[13]

I think this was a valid argument back in the day. Information passed at a snails pace compared to today. The electoral college was put in place to save us from our selves in case we made what they felt was a hair brained decision in our choice of leaders. I do not believe that is a valid concern anymore.

I believe or at least would like to believe that civil service was seen as a duty, not a career move. Politics has moved away from service to ones country to service to corporations and a pension. IIRC, it took close to $1 billion to elect a POTUS in 2008. That money buys influence in our government and that influence is not in our best interest.

The system can work, we just need to take it back. I think one step in that process is to abandon the EC.

 

[Garfield1966]

Forgotto mention but there have been 3 elections in our history where one could argue that the will of the people had been thwarted by the EC. The winner of the popular vote was not the winner of the election. I do not think that should ever happen much less be a possibility.

 

[Garfield1966]

Here is an interesting discussion about the EC. Seems to present both side of the coin.

wiki site

A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that adoption of the popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.[49] Candidates might also be inclined to campaign hardest in their base areas to maximize turnout among core supporters, and ignore more closely divided parts of the country. Whether such developments would be good or bad is a matter of normative political theory and political interests of the voters in question.

My argument is this:

Except in the few closely fought swing states, it does not matter how many people turn out to vote. The Electoral College eliminates any advantage to a political party or campaign for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states.[50] If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere.[51] Individuals would similarly have a strong incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.[50]

 

[Dignity]

Regardless how it is defined, the fact he won that election made a huge statement.

The people in that state obviously are wanting change.

 

[airbud]

It's a 4% margin of victory with 89% of the ballots counted. Hardly a slam dunk. I do hope the balance of power is brought back. Perhaps now a better make over of the health care system can be brought about but I won't hold my breath. The partisan BS will still prevail I believe and the system will have to implode before it is repaired.

The sun will still rise in the east as it always has.

Mass has always been the most liberal of liberal states. What happen yesterday has shaken the Dems to their very core. They didnt get it. They werent listening. Yesterday was a repudiation on Obama's socialist takeover of America. It took Obama 1 year to get Democrats as demoralized as Republicans were after 6 years of Bush. And they are freaking out and running scared.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31719.html

McCaskill said Wednesday morning that “people out there” believe the agenda is "going too far, too fast" and that it would be a "huge mistake" for Democrats to force a vote on a new bill in the Senate before the new senator from Massachusetts is seated.

"As I said to somebody last night:, everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast"


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100120/D9DBMO6O0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama advised fellow Democrats against trying to jam a health care bill through Congress after taking a devastating hit from the loss of a Senate seat. He said Wednesday it's time to come together around a bill that can draw Republican support, too.

When Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown takes office he will hand the GOP power to block the Democratic agenda, including Obama's top domestic priority of extending health coverage to the uninsured.

"The people of Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process," Obama said.

 

[airbud]

Not very up to date on world governments and their election process but the nearest one that comes to mind is England. Granted it's a parliamentary system but they have representatives from the districts. I believe they aver over 600 members of the House of Commons and then they have a much smaller more ceremonial House of Lords.

While they also have two parties that dominate (Labor and Conservatives) they do have other parties that get elected into office on a regular basis. While coalitions are rare, it does tend to limit the strength of the two dominate parties.

Regardless, I think it is self evident that the current system in place here does not work any more. Politics has turned into big business and our voices are no longer being heard. I think if the winner take all concept were abolished, we would have a better chance of exerting our will over our government as opposed to business and government asserting their will on us.

May want to review history class again. England's gov is just as over bloated and disgusting as ours (if not more). Its not an effective form of government by any means. But I think you realize that: "Not very up to date on world governments and their election process"

 

[airbud]

Maybe it also had something to do with people realizing their tax money was being used more for defending terrorists in court, rather then defending/protecting the citizens of this country from them?

 

[Garfield1966]

I was providing an example of a political system that did not use an electoral college, not commenting on the efficiency of that particular government.

No idea what post #24 is referring to.

 

[delldude]

Regardless how it is defined, the fact he won that election made a huge statement.

The people in that state obviously are wanting change.

Its going to go way beyond that state.

 

[tech2101]

Regardless how it is defined, the fact he won that election made a huge statement.

The people in that state obviously are wanting change.

What is interesting is that Brown voted for the Massachusetts health care for all plan, and he favors allowing abortion.

GOP governor, Mitt Romney, pushed through a universal health care bill in Massachusetts, and Brown voted for it. Now, both men are vehemently opposed to the universal health care plan Democrats are trying to pass through Congress, even though the Senate bill is very similar to the Massachusetts plan.

Mr. Brown, as a state senator, voted in favor of the Massachusetts universal health care law in 2006, when the state became the first in the nation to pass a far-reaching overhaul guaranteeing coverage for nearly every state resident and requiring everyone in Massachusetts to obtain insurance.

Mr. Brown, in campaigning against the health care legislation emerging in Washington, has sought to portray it as fundamentally different from the Massachusetts plan. But Massachusetts was actually an important model for what Congress has developed, arguably the model for what Congress envisions.

The federal law, like the one in Massachusetts, is built around a system of government-subsidized, private insurance coverage with subsidies on a sliding-scale based on income. The federal law, however, also includes a number national steps aimed at controlling health care costs, and new taxes and fees aimed at paying for the legislation. Massachusetts has continued to struggle with its costs.

The law he's referring to is a government health care program that forces people to buy insurance, exactly like Obamacare. The idea is to achieve universal coverage, exactly like Obamacare. Those who can't afford it get subsidized by taxpayers, exactly like Obamacare. And four years after it was passed, 98 percent of Massachusetts has signed up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this big government?

link

In the south, they called people of his thinking Blue Dog Democrats. We will see if they come up with a similar term in the Northeast, or across the country if this takes hold.

Here is another take on his platform:

Given all of this, you have to wonder how Tea Parties are going to manage to hold onto their principles through a single election, much less a single election cycle. And the deeper you look into Brown's official position statements, the more suspiciously liberal beliefs you find:

1. He supports legal abortion: "This decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor," he says.

2. He's against a national law prohibiting gay marriage: "States should be free to make their own laws in this area," he says.

3. He supports government investment in green programs: "I support reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities."

4. He's politically correct on Israel: "I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel's right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security."

5. And he doesn't even want to bomb Iran! He's backing Obama's cautious incrementalism! "I support the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill...."

I like his ideas. I think we need more like him. Congratulations to Scott Brown and the Republican Party. I have no problem with him taking the place of Harry Reid.

 

[delldude]

His successful campaign was based in part of being the 41st vote against the asinine health care bill offered by progressive fools.

Time will tell if he lives up to his promises....we've already had too much of Obama's campaign lies.

Working already?

 

[delldude]

In the south, they called people of his thinking Blue Dog Democrats. We will see if they come up with a similar term in the Northeast, or across the country if this takes hold.

Missed the boat..............they call them 'RINO' all across the fruited plain..... 😱

 

[tech2101]

His successful campaign was based in part of being the 41st vote against the asinine health care bill offered by progressive fools.

Why did he support the popular health care for all in MA?

I guess it is good for MA, but bad for the rest...