Third Party & Independents Archives

David,

Perhaps I missed it but there is another voters don’t seem wise.
If the voters are voting in their own self interest, IE, voting for their incumbent because they feel the pork he/she brings home is the reason he/she is there in the first place, instead of the good of the country.
You also don’t bring up the fact that many voters, rightly or wrongly, think their guy is doing a great job, it’s the rest of Congress that sucks.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 10, 2009 10:41 PM

If the objective of voting in a democracy is to elect government which most voters can approve of, why are Americans’ approval ratings for Congress historically in the dumps?

This is like saying that employees go to their jobs every morning and work hard in an effort to raise the Gross National Product. What you’re doing is confusing the aggregate results of something with the motivations of the individuals involved. They’re not the same thing at all.

Since, most voters would agree with the objective of voting as stated above…

Would they agree with it? A person might vote out of principle. He or she might vote out of self-interest. But very very few if any are voting based on what they speculate to be “what most voters approve of.”

Each person votes on what he or she approves of—not taking “most voters” into account at all. It’s no wonder then, considering the diversity of the country, that a somebody in rural Utah might have a very different idea of what’s “wise” than somebody who lives in NYC.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 10, 2009 11:04 PM

I think most people simply don’t see government as something that deeply affects them.

If something does obviously affect their lives they become involved, and response is usually rapid.

The vast majority of people I speak to either have little knowledge of either local or national politics or issues. It’s a lot like science. It’s boring, and isn’t something they really interact with.

We know most people don’t vote.

My sister, the ex teacher, was ranting about GW Bush, when I asked her why she felt the way she did. She could only vaguely associate him with ignorant macho males. She doesn’t follow politics, and as I found out later, from her daughter, doesn’t vote. She eventually admitted she mostly hated Bush because she felt he was against teachers. She and I voted together when I turned 18, many moons ago.

A female psychology professor speaking about emotional maturity and moral development said that most woman don’t achieve the same level of development as men. Men achieve a level that uses altruistic thinking. Women respond only to social pressures. A man may justify stealing as a moral act (say to save a starving child), while a woman would be more concerned with what others would think.(I’m intentionally not delving too deeply into this idea.) While I attended this lecture in the mid seventies, and thought the professor was anachronistic and sexist, I’m more apt to believe there is some truth in this idea.

While I’m still not completely convinced there isn’t sexism in that idea, I’ve seen a difference between those that truly follow politics and current events and those that are only concerned with their daily struggles. It is indeed rare to find informed, engaged women, but it is also somewhat rare to find informed, engaged men. I’ve often felt a bit odd with my obsessions to stay informed, but mostly, it makes me wonder about the prognosis for democracy.

Once in a while, the internet gives me some hope.

Posted by: gergle at June 11, 2009 02:53 AM

RH
Rocky put it pretty good. People like their own congressman (or woman), they just don’t like the other guys. This goes beyond pork. There is a whole range of constituent services involved, like help with immigration problems etc. My self, I hated how congress was acting under the Rep majority and think a good deal more of it under the Dems.All along I approved of the actions of my congresswoman. I will think even more of it when the last Rep congressman is in jail or out of work unless that party changes dramatically. In the mean time I will continue to vote for the best candidate, incumbent or not.Voting for a candidate because they do NOT have experience, influence or a chance of winning is the opposite of wise voting.

Posted by: bills at June 11, 2009 07:35 AM

Loyal Opp stated the obvious: “What you’re doing is confusing the aggregate results of something with the motivations of the individuals involved. They’re not the same thing at all.”

I am not confusing anything. Why are you accepting this disparity as the way things should be, implied by your comment? There is no natural or man-made law saying the aggregate result must NOT reflect individual expectation. Why do accept this glaring chasm between expectation of Congress and actual Congressional results? This is unwise.

Adam Smith wrote extensively on this very topic regarding enlightened self-interest vs. self-centered myopia. It is a choice people and a society make, not an immutable law of nature from which individuals and societies cannot escape. It is a simple matter of education designed for optimal social and individual benefit or, designed for politician’s pandering to myopic greed and selfishness.

In America, our schools are designed by, and for the politician’s ability to manipulate and direct voter perception, passions, and gut responses, and avoid engaging their critical evaluation, reason, and fact based comparisons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2009 08:08 AM

bills said: “Voting for a candidate because they do NOT have experience, influence or a chance of winning is the opposite of wise voting.”

Those are the famous last words of the scorpion to the frog crossing the river. Failure to vote on the basis of Congressional results is unwise. Those who vote for their incumbent while disapproving of Congressional results, is ipso facto, voting for a politician who is ineffective in changing Congressional results at the very least; or worse, one who sells out the nation’s future in exchange for local constituency desires and personal gain via reelection, which is like setting the building on fire to cook eggs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2009 08:18 AM

gergle, I would disagree with a couple of your comments.

Most voters either work for pay or receive government entitlement payments. Ergo, most voters are aware that government affects their lives a lot, and since this recession, pretty directly.

The vast majority of those who take little or no interest in current events or politics, don’t vote, research shows. So, they are inconsequential to government direction or policy and the discussion of what constitutes a wise voter or vote.

You said most people don’t vote. The stats say different. In presidential elections, a slight majority of eligible voters DO vote. That drops significantly below 50% during off year federal elections, and into the 20% or less range in local school board, city council and other local elections or referendums not coincident with a federal election.

Those stats speak to a great lack of wisdom by American voters because in fact, state and local government impinge far more on voters lives and choices, than federal government does. This speaks to a serious deficit in our school curricula and the dissemination of relevant information to eligible voters, especially younger ones.

I don’t buy the gender difference explanation for how and why American voters vote, except that there are some issues which attract more male consideration and others which attract more female interest. National security vs. domestic bread and butter issues, for example are shown to have gender favorites.

The difference between the genders on indifference to government, current events, and elections however, is minimal at best in the research I have been exposed to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2009 08:33 AM

Actually the stats you just quoted stated the opposite of your claim that most Americans vote, with the exception of Presidential elections.

I wasn’t really trying to emphasize gender differences, just recall an old psychology lecture and how my opinion on it has changed.

I think most people don’t really feel deeply affected by government, or perhaps what I mean to say is they feel powerless to effect changes in government. Government is a distant thing that they have no control over. Most people worry about their kids, jobs, families. I don’t think they really connect that to someone blathering at a podium about civil governance.

People have opinions and like to complain at the handy pinata of government, but as far as it having much meaning, or being worth the effort of finding out who does what in their lives, that’s another deal.

Posted by: gergle at June 11, 2009 05:10 PM

I’ll break it down for you David…

Votes for conservatives are wise. Votes for others are most likely not.

Posted by: eric at June 11, 2009 09:08 PM

Eric, nicely put.

There’s something insidious, in my view, about the argument that factionalism, disagreement, and the failure of our populace to march in lockstep to the tune of some undefined “wisdom” is somehow unhealthy for a free and diverse people. Such is the kind of reasoning that gave the world Chairman Mao, Mugabe, Castro and Obama.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 11, 2009 10:56 PM

LO
There was no lockstep voting for Obama. There was a very tough primary as you might recall. By including him on that list you have insulted the majority of Americans. He won fair and square and in the best traditions of democracy. You can lie to yourself but do not expect the rest of us to listen.

DR
My congresswoman spoke against the Iraqi invasion every day. It was her that gave Cyndy Sheehan that ticket to the State of the Union Address. She consistantly votes a pro-worker agenda.Her voting record is pretty much in line with my views. She also helped me personally with the INS regarding my family. I should blame her because the majority of other districts in the country were fooled into voting for pro-Bush, pro-war, anti- worker stooges? If enough people felt that way the result would be the election of one more Rep stooge. Explain again how that would be wise. BTW She enjoys high margins of victory, thankfully.

Posted by: bills at June 12, 2009 06:38 AM

Yes, there is most certainly such a thing as wise voting.

Voting Guidelines:

• [1] Research the candidates. Look at their voting records (not merely what they sYes, there is most certainly such a thing as wise voting.

Voting Guidelines:

• [1] Research the candidates. Look at their voting records (not merely what they say). Avoid pulling the party-lever. Avoid being seduced into the circular, divisive, distracting, petty, partisan-warfare that pits voters against each other, and allows irresponsible incumbent politicians to enjoy their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies while ignoring the nation’s pressing problems (problems that are growing in number and severity). The party-lever and the partisan-warfare is how irresponsible incumbent politicians cleverly tap-into the voters’ laziness. The party-lever makes voting easy and fast. The partisan-warfare distracts the voters from more substantive issues, and distracts from the politicians’ failure to do their job to adequately address those issues.


• [2] Presidential elections usually have many candidates, so the likelihood of all candidates being equally unacceptable is low.
  
  • (a) However, what can still easily happen (and often does) is that the front-runners are equally bad, and other better candidates have low probabilities of winning. The media is notorious for exacerbating and influencing the situation (giving no attention to candidates that aren’t affiliated with the two-party duopoly). If there is a good candidate, but that candidate is unlikely to win, and the front-runners are equally worse, then why not vote for the candidate that you feel is most qualified? If the front-runners are equally worse, what does it matter? Also, who knows? Your favorite candidate may do much better than expected, and while your favorite candidate may not win, it may help keep the other candidates and the two-party duopoly more focused on the most important issues?
  
  
  • (b) For an election of any office in which there are no good candidates, and no incumbent (i.e. all candidates are equally unacceptable), then why give any of the candidates your valuable vote? If a write-in is allowed, do that instead. It is perfectly acceptable to refuse to give your vote to any candidate if you believe none are acceptable.
  
  
  • (c) Don’t forget about Congress. What can the next president accomplish if saddled with the same do-nothing Congress?
  
  
  • (d) Don’t vote merely for the sake of voting, or blindly pull the party-lever, because an uninformed vote is worse than not voting.
  
  
• [3] Step [3] is very important. If there are no good candidates (i.e. all candidates are about equally unacceptable), it is best to vote for a non-incumbent (i.e. challenger) rather than reward the irresponsible incumbent by allowing them to be re-elected, and allowing them to grow more powerful, corrupt, and irresponsible. We were never supposed to re-elect irresponsible incumbents. Unfortunately, that happens too often, merely because of blind party loyalty. There’s nothing wrong with party loyalty, but blind party loyalty merely empowers both main parties to keep taking turns being irresponsible, and keeps their incumbency rates high (e.g. 85% to 90%); essentially rewarding Congress and telling Congress to continue being irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and corrupt. Parties encourage straight-ticket voting, but that is the lazy way. That is how parties tap-into your laziness to trick you into pulling the party-lever, instead of doing your own thinking for yourself. Therefore, don’t stay home if you don’t like any of the candidates; vote against the incumbent.


• [4] If there is a good candidate, vote for that candidate. If all of the candidates are bad, then vote for a non-incumbent instead of rewarding the incumbent (or if there is no incumbent, then don’t give your vote to any of them). And, do not rely on party alone. Don’t blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. straight-ticket). Study each candidates’ voting records, philosophies, and/or platform. While you may be tempted to merely vote for a candidate merely because they belong to a particular party, they may not even remotely represent your beliefs. An uninformed vote is worse than no vote.


• [5] If in doubt, vote ‘em out !

• Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
• Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability

In a voting nation, an Educated electorate is paramount.
The sooner, the better, because the longer it takes, the more painful it will get.

Unfortunately, at the moment, …

• (01) Too few voters recognize the root causes (i.e. basic human traits, with some overlap, which all boil down to short-sighted selfishness instead of long-term enlightened self-interest):
  • (a) laziness, apathy, complacency, resigning to futility, negligence, ignorance;
  
  
  • (b) greed, gluttony, lust for power and control, envy, pride, and exploitation of others and things (e.g. lawlessness, wealth, usury, unnecessary wars, taxation, etc.);
  
  
  • (c) irrational fear, fear mongering, anger, intolerance, hatred, prejudice of others and things (e.g. religion, race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.);
  
  
  • (d) delusion (deception and self deception), misplaced loyalties, partisan-warfare, misplaced compassion, misplaced priorities;
• (02) 40%-to-50% of voters don’t even bother to vote all.


• (03) Too many voters blindly pull the party-lever, without even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less knowing the candidates’ voting records.


• (04) Too many voters don’t even know who their own Congress persons are, much less their Congress persons’ voting records.


• (05) Too many voters refuse to consider challengers which are usually in the OTHER political party, which results in high re-election rates for incumbent politicians. Clever, eh? See how it works?


• (06) Too few voters understand that 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (source: OpenSecrets.org ; one-simple-idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm)


• (07) Too many voters simply vote for the candidate that spends the most money, resulting in 90% of elections that are won by the candidate that spends the most money.


• (08) Too many voters are one-issue voters, and are easily bribed with their own tax dollars, and fooled by the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else. Too many voters want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Little do they know, the more they ask government to do, the more bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful it becomes. Also, any government powerful enough to give voters anything they want is also powerful enough to take it away.


• (09) Too many voters prefer to wallow in the hateful blame-game and the circular partisan-warfare, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than admit that THEIR own party ain’t much (if any) better.


• (10) Too few (if any) voters can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, but too many voters still continue to repeatedly reward THEIR irresponsible and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, rather than ever consider a challenger (since the challenger is usually in the OTHER party), thus making most incumbent politicians’ cu$hy and coveted incumbencies more secure. What do they say about doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?


• (11) Too few voters understand, nor want to understand how too many corrupt and irresponsible incumbent politicians capitalize on the voters’ laziness, blind partisanship, blind loyalty, delusions, apathy, complacency, hatreds, and ignorance. Too many voters are too easily fooled. As a result, the voters are used, abuses, and exploited (e.g. usury; illegal immigration for profits and votes; voting fraud; unfair trade practices; corruption and greed in an increasingly FOR-SALE, bloated, wasteful, corrupt, plutocratic/kleptocratic federal government, unnecessary wars, inflation, unfair and regressive taxation, vast unfair advantages for incumbent politicians; insufficient and declining quality of eduction; increasing lawlessness and constitutional violations; etc.).


• (12) Too few voters appreciate the importance of Education, Transparency, and Accountability. May 1st was “Law Day”, yet what did we see in recent years? We saw millions of illegal aliens protesting and demanding rights. Lawlesssness and crime are on the rise. There are many constitutional violations. Yet, while most Americans want secure borders and reject another amnesty like the one in 1986 (which more than quadrupled the problem), most incumbent politicians still flagrantly refuse to enforce existing laws and continue to push for antoher anmensty. These politicians are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion, at best). Yet, too many voters still reward those incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal approval ratings for Congress. Why?


• (13) Too many voters focus only on the office of President and Vice President, and continue to repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, which sabotages the next President by saddling the president with the same dysfunctional, irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, corrupt Congress. As a result, the nation’s pressing problem continue to grow in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation. Total fiscal and moral bankruptcy continues to grow nearer. The only consolation is that we are drawing closer to the pain and misery needed to finally provide the voters their much-needed education and motivation to vote more responsibly (such as unhappy voters did in year 1933 when the voters ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress, and hundreds in the elections (108 in 1929, 123 in 1931) leading up to year 1933).


• (14) Too few voters understand that the voters are culpable too, and we have the government we elect, and deserve. If the voters aren’t culpable, then who is? Who is left to stop the corruption, abuses, and deteriorating economic conditions? Too few voters understand it now, but they will, when failing to care to understand finally becomes too painful.


• (15) Too few voters understand that Congress’ refusal to stop so many abuses is no coincidence. And so many abuses did not all come about and persist by mere coincidence, and decades of those abuses has resulted in numerous deteriorating economic conditions today, which have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s. The $11.4 Trillion National Debt (as of May-2009) per-capita has never been worse (65% higher per-capita than in year 1945 after World War II). The voters mostly have themselves to thank for it. Ignorance is not an excuse. It is merely an invitation for more abuse by cheaters who are all too happy to oblige.


• (16) Too few voters understand the damage that can be done during the 2, 4, 6 years of politicians’ terms in office, and it will be another 2, 4, or 6 year before it can be corrected, so the voters should not take this duty lightly. Otherwise, it could have disastrous consequences for millions of Americans (e.g. unnecessary wars, deteriorating economic conditions, numerous abuses, usury, unfair taxation, inflation from excessive amounts of new money, growing corruption, massive debt, fiscal and moral bankruptcy, illegal immigration, unfair trade practices, a severely bloated federal government and debt growing to nightmare proportions, and numerous other manifestations of unchecked greed).


• (17) Too few voters understand how their own negligence, and irresponsible voting habits will lead to painful consequences for most Americans … that is, until it is probably too late to mitigate the damages. Thus, too many voters must repeatedly learn the hard way. Too many voters fail to learn from history. The only consolation is that things may finally get better when things get too painful.

That list above may offend some voters, and some voters may believe they are not culpable, but those comments above are not said with malice. Those comments are offered as constructive criticism in the hope that enough voters will remember that they are culpable too, and will reap what they sow.

But, perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, blindly partisan, etc., when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry? (i.e. after getting their Education).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2009 08:12 AM

gergle said: “Actually the stats you just quoted stated the opposite of your claim that most Americans vote, with the exception of Presidential elections.”

Where do I say gergle, most people vote? You misread something or are positing something never stated by me. The stats show a majority of eligible voters do vote in the presidential races. Do you dispute those stats?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2009 08:43 AM

bills, your Representative has been a total failure and ineffective in changing the course and direction and ethics of Congress. That fact is indisputable.

Your representative has represented your views on some issues, that is surely how she got reelected. But, the bigger question is, is the country now moving in the direction you want to see it go, as a result of your incumbent having been reelected?

If the answer is no, then you would be wise to consider voting for a challenger in the next primary, and if enough other voters do the same, we will get a Congress populated by representatives who choose to represent the voters and the Constitution more than the wealthy special interests and corporate lobbyists.

Of course, you are free to vote however you wish. I am only suggesting becoming part of the solution, instead of the problem.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2009 08:50 AM

eric, that is your breakdown to meet your needs. You broke nothing for me. Partisan voting is the problem, not the solution, from my vantage point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2009 08:51 AM

More than half of voters vote (about 55%).
But that’s not a very good number.
The number of people voting isn’t the real problem.
What so few voters voting means is what is the problem.
It means they don’t get it (for various reasons all rooted in short-sighted selfishness versus long-term enlightened self-interest).

Another disturbing fact is that 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations.
That is, government is essentially FOR-SALE.
And the deterioration in many things for several decades is the result of growing corruption, incompetence, and near total fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2009 08:56 AM

Right. Blind partisan loyalties are largely due to laziness. Many people don’t know what to do, so they simply do what they’re tricked into doing … at least until that becomes too painful.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2009 08:57 AM

David,

You said most people don’t vote. The stats say different.

Again, this seems to be a statement contradicting my statement. Of Course, you do go on to point out that only in presidential elections do most people vote. The stats, with the exception of the presidential election, don’t say different. I should point out that only a slight margin above 50% of eligble voters, even in those elections, actually vote.

My entire premise is that many people simply don’t care about something they regard as distant from them. The reason I brought it up has to do with your post about wise voting. I’ve sometimes called my own sister’s behavior sociopathic because she doesn’t vote. I don’t think she is isolated in her behavior. She hides the fact she doesn’t vote, but doesn’t see it as something critical to her life. Many other friends have very little knowledge of issues, and vote (or claim to) based on what seems to be personality or superficial wedge issues. This is the sad fact of modern US democracy. I think a large part of reelection of candidates, often, is mostly about simple name recognition.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2009 10:00 AM

Darn it, my blockquote didn’t work. The first line is a quote from your post.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2009 10:01 AM

First very good article David R, Loyal Opposition, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” what a totality asinine statement you made comparing president Obama and our system of government to that bunch, I posted a comment on the left a month ago or so about Madonna comparing John Mc Cain with Hitler that was a asinine statement to and I’m sure most of the our country would agree regardless of political leanings, Our founders bestowed upon us the right of free speech and many other freedoms and our system of government, I’ve read a few books on Jefferson and Adams and Franklin all great men Jefferson was the visionary and talented creative genius in mind and pen the great architect, Franklin was the wise old sage and genius and inventor one of the greatest men in our history and Adams was the crafty smart and wise attorney he was good at reading people at one point in his life defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre, He often remarked about this tall red headed young man in almost awe (Jefferson ) and Franklin they really did not get along to well and many others like Cesar Rodney who had face cancer and wore a handkerchief to cover up the ravages of this hideous affliction he took notes and even talked about the one Quaker there, He Adams was not in the best opinion of Quakers but remarked for a Quaker this man was fairly sharp and Adams also talked about the oppressive heat that summer all different men different opinions not perfect though that all of our country wasn’t there to attend this meeting of the great minds they fought and they argued and they cursed and they sowed the seeds and left in agreement that great document that we ALL celebrate in July.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 12, 2009 10:54 AM

gergle, YOU said most folks don’t vote. I was responding to your statement in saying the stats say different. The stats demonstrate a majority if eligible voters DO vote in presidential elections. It’s a different story for non-presidential and local elections, however, as I pointed out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2009 10:56 AM

gergle, I see now the reason for the confusion. In one of your comments, you said: “Actually the stats you just quoted stated the opposite of your claim that most Americans vote, with the exception of Presidential elections.”

You read the opposite of what I actually said. I said “a slight majority” vote in presidential elections, and considerably less in off presidential year elections and local elections. The way you phrased your comment above implies that I said most Americans do vote except in presidential elections. Which of course, is not what I said at all. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2009 11:13 AM

David,

I think we agree on the stats. I was just confused by your use of language, not a big deal.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2009 09:20 PM

DR
So because my friend and representitive lacks the ability to clone herself or devide like an ameaba and thereby rule congress I should reject her in favor of someone that can. Where exactly is this candidate? My congresswoman has done a good job representing me and my district and has been rewarded with solid support. Backing the CHIPS program is hardly bending over for special interest. Supporting realistic, compassionate immigration reform is a good thing. Why wouldn’t I want to continue supporting her, especially now, when there is some hope of accomplishing some of the goals the country needs?

Posted by: bills at June 12, 2009 11:26 PM

bills, Who would want to clone this ? …

• (01) On 2-DEC-2003, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) abused the power of her office and wrote a letter on behalf of rapist, Stewart Pearson, the son of an employee in Lynn Woolsey’s office. It did not matter to Lynn Woolsey that Stewart Pearson pled guilty to rape. In a letter written on her official congressional stationery, she asked the judge to consider mitigating cirumstances and show leniency. The judge ignored the letter, and sentenced Pearson to eight years in prison. In Jul-2003, Tina Phan, age 17 at the time, was a victim of a rape in July of 2003. Stewart Pearson, a 20 yr old punk, using a rag soaked in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax, smothered Tina with it. Trying to fight off the effects of the chemicals of the rag and the stronger knife wielding Pearson, she was eventually overpowered. Tina Phan was then raped and brutalized. Tina Phan later told police that Stewart Pearson had told her he had committed this crime before and would do it again. Pearson initially denied raping Tina Phan but last fall admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to rape in September in a deal that dropped other charges, including assault and sodomy.


• (02) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)


• (03) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)


• (04) Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)


• (05) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
  
• (06) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)


• (07) Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids (including illegal aliens). (Jan 2008)


• (08) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on end to offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)


• (09) Lynn Woolsey states: support Tax incentives for child care; eliminate marriage penalty. (Jul 1999) but voted NO twice in following two years ?


• (10) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)


• (11) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)


• (12) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)


• (13) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)


• (14) Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of pork-laden Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)


• (15) Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)


• (16) Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000); but Voted for more prison cells; more truth in sentencing. (Nov 1993); but Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995); but Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)


• (17) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)


• (18) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)


• (19) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)


• (20) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)


• (21) Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)


• (22) Lynn Woolsey Rated 29% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)


• (23) Lynn Woolsey supported MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001) , but Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)?

And you think that’s a good job?

Your comments are a wonderful example of what David R. Remer’s article is about.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 13, 2009 08:35 AM

David R. Remer, That’s an interesting article about the incumbent’s advantages.

Here are some more reasons why 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 13, 2009 08:39 AM

bills, there is the tree, then there is the forest. You keep focusing on the tree in your backyard, and ignoring the forest of which it is a part.

If enough voters take up the anti-incumbent banner and 30, 40, or 50% of incumbents are swept out of office in one election, think of the impact that would make on the remaining incumbents and freshman politicians coming in. It would be the most dramatic political change in American politics since the Whigs formed. A majority of Congressional representatives would acknowledge a NEW BOSS, the voters, instead of their Party, their wealthy campaign contributors, and their blackmailing and bribing lobbyists.

They would feel they had no choice anymore but to conduct the people’s business in a manner that resulted in public approval ratings of Congress in the 50, 60, or 70% range, instead of 11 or 20%. Can you not see how that would be the absolute best thing to happen to American government and politics? Why not join in making that a reality instead of protecting the status quo that virtually no one approves of? All it takes is you, and other voters like you, to set your objective on saving the forest, instead of the tree in your backyard.

It’s the difference between selfish interest and enlightened self-interest, a al Adam Smith.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2009 11:08 AM

d.a.n, yes, that is a very interesting study on incumbent advantage. The dramatic shift in favor of incumbent advantage beginning in the 1950’s is evident regardless of what measures are applied.

While the authors of the study, by taking into account variability of candidates and open seat contention, lower their estimate of incumbency advantage over other less inclusive study parameters, their general result still supports an increasing incumbency advantage in the latter half of the 20th century.

One flaw in their study that I see is their removal of data belonging to election results immediately following a census year (i.e. gerrymandering) for that one election only, in assessing the standard deviation of incumbency advantage and standard deviation of election results. This is flawed design, since their results include effects of gerrymandering for every election afterward through the next census year.

I think this study is very important, not for the different results it produces from previous regression to the mean research, but for its validation of previous research that incumbency advantage has been strengthening as our politicians develop ever more and ingenious methods of insuring their reelection while in legislative office.

Controlling ballot access requirements by the two parties, the two party control of the Presidential election debates, use of tax dollars to send constituents thinly veiled reelection campaign propaganda, gerrymandering of districts to insure districts reflect a majority of the incumbent’s party, and of course, the quid pro quo relationship with lobbyists and wealthy special interests in legislative action, are just some of the many tactics Congressional incumbents have put in place to insure their reelection despite abyssmal public opinion of Congressional results and legislation.

This is most especially true in the Senate, where we are approaching defacto life terms as evidenced by Sen’s. Byrd, Kennedy, Warner, Thurmond, Inouye, Hayden, and Stennis. (See list of longest serving Senators here.). Nearly all of them no longer in office chose to step down as opposed to being voted out of office.

It truly is remarkable how the U.S. Congress has been allowed this abject denial of choice and public will, and freedom of information regarding challenging candidates in our election process.

The American voters however, still have the power of the vote to remove them from office if reforming this system to one more fair and free is not forthcoming.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2009 11:38 AM

David R. Remer wrote: The American voters however, still have the power of the vote to remove them from office if reforming this system to one more fair and free is not forthcoming.

True.

And perhaps enough voters will vote smarter, and stop repeatedly rewarding selfish, arrogant, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians when enough of the voters are hopelessly deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry? (i.e. after getting their Education).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 13, 2009 04:42 PM

DR

“If enough voters take up the anti-incumbent banner and 30, 40, or 50% of incumbents are swept out of office in one election, think of the impact that would make on the remaining incumbents and freshman politicians coming in.”

Exactly, then we would have 30,40,50% of congress without a clue. A good example is the California legislature. Term limits insure that a good percentage are rookies. We know how well that has worked out.

Posted by: bills at June 14, 2009 04:13 AM

DAN
With the exception of item one,even though the Reps tried and failed to blow it out of proportion, 99% of the list you gave regarding Lynn Woolsey’s positions are in accord with mine and apparently the vast majority of the people she represents. She was re-elected handily. Different districts have different perspectives. There are districts that are anti war and believe its the right thing to care for sick children,no matter where there parents come from.That what happens in a democracy.

Posted by: bills at June 14, 2009 04:27 AM

bills

“A good example is the California legislature. Term limits insure that a good percentage are rookies. We know how well that has worked out.”

the prblem in california has nothing to do with term limits, and everything to do with overspending, and that is exactly what they are doing now at the federal level. if there were no term limits willie brown would still be assembly speaker. term limits has allowed california to get rid of hacks like don perata, and john burton.

Posted by: dbs at June 14, 2009 04:59 AM

billS that was kind of a blanketed statement, Term limits like dbs said did get rid of a lot of politicians enlisted in the lifetime political machine club, And they are not rookies most of them have made there way up the chain through city and county administrative and legislative and executive positions and some already are corrupted, The biggest problem is overspending by far and it’s been going on for many years now cripes sake Wilson left what 14-20 billion in slurplus when he left office common sense you could double the property taxes and it will still be a huge mess in California and strangle out the rest of the little bit of working class that’s left there they’ve what doubled DVM fees and the sales tax is around 10% the state tax is out of this world gas tax is sky high this is killing the so called working middle class California is becoming a rich man’s poor man’s state and your political folks are doing the most damage.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 14, 2009 10:29 AM

bills, Rodney made my reply for me. Rookies is a bogus argument. All politicians begin as “rookies” as you call them. To try to make the argument that this current lot of incumbent veterans are vastly superior to, so called, “rookies”, is negated by public opinion polling of Congressional approval ratings (11% in the last election). Rookies could hardly disappoint the public more than these incumbent veterans do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2009 11:23 AM

bills wrote: d.a.n With the exception of item one, even though the Reps tried and failed to blow it out of proportion, …

Blow it out of proportion?

On 2-DEC-2003, your beloved Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) abused the power of her office and wrote a letter on behalf of rapist, Stewart Pearson, the son of an employee in Lynn Woolsey’s office. It did not matter to Lynn Woolsey that Stewart Pearson pled guilty to rape. In a letter written on her official congressional stationery, she asked the judge to consider mitigating cirumstances and show leniency. The judge ignored the letter, and sentenced Pearson to eight years in prison. In Jul-2003, Tina Phan, age 17 at the time, was a victim of a rape in July of 2003. Stewart Pearson, a 20 yr old punk, using a rag soaked in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax, smothered Tina with it. Trying to fight off the effects of the chemicals of the rag and the stronger knife wielding Pearson, she was eventually overpowered. Tina Phan was then raped and brutalized. Tina Phan later told police that Stewart Pearson had told her he had committed this crime before and would do it again. Pearson initially denied raping Tina Phan but last fall admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to rape in September in a deal that dropped other charges, including assault and sodomy.

Please tell us exactly what part; which words of that account above was blown out of proportion?

Why do you so easily overlook such corruption?
Do you really think all of this is only Republicans’ fault?
And what makes you think any party is any better or worse than the other?
What do you think will be accomplished by fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the petty partisan-warfare?
Did it ever occur to you that there may be some draw-backs to the blind partisan loyalties?
Did it ever occur to you that the two main parties are merely taking turns abusing most Americans?
If not, why have these 10 abuses existed for decades?
If you think Democrat or Republican politicians are dedicated to making much (if anything) better, you are going to be disappointed.
Their options are becoming more and more limited with the debt of already nightmare proportions that the whole lot of them are running up.
The $11.5 Trillion National Debt per-capita ($37K) is now 70% larger than the National Debt per-capita ($22K) in year 1945, after World War II.
The $57 Trillion Nation-wide debt has more than quadrupled from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 411% of GDP in 2009.

bills wrote: d.a.n … 99% of the list you gave regarding Lynn Woolsey’s positions are in accord with mine and apparently the vast majority of the people she represents.

bills,

Thank you.
Your comments perfectly exemplify David R. Remer’s article above.

As for rookies … what do you prefer? Rookies or career criminals?

Also, you failed to notice that Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) votes on the “marriage penalty tax” are contradictory. Guess it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is, or the price of rice in China on Wednesday, eh?

Term-limits are needed, since Congress has stacked the deck to ensure the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. Now they even give themselves automatic raises (10 in the last 12 years) while U.S. Troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and Afghganistan.

If you can see excessive corruption, incompetence, arrogance, and corruption in Congress and other parts of the federal government, then David R. Remer’s statement …

David R. Remer’s wrote: bills, there is the tree, then there is the forest. You keep focusing on the tree in your backyard, and ignoring the forest of which it is a part.

… is accurate.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 14, 2009 03:26 PM

CORRECTION: If you can [not] see excessive corruption …

Posted by: d.a.n at June 14, 2009 04:08 PM

You’re conflating different issues: Firstly, though I may vote wisely, i.e. for the better representative/Senator candidate, I may still strongly dislike Congress because Congress may not act in the way I want them to, whether or not whoever I vote for votes with the majority.

In other words, I vote wisely for my representative and Senators, but that doesn’t mean I like what Congress as a whole has done, hence I hold Congress as a whole in low esteem.

It would be different if a) we each could vote for all congressional candidates from all states and b) all the ones for whom I vote were elected. Then, my satisfaction with Congress as a whole would probably be exactly in lime with the way I vote. I will never be happy with the likes of McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi, Reid, etc. But then again I’ll never have a chance to vote for their opponents because I don’t live in their constituency, nor would I want to. My unhappiness with them inevitably results in my unhappiness with Congress regardless of my happiness with whoever I voted for.

Besides all that, though I voted for one of my Senators (I voted against the other; fortunately he is retiring at the end of the current term) and my representative, they all voted in favor of the bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto companies before they went bankrupt. When I voted for them, I was convinced that the ones I voted for the better candidates who would act in the nation’s best interests. I was wrong. I won’t vote for them again.

But I still say I voted wisely, based on the information I had at the time. Barring major improvement in their behavior AND assuming they have more worthy opponents, I’ll wisely vote against them next time.

Posted by: A McKee at June 14, 2009 11:24 PM

DAN
Votes that appear contradictory are not at all uncommon. Often a bill starts out on the right track but is changed or ammended to become unsupportable. There are also‘“Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Circumstances also change and a hundred other reasons why votes can change. Its called legislating. Its also been compared to making sausage.Its not pretty.

dbs
Part of California’s overspending IS because of term limits. A weaker, less experienced legislature without the institutional memory left a vacumn that was filled by bureaucrats and you know how likely they are to curb spending.

Posted by: bills at June 15, 2009 06:10 AM

bills

not so, politicians still serve in the legislature for a long time 10+ years. they just move from one house to the other. pete wilson left a surplus. the problem is the out of control spending, and borrowing. this has been going on since gray davis was elected. they keep increasing thier spending, betting that revenues will eventually increase enough to close the gap, and it was a bad bet. now the only thing that will fix the problem is massive cuts, and freezing increases until revenue catches up. at that point they would be wise to go back to the old gan limit, which limits spending increases to population growth and cost of living.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2009 08:33 AM

bills wrote: d.a.n Votes that appear contradictory are not at all uncommon. Often a bill starts out on the right track but is changed or ammended to become unsupportable. There are also‘“Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Circumstances also change and a hundred other reasons why votes can change. Its called legislating.

Those are excuses.

Excuses are like assholes.
Everyone has one and they all stink.

bills wrote: Its also been compared to making sausage. Its not pretty.

Right, too often it ain’t pretty.

Why is that?
Because there is insufficient accountability.
Progress is slow (2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward).
But we have been going backwards too long (for decades), and excessive corruption has now resulted in many deteriorating economic conditions.
The voters have themselves to thank for it too, because they have not held their elected officials accountable.
The voters will reap what they sow.

The debt is not only NOT being addressed, but it is getting much worse, and there will be painful consequences for so much fiscal irresponsibility.

Congress (BOTH Republicans and Democrats) seemed surprised when the economic melt-down started deteriorating so fast. This demonstrates their incompetence and arrogance too.

You are much more forgiving and accepting of the excessive corruption in the severely bloated federal government than me.

Never mind that no one, in many years, has yet been able to list 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that aren’t FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and/or corrupt.

Yet, Congress still enjoys 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

But probably not much longer.
In 1929, 1931, and 1933, most unhappy voters finally ousted Congress persons by the hundreds (206 in year 1933). That’s what can happen when the voters have finally had enough. But, the bottom line is - the voters are culpable too, and repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irrresponsible, incompetent incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates will only bring about more pain and misery.

That’s the built-in self-correction mechanism.
Too bad it has to be that way, but pain and misery is the often the most effective education.

We can do better, but that won’t be accomplished by repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irrresponsible, incompetent incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. You may disagree, but in time, we will most likely see a repeat of year 1933, when excessive corruption and greed has finally created enough pain and misery for enough voters.

Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry ?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 15, 2009 08:51 AM

bills said: “Part of California’s overspending IS because of term limits. A weaker, less experienced legislature without the institutional memory left a vacumn that was filled by bureaucrats and you know how likely they are to curb spending.”

I defy you to produce one shred of evidence that what you say is true. Are they illiterate, did they get elected without graduating high school, or are they all imports from other states and not been raised in Ca.

Your comment above is as hyperbolic and lacking in substance or validation of any kind as comments made by Rush Laughbaugh. Again, I defy you to produce one shred of evidence that term limits in any way, has caused Ca.’s overspending. California was overspending long before term limits were put in place. You will need to seek another reason, because term limits, AIN’T IT.

Bill Clinton was term limited and achieved a balanced budget and surplus (less Soc. Sec. borrowing) the last 2 years in office.
Montana’s legislature is term limited, and it is one of the only 3 states in the Union withOUT a budget deficit this year or projected for 2010.

Of the 47 states now running deficits, more than 2/3 of them were not running deficits PRIOR to this recession. In other words, if you are looking for a cause for state deficits, term limits is the wrong place to look, since 15 states have term limited legislatures and most of them were not experiencing deficits prior to this Recession. Term limits DO NOT cause deficit spending. The evidence is pretty unequivocal on this point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 09:12 AM

A McKee said: “But I still say I voted wisely, based on the information I had at the time.”

Where did you get your information on them? Where does the information come from that voters take in to vote for a particular candidate? One cannot vote wisely if one’s information sources for voting are unwise, i.e. the candidate them self, or their party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 09:21 AM

david

“Of the 47 states now running deficits, more than 2/3 of them were not running deficits PRIOR to this recession.”

unfortunately california is not in that group. they’ve been playing beat the bank for over a decade. pretty damn sad.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2009 10:11 AM

dbs, true enough. California voters have a worse case of unWise voting than probably any other state, save maybe, Alaska. But, then Alaska is a state unlike any other in nearly every respect. We should sell it back to the Russians :-)

Alaskan voters may then wake up and realize what a wonderful thing it was to be one of the 50 United States.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 11:15 AM

Pete Wilson served as the thirty-sixth Governor of California (1991–1999), the culmination of more than three decades in the public arena that included eight years as a United States Senator (1983–1991), eleven years as Mayor of San Diego (1971–1982) and five years as a California State Assemblyman (1967–1971). I remember when he was the mayor of San Diego around 1976-78 he warned then about unchecked Illegal immigration and the consequences it would bring if left unchecked and the other side and activists groups labeled him a racist and he wasn’t a typical republican in many respects he was moderate on most issues and a fiscal conservative also California’s population had grown from 23 million to almost 30 million from 1980 to 1990 he walked into office with a 1991 budget deficit of - $14 billion a rude welcome to the governor’s mansion for Pete Wilson he along the way raised taxes and made many educational reforms and left office with a $16 billion surplus and did a ( Overall ) good job.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2009 11:16 AM

Seward’s folly right David, The Alaska Purchase (1867) (otherwise known as Seward’s Folly, Seward’s Icebox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_purchase “”The Tsar then instructed Russian minister to the United States, Louis Baydalal, to enter into negotiations with Seward in the beginning of March 1867. The negotiations concluded after an all-night session with the signing of the treaty at 4 o’clock in the morning of March 30, 1867[1] with the purchase price set at $7,200,000 (about 1.9¢ per acre).[2] American public opinion was generally positive.”” 1.9 cents a Acre!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2009 11:52 AM

Hot off the press just in High court vote 7-2 strikes down Valdez tax on oil tankers
Supreme Court says Alaska city’s tax on oil tankers violates Constitution
On Monday June 15, 2009, 12:44 pm EDT
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/High-court-strikes-down-apf-15526759.html “Justice Stephen Breyer, in his majority opinion, said the tax violates the Constitution’s “tonnage clause” — one of several provisions intended to foster free trade.”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2009 12:59 PM

bills wrote: “Part of California’s overspending IS because of term limits. A weaker, less experienced legislature without the institutional memory left a vacumn that was filled by bureaucrats and you know how likely they are to curb spending.”

David R. Remer wrote: I defy you to produce one shred of evidence that what you say is true. Are they illiterate, did they get elected without graduating high school, or are they all imports from other states and not been raised in Ca.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to allege that term-limits caused over-spending in California.

Isn’t it amazing what some people will come up with merely to try to salvage a weak (if not totally unsubstantiated or absurd) argument?
It’s not difficult to understand why this nation is in serious trouble.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 16, 2009 12:37 AM

Remer: “Where did you get your information on them? Where does the information come from that voters take in to vote for a particular candidate? One cannot vote wisely if one’s information sources for voting are unwise, i.e. the candidate them self, or their party.”

TV. Radio. Newspapers. Magazines. Their own words. Their opponents’ words. Their voting record. The internet.

You’re right it would not be very wise to simply take a candidate’s word for what he/she will do in office and I do not do that.

Nonetheless, as I said previously (and you dexterously avoided addressing), the decision I made as far as voting for my representatives is 99.9% unrelated to how I feel about Congress as a whole.

Hence the premise of your blog entry is fallacious and it renders your conclusion erroneous.

Posted by: A McKee at June 17, 2009 06:17 PM

A McKee, I don’t doubt that your reasons for voting for your incumbent were unrelated to how you feel about Congress. Of course, if everyone votes as you do, then Congress shall remain as it is, serving the Congressmen and women, and not the American people.

Only if masses of voters who disapprove of Congress’s performance hold their own representative accountable for their disapproval, will Congress change masters. Incumbency is a tacit approval by the voters for the Congressional performance they observe.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2009 10:15 PM

I didn’t vote for any incumbent. I voted for the incumbents’ challenger.

But my decision had only to do with the fact that I didn’t like the incumbent to begin with, the fact that the challenger looked to be the better choice and the fact that I have no way of materially influencing the make-up of Congress with my vote.

I can directly impact only 3 out of 535 elected national legislators. And the impact of my one vote on those 3 is minuscule at that.

Posted by: A McKee at June 18, 2009 08:49 AM

A Mckee, my apology for the assumption.

Your vote, and voice, is miniscule, until it finds itself in a chorus all singing the same the tune.

Democrats and Republicans have maintained their battle lines for over a century. But, there is a new battle line being drawn today by tsunami of independent voters, who no longer affiliate themselves with either of the duopoly parties but, with individual candidates.

As ever larger numbers of independent voters leave the duopoly parties, the anti-incumbent chorus grows and rehearses for its big debut. Your voice need not be miniscule, nor need it find itself in a shrinking chorus going off key and out of tempo with the times and future. But, that choice is yours to make, as you well know.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2009 06:11 PM