| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Cancel the Midterms |
| 2014-11-04 |
| By DAVID SCHANZER and JAY SULLIVAN [NY Times] 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. Meaning the Dems are gonna get stomped and deservedly so. 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. Voting in the U.S. is a right, not an obligation. If you don't vote you end up with what everybody else voted for. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 Gridlock is a feature not a bug. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2014-11-04 19:31 |
| #17 Simple, |
| Posted by: Redneck jim 2014-11-04 18:20 |
| #16 Despite what progressives say, the "deadlock" between the Congress and the President is a FEATURE of the Constitution, not a bug. As JFM has pointed out, in other countries, the executive can do as he wishes, as long as he retains a majority and the confidence of the legislature. In America, the Founding Fathers were very big on limited government. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2014-11-04 18:11 |
| #15 David Schanzer is a professor of public policy and Jay Sullivan is a junior at Duke. Looking forward to the NYT editorial demanding that Obama be made President For Life, written by Mrs. Zwicky's kindergarten class and Pinch Sulzberger's cat. |
| Posted by: charge 2014-11-04 17:43 |
| #14 JFM, it's the other way around. The Parliament can throw out the chief executive with a simple vote of confidence (50% + 1). In addition, in proportional representation, there are always coalition negotiations. Which, somebody like Obama would never survive: you can fool the sheeple but not the other wolves. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-11-04 12:50 |
| #13 Just change to a parliamentary system with proportional representation. In parliamentary systembecause executive has to be approven by the Parliament and in addition gas the power of dissolving it the end result is the Parliament ends dancing to the tune played by the executive. IN a proporional system it means a blatant paedophile will be elected whatever the voters think if he is number one or two in the list of a Party that is expected to get two hundred represntatives. In a proportional system a hinghe pârty repersenting two, pêrcent of electors or more excgtaly its leaders hold the key of power and will act as kingmakers meaningt it is thel, not the people who have the power. In a propsrtional sysem after elections big parties negotiate wiit the hinge aprty without voters having any saying abou that. Proportional system was born in aristocratic countries wanting to give the illusions of democracy all while holding the people a s far away from power as possible. |
| Posted by: JFM 2014-11-04 12:23 |
| #12 Yeah, and the steering wheel on your car should only turn every other block. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-11-04 12:15 |
| #11 Midterms are fundamental. Here in Europe we don't have midterms and since the Presidentail and legislative elections are held sme day or close to one another through dissolution it means legislative is ver of the same side than the president. In other words it doesn't control executive at all anbd wil approve any nomination in the judiciary. In addition the "amplificative" effect of many electoral systems makes the president has a super-majority perhaps even one string enough to amend the Constitution. After one year we discover the Great Man is not so great but we can do nothing about it: we voted the mlegislature in tyhe wake of his election and w e repent but we can do nothiung but armed insurection. And taht is what is greta in midterms: perople vote for Obama because they told them Bush was eeeeeevil and vote Democrat for Congress becauise , well Bush was a Republican and Obama is so cool and has a nice dog. But two years later when minds have cooled and people notice begin to judge Obama by what he is and not by the fact he is not the eeeeeeeevil Bush, when they begin to notice he is not that great adnd there are no blue unicorns they can restrain what President can do. And that is good (TM). And that helps a bit to keep both the President and the Representives honest: because they know gfar too well that in two years they will face new elections they cannot afford to be mere "Yes, men" to the President. It is not perfect (cf Obamacare) but it helps. We in Europe are sentenced to four, in some countries five years of chief of executive doing what hge wants and legislative bodies voting wahtever the exceutive orders hwoever crazy it can be. Naver cancel the midterms! Never! |
| Posted by: JFM 2014-11-04 12:13 |
| #10 There's an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, revolk the First Amendment rights for the NYT. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2014-11-04 11:56 |
| #9 The first steps in totalitarianism. If the NYT's had it their way we would suspend all blue state elections and leave Obama in office forever... |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-11-04 10:52 |
| #8 If you're going to go through the process of amending the Constitution, how about authorizing secession. Dare you. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-11-04 10:50 |
| #7 Just come out and say it, NYT - change the name and institution from Congress to the Politburo. |
| Posted by: Raj 2014-11-04 10:01 |
| #6 Or maybe we could use the first 50 pages of the Omaha Phonebook. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-11-04 08:19 |
| #5 Maybe it would be better for America to have a handful of really smart ivy leaguers; who have travelled extensively with a broad world view, pick and choose the leaders. And the chosen will need approval from the Nobel committee and the UN Secretary General. This would guarantee diversity, save money and stop the partisanship. |
| Posted by: airandee 2014-11-04 07:06 |
| #4 Continuing to buy or otherwise support the NYT is support for fascism in America. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2014-11-04 06:23 |
| #3 Just change to a parliamentary system with proportional representation. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-11-04 05:55 |
| #2 Jonathon Bernstein at Bloomberg View: Why the midterms are good for democracy. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-11-04 01:15 |
| #1 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. Wat the bloody hell! Why not simply make lifetime appointments. They're losing, so now they want to alter the process. NICE ! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-11-04 00:34 |