Party Politics
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Sunday, December 11, 2005
About
I have created this blog as a place for all Murrietans to post facts and opinions concerning the city and the people of Murrieta, California. Please keep your comments well thought out and civil. The opinions expressed in this blog come from independent sources throughout the community and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management.
Links
Previous
- National Politics
- UPSIDE-DOWN
- Flip Flopping
- The Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, a “wolf in sheep...
- Who Really Controls Murrieta’s Development?
- The Great American Debate
- Appeals of Planning Commission decisions.
- Proposition 80
- Proposition 78 and 79
- Proposition 77
8 Comments:
Paul Jacobs, columnist for the Californian, wrote in the Californian, Sunday Dec. 11th:
"What is good for a political party is often at odds with what is best for America. Politics no longer seems remotely directed toward concepts of right or wrong. It's mostly about winning and taking control. The American agenda used to come before furthering a political party's power, but those patriotic values haven't been represented for at least three decades."
Maybe the reason why party politics has taken the ascendent position is that our election results are given on a "winner take all" basis. There's nothing left for the "losing" party even if the vote was 51 to 49%.
It seems to me that we need a fairer way of distributing representative power so that the 49% (or less) have some voice in governing as well.
I think this attitude of winning at all costs has divided Americans inappropriately.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, December 11, 2005 11:07:00 PM
Are we talking about the losing party getting a 49% representation on a Presidential loss? Or maybe the Electoral College votes should be split by percentages which would give the winner 51% and the loser 49% of the Electoral representatives. Should the losing party get 49% representation when it loses a Congessional district? Or is it reasonable to give a losing Senatorial Candidate a 49% stake in Senate power? Wait a second I get it now! Liberals have gone back and calculated that if the winner take all system had changed a few electon cycles ago then they would have the Presidency and Congress today! In some perverse way changing the winner take all system would benefit their side. I know this because I have only heard about this proposed change from Leftists. I have never ever ever heard this proposal from the Right.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, December 12, 2005 9:51:00 AM
You know, Rholmgren, if you compare what's happening in our society to what's happening in our political lives, one thing stands out. All around us we have available great diversity, magazines, TV channels, recreational opportunities, etc. etc. This is not the repeated in our political lives where we are required to fit into only two choices or be unheard.
Although I used a 51/49% split to illustrate my point, in actuality, there are many more points of view that should be heard from if one is more serious about the "one person, one vote" mantra.
In prior posts you have asked the question how can corporate money be controlled because such regulation would butt up against the First Amendment free speech guarantee?
This is related to the winner take all problem. The corporate money buys the victory and the victory is complete leaving no voice for the citizens. Even the winning party often alienates those in its own ranks. Today, many republicans do not agree with policies coming from their administration. But where can they go?
The problem may be that we have narrowly focused on one part of the First Amendment, i.e., the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. But there is another First Amendment clause -- the one that guarantees that the people have a right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. The First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The problem is that where the government officials get so much money from corporations, it is the corporate petitions which get heard rather than the peoples' petitions.
This is a serious problem. Large US population segments no longer see a reason to participate in our "democratic" governmental processes because they correctly observe that their voices are simply ignored.
Two changes that we could make would be to allow public funding of numerous political parties and require that the federal and state legislative bodies reflect, on a pro-rata basis, the support that these multiple parties have from the citizens. Second, the corporate money should be eliminated, or at least substantially reduced, so that the petitions of the people would fall on more willing ears.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:21:00 AM
I will agree with you that there is a problem with campaign financing.For me the hard part is finding a solution that works within the framework of our present political system. It seems as if the power structure is happy with the status quo and is resistent to radical change. What worries me is splitting America up into smaller political factions and then allocating power to those factions. I see most of those factions as having extemist agendas that are harmful to our overall welfare. I wish I had more time here but work is calling. Your posts are thought provoking and it is always positive to think in new and creative ways.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:24:00 AM
It seems to me that the only way to get minority representation would be to convert to a parlimentary system in which small political factions would have form a majority coalition to create a majority governing body. Some of these systems exist in Europe, but they are definitly not a good example to emulate. Europe is an economically stagnate,overtaxed and over regulated continent.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:36:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Bingo! You are right! Having several small political factions only complicates and the election process and turns it into a highly political bartering process. Germany, as the latest example, clearly demonstrated that mess when Angela Merkel, elected by the majority of people, could not assume the chancellor position because she did not have enough votes by party members to declare victory. In order to get it, she had to concede and change her platform during the negotiation process with smaller political parties, so she would come up with enough votes to secure her job. Germany badly needed reform, but it sounds that they will have a weaker chancellor due to the wheeling and dealing with smaller parties.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:31:00 PM
What does freedom mean to all of you? Does it mean that we are free to speak for or against a belief? Does it mean that we have the right to protest for or against what we believe is true and right, without retailiation? Does it mean we have the freedom of thought and freedom of action without being held accountable without our judicial system OKing that right to be viewed or denied? Do we have freedom of the press in this country? Do we hold the right of all men to be equal? Do we really believe that a person is free to act as they want and to take care of their own bodies as they wish?
If answering yes to all those statements. Why do some of us live in such fear and paranoia. Thats really what runs this country today....FEAR. The government today fears to people of the same sex loving each other. They fear that a woman should have the right to choose. They fear that we might say something against them and they try and limit what is written and said. They are OK with torturing our captives but speak to people doing that to our servicemen as inhuman. They fear that our main religion is under attack, when it is the opposite. They fear that people are coming across the borders and taking whats not theirs, yet they let business hire them with no retribution. They fear people talking and believe that they can do anything they want to "look" into our conversations if they please whether that breaks the law or not. They fear spending money on the poor because there will be no return on the money. They fear the nations of this world when we are the most powerful nation in the world. We attacked out of fear and greed but fear was the reason the attack was OK'd.
Fear....a very scary word. One that causes are own government to attack, imprison, torture, remove freedoms, betray, steal, lie, mislead, conspire and require verbage in our language all under the guise of patriotism.
Is it fear or greed? Someone list all the great things that have happened in the last say 6 years while conservatives have been in power. Don't attack Bill Clinton. Don't attack the left. Don't attack the author. Just list for me all the goods, that this conservative administration has done. List all the improvements to our great nation. Was it the improvements done from the 9-11 commission? Was it the improvements that were done after Katrina? Was it the improvements of ethical behavior that we have seen from our Government? What has been done? Please help because I feel so lonely here thinking that we are losing these freedoms from FEAR AND GREED.
I will start it, the wealthy got tax cuts and no more luxury taxes, but I guess the poor have rich relatives too. There's the number one. Number two?
Jeff
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:34:00 AM
Some perspective into the mine disaster. This administration has cut Federal spending dispite being warned over and over about the massive problems and safety issues within the mining industry. Bush installed at the head of Federal agencies, Corporate Mining cronies who overlooked warnings and violations and again who pays: the normal American.
Look at the disasters of this administration and then answer my above post. Iraq, Katrina and this is just the latest disaster because our monies are being spent to rebuild another disaster that should never have happened in Iraq. Read about the conservatives cuts to the budget below:
INSPECTOR GENERAL IDENTIFIES MAJOR PROBLEMS – Report Urges More Resources: The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General indicated in its Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2001 – March 31, 2002 that “MSHA is unable to complete statutorily mandated inspections of Metal/Nonmetal mine operations because of the rapid growth in mine operations, reductions in the numbers of inspectors, and shifts toward compliance assistance.” Ironically, the Administration has not requested additional inspectors for Metal/Nonmetal Mines.
BUSH FIRST BUDGET CUTS – Ignoring IG Report, Bush Slashes Enforcement: President Bush proposed an overall cut to MSHA staffing levels for the FY 2002 budget. That proposal included a shift of some enforcement resources from Coal Mine to Metal/Non-Metal safety and health activities. The Congress restored the proposed cuts. However, as was the case with OSHA, the Department of Labor neglected to fill many vacant positions throughout 2001, thus reducing the overall enforcement activities.
BUSH SECOND BUDGET CUTS – Continuing to Slash: The President’s FY 2003 Budget proposed an overall 6 percent cut of MSHA resources and a shift of enforcement resources from Coal to Metal/Non-Metal Mine safety and health activities.
BUSH ENFORCEMENT RECORD – Ignoring Repeated Violations: At the “Jim Walters Resources mine in Brookwood, Ala., 55 miles southwest of Birmingham, 13 miners died last September in an explosion. At the time, the mine had 31 outstanding violations, and government inspectors had not returned to determine whether they had been corrected.” [New York Times, 7/26/2002]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION JUSTIFICATION – Resorts to Citing Statistics From 100 Years Ago: To justify its massive budget cuts, the Bush Administration resorted to comparing the mine fatality rate with rates all the way back to 1900 – when the common cold could kill someone. “The Bush administration's chief official on mine safety, David D. Lauriski, defended the administration's enforcement record and noted that the number of coal deaths was far lower than in decades past. The 42 deaths in 2001 were far below the 153 in 1981 and 294 in 1961. In fact, in every year from 1900 to 1945, the number of coal mining deaths exceeded 1,000, and in many years there were more than 2,000.” [New York Times, 7/26/2002]
Typical......Jack Ambramoff, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Cunningham, Libby, Rove....when does the lying and misleading stop?
Jeff
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:14:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home