Voters Knock Out Incumbents
AP writer Susan Haigh reports:
The races had separate issues, such as Middletown's troubled $80 million high school building project, but a political scientist believes something larger is happening in Connecticut and across the country."I do believe there is an anti-incumbent mood that is setting in, which is probably at work," said Gary L. Rose, chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.voidnow.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/44
Comments
It's nice that Gary Rose believes that 'there is an anit-incumbent mood that is setting in'.
I know it's already set in. Now all we have to do is educate the voters that voting out one of the main parties and voting in the other isn't the answer.
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 5, 2005 12:38 PM
Ron Brown,
Yes, you are right about that.
It's interesting what conclusions people draw.
The beauty of voting out incumbents is (1) to reduce the control and manipulation of parties and bought-and-paid-for politicians, and (2) give the people more and better choices of candidates that have not yet been perverted by the current corrupt and dysfunctional system that quickly seduces and/or pressures newcomers into the corruption, dysfunction, status quo, and looking the other way.
There's only one more important ingredient that should not be overlooked, because many voters don't understand what the next step is after getting the attention of the politicians.
It is transparency, which will yield accountability, which will yield responsibility. Transparency is not complicated. It is mostly just common sense. For example, consider the disastrous effects of big-money-donors (some people and corporations that abuse vast wealth and power) on their bought-and-paid-for incumbents. There's no doubt that it is bad.
Hence, remove it. Remove the unfair advantage by some that abuse vast wealth and power. How can the average American have a voice in government, when a mere 5% of the population has %60 of all wealth? How can the average American have a voice in government, when 60% of the population only has 5% of all wealth? They can't. Those with vast wealth and power should not be able to manipulate government. Their voice should not be louder than other citizens. Government should not be FOR SALE. Since the constitution allows the regulation of campaign finance, it should do just that. Contributions should be limited to a small percentage of the average American's income. That is fair and doesn't violate the constitution.
Another good example is the current abuse of huge thousand-page BILLs loaded up with pork-barrel.
Hence, limit BILLs to only ONE PURPOSE PER BILL.
Many such simple, no-brainer, common-sense things can be done.
It's not as complicated as politicians want you to thing it is.
It's not rocket science. It's common sense and an understanding of human psychology.
The content and details of the list of such common-sense things can all be worked out after politicians are willing to do so, but the voters must also insist and stress the importance of transparency, and understand that government will always grow increasingly corrupt without transparency, if allowed to. Always. That is the human psychology that people must understand. If we are to have a Government Of/By/For The People, we all have to participate. Voters can't ignore government, or it will always grow corrupt and dysfunctional. Government can't ignore the people, or they may someday get voted out of office (or worse).
Posted by: d.a.n | December 5, 2005 2:03 PM
d.a.n
I'm all for transparency in government. Without it there's no way we can hold poloticians accountable.
I also like the idea of one bill one purpose. When more than on purpose is allowed then pork starts getting slipped in and accountibilty goes out the window.
Multipurpose bills are how politicians get most of their pork passed. It's also how we end up with laws that favor special groups and they get their pay raises without the general public knowing what's happening.
When it comes to pay raises I believe that the voters should decide them during a regular election cycle. In other words they should have to ask their bosses for a raise at the same time that they ask us to let them keep their jobs.
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 6, 2005 7:50 PM