Midterm Senate Races 2002 - 2006
The Federal Elections for Senate seats in the year 2002 and 2006 are classified as mid-term elections. Senators serve for 6 years, and every 2 years there is a contest for approximately one third of the senate seats. When President Bush completes his 2nd term in office, he and his party will have overseen the contests for senate seats in the years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. In fact, there will be senators elected during the Bush administration still sitting for years after Bush has left office in 2008.
To plan where one is going and how to get there, it is important to know where one is and what steps must be taken. For example, only half of the people in this country who are eligible to vote actually participate in electing the politicians who will govern our country in a presidential election. In round numbers, this means that about 100 million people do not vote for one reason or another.
Sadly, only 40% of the eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 vote. Yet, this group has the most at stake regarding their future. The situation is worse in mid-term elections where people apparently have even less interest in whom and how they are governed, because only about 25% of them go to the polls.
Let's look at a snapshot of the 2002 mid-term election for US Senate. There were 34 Senate seats available. For purposes of this discussion I am going to exclude six states due to circumstances that surrounded those elections such as death, no incumbent being challenged, candidate withdrawal, etc. The states excluded are Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. A few of these states had some remarkable issues which I will come back to later.
Of the twenty-eight incumbent senators running for reelection in 2002, twenty-five retained their seats. This is an eighty-nine percent rate. Of the three incumbents defeated, one was defeated in the primary but, got a small amount of write in ballots on Election Day. The three challengers who defeated the incumbents were Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) and John Sununu (R- New Hampshire).
The total votes cast during the 2002 primaries were 6,085,689, and the total votes for the general election were 29,582,670. This ratio is 1 to 5, or 20.59%. Thus five times as many people vote in the general election than in the primaries. Within that framework, democratic votes cast in the primaries were 58.95% of the total, republican votes were 40.45% and other was 0.06%. There was a significant reversal in the percentages at the general election however with the democratic total at 46.06%, the republican at 49.36% and the other at 4.58%. Apparently, the thought process of many voters changed in a relatively short period of time. The most noticeable change, quite dramatic in fact, was the increase in the other category to almost five percent (4.58%) of the total. Among the many purposes of a primary election is for a particular party and/or individual to gauge the amount of support he or she is likely to enjoy during the general election. A post primary and general election analysis, when all the data has been compiled for analysis can indicate some very interesting trends in voter turnout, support for incumbents, shifts in party popularity and, possibly most importantly, indications of a growing third party sentiment.
In addition to the three states where incumbents lost their reelection campaigns (Arkansas, Georgia and New Hampshire), the incumbent senators from three additional states (South Dakota, Louisiana and New Hampshire) were only able to win by relatively narrow margins. In South Dakota, incumbent Democrat Tim Johnson received 167,481 votes and Republican challenger John Thune managed 166,957 votes. A third party candidate, Libertarian
Kurt Evans received 3,070 votes.
Louisiana incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu, who was in the spotlight recently when her state was devastated by hurricane Katrina, won reelection over Republican challenger Suzanne Haik Terrell; 638,654 to 596,642.
An interesting situation developed in New Hampshire where eventual winner Republican John Sununu defeated incumbent Republican Bob Smith in the primary and then defeated Democratic challenger Jeanne Shaheen 227,229 to 207,478. Also in the mix was Libertarian candidate Ken Blevens who received 9,835 votes and an additional 2,396 votes were written in for Bob Smith who had lost his bid in the primaries.
Eight states of the 34 total that conducted mid-term elections, had only two party choices, Republican or Democrat. Several states offered as many as five party choices and the remainder of the states was divided at three and four.
Arguably, mid-term elections in 2006 will be among the more important in recent memory. Partisan politics are as deeply rooted as we have seen for quite some time. Government is translucent; there is an ongoing war in Iraq which, had suspect motivation, lacked an exit plan and, the general conduct of the war had divided public opinion and approval of the Executive office. Politicians are viewing large campaign donors, special interest groups and lobbyists as necessary for reelection and thus ignore the needs and interests of the constituency while catering to the special interests. The nation is witnessing:
- Legislation weighted down with pork barrel spending
- Homeland security in peril, possibly worsened by the eighteen million or so illegal immigrants residing here
- Budget deficits which are astronomical
- Tax reform stalled and badly needed
- Health care costs spiraling out of control
- Educational quality still falling behind for our children
- And poverty still at an intolerable levels.
We have an opportunity in the mid-term elections of 2006 to lubricate the wheels of change. The incumbents who are up for reelection must be made aware of the seriousness of our resolve. Our votes must be cast for qualified candidates and challengers, not corrupt or irresponsible incumbents. This needs to be done at every opportunity until the message has been received. As voters we need to reclaim our government. Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy, (VOIDnow.org) has an anti-incumbent message to share. VOID is dedicated to provide potential voters with information and insight regarding how voters can force government to respond to the voter's issues and needs. VOID is also tracking and will inform potential voters about polls which demonstrate what the majority of Americans issues are.
In the end, voters decide the outcome of an election: voters who are loyal to, and believe the promises of, incumbent Republican and Democratic politicians responsible for the problems we have today, OR, voters who believe America has had enough of the incumbents voting in favor of their wealthy campaign donors, big dollar lobbyists, and corporate and state special interests feeding on the American tax dollar. VOID is counting on many of the 100 million eligible voters who have not cast ballots in the past, to do so in 2006. They can vote for the challenger, and those votes can change the outcome on election day, sending politicians the message they need to hear. VOID needs your help to spread the word: voting out incumbents is voting for our nation's future: a future with a more responsible, transparent, and accountable government for our, and our children's future. Politicians can be retrained, but, we must do the retraining.
Comments
I din't know what they teach about voting in school these days. But when I was in school they taught us that not only was it a right to vote. It was our duty to vote.
The 100 million that don't vote are not only shirking their duty, they are helping trample the right that has been bought with the blood of our fighting forces.
Posted by: Ron Brown | December 8, 2005 12:32 PM
Ron, but for a huge percentage of them, there is the belief that their vote will not make a difference.
None of us would spend 4 hours working on our car's engine trying to repair if we knew we didn't know the first thing about engine repair. It would just be wasted time and effort, with a predictably disappointing result for reward at the end.
However, that can change, now that the Democrats and Republicans are so evenly divided. This means even small numbers of those who previously did not vote, can, if they vote out incumbents in 2006 and beyond, actually alter the outcomes of elections and make incumbency tentative at best.
No politician wants their reelection results to be tentative, they want to be as assured as possible of their reelection. That is why they take bribe money in the form of campaign donations from wealthy donors to pass legislation in a certain way to benefit the donors.
The new voters can replace the wealthy campaign donors with nothing more than their anti-incumbent vote, forcing politicians to represent these anti-incumbent voters at least as much as their campaign donors; more if the anti-incumbency numbers grow threatening even the most well connected politicians to special interests.
Posted by: David R. Remer | December 8, 2005 1:01 PM
I was raised the same way, Ron. But, times have changed. Today, voters need a reason to vote, and they need to know that their vote can actually make a difference.
Hopefully we here, can help many find that reason and instill that confidence that their vote can make a difference.
Posted by: David R. Remer | December 9, 2005 6:01 AM
Ron,
Yeah, I was raised that way too. And Republican for the most part. But, it finally became apparent that it wasn't working.
I didn't vote in the 2000 election. I was really fed-up. In 2004, our choices stunk, and I voted for Bush. Now, I regret that vote, and from now on, until politicians give us the transparency to see who is really responsible and who isn't, I'm voting non-incumbent.
Yes, it is sad that people believe their vote won't make any difference. I thought that in 2000. It was a toss-up between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Again, I should have voted non-incumbent, and more should do the same. I didn't really understand the math. Considering the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, only a few percent is required to change the outcome. Also, there are more eligible non-voters (78 million) than those that votered for either Bush (62 million), or Kerry (59 million). It would only take a few million to change the outcome by merely voting for a 3rd party. Nader understands this. That's why the two main parties hate it.
But, what if all non-voters voted for a 3rd party candidate? That 3rd party candidate would have won by a huge margin. So, all 3rd parties and independents should think about the VOID message, because it is to their advantage, since they don't hold any federal offices. The simple fact is, it is completely doable, if voters want to do it. A lot of people say it can never happen, but they ignore history, because anti-incumbnet semtiment has ousted hundreds of incumbents from time to time. There only mistake is they simply let the two main parties take turns being irresponsible, and fail to also make some demands to test their Congress, to increase transparency, to make government accountable, to make government responsible. Thus, newcomers are quickly seduced by temptations, opportunity, and pressures from incumbents, maintaining the status quo, and perpetuating the corruption and dysfuction of the system.
Posted by: d.a.n | December 10, 2005 3:00 PM
Maybe name recognition had a lot to do with Sununu winning?
______________________
______________________
Yes, how long have incumbents been refusing:
[] campaign finance reform?
[] election reform?
[] one-purpose-per-bill?
[] term limits?
[] tax reform?
[] eliminate marraige penalty tax? (but, they recently enacted tax cuts for capital gains)
[] to stop plundering Social Security?
[] to secure borders?
[] transparency?
[] to stop fueling the partisan warfare?
[] to end abuse of presidential pardons, that eliminates all accountability and responsibility?
_______________________
But, how fast can they vote themselves perk$, cu$hy benefits, and pork-barrel for their big-money-donor puppeteers ?
But, let's take just one of these many pressing problems for a moment.
Consider Social Security. It would not be in trouble now had Congress not been plundering since it began, and if Congress was also subject to that same system. What a lot of people don't know is that Congress has its own plan, which is far superior, and Congress persons don't have to pay anything into it. Tax payers fund it.
It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat!
This should be an issue in all elections until it is resolved.
2008 Election Issue:
Get a BILL started to place all politicians on Social Security.
Current SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN for Congress persons:
COST TO Congress persosns: $0
________________________________
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for these persons in Congress who think they are superior to the rest of us, and arrogantly believe they are entitled to superior benefits, and feel they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago these greedy, arrogant Congress persons voted their own benefit plan into existence. And, it's worth noting that no one has recently felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When the Congress person retires, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Nice eh? And, there may also receive increases from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7.8 Million, with their wives drawing $275K during the last years of their lives (based on an average life span).
Younger Congress persons who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. And guess what the cost to them personally is for this superior plan: $0.00
That's right. Nothing to them. This cu$hy perk that incumbents voted for themselves is free to them. You and I (the The People) pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Fund.
________________________________
Current SOCIAL SECURITY for tax payers:
COST TO Tax Payers: currently 12.65% of gross income.
From the Social Security Plan which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire, we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
________________________________
Thus, the non-superior person (i.e. not a member of Congress) would have to collect the $1,000 monthly for over 68 years to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits.
Social Security may not have been perpetually plundered and facing looming shortfalls if politicians participated in the same system.
That is why a change is needed to help ensure the survival of the system. Voters need to remove this cu$hy golden golden fleece retirement plan from under the Senators and Congress persons. They should not have a system superior to The People. Government should not be an avenue to superior benefits and perk$. Voters first need to vote out all of these greedy incumbents, and put them them into the same Social Security plan with the rest of us. Then, perhaps, they will manage Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid more responsibly? Perhaps they will stop plundering these systems?
Yes, let's then see how fast Congress would fix these systems.
Posted by: d.a.n | December 12, 2005 8:30 PM