Which way for democracy ?

In the UK at present, voter turnout is down, membership of political parties is risibly low and there is a deep distrust of policiticians. By all accounts, this pattern is repeated throughout western democracies.

Should we blame the electorate for their cynicism ? Politicians for failing to connect with the people ? Would other countries benefit for a campaign such as the UK`s `Unlock Democracy` , or are consitutional reforms just a hobby horse for the effete elite, with no direct relevance to the disaffected ?

I don`t claim to know the answers. What do you think ?

I don't know that there is an answer. or even several answers.

Perhpas a clearer distinction of party lines would help?

or else a MPs who actually listen to their constituents before voting - hence abolishment of the party whip system. (yes I know this contradicts the point above) I think MP disconnection with the populace has to be a significant factor.

Cynicism in the electorate is good, people in power shouldn't be trusted - they should demonstrate their worth.

In my experience, American schools no longer really teach "civics". That is critical. Democracy and Republics work if the electorate believes it has a responsibility to be informed, engaged, and will to take the risk of taking positions, i.e. voting, even when not everything is to their liking. I dispair that the power in Washington D.C. right now is in the hands of very few interests: Big Oil, Big Pharmacies, Big Agriculture, Big Insurance and Banking, Big Capitalism. I think most of the Western democracies are actually oligarchies, governments run by the few.

But I still vote. I see hope occasionally at the local and state levels. And I like the quote, "when the people lead, the politicians will follow". I don't remember who said it first but sounds like Abbie Hoffman.

>3 maggie1944:

I think we are taught 'cynics', not civics at this point.

1. Most of the electorate is not informed at all; they don't even regularly watch the network news, much less anything more helpful. Their opinions are formed by their co-workers and friends and the vagaries of personal history, not anything based on fact.

2. Most are too lazy to even realize which DAY is election day, much less who to vote for.

3. When I was in school, it was considered COOL to have disdain for the whole process; it was all 'out of our hands', and we might as well enjoy ourselves until Western Civilization collapsed for good.

4. ...And over the last 20 years, things certainly haven't improved.

And yes, 'maggie1944', the schools seem to have dropped the ball, a long time ago. I recently read My Life by Bill Clinton, and I was amazed that he participated in the American Legion Boy's State and Boy's Nation programs. I'd never HEARD of such a thing before, which must sound stupid; I asked the local (Heppner, Oregon) high school about this, they said it was still going, but they hadn't had any participants in it for many years??? Why?

In part, it may have to do with high school politics; the perception that the 'same people' would always be elected, that the student body was practically powerless anyway. Why bother?

My folks always voted, and made it clear that it was a matter of personal honesty if nothing else; you should keep your mouth shut about politics if you weren't going to bother to vote. I ALWAYS had an opinion (bwhahahah), so.....

Maybe if we screamed a little more on this last point, things would improve?

for a high school to participate in Boys State and Boys Nation programs there has to be volunteer from the local group (Am Legion, Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.) who are willing to do the work, raise the money, do the paperwork, etc. etc. - and then there's the problem of parents being scared to trust their children to anyone they don't know intimately. Too many horror stories about camping trips with the scout master from hell.

People don't seem to find the time or energy to participate much in their communities - seems like all the volunteer organizations are crying for more participation. So, the kids suffer, too. Where are the bowling leagues, bridge clubs, pinocle buddies?

Since I am retired it is easy for me to participate, volunteer whatever. But I do remember when I worked as a teacher I was happy when I had time to do something fun once a month.

I am not cynical but I am concerned.

So, the picture I`m getting is that it`s very much the same sort of picture in the US as the UK in most respects, with the only difference being one of perceptions (the English more inclined to be cynical about politicians).

There is one thing (not only in this thread, and not confined to this group) that jumps out at me, and I`m intrigued what the rest of you think.

I remember being taught at school that Americans were citizens and the British were subjects. Looking at the contributions made here and there (this group and Banned Books spring to mind), one could be forgiven for thinking it was the other way around.

Do Americans still feel like citizens ?

Well, I do, however I do hear and see a great deal of non-citizen like talk and behavior. Many people are happy to grouse and complain and blame "them" - which usually is taken to include all politicians and big business owners or executives. And when it comes time to step up and volunteer to do something for the community, I hear "I'm not much of a joiner" or "you are good at that sort of thing, I just am not that good in groups". I truly wish there was more sentiment like "if you don't vote, don't complain."

>5 maggie1944: Boy's State

Ah, didn't realize that it took that much community help, although I probably should have.... I'm not retired, but I'm a small business owner so my hours are a little more flexible and I tend to volunteer more than most. Heppner is very small, so it's not as bad as it could be.

>6 nickhoonaloon: citizens...

I think a lot of Americans began to think like subjects some time ago; whenever it was that entitlements became more important than responsibilities. 'If we elect someone with good hair, the subsidies will keep coming.'

People forget that 'they' are ALWAYS elected by 'us'; Mr. Bush is exactly what we deserve, good or bad. If Gore and Kerry were as smart as we think they are, they (and we) should have done a better job of demonstrating that this was so to the less actively informed.

Large corporations have held politicians in thrall for years, but they can only lobby successfully in a vacuum; every legislator at every level of government will tell you how much they would like to hear from YOU rather than from some $100,000/year flack.

I think we HAVE good institutions in the US already; we just don't use them.

"People forget that 'they' are ALWAYS elected by 'us'" - or in other more cynical words:

Whoever you vote for the Government still get in!

"every legislator at every level of government will tell you how much they would like to hear from YOU" I'm sure that's what they are telling you, I'm not sure when it actually comes to voting on your behalf that they are still listening to you and not that $100000?

As per the discussion on getting voters to vote, my idea is that every registered voter must vote or be fined $3500. Someone thus ticketed would have 45 days to convince a judge they had a valid reason for not voting.

Not to be pedantic, but would implemetation be a problem - what would constitute a valid reason ? What`s to stop reluctant voters simply stuffing a blank ballot slip into the box, or spoiling it ?

More to the point, in times of high levels of disaffection, surely your system would only serve to mask the problem. I have the impression that our (UK) politicians only do the little they do to address the issue because they get a sharp reminder what people think of them everytime the issue of voter turnout is raised.

I got the impression that Americans don't even get time off work to cast their vote. Is this true? Could it be fixed? It seems like a simple step to improve things.

Making it an official holiday (with voting-related festivities) would also raise awareness & importance of voting, and people would be more likely to think about it in advance and plan for it. I'm sure the greeting card industry could make some mileage here.

True for us as well.

There have been times when it`s been difficult in the extreme for me to vote - our current system dates from the days when people`s working lives were relatively fixed and predictable.

An attempt to address this by increasing postal voting and a trial run of online voting fell at the first hurdle, as it introduced too many openings for fraud. Also , frankly, it was a politician`s response not rooted in people`s everyday experience, lacking vision and, of course, any thought about practicalities.

I like your proposal very much, but in the culture of the UK, it would meet determined resistance from employers and, sadly, would never happen.

The county where I live is slowly moving to all mail voting. I stopped by a local polling place yesterday and in an area with 500 families +/- there were 15 voters. I am sure that most, like I, voted by mail. I think that might help with voter turnout. Having the ballot at home, where I can access the internet, newspapers, brochures, sample ballots from my favorite political organizations, helps me a lot.

Of course, I have always voted. I am with the "if you don't vote, don't bitch" crowd.

Just playing devil`s advocate for a moment, is ease of voting actually the problem ?

After all, even today an awful lot of people either have fairly normal 9 - to - 5 working patterns or no work at all. Polling stations are normally in the heart of the community (schools, community centres). Presumably, a lot of those who don`t vote could do so with ease.

In my heart, I am also with the `if you don`t vote, don`t bitch` crowd.

In my brain, however, I tend to think it`s the job of politicians to address the very real disassociation from the system that people feel. If they choose to preside over an era when so few people vote, they can`t complain if they find themselves increasingly treated as an irrelevance.

What`s needed to reconnect people to the democratic process ?

My first thought was, "Ya, what is needed?????" I think it is going to have to be a combination of things: fines if you don't vote is good; politians who spend copious amounts of time visiting in the few community gathering places that do pull people together; individuals who are willing to speak up, in an educated and informed manner, about political issues (forgetting that polite people don't talk about religion, politics, sex and money); and, I am sure there are another dozen good ideas that I don't have this morning.

Hold local elections and primaries on Saturday, many communities have already adopted this. Allow early voting.

Declare national election days a holiday.

Have enough equipment that lines can be kept short.

Allow county wide voting in primaries and national elections, rather than restricting to precincts. There is a lot of confusion in finding polling places on election day.

Change the electoral college from state winner take all to represented by congressional district. This is in effect how the Constitution envisioned the election of Presidents. This must be done universally at the same time, not by state referendum.

BTW, referendum is exactly the kind of democracy the founders feared most because of its strict ties to partisanship and liability to corruption rather than good governance.

Ok, I have voted in every election but two (and one of the ones I missed, i was living in Germany at the time, and it was just a local election) so I may not be the best person on this...but

If the airlines advertised like politicians do, no one would fly. "Get on a United plane, and you will go down in a fiery violent death!"

When the issues are John Edwards's hair, Mit Romney's faith, or Rudy's wives, we know we are not voting for politicians, only pretty boys.

One word. Bush.

Two words. Bush/Cheney

One word. Congress.

I dont know what the answer is, but it is an old question. I was in Germany during one of their national campaigns, and the embarrassing lack of political involvement in the US came up. I had no answer then.

To outsiders, Americans are often associated with a sort of `unabashed` patriotism that is less common in the UK these days. At the same time, there seems to be a deep blue sea of negativity amongst Americans concerning American democracy (specifically directed at American democracy I think, as there seems no disaffection from democracy per se).

I don`t believe that it is confined to this group, or to progressive Americans generally.

Is this a side-effect of 9/11 ? It seems rather deeper than just dissaffection with this particular administration. After all, the British never like the government/politicians generally as a matter of principle and I don`t think the same thing applies here !

The other question I wanted to ask was, there`s been a lot of talk about how to make voting more attractive, but less talk about the sort of policies/parties people would like to see. Would a different approach at that level be needed to bring people back to the polls ?

Like nickhoonaloon my experience is mostly from a UK perspective although I remember that when I lived in Spain a (Spanish) work colleague was required to perform duties in connection with an election and I think voting was compulsory. Here I think part of the cynicism arises, as previous posts have said, from a feeling that politician are detached from the people they are supposed to serve. I reside in Scotland (my wife is Scottish) and I vote for MSPs, MPs, MEPs (thats for members of the Scottish Parliament, Westminster Parliament, and the European Parliament) as well as local government. I am afraid I see it as a lot of people making a lot of money out of the business of politics. In the past politicians seemed to be elder statesmen who had experience of life in battle or in business. Now many are young men who have known no other trade. It is a "career". In Scotland because of the "list" system some people can end up in Holyrood even if hardly anyone has actually voted for them.
Another issue is that the BBC used many years ago to have a daily report on the doings of Westminster and these were also reported in the serious press. Now it seems very little is reported of Parliament (as distinct from the Government). I know there is live TV reporting and what has struck me most when I have chanced on it is how few MPs can be present — sometimes barely into double figures.
Perhaps democracy, like education, is something people only appreciate when they've been deprived of it.

It's also perhaps worth considering how many people are actually employed by government (and quangos) and whether that has any effect on voting behaviour. I think the figure in Scotland is well over 25% but I can't be sure. Obviously no individual can be targetted by government for voting the "wrong" way, and no government of any political party is going to get rid of policemen or teachers. But I can imagine that it might be rational for some people to vote in a way that isn't going to "rock the boat" because a government of different political complexion might cut down on some services.

About a fifth of the UK population work in the public sector.

I`ve worked in both public and private sector (I`m now self-employed), and I have worked as a Civil Servant under both Labour and Conservative governments. In my experience, there`s not much to choose between the two in matters of job security. I`ve always worked in what are called government agencies (i.e. I was directly employed by the government but the organisation was semi-autonomous from the parent department, with Chief Executives brought in from a private sector background on short-term contracts). They can be quite ruthless to work for. Friends of mine work in the private sector and have commented with horror on the working practises my colleagues and I experienced. In fairness, I should say that my `private sector friends` work for multi-nationals, so probably do have a cushioned existence compared to most people. However, my most recent public sector employer regarded assaults on staff as being `part of the job`, which I would say is not part of most people`s working life at all.

nickhoonaloon #22: About a fifth of the UK population work in the public sector.
That sounds about right but I think the figure is a little higher in Scotland than the UK average.
my most recent public sector employer regarded assaults on staff as being `part of the job`, which I would say is not part of most people`s working life at all. Well that could certainly include teaching, health service (nurses, doctors, ambulance staff — a man died not long ago after an ambulance crew had stones thrown at them as they treated him and then put obstacles in the path of the ambulance), fire service. And I expect there are many other groups. My wife is a primary school teacher and believes in filing a report on any assault but says that often staff are persuaded not to because "it reflects on the school". I agree this should not be part of anybody's job.

... I forgot to address the earlier of PossMan`s two messages.

It is a good point that today`s politicians do seem to exist in a world of quite separate to one the rest of us inhabit.

The `list` system does seem to be flawed, and that is one of the major criticisms one hears about the `Unlock Democracy` campaign that I mentioned in the original question - they are too uncritical in their adherence to constitutional reform and make claims they can`t actually back up (at one point they claimed that proportional representation would lead to higher voting levels among ethnic minorities, which is a rather odd and untested statement to make !).

Anyway, what do others think, are career politicians part of the problem ?

I agree that politicians who have been in an elected office too long are part of the problem; however, throwing out people just because they have experience, and electing people just because they are new, and fresh, is also, a huge problem. We have a citizen in our state who constantly files citizen initiatives to cut taxes. As a consequence of his anti-government ranting, we have a seriously deteriorating parks system(beautiful parks no longer accessible for want of maintenance); an overburdened and probably dangerous criminal jailing system; and education system which overworks educators and maleducates the youngsters. Oh, sorry about ranting so but my feelings are obviously very strong about the people not seeing their way to support good government actions.

Don`t apologise, you might as well have a good rant here now and again, it makes it more interesting.

Not quite sure what filing a citizen`s initiative is, and far from sure it`s a good thing.

One thing that is obviously common to both the UK and the US is people wanting the facilities but not wanting to pay the taxes that pay for them.

I actually think that people`s attitude to things that are `public`, i.e. the things we own in common, is part of the problem we`re discussing.

Anyone else find that ?

My granddaughter entering the 9th grade is taking a "Civics" class, but didn't know what the subject is about. My daughters in their 30's aren't interested in politics, don't think it has any relevance to their lives. Maybe if we started calling them "lawmakers" instead of "politicians" more people would start to see the connection.

>25 maggie1944: I have to agree, maggie1944... don't apologize for the ranting, definitely.

I live in rural Oregon, and am (now) a small business owner. A very conservative area, needless to say, and at this point near the tail end of 30 years of 'tax-revolt'.

1. Our schools have been on a four-day week for at least 10 years; despite numerous agreements between the state and district schools sports associations as well as the 'athletic director' of the high school to keep games and practices from interfering with this shorter schedule, it has not been done.
'No Child Left Behind', due to it's emphasis on testing rather than... whatever the schools are supposed to be doing, has had the simple effect of lowering the standards to the point where colleges must pick up the burden of teaching writing and math.

2. ...And the colleges have had less and less money as each year passes. In the early 80's the Reagan administration began cutting grants to poor students; and since that time tuition to state schools has as least tripled (even private schools have almost doubled). Maintenance and staff costs have ballooned also.

3. Oregon pays less per capita for judges and courts than any state in the union; a circuit judge can move across the border to Washington and get an immediate $30,000/year raise.

4. Our state parks, land-use planning, and enivironmental policies were all among the most progressive in the nation, 30 years ago. All of these policies have been challenged, eroded, or ridiculed in the name of 'lower taxes'.

All this has resulted in an idiotic blame game: Democratic politicians and the more progressive urban parts of the state are 'responsible' for the poor condition of the rural areas, even though the residents of those rural areas voted away their financial control of their schools, voted down any attempt to revise the tax structure (Oregon is one of the very few states w/o a sales tax), and consistently. Our (Republican) state representative recently announced he was going to quit his job because his party recently became the minority and he thinks those 'evil Democrats' were going to undo all the good work he has done.

The 'evil Democrats' might very well do that, if they are as short-sighted and immature as he is: the level of polarization between parties, at least in the states where there is a real contest, has to be witnessed to be believed: A public avowal of 'liberalism' in my town is likely to get you into a shouting match at the least, and can get you in serious trouble business-wise if your views are known.

----

On a positive note, Oregon has also been voting by mail for over 10 years; in recent national elections we have nation-leading voter turnout. Luckily, the 'progressive' Oregonians of the urban areas have prevented the worst of the referendums and candidates from winning.

#28 - I imagine you must appreciate LT and the opportunity to speak your mind without fear of retribution. I think one of our major problems these days is the lack of belonging. People need to belong to somewhere, someone, larger than just their little, often dysfunctional, family. Used to be your town, your church, your political party, your fraternal organizations, your union, your chamber of commerce. Not so much nowadays. I am wondering if belonging to various ether communities might help meet the need of belonging, and not in a separatist, elitist, narrow-minded way.

Wyrdchao,

Oregon can be a frustrating, if fascinating place. Here in Eugene, the newly elected (Democratic) mayor and the Democrats who sit on the city council have, after running on a platform of change, wasted their hours on the same fruitless political debate which occupied the hours of the mayor's conservative predecessor : how do we "save" downtown?

Meanwhile, an unusually large number of the city's progressive students (we have one of the Oregon's two largest Universities here, for those of you who do not know the state) champion green anarchism, a philosophy which seemingly gives them free reign to criticize all elements of the state without actually doing anything (that is, unless they choose to crash a WTO protest and tear apart Seattle's downtown--that's right, over a hundred of those detained for vandalism at the '98 protest were either green anarchists from Eugene or their own particularly vile brand of fellow travelers).

Pragmatic left-wingers exist here, but we are few and far between.

30>

Eugene:
As a former student at UO, I certainly understand the city council's preoccupation with downtown; I thought the Mall was the best part of town and perpetually on the brink of total collapse.

Although I leaned Right at the time I was there (I grew up on the East side, after all), it was hard to argue with the facts that I could see every day on 13th and Kincaid; by the time I left I was a realistic but disappointed lefty. An experience I recommend to anyone.

One thing that did bother me, and kept me from having full sympathy for the 'green anarchists' (a perfect name, by the way) was their almost total ignorance of what was going on in the rest of the state, or even the west half of Lane county. Fanaticism is just as dangerous on the left as on the right, as I learned over and over there.

#29

Maggie`s thoughts here are quite interesting.

One thing I`d been thinking about (might apply more to the UK than the US, not sure) - traditionally, left-wing groups, environmentalists etc have organised on the basis of small groups meeting in pubs, community centres etc. Now, a lot of good and decent people did very constructive things working that way, but my own feeling is (sweeping generalisation alert) that way of organising came out of a type of community that no longer exists.

I`m borderline computer illiterate, but I wonder if the net offers progressive people a few possibilities. My own humble experiments in getting people to share info on progressive periodicals/booksellers/publishers etc seemed to go OK.

>32 nickhoonaloon:

An awful lot of right-wing groups have done the same kind of low-key organization in recent years, at least in the US; church congregations and other faith-based groups have become highly politicized, and almost overwhelmingly lean to the right.

As far as the Internet goes;
we had a thread somewhere that listed a bunch of progressive/left blogs; and MoveOn.org is doing a pretty good job of being noticed, even if some of what they do goes over the top, IMHO.

I have a hard time reading blogs. I can handle a couple of paragraphs as most posts on LT are; however, when someone goes on and on my eyes go elsewhere. Even if its good stuff. I can handle a hard copy (i.e. a book) because I can take glasses off and hold the book as near my eyes as I need. Much harder with the computer. So, all that is to say, I don't experience blogs as a way to build community. Maybe they are for some people, younger people perhaps, but I feel many older people with less than excellent eyesight may be left out in the cold.

Don't know since I don't have much experience with blogs.

What do you think is the possibility of blogs building community?

I do know that Move On tried small house parties and that may have worked well, but I don't know if that continues.

Actually, I don't read the blog comment sections much; I'm usually fishing for links to articles on stuff like Iraq and Bush and so on.

Rats! on your reading difficulties; but there are also a lot of good podcasts and videos posted on blogs, and that can be of help.

crooksandliars.com

...has a lot of good video content.

NPR and PBS also have continued to expand their audio and video offerings; I listen to Talk of the Nation just about every day. Neil Conan is my Ghhhoooodddd.

Neil Conan seems to be the brains of the operation while his brother The Barbarian provides the brawn. Awesome!!

Yah! I like Neil Conan also. I listen to the BBC on public radio during the wee hours of the night, too.

Back to building community. Do you ever attend any local political meetings? I used to be very active but now I find attendees to be unpleasantly combative. Sigh.

>36 geneg: Yup. Am a 'barbarian' fan, too, embarrassing as it may sound.

>37 maggie1944: Not really. Rural Oregon is a pretty tough crowd for L&P's.

I do attend a foreign policy discussion group every year, (we meet in Pendleton, 60 miles away, arrgghh). The Foreign Policy Association (www.fpa.org) publishes an 8-topic book every year, each article on a different country, and we meet once a week in Feb/March to discuss the articles. That group, despite our efforts to broaden it, tends heavily in the P&L direction.

The FPA has been around a LONG time; probably a group meets somewhere in your area. The program is called Great Decisions and topic-related programs also air on PBS during March/Feb.

thanks, great tip.

Going back to the initial thread, there have been some interesting developments in the last few days.

As you may know, the polls are showing favourable voter responses to new P M Gordon Brown as party leader, when compared to Cameron (Con) and Campbell (LIb Dem) presumably.

Recent developments may indicate that what voters are actually saying is "we prefer that liar to the other two liars" !

One of the UKs largest lenders, the Northern Rock Building Society is is dire straits due basically to reckless lending. They apparently pay their CEO £1.36 million p.a., and I cannot think it is money well-spent !

The Bank of England has stepped in to help them. Theoretically, the Bank is free from political influence (Mr Brown as Chancellor `freed` it from democratic accountability) but generally, it`s assumed that political arm-twisting took place behind the scenes to make this happen. Since then, NR`s customers have been withdrawing their money at a rate of £1 billion a day. There have been suggestions that NR have deliberately understaffed public counters to keep withdrawals `down` to that level.

A high-profile statement by the Chancellor that people`s money was safe was ignored. News broadcasts from the queues outside NR branches seem to indicate that people simply don`t trust politician`s assurances.

As if to underline this, yesterday the Chancellor announced that the government would guarantee that no NR customers would lose money by leaving it where it was.

At present, NR is offering interest rates on saving noticeably higher than the market rate, backed by a government guarantee, which it`s competitors can`t offer.

This morning, news reports indicate that customers are still queuing o/s NR branches wanting their money, completely unimpressed by that guarantee.

I like to see politicians embarrassed, so it`s all "grist to the mill" with me. I wondered though, would this level of absolute distrust of politicians be encountered in the US ? Or anywhere else the rest of you may be ?

40#: I'm sure that if the situation gets worse, and I think it will, there is bound to be a political backlash. Gordon Brown is perhaps happy he hasn't called a snap election. It is in part the fault of government as they have encouraged easy credit and the levels of personal debt in UK (both mortgage borrowing and consumer goods) are astronomical. Today's Daily Telegraph has a table showing how much several high street banks have out on loan for each pound deposited.
Bank of Scotland 1.74
Northern Rock 3.21
Standard Life 2.4
Nationwide 1.34

I was slightly puzzled by a story about a man who emerged from Northern Rock with a cheque. Where would he put it? Not another bank surely. I expect NS&I is the only answer (National Savings backed by the government).

Just to add to the `fun factor` -

I wonder how long it will take the press to find a member of the government who`s closed his/her account with NR ?

What is worst with the NR problem is the insideous facet of capitalism 'hedge funds' are now targetting other banks that have no issues at all - Aliance and Leicester's share price has dropped considerably because of this - they have a very different banking model but are being attacked.

#41 - that's on odd list, deposits aren't the only issue here, NR for example gets a vast amount in from people's morgages (they've 20% of the UK morgage market). And these aren't american style sub-prime loans either.

#27 - calling politicians lawmakers wouldn't help. They can and do pass all sorts of laws, its the enforcing of the laws we already have the makes the difference to people lives.

I know I'm cynical but can anyone explain what elected politicians actually do - we don't need any more laws the existing ones cover all eventuallities, the independant Bank of England makes the decisions over the economy, Generals could decide where to place the army, local councils set the important tax levels. ... just wondering?!

You`re dangerous, you are.

In order to overcome this all-too-prevalent cynicism, Gordon Brown should find the man who was Chancellor while all this was happening, and make an example of him.

Shouldn`t take long to find him.

Going back to Possman's discussion of how many people work in the public sector in Scotland, the answer is 51%, which means the Scottish economy is effectively completely dependent upon the various forms of govt. Without major govt spending the economy would go into recession.

>43 reading_fox: - the Bank of England was made independent to stop accusations of economic decisions being made for political reasons. Having an independent central bank is not that uncommon.

The NR fiasco seems to have more to do with rampant capitalism than anything else. It is no surprise that the two countries who have suffered from the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market are the UK and the US. The majority of the developed world still has (according to the UK and US) outdated concepts of social responsibility. One of the reasons that so many British people want to emigrate is that they want to live in places where there is still belief in things like community, decency, etc.

#43 I understood the reasoning, I just didn`t agree with it. I don`t fundamentally believe in a separation between politics and economics.

Even if I did, I wouldn`t believe for one second that politicians would, in practise, refrain from interference.

I`m reminded of Derek Lewis, a CEO from the private sector who was briefly in charge of prisons on a short-term contract. As I recall, he resigned in a strop, amazed that in practice the then Home Secretary did not allow him a free rein as promised. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that, I was amazed that he`d ever been so naive.

Your third para I largely agree with, though, I`d have to say that in the area where my parents live, there definitely is a sense of community and mutual support, and in fact I think they`ve had that throughout their lives.

Neither my wife or I recognise that from our own experience, and in fact favour the "an ideal home has a drawbridge" mentality, though the area where we are now seems a bit different.

jargoneer #45: Well my original point was that people who work for the government (directly or otherwise) may have a vested interest in voting for it. Taking, for the sake of argument, 51% as gospel that means over half of Scots voters depend on the government for their income. Some, like teachers, may assume that would be the case under ANY government. But as I suggested in #21 there may be those whose votes are influenced by this.
Like nickhoonaloon (#44) I really believe that the former chancellor cannot divest himself of all responsibility for recent events.
And incidentally on nickhoonaloon's original post to this thread about relations of trust between politicians and public there is an interesting article in the current issue of Spectator magazine by Peter Oborne on the change from the old (dead) establishment to the new political class. Among his final remarks he says:–

"Members of the Political Class even when they come from apparently rival parties, have far more in common with each other than they do with voters........... this is why the House of Commons is no longer a cockpit where great conflicts of vision are fought out across the chamber. It has converted into a professional group like the Bar Council or the British Medical Association.
.....The real division (in Britain) is between a narrow, self-serving and increasingly corrupt governing elite and the mass of ordinary voters."

That strikes a chord with me.

(edited to remove square brackets interpreted as touchstone)

in a word, to paraphrase PossMan,

.....The real division (in the USA) is between a narrow, self-serving and increasingly corrupt governing elite and the mass of ordinary voters."

Regarding the UK, do the rest of you feel that there`s a problem of local authority corruption in some areas ?

I`m going to have to be careful how I phrase this, but in a city where I used to live, there were constant allegations of vote-rigging against a small group of councillors on the ruling Labour group. This tended to centre on re-selection (incumbent Labour councillors have to be re-selected by their parties as well as by the electorate at regular intervals). Their spending decisions in office did seem a bit `unusual`.

Eventually, two dissident councillors went to the press and the police with allegations of voting irregularities. Labour also mounted it`s own internal investigation. The council leader seemed to treat the whole thing as a joke, though I noticed the council HQ security staff were for a short time supplemented by a bunch of dodgy geezers who looked like extras from East Enders.

The Police inquiry died for insufficient evidence. Labour`s inquiry was ridiculous. The whole thing took place in secret, and the party would not even confirm what the allegations were. At the end of it, they would not say what form the investigation had taken, or what the outcome was. They did order the re-selection vote to be re-run, but effectively they were saying "Here are your candidates. Some have had allegations made against them. Can`t tell you what those allegations were, can`t tell you what we did about it, won`t say if any complaints were upheld. Now you can decide if they`re suitable to hold office."

Not exactly democracy in action, is it ?

#10 geneg:
As per the discussion on getting voters to vote, my idea is that every registered voter must vote or be fined $3500. Someone thus ticketed would have 45 days to convince a judge they had a valid reason for not voting.

No no no no no no no no no!

People should have the right not to vote, and politicians should not be automatically entitled to our votes. What if there is no-one on the ballot you want to vote for?

Having a "none of the above" option would go some way towards addressing this. "None of the above" isn't an option in the UK and I wish it were. I almost always vote, but a couple of times I haven't; once was in an all-postal ballot and the other was a time when machine voting was being trialled. Both were experiments in my constituency to see whether voter turnout would be higher in this area than in other areas (both times it was slightly higher, but both times the experiment was accompanied by publicity urging people to vote and reminding them of the date, which doesn't normally happen). I didn't vote because I believe there's too much opportunity for fraud in postal voting or machine voting. I'm sure the people behind these experiments considered non-votes like mine to be "apathy" that needed to be "overcome" rather than a positive decision not to vote.

If I were given the job of increasing voter turnout, this is what I would do: Increase the voting age to 21, make people have to request the voter registration form each year rather than sending it to them automatically, and charge a small fee (say, £10) for registering as a voter. Once people start to feel that politicians are trying to prevent them from voting, turnout will increase.

#50

I rather assume the ideas in your last para. were tongue in cheek ;)

One option might be to say that if people want to abstain they have to go along to the polling station and make a separate declaration of abstention, rather than marking the ballot paper. Both papers could be offered to each elector so that their decision to abstain could remain secret. That would mean they were still taking part in the electoral process but would not risk a pointless "None of the Above" victory in a particular constituency (somebody has to be elected). Anyone who refuses to register an abstention without good reason would be fined. So everyone on the electoral roll would then be taking part in some way in the process and could not use the usual "oh they're all the same, I can't be bothered to turn out, Eastenders is on the telly and it's raining anyway" excuse not to vote.

I understand that they have something akin to registration of abstention system in Australia, though happy to be corrected by anyone from that part of the world.

John

`None of the above` is a useful option to have.

I`ve been a member of an organisation that offered a similar option, `anyone but the above`. It was useful as the head of the organisation was unopposed at election time, but was deeply unpopular with some members. Obviously, it gave some people the chance to register their discontent, but also I imagine it impressed on some their choices in the real world - did they dislike her so much they`d leave the post vacant ? In the event, very few people took that option.

In my experience, a lot of union posts are filled by people who are not opposed (I`m thinking of roles carried out by ordinary workers, not paid posts). I cannot think that is good, and again, `anyone but the above` would be useful.

Again, that`s a two-sided coin. I have heard a man present himself to a public meeting as an elected workplace representative, when in fact no-one had voted for him - he was the only person to stand for the post, so got it without a vote. On the other side of the coin, when the same man took an unpopular stance at a meeting of members, he was undermined when people shouted out "who voted for you ?".

For what it`s worth - and the man in question is a friend of mine - his views were in no way representative of the union members, let alone the workforce as a whole. On the other hand, he was hard-working and dedicated, and didn`t deserve to be undermined in that way. It would have helped to know how many votes he could actually command.

I've often prefered RON (Re-Open Nominations) that way a post can't be left unfilled. I've never heard of a vote where the majority actually voted for RON/NOA though.

Whoever you vote for the Government still gets in ;-)

Dan Hicks' tune: How Can I Miss You When You Wont Go Away?

Once again, people will not appreciate what they have until it is gone. Perhaps, if NOA was on the ballot and it won the most votes, then the result could be no one in that office. After a few weeks/months of total inaction, neglect, whatever....perhaps ReOpen Nominations could run against NOA and perhaps more people could see themselves as public servants.

In my experience, the majority of public office holders are sincere, hard working, caring people. They are not always brilliant, insightful or great leaders. More people need to consider public service as a career. There are big challenges out there.

#51 john257hopper:
I rather assume the ideas in your last para. were tongue in cheek ;)

No, I am serious. It's a law of human nature that the perceived value of things is based on how difficult they are to get hold of. Things that are given away for free are worth nothing. Things that are forced upon people are worth less than nothing.

I don't think forcing or encouraging people who don't care about politics to vote is a good solution to the "problem" of low voter turnout. A better solution would be to increase the number of people who care about politics. If people want to vote, they will do so. Those people who'd rather watch Eastenders than participate in an election - are their votes really worth the trouble of counting them?

I put "problem" in quotation marks, because I don't think low voter turnout is the problem. After all, even if only 1% of the electorate voted, we would still have a government. The problem is that most people are not really very interested in politics. And this lack of interest is, I think, a symptom of an electorate that is relatively contented with the way the country is governed, and has other things on their mind. In the UK, at least, I don't believe there is any "big issue" dividing people along party lines and motivating huge groups of voters anymore, in the way that the issue of poverty did in the first half of the 20th Century.

Personally, I'd prefer it if more people took an interest in politics because I think there are some issues that should be big, but rather than blaming "the electorate" for not caring enough about the things I think are important, I suppose I should be doing something to bring these issues to people's attention and making them realise that they should care. It seems to me that all the solutions proposed so far in this thread are trying to "paper over" the problem of voter apathy by forcing or encouraging apathetic people to vote, rather than thinking of ways to get potential voters to care about the results of elections.

How to do that? I don't know, but here's some ideas:

People who do care about politics ought to involve themselves more, in political parties or pressure groups. And they ought not to feel shy of talking to other people about political issues. After all, what is considered "normal" in a society is just the result of the collective beliefs and actions of lots of individuals.

Political parties and pressure groups ought to try harder to communicate their message to the public. I don't mean just appearing on "Newsnight", but taking out adverts in (for example) FHM. Outside of elections the political classes in the UK largely address themselves to "people like us" and ignore "the masses". Is there some sort of law against political advertising in the UK? If so, it should be repealed!

Politicians need to cut out the bullshit. One of the things that really makes people hate politicians is the sense that they are being lied to all the time. Maybe it's me, but I can't stand politicians pretending they know everything, pretending they never made a mistake in their life, pretending they're answering the question, pretending their party is doing better than it is, pretending they cycle to work, pretending they've got the Arctic Monkeys on their iPod etc. Really, I don't blame people for not voting, it only encourages them!

Yes there are laws about political advertising in the UK, IIRC they are to ensure that all parties get equal or at least proportional treatment.

Which issues do you think should be big - what is the "proper" concern of government?

akiyama #50:I didn't vote because I believe there's too much opportunity for fraud in postal voting or machine voting. I'm sure the people behind these experiments considered non-votes like mine to be "apathy" that needed to be "overcome" rather than a positive decision not to vote.

I certainly agree with you about the possibility of fraud in postal voting. There certainly seems to have been some flaws in recent elections to Westminster when large scale postal voting was trialled in some constituencies (as distinct from being offered to people unable to attend in person). There was also a niggle in my mind which said that the government was encouraging this because they thought the additional voters would be, on balance, Labour supporters.
We don't yet have machine voting although the recent elections for Holyrood (the Scottish Parliament) were machine counted and a very large number of votes were spoilt causing an outcry. Apparently a large part of population can't read/understand what were really very clear instructions — certainly much clearer than the rubrics for the old GCE examination papers.
I don't want to pay to vote although if some MPs get their way party electoral expenses will come from the taxpayer instead of the winning party handing out Earldoms — so we'll be paying anyway. I certainly have no problems with raising the age to 21 and I think plans to lower the age at which someone can become an MP are misguided. In fact I would like to see it increased. But I take your point that people do not appreciate what they are offered on a plate.

#52: I like the "anyone but" suggestion. Sounds like you could do a lot of mischief with that one! And by the way the "who voted for you" gibe could be used against a number of MSPs who got in through the list rather than the popular vote.

#56 reading_fox:
Which issues do you think should be big - what is the "proper" concern of government?

I don't know how to answer the question of what the "proper" concern of government is.

The issues I would most like to see being taken more seriously are the growing gap between rich and poor, the environment, and civil liberties. You?

#57 Possman:
I don't want to pay to vote although if some MPs get their way party electoral expenses will come from the taxpayer instead of the winning party handing out Earldoms — so we'll be paying anyway.

Don't get me started . . . :(

#55

I take your point about needing to motivate people about issues, but charging people to be able to vote is surely anti-democratic and goes against the whole thrust of the widening of representative democracy since the early/mid 19th century.

And, yes, many of your ideas for stimulating people's interest are valid but I still think that, given that there must be a government of whatever sort, voting should be a civic duty underpinned by an element of compulsion as I have described - compulsion to take part in the process, even if not by voting for any of the specific candidates on offer.

#59 john257hopper

Well, £10 is a significant amount of money for people who are living on the breadline, or below it, and it would surely discourage them from voting, so yes, charging people to vote would be discriminatory and antidemocratic.

However, we already have a situation in which poor people are less able to participate in the political process than rich people. For example, it costs money to join a political party, it costs money to travel to party meetings, it costs money to stand for election as an MP or MEP etc. The most elegant solution, I think, would be to eliminate poverty. If everyone could easily afford the charge, then I don't see that there would be anything wrong with charging people to vote.

As for the idea that voting should be a civic duty . . . do you also think people should also have a duty to have an informed opinion about the election, before casting their votes? If so, how would you compel them to do so? And if not, then would you say that someone with no knowledge of politics has just as much of a duty to vote as someone who is highly knowledgeable?

BTW if I come across as being argumentative it's not personal - I just enjoy arguing!

I enjoy a good, civilized, argument myself. Mostly the discussions LT seem to be very civil and considerate of many points of view. Horray for that.

Costs money to participate in politics: in my experience of Democratic Party politics locally many poverty-level individuals participated fully. They would solicit and get contributions from the rest of us if they were elected to attend a party meeting away from home. No one was ever changed a penny to belong to the Democratic party locally.

I know it helps to have money to attend political events but we always worked hard to have affordable events. One local politician held his "fund raiser" on St. Patrick's Day and made potato soup the center piece. You can attend that event for whatever contribution you feel able to give.

Standing for election does cost money. And reform is needed in this area to keep it from being totally unreasonable, which it approaches.

As for how to compel people to be well informed: Who would decide when you are informed enough? The Knowledge Police? Seriously, it is the obligation of the political parties and the politicians to do whatever it takes to inform their electorate and then they work with the results.

Politicians *failing* the people, first and foremost. They pay the lobbyists' heed more often than ours. I presently bask in Red State Glory, and both of my senators' staffers don't even bother to answer my e-mails or phone messages, simply shooting back stock replies that often make me wonder why Is ent the message in the beginning. I can easily see voter apathy springing forth in the face of that. Add in Big Business, Big Oil, Big Drugs, and we're lucky that they even bother to maintain the pretense of having elections.

Truth (really out on a lack-of-sleep bender, pardon if this rambled)

#58"The issues I would most like to see being taken more seriously are the growing gap between rich and poor, the environment, and civil liberties. You?"

They are certainly three very important areas I would like to see improved, but I'm not sure how Government could do so.

The Environment is particularly a social problem, each and every one of us has to think and act accordingly. This isn't somthing that can be imposed from the top down.

I'm not sure what I'd like to see Government do. Regulate industry more tightly, -competition, pollution, workers rights etc. Regulate with teeth and fines/sentances that compell, but not stifle inovation or burden the effectiveness.
I'd also liek to see a lot more education, of everybody so that even the average person on the street can think about and understand what happens around them. - again very very difficult to impose from the top down! And I probably wouldn't want to pay the taxes that this would require.

#60 - no problem at all, Akiyama - I enjoy such discussions as well and agree with maggie1944 that LT discussions score highly on this compared to many other Internet fora that tend to be dominated by people with fixed ideological views of one sort or another.

--However, we already have a situation in which poor people are less able to participate in the political process than rich people. For example, it costs money to join a political party, it costs money to travel to party meetings, it costs money to stand for election as an MP or MEP etc. --

Yes, but these kinds of activities are only ever going to appeal to a small minority of people. People who really want to join a political party, etc. will find the money to do so, also Labour and presumably the other parties have reduced/phased membership fees for the unemployed, etc.

--The most elegant solution, I think, would be to eliminate poverty. If everyone could easily afford the charge, then I don't see that there would be anything wrong with charging people to vote.--

If we do that, we might as well say, charge everyone, say, 1p or 5p now on the grounds that everyone could afford that. I just don't see the point in charging, as well as being anti-democratic. If it was £10, I suppose you could say that the money raised could be spent on political awareness-raising, but then you could argue that those most in need of awareness-raising would be those least likely to pay to vote, and those who have paid up and are highly motivated may not relish that money being spent on trying to raise the awareness level of others.

--As for the idea that voting should be a civic duty . . . do you also think people should also have a duty to have an informed opinion about the election, before casting their votes? If so, how would you compel them to do so? And if not, then would you say that someone with no knowledge of politics has just as much of a duty to vote as someone who is highly knowledgeable?--

Linked to the above, Government and others can and should fund awareness-raising generally, it doesn't need a charge for voting to fund it. There are already campaigns both official and unofficial to encourage people to vote and in the UK and other democracies, a vast range of NGOs and pressure groups campaigning on every issue, but you can never force people to be well-informed - even if one could agree what being well-informed actually means in practice.

So my answers to your questions above would be: arguably they have a moral duty, but should not have a legal duty to be well informed, as this would impossible to define clearly; no (from the above), they would not be compelled to be well informed, as this is meaningless; yes a less well-informed person should have the same duty to vote, but it's up to them how they mentally equip themselves in order to do so, using whatever sources of information are available.

I keep coming back to the principle that, whether people are well informed or not, interested in politics or completely uninterested, political decisions affect everyone, so everyone should be involved at the minimal level of voting, even if for the great majority, as at present, that will be the limit of the involvement they want to seek.

Going slightly off-topic, I wonder what people think about Brown`s courting of the Thatcherite vote ? Leaving aside the politics of it, I find it perverse - Mrs T`s period in office ended 10 - 15 years ago. If, as Harold Wilson said, "a week is a long time in politics" , what`s a decade and a half ?

I also wondered what we make of his new-found interest in `Britishness` and `British jobs`? Given that recent Lab and Tory govts have relied on attracting multinationals to generate jobs, does it mean very much ?

The new 'Britishness' of Gordon Brown seems to stem from the position of many English voters who appear to be anti-Scottish. (Why is England the most small-minded, xenophobic nation in Western Europe?). That was why he banged on about Britain and Britishness so much. I think when he talked about British jobs he was talking about jobs in Britain regardless of the nationality of the company, this is a reaction to the increasing belief that British jobs are being exported - to India, to China, Eastern Europe, etc. (This does happen, I work for an IT company which has a strategy of using India for as many jobs as possible).

I wondered about the courting of the Thatcherite vote as well - could it be that most voting in the UK is static but this section of the electorate is up for grabs by any of the three major parties and could possibly influence the outcome of the next election?

#68: Why is England the most small-minded, xenophobic nation in Western Europe?
As an Englishman living in Inverness (Scottish Highlands) I thought that accolade probably belonged to Scotland — although not to the many Scots who have made a home or earn a living in all the corners of the globe. My Scottish father-in-law frequently refers disparagingly to "white settlers" and it took me some time to realise he didn't mean just me but anybody south of Perth.

Brown put on a sincere demeanour (son-of-the-Manse image) for his key speech and came across very well. But promises on education, health, law and order are more or less what his party has been promising for years — years when Brown was second-in-command. I don't believe him. One thing he has inspired me to do is to empty my dormant account where a few pounds have been lying untouched for years. He says he's going to steal it to spend on new youth centres.

Am I the only person who, watching the news coverage of the Labour Party conference, thought it looked just like a Tory Party conference? The smartly dressed but grey-looking audience. The politicians you can't quite put a name to. The blandly patriotic speeches. And of course, the blue backdrop.

Newsnight featured a panel of voters having to choose between either Gordon Brown or David Cameron on various issues. What a depressing choice! If a time-traveller were to present me with random policies from the next election's manifestos I'm sure I would have no idea which party they came from.

My money is on the next election resulting in a hung parliament . . . followed by a Labour/Tory coalition government!

#66 john257hopper:

My point was not that people should be charged to vote, but that people would be more likely to vote if it were made to appear more difficult or costly to do so.

#70

Leaving aside my own personal views, I wonder if he`s revisiting the battles of the past ?

At one time, Labour faced certain circumstances that led them to move to the right politically. This is not that time, but it`s unclear if they`ve noticed !

Outside of Westminster, I doubt if many people identify themselves as Thatcherites - the world moves on. Those that do (there will be some) are hardly likely to be vote Labour and probably live in safe Tory seats anyway.

It will be interesting to see how Labour do in their own traditional safe seats. Their core support may change allegiances, and of course many of these areas are changing now anyway.

Having said that, interesting though all this Westminster-watching is, it`s not nearly as important as events in Burma over the last week. Anyone got any thoughts on that ?

The current uprising in Burma (Myanmar) will end the same way the Hungarian Uprising did. Not enough support from the outside world against a ruthless regime whose own people are so much cannon fodder.

#73 - I fear you may be right. So far the only clear statements of opposition have come from the UK and US governments and there is relatively little practical leverage that they can assert. It's the Asian countries that are more likely to be able to exert pressure on the Burmese authorities and they seem pusillanimous so far (like African countries vis-a-vis Zimbabwe).

Wikipedia has a good summary of the latest events here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Burmese_anti-government_protests


It appears that there is some internal opposition among the junta, which may or may not be a hopeful sign; while there may be a change of regime, it could well be for the worse, and meanwhile the violence continues...

The surrounding countries are somewhat hamstrung morally by the fact that they are all vying for gas-and-oil contracts. And despite the blather Western countries such as France and the US are compromised by their own long term commitments to the same industry, as is shown here:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=679&language_id=...

-----

All this said, the junta has kept the lid, through draconian measures, on the factional disputes in Myanmar. A review of past history suggests that a democracy, when it takes over, will have a difficult time establishing stability here. Weak or clumsy attempts at democritization or socialism are easy prey for violent takeover.

The existence of Suu Kyi and the non-violent protests of the Buddhists is cause for hope, however. We aren't in the sixties anymore, it's a lot harder to ignore this stuff. Despite the efforts of the government, bloggers are still getting the raw news out. Things aren't all bad.

Of course, just because our govt.s are `hamstrung morally` , that`s no reason why progressive individuals cannot show solidarity with emergent pro-democracy movements in whatever way they see fit.

Maybe we should all see what relevant sites/blogs we can find, and post them here for the rest to see ?

I`ve made a start under the `How to Encourage Democracy` thread.

Returning to the original purpose of this thread, I think a clear example of why people are disenchanted with politics was given on the BBC TV Question Time the other night.

I think most people would agree that the big issues that have faced our old mate Gordon so far have been foot and mouth, Iraq, Northern Rock. What did the assembled pundits think was interesting ? The timing of the next election, Brown`s news management skills (or lack of them), whether the Conservatives have out manouvered him tactically recently.

Very few people are interested in `Westminster watching` as a hobby. I can`t think this is the way to engage the public`s interest.

Nick, is there still a problem with 'safe seats' in the UK?

Gerrymandering is a major factor in voter apathy in the US. Big money and polarization has so far blocked the usual tactic that could compensate for gerrymandering: joining the opposition party in order to swing votes over to a moderate.

Anytime you permanently disenfranchise 40% of the population, you are going to have problems convincing people their vote is valuable...

#79

As far as I know, no. One did used to hear allegations of boundary-fixing, but I`ve not heard anything like that mentioned in quite a while. It may be that the Dame Shirley Porter affair (the details are on Wikipedia) has lead to an atmosphere of caution amongst those affected.

As for safe seats generally, it will be interesting to see how many actually stay `safe`.

I cannot imagine that many votes will swing from Tory to Labour that have not already done so. I assume the Brown administration are assuming that Labour supporters have nowhere else to go - but people normally resent that sort of thing. We`ll see.

>78 wyrdchao:/79

Well, lucky for you guys.. What measures were put in place to solve this problem? Is the UK divided up (representationally) by county, or by municipal districts of some kind?

------

Of course, our real problem with 'safe seats' has to do with US and state representatives, and some state senators. The US Senate is pretty much up for grabs most years, which is probably for the best.

The reps (state and fed), though...that's bad...California, for instance, has had a 'permanent' Democratic majority (around 60%) in both situations for at least 25 years (maybe longer, before Reagan). And in recent years, the opposite situation is true in the South and interior West (but not CA, WA, OR); the R's have stacked the deck the opposite way. Don't know much about New England; their state constitutions are considerably different from the rest of the country, but... someone may chime in here and let us know..

By constituencies - you would probably think of it as municipal districts. Though - similar to yourselves i think - we have three tiers of elected representative - councillors (local authority), MP (Parliament) and MEP (gravy train - oh, sorry, meant to say European Parliament !).

wyrdchao:

Well, Massachusetts at least is a one-party state. Democrats control 34 of 40 seats in the State Senate (upper house of the legislature), 141 of 160 seats in the State House of Representatives (lower house), and the entire US Congressional delegation. 5 of the 10 US House elections were uncontested in 2006, and only three of those were contested by Republicans -- the other two by an independent and a Socialist Workers Party candidate. (I collected signatures to get a Socialist on the ballot for US House, but we fell short of the 2000 verified signatures needed.) The Republican Party here is so moribund that it actually had fewer candidates for statewide office in 2006 than the Green-Rainbow Party. And it's not that the state is especially liberal (at least not to the extent suggested by these numbers); it's the election system and the way the balance of power is reinforced.

We did have four Republican governors in a row, over 16 years, the last being Mitt Romney, now running for President. One of the reasons even conservatives here despise Romney is that one of his main stated goals was to revive the Republican Party. But he dropped that, along with pretty much everything else, halfway through his term to start campaigning for President.

To try to make things more democratic, we've had nonbinding ballot questions for instant runoff voting and mixed-member proportional representation for the state legislature that have passed comfortably, but efforts to continue building on those victories seem to have died out in the last couple of years. Massachusetts Voters for Fair Elections, which worked on election reform, was absorbed by Common Cause in 2006, and I haven't heard anything from them since.

I'm considering running for State Rep. next year; it would be a largely quixotic effort, but I feel that just contesting more elections -- even quixotically -- would be beneficial.

>82 daschaich: Wow. With a majority like that, gerrymandering would be gilding the lily, I guess. With that kind of advantage, it really is pathetic to see how 'conservative' the Demo base is there. And Romney is just plain flaky.

I'm considering running for State Rep. next year; it would be a largely quixotic effort, but I feel that just contesting more elections -- even quixotically -- would be beneficial.

Do it! Quixotic or not, it is worth trying.

#78 "problem with safe seats"

Depends what you define as a problem? I would say the UK's political process does have a problem with safe seats... There are many many consituencies that essentially go uncontested. One paty is dominent (1000s+ vote majorities) so none of the other parties bother to spend much money campaigning there. Occasional big issues may occasionaly cause some kind of upset, but normally only at the most local government levels.

Sigh. It seems half our politicians in Alaska are being indicted for selling their souls to VECO, and oil investment company. The really troubling thing is how cheap their souls really are.

I am hoping there will be some kind of backlash against this. We did have a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans stage a coup in the State Senate, and they seem to be holding together quite well.

Alaska--No sales tax, no income tax, the government GIVES us money every year (This year it was $1600) and still people complain about taxes. Redneck socialism.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to move to Alaska. Darn hot here in Florida and I like the no-tax deal. Back to safe seats, I have recently heard of long-term constituencies being successfully challenged, at the commissioner level and such, but I think that it has been helped by the unpopularity of the Republican party lately among certain populations, so Republicans have lost the seats. Thing is, most people tend to vote with their emotions, not with their heads--that's the way humans make most of their decisions actually, otherwise, we wouldn't have so many romance- and health-related problems!---so just as they might be swayed against the Republican party because of the war, etc., I hold no illusions about the public's steadfast loyalty to whatever party they are voting for at a given moment. How many people really do read in-depth about the issues? They just get riled up over one issue or another and vote with their emotions. Having said that, I do believe that somebody who feels strongly about the system and wants to run, should run. I keep hoping for positive change and a more civility in our public.