Krowley said:
Earlier in the thread, someone asked, "Why would anybody vote republican".
The gun issue is really the classic example of why republicans continue to thrive. Right now I couldn't really bring myself to vote for any republican candidates, but I have in the past, and sometimes its based on a single issue, like national security or guns. I may disagree on a million other things, but those are the kinds of issues that can overrule every other concern.
I don't get it..... why? These kinds of wedge issues based on national security and gun rights are almost entirely based on irrational fears. Democrats are almost NEVER about limiting your right to own a gun in the privacy of your own home, just being able to carry it to your child's playground/ to the bar with you while you're drinking/into class at your high school/college. And are we really going to cover the whole "Republicans keep you safe, democrats let your children get slaughtered from crime/terrrorism/commies" thing again? That's another fallacy based on irrational fear.
Right now, I'm more worried about the economy, and over the years I've become much more liberal on economic issues. I favor expansions in entitlement programs, and totally socialized health care, but the idea of another liberal supreme court justice is very unnerving for me. It may even play a role in my presidential choice next time.
Again, why? Your fears of the supreme courtr seemto be related to the fears about gun rights, which, again, shouldn't be a problem unless you want to be able to carry a loaded firearm everywhere and anywhere. And let me tell you, having EVERYONE carry a gun is a lot more scary to me than no one being able to carry one, because one flared temper could set off a giant gunfight. Kind of like mutually assured destruction, except there's a lot more than two participants. I don't think that's a situation anyone would find enjoyable to be living in. I iddn't live through the Cold War, but I don't think anyone enjoyed the feeling that thousands of nukes could reign on them from the heavens at any moment due to a short temper or a radar malfunction or something.
I can also understand why people are disappointed with the democrats. It's not like they've succeeded in providing any of the progressive economic and social policies I would like to see anyway. Everything is so watered down that it's almost like republican-lite. The idea of electing even more democrats as a way of improving this situation makes sense on the surface, but an expansion of democratic power would just mean that more blue-dogs are getting elected, and I'm not sure it would allow for more aggressive legislation.
I agree, the legislation IS republican lite, and that's largely why it disappoints me. Yet you have people arguing that republican-full will be better, and I don't get that. The problem is the fillibuster, the spineless leadership in Harry Reid, and the stonewalling by a large number of senators.
Right now, the main thing I favor is changing the filibuster rules. Maybe if the dems get hammered hard enough and barely hold the senate, they will be inclined to make those adjustments just to keep a toehold on power. We need a country that can act without a 60 vote senate majority. It's crucial.
Agreed. A government which can not act is a failed government.
Also, and this is my liberal side speaking.... The entire legislative branch is already slanted towards more conservative, smaller, rural populations already because the senate's structural design acts as a bottleneck on legislation's ability to pass. You need 50% legislator approval in both the house and the senate to pass legislation. This translates to roughly 50% of the population of the US in the House, but a slightly higher percentage of the population of the US, when you go by its representation in the senate (when the legislature is more liberal, in nature).
When the legislature is more conservative in nature, yo ustill need roughly 50% of the US population (because population is more or less uniformally distributed across the house) to pass the House, but less than 50% population support to passthe senate (because smaller populations, which tend to be more conservative, are overrepresented in the senate).
Since the senate and house both need ot pass legislation,
MAX(PopulationSupportNeededInSenate,PopulationSupportNeededinHouse) is the bottleneck on population support needed for legislation to pass
Clearly, it is tougher to pass more liberal legislation already, because MAX(> 50%, 50%) > MAX(< 50%, 50%). You need roughly 50% pop support to pass conservative legislation, but a higher percentage for liberal legislation, because of the senate's design.
Add in the fillibuster, which makes uniform voting blocks stronger and diverse voting blocks weaker (again, tougher on liberals than conservatives), and the bottleneck in the senate for passing liberal legislation becomes even more lopsided.
Our legislative branch is ideologically slanted towards conservatives, structurally, and the fillibuster magnifies this slant further. As a liberal, I feel persecuted in my own country because my ideology gets less legislative input (My ideology being correlated with certain population demographic, against which the senate is biased)
