READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For February 21, 2006"
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2006 @ 5:16 pm PT...
Give it less than a week and the Peace & Freedom Libertarians as well as many other voters/non voters will have the lawsuits in.
We're the ones who are really at war with them and California is our state. Our people just elected another two independents. This is a state free from the corporate grab which is what Diebold is, and so forth.
Additionally, the state challenge lawsuits and filings will start piling up....the most important part however is getting them all under oath.
And the word is spreading......we will force them to go under oath and explain themselves, meaning the ITA board of certifiers.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/21/2006 @ 7:55 pm PT...
Governor Rendell has promised to veto HB 1318, which would have imposed burdensome ID requirements on Pennsylvania voters.
This is not only a victory for Pennsylvania, but a sign to those in other states who are trying to restrict access to the ballot for possible partisan gain --- voters won't surrender their rights. PFAW will continue to work with the PA Voters Coalition to ensure fair and accessible elections in the state and to keep you updated.
Please send Governor Rendell a quick thank you message so he knows we support his defense of voting rights.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 4:28 am PT...
POWER DISTRIBUTION IN SENATE COMMITTEES
Senate Standing Committee; Chair, (R=repub; D=dem); (Member Count)
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; (Chambliss, R); (11 R, 09 D)
Appropriations; (Cochran, R); (15 R, 13 D)
Armed Services; (Warner, R); (13 R, 11 D)
Banking, Housing,and Urban Affairs; (Shelby, R); (11 R, 09 D)
Budget; (Gregg, R); (12 R, 10 D)
Commerce, Science,and Transportation; (Stevens, R); (12 R, 10 D)
Energy and Natural Resources; (Domenici, R); (12 R, 10 D)
Environment and Public Works; (Inhofe, R); (10 R, 08 D)
Finance; (Grassley, R); (11 R, 09 D)
Foreign Relations; (Lugar, R); (10 R, 08 D)
Health, Education,Labor, and Pensions; (Enzi, R); (11 R, 09 D)
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; (Collins, R); (09 R, 07 D)
Judiciary; (Specter, R); (10 R, 08 D)
Rules and Administration; (Lott, R); (10 R, 08 D)
Small Business and Entrepreneurship; (Snowe, R); (10 R, 08 D)
Veterans Affairs; (Craig, R); (08 R, 06 D)
Doug E #1
"the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ...
"The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committeeĺs business" (link here).
How many democrats, independents, greens, etc. chair committees in the senate or the house? (Zero)
Therefore, republicans are where the power and the accountability of congress lies.
Both the White House and the Congress are republican controlled. All the Cabinet is republican.
It's a republican thang.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 5:45 am PT...
The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed really for a two party system. This is not good.
Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committeeĺs business" (link here).
Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.
The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our example. The majority is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is 30 republican seats.
Therefore, they get the committee chair on each committee, and they get the majority number of members in each committee.
So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority 30 seats.
Anyone see any way to improve this?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 6:19 pm PT...
Did I miss this before --- Bob Fitrakis is running for governor of Ohio?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 6:38 pm PT...
Dredd --- That's a really tough question. With IRV setting the groundwork, it seems it would take a coalition of, say, Democrats and Greens to agree to change the rules and assuming one of them was elected majority party under the current rules.
I can't image the Dems participating in such a coalition or agreeing to change the rules singly or in a coalition, but maybe it's something to begin seriously working on for the good of the country. (Greens?, Progressive Dems?)
Ideas such as proportional representation are in the air, but, as you point out, they don't mean a heck of a lot under the current rules.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 6:42 pm PT...
That's, "I can't imagine the Dems..."
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 4:55 am PT...
I am glad that you and other bloggers here, except for a few who are not the brightest bulbs in the lamp, understand how congress works and how that must fit into any election strategy.
It reminds me of Forrest Gump saying "your chances of winning the lottery go up astronomically when you purchase a lottery ticket".
The republicans have only sought to change the rules to add more power to themselves. Remember when DeLay changed the rules so that when a majority leader was indicted for a felony s/he would not have to step down?
And remember when republican Frist threatened to remove the only hope of the minority, the filibuster?
I agree that a democrat majority would be more open to letting other parties have a slice of the committee pie, which is where government by congress takes place.