While we're celebrating yesterday's Democrat victory in the US elections, its worth remembering that the US has more than one layer of government, and that state legislatures and governorships were also up for grabs. So, how'd they do? According to the New York Times, pretty much the same:
Democratic gains in Congress and among the nation’s governors were matched on Tuesday by a huge surge closer to the grass roots — in the state legislatures, where more than 275 seats and nine legislative chambers from Iowa to Oregon switched overnight from Republican to Democratic hands.With those legislative victories combined with the six new Democratic governors elected on Tuesday, Democrats are now the one-party government in 15 states — including New Hampshire for the first time since 1874, and Colorado for the first time since 1960. No party has controlled as many as 15 states since the Republicans achieved that exact number after the 1994 election.
And they made those gains across the board - not just in the liberal northeast and the battleground of the midwest, but in the south as well.
Meanwhile, voters also shot down South Dakota's referendum to ban abortion, and parental notification laws in California and Oregon, and raised the minimum wage in six states. Unfortunately, there is a bitter taste: seven states also constitutionally barred same-sex marriage or civil unions. So, while enormous progress was made, it was by no means a complete victory.
On the plus side, the US Congress now has its first Muslim member. Maybe that will make it harder for the Republicans to demonise Muslims, when there's one sitting right there across the chamber...
14 comments:
Well, just to play devil's advocate you might want to consider this piece from the NYTimes, and moderate your glee a little.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09cong.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=21fd9be66d7df098&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Consider this: Democrats don't do well in the south by being Democrats, they do well by being socially conservative Democrats who would give 'RINOs' like Lincoln Chaffee or Rudy Gulliani a stroke. Pardon me for being cynical, but Rick Santorum's been replaced by a Democrat who wants to ban abortion, strip gay and lesbian citizens of their civil rights, and is well liked by the NRA. And he's not the most conservative freshman Democrat by any measure.
Should be fun seeing how long Nancy Perlosi and Harry Reid can keep them under the whip - after all, none of us have to live with the consequences.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 11/09/2006 05:24:00 PM
So long as they caucus with the Democrats, they don't need to be under the whip. The Republicans can't pass any laws without the Speaker consenting to it, on account of the hideous corruption of the system. And anything else they'd want to pass but couldn't would've been vetoed by Bush anyway.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/09/2006 05:35:00 PM
This is the best news to come out of the USA all year.
It is also heartening to note that in spite of their best efforts the Diebold 'Democracy Correction Machines' can be thwarted.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/09/2006 08:43:00 PM
I think the point that's being missed by the NYT and others who've been pointing it out (it's the big Republican talking point too) is that some of these new Democrats are conservative, but they're still closer to the centre than the Republicans they replaced. The liberal Republicans who lost weren't replaced by conservative Democrats but liberal ones, and the overall balance of Congress as a whole has shifted to the left.
Posted by Nick : 11/10/2006 12:20:00 AM
" Rick Santorum's been replaced by a Democrat who wants to ban abortion, strip gay and lesbian citizens of their civil rights, and is well liked by the NRA. And he's not the most conservative freshman Democrat by any measure.
Should be fun seeing how long Nancy Perlosi and Harry Reid can keep them under the whip - after all, none of us have to live with the consequences."
I recently moved from NZ to Pennsylvania (so I do "have to live with the consequences") and have to say, Craig, that people here are quite aware that they've swapped coke for pepsi in the Santorum Casey race. However, the point stands that, even if the opinions are more or less the same, the strength of the voice within the party is vastly different. It's one thing to have a low-ranked newcomer with opinions you don't like, quite a different thing to have one of the most influential senators holding those same opinions with a party that's much more sympathetic to them.
What you also have to remember is that PA is a real swing state -- it's been described as two liberal cities (Pittsburgh and Philidelphia) at either end, with Alabama in the middle. It's a largely rural state, and the liberal urban voters only just outnumber the conservative rural ones. Given the closenes of Santorum to Bush, and his charging his kids' cyber-school eduation in Virginia to the PA education system (to the tune of a hundred and something thousand dollars), he was gone for all money, but why take the risk of standing a more liberal candidate when there's so much at stake? Sounds like a shitty compromise to me, but a two-party system is a two-party system . . .
Posted by Anonymous : 11/10/2006 04:13:00 AM
> but a two-party system is a two-party system . . .
why can't you do somthing about that? (is it just that it might require one of the parties to suport it, or is it a constitutional thing?)
Posted by Genius : 11/10/2006 07:00:00 AM
Jake wrote:
Craig, that people here are quite aware that they've swapped coke for pepsi in the Santorum Casey race.
Well, this fat bastard is laying off the sugar water under medical advice so your analogy has a subtext to me you probably didn't intend. :) There are many things I'd say about Nancy Perlosi and Harry Reid, but functionally innumerate is not among them. Just do the math: If (probably when) Virgina goes into the red column, there is a one vote margin in the Senate, just as there was when Jim Jeffords got sick of having his arm twisted. And do you think Perlosi really want to repeat the strategy of pandering to the base, even if means cluster-fraking your own moderates all the way back into the minority? (And I think it's fair comment to say for every Rick Santorum deservedly pink-slipped, centerists Republicans like Lincoln Chafee got shafted as well.) Because that's another game plan that's really worked out well for the GOP.
But, as I said, let's see how it all plays out because the Democrats have a fascinating balancing act to play out. Especially because the '08 general election campaign has, to all intents and purposes, already begun.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 11/10/2006 07:35:00 AM
"why can't you do somthing about that? (is it just that it might require one of the parties to suport it, or is it a constitutional thing?)
Genius - Druver's Law. FPP tends to produce a two-party system. To change the federal electoral system would require politicians to vote for it. And those are the same politicians who would be worse affected by it. Furthermore, the effect of the President race also contributes to making the US a two party system (see Lijphart 1994 for info on how).
Posted by Anonymous : 11/10/2006 09:55:00 AM
Craig,
I think that your last point kind of answers the initial problem of having such a tiny margin. The Democrats will be hoping to increase the senate margin in '08 at the same time as they get rid of Bush, and hopefully pull some of the centre further toward their natural base, giving them a bit more breathing space around marginal seats. So a bit of pandering in '06 might pay dividends in '08, when the widespread desire for change can be sated by turfing the president. Maybe after two years of not being Republicans, the people will realise that the Democrats aren't evil baby-eating terrorists, after all, and think about voting for them.
As for the two-party system, I don't think change is likely, or even possible, in this culture. As the chap who's going on holiday said, FPP tends towards two-party, but the structure of the U.S. govt with its checks and balances and three branches and everything, is so intrinsic to American identity that that kind of change is unimaginable. Also, people here identify very strongly with their parties. Unlike NZ, where you are a 'National supporter' or a 'Labour supporter' or whatever, people describe themselves as 'a Republican' or 'a Democrat' -- its very ingrained. A very important aspect of American self-conception seems to be the perfectness of its political system and the freedoms that bestows on its people, which is why when I half-heartedly point out the desirability of electoral reform, they look at me as if I'm from Mars.
And the identity thing is coupled with a very strong tendency against structural change -- imperial measurements anyone? This is a very traditional place, and even those most critical of the government tend to believe very strongly in the goodness of the system -- it's not just self-interested politicians that are barriers to change, it's the people as well. And if the people don't want it, then what can you do? Indoctrination is a beautiful thing.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/10/2006 11:46:00 AM
Switching from FPP to preferential voting wouldn't impact on the "checks and balances and three branches and everything" at all.
Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 11/10/2006 12:20:00 PM
A recent report by FAIR seriously questions some of the assumptions made by the MSM punditry.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/10/2006 12:44:00 PM
It is kind of odd that in the land of the free there is more choice at the Starbucks counter than in the voting booth where the only realistic political choice is between coffee or tea (and it is decided for you what you will have in your coffee or tea).
Posted by Hans Versluys : 11/10/2006 01:56:00 PM
This was the first proper nationwide campaign organised by the DCCC. In the past the Dems have been a rather loose coallition of rather bickering parties.
Howard Dean's been in control of the strategy for a couple of years, his success gives his party confidence and so will flow on to 2008. I expect the Dem's to be *very* well organised by them, and in addition to have shaken off the firm grip the GOP has in the controls of state election machinary.
Posted by Anonymous : 11/10/2006 02:37:00 PM
the US has lots of checks and balances but the outcome seems to be inferior even by it's own measuring stick to at least some other countries. And that could be to a large extent because an ancient constitution has crippled their ability to change.
You hear the stereotypical school question "why is America the greatest country in the world" to which the rest of the world can't think of any way (Japan is safer, Sweden has better human rights, NZ has better environment, china has better growth, Luxembourg is richer per capita) except for the because "we have more nukes" argument.
Posted by Genius : 11/10/2006 07:45:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).