the smedley log - suburban scrawl

984

For those unfamiliar (or simply not obsessed with my annual election tradition), I like to start election day recap posts with my voter number. My number from yesterday was 984. I guess it was good turnout. And, at least on the national level, the results weren’t so bad either.

I don’t vote straight ticket as a rule, but this year I came kind of close. Not because I uniformly agree with the Democratic philosophy; I don’t. But because I adamantly disagree with the philosophy of single-party rule we’ve had for most of the past half-dozen years. It just seems to bolster the mindless political dogma that drives the two-party system in the first place.

Our government’s been missing its recommended allowance of checks and balances for a while anyway. It’s gotten sickly and pathetic in that time (- well, more than it usually is). A sickness grown even more virulent in the hands of those who bemoan lack of congressional review over judicial review.

I recall a TV soundbite debate in which a Republican spin doctor, apparently disappointed with control of only two branches of government, railed on about “activist judges” and ways they might be reigned in by Congress. Yeah, how do we get rid of that pesky judicial body that doesn’t let the rest of the government run rampant based the political leanings of half the country (and often less than that)?

That at least one house of our bicameral legislature is no longer as likely to rubber stamp the executive agenda has me breathing a sigh of relief. I’m glad I don’t have to contemplate that again, for at least two more years.

Hail the return of a legislature with the potential to actually check executive power. Now we can enjoy an occasional dose of good old-fashioned gridlock. Wait, did I just rejoice over the return of gridlock? Absolutely. I look at it this way: when you’re heading toward a cliff, anything that slows you down just might be your salvation.

Even if my choice is functionally “straight ticket”, I avoid “the button” like the plague.

This time around I used the button as a symbol of my absolute frustration.

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said in this post.

You must vote late in the day. My voter number is usually in the double digits—I was #30 yesterday.

Ellen – it will always be hard for me to think of it as a “button.” The term “big lever” always appealed to me for some reason.

Yoko – yes, I do vote kind of late in the day (around 5 p.m.). Maybe I do it to enforce a positive turnout vibe in my own head, even though I realize yesterday’s turnout wasn’t all the prolific. The only time I voted early (I think that was around eight in the morning), I felt a little depressed to only be in the teens.

I’m coming to believe that divided government is a net positive good, deserving of enshrinement in the constitution itself. It forces the parties to operate by consensus, keeps them from pursuing any single ideological agenda, and by-n-large stalls them from “moving forward”, which, when applied to the imperial government, is almost always a good thing. Keeping the gov’t from “doing good”, from operating on its perceived “mandate”, is in reality a very good thing. Divided gov’t gave us things like, oh, a budget surplus; united gov’t gave us stuff like No-Child-Left-Behind, and that’s not even to mention the 800 lb. gorilla.

If the dems win all branches in ‘08—a result I consider likely unless Clinton XLIV is the nominee—just watch for the blow back in ‘10. The American people will not stand for united government… as they ought not!

There was a lot of value in the original concept of the “VP” post being given to the 2nd place winner of the presidential race instead of having the Prez and VP share a ticket. I think there would be a greater focus on campaign issues and less opponent-demonizing if it were a sure thing that #1 & #2 HAD to work together after the election. But that may be naive wishful thinking.

And ‘08 scares me as I’m not real confident there’s a strong leader on either side that’s very visible at this point (or at least strong enough to unite instead of polarize).

Steve – Absolutely!

Ellen – This is an idea that doesn’t get floated enough. Pundits tend to talk about VP’s as if they don’t require the same skills or qualities as presidents, which given the potential of the position is really quite stupid.

As indicated in my approval of Steve’s comment (and in my post too, I guess), I’m all for coalition government, where people actually have to show the ability to work together without surrendering to one extreme ideology or the other.