Out from left field.R Majority Whip Eric Cantor Loses Primary

Indie

But again how does this reconcile with your suggestion for a system where people with wealth would have extra voting power so that it could counter the votes of the majority.

Are you saying all should have a voice but that the loader wealthier voices should get more of a say over what government should do?

 

To play devil's advocate again. The only reason the wealthy have extra voting power, is because the little guy is too easily influenced, and doesn't know how to do their own research to determine who they vote for.

And that includes making a table or having criteria to look for and research before the information hunting stage of "Researching" begins.

 

On your last few sentences I do agree with a few caveats. On the leader thing I agree absolutely.

But the candidate in question seems extreme in his rhetoric, and I don't see how he will break gridlock at the Federal level of government.

Also in terms of the common voters, don't always vote intelligently, they vote on emotion and the Founding Fathers knew this which is the core premise of why we have a Republic, and not a Direct Democracy.


How do you explain constituents who complain to their representative about a policy vote they did, and then that program or law then gets through to the constituents that there are benefits to the law's passage, and then suddenly the constituents themselves flip-flop on the way they feel about said "representative".

How constituents feel or react, sometimes has very little truth behind why they are really upset in the first place, they're fickle.

 

Look at how Virginia got rid of its republican majority recently. I think there's a chance, and a good chance, the tea party is dying.

 

I will attempt to remain 'on topic' with the OP, which I see was created by you, as well as respond to the above diversionary attempt by a forum moderator(?).

Cantor raised nearly $5.5 million of which more than $5 million was spent, while Brat only raised $206,663 of which $122,000 was spent.
With 65,017 votes having been cast, Cantor received 28,912 votes at a cost of about $173 per vote, while Brat received 36,105 votes at a cost of about $3.50 per vote. It would appear that the 'little guys' are NOT so easily influenced.
"Dollars don't vote — you do." - Brat's words to his supporters.

Now back to the OP topic.
A recent poll showed that "About 72 percent of registered voters in Cantor's district polled on Tuesday said they either 'strongly' or 'somewhat' support immigration reform that would secure the borders, block employers from hiring those here illegally, and allow undocumented residents without criminal backgrounds to gain legal status — three key tenets of an overhaul, according to a poll by the left-leaning firm Public Policy Polling and commissioned by the liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change."

That would indicate that there are reasons other than immigration reform which resulted in Cantors defeat by Brat, and as often is the case probably no one issue, but many.

 

And while I may not have responded, I have at times agreed with some of your posts as well.

I'm unaware of the rhetoric you refer to as I don't vote in Cantors district, or Virginia for that matter.
The two houses of Congress have a responsibility first and foremost to their constituents, district and State. Gridlock occurs when 'both' sides cannot achieve a compromise equally acceptable to 'both' sides.

To a degree, I agree.

It's seldom about a single law or issue.

Same could be said about the elected politicians.

 

Monkjr

Just to explain - For Indie it was more of a direct system he was suggesting linked to how much an individual paid in tax – he never wanted to discuss it - but from what I could gleam it was be something like those at the bottom getting their one vote those in the middle getting say a thousand and those in the really wealthy group getting a hell of a lot more, his view was the more you paid in the more votes (and control) you should have.

*

I agree but it’s not just about direct campaigning for a position, as Indie seem to imply, that is the short term shouting, but what about the constant whispering campaign that has been going on in the background for some time now in American politics,

Wealth founded and sponsored think tanks and academics are basically paid to produce reports that favour the right wing agenda, (free market/neo-liberal ideas) these are then used by lobby groups and the right orientated media as ‘proof’ of the superiority of those right wing ideas. However many of these reports or analysis are deeply subjective and the evidence they are based on open to alternative, but they become accepted often without question by many.

So there is a lot of research out there that seems to ‘support’ right wing ideas - its critical and questioning thinking that is often lacking.
People do come to these forums to promote these ideas but then find they are unable to defend them from criticism in any rational way.

So you get people voting for people and things that they think they understand but only because they’ve never really had to defend them and when asked to do so they can’t.

This is relevant to your OP because it goes some way to explain why there has been this ideological movement to the right in the US and the rise of such things as the ‘tea party’.

I wonder how many people that supported Brat can actually defend their ideas from criticism.

So to answer the question

I’d say it’s more of a bad thing because it looks like another victory for the irrational in US politics

 

^Actually you posted the same study and the next premise I was going to make about why paying attention to other state's voting election results and movement trends are important no matter where you live.


That's why politics in a broad sense should matter to anybody.



And true, there are handfuls of instances to show that $ doesn't mean 100% victory with the person with the most funds.

But if you've taken a political science class that looks at election laws, trends, and how campaigns work, the historical TREND is that the person with the most $ TENDS to win the seat or at least have a huge competitive edge.

In part, that's why Eric Cantor's loss is a big deal, and his loss speaks on multiple political issues like:

1. Money in campaign's real influence (is this a trend or was this an isolated incident?)

2. What reasons were underlying Cantor's loss? (Is the media representing that right?)

^On #2, I agree with you that immigration is NOT the core/sole issue driving his loss, but by listening to Fox news and other Republican politicians, they are publicly attributing Cantor's position or statements about Immigration as the reason he lost his powerful position and was voted out.

Lots on the right, Tea Party, who are just party activists, are saying they voted against Cantor because he wasn't enough of a "principled conservative" so depending who on the right you are talking to, you get different rationales about why Cantor was displeasing to them.

---

I also do want to say that "single-issue voters" do exist, and they do tend to remain voters when the average middle-of-the-road independent voter tends to get disheartened faster and stop voting out of apathy.

On gridlock, that is true, and the reason for that, is that it's mainly been the Republican party that has doubled-down on what they are willing to compromise when they come to meet at the negotiating table, look at how they handled the "government-shutdown" negotiations, they only supported re-opening parts of the government that favored their own constituents with the intention to remove leverage from the Democratic party for what they wanted.

That's been the tone of the U.S. House of Reps, since they regained the House, and it's been hurting the country as a whole, especially when it comes to safety net, and credit reputation as a nation. Not to mention the shutdown just pissed off most average citizens, and hurt lots of small businesses tied to tourism and government contract work.

"Compromising, to a Republican politician, makes them look weak to their party's base, and so that's why the gridlock happens, there's very little value into what they CAN offer for a compromise in negotiations, they expect the Democrats to compromise the core issues of their party's beliefs.

It's a stalemate, essentially, and nothing can be done and that's why this Congress is the lowest in productivity U.S. History has ever seen thus far = Gridlock not solved.

As long as compromise = not being true to principles of the Republican party, the gridlock ain't going anywhere and if Brat is unwilling to compromise he contributes to the gridlock.

 

1. Perhaps the solution exists in the 10th amendment. Gridlock at the Federal level of government occurs when the representatives of the people and the States, are unable to achieve agreement through compromise acceptable to all. This is how our government is supposed to work. It does NOT eliminate implementation of something at the State level by those States who were trying to impose something over all the States, and if they do so successfully perhaps then other States may see a benefit and concur to accept it at the Federal level. On the other hand, failure may provide other States with some input on how and why the failure occurred and allow them to try something different in achieving similar or the same goals.

2. Compromise is NOT a responsibility of just one party or the other, but of both parties in accordance with the consent of their constituents and their State. Rescinding the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way to fixing our government, and giving more power to both the people and the States from where it should be sourced.

3. It appears to me that most voters vote primarily on single, or simply a few issues, and more often than not they are not the most pressing issues.

From an 1828 dictionary, defining government - "Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without the pretence of miracle or mystery, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

 

I agree with most of what you said in the post above Individual.


But I do believe that when constituents are impassioned, but wrong or not seeing the long-term dynamic picture, that it is the representative's duty in the macro sense for the representative of any district to ensure progress is made and that losing a stance on a few issues can always be renegotiated at another time and place without the need for gridlock and leveraging other non-related political pressing issue to get what you wanted on political issue A.

For instance I kept hearing a compromise about making a pathway to citizenship on the immigration issue in return for building up security on the boarder and building a Berlin style type wall boarder.

That's a fair trade-off to me. But for a lot of people on the right side of politics that kind of deal just wasn't enough, even though it's realistically as far as one can expect to get.


For instance a child KNOWS when he or she has reached the limit of a compromise deal with a peer, or a parent or other type of authority figure.

Compromises are a trade, but it only happens if both sides understand the value of what each side is giving up and also gaining. Ideology of "principles" doesn't work for many Republicans, because the art of compromise earns you a "RHINO" label. And the tea party does not understand how to "read the value of compromise exchanges" because they are more concerned about ideological purity to right wing ideals rather than the reality that they share and live with opposing views.

It is an irrational and dangerous ideological dilemma the right wing has got their own politicians under, and a lot of that has to do with the types of messages and imagery conservative culture has been throwing around between capital hill and right wing media (radio and TV and blogosphere).


I could argue it's a form of dictatorship, and isn't smart government at all. It is a rule from a minority in the sense that in a democracy the majority are supposed to get their way with some token compromises; especially on issues of commerce.

 

And at the state level, as soon as fragments of the voting rights act were struck down.


States remembered actions from past years that they wanted to make that were barred to them because they unfairly targeted certain age groups or minorities based on how they tended to support a certain party in elections.

It's like a degree of separation is an excuse when clearly there is a filter going on that runs contrary to the concept of Political Equality, and Political Liberty and Popular Sovereignty.

If those 3 qualities aren't met in a country, you can't say that that state's laws or views on issues accurately reflect the people's will in a republican-democracy. Because the election was biased and not reflective of people actively trying to vote but barred from doing so.

(Note: we moved on from the Cantor discussion at this point)

 

Indie

As we have already discussed this at length - it’s alright to compromise around good ideas but if they are bad ideas you only end up with something worse rather than something better

And if ideas cannot be defended from criticism in any rational or reasonable way (like yours) then they are probably bad ideas

–remember this –

You have a headache and someone (mister X) says they can cure it.

Mister X takes you to a lion’s cage and tells you to place your head in the lion’s mouth

You ask if they can give a rational and reasonable argument for doing it and they reply that they don’t need to because it’s obviously a good idea.

You say that given the nature of the animal, it being a large meat eater and that by the way it seems to be very hungry that you think the most likely outcome of putting your head in its mouth is that it would bit it off.

Mister X says that your ideas are just based on your anti-lion prejudices and tells you that you are an idiot for not following their advice.

Now do you put your head in the lion’s mouth?

How about you compromise – you don’t put your head in but instead put your hand in the lions mouth and see what happens?

To me a bad idea is a bad idea.

And if even the supporters of an idea cannot defend it from criticism then it is likely a bad idea

 

Indie

Oh no not the 16 and 17 amendments again – hell we have been through all that why not address the criticisms of your ideas rather than just repeating them?

“one is about wanting a tax cut and the other is about removing power from the majority and giving it to a few”

 

Compromise with government now means that the rich don't get it all and the working poor don't get it. However, when those who support the rich won't give ANYTHING to the working man and his/her family, then that's failure to compromise.

 

The 16th amendment gave the US the right to collect an income tax. The more money you make the more you are taxed. The largest amount anyone is taxed is 15% (Bill Gates rich people) This money goes to the federal government.

The 17th amendment is direct election of senators. Before this point senators who were going to run were chosen by the leader of the polictical group, and could choose for whatever reasons he wanted (like he liked person B best, not because person B would be the best) After this amendment voters regestered if they were democrat or depublic and then voted for the senators they wanted to run in their group



Seems to me that retaining both amendments is what this country needs. If we don't have it, how will be pay for the military, VA hospitals, roads, bridges, etc?

 

Agreed Sam.


But other areas all contribute to the budget problems at the federal level.


1. Wasteful spending, and contracts that cost more than their initial estimates. (i.e. Boeing, and Lockheed Martin mess-ups and delays in Military-Industrial complex defense orders)

2. The overcomplicated taxcode (both citizens and corporate tax codes) allows for average individuals to get screwed, and circumvent corporate interests and the rich individual to shelter their wealth form taxes in ways most can't, when really all should have such options to shelter their money rather than JUST the rich.


^Those are the biggest reasons (I have others) that I thought I'd mention here.

 

I'm unable to make sense of what you're saying from the previous 2 posts.

I do agree that we seem to have moved on from discussing Cantor, but that appears to be the case in nearly all threads relative to their displayed topic.

 

The 16th amendment allows the Federal government to directly tax individuals, regardless of the State in which they reside. Without the 16th amendment, States had the power to tax income,

That's true,

I have been taxed more than 15% at least once during my working life. And of course Federal tax goes to the Federal government, who is then free to spend it in ways which achieve the goals of the Federal government, more easily controlling the States and the people in order for them to have some of their taxes brought home.

Before the 17th amendment, 2 Senators were chosen by each States legislature, which was comprised of representatives elected by the people, who indirectly were able to have a say based on how they voted electing representatives for their State government.

The answer to that question is quite simple, 'with taxes' of course. The Federal government would then have to pass a budget for each fiscal year, and both the peoples representatives and the States representatives would have to agree on it, leaving each State legislature to provide the means of taxing their population to acquire the portion of the budget agreed on based on their population as a percentage of the whole. There would be little reason for the Federal government to acquire debt which could not be repaid, and the Federal government spending would be more closely controlled based on the desire and ability of the States to tax their citizens who they would have to more closely represent to retain their position in government. That is how I was taught our government was supposed to work, but of course that was over 60 years ago, when sovereignty was considered to begin with the people, followed by the States, and not something distributed by the party controlling the Federal and State governments.

Today the U.S.A. is governed primarily by those who are seen to provide the most to the voters for the least cost to them. Of course the tax revenues collected are inadequate to buy the votes needed to win an election so it requires debt and issues that are found capable of dividing the population against one another. As long as debts need not be repaid during our lifetime, this will continue.

 

Sam

Infrastructure

As always it more complex but still part of the greater problem

The Federal Highway Trust Fund was meant to pay for such things as feral road and bridges it is supposed to be funded by a gas tax this was meant to be raised so that income would cover outgoings but as part of the general anti-taxation mood fostered by neo-liberal ideas it has not been raised while maintenance cost have risen and Congress has had to raid general tax to shore up the fund.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanal...tax-doesnt-work-because-politicians-broke-it/

*

Also it should be remembered that less than 20% of the nation’s infrastructure is publicly owned. “Conventional wisdom tells you that these systems are the responsibility of the government,” he says, “but in America at least, about 80% to 85% is run or operated by the private sector.” Companies focused on the short term may tend to squeeze profit out of existing systems rather than finance system-wide upgrades. (Seeds of Disaster, Roots of Response, Michel-Kerjan)

 

Monkjr

I think there are problems at the Federal level (as at all the other levels, it’s basically a dysfunctional system) but I don’t think the removal of the 16th and 17th amendments will do much to improve the situation as I’ve said “one is about wanting a tax cut and the other is about removing power from the majority and giving it to a few”

I think the problems you highlight are a result of the influence wealth has over the US political system (at all levels).

I think the emphasis many on the right place on the ‘federal’ level is just a canard, misdirection from the real issue, their argument that weakening federal government through tax cuts and deregulation, don’t seem to stand up when examined.