Ciao!

This story goes a long way towards showing how screwed up the electoral system is in this country. The superpower preaching democracy to the rest of the world has severe problems in its own house. The US can't properly count votes; can't figure out how to redistrict without gerrymandering; can't figure out how to take money out of politics; has no free airtime for public campaigns (despite the public owning the broadcast spectrum); uses the electoral college, an anachronistic crowd control device, to ensure a warped sense of stability; and has one of the more embarrassing voter turnout levels. Having the US build democracy in Iraq is like having a drunk lecture you on the benefits of sobriety. It's pretty sad to watch.

I'd say more that having the US lecture Iraq on democracy is like a recovering alcoholic lecturing on the benefits of sobriety. The recovering alcoholic has "been there, done that" and can give good advice. Besides, instability and minor problems are better than, say, N Korean stability any day.

But, yeah, our electoral system is pretty archaic. I think it was Barrington More that pointed out that it was an old 18th century model. But ... it works fairly well. And both sides are apt to use petty politics. This time it turns out the Democrats are on top in that category. Way on top.

A similar tactic was used by Texas Dems in 1979. This was taken from Boston.com, but was also featured in USA Today:

Some are calling the 59 legislators ''The Killer 'D's','' after ''The Killer Bees,'' a group of Democratic senators who used the same tactic in 1979. They were trying to kill legislation they thought was written to benefit former Texas Governor John Connally in his presidential bid.

''The Killer Bees'' managed to avoid arrest by hiding out for five days in an Austin garage.

Yes, it is a pretty funny tactic. People in Texas now watch "America's Most Wanted" to cover their elected reps. Despite how humorous it is, both parties are trying to change the legislative rules. For instance, Senate Republicans are trying to change the Senate rules to make it harder for filibusters. Current proposals include Sen. Tom Harkins's idea to lower the number of senators needed to break a filibuster from 60 to 57 until finally a filibuster can be beaten with a simple majority. While I understand the frustration of anyone trying to do anything in Congress these days, isn't American politics all about compromise? Changing the rules of the game to win the game is not the way to play politics--at least not honest politics.

Well, changing the rules of the game is a constant process. And the democratic rules give procedures for HOW to change the rules of the game. I personally think filibusters are ridiculous. They're just a minority veto: you can't win a vote on a bill, so you prevent a vote from being taken. It means that a small minority faction (Dem or Rep) can prevent legislation if it merely prevents a vote from taking place. How democratic is THAT?!

Bottom line: the behavior of the Texas Dems is childish, anti-democratic, and ultimately counter-productively irrational. Then again, if the party that perfected corrupt machine politics wants to write itself into oblivion, then who am I to stand in its way?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, let's get ready to ruuuuummmmbbllleee!! In this corner, weighing in at 200 plus years, the party of the perfect political machine--the Democrats. And in this corner, weighing in at just under 150 years, the party so disconnected from its roots that no one knows why they still have the same name--the Republicans. This will be a 15 round fight, with both parties having to fight either the Greens or the Libertarians as well as each other in the final free-for-all round. And regardless of the outcome of the fight, the winner will be decided by our judges for the evening: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, O'Connor, and Stevens. Enjoy the show!

Well, you've got most of it right. But I'm not so sure either party is away from it's "base" as much as all that. On the one hand, none of our parties do have a real "base" the way, say, a PR electoral system would allow for.

But I think Dems and Reps are still (for the most part) consistent. Dems are populists (Jefferson-Jackson) and represent a variety of interests that tend to prefer wealth/resource redistribution. Reps tend to prefer limited govt, federalism, and personal liberties over social utilitarian "goods" much of the time.

And while I'm not clearly a Republican, I think they've been more consistent to their values/promises than Dems have. If you look at the record, Dems haven't always been the best at civil rights. And when they finally jumped on that band wagon, they did it more to secure votes than under ideological/rational principles. Johnson's (and it was Johnson, NOT Kennedy) civil rights act was passed by overwhelming Rep support over Dem opposition.

But recent civil rights bills/proposals tend to go beyond the individual freedoms protections most Reps want ... so they scaled back their support. Dems, on the other hand, support them because it wins votes in many areas. Even if the building of housing projects destroyed the black urban middle class, even if social "entitlements" mean increased taxes and risk financial strains on the economy, and even support for many affirmative action projects tend to pit minorities against minorities in a race to prove who'se the greatest "victim".

Anyhow ... that's my two cents' worth. So this immigrant, Latino male very much does NOT trust Dems. I may not like Reps much either much of the time -- though they do an amazing job at foreign policy compared to, say, Clinton or Carter -- but at least I know they'll do what they say. There are few surprises w/ Reps. You pretty much get what you see. Dems creep me out; like they'd sell their soul to the devil if it'll get them elected.