Divided government may be a good thing in some ways - but when it leads to the current state of denying nominees for federal judgeships a full vote on the Senate floor, that is not a good thing. Every candidate is tossed out by the committee on a 10-9 party line vote. Pat Leahy and People for The American Way (what a misnomer that is) are basically running the process. Confirming Republican judges is one thing that may actually slow down the problem you mention, legislating via the courts.

I agree with Jeff,and the judge votes are just one piece of the puzzle. Good government does not necessarily come from divided government. A party in power, governed by true and good principles will further the benefit of the peolpe better than gridlock(which at time is good too) or worse a party in power only interested in its own power.

Eric your statement is both true and useless from a practical perspective:

"A party in power, governed by true and good principles will further the benefit of the peolpe better than gridlock"

I agree with that 100%. Unfortunately, it is impossible, and that is exactly why our government is designed the way it is. To keep one party of people only interested in their own power constantly fighting with another only interested in their own power.

I'm concerned that our election system is in peril, as VP notes. Candidates hopping in and out, lawsuits the week before the election, lawyers sent to every hill and hamlet to prove von Clausewitz's theorem. Add to that aging voting systems, and frequent charges of voting unfairness or inaccuracies that are never resolved, and we've got a real mess on our hands.

At least one Senate race won't be over on Tuesday night, and if the balance in the Senate depends on it, get ready for real ugliness. That "my side" might prevail isn't good enough...we risk trashing the entire system for short-term gain.

This will sound like a rabid Republican, but that’s what I am. I have great confidence that the Democratic Party has been quietly orchestrating this whole thing for decades. The have formed alliances with the NEA to teach our children Democratic Party Dogma in the public schools, they appointed judges who would decide elections in their favor, the corrupted the media who will tell the masses what they want them to think, and they courted the trial lawyers to do all the dirty work.

The only antidote to all this is an educated electorate that can filter out the lies and vote accordingly. Wake up and realize everything is political. You cannot afford to watch these games from the sidelines because they really do affect your daily life. Whether, it’s getting a promotion at work, or getting a pet project approved by your city council, the skills involved are the same.

Whoa, I feel better.

Divided government is fine with me as well.

As for the Trial Lawyers becoming a fourth branch of government, the truth is worse. The Trial Lawyers control the democrat party, and are making significant inroads into the judiciary. In other words they are dividing the congress and judiciary, and have a lot of moles inside the executive bureaucracy.

If democrats control congress and the executive after the 2004 election, they will control the judiciary in an iron fist, soon after. Which means the Trial Lawyers will finally have all the control they ever wanted.

"Democracy is messy, inconclusive, and nobody ever really wins in the end. And it was designed that way on purpose."

You're right on the money Stephen. This is why I have a hard time supressing the urge to smack anyone who tells me they want to "fix government." There was a certain beauty to having a government that spent so much time chasing its own tail, it didn't have time to intrude into everyday lives.

Divided government is fine, but both parties have to at least work towards the same goal. A "difference of opinion" is one thing but what we have here now is one party who is not interested in the success of the american system, they are working to see that it fails.

To see to it that their party has power, they are willing to weaken the country, subvert the foundations of law and scuttle the economy. There is a thing called the "loyal opposition", I just dont think that the party leaders of the democrats fall into that category.

I once heard a man give a speech, a man who once was a CEO and who had been appointed as a cabinet offical,and he described what the difference was between the business world and Washington, he said " in the business world , the board may hate you, but they still want you to succeed".

Stephen wrote:

"Before long, elections will be totally discredited -- and thus leads the way to dictatorship."

I have a question for you people:

"What if they gave an election, and nobody came?"

Stephen has (inadvertantly, I think) hit on something that I've known for a long time. The actual premise in what he's talking about is that, by this charade of democracy (the "charade" lies in the explicit lie every time you hear the word, "freedom"), these people rule us with our explicit sanction, which is expressed every time we go to the polls.

Has it ever occurred to you notice that, for all their vicious scratching and biting at each other, the one thing that they agree on is that we should "get involved in the process"?

There is a reason for that. It's because they know that, without us, they are essentially powerless.

Now, I am well aware that there are huge implications in what I'm talking about. But the thing that I want to point out is that the implications point to freedom. And I maintain that that's far more important than the problem of facing what I'm talking about.

"All voting is a sort of gaming, with a moral tinge to it."

Go read Thoreau again.

The principal thing to bear in mind is that casting a vote necessarily involves submitting your rights to mob approval. After all is said and done, that is the bottom line: the winners go to work in the government with the premise that they can manage your lives, and I say that you've handed that premise to them on a silver platter, whether your party wins or not. (Are you people of honor? Do you go back on your word? Well, if you don't, then you are honor-bound to abide by the decision if your party loses. You're the one who placed the bet.)

Try the thing this way:

If the matter of whether to, say, put Jews to the sword came up for referendum, would you cast a ballot?

I wouldn't. That's because the matter of rights is not open to question, and only a fool would put it to the chance of a ballot.

Now, you may call me "extremist", but I'm actually pointing out the principle (that's what an "extremist" does) of rights, and how it's compromised in bits & pieces with every election.

I would point out to "dever" (immediately above) that this government does "intrude into everyday lives", right now. It really does no good at all to attempt whistling past that particular graveyard.

Back to Stephen's original remark: if it came to pass that nobody voted, then these people would have to step out into the broad light of day and attempt to rule by naked force.

At least, then, the issue would be unmistakably clear.

The Dems' lawyers?

Had GWB graciously admitted defeat rather than having Jeb count the votes (or not count the votes), there would have been no reason for Gore's suit.

Anyway, why is it the Republicans always want to limit the choice or value of a vote? The did it in 2000 in Florida trying to block recounts.

They sued in NJ trying to not let the Dems replace Torricelli.

The tried to block Minnesota sending out new absentee ballots so that the Wellstone votes already cast would be discounted, rather than give the voters a chance to make a meaningful vote.

Even though the 50/50 theory seems to be right, the GOP has a very anti-democracy stance embodied by Johnny Ashcroft and so well executed by the Bush regime.

Don't blame the Dems lawyers. They have to act to stop the Republicnas from suppressing the vote.

Every "example" that Patterson lists was an example of the GOP suing to actually enforce the statutory law and the Dem's suing to overturn the rules. In each and every case, the Dems wanted to be able to change the rules at the last minute or after the last minute to rewrite the contest to their own advantage. Patterson's examples serve to contradict his point and only reinforce the point about election integrity being undermined.

Now in so many states, we see the Democrats involved in fraudulent voter registrations. The Democrats move on and on.

Sorry Robin, but your facts are, in fact, untruths.

Explain to me, especially in NJ, how the evil Democrats subverted the law when the decision to let Torricelli be replaced passed UNANIMOUSLY, despite there being some verrrrrrrrrry conservative GOP judges?

Hmmmm?

You can try to defined the criminals in the GOP, but you'll never win.

Both parties are corrupt. I am all for a true multi-party system. The difference as I see it is that GOP attacks the law and elections in a criminal fashion. The Dems lie about sex and vice issues.

I'll take vice for $50, Alex.

Here we see Democrats ( including janet reno ) trying to stop the GOP from exercising existing rights under Florida law to monitor precincts. What shenanigans are the Democrats trying to hide?

New Jersey law stated that the ballot couldn't be changed after the deadline. Democrats sued to change the ballot anyway. Those are facts.

Tyler, it's fine and dandy to make a strong case here, even one I don't agree with. Hell, I live for that.

I don't even insist you use a real email address. While I like to be able to reply to people here privately, I've never banned someone for using a fake email.

Privacy concerns, and all that.

But using the email address of the person you're conversing with?

Bad play.

NJ Supreme Court overruled the standing state law re: ballot switcheroo.

Minn. Dems wanted people who had already sent in absentee ballots to be able to vote by phone or e-mail, in violation of current state law. Indeed, the Minn GOP agreed to sending out new absentee ballot forms, although the current state law doesn't require it.

And finally, Gore's task in Florida was to count votes in violation of the current law at the time...the Fla SC's agreed with him, and of course we all know how that turned out.

So this fog about Dems only wanting to protect their legal rights is hooey...they have consistently sought to expand beyond the law...we can have that discussion, of course, but attempting to do so within weeks of the election sure looks opportunistic.

*shrug* You took the fish right off my line, Stephen. 8-)

We have a civil war every two years. As civil wars go, they are more civil than most but, it's still war.

I am a voter with libertarian ideals. There are a lot of us who don’t think we should have to give up our viewpoints of a woman’s right to choose and the right to bear arms. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can represent us completely. Still, each election day, in order to make my vote count, I find myself in the position of having to choose between one or the other. The horrid mudslinging and over the top personal attacks paid for the Colorado Democratic Party have not only swayed me away but have made me embarrassed to have ever voted for a Colorado Democrat. The ads are worse than the California “Monkey Wrench” campaign, where the mere use of the phrase (which had nothing to do with the ballot measure) was enough to keep the uninformed from reading the measure, much less voting for it.

I hope the voters of Colorado listen to the facts and always disregard any “paid-for political” statement where the accusations are too awful to be true. It says more about the advertising party than it does about anything else.

Ugh, let's at least leave Florida out of this, otherwise you have to go back to the 15,000 felons that the secretary of state and Jeb Bush incorrectly signed off as inelligible to vote (only some of them were not), and the voting machine programming 'irregularities' between different income-class neighborhoods. Let the bad dream end already.

This system was never designed to deal with narrow margins of error, and if Anthony Downs' Median Voter Theorem is coming true, we could be in for a long stretch of very rough elections.

The latest Field Poll says 25% of California voters remain undecided on their choice for governor, even at this late date. That's quite remarkable but understandable, given our choice in candidates.

It suggests a boon for third-party candidates, even if we don't know who the hell they are. Maybe a good showing by some pig in a poke will wake the two party system up here, telling them the nominating processes need some work.

Or not.

As despicable as some campaigns in Colorado for office are, such as Feeley's ads or Stricklands', the real disgusting campaign is the people against Amendment 31. They have been running the most dishonest ads - outright lies. And they have been calling proponents of Amendment 31 every name including white supremacists. Now, since Dick Lamm has been doing pro Amendment 31 ads, they are running an ad that says nothing about Amendment 31, it just lists every nasty thing they can think of about Dick Lamm. I'm not a Dick Lamm fan, I think he's a flake, but these ads are way way beyond the pale. I wish there was a way to hunt these people down after the election.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, if you can't vote for someone, you can at least vote against someone.

Unfortunately, I find myself in the unenviable position, here in CA, of wanting to vote against both candidates!

Musing suggestion to get people to the polls... stop making it so friggin' easy.

Add to the list of judicial extensions a Dem. judge in St. Louis that extended voting hours in the last election.

Overall, the Dems are far more eager to go to court than Republicans.

There are a number of facets to the the US system I don't understand, such as why your system is so patently designed to make it easy for people to commit vote fraud, but that's for another day.

"Mordant wit and stylish cynicism."

For site that posts such a quote, I would expect some more tolerance of the Patterson guy. Clearly, he didn't "Steal" Robin's e-mail. He made a joke. I don't think you'll Robin at that address.

Get a sense of humor and a tolerance of those who can see through the GOP!

Lurker

Actually a site with such a quote would be expected by me to not find either your behavior or your clone's behavior amusing.

wow, i so got into the email rigamarole, totally forgot what this thread was about.

oh yeah. democracy. it sucks. but it's better than anything else available.

i too, predict massive tantrums, sorry, i mean, lawsuits, after tuesday.

i also predict massive whining from the news media because they can't call the winners right away, as if the news media's ability to have a nice, tidy story with a through line, character arc and moral was their birth right. if they want clean, tidy stories, let them become producers on sit coms. no, aaron brown is not funnier than ray romano

As I blogged here, I think that the Democrats heavy use of lawyers is a clear sign of thier decline as a party.

wow i love trolls like tp.... so helpful to us all

as far as judicial appointments go... repubs need a majrity, cause they currently have to nominate dems to get votes (take out holdovers that bush appointed as pleasantries and his confirmation record drops much below clinton)

and even when appointees do get confirmed, they sometimes don't get seated without lawsuits (mary frances berry anyone??)

the thing is that social and econ liberty are both important. we have social liberty (except for gay marriage) but we don't have econ liberty... vote repub we'll get more econ liberty and we can fight the bastards to keep our social liberty... with dems we know they'll just take more money, worsen the economic ability of the country, and probably lower our social liberty as well (by way of pc and extreme consent for sex...)