Wednesday, November 08, 2006

will americans decide to waste two years?

americans are voting in mid term elections as i write. for those who don't know, all (435 of them) congressmen in house of representatives has to face an election every two years. in addition one third of senators (out of 100 made up of 2 for each state ) are also standing for reelection (math mcq for children if any are reading this: how long is a senators term of office? a) 2 years , b) 5 years, c) 6 years, d) 1.33 years. hint: you can deduce the answer from previous statement if you can understand my bad english :-)) .

there are lot of other elections for state and municipal bodies and governorships. then there direct democracy in the form of "ballot initiatives" that put single issues such as gay marriage to the voters directly in some states.

as american "liberal" media ( that is everybody except fox more or less ) has been spoon speeding anyone who care to listen democrats are "leading" by double digits in the "polls." of course polls and lead does not matter all that much in gerrymandered electoral districts of america for most part. only a score or two of the 435 seats are really capable of changing hands. in america if you get elected in any other seat you can stay put until you retire, die, or media find you in bed with not so proverbial dead girl or live boy. (it is a disgrace for such a democratic country; not the scandals but the gerrymandering).

what is clear is republican party is going to lose some seats, as happened to president's party in all recent elections, when president is in his sixth year of office as george bush is this year. average loss is 30 odd house seats and 6 senate seats. since republicans have only a 30 odd seat majority ( which mean they will lose if they lose 15 seats; do the maths) and 11 seat majority in senate ( loss of 6 seats will mean democrats become the majority there ) there are all indications of a change .

but there is more to it than that. in america unlike in sri lanka (except for some cowards in north who are afraid of pussies) most people generally do not vote in midterm elections (40% is the average turnout). this normally gives an advantage to republicans because they are generally very good at getting their supporters out to vote. will that happen this year?

it would be better if it was so, but as these election markets (congress, senate, house) in university of iowa (as well in similar markets in betting websites) predict, most likely result will be a republican senate and a democratic house (market predicted correctly in the past, better than polls. for instance in '04 presidential elections. though they too panicked on the last few hours (a fact not reflected in the graph, check the data) when the so called exit polls predicted a false outcome and "liberals" rejoiced for few hours. some people who kept cool heads must have made some serious money on that day)

why do i think it is better if republicans win? well you cannot be the world's leading country for long and if americans are wise they should make the most of it to ensure that their ideals of freedom and democracy triumph in the world at large for the sake of their own survival in the long term if nothing else. we are probably at a turning point in history and political gridlock in america (which would be the result for next two years if democrats capture the house) is hardly the best way to lead.

however i am not completely depressed at the possible outcome. generally no government (or its close cousin gridlocked government) is the best government imo, except when it comes to war. and then there is the very likely prospect that democratic party leadership (nancy pelosi and co. who are more left wing that their own party, which most people predict will move right with election of conservative democrats to those swing seats now held by republicans with dire results for party discipline ) will make fools of themselves with empty confrontations with the president and more likely than not since he or his vice president are not standing for reelection he may even prefer confrontation. result: another republican president in '08 preferably john mccain. in addition it is always good to scare those in power for a long time, to get them back on "track.

so even if americans prefer to waste two years, it is not all bad.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOSER

ashanthi said...

Hey there - nope you're wrong the Democrats need to win and the Republicans need to be thrown out on their ear.

Their ventures into Irag & Afghanistan have been disgraceful.

The World, not just the US needs change.

Keshi said...

I agree with Ashanthi. The world needs change and that depends alot on the US elections.

Keshi.

ashanthi said...

looks like the yanks know what they want...

So Donald "they harve whepons of masss destrucktion"- by golly by gosh ... Rumsfiels ... has well had to eat his pie and well swallow it too.

Here's the thing - Donald was named after a duck, he actually also says that "it's complicated" and he's right ....

ddm said...

the States has in the past carried out attacks on foreign countries even under Democratic leadership. there were severe air raids in iraq under clinton as well. the reps tried to finish the job by getting saddam out, which they did, but went about it wrong and cocked up in the process.

Anonymous said...

Why should anyone believe anything you say, since a few month back you were predicting a GOP victory?
STUPID NUT!