<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The only way most people show displeasure with their party line is to not show up at the next election.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not so sure that 'not showing up' is the best way to handle this. <br>Voter apathy and/or disillusionment is -IMHO- one of the most dangerous aspects in any political process. <br>I'm keeping an eye on the midterm elections to see what the voting public thinks about the policies of the present administration.<br>Also, there are many new, fresh faces running for those congressional seats; let's see if there some who have the potential to run in '08!<br><br>[color:red][b] "Get a better VISTA with OS X!"[b]</font color=red>

The primary we just had here in PA was a joke. I went to vote after work, around 6 p. m., and at that point I represented the 47th person to vote. Apathy doesn't even begin to describe it. On the other hand, the anti-incumbent revolt that everyone predicted seems to have been real. The top two senators in the state house were both defeated in their party primary, and overall something like 1 in 6 incumbents were defeated in the primaries. I guess that means that the realtively few people who went out to vote were the angry people. It'll be interesting to see if the trend continues in November.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.

see above:<br>Agreed!<br><br>Look what happened with the Sunni boycott!<br>They stayed home to protest, and screwed themselves right out of power!<br><br><br>

Well from what I've seen of most of the people who care about politics, the majority seem to vote their party line. So if they are displeased with their representative then in a two party system there's generally no way they're going to vote for "the other side". Can you see Matt voting Dem?<br><br>The US system is rigged in most states to only allow the two party system. The hurdles that people need to vault to get on the ballot as an independent generally keeps them from even getting to the start line.<br><br>I'm not sure you can classify it so much as voter apathy. If you're registered for one party and there's no way you'll vote for the other party's guy, then your options are to vote for your guy or not. At least that is how I see most people approach voting.<br><br>But as yoyo points out - the best way to overthrow the incumbant is to attend the primaries. That is where (as a staunch [insert favoured party here] member) you can get your current representative out of the way, and get someone you'd prefer to represent you, whom you would vote for in the main election. And I agree, with him, that since the primaries don't get the coverage that the main elections get, most people don't bother, and thus it's their own damn fault that the only option that they would consider is the one they blame for current situation.<br><br>And generally, Celandine, that is how I see the Dems gaining seats this time out. The stay at home Reps will screw themselves out of power.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

And you can call me what you like. I'm in the rather interesting position of being able to treat US politics as a spectator sport. I cannot vote, but I have watched the arguments flow back and forth between the two parties for the last 3 years now. Those that care are (for the most part) deep in their own party's allegiance. Nobody who participates in the political forums I've seen is going to switch sides (or even close to it).<br><br>I'd be interested to hear the opinions of those closer to the center, but for the most part they're the guys who stay at home and don't care to participate. If someone found the secret as to why this is, you'd get a far more fluid political landscape here in the US.<br><br>What I really don't understand is how a party can have power in congress and the senate and executive branch, and not be able to organise a piss up in a brewery!! You look back at the Thatcher government or the early Blair government - both managed to consolitate their power in the house and got everything they wanted in place without much drama. It was when Thatcher was replaced that the Conservatives began to have problems, and that weakness translated into a Labour win at the following election. I can see that self same thing affecting turn out at the midterms here in the US, the Reps have the seats, but they don't have the wherewithall to get their collective acts together and pass any meaningful legislation - that will be their ultimate downfall. However, the Dems aren't presenting anything better, so I currently don't seem them holding power if they manage to gain it.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It'll be interesting to see if the trend continues in November.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wow!! <br>1 in 6 incumbents went down in defeat in your primaries?<br>That's an interesting development!! <br>I guess those incumbents nationwide better 'shape up or ship out!'.<br>I hope most of them will be shipped out...<br><br><br>[color:red][b] "Get a better VISTA with OS X!"[b]</font color=red>

PA had special circumstances, Mike. Some time earlier this year, our very own elected reps. decided to give themselves a hefty pay raise. Nothing new in that, maybe, except this time they did two things that just rubbed everyone the wrong way. First, the vote was essentially unannounced and finally took place at 2 a. m. Second, the law clearly states that sitting reps can't vote themselves a pay increase--so these wise men and women decided to do an end run around the law by making the raise for the current year (before the new elections, after which the raise would have been legal) accessible through a special expense-account sort of arrangement, so that technically speaking it wouldn't be a pay raise and so the sitting reps could get their extra money without, again technically, breaking the law. Like I said, people got really pissed with incumbents generally.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.

In general reply to Llewellyn's post about party allegiances et al: I have read in a number of places that the structure of the US government and system of elections inherently supports a two party system and indeed gives it more stability than many other countries' governments, which is a good thing I guess. But there is a fine line between stability and stagnancy.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>let's not forget that probably in 4-5 yeras China will suck more oil than we do<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Hence the reason they're looking to heavily invest in that region. :)<br><br>

you can not all believe this ? or all of you teachers/educators? God help us.<br><br>sociald