Author Topic: Vote. (Read 635 times)

lukster · « **Reply #15 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:25:16 AM »

The top two in the Texas Governor's race are both Republicans. If Strayhorn wasn't running Perry would probably get twice the votes of second place.

Viking · « **Reply #16 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:50:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
If Kinky manages to win (doubt it) be prepared for a lot of frustration and disappointment. If you think the seated parties in the Texas houses will allow him to accomplish anything, you are in for a big surprise.

Then how do you change the Texas houses?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #17 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:53:39 AM »

In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.

You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.

Viking · « **Reply #18 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:56:09 AM »

But specifically how do you change the houses? Is there a separate vote for the seats, or are they derived from this vote or what?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:57:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.

You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.

The man speaks the truth.

Further, I might add, you can only enact such a BASIC change in the primary races to any real effect. Once you get to the general election, the problem remains that you don't get much of a choice, unless you've been able to make a change at the primary. Otherwise, you choose between operatives of the two machines, AKA the lesser of two evils.

lukster · « **Reply #20 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:58:32 AM »

Each district has their own representative and votes determine who that rep is. Issues in the house are voted on by each rep who are free to vote their conscience. Most usually vote along party lines.

Viking · « **Reply #21 on:** November 07, 2006, 11:59:32 AM »

I see, thanks.

lukster · « **Reply #22 on:** November 07, 2006, 12:01:28 PM »

Too bad the TV series "West Wing" failed. Was a nice safe escape for liberals. Now they're all probably gonna want to vote.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #23 on:** November 07, 2006, 12:29:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
But specifically how do you change the houses? Is there a separate vote for the seats, or are they derived from this vote or what?

Each seat is held by an individual. That individual may be a member of any party, however is likely to be a member of one of the two major parties.

But he is elected on individual votes, and not just a strict party line vote.

Meaning you do not HAVE to vote a straight party line. You CAN, but you don't HAVE to. On problem we have is people DO vote a straight party line.

As posted above I voted for a few of each. It was actually close to equal. For various reasons. But unlike some systems, you do not merely make one choice, either or. There used to be that option in places, but I have not seen a voting machine that you could automaticly vote a party line with one choice or switch in a few years. I know people who still do it.

It'd be nice if someone could post a ballot picture so Viking could see what we're talking about. I can't seem to find one. lack of education on my part I'm sure.

JB88 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 07, 2006, 12:45:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
In order to make any change significant, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. In politics, you cannot start at the top and work your way down. You are just wasting time if you do that.

You can only break the entrenchment of the current parties by booting them at the lower levels first. Then, and only then, will you be able to gather enough momentum to break the stranglehold they have.

especially where concerned with 3rd parties. if ever there is to be a viable one it will have begin on the local level.

ahem (vote libertarian) ahem.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #25 on:** November 07, 2006, 01:45:49 PM »

My apologies Viking. I misunderstood what you were asking.

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 07, 2006, 02:26:04 PM »

I don't understand... Are you guys saying that there is no libertarian candidate for governor of Texas?

I am also baffled that any libertarian would vote for kinky. He is the exact oppossite of anything a libertarian would believe in... unless... smoking pot is the biggest issue. I am sure he could get in tune with that.

lazs

Viking · « **Reply #27 on:** November 07, 2006, 02:31:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
My apologies Viking. I misunderstood what you were asking.

I should have framed my question better, it was very open to interpretation.

culero · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2006, 05:38:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I don't understand... Are you guys saying that there is no libertarian candidate for governor of Texas?

I am also baffled that any libertarian would vote for kinky. He is the exact oppossite of anything a libertarian would believe in... unless... smoking pot is the biggest issue. I am sure he could get in tune with that.

lazs

lazs, yes there is a full ticket from the Libertarian Party, including for governor.

However, I don't believe in mindlessly allowing my prejudices (many of which I share with you) to cause me to vote straight tickets. I look at the candidates as people first, then decide.

In this case, I don't evaluate the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate as having a chance to win. Kinky possibly does, which would put an independent in office. In Texas, much of what government does is done by people the governor appoints. I see this as an opportunity to have some corrupt appointees thrown out. I'm making the choice with eyes wide open as to Kinky's liberal agendas. I'm looking for sunshine, which is certain to be the result of all the scrutiny he will receive if elected.

As to the rest of my vote...

I voted for the incumbent Republican Senator (Kaye Bailey Hutchinson) because I am happy with her.

I voted for the incumbent Democrat congressman because his Republican opponent is a Bible-thumping Christian right-wing fanatic and I wanna help make sure that bastard doesn't get in.

And I voted a straight Libertarian ticket for the 30-odd remaining state offices.

Sometimes practicality is more important than ideology.

culero

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:06:57 AM »

Ok...still not getting it here... If kinky got in (he didn't of course) then that would send what message?

All I can see is that it would send the message that you were unhappy with the level of taxation and socialism and protection of the environment and wanted to be more your-0-peeean with a much larger government.

how is that a good thing?

Sure.. he might throw out some republicans and keep some radical democrats and appoint some commies but.... How is that good?

lazs