Recently, I received the following letter.
Dear GOC,
I received an interesting phone call this evening. Fran Millar, I'm sure you've seen the many yard signs in Dunwoody, called me on the phone to solicit my vote. He's a local rep.or senator, whatever, and told me what a wonderful guy he is and why I should vote for him in the Republican primary. Naturally I told him I was planning to be a Democrat for a day and vote against Cynthia McKinney. He understood the sentiment but claims he will represent Dunwoody better than his Republican opponent, primarily because he's from Dunwoody. Further, he said that he impacts my quality of life far more than Cynthia McKinney as he has a large say so on roads, schools, and other local issues. I responded by saying that he was confusing me with facts and that my vote was based on a complete and total hatred for everything Cynthia McKinney stands for. Point well taken he said but she really has little to do with my everyday problems. Anyway, should I vote my conscience(be a Democrat for a day and! vote against Mckinney) or be practical and vote for the guy who impacts my garbage collection, Grady taxes, and road construction issues.
Confused in Dunwoody
Dear Confused in Dunwoody. The simple answer to your question is be a Democrat for a day. I know how hard this will be. I'm actually getting the shakes contemplating voting for a Democrat myself. I mean, it will be as foreign to me as it would for Aaron to say sumpin' nice about a white person. Right now DeKalb County has had to hire a lobbyist at $150,000 a year to represent the county in Washington DC. That's what we pay Cynthia McPiggy to do. But she's too busy supporting African thugs dictators leaders and our Arab enemies friends to worry about us folks back here in her county. I have also noticed an interesting phenomenon. There are Denice Majette (Cynthia's opponent) signs in the same yard as Fran Millar. So ya gotta wonder which way those people are gonna vote.
But isn't crossover voting bad? That's what Gus Cochran thinks. He penned this op-ed in Tuesday's Atlanta Urinal and Constipation. I'm sorry that this is late, but had to take a couple nights off due to dive classes.
Recent reports suggest that some Republicans in the 4th Congressional District may cross over to vote against U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) in the Aug. 20 Democratic primary. I understand why McKinney is anathema to many Republicans and appreciate their frustration after their prior spirited but futile efforts to defeat her with Republican candidates.
At least two Republicans (Confused in Dunwoody and his wife) and one Libertarian (me, the Grouchy Old Cripple) are gonna be votin' for Denise Majette.
But if this crossover strategy works, McKinney won't be the only loser. Nor will 4th District Democrats, robbed of the right to choose their own party standard-bearer, be the sole victims.
Huh? This sounds like a win/win scenario to me. 'Splain it to me.
Crossover voting stabs at the heart of our democratic electoral institutions and wounds the parties that help keep that system ticking.
Actually gerrymandering of the type that has created the 4th Congressional District with 86% Democrats and 14% Republicans stabs at the heart of our democratic electoral institutions. But, I'll let Gus continue.
Political parties are in pretty bad repute.
Smartest thing he's said so far. Both Republicans and Democrats are implementing socialism. It's all a matter of how quickly we want to get there. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
Nowadays many candidates for state and local offices are not mentioning their party affiliation in their campaign literature. Democratic crossovers helped fuel John McCain's energetic challenge to George W. Bush in the Republican presidential primaries in 2000.
Which I don't hear Gus saying is a bad thing.
Our cavalier attitude toward parties, however, is a symptom of a sick electoral system.
And a paucity of good candidates. To my new good buddy Aaron, paucity means shortage. And I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid, only that you don't have much of a vocablulary. Take out all the cusswords and you wouldn't have much to say. As my father once said, 'cursing is the crutch of the conversational cripple'. Next time I comment on your site, I'll say it in words that you'll better understand. I do try to maintain some standards, however low, on my site. That's one reason I don't allow comments. I promise to publish any and all hate mail. I will just delete the more filthy language which seems to make up most of Aaron's writing. But back to Gus.
Poaching in the primaries of the opposing party is unethical.
But I'm just guessin' that it didn't bother Gus too much when all the Democrats crossed over to vote for John McCain
Although we do not register by party, Georgia primaries are in theory
And that's it. Just in theory
closed to members of the opposing party. It is up to party supporters to choose the candidate they believe best represents them. People who dislike their choice can express their displeasure in the general election in November.
Not in the 4th District. 86 to 14 doesn't give the Republicans much of a say.
What really concerns me though are the political ills of crossover voting because the injuries are not inflicted exclusively on the violated party but also on the polity as a whole.
How's that Gus?
By weakening our party system, crossover voting weakens our democratic institutions. It denies choices to all citizens and diminishes popular control of government.
No Gus, what weakens our party system is the virtual one party rule, at the state level, of the Democratic Party here in Georgia. Thanks to computers, the state legislature, controlled by Democrats, and the Governor, a Democrat, were able to draw districts to minimize the Republican Party. And, I realize, in other states, the Republicans have done it to the Democrats. What we need for a strong two party system is a method whereby a bipartisan group draws the districts for equal representation. That's what we need for popular control of government.
Parties have a vital role in a democracy. Without parties to nominate and support candidates, it would be practically impossible to decipher differences among the gaggle of candidates who typically offer for public office. Such incoherent politics would resemble a football game without teams.
Or the system today where the only difference between the parties is how long it will take before we become a socialist welfare state like Europe.
Without party "teams," our politics would also have little continuity. Achieving the cooperation necessary for policy-making across houses of the Legislature and branches of government would be difficult. Voters would have a tough time assessing the credibility of politicians' promises
I don't have any problem assessing the credibility of their promises. If they promise to spend more, they'll keep 'em. If they promise to spend less or cut taxes, they'll break 'em. If their last name is Clinton, don't believe a thing they say. Works every time.
without the continuity of party track records.
That sounds real good in theory Gus but there are three problems:
Lacking clear choices, voters can't impose accountability on their leaders. We can always "kick the bum out," but it's not easy to identify which bum is responsible if our politics lack coherence and continuity.
And our politics do lack coherence and continuity thanks to spin and focus group polling.
Even if we replace individual politicians, how can voters endorse new programs or departures without rival organizations offering meaningful alternatives? Parties should make politics more responsible by giving voters options and linking politicians to the people.
Yeah, it should. Too bad it doesn't.
I'm not too thrilled with our current parties, either.
Me neither. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
But the solution is to reform them
Cut it out! You're killin' me!
or organize new ones,
Good idea. Good luck. The existing parties are too powerful and won't allow it. Name the last successful third party. No, forget about Ross Perot. I mean a successful party.
not to abandon parties altogether.
Now he is right there. And, I'll agree that the two party system is better than what they have in Europe. It's just that the two parties don't stand for much of anything except raiding the treasury to buy votes. And, yes, the Republicans do it too, as evidenced by that atrocity of a farm bill. I'm sick of this romantic bullshit about the family farm. Farming is a business. If y'all can't make money at it, don't come to me to subsidize your failures. Get out of the business and go do sumpin' else to make money. But the Democrats take the cake. Giving money to failed people who drop out of school and have children they can't afford is investing in people. No, you buttheads! It's called subsidizing poverty with my money. Throwing money down that bottomless pit of a failed education system is called investing in education. No it's not. It's throwing money down a bottomless pit of a failed education system. And you're using my money to do it. At least defense spending creates jobs and creates new technology. But the kicker has to be when they talk about letting me keep my own money by not taxing me enough and saying the government can't afford it, that's when I lose it. Listen up! It's not your money! Before you ask for more of my hard earned money (and yes, I consider myself a 'working family'. Wanna have some fun? Ask a Democrat to define how much money a person has to make a year to be one of the evil rich. Don't expect an answer, 'cause you won't get one.), why don't you just try to cut spending? And I mean a real cut. Only a politician would consider limiting the growth of spending in a government program a cut.
In the absence of healthy parties and meaningful party labels, candidates rely more on campaign money, mass media and incumbency to get their names before the public.
Yep. Sounds like what we got today.
Big donors, big media and the big advantages of incumbency offer visibility, but without any accompanying democratic accountability.
Yep. Just like what we got today and McCain Feingold ain't gonna fix it. In fact, it's only gonna make it worse. What a piece of crap. Talk about being out of touch. The only people who wanted campaign finance reform were the politicans and the media. The great unwashed, like us, ya know, the voting public. We didn't care about it, didn't want it and thought it was a waste of time. Howza 'bout doing sumpin' important like catching some terrorists or hiring some competent airport screeners?
Southerners should be especially wary of weakening party politics. The old Solid South was nominally one-party Democratic, but where one party dominates, parties become irrelevant. This "no party" system was a nightmare for all Southerners, white and black.
And that's what we got in Georgia at the state level. The Democrats screwed up ten years ago. They gerrymandered three solidly black congressional districts, and that led to Republicans winning in the other eight districts. So we had three black Democrat representatives and eight white Rebublicans. This time they did a better job. Georgia got another seat this year and the gerrymandering should give that seat to a Democrat. There's also a chance of another seat going Democrat. We'll see in November.
More people than ever feel disconnected from our parties and from our politics.
That's because the only thing politicians really stand for today is getting elected. And they all want to take my money to buy votes to do it.
What is needed is the strong medicine of reform,
Got any ideas? Here's one. Howza 'bout making the politicians actually live up to the oath they take to obey and defend the Constitution? Ya know, that document that says how government is supposed to be run. Howza 'bout for every bill proposed the sponsor of the bill has to cite an article in the Constitution that justifies that bill? That would be some nice medicine of reform. Yeah, lets run the government as the founders visualized. Let's have the great debates of Jefferson and Adams, (Aaron, them be two old white dudes) instead of Lott and Daschle (two clueless white dudes). Let's have the oratory of Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun (two more white dudes for Aaron to bitch about) instead of Gephardt and McKinney (a white dude with no eyebrows and a black chick with no brain). Ahhh, but I'm dreaming of the halcyon days of the early Republic with citizen legislators rather than party hacks. You were saying Gus...
but crossover voting instead simply drives another stake into the heart of the patient.
Die Dracula! Die!
Curse you Van Helsing!
Gus Cochran teaches political science at Agnes Scott College and is the author of "Democracy Heading South: National Politics in the Shadow of Dixie."
Now I understand. Gus is an academic. And at Agnes Scott College no less. Agnes Scott is in Decatur Georgia which is the home of Emory University. As my regular readers know Gus is what? Loyal reader Sherry. Howza 'bout you taking this one?
He's an Emoroid?
That's right, he's an Emoroid. And as we all know, Emoroids are solid Democrats and have voted overwhelming for Cynthia McPiggy, who is now dragging out that tried and true tactic, the race card. Yep. Denise Majette is, in Cynthia McPiggy's own words, a Tomette. Good one Cynthia.
All right, let's discuss what Gus is saying. Crossover bad. That's pretty much it. Didn't have much to support his argument. GOC's opinion. Crossover good. Why? Here's why. In the 4th Congressional District, whoever wins the Democratic primary wins the election. So, if a Republican casts a vote for the Republican candidate it is a wasted vote. Gus' arguments would be more viable if the makeup of the 4th District were 50/50 or even 60/40. In the last election, before redistricting, McPiggy won with around 56% of the vote. With redistricting a whole big bunch of people in Gwinette County, including my friend Richard, the lucky bastard, were moved into the district where either John Lindner or Bob Barr will win the election. But, with an 86/14 matchup, the Republicans are left out. So, the only recourse for a Republican, or in my case, a Libertarian, to have any input into the political process, we will have to vote for the least objectionable Democrat. In this race it's easy. Vote for a candidate who has run a fairly positive campaign and is inclusive, even of white people, or vote for a loony.
So, Confused in Dunwoody, I say once again, crossover. I know it will be hard, but as Wilford Brimley would say, 'It's the right thing to do'.
And maybe if she loses we may hear Cynthia McPiggy say, 'You white racist, Jewish bastards won't have Cynthia McKinney to kick around anymore.
And that would be a good thing
As an after thought, let me explain to my buddy Aaron, that the above was known as a fisk. You take a column written by a clueless person, such as Robert Fisk, hence the name, and you deconstruct it point by point and explain why the person is wrong. The easiest columnist to use this technique on is Molly Ivins. But that is akin to what my real buddy (as opposed to my faux buddy Aaron) Kim Dutoit calls Stand Hunting. As he so aptly puts it, 'It's not hunting, it's slaughter.' Unfortunately, she brings out a real sadistic streak in me and it's all I can do to fisk her no more than once a month. Also, I hope you noticed that I was able to do an entire column without once using the word that starts with f ends with k and has a c and a u in the middle. You oughta try it some time.
That would also be a good thing.
And we'll see it when pigs fly.
Posted by denny at August 16, 2002 03:13 PM