2022 Midterm Election MEGATHREAD

[Valmy]

My kids friends (so far as I can tell) despise the GOP, but they don't look at the Democrats as any kind of saviors either.

Well no they are not 'saviors' but frankly that is a pretty high bar for any political party to clear. I will point out that if any young people care at all about global warming the Democrats did pass as great an alternative energy bill we are likely to see for a long time in their oddly titled anti-inflation bill.

The Democrats will be precisely as good as we make them be. I am a little concerned that this time the Democrats surpassed my expectations for what they were able to do with such a tiny minority and it looks like the voters are not going to reward them for it. That is frustrating to me. When the voters elected all these Democrats back in 2018 I am not exactly sure what it is they were expecting them to do.

The politicians are not getting much direction from public opinion on anything, it just seems to erratically swing back and forth between parties. It doesn't even really seem to respond to economic conditions as the economy was doing really well in 2016 and 2018 yet the ruling parties took big loses in both elections.  It really doesn't seem to matter what happens. We just kind of lurch backwards and forwards without much regard for what the politicians actually do. Which is weird and kind of concerning. If there is no incentive to do well by the people then the incentive becomes...something else.

[garbon]

Yes, it is a shame that they don't realise that apathy only perpetuates the cycle.

[Oexmelin]

Restricting political action to only voting every cycle isn't much more than apathy either.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Part of the problem frankly is we give voters too many opportunities to voice their displeasure. I think our country would at least have a reduction in problems (none solved completely, of course) if we only voted every 4 years. I'd be perfectly fine with House and Senate terms both being standardized at 4 years and held in sync with the Presidential election.

The theory was staggering it protected us from a "dangerous faction" controlling the country. But in practice countries that have unified elections seem to have less trouble with that than America does. Sure, it was good in 2018 we were able to vote out the Republican House so we could at least put brakes on Trump's shit to some degree. But the reality is a lot of voters seem to have bad attitudes because of a pervasive perception of "no matter who I vote for nothing gets done." They don't understand the civics and process side of it--that the way we structure our government means you can vote a team in one year, but then 2 years later you enable them to be gutted and make it so they can do nothing. Generally I think it would be a lot healthier if Presidents came into office with four years ahead of them facing the consequences of their election. If voters gave them the House and Senate, that's a sign that the President should push aggressively his policies. If they give him a divided government then it means he needs to figure out how to negotiate that for the next four years.

[Barrister]

Part of the problem frankly is we give voters too many opportunities to voice their displeasure. I think our country would at least have a reduction in problems (none solved completely, of course) if we only voted every 4 years. I'd be perfectly fine with House and Senate terms both being standardized at 4 years and held in sync with the Presidential election.

The theory was staggering it protected us from a "dangerous faction" controlling the country. But in practice countries that have unified elections seem to have less trouble with that than America does. Sure, it was good in 2018 we were able to vote out the Republican House so we could at least put brakes on Trump's shit to some degree. But the reality is a lot of voters seem to have bad attitudes because of a pervasive perception of "no matter who I vote for nothing gets done." They don't understand the civics and process side of it--that the way we structure our government means you can vote a team in one year, but then 2 years later you enable them to be gutted and make it so they can do nothing. Generally I think it would be a lot healthier if Presidents came into office with four years ahead of them facing the consequences of their election. If voters gave them the House and Senate, that's a sign that the President should push aggressively his policies. If they give him a divided government then it means he needs to figure out how to negotiate that for the next four years.

Sounds like you're arguing for a parliamentary system of government...

[garbon]

I'm not sure the UK's model is currently crowning itself in glory. It appears to be allowing a moribund party to hang around longer than it should.

[Sheilbh]

Also a presidential system but maybe yearning to a stable majoritarian legislature is clearly vindicated de Gaulle, not Britain

Edit: Hell, Macron's party just passed their budget without requiring legislative approval which could definitely get rid of the debt ceiling drama.

[garbon]

Restricting political action to only voting every cycle isn't much more than apathy either.

I'm not sure on the extent to which widespread, increase civic participation would be a net positive. Do you have an examples in mind?

[Barrister]

I'm not sure the UK's model is currently crowning itself in glory. It appears to be allowing a moribund party to hang around longer than it should.

I think pretty much every system of government allows for that, US included.

[Zoupa]

Restricting political action to only voting every cycle isn't much more than apathy either.

I'm not sure on the extent to which widespread, increase civic participation would be a net positive. Do you have an examples in mind?

 

Are you seriously questioning the benefits of an increase in civic participation?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean I am skeptical of such increase when it appears most of the people being brought into the system are extremely uneducated and stupid, yes.

[The Brain]

Jan 6 didn't exactly improve things. Election day is fine.

[Valmy]

Restricting political action to only voting every cycle isn't much more than apathy either.

Yes I probably should be attending city council and School board meetings and all that.

But damn. I do have other things to do.

[Sheilbh]

Reminds me of the Wilde line that the trouble with socialism is it takes up too many evenings.

I don't think that's the only sort of engagement or action though - campaign groups or, indeed, party activism might be another way.

[Valmy]

Reminds me of the Wilde line that the trouble with socialism is it takes up too many evenings.

I don't think that's the only sort of engagement or action though - campaign groups or, indeed, party activism might be another way.

No doubt. That is just the kind of engagement I am interested in. The party activism and politicking is more your speed. I want good ideas in government that serve the community, not having big fights over imaginary pedophile rings and secret Antifa cells.

On the other hand imaginary pedophile rings and secret Antifa cells (and leftwing equivalent fear mongering) make great politics and get people to vote and care about stuff. So me going around demanding people stop with bullshit and be reasonable might hurt in political activism.