Near the last word from me on liberal islands
One of the few reasons I voted for I-872 this year was a personal vote against "safe seats" in the state legislature and Congress. I don't like safe seats. What they are doing to our government is driving state legislatures and congress to the fringes. Elected officials are abandoning the middle because they don't need to be there anymore to be elected in so called "safe seats."
This is one of the many reasons that the political parties argued so strongly against the Top Two primary. In many districts across the state it would mean two Democrats or two Republicans would face off in the general. That, though, is the fault of the political parties in the first place for making a deal with the devil in the first place and drawing so many safe districts.
I know it is impossible for every district to be competitive, Olympia will likely represented by a Democrat for the rest of my life. But, the majority of districts don't need to be "safe." If in two years there are singular party choices in the general election that is the fault of the parties in the first place.
The United States has a winner take all system, generally. From city hall, to the state house, Congress and the Presidency, only one person can win any given election. And, the President, whoever sits in the White House, is the President of the entire United States, not just Red or Blue states. Brian Baird is the congressman of the entire Washington 3rd congressional district, not just Olympia, Tumwater and Vancouver.
Brian Schweitzer is the governor of the entire state of Montana.
My point is that where ever someone is elected, they tend to represent the values and concerns of their entire constituency. Not all the time I know, but usually the more competitive the congressional district (for example) the more moderate the congressperson will be.
The Stranger makes it sound like by simply flexing the urban muscle and building our base, Democrats can push over the rural areas. We know that is not true, the Stranger even employs some funny math to attempt to prove their point:
- 226 Americans total (thought there was more than that)
- 85 million in "cities" (the muscle)
- 55 million in "the country" (the enemy)
- That still leaves 86 million people in neither cities nor the country. This must be the exburbs I've been hearing all about.
The last thing we should do it start seeing people from outside our district, our city or our state as being "the other." We're stuck together, we're in the same boat, we have shared destiny and some other cliches.
We know the Republicans are wrong. We know they do not represent all of America. They have played the game of limiting the field by throwing the wedges between the people. Doing what the Stranger suggests is literally joining the Republicans on the low road. Even if we can win like that, I don't want to play that game.
While we won't try to be all things to all people, we should at least try to be more to everyone.
Your Personal Note:
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)