Obama was RIGHT on "Timmons v. Twin Cities" Works on balance better for Cons vs Libs

[steve0]

After reading about Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party and the issue of "fusion politics" where Obama got his start with the "New Party" I am convinced that this strategy good be a net positive for conservatives. Essentially, the way it works is say Palin runs for Senate as the Republican Party Candidate but also the "Right to Life Party. Then the votes from both parties are added for her total. The potential benefits and risks arise mainly from the fact that this polarizes the electoral process. Your likely to elect less centrist candidates under this strategy. Its an approach more akin to multi-representative or Proportional representation. Of course their are potential risks and negatives.

[steve0]

However, I am up for trying something different in light of the type of Republican Congressional candidates we usually get. I just don't know that we can say that the "two-party" system alone has served conservatives all that well. If we can use Saul Alinsky or any other tactic against the enemy all the better.

[scrabblehack]

Isn’t that the way it usually works? Maybe not in Minnesota.

[swordfishtrombone]

*crickets*

Wow... this opinion deserves more attention. Good catch.

Conservatives could benefit enormously from polarization; the entire Liberal agenda suffers intensely when under scrutiny, whereas Conservatism (in it’s ideological form) shines

[KriegerGeist]

I've become interested in this: www.thirty-thousand.org
"The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.

The total number of congressional districts was increased every ten years from 1790 to 1910 (with a single exception). These increases were a direct result of the growth in total population as was intended by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

I know that it no longer needs to be as low as 50K to 60K per Representative, but 700K? I believe we should push for 1 Representative per 100K to 200K tops. I know that would be a huge increase in House Representatives, but we would be better represented.

Then, return to the state legislatures electing Senators and not the voters. The Senators would not be permanent fixtures in Washington, D.C.

As for popular vote versus electoral college "winner take all" for President is for another subject.

[steve0]

Big time. Our positions are more populist. We need to consider trying something different.

[steve0]

Oh thats much more populist than the status quo. Like it. It would seem to me the “Press” influence on individual representatives would be diminished under a system like this. More responsive to the people. Also more accessible to the common joe, as now it is so expensive to run for office.

[KriegerGeist]

"Also more accessible to the common joe, as now it is so expensive to run for office."

Imagine the states legislatures sending the Senators to D.C. to represent the state business, affairs and the needs of the 'state' as they relate Fedreally to the state and state's rights etc.. I would also advocate the states legislatures inforce term limits of two terms tops per Senator.

On the other hand, the Representatives would be subject to 2 years and then a type of "up for review" by the 100K to 200K tops. Elections of Representatives whose constituents are only that number could be much more 'localized' and thus nowhere near expensvive for the average Joe to give it a shot with his ideas and proposals for those in his neighborhood. In my district (VA 5th) there is the northern Charlottesville (UVA) liberal college area and the central and southern area more suburban and even rural. The 5th could be two or three districts..

Now, how to elect the President? Straight nation-wide popular vote? Electoral college winner-takes-all? Or, electoral college in proportional?

NOTE: Remember there would with the above change, more electoral votes per state with increased Representatives. Instead of "must win" Ohio, Pennsylvania,et. al...

The problem is that "Red" voters in NY & NJ for instance vote for nothing with winner take all. If it's proportional, then they're representated better.