Voter's Voice

Here's a sample of recent e-mail to AllPolitics on partisanship in Congress, Sen. Dole's chances and media coverage of the '96 campaign. We'd like to hear from you, too. Send your observations to editors@AllPolitics.com

GOP Congress Not Omniscient

Your article of May 2 ("Perot Has Few Kind Words For The GOP") seems to agree with Ross Perot that the Republican Congress could simply send term limits, campaign finance reform, and a balanced budget to the president with a simple majority in both houses.

I am no booster of Republicans, but this is just hogwash. The term limits bill that died in the House was an amendment to the Constitution requiring two-thirds, or 290, of the Congressmen's votes. There are only 236 Republicans in the House (fewer at the time of the vote).

A balanced budget amendment similarly failed in the Senate with only 66 votes out of 100 cast. However, Republicans did send a balanced budget to the president which was vetoed.

Even normal bills are subject to supermajorities in the Senate, where 41 Senators can filibuster and kill a bill. The Republicans have only 53 Senators, seven short of a filibuster-proof majority.

Of course, as responsible and informed journalists you know all this and so do your writers. That is why it amazes me to see you agreeing with Perot when he thoughtlessly shoots his mouth off in this manner without any factual support. Perhaps next time you will call him on his errors instead of confusing your readership with tacit agreement.

-- Darren Greway, Holland, Penn.

Pitiful Pundits

It never ceases to amaze me how wrong someone who is supposed to be have hand on the pulse of American politics can be. I remember Bill Schneider's pronouncements that Dole was in big trouble. Anyone who knows anything about Republican politics should have known that Senator Dole was the inevitable nominee.

Recently on CNN, Schneider discounted Dole's chances of beating the president. Again he is missing the mark. I have never called a presidential election wrong. Here is why Dole will win! Swing voters cast their ballots for one of three reasons:

They love a candidate. (Reagan '84, Ike '52 and '56)
They are scared of a candidate. (Goldwater '64, McGovern '72, Dukakis '88)
They disdain (this is a strong word but the best I can do) the incumbent. (Ford '76, Carter '80, Bush '92)...

In 1996, there is clearly no one to love. Clinton will try to make swing voters afraid of the extremist Republicans, but with steady, reliable, dull Dole, this argument will not hold water. Finally, after the Republicans emphasize Clinton's "do nothing" presidency, the swing voters will hold their noses and vote for Dole. The battle will be fear vs. disdain. Disdain wins 60-40...Dole will win the election 52-48. If Perot runs, he still win. The result will be something like Dole 44, Clinton 42, Perot 14.

-- David Adams, Monterey, Calif.

Stop The Partisanship

Most reports on budget battles in Congress, the passing of bills and what not are almost always reported as "The Republicans win a major battle over the Democrats on this issue", or "The Democrats score big on the new budget", or whatever.

Who really cares which side wins what battle? Aren't our representives sent to Washington to better America as a whole? It doesn't matter if the new budget passed is good for the Democratic party, or makes the Republicans look strong.

How does it help America?

This should be the only question asked when reporting new bills, new budgets or any political issue. Is the new bill beneficial to the majority of Americans, will the new budget make America stronger in the long run, or is it a short term spending plan?

Partisan battles should not be given the majority of the coverage, because America as a whole gets lost in it, and forgotten about.

We should focus our attention not on who wins what battle, but does America win every battle.

-- Marcus Kazmierczak, Sacramento, Calif.

Weighted Voting

I think it would be interesting to extend our one-person-one-vote system to either plus one or minus one vote per person, in that a citizen can either vote a +1 for the candidate he supports or, in the case where he doesn't support anyone, can vote -1 for the candidate he strongly dislikes.

A few consequences I can think of as a result of this:

negative campaigns will be difficult to run,
from the votes we can have a better understanding of how people feel about the candidates,
suppose a lesser of two evils wins, he/she would not be able to claim a mandate,
a good but less known candidate will have a better chance of winning.

-- Steve Wang, Department of Physics, State University of New York, Stony Brook

More Voter's Voice

Strategy For Dole -- May 3, 1996 New Hampshire Voters -- Feb. 20, 1996

AllPolitics home page