Why heed those who got so few votes?
I’m always concerned about the way political perspective is portrayed in the so-called “mainstream media.”
For instance, right now, some of the new leaders of Congress are being given equal or greater credence than the president when it comes to running the country and making decisions on behalf of all American citizens. Because of the arcane seniority system within Congress, and the power brokering that goes on, this scenario is not so far-fetched.
It occurred to me to compare the numbers of American voters who actually voted for various individuals and placed them in their current influential political positions. Here are some of the interesting examples I found:
President Bush (2004): 62,040,610
Sen. Harry Reid, Nev. (2004): 490,232
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vt. (2004): 216,972
Sen. Joseph Biden, Del. (2002): 135,253
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Calif. (2006): 110,989
(By way of comparison, Denver Mayor Hickenlooper received 69,526 votes in his 2003 election.)
I understand the way our representative government works, but these results point out a seriously distorted allocation of power that is not necessarily correlated with the popular vote of the people.
Deryl Sabin, Lakewood
Does it bother you at all that both Gore in 2000 & Kerry in 2004 won the popular vote? Or that you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare the results of a presidential vote (all 50 states) to a Congressional vote (1 state)?
Posted by Mary on May 21, 2007 04:42 AMI know it's a shock, but the President, the Senate, and the Congress are elected by different groups of people! You might have heard where the system was devised, the CONSTITUTION???
Deryl, your letter is complete bunk. Based upon the people you specifically mention, you're nothing more than a neocon.
Sheesh, doesn't Sabin understand the differences between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government, that Reid is 1 of 50 Senators and so on?
Posted by on May 21, 2007 07:01 AMBut, would giving him an "F" in political studies really do any good? Or change his mind?
That's presuming, of course, that he ever had a course in political studies - by whatever title - to begin with; something certainly not demonstrated here.
But then again, does anyone really need to study anything, or learn anything, to champion the Right-Wingnuts who presently control the Republican Party?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 08:33 AMYes, Deryl DOES understand the points you're making. I worked for the Fed Government in fiscal positions for 33 years and saw all the branches up close and personal. It is YOU folks that miss the point. These congressional leaders are nothing more than representative figure heads for the bodies they belong to. And yet, individually they are being paid much more credence for national and foreign policy than they deserve. If it wasn't for the seniority system, their power wouldn't be any more significant than they newly elected reps we just sent to Congress. And, Mary, I think you may have been mistaken about the Gore Kerry popular vote count. Kerry's total was in the 59 million range. Where do you get this stuff?
Posted by Deryl on May 21, 2007 08:36 AMMary,
As much as I wish it were not so, Bush won the popular vote in 2004, not Kerry.
Gore did win the popular vote in 2000.
Excellent letter, Mr. Sabin.
Posted by John II on May 21, 2007 10:50 AMAh, Mary, here are the results of the 2006 poplular vote
Bush 62,040,606
Kerry 59,028,109
Nader 411,304
I'm not sure where you got the idea John Kerry won the popular vote. He didn't.
Posted by Jim on May 21, 2007 11:13 AMAh! Now I get it. Although Congress is clearly stated - in the Constitution - as the place from which any and all "revenue" measures originate, it is really the bureaucrats appointed by the Executive who are - or are supposed to be - "important". Along with the Executive who makes the bureaucratic appointments, of course.
Now the writer seems to forget that there is one little flaw in his presentation. Namely and to wit, the "people" DO NOT directly elect the President, as they DO directly elect their Congressional representatives. So, the "popular vote" idea is flawed, right from the beginning.
Actually, and in fact, the Electoral College is there in between. And the real vote count there is very significantly different from any of the figures cited for votes for Presidential Candidates. And, while one may actually lose the popular vote in the nation as a whole, one may still win in the Electoral College, and become President; and vice versa.
Citing immediately past figures, and/or contests, merely begs the question; and obscures the issue.
On the other hand, the Congressional representation is that which actually gets the majority of the popular vote in the State - for the Senate - or the District, for the House of Representatives.
Of course, John II having given the writer his accolade, it is possible for his followers to simply ignore anything written here; as they have indicated they do already.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 11:58 AMOld grouch,
You keep aiming, but miss the target. The original intent of the writer was the balance of power and credence given by the media. The congress acts as a body, not individually. Only the Executive Branch acts individually. Whether you refer to the speaker of the house or the Senate Majority Leader, they do not and should not have greater significance than any other member of congress. The writer is referring to how the balance of power is prescribed in the constitution, yet the media appears to perceive the balance differently. While I am not a fan of either political party or most elected officials at this time, I have to agree that the national media is once again showing their ignorance of the Constitution.
Disregarding the personal insults and tangential emotional rants that are completely irrelevant, I’d like to try one last time to make and defend my basic point. Up until my opinion statement, I will cite facts, which I believe are irrefutable. By way of background, I want to first provide a basic primer on how two of the three branches of the Federal Government work. (I’m sorry to burden you, but some of the previous posters insisted I don’t know anything about it. They are wrong.)
In 2004, more than 62 million American voters (and the electoral college!) elected George Bush the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. He is responsible for conducting wars and managing the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. He alone is responsible for the USA’s domestic and foreign policy.
By contrast, Congress, consisting of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives is responsible for sending appropriation bills and other legislation to the President for approval. The Senate is also responsible for approving high levels of appointments in both the Executive and Judicial Branches, as recommended by the President. Congress is also responsible for conducting oversight hearings on the operations of the Executive Branch. These hearings have no jurisdiction, except to the extent they can affect proposed appropriations, legislation, and appointments. Congress does not have any responsibility or authority relating to the day-to-day conduct of wars or management of the Executive Branch.
Harry Reid, who was last elected to the Senate in 2004 by about 400,000 Nevada voters, is only one of 100 Senators. He was selected by the Democratic Senate membership to be Majority Leader. Nancy Pelosi, who was last elected in 2006 by about 100,000 San Francisco voters, is only one of 435 Representatives. She was selected by the Democratic House membership to be Speaker of the House. In spite of the positions these two individuals hold, they still only have one vote each in their respective congressional bodies. They are figureheads! They do not represent the American voters or the country as a whole. While their selection process may be based upon constitutional authority, the seniority system and power brokering that typically governs these internal congressional selections are based upon arcane Senate and House rules that are not specified by the Constitution. That’s why long term Senators from small states and long term Representatives from atypical districts can acquire an inordinate amount of power and influence.
Here comes the opinion part. Neither Senator Reid nor Representative Pelosi have any significant relevance when it comes to the operations of the Executive Branch. But, I believe the “mainstream media”, consistently and on a daily basis, gives them equal or greater credence than the President, as if to say they are a valid source of alternatives to his opinions and decisions. I’ve heard the term “shadow president” with regard to Pelosi. She gets hyped media coverage for her “fact finding” trip to the Middle East, as if she were a legitimate emissary. I’m just saying there are a lot of ignorant and gullible citizens out there who need a more accurate perspective on who these people really are, as well as who is actually in charge and responsible. And I think the internal workings of congress need to be changed to eliminate the abuse of power that exists
Excellent letter, Mr. Sabin.
Posted by John II on May 21, 2007
Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by Forrest on May 21, 2007 12:49 PMWhy should the media give equal credence to a stuttering, idiotic, incompetent, cowardy president?
Besides, if this article is about "liburls gettin' more press time", I see more articles about bush than I see articles about the leaders of the house and senate.
By the way, how big is the pretzeldent's constituency? About 300,000,000.
Now, how big is Harry Reid's constituency? About 2,500,000.
Uhhh, so doesnt it make sense then, that the president would get more votes?
I can't believe I'm even wasting time on a letter this stupid.
Posted by Tbone on May 21, 2007 02:30 PMDeryl,
I'm sorry I missed your letter a decade back decrying the shadow government of Newt Gingrich, who certainly received more attention and weight than Pelosi ever has. You DID write, didn't you?
Posted by FYK on May 21, 2007 02:45 PMWhile the "official" results of the 2004 presidential elections show criminal in chief Bush with a 3 million vote victory the exit polls show with statistical certainty that Kerry won the popular vote. The "official" results in Florida and Ohio were each divergent from the exit polls predicted results making the "official" vote count reliability in either state approaching 1,000,000 to one against (statisitcal analysis performed by neutral uinversity statisticians - you can look it up). One would be wise to always question the "official" story.
Posted by J on May 21, 2007 03:26 PMWhy heed a president with a 29% approval rating?
Why have a republican form of government?
If this were a European parliamentary system, the Shrub would be long gone.
We have the government established in our constitution.
Don't like the elected majority representatives in each house? Too bad.
If your party had done a better job at governance, you'd never have to hear Pelosi or Reid.
Posted by [Yo Mamma] Republicans are hypocrites on May 21, 2007 03:50 PMWe begin with voting numbers, and then all of a sudden it becomes a matter of . . . "importance by comparison". With, of course, objections to the fact that certain particular people are not of the current Executive's Political Party. And, not being of that Party, their actions are of lesser "importance".
Excellent spin job. And, indeed, it serves to illustrate quite well that you do know how government "works". When the Executive is Republican and the Congress is Democratic anyway; and from the Republican point of view, from which the spin is applied.
Newt Gingrich, and . . . President Clinton, if memory serves. Any thoughts there?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 21, 2007 04:01 PM...there are a lot of ignorant and gullible citizens out there who need a more accurate perspective...
Can't argue with that.
The media doesn't exist to provide some imaginary balance of coverage based upon numerical calculation based on popular votes...where does that hare-brained idea come from?
The media exist to sell advertising, and it sells ads when it attracts viewers, and attracts viewers by covering "man-bites-dog" stories that feature something out of the ordinary.
In the U.S. we have 6 years or so of a compliant, rubber-stamp Congress, enabling a self-described, 'unitary Executive' President Bush. Old news...ho-hum, boring.
Now we have a Congress, with leadership in the Senate and House who are opposing the President on several fronts....sending him a bill he vetoes! That's new, that's different from what we've had for several years. And yes, that generates interest...happy and sad reactions among readers. Lo and behold, people get fired up and actually visit a backwater blog on asecond-tier newspaper's website, see more advertisements than before, RMN ad revenue goes up, etc. No need to complicate things or play the victim...
Posted by on May 21, 2007 04:32 PM"While the "official" results of the 2004 presidential elections show criminal in chief Bush with a 3 million vote victory the exit polls show with statistical certainty that Kerry won the popular vote. "- J
Yes, let's start electing presidents with exit polls. I'm sure you get thorough and accurate information there.
"The co-director of NEP, Warren Mitofsky, said he suspected that the difference arose because 'the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters.'"
Posted by Mike on May 21, 2007 04:58 PMDid you read the post Mike. A MILLION to one. Why should the citizens of the Ukraine have bogus elections overturned based on exit polling data (an action supported by the current criminal adminstration) but we're all suuposed to swallow a million to one lie?
Posted by J on May 21, 2007 05:02 PMBelieve whatever you want to, J.
Were the respondents truthful?
Were Kerry voters more likely to participate?
What about the margin of error in the polls?
What about rounding and tallying errors?
What about early and mail-in voting?
Don't believe all the left-wing conspiracy theories.
Posted by Mike on May 21, 2007 08:55 PMI find it quite refreshing to see opposing viewpoints and learn more about issues that our country is facing.
We already have many, many conservative media personalities -- Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity -- not to mention 24-hour conservative network news on Fox.
Meanwhile, Air America is out of business -- and there are NO popular liberal voices in the media these days (unless you count Katie Couric and Howard Stern -- who don't exactly generate huge ratings these days).
How can it hurt to hear from the other side once in awhile? Competition is good for everyone. It's what America is all about. Trust me, most Americans are smart enough to weed out the BS from the facts.
We need to stop being so damn partisan, allow everyone to have their say, and elect the best people for the job next election -- both Republican and Democrat.
Posted by Republican Dude on May 21, 2007 10:05 PMAnd of course, don't believe all the right-wing propaganda either.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 22, 2007 01:13 PM"right-wing propaganda either."
Grouch- I thought you didn't like labels.
Posted by Mike on May 22, 2007 02:24 PM