The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Out Back Question of the Week

The question goes back to the Election of State Senator Scott Brown to replace the TSW down in DC.

There was some whining in The Boston Globe about people "not feeling represented" any more, what with a Republican having been elected.  For example, we have the letter last Friday from Mr Mark Bridger, of Newton.  He says: "Although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn't seem to represent."

Now there is a new problem—a large chunk of Bay Staters feeling they are not represented down in DC.  Mr Bridger; try being a Republican with all twelve members of the delegation being registered Democrats.

The question is, should we fix Mr Bridger's problem, by bringing proportional representation to our delegation in the US House of Representatives?

The way it would work is that we would run the race state wide. Each party would put forward a slate of up to ten candidates. Then, we, the People, would vote for slate. The votes would then be counted by party. If the Democrats won 60% of the votes, they would get six seats and the top six people on their slate would be sent to Washington.  If the Republicans won 30% of the vote, the top three people on their slate would head down to DC.  The Libertarians (or Greens, or Peace and Freedom Party, or whoever wins at least 5% plus 1 vote would get to send their top person to DC.

How would we decide the ranking in the slates?  We could do it by party convention or we could ask the voters to rack and stack them during the election itself.

Regarding the US Senate, frankly I don't see this scheme working.

But, back to Mr Bridger, do we meet the complaint or do we tell him to just go away?

Regards  —  Cliff


Craig H said...

WHOA... Back up that bus, Mr. Krieger.

5 of 'em would be UNENROLLED.

3 would be D's, 1 would be R, and we could flip a coin on the last one.

C R Krieger said...

Not exactly.

50% of the voters are unenrolled, but come election day they get to vote as they wish.  Enrolling and voting are different.

If no "unenrolled" stand for office, as part of some "unenrolled" slate, then who do the voters vote for?  Those who ran for office.  I can see an "unenrolled" slate, but it has to be populated.

Will you be putting your name forward?

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

I consider myself a well-earned unelectable...

Just wanted to point out the continuing party political hubris that presumes unenrolled voters just vote party. Doesn't matter how many times we kick the status quo to the curb, all the party pundits immediately resume their party calculations as if that huge white 50% elephant in the middle of the electorate doesn't exist.

The time is coming when unenrolled independent candidates start to claim their political turf. Maybe it'll be Tim Cahill this time around, or maybe it'll be someone else. But sooner or later (I'm hoping sooner) the party presumption of power will get busted, and, observing this amazing deficit the party pols have created, it can't happen a moment too soon.

Jack Mitchell said...

I don't like the idea of Sen. Brown, but I can live with it. We had a decent turnout and the people spoke. C'est la vie.

What doesn't kill you, hopefully makes you stronger.

I'm anticipating MA voters will soon see Brown line up with the Party of No!. It will only take a few uses of his celebrated 41st vote to prevent cloture to strip the "independent minded" facade away.

When you see Mitt fielding questions about Scott's "presidential timber", ya know Brown will stay close to the Right.

He is in his truck, right now, whistling Dixie.