2006 Election results

[Rich Parsons]

Dems just took the Senate... got control of both houses! Heaven help us

Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.

Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.

 

[IRO-Bot]

Well... Orin Hatch (read: Satan) took senate for Utah... Blast it all. I was really wanting Pete Ashdown... But alas, it didn't happen.
Of course, when you're in a state as conservative as Utah, you can only expect the Republicans to take it.

 

[mrhnau]

Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.

Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.

Actually, I don't mind all that much... I prefer having mixed parties. means less gets done, and in DC that seems to do better

 

[Hand Sword]

Since D.c is useless, and un satisfactory, no matter who's in control, Maybe we should go back to pre- Articles of confederation. No D.C., and each state is a separate entity, worrying about it's own borders, and making decisions for themselves. Then maybe, some real results will get done.
"All politics is local", right?

It's very scary when people forget about being american and focus more on being a R, D, or I, then holding a person's party responsible for an individuals actions, or voting that way simply for that reason.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.

Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.

My thoughts too Rich. The only reason I started voting Republican was when they were the only party that seemed to support my personal values. As the Democrats become more moderate they start to become more appealing to me. I even voted for one this past election (GASP!!).

 

[donald]

Its a sad day in Ohio...

 

[bluemtn]

Our senator was relected, and he's pushing 90... Considered historical... As always, there was a school levy- seems like that's always coming around. I'd vote for it, but you should see what they were proposing! OUCHOUCHOUCHOUCH! Other than that, nothing significant.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually, I don't mind all that much... I prefer having mixed parties. means less gets done, and in DC that seems to do better

How true is that. Generally the less that get's done means there is less that they screw up.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.

Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.

Not so. The dems and republicans would only unite against them.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

Its a sad day in Ohio...

Why?

Because people showed up at the polling place?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why?

Because people showed up at the polling place?

The republicans are the only party that wanted people to stay home. Threats were made and mis-directions provided.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

I found, but have not verified from a second source this information.

If you're keeping track at home, using Senate numbers only, Democrats' 31,591,495 votes equals 55 percent of the vote. (House voting totals don't work because so many incumbents run unopposed.) So at last count, the country is, by rough-perhaps-but-the-most-accurate-count-we-have 55 percent Democratic and 45 percent Republican.

I would like to see the numbers for the House. Although the gerry mandered districts might affect the numbers.

 

[CoryKS]

What I find interesting is the complete lack of concern about "stolen elections". Seems like that was a big worry a few weeks ago, what with those new-fangled polling machines, but I guess all those fears must have dissipated somehow. There's no mention of it anywhere. How on earth did they manage to reassure so many people in so little time. It's amazing.

 

[michaeledward]

It has not disappeared.

There were quite a few anomolies reported througout Tuesday. They deserve to be investigated in full.

I think there would sufficient reason to call for careful investigation on the Allen/Webb race. I have watched carefully as the individual polling districts have audited their results. The results from those audits seem to be confirming the vote count.

Have you watched 'Hacking Democracy' ... it is terrifying.

 

[matt.m]

Missouri, a very red state, is now blue again. I am as big a democrat as your going to get, I was quite pleased with the results.

 

[michaeledward]

I have watched carefully as the individual polling districts have audited their results. The results from those audits seem to be confirming the vote count.

Just found this article...

I hadn't realized that Virginia was quite so much under the thumb of electronic voting machines. It certainly makes my statement about 'audits confirming votes' a bit silly.

Virginia uses a plethora of different voting technologies. Just about every major vendor is represented. Most of votes in that state were cast on paperless DREs. There are no ballots to recount. A meaningful recount in Virginia is not possible.

The DRE vendors like to pretend that they can perform recounts. They take the vote totals on the machines and print corresponding ballots, and then count them by hand. Let me give an analogy to demonstrate how silly that is. It would be comical if vendors weren't actually doing it and convincing people that they were performing a recount.

Imagine if you had a word document on your computer, and the document stated some fact. You were not sure if the fact was true. So, to verify the fact, you print the word document, and then you read it out loud and say, "Ah, if that's what it says, then it must be true because I'm looking at a printout." What the vendors are doing is printing out the questionable results and then counting them. Of course they are going to match what was on the machine, but they do not provide an independent count. The so-called recounts of DREs are really just print and count, not RE-count. It is a waste of time...

It is unbelievable that the control of the US senate is coming down to a close race that cannot be recounted, and for which there are no physical ballots. The vendors may come out with their "emperor's clothes" recounts, but the public should understand that these are not really recounts, they are just print and count.​

​

 

[Phoenix44]

A Democratic rout, here in New York and across the US. I'm doing a happy dance.

What pleases me the most is that we'll finally have some investigations into who outed a covert CIA agent, how the intelligence was manipulated, and where all our money went in Iraq. And maybe some election reform.

 

[Cruentus]

Just found this article...

I hadn't realized that Virginia was quite so much under the thumb of electronic voting machines. It certainly makes my statement about 'audits confirming votes' a bit silly.


[/indent]

Well....good, I guess. Hopefully Virginia will be a HUGE cluster**** now, demonstrating that easily hackable voting machines is not the way to go, so that we don't let this happened for a larger, presidential race.

One could hope, anyhow.

 

[Tez3]

Your elections have been followed over here with a great deal of interest, mostly because of Iraq. We know about the Democrats and the Republicans but do you have any other parties? Also is there a cap on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign? Some of the candidates are reported as spending millions of dollars, is that acceptable to voters or is it felt that only rich people can run for office?

 

[Carol]

Hey Tez!

Your elections have been followed over here with a great deal of interest, mostly because of Iraq. We know about the Democrats and the Republicans but do you have any other parties?

Technically there are other parties but none have made any substantial headway. Perhaps the best known Independent is Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut (Al Gore's running mate in his bid for the presidency in 2000). Sen. Lieberman was a Democrat for all of his career. However, he he was challenged for his party nomination in the primary election, and another Democrat beat him. He ran to be re-elected as an Independent, and won. This is a very rare example.

If it were possible, I'd like to see the party system done away with, personally.

However, the party system plays a deep role in which person does what duty in Congress, it would be impossibly to simply do away with without changing the very backbone of our country's government.

Also is there a cap on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign?

There is a cap as to how much a candidate can spend, but there are also special interest groups that are permitted to funnel money towards a party. Naturally, the party can then funnel money to the candidate. To say this is a point of controversy would be an understatement.

Another twist to the story...any money that is left in a candidates individual war chest after the campaign is over, can be kept by that candidate.

My senator, Sen. John Kerry, challenged President Bush during the last presidential elections in 2004. Sen. Kerry lost the election. But...of the US $75 Million war chest that each candidate began with, Sen. Kerry had US $15 Million left over! He did NOT commit his entire warchest to his campaign, he did NOT do everything he possibly could to defeat President Bush, and as a result, he took a $15 Million payday!!!

That to me is wrong on SO many levels!!

Some of the candidates are reported as spending millions of dollars, is that acceptable to voters or is it felt that only rich people can run for office?

I can't speak for everyone, but I think its largely felt that only rich people can run for office. One not only has to have the money but to also be able to put up with having one's personal life scoured for any notion of scandal or salaciousness that might make for a profitable news story.

There is definitely a feeling among many people of hopelessness and loss of control. There is also some optimism.

However, the political system in our country has been something that is has been in flux, ever since that day in 1776. Whatever the situation is like now...is not something that will stay. It will change, and the change will bring benefits and drawbacks. Fingers crossed for the outcome.