A couple of thoughts triggered by the party switch of Arlen Specter

Like anyone cares what I think... but reading about Arlen Specter made me think a lot of things about politics.

First of all, reading the various commentaries led to one comparing the so far-right he's far-out Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, with the more moderate senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. Lindsey quoted Ronald Reagan (and reading around, apparently others have been doing so too) as having said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor." So let us ponder that a minute. The Republican party has been expelling those who don't follow the hard-line espoused by DeMint either through deliberate action, i.e. Jim Jeffords, or by inaction (such as letting Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island get knocked out in a primary -- see below). So there are much fewer Republicans in Congress because of this. And with Specter switching and Al Franken likely the winner in Minnesota, the Democrats have the legendary filibuster-proof majority.

Which I don't like. This is the loss of a check in the checks-and-balances system. There's a reason cars need brakes and there's a reason Senates have filibusters. To slow things down. Sometimes (clearly not always) no action is better than wrong action. It's hard to tell when, so that's when talking about it might work.

Now, along those lines, the political reading led to this amazing interactive map site at the NY Times -- and a good reason to point out why losing the NY Times will be disruptive to our knowledge-state in general.

President Map: Election Results When the map is loaded, clicking on "Voting Shifts" -- you can see the shifts down to the county level.

What is really needed is a map that shows the shifts on the Congressional district level. Congressional districts have been so gerrymandered to favor the party in power in the state so as to render the point of voting moot. Voting should provide a choice between alternatives, but there are none when the district is so drawn that the party choice will win barring sudden death (and even then, the parties can put in an unknown alternate who by virtue of party affiliation wins anyway!)

Here in Maryland, the 5th district which includes Calvert County where I live is actually almost geographically realistic:













But the district to the north, the 3rd, is absurd! (Hey, I can be Dr. Suess, too!)


Now, if you go back to the map, you'll see that it allows a zoom to any county you prefer. In Maryland, Calvert County stayed Republican, but by a lesser margin than previous elections. The percentage point drop in Calvert (Democrat vs. Republican) was 12%; in Frederick County, the drop was 19%. The Democratic counties got considerably more Democratic. So either on a district or county-basis, the Congressional composition in Maryland is very unlikely to change, and this is true of most other states.

So the Senate is a place where moderation and deliberation should prevail. But when you see someone like Specter getting forced out, it's because the primary system is knocking them out. There are many, many less voters in the primaries than in the general election, and they tend to be much more ideological. So... if a Senator is supposed to represent the entire state, why should a small number of people get to choose who the major party candidate is, and force them into ideological allegiance or be forced out? This is what the Republicans have done, and this why there are a lot less Republican senators in Congress, and this is also why there are a lot less moderate Republican senators in Congress -- and the same can pretty much be said for the lack of moderate Democrats.

So here's my unlikely to be even considered serious proposal: eliminate the primary system for Senate candidates. Just let anybody who wants to run in the general, and let them have to build a winning "coalition", much like Parliamentary systems have to do to form a government. This will force moderation, because someone far-right or far-left will not have a chance. Even in South Carolina, I think the likelihood of another Jim DeMint would be considerably lessened.

To make this government work and not be just a low-talent debating society, we need more moderates and particularly more moderate Republicans. We need the Republican party to be freed from its ideological constraints. We need Michael Steele to stick to his principles and not kowtow to the intellectually vacuous positions of the demonstrably-wrong most of the time radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Otherwise, the Republicans will continue to drive pell-mell down Irrelevancy Road. And darn it all, that's not good for the country.