Wednesday, November 09, 2005

November 2005 Election Wrap-Up

Even though I voted for three propositions, I'm pretty happy that it was a clean sweep of 8 noes. I think the initiative process is pretty stupid for the most part; I'd rather have laws written, studied, debated, amended, and voted on by legislators who get paid to write, study, debate, amend, and vote on laws.

Most of the news outlets are painting yesterday's voting nationwide as a victory for Democrats, seeing as how the Dems won two governor's races and beat Arnold. But really, those were statehouses the Democrats already had, and all those noes just mean the status quo remains. Status quo also wins with Ohio's defeat of its anti-gerrymandering proposition and Republicans holding on the the mayorships in New York and San Diego.

Still, it's significant to note that Arnold is officially in trouble in California, and the Virginia result means that (a) George Bush's support doesn't help and (b) Mark Warner has got to be a top consideration as a presidential nominee.

For some non-status-quo results, there's that anti-gay-marriage proposition in Texas, which shouldn't really surprise anyone. Also, a big shakeup in Cincinnati. And a sweeping defeat of a school board in Pennsylvania that supported intelligent design.

Bruce Reed has an excellent wrap-up over on Slate:
"...given the choice, Americans will choose the get-the-job-done-party over the pick-a-fight party every time."

"Most Democrats learned the wrong lesson from elections in 2000 (hate Bush), 2002 (hate Bush), and 2004 (hate Bush). If we learn the right lessons this time, we might get used to enjoying Election Night again."

1 Comments:

At Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 8:03:00 AM PST, Blogger Arb said...

Technically, the Texas marriage amendment is really a status-quo as well, since that definition of marriage was already state law and really really unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Near as I can tell, it's all grandstanding. However, the election did set new turnout records, despite most jurisdictions having only constitutional amendments on the ballot.

That said, what I have learned is that, apparently, you need to amend the Texas Constitution to do just about anything. Most of the amendments were missing the most important voting option: after the "For" and "Against", most of them needed a "Huh, and why do I care anyway?" vote. Things like clearing land titles in one county. Do we need an amendment for this?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home