For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

[saden1]

Are people more involved in local elections than national elections? I know they are more vested in local elections but are they more involved and apprised of the candidates that are running?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are people more involved in local elections than national elections? I know they are more vested in local elections but are they more involved and apprised of the candidates that are running?

I believe turnout for local elections is significantly lower than national. This shouldn't be the case, I agree local elections have as much, if not more direct affect, on a person's daily life. I would bet a dollar to a dime if the state legislatures appointed senators you'd see a big jump in voter turn-out for the state level offices.

[GMScud]

I've always paid more attention to national elections than local, however I do vote in local elections and follow local issues. The national stuff is what gets all the big media coverage of course, so I'm sure that's a big influence.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I believe turnout for local elections is significantly lower than national. This shouldn't be the case, I agree local elections have as much, if not more direct affect, on a person's daily life. I would bet a dollar to a dime if the state legislatures appointed senators you'd see a big jump in voter turn-out for the state level offices.

You are right, turnout would jump simply because of people's desire to have input as to who their senators are. I wonder, however, how these voters will make their decision as to who their local representative is? Is it based on party or policy? Will local turnout rival that of current federal elections turnout?

Also, are state elected official any different than federally elected officials? Compared to federal politicians are local politicians more likely to be punished by the voters if they don't execute the will of the electorate?

[firstdown]

I have a tougher time keeping up with local politics then I do national.

[12thMan]

Good question. Republicans tend to be more involved and apprised in local elections. I think there's an ebb and flow though. It usually boils down to how effective the party apparatus is. You know, the DNC/RNC.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Good question. Republicans tend to be more involved and apprised in local elections. I think there's an ebb and flow though. It usually boils down to how effective the party apparatus is. You know, the DNC/RNC.

Not sure how things are in the major cities (I didn't pay as much attention when I was living up there), but in VB the national DNC/RNC has minimal to zero involvement in local races. The Gov races, yes. State legislature, etc., minimal. Local DNC/RNC chapters do get involved, but unless I'm mistaken their funds are mostly generated locally.

[12thMan]

I guess I'll add one more thing, demographics tend to drive how much people get involved too.

[saden1]

Interesting read on the 17th Amendment... apparently Delaware ratified the 17th Amendment June 25, 2010!

Election by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850s. There were frequent vacancies of a few days up to several months, but these nearly always occurred when Congress was not in session, and so were harmless. In the 1850s, the sectional crisis over slavery led to increasing partisanship and strife. As a result, Indiana failed to elect a Senator from March 1855 to February 1857, while California failed to elect from March 1855 to January 1857.

California had previously failed to elect from March 1851 through January 1852, missing two months of the first session of the 32nd Congress, while Delaware failed to elect from September 1839 to January 1841, missing the entire first session and half the second session of the 26th Congress.

After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton asserted that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of Senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. In the worst case, Delaware failed to elect from March 1899 to March 1903; by the end of this period both of Delaware's seats were vacant for two years.

[JoeRedskin]

In Maryland, certainly in Baltimore, it's hard to tell if anyone gets "punished". It's (for all intents and purposes), a one party town. Republiicans need not apply. There is some back and forth in the primairies for the occasional open seat. But once a Baltimore Democrat is in, they are pretty much a lifer.

B/c everyone knows how Baltimore is going to vote, neither the Dems or Reps. give a damn about it. The dems can ignore it and still their candidates win 80-90% of the vote. The republicans could put a far left candidate up and still lose. It just doesn't matter.

It's truly sad.