Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

POLITICS: Vote out all incumbents

Letter by Calvin R. Gourley, Tacoma on Sep. 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm with 32 Comments »
September 28, 2011 2:06 pm

I would like to suggest an approach to the next election that has never been attempted in our history: Let’s vote out every incumbent, whether they be Democrat, Republican or something in between. Vote every one of them out.

This nation was founded on the principle of a “citizen”-represented republic. We do not need career politicians. This country is headed for a fall of epic proportions, and we need a change. A real change, not like the change we got a few years ago.

We need “ordinary citizens” who have a desire to do what is right for our respective states and country. This can be accomplished at the local level as well. With new people in office all the time, I believe, the money coming into the coffers would be accounted for much more rigorously. After all, it is our money, collectively that they are spending.

I have to balance my budget and live within my means; so should any branch of government.

I would also suggest term limits to limit the amount of “seniority” any politician can amass. People always say that voting is a form of term limits. I say hogwash. Set it in stone and make it so. Elections might still be bought, but at least we would know how long they would be bought for. Please get out and vote at every opportunity.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 32
  1. Pie-in-the-sky.

  2. Calvin….even the Republicans??????

  3. Rollo_Tomassi says:

    If we are going to vote all incumbents out, we’re going to need lots of new political blood…

    So Calvin – which office will you be running for?

  4. stetsonwalker says:

    Good idea, that is just what I will do, run to the ballot and blindly vote all incumbents out regardless of the issues! Thank you for the great idea….

  5. Educator1 says:

    Where is our money going? The legislature does not want to know as evidence by their not funding the auditor office fully. Also they have no law that requires the money to be repaid from the departments. The auditor has found millions but not one cent has been recovered because of the law.

    Cuts: I would cut the top 25% of personnel as the lower ranks are doing the
    work.
    Require school districts to adhere to state salary and benefit schedule.

  6. I have to balance my budget

    ….with credit cards, mortgage, car loan, student loans, etc…..

  7. jerryman47 says:

    Easier said than done Calvin. Many people would like to do just that but it will never happen. To many lies from both parties and too many people who are just not informed, some not even caring but vote anyway because they’ve heard a friend say something good about that candidate.

    I like what you said ” I have to balance my budget and live within my means, so should every branch of government”. That in it’s self would bring government the size it should be.
    Thank you for your letter Calvin, it was a nice thought.

  8. thank you Calvin, my thoughts exactly

  9. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Be sure to include the Tacoma City counsel members in the plan.

  10. “Living within your means and budgeting”? – doesn’t that require… jobs? With jobs, there is tax revenue. I love this comparison – everyone has to budget. Well, Imagine IF in your household you are working two jobs, and can only barely pay the bills while some get unpaid. Then your significant other WON’T work (and overspends), buys huge vacations, jewelry, and massages and lays around all day INSTEAD of helping out with the household budget and paying their fair share? Does that sound FAIR?

  11. voting out the incumbents will never happen due to too many people don’t like change. Patty Murray will continue to be in Washington because of Boeing and the large amount of retirees here are Veterans. Maria Cantwell will continue due to the voters that don’t want change

  12. Dave98373 says:

    I agree Calvin. The movement in tossing out incumbents gained steam with the Tea Party elections. As voters become increasingly frustrated the Tea Party will have an even bigger influence next year (a threat to both sides of the aisle). Both parties should be worried. And while I may not agree with most of the Tea Party’s platform I do welcome change from the same old, same old.

  13. “Then your significant other WON’T work (and overspends), buys huge vacations, jewelry, and massages and lays around all day INSTEAD of helping out with the household budget and paying their fair share? Does that sound FAIR?”

    Um, Frida… The loser you are with is there by your choice. I would suggest you find somebody else to be with. How did that even come into this discussion?

  14. stetsonwalker says:

    Dave98373
    “I agree Calvin. The movement in tossing out incumbents gained steam with the Tea Party elections”

    Not what we did, Dave. We were strategic. It was not just a “dumping”. And we will surgically do the same in 2012!

  15. Dave98373 says:

    “Not what we did, Dave. We were strategic. It was not just a “dumping”. And we will surgically do the same in 2012!”

    My point is that the Tea Party scares the bejesus out of both parties. And they are influencing policies in D.C. right now and frustrating the hell out of the WH.
    2012 indeed will be entertaining to say the least!!

  16. I’ve made this observation several times, and I still think its worth repeating. The comments on this letter are awash with Republican or Democrat, as if those two parties are the ONLY possibility.

    Take a look at this idea. The REAL problem is not the parties, its the PEOPLE who vote.

    So, 50% vote Republican, and 50% vote Democrat. Of that, let’s say 25% of each party, voted that way, NOT because they supported that candidate, but because they used that vote to cast a vote AGAINST the other party.

    I’d venture a guess that in the last election, a large percentage of voters who voted for Obama did not support HIM, but only voted in his favor to keep McCain ( and most probably Palin) from winning a victory.

    If those people who wasted a vote in such a manner took that vote and supported neither Republican or Democrat, but an Independent, would that not make pretty close to three equal thirds of the pie?

    If people voted with half a brain, the “two party monopoly” would vanish.

  17. stetsonwalker says:

    “I’d venture a guess that in the last election, a large percentage of voters who voted for Obama did not support HIM, but only voted in his favor to keep McCain ( and most probably Palin) from winning a victor”

    You no doubt have a point, although I voted for McCain, I was holding my nose while doing so! Same when Bob Dole ran!

  18. My point exactly “stetson”. You like many on either side “held your nose”. But how many STILL voted for one of the two major parties.

    Every time anyone brings up a third party candidate, it seems everyone considers it a “wasted vote”. Frankly, a wasted vote is one that is not cast. If people would dump the notion that the third party vote doesn’t count, and if more actually voted that way, a third party, not connected to the bickering, partisan, time wasting two major parties, might actually have the chance of getting this country on the right track.

    We sure as heck know that the two major parties, so preoccupied with fighting the opposition instead of DOING something, would never sort things out.

  19. All this “holding the nose” talk…..meanwhile…

    The GOP has fielded about a dozen candidates for president and not one of them is any better than President Obama.

    Want to make 3rd party and independent votes count? Eliminate the electoral college and caculate everything on a popular vote.

    Meanwhile the GOP is manipulating the use of the electoral votes in Kansas and Pennsylvania…..each state’s tactics oppposing the other….

  20. stetsonwalker says:

    Dcr628
    Although I was holding my nose, I was still voting my opinion of the best candidate offered on the ballot. The only option would have been write in Fred Thompson, who was not even on the ballot and really toss my vote!

  21. stetsonwalker says:

    KARDNOS
    “The GOP has fielded about a dozen candidates for president and not one of them is any better than President Obama.
    Want to make 3rd party and independent votes count? Eliminate the electoral college and caculate everything on a popular vote”

    Not true, the fact is that Perot WOULD have won had he not went fruitcake during the campaign, but I think that was just so he could give Clinton his next term…

    No the right 3rd party candidate could still catch on.

  22. I have to agree with the way this conversation is going, I have always voted the candidate, not the party. I have also been told over and over, that I wasted my vote. I disagree. I think there needs to be a third or even maybe a fourth party. I believe a lot of the infighting would cease. I also like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college and going to a popular vote.

  23. stetson…..so you are saying that Perot would have had less a chance if the electoral college wasn’t in place???????

    That makes about as much sense as saying that a Conservative/Libertarian would hand the election over to a Democrat…..

    Sorry…I forgot who I was communicating with….

  24. calcan…..by eliminating the electoral college, you eliminate George Bush getting elected in 2000. Gore won the popular vote.

    Thus, if you had three equally popular candidates, it wouldn’t matter which states they win.

    Without the electoral college, the hard core conservatives and liberals are on their own.

  25. ItalianSpring says:

    I only vote for conservatives. Period.

  26. Not true, the fact is that Perot WOULD have won had he not went fruitcake during the campaign, but I think that was just so he could give Clinton his next term…

    Lots of unsupportable speculation in that statement. Reminds me of the Dems who were mad at Nader for “stealing” votes from Gore so W could win the Electoral College race.

  27. I sincerely doubt that DCR and I would ever vote for the same candidate but we agree about “throwing away your vote” by ignoring the “Two” Party monopoly and voting for the candidate you think is best – not just which one is sponsored by the Republocrats or Demlicans.

  28. Along with the idea of voting away from the traditional two party monopoly, and eliminating the electoral votes and going straight popular, how about this idea…

    Eliminate the election night televised coverage. Keep the whole thing quiet until the next morning.

    How many people watch one candidate getting votes in the east, where polls close four hours before the west coast, and human nature being what it is, where people gravitate towards a winner, OR they have the idea of “oh well, he’s gonna win anyway”, so they cast their vote in favor of who’s ahead in the east.

    Talk about a wasted vote!

  29. “ItalianSpring says:
    September 29, 2011 at 11:12 pm
    I only vote for conservatives. Period.”

    And after they fall miserably on their face….they are no longer Conservatives. See George Bush.

  30. Pacman33 says:

    I can’t think of many times I haven’t agreed with Dcr628. I must respectfully disagree this one. Voting for a 3rd party candidate at the state level and up, generally, is wasting your vote. The presence of the electoral college alone requires one to question the rationality in it. An exception could be both of the major party candidates holding a position with #1 substantial impact on your life that you oppose along with the 3rd party choice, as long as the seat can directly influence the critical issue. Narrow minded, maybe, but it’s not a wasted vote.

    If you’re “making a statement” or “investing” your vote in hopes of a tally substantial enough to portray credibility for a future election for a 3rd, though noble, you are sacrificing your vote for that particular election. For the good of our nation, I hope we see a legitimate alternative to the Big 2 in the near future. I won’t be holding my breath. If or when we do, we will just know and know early that he/she is the one to shake things up.

    As for casting a vote against a canidate, I must again beg to differ. Poor quality of choices on the ballot seems to be occurring more frequently. Sadly, many choose to forgoe casting a ballot altogether in protest or out of disgust. With today’s complicated problems, most voters don’t feel they can afford to invest or protest with their vote. Many would definitely vote for that third spot if they could be assured of a result of more than a brief fizzle and a single digit % total. At this point in time, it would be irrational to expect much more than that. This creates the old lesser of two evils. By combining the positions on the issues along with the party’s general political philosophy determines which candidate best and least represents your ideals. Lets say this answer concludes than one of the choices mostly repesents your belief’s, but not enough to support them.The other significantly contrasts with your ideals, including some positions you determine to be harmful to you and your family. This method maximizes the significance of your vote to best reflects your will and personal philosophy to influence an election. Regardless if the deciding factor was strong opposition to a candidate’s campaign promises and platform the vote is cast with the purpose of determining how the results of the election most directly impact the quality of your life. Whether or not if it’s a positive or negative impact dictated by results has no bearing on the extent of significance of the issue on an individuals life.

  31. beerBoy says:

    Pacman – not voting for 3rd Party is voting for status quo. Are you happy with the results of the two Party system? Has restricting your voting to either the Republocrat or the Demlican resulted in the best representative government money can buy?

    Remember, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  32. Pacman33 says:

    I wouldn’t say happy nor would I say it’s a 2 party system.

    Republican Candidate vs, The Public Employee’s Union’ Endorsement

    Corporate cash is currently a wash. Not as huge of a factor as often portrayed.

    Republicans seem to be leaning more to conservative principles.
    ———————————————————————————————————

    Seems R’s principles and positions are trending closer to mine accompanied the escalating perverse ménage à trois relationship between D’s, public sect. service malcontents and their slimy union meddlers using my tax money as an apparatus in their defiling of the operations and elections of my nation’s government. To confirm my R vote, are the stances and integrity by Unionist Party that I believe would be harmful to those near to me and the future of my country.

    Show me a Turd Party candidate that places this disease a higher priority than the R’s and I will show you a wasted vote.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0