After a long, costly and same time muddy April 13 special primary election where we narrow down the field to two candidates in the 43rd Assembly District, we still have to elect one for the Nov. 2 election, this after a primary on June 8.
It is a very long and costly process for basically a local election.
While we were at it, and we still are, the British prime minister stepped down, the government held their election and named a replacement and have gone on with the people’s business.
Do we need to take a second look at our election system?
Reconsider our one-party system
A friend recently asked me why I am so opposed to one-party government. The answer is easy. Our constitutionally based self government requires free and open debate, with elected officials voting as representatives of their home district and not as representatives of a political party. Regardless of where you stand on our new federal health-care law, it is the most recent example of all that is wrong with one-party government.
The final health-care law started in the Senate, where it passed on a party-line vote, without a vote to spare. There seemed to be two Republican senators who generally liked the bill but cast “no” votes.
It is public knowledge that at least five Democratic senators did not support the bill until their states received special deals. If senators had voted based on the merits of the bill, it would not have passed.
We saw a similar situation in the House. To their credit, some Democrats voted against the bill, choosing to represent the voters who sent them to Congress. It is public knowledge that more than a dozen Democrats changed their votes to “yes” after receiving special deals. If representatives had voted based on the merits of the bill, it would not have passed.