NY Times: We’re Losing So Let’s Cancel the Midterm Elections

Comrades, your proposal intrigues me

Comrades, your proposal intrigues me

I wouldn’t be too surprised if this idea picks up steam. Minority turnout is much lower in midterm elections. The more reliable Dem bases often stay home.

The Dems just try to do away with whatever obstacles get in their way. If they can’t turn out voters for the midterms, just cancel them.

By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult.

Let’s translate that from liberal to English. “We’re going to lose”.

Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.

We spent a ton of money… but Republican turnout will still beat ours.

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government

Liberals preface every radical change with an absurd claim that it made sense once, but now modernity has overtaken it.

Sure a Supreme Court made sense at our nation’s founding, but now we have computers.

Maybe Trial by Jury made sense a few hundred years ago, but now we have Twitter.

Elections made sense long ago, but today we all watch the Daily Show.

But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

Timmy, that’s what they call a non-sequitur.

Americans have no confidence in government. Let’s extend the terms of government officials so they can’t be removed.

Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined.

Twitter, video cameras, cable news! Who needs elections anyway?

In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.

We don’t need an election to communicate voter desires. We need an election to throw the bums out. Surely you good liberal gentlemen understand that. Some things you just can’t do through Twitter, cable news and video cameras.

The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation.

Which would be really awesome, like the filibuster, if he were a Republican. But since he’s a Democrat, he now embodies the national will… even though everyone hates him.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

It’s almost like the system was designed to prevent an imperial presidency. What do we call that again? Checks and balances?

Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections.

Finally we come to the real issue. Those midterm voters are just too damn white.

There’s an obvious, simple fix, though.

I love simple obvious fixes. Especially when they are illegal, unnecessary and nakedly partisan attempts to rewrite the system.

The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years.

This simple obvious fix doesn’t go far enough for me. Can’t we just appoint them for life? Maybe by a diverse committee of community groups, newspaper editors and unions? Surely this would be a much fairer system?

And then we can abolish the Bill of Rights in another simple, obvious fix.

  • Nathan Jessup

    The marxist regime waging war against our Constitution is not Vlad Putin’s.

  • Pete

    Using the adjective “shadowy” to describe a Political Action Committee (PAC) is a dog whistle the very LEFTIST NYT is using to scare its’ liberal readers.

    What is a PAC? It is a organization that was originally created by a federation of unions the CIO to skirt the law,Taft–Hartley Act.

    PACs by the way are governed by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
    What is shadowy about that?

    Let’s put it this way. If you read the NYT you are dumbing yourself down.

    If you read it too long the condition will become terminal.

  • johninohio1

    Originally, the Senate was not elected by the people of the state, but appointed by the state legislature. They were supposed to represent the state government’s interests in the U.S. Congress. Probably, their term was set at 6 years because the founders had more faith in the state government’s ability to keep them on the straight and narrow. The term of the representatives was probably set a 2 years because the people had to have more opportunity to correct their election mistakes. However, when corruption occurred among senators, and when some states never bothered to appoint any senators, the 17th amendment was enacted making senators elected by the people, hoping that would solve the problems.

    First of all, they should never have amended the Constitution, and second, when they did, they should have reduced the term of senators to 2 years for the same reason as the representatives. So now, what we have is the worst of 2 worlds–6 years of unmitigated corruption.

    • Ken Abbott

      The Senate was also structured to be a deliberative body of statesmen, supposedly freer from the political rancor of the House, one in which lengthy policy discussions could be carried out and no rash decisions made. The effect of the ill-advised 17th Amendment was to undo a lot of that, although the traditions of the Senate kept it going according to the original intent for several decades. We’ve lost that now. The answer is not to do away with midterm elections but to repeal the 17th Amendment and take the power of political district-drawing out of the hands of elected officials.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Maybe abolish the Presidency altogether and go to a Parliamentary system where not only you can run or not run elections when you like, but the leader of the majority party is automatically the chief executive.

  • glpage

    The idiots at the NYT obviously cannot stand a constitutional republic. Even when it’s working as designed. Maybe they need a lesson about the Constitution and it it was supposed to work. Then again, they’re borderline, if not out right, fascists and have no desire to understand a system that is designed to protect the individual.

  • cree

    I wouldn’t be surprised the left hasn’t already thought of: “We want the pollsters to decide the elections.” Indirectly, they’ve used polls to influence/deceive and/or mitigate and/or aggravate citizens perceptions on how things are not.

  • Yehuda Levi

    When the NYT claims that any vote is tainted by the color of the skin of the voters, one is reminded of how racist and collectivist leftists actually are.

    The skin color of a voter does not define the voter. Their minds define them, not their bodies.

    • truebearing

      Don’t worry. They’ll be all for mid-terms when they favor the Left. The New York Wormtongue is just floating ideas to gauge the outcry. They have been tasked with measuring public resistance for years. They are no longer interested in news. Their job is to take the pulse of the public with asymmetric polling.

    • Zach Watkins

      Dear Yehuda: Didn’t The New York Times make excuses for both Stalin and Hitler in the Great Depression years? I remember David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin mentioning over the years.

      Thank God most of the illegal sum, pot head college students, and others stayed home during the election last night. Down here in Texas Greg Abbot killed Wendy Davis by several points, maybe over 10.

      Stay well my friend,

      Z

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    Yes, we should abolish the Bill of Rights. It was devised by guys in perukes and other funny clothes who had white privilege. It was unfair and evidence of institutionalized privilege and sexism. Most of them were rich, too. Then there was that weird Washington, people wanted him to be king, but he said, no, he had to get back to Mount Vernon to see after his slaves. This history lesson has been brought to you by Common Core and Howard Zinn. Do I exaggerate?

    • Yehuda Levi

      No exaggeration – this is certainly the current PC historical view. Political correctness is used as the enforcement arm of the leftists for their dogma.

      I am surprised at “perukes” – “wigs” is shorter and easier to understand.

      • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

        I wrote Sparrowhawk, a 6-title historical novel series set in England and Virginia between 1745 and 1775. “Perukes” was a term that stuck in my head. And many more 18th century terms, as well.

        • Yehuda Levi

          Thanks for the explanation. It is a word you don’t run into often – ever. :)

          Congratulations on your book series. I am an Amazon Reviewer and went to look at your series. Excellent reviews from your readers – always a good sign.

      • Zach Watkins

        Isn’t it racist The New York Times doesn’t want white-educated-Christian men voting? Isn’t this the same newspaper that called for an end to the Electoral College in-favor of a full democracy in the past?

        It’s funny many on the Left and in all forms of media consider the NYT an “intellectual” read?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      But Howard Zinn is a dead white man…

      so his words are irrelevant too

  • Juan Pablo

    Its really odd. Usually when someone boasts how much smarter they are than you, there is a degree of truth buried in their claim even if its false. Perhaps they got better grades or have a fancy credential, even if ultimately neither make you wiser.
    After all, why would someone pound their chest at how smart they are, only to show themselves dumber than your average trailer trash?
    Yet, here we are. The party of science, the party of nuance, the party of “I know better than you do what’s good for you” claims that the CENTRAL FRICKIN PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (divided, adversarial branches and constituencies) is somehow a flaw.
    It is somewhat similar to someone saying the car is a failed invention because it is such an efficient mode of transportation. What do you say to that person? Can they be helped at all? Next they’ll rail against money because you can buy things with it.
    To people who paid attention in school when they taught basic government, we have exactly what the framers intended with gridlock (and we definitely do not have ENOUGH gridlock!). Furthermore the American people voted for it, so that they answer some poll saying gridlock upsets them is of no consequence, they’re the one’s doing it.
    God Bless America!

  • herb benty

    That old saying, “inside every liberal is a totalitarian dying to get out” sure suits the NYT.

  • De Doc

    This one got a lot of chuckles out of me. Great article!

    It’s kinda sad to see how frustrated the nutty Leftists have become, seeking to tinker and toy yet again with the constitution, so long as it benefits their beloved party. Most telling is the condescending yet honest admission that the Democratic Party relies heavily on ignorant, ill informed and propaganda fed masses that refuse to exercise their civic duties during the midterm elections. How am I to blame for that one?

    • truebearing

      If you are white, that is all the blame necessary. If you aren’t white, but are a capitalist, Christian, Jew, or conservative, you are to blame for purely existential reasons.

  • truebearing

    The NY Times has a tendency to articulate ideas that the Left is considering. They begin with a mere suggestion to see if people react, positively or negatively, Then quantify the magnitude of the reaction, and the intensity. Only then can the dialectical process begin.

    Maybe their immediate goal isn’t entirely canning the mid-terms. Maybe they’d prefer extending the terms of the representatives to 4 years. They know that the longer a Congressman stays in Washington, the greater the likelihood corruption will set in. They’ve seen well intending Republicans who stay in Washington for multiple terms shift to more and more big government thinking. Maybe all they want is for Republicans to have more time to be corrupted. Democrats are corrupt from the start, so there is no need for further rotting of their moral principles.

    They key to their devious whining is that they want an end to checks and balances, one way or another, and hate the idea of the people having a say in their governance.

  • Chris Gait

    Yes, get rid of midterms…and the other elections. Appointment for life by the party leadership, that’s the way to go. Oh, wait, the Soviets didn’t even go that far. Okay, nominal elections held to reinforce party solidarity. Yah, that’s the ticket.

  • Diamond_Mair

    “We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.”
    WRONG – I agree that every 2 years gets wearing, but would propose that Congressional & Senate races be held 2 years AFTER the Presidential, ie. Presidential in 2016, ALL Congressional/Senate 2018, Presidential in 2020, ALL Congressional/Senate in 2022 – may well hamstring POTUS, but would allow “buyer’s remorse” to kick in & provide ability to STOP stupid POTUS actions …………………………….
    Semper Fi’
    DM

  • roger

    “Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections’.
    Can’t have people who know what’s going on voting especially if they’re white.
    And get rid of all these checks and balances so Obola can do as he wishes.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Thank the framers of the US Constitution for Checks and Balances.

    I hope the Republican majority Congress can limit the damage Obama as been programmed to do to the US.

    Remember his aside to Medvedev?

    Obama tells Russian PM “After Election I Have More Flexibilty” 3/26/2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE

    Obama bowing to the king of saudi arabia?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

  • Liatris Spicata

    At the risk of igniting a flame war, I think there is considerable merit to the notion that a four year term is better for the House of Representatives. Admittedly, my rationale is different to the Grey Lady’s: I think a0 two year term means Representatives are always fundraising for the next election and are overly focused on the short term, political effects of their votes. I suspect these influences work against the long term interests of the nation.

    My solution: put the House on a four year term of office. Time the elections so that they come between presidential elections.