Lack of Responsibility and Oversight

Lack of responsibility and oversight, this may been seen to be an issue with corporations, but it is indeed also an issue with the elected officials of our government.

But elections keep them in check, no?

Well, they do to a certain extent, but it's a system that's far to easy to go around.

First of all, the "one and done," a politician who only runs for one term, he can do whatever he wants. He has no stake in becoming re-electable. Depending on the office, or sometimes nothing at all, this can be a good thing or a bad thing -- as he can either ignore public opinion entirely just to get something that wouldn't otherwise be done, or he can raid the government's coffers for his friends, family, and self.

But that's a small issue, really. The bigger issue is the Party system, and how it stays afloat.

First, in order to get elected, the candidate likely needs support of the larger party infrastructure. Thus, if the candidate is moderate (or even on the "opposite" side of the spectrum) he must radicalize himself in at least small regards to get actual support for his campaign.

Second, he must likely win a primary, where he is only competing for votes amongst his party. Needless to say, this means the winner will much more likely be on the far wing of his party than on the moderate side of politics in general (which would actually make him the extremist in this group). The other party's candidate will likely win in the same manner.

Third, this creates a scenario where a left winger will likely be running against a right winger. In parts of the country where the one party is weaker, this opposite candidate might actually be a moderate, which actually creates competition in these areas, so long as the dominant party isn't too dominant. In any case, this creates an "us against them" mentality among supporters of the candidates. You are either for the candidate or against them, there is no middle ground, no one votes for independents (very rare exceptions to this rule).

Now, fourthly, someone on either edge of the spectrum has now won, and will attempt to push through his radicalized agenda, with the help of his even more radicalized party. If a moderate happens to slip through the cracks in this stage, he must now adopt a more radical stance than the one he ran on, in order to get party support for his projects, otherwise he will be an extremely unproductive "voter" who does nothing for the people who elected him.

At the heart of this issue is the primary system. Most states use a closed primary system, such as my own state of Pennsylvania. As an independent, I cannot partake in anything happening at all today (which is primary voting day), and can only watch in bemusement. I like the idea of the primary, as the people are selecting who will represent their side. But the ultimate resolution is this man will support their side, and likely not much else. There will be no candidate to stride the divide, unite the people and work for something that will work for everybody.

The primary system forced long tenured Connecticut Senator Lieberman to run as an independent a few years ago, and now he's not nearly as endeared to the party's base as he once was. This year it forced Crist, the Senate candidate in Florida, to run as an independent. Even more, he had to declare his independence way before the primary (which I think is also happening today).

It may also force Arlen Specter out of office. He has been Pennsylvania's Senator for I want to say five terms. For the most of that time, he was a Republican the Democrats in the state could vote for. Now, since he switched parties, he's just a Democrat not all the Democrats will vote for. He was forced out due to radicalization within his own party -- Pat Toomey would have been very likely to beat him in the Republican primaries (he kept getting closer and closer). Now Democrats are running Admiral Joe Sestak against him, which bugs me even more because I like Joe Sestak.

Aside: why do the Democrats of Pennsylvania only run good candidates against Arlen Specter? Seriously? In 2004, Joe Hoeffel was run against him, a candidate I would have loved to see in office, but I did not want to see Specter go. Now, in 2010, Joe Sestak is running against him, and I would also kinda like to see him in the Senate seat. Meanwhile, in 2006, Rick Santorum, who by then had made enough gaffs to make Joe Biden blush and was clearly on his way out, had only to run against Bob Casey, a boring "moderate" (a democrat who loves to spend the tax payers money but hates killing babies) who had only held the positions auditor general and state treasurer; his family was also very political (his dad was Governor of Pennsylvania), making him an insider even if he didn't do anything. I believe Sestak was still in the Navy at this point, but why couldn't Hoeffel run against Santorum?

Whatevs.

Todays primaries will likely be very amusing at the least. Perhaps we can see how much pull the new tea party has, as Rand Paul (seriously, who names their kid after a crappy author) might take his primary in Kentucky. There'll probably be a recap of the results later on.