<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "The Anti-Incumbent Party" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/871]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Steve181]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1960681]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Since starting voting in the late 70's, most of my votes have been anti-incumbent. I can only think of a handful of times I voted for someone I really believed in. I typically vote either to remove whoever is in office, or sometimes I vote for whomever I think will be the most useless and ineffective. I figure govt screws up nearly everything, so my goal is typically to slow down govt as much as possible. If they can do little, they can do little harm.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCSTE_Rrdrd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1960681]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from pand0ra]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1959889]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[That's an interesting presupposition Scott, what exactly do you think isn't working in our system?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1959889]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from costumesoffer]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1958651]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[A lot of women like the idea of having a vast collection of lingerie. There are many different kinds and each of them would have different purposes. Mainly, they are classified into two. One is intended for coverage and support. www.costumesoffer.com  ,Lingerie as such is usually designed in such a way that they can be worn underneath other clothing items. christmas lingerie,There is also lingerie that is intended to be for ornamental or costume pieces. Those are elaborately designed with different kinds of embellishments. Those are usually intended for show and would not be recommended for everyday use. It also would not be practical to wear them with other clothing items because oftentimes the adornments it would have can be cumbersome. Other than that, lingerie that is intended for show would not be too comfortable.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1958651]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kingfisher]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1953684]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[This doesn't apply to your American Two-party system, but in the last Alberta provincial election there was an organization called ChangeAlberta than kept a list of the candidates in each district with the best chance of defeating the incembant.  This allowed people to vote strategically where it mattered, and protest vote where it didn't.  Overall it worked a little, but not too much, because people were so afraid of the rising tea-party equivalent that the incembant looked pretty good in comparison.

spelling intentional to beat filter]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1953684]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mhlong47]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1952514]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Late for the party again, sorry, but the biggest problem with all this anti-incumbency talk is that most people are anti-incumbent for everyone else EXCEPT their own representative.  Just check the  polls - people have a very low opinion of Congress in general but a much better opinion of their own representative.  So, people will gladly join this so-called party, if it can get everyone else EXCEPT their representative out of office.  See the hypocrisy here? I hope?  That's why it will never fly.  When people turn against their own representatives (and I don't mean after some ridiculous scandal which most are probably guilty of but have yet to be found out), then you can count me in, but pigs will fly and Hell, Michigan will never freeze over before that day arrives.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1952514]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Dnabsuh]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950854]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You have stumbled upon the idea that has been preached in NJ by the NJ 101.5 talkshow host Jim Gerhart - GRIP - Get Rid of Incumbent Polititions, there are even a few websites:  http://gripgov.com/   http://votegripnj.org/  the idea they have is people are too settled in fighting for their re-election to fight for what needs to be done, by virtually guaranteeing them that they will all be 1 term, then politics wont be a career, but people who want to actually make a change.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950854]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Shimmerville]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950681]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[This does not relate to the point of the article, but what's the problem with the fiscal cliff?
Isn't that what we were supposed to do all along?

Re the actual article, negotiating the benchmarks would probably be a process identical to the legislative process right now.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950681]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RayKremer]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950341]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Are we talking the general election or primaries, here? There are plenty of Republican incumbents that need to be replaced by another Republican.

When it comes to the general election, as far as congress goes, do we count incumbency individually or by the party in power overall? For that matter, do we count incumbency by the party in power in Washington overall? In the election two months ago, the incumbency was Democrat control of the White House and Senate and Republican control of the House. So the anti-incumbent platform votes for Republicans in all offices, or Republicans for President and Senate but Democrats for the House?

The big problem in Washington is that the party you don't like is completely incompetent, but the party you do like is still only half competent, with a lot of incompetent individuals in it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950341]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from meblackstone]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950234]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I like the idea, and have had the same thought. It doesn't bother me that in softer science areas like economics two people can come to different conclusions from the same data, as long as both can articulate their position well and logically. Parroting talking points is a deal breaker.

Ultimately though, a root cause solution is needed. The AIP would have to influence gerrymandering. It's reached the point where too many elections are decided in the primary because of redistricting, which favors ideology over rationality.

A few states are trying to pass propositions to have mapping algorythms decide on districts by geography and population instead of political agendas. I'd estimate at least half would have to do so for it to work at a national level though. At that point, getting the middle 10 seats would be achievable, and they could essentially be the swing votes everyone covets.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950234]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Drowlord]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950064]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Meh.  Our government largely sucks because the American people have a huge ideological split, and it's close enough to 50-50 that half of all people voted into office actively work against the other half.  We have two hate-locked opposing forces butting heads over everything and mostly biding their time until one or the other has supreme power.  You're arguing that an anti-incumbent party could flip-flop the balance of power one way or another.  I'm not sure that's any kind of solution.

I've long advocated for ranked voting (instant runoff voting, alternate voting) and I still think it's the best way out of our political messes.  We should redefine our voting system so that it maximizes different political parties and diverse political goals.  No one party would ever hope to control two legislative branches and the presidency, so these monopoly tactics (railroad pet legislation that most people hate / block until we're in control / reverse past laws when we're back on top) wouldn't be possible.  Politics would be defined by compromise, instead of this perpetual self-defeating tug-of-war.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1950064]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from AlanB9]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949895]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott the current system is so broken that I'm willing to try anything.  I think the other thing that has to change is the salary structure of politicians, it needs to be capped @ $200,000 per yr, and based on the performance of each person.  It would be a tiered system based on performance and the voters would decide if the particular politician is doing a good job (but much more information would need to be posted on a website to inform the voters).  Outrageous expense accounts would also be eliminated.  

When this country was founded the politicians were wealthy people that could afford to take a political office (WITHOUT PAY), they did it for the good of the country and knew how important the position was.  Now a days, I dare say, that 75% of people that go into politics are looking for an easy job that they can try an get rich from, they aren't doing it because they give a !$%* about the country.  

I think there may be a good chance of the next civil war is at our door steps anyway so much of what we are !$%*!$% about may become null and void.  I'm referring to the issue at hand about all of the shootings that have been going on.  If the goverenment tries to enact gun laws that make people give their guns up, watch out here comes a war!  Granted the shootings are horrible but let me ask you this; why is it more tragic that a bunch of 6 year old kids get shot than when older (high school) kids get shot?  The media has been out of control regarding the Connecticut shootings when compared to Columbine, its not right, a teenager dying is no less tragic.  It's pretty sad that we live in a time where our grade schools have to have security measures in place for all of the bad things that can happen.  We the people, country, nation, society... are just plain broken and it gets worse ever year.  I blame the parents that don't believe in spanking and the whole &quot;go to time out&quot; type of people.  If you look at our history most of the really F***Ked up stuff that has happened started after these crappy parents started raising their kids without any real punishment for a child's behavior.  From these generations (people that started having kids right around the 70-80's forward) kids have gotten out of control, they have no respect for anything and they want everything handed to them.  When I say these statements I'm referring to about 70% of the group, there will always be a few people that do things right.

Comments....?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949895]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kingdinosaur]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949881]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[A few problems with your AIP.

1.  Let's say that for the sake of argument at least some of the sitting members of congress are willing to do the right thing.  Hard data suggests throwing the baby out with the bath water is a bad idea, and your wife isn't going to be very happy about it either.  While naming names is an easy thing to correct, it does mean more work.

2.  Two rational people can look at a data set and have two different opinions on what to do with it, especially if it is a softer science.  Politics isn't math, for better or worse.

3.  You need to get a high turnout of people who just want a working government at any cost or else you'll wind up with a republican AIP and a democrat AIP, meaning you are back at square one.  Frankly there's probably a lot of people out there who'd rather have a non-functioning government than a functioning one going in the wrong direction... if the bus isn't going to take you anywhere near where you want, it doesn't really matter if it's working or not.

In the end, I'm probably one who wouldn't join the AIP.  If the other side must win elections, I'd prefer leaving them a government that's incapable of allowing them to reach whatever goals they might have because that's actually a better scenario than them getting a fully functioning government that they can use to full effect to implement their &quot;bad&quot; ideas.  Trying to keep things general here.


In fact I think we should have a GIMP - a Government Incompetence Maintenance Party.  It's chief goal is to make things so chaotic that no matter who wins, no matter what passes, and no matter if one party controls all three branches, all government will be totally incompetent and nothing will ever be able to get done at a national level.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949881]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from CliffClaven]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949631]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[My problem with simple anti-incumbency or any basic down-with-government pitch is that they generally don't have plans for filling the vacuum -- or if they do, they're deliberately quiet or misleading about it.

As Aesop said when defending a known grafter, it's a bad idea to bat away a bunch of fat mosquitos if it just makes room for skinny ones with more capacity. And the current problem isn't just fresh crooks -- It's amateurs, incompetents and near-traitors with narrow, f-everything-else agendas.

If you want one more comparison, it's trusting your health to the sleazeball book peddler in the infomercials solely because he's not part of the flawed Medical Establishment. 
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1949631]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Phantom II]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948710]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I guess you haven't heard Warren Buffet's plan.  Here's what he said, only half-jokingly, in an interview on CNBC: &quot;I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.&quot;

Now, that's an even better plan than an anti-incumbent party, don't you think?  A similar law might be that the house of Congress that refuses to pass a budget (as you'll recall, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than three years, even though they are constitutionally obligated to do so) would lose all pay, benefits and retirement.  They could continue to serve, but would have to do so for free.  

The only problem is that Congress would never pass such a law in the first place.  When the Republicans ran the House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich, they did pass some watered-down versions of this type of thinking - for example, they removed the exemption Congress gives itself from having to follow the laws they pass.  But when the Democrats took back control and reinstated the exemption.  

I'm not saying Republicans are blameless. During the Bush the younger years, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they tried to be Democrat light and spent money just like the Democrats. What they didn't realize was that you don't win elections by being Democrat light - you just lose your justification for being an alternative.  

As far as the anti-incumbent party idea goes, it's doomed to failure.  Most people think that Congress bites the donkey ear, but that THEIR member of Congress is just peachy-keen.  So while they'd be glad to vote out YOUR member of Congress, they'd almost never be willing to vote out THEIR member of Congress.  All politics, as they say, is local.  

Right now, the problem we have is spending, but the press seems intent on focusing only on taxation.  The simple truth is that there is no amount of taxation that could ever get us out of the hole our politicians have happily dug for us.  President Obama now wants Congress to turn over the decisions for spending to him by removing the debt ceiling limit.  The estimates are that by the time he leaves office the national debt will exceed $20 trillion dollars, which is about 125% of our GDP.  

So you need to figure out how to get people to understand the problem and then demand Congress and the president do something about it.  When that happens, you might have some shot at getting people to vote out their own member of Congress.  But most people prefer to pretend that there isn't any problem, and smile as they march happily off the economic cliff.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948710]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from crogers23]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948501]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&gt;The fiscal cliff is the most glaring example of a broken government.

[citation needed].  It's tax increases along with spending cuts.  Sounds like good-old austerity to me.  Maybe it's exactly what this country needs?  We're 16 trillion in debt, and if you include future liabilities, it's 80 trillion.  You could tax everyone at 100%, and confiscate the net worth of all billionaires, and not even come close to paying it off.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948501]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from blampow]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948079]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&gt;if the United States drives over the fiscal cliff without a deal, that would trigger a vote against all incumbents for national office.

What happens when the challengers realise their best route to being elected is just to mindlessly block everything the incumbents try to do?  

You'll have either created an automatic government-breaking merry go round where everybody devotes their time to obstructing incumbents, all of whom cycle out every election, having achieved nothing (best case), or a foolproof system for making sure obstructionists (in either party) never lose power while people who want to help (in either party) are relegated to literally unelectable doormats/gofers for the incumbents (worst case).

&gt;The Anti-Incumbent Party would only insist that the government make decisions that are backed by data and some degree of intellectual integrity.

If people could be trusted to make decisions based on objective intellectual integrity/sound reasoning, and not partisan nonsense/corruption (either as politicians or especially voters), we wouldn't be having any political problems.  

&gt;The Anti-Incumbent Party would only insist that the government make decisions that are backed by data and some degree of intellectual integrity.

I thought you just said it would insist that the government not make major mistakes, on pain of every single incumbent being fired, regardless of their role in helping/hurting the situation (or the challengers' role)?

&gt;That seems fairly doable at the moment because most voters agree that the current system isn't working.

The &quot;current system&quot; that isn't working is largely criticised, as I understand it, either as being &quot;two parties in name only&quot; while consistently serving the same powerful interests no matter who's king of the castle at any moment - or as being too partisan/divided, unable to work together.

Giving untested, reckless challengers a foolproof way to yank themselves into the post of &quot;figurehead&quot; by sabotaging whoever's currently in charge is a near-perfect way to worsen both situations.  

&gt;Do you think you could vote against your preferred party (Democrat or Republican) if you really liked your candidates' positions but the government as a whole wasn't working well as a team?

No, because it would make &quot;sabotage him so people will vote against him&quot; an even more effective strategy than it already is.

I think &quot;vote rationally&quot; is really all we need from this plan.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948079]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from itavan]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947713]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I would NEVER vote for *any* candidate who was anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-science (i.e. evangelical nutcase christian).  I am unhappy with the Dems not facing reality when it comes to spending, but quite honestly, the repubs are worse when it comes to total fiscal responsibility.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947713]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947554]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@language

I am quite certain that, had Gore won in 2000, we wouldn't have blown our money over the past ten years on tax cuts and increased medicare spending, we wouldn't have had stem cell research curtailed and theres a good chance we would have stayed out of Iraq.  If McCain had been elected in 2008 Im quite certain we wouldn't have Obamacare, the government trying to force university health plans to cover abortion and our stimulus packages over the past four years would have had less government spending and more tax cuts.  Perhaps not the kind of differences you're looking for between Democrats and Republicans but still substantial.

And note that in spite of the media Im not blaming Bush for the Great Recession.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947554]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Further_North]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947467]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott asked:

&quot;Do you think you could vote against your preferred party (Democrat or Republican) if you really liked your candidates' positions but the government as a whole wasn't working well as a team?&quot;

My answer is absolutely.

The parties are drifting - hell, they're under power and steaming at full speed - further and further from the center, and conforming more and more to the demands of party leadership rather than the people who elected them.

We've got politicians choosing their voters (gerrymandering), we've got party politics and goals overriding what is right, and over it all we've got justification after justification that when boiled down, too often sounds like &quot;It all started when they hit us back&quot;.

Politics has become about winning rather than what is best for the people and it far past time for a change.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947467]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947466]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[As a devout vote-throw-away-er, your party sounds awful to me, because voting the incumbents out, in popular usage, implies voting the guy from &quot;the other party&quot; in. Since both parties are approximately identical, an anti-incumbent vote is therefore just as useless as any other vote.

The only vote that *can* make a difference is a third-party vote, but as a country we've been persuaded that a third-party vote *can't* make a difference. We're stuck with the Bipartisan Party unless something big changes.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1947466]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
