Unless you're like me (someone with a vested interest in the outcome), you probably didn't pay too much attention to the Texas primary race on Tuesday. However, if you live in America, even if your job doesn't depend on the results of the Texas primary, you should be interested. As one of the first big primaries of the year, it might be a glimpse into what we can expect for the rest of the 2010 election season. If nothing else, it's an interesting study in human behavior.
Texas has 32 Members in the House of Representatives -- 20 are Republican. Eleven of those Republicans faced primary challengers, the vast majority of them from the "Tea Party" movement. Guess how many Texas incumbents lost their primary? None. Zip. Zero. I find that interesting.
There is certainly no shortage of anger, frustration, or fear out there today about what is happening in Washington. I hear about it from family, friends, and constituents all the time. Many have wholly subscribed to the "throw the bums out" approach, thinking it would be better to get rid of every Member of Congress and start fresh. Yet when there was ample opportunity to do so in Texas (where the anger is just as prevalent as anywhere in the nation, if not more so), the majority of people -- and in many cases, the large majority -- didn't do it. Voter turnout in Texas was sky-high because of the hotly contested gubernatorial primary, so no one can claim it's because people didn't vote.
So why is it? I know there is a popular theory that even when Congress has terrible approval ratings, most people still support their Representatives. But I would argue that one of the reasons that happens is that much of the time, there isn't a reasonable alternative. For example, I would venture to say that conservative Republicans, for the most part, will not vote for a Democrat, even if they are unhappy with the current Republican Representative. But if there is a conservative alternative, I would think that would change the dynamics a bit. It didn't. At least, not in Texas.
Tell me what I'm missing.
3 comments:
I think you should run, give them a conservative option. I am somewhat following, my husband is from Dallas and we lived in Sab Antonio for a year. Where do you live? Hope
things are good. Watch out for those chicken strips
from IHOP- they are awe.some.
2 ? 1)How many votes did the conservative alternatives receive?
2) Was there more support for them this year then in previous years?
We have been a "2 party" government for so long, maybe fear of a 3rd dynamic makes them hesistant to vote they way they feel. It seems to get anything done you need overwhelming support and numbers. By voting for the "true" candidate it limits your power or influence because of lack of numbers.
Bottom line opinion: People lack the confidence and faith that the rest of the nation will vote for conservative alternates to give enough voice for change. Have some faith and vote for what candidate you approve of.
Thanks for the post.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I would venture to say it has something to do with a status quo bias. Even if people want "change," if there is not something out there that is directly along their line of thought concerning that change, then the they tend to prefer the status quo.
It's the same thing that's been happening with health care reform. A lot of people out there want "change" in health care, but nobody agrees on what that change should be like. And if you vote for a change that varies from your idea of change, then it's going to be that much harder to get your change later on. So it's better to maintain the status quo, than to vote for change that you don't completely agree with.
Anyway, there's my two cents, from the former self-proclaimed "most apolitical employee on Capitol Hill."
Post a Comment