Wednesday, November 3, 2010

More Money, Less Votes

      Although it comes as no surprise that California voters re-elected incumbent Barbara Boxer for the Senate and Jerry Brown for governor, it is shocking to point out the money that was thrown around in this election. I freely admit that I am one of 5 Republicans who live in California, but despite this, I was not a fan of Meg Whitman. I do believe that this state needs a savvy, business-minded individual to run state government, but alas, Meg was not the answer to California's prayers. However, she did highlight an important trend in politics: more money does not mean more votes. 
      Meg, ex-CEO of Ebay, spent more than $142 million of her OWN money for this campaign, while Brown laughed all the way to Sacramento. Although this may be due to the fact that California is a liberal state, many political critics say this will be a trend that we see for years to come. Voters are not apt to elect politicians with loads of money because "large wealth and the perception of being “out of touch” with the plight of the average American is a liability". In times of economic instability, voters are not impressed with politicians who can afford to spend $140 million on an election; they want their elected representatives to understand what it means to have financial woes. 
       While California may never elect the types of individuals that I would like, I was very pleased to see the Republicans gain control of the House . There is nothing better than sending a message loud and clear to the White House. That, after all, is the beauty of a democracy.

No comments:

Post a Comment