RI SEN: The "17%" Conundrum: Issues vs. Partisan Politics

There is a schism that exists in Rhode Island electorate with the impact of too much power with one party. Special interests have benefited by Democratic control at the state level and Repulican control at the national level making the selection of the US Senator more difficult between Lincoln Chafee and Sheldon Whitehouse as "issues" prevail over partisan ship with the 17% still undecided.

In politics, nobody likes to be in the minority.  It suggests the majority is correct.  As in most things in life, the majority frequently prevails. The conundrum is when an equal number exists on opposing sides. The outcome is decided by the remainder.  This group sees their votes not as an allegiance to a party as much as to ideals.

In Congress, equality can creates checks and balances that tend to limit corruption and benefit the populace.  In election years, this "minority" decides the candidate who is selected.  In business governance, this is known as the "swing vote" and a premium is paid to influence their votes.  

In Congress, these folks may expect some "earmarks" ("pork") to influence their vote.  When it benefits "us" they're a good politician.  When it benefits another state -well, you get the idea.  In both cases, it's still our tax dollars.  In the Rhode Island US Senate race, this undecided minority may represent the same 17% that did not support the winning Democratic candidate for US Senate.

The underlying Democratic message bears examination.  "We want to oust the GOP in Congress because their direction is wrong."  I couldn't agree more.  I believe our economic and security issues remain unaddressed.  If you're a good person holding a Congressional seat, such as many feel Senator Chafee has been, then it gets more complicated.  

His "job" is to use politics to remain in office, as well as benefit his constituents.  Hopefully, more of the latter and less of the prior.  It gets cloudy when the party with which one is affiliated is set on rewarding its benefactors (contributors) and less so improving the lives of the voters.  This cuts both ways with both parties.

In Rhode Island, this presents some stumbling blocks.  On few occasions have I heard said our Democrat controlled General Assembly has no room for improvement.  Look at their approval rating.  The special interests have so lopsided the playing field that the majority (voters) are seldom in the game.  They say, Democrat Lt. Governor Charlie Fogarty, who I believe is a good man, is the change needed in Rhode Island.  

This flies against conventional wisdom, as we'd witness the same situation we now have in Congress with no checks and balances.  By extension, it infers Governor Carcieri is not a good man or a good governor, but as a Republican he ought to be voted out.  Current polls suggest the argument is not persuasive; yet, corruption needs to be rooted out and our bread and butter kitchen table issues continue to suffer.

If state level partisan reasoning was solid, then it bodes well for Senator Chafee to remain in office.  Conversely, if it's flawed and there's no checks and balances in Congress, then a Democrat ought to be elected.  This suggests Sheldon Whitehouse, by virtue of being a Democrat, is a better candidate than Lincoln Chafee.  Speaking for myself and not for the other 17%, why have both candidates remained silent on real campaign finance reform that would place voters' interests ahead of special interests?  Why when the information is evident the reason for being in Iraq was built on lies, neither candidate will state what measures of executive accountability ought to be applied?  

When the candidates' political lifeline prevails over moral courage to act on principle, this is politics at its worse.  It's a detriment to the issues impacting not just the 17%, but the faithful or unquestioning 83% as well.