Few surprises in election results, except in Pennsylvania

RealClearPolitics :

"• NJ: Corzine (D) Wins Gov Race | Results: Corzine 53.5, Forrester 43.2 (91%)
• VA: Kaine (D) Elected Governor | Results: Kaine 51.6, Kilgore 46.1 (98%)
• CA: Centerpiece of Schwarzenegger's Reform Defeated | Election Results
• New York City: Bloomberg Storms To Second Term With Win Over Ferrer
• TX: Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Overwhelmingly Approved"

No big surprises in the nationally-watched contests - follow the link to RealClearPolitics.com for links to election coverage if you want the details.

One thing I did notice was that the turnout in California - for that raft of referenda which were pushed by Gov. Schwartzenegger and failed as predicted - was way below the experts' predictions. While some had said turnout could be in the 60s, the actual figure was nearer 40 percent statewide, ranging from the mid-70s to as little as 30 percent in some counties.

Pennsylvania - although it had no races attracting national attention - did manage to make history. For the first time since 1969 when our silly system of putting judges up for a yes/no vote every ten years was launched, a sitting appellate court judge lost his seat on the bench. Justice Russell Nigro (D) of the Supreme Court lost on a 51-49 split while his fellow Justice Sandra Schultz Newman (R) was retained with a paltry 54 percent vote. These were the only statewide contests on the ballot and a grassroots effort to show voter displeasure with recent pay raises for legislators and judges targeted both for defeat.

The legislature will soon take up the question of repealing the pay raise bill which has proved too radioactive for some of those who so recently voted for it.

In typical fashion, the Pennsylvania legislature adopted this latest raise with no prior notice at two o'clock in the morning. Now, if that isn't evidence of a guilty conscience, I don't know what is.

To make matters worse, my state senator, David J. Brightbill, Esq., has come up with his own scheme to answer those who object to the increased cost of legislative salaries - he wants to reduce the number of legislators!

What we need is a much larger legislature so that the committee and subcommittee workload can be spread around (ideally only one subcommittee per member) and we can again have part-time legislators. More members would also mean smaller districts and less expensive campaigns. Both of these factors would increase the pool of available candidates. It might also help to make members more responsive to the real priorities of voters rather than the government and its hangers-on. I don't say it's a panacea, but it's worth a try.

We wouldn't need to pay part-time legislators well over a hundred thousand dollars per year, fifty thousand ought to be plenty; nor would taxpayers be expected to provide them with luxury sedans and SUVs or generous health care and retirement plans. And, with much smaller districts they wouldn't need to maintain two or three offices in each of their districts, one would suffice.