We should vote for Governor in Presidential election years

[welshTerrier2]

does what we're doing now make any sense to you ??

Massachusetts almost always votes for the democratic presidential candidate ... while the number of democrats has been declining (changing to "Unenrolled"), we are still a very liberal state compared to the national average ...

so, how is it possible that we keep electing republican governors ???

well, one factor might be that our governor is elected in non-presidential years ... maybe some thought should be given to changing this ... in presidential years, voter turnout is almost always much higher than in off years ... that will certainly be the case this year compared to 2002 ... and most of those who will vote this year will vote democratic ... while it's true that voters could split their tickets (i.e. voting for a democratic president and a republican governor), i think it's more likely most voters would vote a straight democratic ticket ... low turnout in off year elections would seem to benefit republicans more than democrats ...

it seems to me we can only be helped by switching the governor's election to presidential years ... with a majority in the statehouse, is there any reason this change couldn't be made ??

comments ??

addendum: mrs. wt2 thinks this idea is bogus ... she made a pretty good argument that even though we've been electing republican governors, we've also been electing democrats to other statewide offices like: Attorney General, Secretary of State, Auditor ...

this doesn't necessarily negate the argument however ... the question it raises is whether the "extra" voters who vote during presidential years are more partisan democrats than those who vote in off year elections ... anyway, food for thought ...

[SheilaT]

1. A lot of states elect governors

in the off years. Kansas, where I live, is one of them, and we have a Democratic Governor, (Kathleen Sibelius) elected two years ago.

I rather like this system, because in a presidential year, all that most people can possibly pay attention to is the presidential race. Governors would get almost no media attention. As it is, all 435 House seats are up, as well as a third of the senate. And most State House and Senate seats. If anything, I think the presidential election should be a stand-alone one, but under our current system that would be difficult, if not impossible to do.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. uummmm, why does Massachusetts elect Republican . . .

Governors? Simple. In attempts to balance state government, period.

The House and Senate are so locked-in w/ Democrats that most Bay Staters *feel* tis better to have an opposing party in the Corner Office in our state government slots. It's almost a shoe-in to get a GOPer in as Governor. Look at Mitt Romney, for example, Massachusetts didn't peruse him very closely. (But we are now, correct? LOL)


. . . . . . . . .

edited to correct small typo.

[welshTerrier2]

3. timing is still a factor ...

my point was not to suggest that the timing of the governor's election in off years was THE ONLY factor ... the truth is, i think the dems have run some pretty lightweight candidates ...

i also think, btw, that the state democratic party doesn't have a clue ... but i think this may be just starting to change ... i noticed some pretty good anti-romney literature in my mailbox the last couple of months ...

i agree with your point about wanting to balance the democratic control of state government ... but i think some of this sentiment was generated by dislike for finneran and before him bulger ... with less arrogant leadership, perhaps this trend will not continue ...

there is a new energy among democrats ... let's hope it can be sustained and even built on after Kerry wins ...