Milford chronicle., 1954-11-26

hysteria" That view seems to be held bv
most of the more objective writers and com
mentators. The Democrats won Congress.
/ IT IS true. But there was no landslide-in-
deed, their gains were well under the figure
that is usual for the "OUts' in an 0ff-Vear.
election. And there is no such thing as a
clear Democratic party program, any more
than there is clear Republican party pro
gram. Both parties contain legislators and
governors who have little more in common
than the party label.
The election certainly proved that there
are fewer and fewer Straight ticket" vot-
ers The individual, rather than the party
designation, is now the big thing That ac-
counts for the fact that voters elected Re-
publican governors at the same time they
elected Democratic Senators and Represen-
tatives, and vice versa.
Will the change in Congressional control
mean important changes in the course of
government now? In all probability, it will
not Some Of the Democratic winners actu-
ally seem to favor more of the Eisenhower
program than did some defeated Republi-
cans The new leaders, particularly in the
Senate, Will largely be conservative Southern
Democrats. To take a salient example, SEN
ator Byrd Of Virginia will head the potent
Finance COmmlttee-and there is no man in
Congress who is more passiOnately dedicated
to the goal OF rigid economy in government,
a balanced budget, and pay-as-you-go fiscal
policy.
Finally, this election certainly demon
strated how important an individual vote is
In three Senate races, the winners margin
was less than one-half of one per cent of the
vote cast. In several others it was only
slightly larger
&9OOS
VOTERS AND PUBLIC POWER
SOclallzed electric power production WasI
an issue in the late campaign. And as a con-
sequence of the voters decisions in a num-
Der OF contests concerning candidates, it is |
being argued that Congress has a mandate
TO appressively push ahead with federalI
power development However, an ANALYSIS |
OF what happened in certain key areas hard
ly bears that view out. Oregon is perhaps
the outstanding example. In a phOtO-fnish |
race which held the attention of the whole
country until the last ballots were counted,
q candidate for the u. S. Senate who un-
equlv0cally favOrs government power de-
feated the incumbent. But many other issues
and considerations played their part in the |
campalgn-and the evidence indicates that
these greatly OvershadOwed the question of
puOhc-VS-prlVate electric power
Direct public ownership measures were
on the ballot in three Oregon areas-and in |
every instance were badly beaten. In one i
case, the measure provided for the annex
alton OF private utility's service area by
a peoples utility district, and it was voted |
down for the fifth time by four-to-one-
margin. In the second case, a proposed reve-
nue. bond issue for such a district was given
the thumbs down treatment by better than
three to two. In the third case, a proposal
to dissolve peoples utility district carried /
by two to one. It is a fact of record that. /
over the years, voters have usually vetoed /
to put government into the power
business when the issue was put before
them In straightforward fashion, and was
not confused by other matters Whatever |
she last election proved or didn't prove, it's
impossible to find a mandate for socialism
in it.
NGORSG