Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 Aaaaah! It's good to have the New York Times' opinion pages back again! They never disappoint. Like today's Bob Herbert column. Once again America's most boring columnist is railing at the "Dirty Tricks" the GOP is attempting in California, trying to steal yet another—the third, by Bob's count—presidential election. Like crack addicts confronting the irresistible vial, the evil geniuses of the G.O.P. can’t seem to help themselves. This time — with an eye toward seizing the White House again next year, even if they lose the popular vote — they’re trying to rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California.I really like the bit about how the plan "would divide up the electoral votes in a way that would likely give 20 or more of them to the candidate who loses the popular vote in the state." Yeah. OK. But wouldn't they go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that district? Why is Bob Herbert trying to silence the voters in 40% of California's electoral districts? Now, don't get me wrong. I think the plan is a bad idea, too. But I think it's a bad idea because, like the switch to direct election of US Senators, it moves us farther away from the republican ideal, and ever closer to direct democracy. Democracy, as it's form gets purer, tends to bring out the worst in the electorate. As James Madison, inThe Federalist #10, so cogently observed two centuries ago: A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.The point of the electoral college is to preserve the voice of states in the selection of the president, rather than having the presidential election devolve into a democratic popularity contest. Indeed, there's no Constitutional requirement for states to even allow a popular election for president. The state legislature, for example, can choose to select the electors themselves, or delegate it to local Kiwanis clubs, or anything else they desire. The thing that's odd about this column of Mr. Herbert's is that, for the most part, the post-2000 progressive desire has been to do exactly what GOP lawyers are trying to do in California: make the electoral vote more commensurate with the popular vote. Or, even better, eliminate the electoral college completely. And they wish to do this because the electoral college is explicitly anti-majoritarian, hence, anti-democratic. Which makes Mr. Herbert's closing pasage seem a little...odd. What the Democrats need to do now is make sure that California voters understand that they are the latest targeted pawns in the G.O.P.’s longstanding efforts to undermine not just the Democrats but democracy itself.Uh-huh. I see. So, now that it looks like an electoral college reform might really hurt Democrats, all the sudden the electoral college is a cornerstone of democracy, because changing it might result in 22 more electoral votes going to Republicans. Oh, and speaking of democracy, what, exactly, is the "dirty trick" being perpetrated here? It's not like back-room deals are being cut, in order to present the voters of California with a fait accompli. Quite the opposite. The backers of this idea are attempting to get the electoral college reform plan in front of California's voters via the ballot proposition process. Every voter in California would be allowed to evaluate the plan personally, and vote yea or nay on a statewide ballot proposition. If a majority of the voters approve it, it will become law. Maybe I'm missing something here, but allowing the electorate at large to vote for or against this proposition sounds...I dunno..democratic to me. So, let's see if I have Mr. Herbert's main points straight here. It is a danger to democracy to allow the state's voters to vote on, and possibly approve, a plan that would make the state's electoral vote count reflect more closely the actual votes cast for president in California. Well. That's an...interesting interpretation of democracy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
