Politics As Usual

Rigging the system.

Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008.

Read how at Newsweek.

I got this story from TPM, which is a good blog and a great source of information on the political front. Most of you probably already read TPM, but this story as blogged there, typically for TPM, did not make any mention of the Democrats in North Carolina. If you didn't check the Newsweek link they provide, you'd be left with the impression that it was a totally GOP move. In fact, if you did check the link, and all you read was the Newsweek headline, you'd still not see the Democrats part. At any rate, I usually try to follow TPM links, because while the TPM reporters are excellent investigators, they are glaringly Democrats, and so they tend to use a slanted lens for viewing stories.

Sidestepping the Electoral College

Can somebody help me out here? What am I failing to see? This just seems idiotic. I think there are good reasons to eliminate the Electoral College, but skirting it just to have presidential candidates take notice of your state doesn't cut it.

Everything is show these days, forget the substance.

In a similar move for the sake of publicity and the appearance of leadership, and presumably to get presidential candidates to pay more attention to the state, Texas just moved its primary up from March to February, because so many other states are doing it - all vying for early attention. One state, and I cannot now remember which (Arizona?) recently made the decision not to move its primary up, because they figured they wouldn't get any attention by doing it now that everybody else was. They thought they'd garner more attention by being the only late primary state.

And now this foolishness...

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

[...]

[Senator Jamie] Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states - the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns.

  MSNBC article

So, he'd essentially say, "screw you" to the state of Maryland's voters if they didn't vote the way the national popular vote went? Does he plan on getting re-elected there in Maryland?

Other states are considering the change to avoid an election in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.

Al Gore lost to George Bush when the Supreme Court halted the legal process of vote recount in Florida. That's what happened in 2000. The change to avoid the possibility of a president losing the election after winning the popular vote would be to eliminate the Electoral College all together. To have your state's voters choose one candidate and then give their votes by way of the Electoral College to whoever gets the most votes nationwide is simply robbing your voters of their votes. How's that make anything better?

Hawaii's legislature recently passed a similar measure, sending it to Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

[...]

North Dakota and Montana rejected it earlier this year.

[...]

The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

So, it's essentially pointless anyway, huh?

Until the lemming effect takes hold.

What am I missing here? Surely I'm not understanding something, because this just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.