The Republican scheme to rig the presidential election by allocating electoral votes along gerrymandered district lines is clearly in big trouble. It was brought up in several states, but the only one where it still stands a credible shot of advancing is Pennsylvania, and as of yesterday, state GOP leaders are divided amongst themselves.
But while we wait for this awful idea to fade away completely, David Frum is unmoved by criticisms of the Republican vote-rigging plans.
Liberals and Democrats are today aghast at Republican schemes to rewrite voting rules to strengthen their position in the Electoral College. Republicans are suggesting that states switch from winner-take-all to a district-by-district allocation of electoral votes. [...]
Wherever did Republicans get such an idea? Oh yeah [...]
Moral: when it comes to setting the rules of the game, there are no angels.
I never saw this as an especially partisan issue -- it's offensive when sore losers try to create an unlevel electoral playing field, no matter which side of the political divide does it -- but so long as Frum has raised the point, it's worth clarifying the relevant details.
Frum's example is a 2004 effort in Colorado, in which some on the left considered a similar plan: allocate the state's electoral votes proportionally, instead of a winner-take-all system.
So Frum has a point about the hypocrisy of progressive complaints in 2013? Actually, no.
In 2004, the Colorado measure was crafted by activists, but Democrats didn't support it. Indeed, neither the state nor national Democratic Party had anything to do with the idea, and offered it no backing. In contrast, in 2013, we see the exact opposite: the election-rigging schemes were endorsed by the Republican National Committee, and have enjoyed the support of many state GOP policymakers.
In 2004, some liberal groups wanted the matter on the Colorado ballot; in 2013, Republican state lawmakers wanted to pursue this through the legislative process.
In 2004, progressive activists eyed proportional electoral-vote distribution, which is also a bad idea, but is different than what the right has proposed in 2013 -- allocation of electoral votes in "blue" battleground states, and only "blue" battleground states, based on gerrymandered district lines.
In other words, Frum is drawing a parallel between two developments that really aren't especially similar.
I can appreciate the need to avoid hypocrisy, but I hope fair-minded observers can look at what Republicans proposed here and agree that it's wrong and has no place in our democratic system. In this case, GOP officials, fearing the future, sought a ridiculous structural "fix" -- they hoped to create a system in which Republicans could get fewer votes but win power anyway. They intended to create such a system by telling traditionally Republican states to play by one set of rules (winner take all), while telling competitive Democratic states to play by a different set of rules (divided votes by unfairly drawn district lines).
My point is less about which side is more angelic and more about which side feels the need to cheat.
Sometimes, there's value in putting a pox on both houses, and sometimes, only one house deserves it.
Leave a Comment:
Conflation - the only tool in the arsenal of reason the likes of Frum has on this issue!
Conflation - the strategy of obfuscation used by scoundrels and other political ne'erdowells!
Hey David - stay away from what you know is dead wrong. I want to continue to respect you! -Kevo
David Frum may be a "not insane" Republican, but he's still a Republican. Too bad he doesn't go back to Canada. Oh, I forgot, he came here because they laughed him out of the country.
I don't think they allow journalists (or even avowed journalists) to be intentionally lax with factual reality in Canada.
We can't blame Frum too much... while he did have his eye on the Republicans propensity for cheating... unfortunately his other eye was on an interesting painting on the far wall.
Besides coming to this "debate" with a long history of intellectual dishonesty, Mr. Frum is trying to draw a false equivalency. Then he uses that to employ a favorite trick of the right and so-called "centrists," especially in media circles, by proclaiming "both sides do it."
What utter claptrap.
It's called a "False Balance Fallacy" and anyone who has passed basic college English should know it let alone a Presidential speechwriter who went to Yale and Harvard law
Frum is a partisan pretending to be a neutral party. Which is a fancy way of saying that he is being dishonest.
It's an odd kind of argument, anyway: You've accused me of something bad, so I'll accuse you of the same bad thing, and then your badness cancels out my badness. But, really, if you accuse me of cheating at cards, and I am cheating at cards, I must still a cheat even if you are as well (although a hypocrite to boot).
We need to have a national popular vote.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Screw the Electoral college
But, but... that would be changing the Constitution! You mean we can do that? You mean it wasn't "written in stone" or "cast in concrete"?
If this is so, maybe we could take a look at changing the 2nd Amendment!
The 2nd Amendment is one where we actually have very clear direction from the "Founding Fathers" as to what they intended. Read from the Federalist Papers, #29, I believe, and #26-#28. They laughed at the prospect that the "tyrannical " government would be the one that we ourselves set up. I mean, we set it up OURSELVES! They meant militia and they meant an outside force. And they did NOT mean self-protection.
No, we do not need to change the Constitution to have a national vote for President.
States control how they allocate their electoral votes. This is why Maine and Nebraska are able to split electoral votes by congressional district.
States could decide to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national vote, as long as enough states to form a majority of the electoral college pledge to do likewise. There is a movement to do just that, and if enough states pass enabling legislation we will have a national vote.
John seeking...
I pretty sure eliminating the electoral college would involve changing the Constitution. Changing how a state allocates its electoral votes is one thing, getting rid of the electoral college and switching to a popular vote is another altogether.
One of the check/balances in the Constitution involves the size and populations of different states. That's why there are two senators for each state, regardless of size/population. If we moved to a popular vote, how do we adjust for the difference between Montana and New York? Even Albany has more people than ALL of Montana. Plus, Montana most likely has different needs than New York. Does Montana just lose out because we move to a popular vote at the national level?
And I'm also pretty sure that the "movement" to change the whole electoral college process would require more than states passing legislation. It would most certainly require an amendment to the Constitution. We can do that, but that goes back to my original point: We would have to change the Constitution.
If a group of states with at least 270 electoral votes between them passed legislation that pledged their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national vote, the winner of the national vote would become President.
We would still have an electoral college, but the national vote would determine the allocation of electors and therefore determine the outcome of the election.
Point taken.
The only problem I see with your proposal is getting this group of states to act together to the common end. It could hypothetically be done, but it wouldn't work till all of this group achieves the common goal. And that is the rub.
Ohio, for example, has a Republican-controlled state government. But electorally, they went Democratic (for Obama). And the national vote went Democratic. Why would Ohioan Republicans vote to change the process to ensure a Democratic win? And be subject to the sway of the national vote vs. trying to have better control of the votes within their state borders?
One more thought: When a group of states that has 270 electoral votes all vote to the same conclusion, you probably have a majority national vote. The only difference I foresee would be that the electoral college vote might be closer. But the winner would be the same.
The idea is that the states would assign electors based on the national result, whether the state vote result was the same or not.
So, if, for example, Hillary Clinton won the national vote, she would get the 270+ electoral votes of all the states allocating electors this way, whether she won any of those states or not.
The huge irony about this quandry for the GOP that if Rove really wanted to get moderate GOP candidates in power he would be for a pretty lefty kind of electoral reform idea: Ranked choice ballots where the winner percolated to the top via transferable vote. As Rachel pointed out in a bar graph a few nights ago, the favorite in Iowa is GOP Tom Latham, but the DEM will win because the people's preference of Latham will not win the GOP primary against the birther Steve King.
.
If Latham, King and Dem candidate ran in a three way, Latham would win if the state adopted a Transferable vote style election.
Rachel showed those charts in the Feb 4 show: 3 minutes in.
The way the vote works is intuitively simple to grasp but it is easier seen than explained. This 1.5 minute Youtube illustrates how representatives would be voted on if British Columbia got rid of what we call districts. For a single Senate seat, you can see how the vote would work in the video's third round- where no candidate has enough votes.
Using Rachel's example of Iowa, in a three way race none of the candidates would get a majority. According to the PPP poll these charts were based on, the GOP vote would split, but so would the DEM vote for Braley (some would go to Latham). PPP asked a multiple candidate race but didn't ask the percentages for a three way between Braley, King and Latham, but if they did, I think it would prove my point that Latham would win such an election.
Hard to prove. It would be an interesting question for PPP to ask in one of these TParty "primaried" races.
For those who have read my posts, they know how apocalyticly I view loss of the Senate to the GOP. I do think that votes should fairly represent the will of the people, and overall believe the Dems would win most seats if such a transferable vote scheme were implemented, as has been done in Ireland, Malta, the Australian Senate and domestically in some cities like Berkeley, CA and Cambridge MA.
but in INSTANT RUN OFF VOTING , I thought one candidate would get eliminated in the final 3 way , then they would go head to head for the final election
I think there is also an issue of magnitude here...
Even to take Frum's example at face value we are only discussing efforts in one state not a coordinated and deliberately orchestrated effort across many States.
If we say that the Colorado case is one of Grand Larceny then the REDMAP plan is a RICO case for Money Laundering and conspiracy to commit interstate wire fraud.
It's a BIG BIG Difference
That's why it's called false equivalency. Scoundrels love it because, like the guy who orders the lobster at lunch then wants to split the check, they get to offload some of the cost onto others.
And the whole system will remain unfair so long as gerrymandering is allowed to continue unabated.
Some of the 'districts' that have been drawn up are ludicrious, at best.
Re-districting reformation should come before electoral college reformation if you want a 'fair' vote based on how many people vote for a candidate, and not on 'where they live'
Frum like the rest of his ilk only see apples & apples when it suits their ends. Otherwise it's all "the librul media's fault" or President Obama's.....
David Frum markets for David Frum and for unknown reasons gets air time toward that end.
It is a case of false equivalency on the part of Frum. Aside from that what makes anyone think these elections schemes are dead? Don't be surprised if they are resurrected in time for the 2016 elections.
Agreed. I suspect, but can't prove, that they probably thought that these measures could slip quietly through in the immediate aftermath of a major election. If that's what they thought, then they were wrong, but that doesn't mean they'll make another move when they think the the time is right.
This is for Pennsylvania residents: Gov. Tom Corbett (R, T-Party), is not just messing with the electoral votes, but is refusing to accept the ACA (Obamacare) in PA to expand Medicaid. This is an immoral and impractical idea.
Let him know how we feel about this:
His office in Harrisburg: 717-787-2500
Thanks.
Sure, I'll enter my two cents........
This nation watched the Republican Party suppress votes, rig election outcomes in OHIO of 2004, even witness the Supreme Court use its power from the bench, to rig elections for the GOP.
Not again for a long long time. But all eyes are on the Democrat Party and the Green and Independent Parties to correct the course of this nation. The GOP has unraveled its WHIG.
As I remember, one huge difference is that the Colorado move was to allocate electoral votes proportionally based on the overall popular vote, not by congressional districts. The Republican plans have been to use the gerrymandered districts to distort the results so that the one who controls districting can get more electoral votes even if the popular vote is lower. In Colorado, it would have been proportional to the actual popular vote, regardless of how gerrymandered the districts are.
If THIS isn't typical of the GOP. They take a really bad idea from a group of Democrats, RUN with it all the way to crazy, get chastised for it and then BLAME IT ON THE DEMOCRATS. It should be in the GOP platform.
Proportional distribution of electoral college votes is not a bad idea if it is implemented nationally versus being implemented selectively in only those states where it benefits one party. Indeed, proportional distribution of electoral college votes is a fantastic idea for avoiding the nightmare that would result from a pure popular vote decision if the election is close (think Florida 2000 carried out nationally!). Realistically, I think this could only be implemented if there were a Constitutional amendment.
In 2004, Colorado had a majority of its congressional seats held by Republicans. The push for proportional representation in the electoral college was certainly not a bid for some advantage by Democrats since the congressional map at the time was overwhelmingly favorable to Republicans (5-2) while the state has been a perennial battleground on the presidential level.
Frum kinda had a niche, for a little while. As soon as he sold out his websire Frumforum he lost it. Now he is just one writer on a website instead of the head honcho. Frum spoke out against the insanity, and had an audience. In this instance he reminds me of Morning Joe, sane mostly, but tethered to positions with no foundation in truth.
Eliminate gerrymandering in every state by using an algorithm to design congressional districts.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-gerrymandering-every-state-using-algorithm-design-congressional-districts/5rCNbM2L
http://bangordailynews.com/2008/10/26/politics/why-maine-splits-its-electoral-votes/
For as long as I've been alive, Maine has always been able to split its electoral votes. I just never knew the reason why the switch had been made, until I searched and found the article. It was just one of those things that I never really thought about. No one around here wants to change anything, and Maine has never split the electoral vote since they returned to this method.
I found the historical information that Massachusetts used to have the congressional district allocation before becoming a winner take all state in the early 1800s.