The Plot to Rig the 2008 Election.

[SoulOnIce]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3204034.ece

[CaptChucky]

We always have to assume the money and power boys want to keep both. Do you think they worry about such things as fair elections?

[bartl]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3204034.ece
Hmmmm.... the article starts out by showing the author doesn't have a clue as to how the American electoral process works, even in theory.

[Steven Grant]

In point of fact, though, even Gov. Schwarzenegger has denounced this initiative as dirty politics - and it's his own party backing it.

- Grant

[mattx110]

Hmmmm.... the article starts out by showing the author doesn't have a clue as to how the American electoral process works, even in theory.
neither do most americans. we still knows it's wrong.;)

[bartl]

neither do most americans. we still knows it's wrong.;)
No election has ever been altered by "faithless electors", and the system is designed to make the electors more or less rubber stamps (and the Supreme Court has OK'd laws which require electors to vote for the people the represent). So, the electoral college pretty much makes a balance between states and the population as a whole. It's a lot more democratic than the U.N., for example, where a country of a billion people and a country of a couple of hundred thousand people have the same number of votes. And it's not about to change, either, because the states with lower populations don't want to get screwed (in New York City, where there was a similar system, a Supreme Court decision outlawing it caused a situation where Staten Island became, both literally and figuratively, the dumping ground for the city, and voted to secede from the city as a result).

It's up to the state legislatures how to set up the electoral votes. Two states already have proportional elections of electors.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors, regardless of which party it is. If it were the Democrats pushing in a heavily Republican state, would you be upset?

[Steven Grant]

Did Staten Island ever secede?

- Grant

[mattx110]

No election has ever been altered by "faithless electors", and the system is designed to make the electors more or less rubber stamps (and the Supreme Court has OK'd laws which require electors to vote for the people the represent). So, the electoral college pretty much makes a balance between states and the population as a whole. It's a lot more democratic than the U.N., for example, where a country of a billion people and a country of a couple of hundred thousand people have the same number of votes. And it's not about to change, either, because the states with lower populations don't want to get screwed (in New York City, where there was a similar system, a Supreme Court decision outlawing it caused a situation where Staten Island became, both literally and figuratively, the dumping ground for the city, and voted to secede from the city as a result).

It's up to the state legislatures how to set up the electoral votes. Two states already have proportional elections of electors.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors, regardless of which party it is. If it were the Democrats pushing in a heavily Republican state, would you be upset?
Yes. I really would.

[Paul McEnery]

.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors,?

No it isn't.

[bartl]

Did Staten Island ever secede?

- Grant
No. New York State does not have binding referendums; the vote was to request that New York State allow it to secede. Then Giuliani got elected mayor, and Staten Island started getting better treatment, and the issue was tabled.

[bartl]

No it isn't.
How is it dishonest?

[Paul McEnery]

How is it dishonest?

How is it not?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

How is it dishonest?

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.

[Paul McEnery]

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.

See, I was working on the basis that the obvious reason they're doing this is to hand the Presidency to the Republican Party; otherwise it would be a nationwide initiative.

But this isn't what they're saying the point is. In fact, I dare say they're concealing that part of their agenda.

Aside from the fact that they'd be disenfranchising not only the Dems in California, but the Dems throughout the country. Which is a bit naughty.

Oh, and by "a bit naughty" I mean "I'd like to get hold of the fuckers responsible for this and shove their heads into a jet turbine, one at a time".

[mattx110]

See, I was working on the basis that the obvious reason they're doing this is to hand the Presidency to the Republican Party; otherwise it would be a nationwide initiative.

But this isn't what they're saying the point is. In fact, I dare say they're concealing that part of their agenda.

Aside from the fact that they'd be disenfranchising not only the Dems in California, but the Dems throughout the country. Which is a bit naughty.

Oh, and by "a bit naughty" I mean "I'd like to get hold of the fuckers responsible for this and shove their heads into a jet turbine, one at a time".
Ah, the old Indy and the lost crusade big guy in the propellor special...

[Steven Grant]

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.

Actually, they're trying this because they think they will lose - and this is the way they came up with to win even if they lose.

Paul is correct that the objective of this is to swing a chunk of California electoral votes to the 2008 Republican presidential candidate whoever that will be. The initiative wasn't concocted on the state level; it's a machination of the National Republican Committee. And they're only pushing it in California because there are a lot of states like Texas that have a substantial liberal/Democratic base that amounts to a "significant minority" and if such a system were initiated in Texas a big chunk of the electoral votes that would otherwise go to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate would go to the Democratic candidate instead - which would sort of moot the point of amending the California system. So in that regard it's pure cynical manipulation, though I don't know that I'd go quite so far as to say it was dishonest. It's basically just the arguments they're using to shill it to the California public that are dishonest. (Because, you know, they can't come out and say "We're doing this to throw an advantage to the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.") But, you know, that's the joy of democracy; if you can get your electorate to vote for it, you can pass pretty much anything.

But I have a feeling that if it did pass, it would end up being along the lines of term limits, which Republicans pushed very hard in the late '80s and early '90s, convincing a number of states to initiate term limits that ended up pushing a lot of Democratic congresspeople and governors out of office - it had a lot to do with why the Republicans ended up in control of Congress in '94 - but when they got into office themselves, they decided maybe term limits weren't such a hot idea and set about dismantling, via initiative and the court system, the limits they themselves had imposed...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Actually, they're trying this because they think they will lose - and this is the way they came up with to win even if they lose.
- Grant

Fair enough.

I forgot one of the major difference in our voting systems - we don't vote for our leader as an individual, the party with the most seats in the House Of Representatives is the leader, and as such if you lose in an electorate, you've lost that electorate, but your party may still win.
A lot better on the whole I find, but I'm sure there's many reasons why it would never work for America.
(Ahh, the inbuilt smugness one gets from not being American!)

[mattx110]

Fair enough.

I forgot one of the major difference in our voting systems - we don't vote for our leader as an individual, the party with the most seats in the House Of Representatives is the leader, and as such if you lose in an electorate, you've lost that electorate, but your party may still win.
A lot better on the whole I find, but I'm sure there's many reasons why it would never work for America.
(Ahh, the inbuilt smugness one gets from not being American!)
Given our one party system, it'd be a bit redundant.

[bartl]

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.
It's dishonest if they try to change the rules AFTER the election, as they tried in Florida in 2000. There is no problem agreeing to change the rules before the election, as long as you're open about what you're doing.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if every state gave proportional electors. I suspect a lot more people would vote. Consider another problem in the Florida 2000 election; CNN, followed by several other networks, declared Gore had won the Florida race, forgetting (and some claim it was on purpose) that the heavily Republican Panhandle section still had the polls open. It's estimated that Bush lost several tens of thousands of votes by people who were convinced by CNN that their vote didn't count.

Also, it would mean that the absentee votes would be counted more often. It is technically possible (albeit unlikely) that Bush won the popular vote in 2000; in most states, the absentee ballots weren't counted, because they would not have made a difference in the state's electoral vote, and they weren't about to spend the money to count them just so an unofficial national voting count could be created.

A few years back, I came up with a design for an electronic voting system based on a combination of an online gaming system I was thinking of and ATM systems; my initial notes got lost somewhere along the way, but I can recreate it easily enough (it's based on several tamper evident black boxes and public key encryption/decryption systems).

[bartl]

Aside from the fact that they'd be disenfranchising not only the Dems in California, but the Dems throughout the country. Which is a bit naughty.
The "winner-take-all" system disenfranchises the minority party. I'd like to see them eliminate it everywhere, and you have to start somewhere.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually, they're trying this because they think they will lose - and this is the way they came up with to win even if they lose.

Paul is correct that the objective of this is to swing a chunk of California electoral votes to the 2008 Republican presidential candidate whoever that will be. The initiative wasn't concocted on the state level; it's a machination of the National Republican Committee. And they're only pushing it in California because there are a lot of states like Texas that have a substantial liberal/Democratic base that amounts to a "significant minority" and if such a system were initiated in Texas a big chunk of the electoral votes that would otherwise go to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate would go to the Democratic candidate instead - which would sort of moot the point of amending the California system. So in that regard it's pure cynical manipulation, though I don't know that I'd go quite so far as to say it was dishonest. It's basically just the arguments they're using to shill it to the California public that are dishonest. (Because, you know, they can't come out and say "We're doing this to throw an advantage to the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.") But, you know, that's the joy of democracy; if you can get your electorate to vote for it, you can pass pretty much anything.

But I have a feeling that if it did pass, it would end up being along the lines of term limits, which Republicans pushed very hard in the late '80s and early '90s, convincing a number of states to initiate term limits that ended up pushing a lot of Democratic congresspeople and governors out of office - it had a lot to do with why the Republicans ended up in control of Congress in '94 - but when they got into office themselves, they decided maybe term limits weren't such a hot idea and set about dismantling, via initiative and the court system, the limits they themselves had imposed...

- Grant

Honest alllllllll the way through, then. :evilsmile

[Paul McEnery]

The "winner-take-all" system disenfranchises the minority party. I'd like to see them eliminate it everywhere, and you have to start somewhere.

There's disingenuous, and then there's flat out misrepresentation to get a rise.

At least, I hope it's the latter. Because the alternative is dishonestly championing the deliberate subversion of the vote so as to put the far right in power.

And we don't like Reichstag fires, do we.

Or do we?












Ooh, that would be a great punk band name: Reichstag Fire Sale.

[bartl]

Fair enough.

I forgot one of the major difference in our voting systems - we don't vote for our leader as an individual, the party with the most seats in the House Of Representatives is the leader, and as such if you lose in an electorate, you've lost that electorate, but your party may still win.
A lot better on the whole I find, but I'm sure there's many reasons why it would never work for America.
(Ahh, the inbuilt smugness one gets from not being American!)
If you are talking about Parliamentary systems, there is a basic problem when the electorate is evenly divided; it gives a disproportionate amount of power to fringe parties.

Consider, 3 people own a business together. 2 own 49% each, and the third owns 2%. All three have the same amount of power in the company; any two can overrule the third.

Israel is an excellent example of this; although the overwhelming majority of the people are against imposition of Jewish law as civil law, a party which frequently holds the balance of the votes does, so Israel has a bunch of its own version of blue laws that almost everybody is against.

[Steven Grant]

Fair enough.

I forgot one of the major difference in our voting systems - we don't vote for our leader as an individual, the party with the most seats in the House Of Representatives is the leader, and as such if you lose in an electorate, you've lost that electorate, but your party may still win.
A lot better on the whole I find, but I'm sure there's many reasons why it would never work for America.
(Ahh, the inbuilt smugness one gets from not being American!)

Yet you still ended up being run by John Howard for how many years?

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Honest alllllllll the way through, then. :evilsmile

You were expecting something else maybe?

As the song goes, a woman's got the right to change her mind.

(Hey, maybe Hillary should just say that when people question her about her support for the Iraq War...)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

The "winner-take-all" system disenfranchises the minority party. I'd like to see them eliminate it everywhere, and you have to start somewhere.

Technically, as you pointed out, we have started; two states already have proportional electoral votes. But why "start" somewhere; why not just go for a constitutional amendment that makes it the law of the land?

(I'm not against proportional dividing of electoral votes - I've always thought that was a fairer system - I'm just against the selective and cynical use of it for the explicit purpose of manipulating general elections.)

The main reason this isn't done is that political machines in most states are dead set against it, because it would make it considerably more difficult for them to hold power, and weakens both major political parties by really opening the system to third party spoilers. (Stick six or seven candidates from different third parties on ballots in every state in the country and you run the risk of subdividing the electoral votes enough that, yes, a non-Big Two candidate could conceivably end up in the White House. Or if, say, you have the Republican candidate, and the Libertarian Candidate, and the American Party candidate, and the Christian Coalition candidate, and the White Peoples' Party etc. on the ballot, and only the Democrat on the 'other side' of the political spectrum, that's a huge advantage for the Democrat - and there are a hell of a lot more fringy right-leaning political "parties" in this country than left-leaning, though possibly such a system would encourage the development of more lefy parties. Then again, that's one of the points of the current winner-take-all system; it keeps American politics from splintering ridiculously by basically pressuring "minor parties" into supporting either the Republican or the Democratic candidate in order to have even the delusion of any influence on the political process at all.) The Republicans don't want to do it nationally because they'd have almost certainly lost the last two elections had that been the system. They're only targeting California because it's the biggest prize and, if we go by past statistics, will only fuel what Republicans currently fear will be a Democratic juggernaut. They're not targeting Texas or Florida or Ohio because they figure they can ace those states, at least narrowly, and don't want to waste that advantage. Like I said, I don't think they're being exactly dishonest in California, just taking advantage of California's relatively lax rules for ballot initiatives. Where they're being dishonest is in marketing the initiative as a blow for democracy when what they really have in mind is naked ambition.

In some ways, California's the perfect place to get it through, despite a liberal/Democratic voting majority in the state. One place where conservatives have it all over liberals is that liberals generally like to bend over backwards to demonstrate they're being fair, and I can imagine a lot of California Democrats, even on hearing that this is basically nothing more than a cheap ploy by the NRC to thwart the Democrats in the electoral college in 2008, might feel compelled to vote for the measure just to prove they're for "fairness" in the political process, whereas Republicans are basically comfortable with the notion that anything that benefits them is fair, because what's good for them is good for the country.

I think it was Dan O'Neill who said that voting is a sin because there are a lot of people out there who believe that any government is better than no government at all, and your vote only encourages them...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Yet you still ended up being run by John Howard for how many years?

- Grant

Well, although he was a lying, racist, elitist, friedmenesque privatising son of a bitch, like your boy Georgie, our taxes went down and the economy/dollar went up, and for some, that's all you need.
(We probably needed him in for that first term, it was the second two that stretched the friendship).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

If you are talking about Parliamentary systems, there is a basic problem when the electorate is evenly divided; it gives a disproportionate amount of power to fringe parties.

Consider, 3 people own a business together. 2 own 49% each, and the third owns 2%. All three have the same amount of power in the company; any two can overrule the third.

Israel is an excellent example of this; although the overwhelming majority of the people are against imposition of Jewish law as civil law, a party which frequently holds the balance of the votes does, so Israel has a bunch of its own version of blue laws that almost everybody is against.

Except you know, it doesn't really work out like that.
The two times in recent memory in Australia where an important policy came down to someone in the senate not of the two major parties, the sale of telstra and work choices, the person voted exactly as was expected of them, they just held out and milked a bit for their seat.

And honestly bart, defending America's 2 party system really does take more than 'it allows other voices to be heard'.
Having other parties has only been a boon to Australian laws - it stops the side in the majority from being able to pass through as is*.
Hence the Green Party is gaining seats, the Democrats used to (before in-party fighting, played out in the media, dropped them back down), because these parties are good at stopping the party in power get carried away or refuse to make changes out of spite.


*The Liberal party lost the last elections because they got carried away once they got the majority (as part of the coalition) and passed bills through with little debate/adjustments.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The Republicans don't want to do it nationally because they'd have almost certainly lost the last two elections had that been the system.
- Grant

Perhaps they should try preferential voting?
They'd pick it up from peoples second preference most likely.
However, this would also force them to adjust part policies to be more in line with what people want them to be, instead of people having to adjust opinion to what the party wants them to be.

[bartl]

The Republicans don't want to do it nationally because they'd have almost certainly lost the last two elections had that been the system. They're only targeting California because it's the biggest prize and, if we go by past statistics, will only fuel what Republicans currently fear will be a Democratic juggernaut.
First of all, a Constitutional Amendment to nationalize the electoral process will never pass 3/4 of the states; at best, we'll get a "recommended standard" like the UCC (as a matter of fact, I'm kind of expecting that when a decent electronic voting system comes in, especially if it's designed as all PD standards). However, with proportional representation, I believe the Republicans would have done better in the last two elections, because the states would still get the 2 extra votes, each.
Like I said, I don't think they're being exactly dishonest in California, just taking advantage of California's relatively lax rules for ballot initiatives. Where they're being dishonest is in marketing the initiative as a blow for democracy when what they really have in mind is naked ambition.
Well, it's both. I live in New York, which has a similar situation; a heavily Democratic New York City, and a heavily Republican rest of the state (although Al D'Amato and George Pataki tried their hardest to ruin the local Republican party; Rick Lazio might have had a small chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the 2000 election had Pataki not thoroughly sabotaged his campaign. For those outside of New York, both D'Amato and Pataki were Republicans. Mind you, Gov. Spitzer (D) is trying his hardest to revive the Republican party...). In any case, California has a substantial Republican base outside of LA and SF.
In some ways, California's the perfect place to get it through, despite a liberal/Democratic voting majority in the state. One place where conservatives have it all over liberals is that liberals generally like to bend over backwards to demonstrate they're being fair, and I can imagine a lot of California Democrats, even on hearing that this is basically nothing more than a cheap ploy by the NRC to thwart the Democrats in the electoral college in 2008, might feel compelled to vote for the measure just to prove they're for "fairness" in the political process, whereas Republicans are basically comfortable with the notion that anything that benefits them is fair, because what's good for them is good for the country.
California's Republicans tend towards the moderate, while California has a relatively large proportion of the Religious Left, who only preach tolerance when it creates conflict, so I suspect the Democrats will not be as, well, in this case, gullible as you might think.

[bartl]

Except you know, it doesn't really work out like that.
It does when the 2 major parties are very close. You mention specific votes, but the coalitions had already been formed, and the deals already made.

[bartl]

Perhaps they should try preferential voting?
They'd pick it up from peoples second preference most likely.
However, this would also force them to adjust part policies to be more in line with what people want them to be, instead of people having to adjust opinion to what the party wants them to be.
It's certainly worth consideration; in fact, before I checked what I had written, I thought I had mentioned that (although I normally use the term "ranked voting"). It's often used in local elections in the U.S.

[Steven Grant]

First of all, a Constitutional Amendment to nationalize the electoral process will never pass 3/4 of the states

Well... they could... if their argument was good and convincing enough. All it takes is for the citizens of the states to vote for ratification. But my point is that if the National Republican Committee thinks proportional electoral representation is such a stunning idea, they should be pushing it in as many states as possible. But they're only pushing it in one of the states where they have the most to gain by it. I notice they're not pushing it here in Nevada, where there's a threadbare Republican majority, mainly because a little under half of the Las Vegas area swings Republican, and virtually all of the rest of the state does, and add those two up and Republicans outnumber Democrats by just enough of a margin to keep mostly Republicans in power. (Rural areas in Nevada also tend to resent and despise Las Vegas.)

at best, we'll get a "recommended standard" like the UCC (as a matter of fact, I'm kind of expecting that when a decent electronic voting system comes in, especially if it's designed as all PD standards). However, with proportional representation, I believe the Republicans would have done better in the last two elections, because the states would still get the 2 extra votes, each.

You'll have to explain that one. What two extra votes each?

Well, it's both. I live in New York, which has a similar situation; a heavily Democratic New York City, and a heavily Republican rest of the state

Well, sure. That's the case in most states, actually; any place where there's an amassed population - big cities - the citizenry tends liberal/Democrat because, let's face it, you tend to get used to a lot more diversity when you're living in a melting pot. Diversity tends to promote liberal viewpoints (not to mention the general trend of the Republican Party toward minorities has been exclusionary, which tends to prod them into the Democratic camp, and cities tend to have the highest concentrations of minorities). Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule and even in cities there's bound to be a substantial number of conservatives. But because of the differences in population density between urban and rural areas, it's not uncommon for cities to overcompensate for rural areas in terms of political balance (for lack of a better word). In areas where that's the case, it hasn't been uncommon for the RNC to promote legislation that helps swing things their way there too, as when the Republican held Texas legislature redrew district lines in Austin in a patently ridiculous fashion to subdivide liberal enclaves so that each subdivision would become part of a nearby Republican enclave that would outweigh the liberal vote from that area, a plan designed by Karl Rove and delivered to Texas Republicans by the RNC

In any case, California has a substantial Republican base outside of LA and SF.

Well, sure. It's got a substantial Republican base inside those cities too. But even outside those cities Democrats also have a substantial base.

California's Republicans tend towards the moderate, while California has a relatively large proportion of the Religious Left, who only preach tolerance when it creates conflict, so I suspect the Democrats will not be as, well, in this case, gullible as you might think.

The Religious Left? You mean diehard commies or something else?

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

The Religious Left? You mean diehard commies or something else?

- Grant

As I understand it, that would mean people with a genuine relationship to the divine, one that compels them towards an active compassion towards their fellow man.

Rather than the followers of Yog-Sothoth who do what Ralph Reed's tentacly head tells them to.

[Lorendiac]

at best, we'll get a "recommended standard" like the UCC (as a matter of fact, I'm kind of expecting that when a decent electronic voting system comes in, especially if it's designed as all PD standards). However, with proportional representation, I believe the Republicans would have done better in the last two elections, because the states would still get the 2 extra votes, each.

You'll have to explain that one. What two extra votes each?

I'm fairly sure he was talking about the formula for how each state's quota of Electoral College votes is determined. The state's electoral votes equals "its number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus two." Since every state is guaranteed to be at least one little congressional district all by itself, no matter how low its population, that means each state gets at least the bare minimum of 3 Electoral Votes, instead of just 1.

Beyond that, I think bartl's point was that if a state has say, 11 congressional districts and 13 electoral votes, and if pluralities of the voters in just 6 of those 11 districts vote Republican in a Presidential election being conducted by these rules for assigning Electoral votes more proportionally, then the Republican candidate as the winner of a "majority of districts" would presumably get those 2 "extra" electoral votes that aren't directly tied to the voting behavior of any single, specific district in that state. Meaning if he'd actually gotten six-elevenths of the districts in that state, he'd get eight-thirteenths of the Electoral vote thereby. (That works out to about 54.5% of the state's districts,but 61.5% of the state's "electoral votes." Come to think of it, under this system it would probably be totally irrelevant whether or not the Republican candidate had gotten more of the "popular" vote at the statewide level than the Democrat had.)

Bartl evidently thinks that if that was the way the scoring had been done for all 50 states at once in November of 2000 and November of 2004, and if all the ballots in each state had actually been cast the exact same way as they were under the rules that pertained in those years, then GWB would have made net gains with that approach and actually would have run up "higher scores" in the Electoral College both times!

I don't have statistics handy for how many congressional districts in each state actually voted for Bush over Gore, or Bush over Kerry, so I really don't know how the bottom line would have turned out if each state's electoral votes were allocated to one guy or the other on that basis. But I think that was bartl's meaning, anyway. (If I guessed wrong on what he was getting at, I'm sure he'll say so! :))

[Paul McEnery]

I'm fairly sure he was talking about the formula for how each state's quota of Electoral College votes is determined. The state's electoral votes equals "its number of seats in the House of Representatives, plus two." Since every state is guaranteed to be at least one little congressional district all by itself, no matter how low its population, that means each state gets at least the bare minimum of 3 Electoral Votes, instead of just 1.

Beyond that, I think bartl's point was that if a state has say, 11 congressional districts and 13 electoral votes, and if pluralities of the voters in just 6 of those 11 districts vote Republican in a Presidential election being conducted by these rules for assigning Electoral votes more proportionally, then the Republican candidate as the winner of a "majority of districts" would presumably get those 2 "extra" electoral votes that aren't directly tied to the voting behavior of any single, specific district in that state. Meaning if he'd actually gotten six-elevenths of the districts in that state, he'd get eight-thirteenths of the Electoral vote thereby. (That works out to about 54.5% of the state's districts,but 61.5% of the state's "electoral votes." Come to think of it, under this system it would probably be totally irrelevant whether or not the Republican candidate had gotten more of the "popular" vote at the statewide level than the Democrat had.)

Bartl evidently thinks that if that was the way the scoring had been done for all 50 states at once in November of 2000 and November of 2004, and if all the ballots in each state had actually been cast the exact same way as they were under the rules that pertained in those years, then GWB would have made net gains with that approach and actually would have run up "higher scores" in the Electoral College both times!

I don't have statistics handy for how many congressional districts in each state actually voted for Bush over Gore, or Bush over Kerry, so I really don't know how the bottom line would have turned out if each state's electoral votes were allocated to one guy or the other on that basis. But I think that was bartl's meaning, anyway. (If I guessed wrong on what he was getting at, I'm sure he'll say so! :))

Or...

Or...

You could just count the votes of each individual citizen.

Just a thought.

[mattx110]

Or...

Or...

You could just count the votes of each individual citizen.

Just a thought.
There should be a button on the TV Remote.

If you're gonna let these cable companies have almost exclusive monopolys in areas, you might as well have them do government work. Isn't that the republican way?

[Lorendiac]

Or...

Or...

You could just count the votes of each individual citizen.

Just a thought.

I take it you mean we could have the President be whoever did best in the "national popular vote" and just throw away the whole "Electoral College" concept entirely? Believe me, that possible approach is not a shocking new idea for me! In fact, I've lost track of how many times I've seen or heard people suggest it! :)

I never said a word about wanting to see the Electoral College votes always be distributed the way I outlined in the post you mentioned. I was just trying to quickly answer a question about what bartl had apparently been getting at when he referred to "two extra votes" for each state, etc., under that possible system.

[mattx110]

proportional electoral voting is just a way of saying "the popular vote is more important, but we don't know if we can pass this in those stupid 3electoral states"

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It does when the 2 major parties are very close. You mention specific votes, but the coalitions had already been formed, and the deals already made.

Except... it doesn't.

For instance, when the GST came in in Australia, the Democrats sided with the Liberal government to bring it in (the democrats make up part of the coalition which the Liberal party heads, despite being separate parties), however when the Bill got to the Senate, that didn't stop them from holding the bill until the concessions they wanted, and the government wasn't willing to give, were allowed in the bill (Tampons, Condoms, Educational materials etc as being exempt from the tax).
If not for third parties, these concessions wouldn't have had to be given, as the bill would have been passed as was*, if the Liberal government just held all seats.



*Much like the bills that were passed after the last election when the Liberals had the majority of both houses.
This of course backfired on them in last months election, where they lost power in both houses, with the main Opposition, the Labour Party, picking up masses of seats, and also third parties gaining more seats after a previous dip.
Variety is the spice of political life, as much as the politicians hate it.

[Lorendiac]

Regarding the article that's linked in at the very start of this thread --

I gather that the author, Johann Hari, lives in the United Kingdom. That makes some of what he said strike me as a bit funny:

Back then, America's founding fathers decided not to introduce a system where US presidents would be directly elected, with the votes totted up in Washington, DC, and the winner being the man with the most. Instead, they chose a complex system called the electoral college. This stipulates that American citizens do not vote directly for a president. Instead, they technically vote for 539 state-wide "electors", who then gather six weeks after the election to pick the President.

The thing is, couldn't a very similar criticism be levelled against the UK regarding how it chooses its Prime Ministers? As I understand it:

1. In the USA, if a citizen thinks he's voting for a Republican or a Democratic candidate for President when he casts his ballot, he's wrong. He's voting for the local Republican or Democratic "slate of electors" to represent his entire home state. (Yes, I know there are exceptions in Maine and Nebraska, but let's stick to general statements regarding the other 48 states for now.) Then the "Electoral College" officially gets to cast the deciding votes for one presidential candidate over another.

2. In the UK, if a citizen thinks he's voting for a Labour or Conservative candidate for Prime Minister when he casts his ballot, he's wrong. He's voting for the local Labour or Conservative candidate who wants to represent this voter's home district in the House of Commons in Parliament. Then the party that ends up with a solid majority in the House (if one does) chooses its own leader to be Prime Minister. If the Members of Parliament from that majority party actually chose, at the last minute, to elect someone else from its ranks to be a new Prime Minister, instead of the guy whom everybody had expected them to elect to lead them, I don't think the "average British voter" would be in a position to stop them at that late date. (He could refuse to vote for his current MP in the next election as a way of seeking retribution, though.)

I think that's right. I've read a few things about the British system for "general elections," but I'm no expert. It seems to me that both the USA and the UK systems are at least one big step removed from simply choosing a new Chief Executive by "national popular vote." Something that Hari doesn't mention in that article. (Although, come to think of it, I have to admit that he may have complained long and loud about the British system being less-than-perfectly-democratic in other articles that I haven't seen? :))

P.S. Looking back at the passage I quoted, I notice he made a mistake. He should have said 538 electors instead of 539. I recall reading, in a book by Jeff Greenfield of CNN, that as Election Day 2000 started, CNN had people drafting out five different scripts for explaining the results to people (they thought they'd have clear results by the end of the night) -- 1 for Bush winning both the "national popular vote" and a majority in the "Electoral College", 1 for Gore winning in both, 1 for Bush winning "national popular" but Gore winning an Electoral majority, 1 for the other way around, and 1 that was being carefully written so that, if necessary, CNN's talking heads could explain to the American people what a frightful mess things were in if each candidate won exactly half of the Electoral College, with 269 Electoral votes for Bush and 269 Electoral votes for Gore! Apparently there were enough "swing states" in play that some of the possible combinations ("If New Mexico goes this way and Missouri goes the other way," or whatever) made a perfect 50-50 split a serious possibility!

Now that would have been interesting! (Although Greenfield's opinion is that if the election of the President had ended up deadlocked in the Electoral College, so that the final decision had to be made by the House of Representatives, then Bush would have won anyway.)

[bartl]

You'll have to explain that one. What two extra votes each?
Electoral College - every state gets a number of votes equal to their representation in the House of Representatives plus the Senate; the Senate seats being the two extra votes per state.
The Religious Left? You mean diehard commies or something else?It intersects with the diehard commies, although there are a number of noted Communists (such as attorney Ron Kuby) who are not part of this, and a number of non-Communists (such as Noam Chomsky) who are priests at the altar, although the latter, while they don't support the current Communist parties, are certainly Marxist in orientation. They believe that cultures do not evolve, but are imposed as whole cloth on the unempowered by the empowered, that anarchy inevitably leads to a Communist society (the right, on the other hand, believes that anarchy of the market leads to a free market; in both cases, these have both led to something akin to feudalism), and the supremacy of the people as a collective, aka the State, once one removes the cultural brainwashing imposed upon them (until then, the enlightened must control the people, leading to what is sometimes called the tyranny of the proletariat, among other things). Interestingly, this was rejected by both the Soviet Union and China. I call it a religion rather than a philosophy because when scientific discovery disproves it, the adherents claim it's the science or observed facts, and not the disproved idea, that is wrong.

As you will see, I will get a bunch of replies akin to those one would expect from members of the Religious Right if I questioned the existence of Jesus...

[bartl]

As I understand it, that would mean people with a genuine relationship to the divine, one that compels them towards an active compassion towards their fellow man.

Rather than the followers of Yog-Sothoth who do what Ralph Reed's tentacly head tells them to.
What's really fun is that if you ask a typical member of the Religious Right, they'll say pretty much the equivalent about the other side.

[bartl]

I don't have statistics handy for how many congressional districts in each state actually voted for Bush over Gore, or Bush over Kerry, so I really don't know how the bottom line would have turned out if each state's electoral votes were allocated to one guy or the other on that basis. But I think that was bartl's meaning, anyway. (If I guessed wrong on what he was getting at, I'm sure he'll say so! :))
Pretty close. However, instead of the winner getting the extra two votes, the votes would be spread proportionately, with lots of arguments in the unlikely case of a rounding problem. So, for example, if a state has 3 electoral votes, and 40% goes to the Demican party, and 60% to the Republicrats, then, since you can't give 1.8 to one and 1.2 to the other, the Demicans would get one electoral vote, and the Republicrats would get two.

I haven't done the math, but, based on the fact that Bush did well in a lot more states, and the electoral votes were close, Bush's gains from the more heavily populated states would have been greater than his losses from the less populated ones. And, of course, the absentee ballots would have all been counted; as I have stated numerous times, there were enough absentee ballots to theoretically (albeit highly improbably) to swing the popular vote to a Bush plurality, but, with proportional election of electors, might well have thrown a few more electors Bush's way.

[bartl]

and 1 that was being carefully written so that, if necessary, CNN's talking heads could explain to the American people what a frightful mess things were in if each candidate won exactly half of the Electoral College, with 269 Electoral votes for Bush and 269 Electoral votes for Gore! Apparently there were enough "swing states" in play that some of the possible combinations ("If New Mexico goes this way and Missouri goes the other way," or whatever) made a perfect 50-50 split a serious possibility!
Clearly accounted for in the Constitution. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the President. With the Republicans in control of the House at that time, Bush would have won the election.

Here's the scenario which the Constitution DIDN'T cover: suppose Florida hadn't appointed a slate of electors before the deadline; would Florida have official cast its votes for nobody (which would have thrown the election to the House), or would Florida have official cast zero votes (which is about the only way Gore would have won the election).

[Lorendiac]

Clearly accounted for in the Constitution. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives elects the President. With the Republicans in control of the House at that time, Bush would have won the election.

I know the Constitution took into account the possibility that the Electoral College would deadlock. In fact, I once read a claim that most of the guys at the Constitutional Convention were of the opinion that this would probably happen most of the time in future elections -- they didn't foresee the growth of the two-party system; they thought there would usually be a lot more than just two "serious candidates" on the November ballots -- and then the House would almost always get to pick the President, and the Senate would almost always get to pick the Vice President! (In actuality, I think it's only happened that way twice.)

But I thought it would have been very interesting to see how the American people would have reacted if the 2000 election dragged out that long (even longer than it really did). Especially after they eventually realized that when a Presidential election goes over to the House of Representatives, each state's delegation only gets one vote. So California would only have one vote, and New York would only have one vote . . . same as Montana or Wyoming, with a grand total of just 50 votes at stake. (Jeff Greenfield's read on it in his book about the election was that the Republicans had majorities in enough of the "state delegations" that yes, they still would have won the Presidency if everybody voted the straight party line when the time came. They might have seen the Democrats in the Senate elect their own guy as Vice President, though.)

Here's the scenario which the Constitution DIDN'T cover: suppose Florida hadn't appointed a slate of electors before the deadline; would Florida have official cast its votes for nobody (which would have thrown the election to the House), or would Florida have official cast zero votes (which is about the only way Gore would have won the election).

It's been awhile since I last read Greenfield's book ("Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow!") but I believe he mentions the possibility that Florida's state legislature could have simply said, "Well, we the legislature have the constitutional right to appoint a slate of electors in any way we see fit. Since the regular process has hit a roadblock, we'll just rubber-stamp the seal of approval onto the Republican slate of electors to keep things moving." (Apparently the Florida legislature, both houses of it, was dominated by the Republicans at the time.)

Given that Florida's Governor, Secretary of State, and majorities of both houses of its legislature were all Republicans, and given that all the counts and recounts apparently consistently showed GWB ahead (by a hair), I don't think Florida was likely to fail to approve a slate of electors and submit those electoral votes by the deadline -- but I admit that I don't know either if it would be constitutional to say (if they failed to submit anything resembling an electoral vote) that Florida's potential votes should not be counted as part of the "grand total" and thus a "winning majority" could be established that was less than 270 actual votes. Interesting question!

[Briareos]

Technically, as you pointed out, we have started; two states already have proportional electoral votes. But why "start" somewhere; why not just go for a constitutional amendment that makes it the law of the land?

(I'm not against proportional dividing of electoral votes - I've always thought that was a fairer system - I'm just against the selective and cynical use of it for the explicit purpose of manipulating general elections.)

The main reason this isn't done is that political machines in most states are dead set against it, because it would make it considerably more difficult for them to hold power, and weakens both major political parties by really opening the system to third party spoilers. (Stick six or seven candidates from different third parties on ballots in every state in the country and you run the risk of subdividing the electoral votes enough that, yes, a non-Big Two candidate could conceivably end up in the White House. Or if, say, you have the Republican candidate, and the Libertarian Candidate, and the American Party candidate, and the Christian Coalition candidate, and the White Peoples' Party etc. on the ballot, and only the Democrat on the 'other side' of the political spectrum, that's a huge advantage for the Democrat - and there are a hell of a lot more fringy right-leaning political "parties" in this country than left-leaning, though possibly such a system would encourage the development of more lefy parties. Then again, that's one of the points of the current winner-take-all system; it keeps American politics from splintering ridiculously by basically pressuring "minor parties" into supporting either the Republican or the Democratic candidate in order to have even the delusion of any influence on the political process at all.) The Republicans don't want to do it nationally because they'd have almost certainly lost the last two elections had that been the system. They're only targeting California because it's the biggest prize and, if we go by past statistics, will only fuel what Republicans currently fear will be a Democratic juggernaut. They're not targeting Texas or Florida or Ohio because they figure they can ace those states, at least narrowly, and don't want to waste that advantage. Like I said, I don't think they're being exactly dishonest in California, just taking advantage of California's relatively lax rules for ballot initiatives. Where they're being dishonest is in marketing the initiative as a blow for democracy when what they really have in mind is naked ambition.

In some ways, California's the perfect place to get it through, despite a liberal/Democratic voting majority in the state. One place where conservatives have it all over liberals is that liberals generally like to bend over backwards to demonstrate they're being fair, and I can imagine a lot of California Democrats, even on hearing that this is basically nothing more than a cheap ploy by the NRC to thwart the Democrats in the electoral college in 2008, might feel compelled to vote for the measure just to prove they're for "fairness" in the political process, whereas Republicans are basically comfortable with the notion that anything that benefits them is fair, because what's good for them is good for the country.

I think it was Dan O'Neill who said that voting is a sin because there are a lot of people out there who believe that any government is better than no government at all, and your vote only encourages them...

- Grant

And that was kind of the whole reason why the electorial college was created in the first place. The founding fathers didn't want a heavily populated but geographically small area deciding who would be president for everyone.

[Briareos]

Well... they could... if their argument was good and convincing enough. All it takes is for the citizens of the states to vote for ratification. But my point is that if the National Republican Committee thinks proportional electoral representation is such a stunning idea, they should be pushing it in as many states as possible. But they're only pushing it in one of the states where they have the most to gain by it. I notice they're not pushing it here in Nevada, where there's a threadbare Republican majority, mainly because a little under half of the Las Vegas area swings Republican, and virtually all of the rest of the state does, and add those two up and Republicans outnumber Democrats by just enough of a margin to keep mostly Republicans in power. (Rural areas in Nevada also tend to resent and despise Las Vegas.)



You'll have to explain that one. What two extra votes each?



Well, sure. That's the case in most states, actually; any place where there's an amassed population - big cities - the citizenry tends liberal/Democrat because, let's face it, you tend to get used to a lot more diversity when you're living in a melting pot. Diversity tends to promote liberal viewpoints (not to mention the general trend of the Republican Party toward minorities has been exclusionary, which tends to prod them into the Democratic camp, and cities tend to have the highest concentrations of minorities). Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule and even in cities there's bound to be a substantial number of conservatives. But because of the differences in population density between urban and rural areas, it's not uncommon for cities to overcompensate for rural areas in terms of political balance (for lack of a better word). In areas where that's the case, it hasn't been uncommon for the RNC to promote legislation that helps swing things their way there too, as when the Republican held Texas legislature redrew district lines in Austin in a patently ridiculous fashion to subdivide liberal enclaves so that each subdivision would become part of a nearby Republican enclave that would outweigh the liberal vote from that area, a plan designed by Karl Rove and delivered to Texas Republicans by the RNC



Well, sure. It's got a substantial Republican base inside those cities too. But even outside those cities Democrats also have a substantial base.



The Religious Left? You mean diehard commies or something else?

- Grant

Actually the redistricting helped make the number of Democrat seats in the House more accurately portray the number of votes the Democrats got. They had I believe 10 more seats the proportionally they should have (and the house is suppose to reflect true numbers). The previous lines were drawn by Democrats in the state house to give them way more members of congress then they should have had by the percentage of votes.

[Briareos]

Or...

Or...

You could just count the votes of each individual citizen.

Just a thought.

There is a reason we don't do that. It's to keep highly populated areas of the country from having full say over who is president. They wanted the president to be more a concensus pick.

[Briareos]

True democracy is having 51% of the people tell the other 49% what to do.

[Paul McEnery]

There is a reason we don't do that. It's to keep highly populated areas of the country from having full say over who is president. They wanted the president to be more a concensus pick.

So, basically, it's better to keep the less populated, less informed, less multicultural parts of the country run the place instead. Gotcha.

[Steven Grant]

And that was kind of the whole reason why the electorial college was created in the first place. The founding fathers didn't want a heavily populated but geographically small area deciding who would be president for everyone.

The main reason the electoral college was created in the first place had nothing to do with that; it was a response to the technological incapability of the time. Counting popular vote in an age when the main means of long-distance communication was riding horseback, and the varying distances needed to be covered in order to get a complete tally from all the states, made an electoral college, where The People send their representatives to express their collective will, a relatively practical solution. (I vaguely recall, but might be misremembering, that the original idea was to have the House of Representatives vote in the president and the Senate vote in the vice-president - or vice versa, I'd have to go look it up - but it was ultimately decided a separate "electoral college" would be less politicized and less susceptible to manipulation and outside pressure.)

Of course, there was a concern that the powerful states like New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia would ride roughshod over Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, etc. and that's why all states were given equal representation in the electoral college (where they wouldn't have had such in the House, but did in the Senate, but the Senate was originally envisioned as a sort of House of Lords to represent the interests of wealthy landowners against the rabble in order to offset the possibility of populist anarchy - and the near occasion of the French Revolution convinced many wealthy American landowners that the proper structure had been agreed on), but the original intended function of the electoral college was simply to make vote-counting practical.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

So, basically, it's better to keep the less populated, less informed, less multicultural parts of the country run the place instead. Gotcha.

Now, now, Paul... I think you're badly underestimating the number of yahoos who live in urban areas...

Just a thought... maybe we should stop calling Blacks, Latino-Americans, Hawaiians, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, etc. "minorities" and start lumping them all together as "multiculturals"... "minorities" kind of has this leftover 1950s dismissive paternalism to it, while I suspect for a lot of (mostly white) Americans, "multiculturals" would sound kind of scary... But I do suspect that while in the '50s-'70s, "urban" became a euphemism for "black" and that did frighten "middle America," today "urban" has become a euphemism for "multicultural," and, man, we can't get those border walls up fast enough...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

Of course, there was a concern that the powerful states like New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia would ride roughshod over Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, etc. and that's why all states were given equal representation in the electoral collegeWell, no, not equal representation, but the less-populous states were given proportionately more representation than their population.
And, of course, it was possible to pass such disproportionate representation because the states were given equal representation in designing/approving the electoral college system, so fair representation of the people wouldn't get by them.
(And those who want to put it as a matter of urban vs. rural miss that it's really big-population versus small population, and so a state like Delaware, small enough to have a small population and still be fairly urban, gives its people disproportionately more votes than some larger, more spread-out states.)
Y'know, it would be nice to have someone in the federal government actually intended to serve the people rather than the several states; the presidency seems a good place to start.

[Briareos]

It's not even about Rural Areas. Just the most populated cities in the U.S. would matter. Do we really want a presidential campaign where the candidates spent all their time in California and Newyork. At least they have to go to fairly diverse areas of the country now.

[Paul McEnery]

It's not even about Rural Areas. Just the most populated cities in the U.S. would matter. Do we really want a presidential campaign where the candidates spent all their time in California and Newyork. At least they have to go to fairly diverse areas of the country now.

And North Dakota is more diverse than California and New York, now, is it?

[TheDrizzt]

Proportional electoral voting is a bad idea in general. Instead of one Florida 2000 per election (at most), you have 50 as both parties try to stuff the ballot box in every state.

Targeted electoral voting is just the usual partisan shenanigans. The Dems push it only where it helps them and whine when the GOP does it in return; the GOP does it and whines when the Dems do the same. Same old, same old.

[NatGertler]

It's not even about Rural Areas. Just the most populated cities in the U.S. would matter.That's false. Every vote would matter and would be worth fighting for -- unlike with the current system. In the current system, if you're assured of 51% of the vote in a given state (for the winner-take-all states, which is most of them), you've got no reason to campaign, no reason to try to win over the other 49%.
Do we really want a presidential campaign where the candidates spent all their time in California and Newyork. At least they have to go to fairly diverse areas of the country now.Well, the candidate who did that would be pretty danged stupid. Even if he got all the voters in New York and in California -- and those states are greatly diverse -- those two states combine to less than 20% of the nation's population.
Assuming even voter turnout as a percentage of population, to take the whole country under a popular vote you'd have to get all the votes in the 9 biggest states to make up not getting any votes in the others. Under the electoral college system, you'd have to just win the top 11 states by narrow margins to win without any votes elsewhere. Need I point out that that doesn't show any greater deal of widespread and popular support?

[Steven Grant]

And North Dakota is more diverse than California and New York, now, is it?

Maybe, yeah. They still have Wobblies in North Dakota...

Though I've heard "diverse" is now Republicanese for "predominantly white and male" so who knows?

- Grant

[bartl]

True democracy is having 51% of the people tell the other 49% what to do.
Not quite. Democracy does not equate to simple majority rules.

[bartl]

So, basically, it's better to keep the less populated, less informed, less multicultural parts of the country run the place instead. Gotcha.
No; the idea is to balance between the more populated and the less populated. And I see that you automatically assume that less populated automatically equals less informed, and somehow being "multicultural" is an important criterion.

I hope you're not being bigoted.

[bartl]

And North Dakota is more diverse than California and New York, now, is it?
What is the relevance of that question?

[Paul McEnery]

No; the idea is to balance between the more populated and the less populated. And I see that you automatically assume that less populated automatically equals less informed, and somehow being "multicultural" is an important criterion.

I hope you're not being bigoted.

Not assume. Deduce. Conclude. Observe. It's simply a fact. Bigger population means more exposure to more ideas, media, and ways of life. Port cities have more going on than landlocked cities.

Hell, I've driven coast-to-coast, and once you get away from New York, and until you get to California, you've got nothing but crap on the radio. Wall to wall preachers and star country and bloody Aerosmith. Horrible.

And yeah, multicultural beats hell out of monocultural. See above.

[Paul McEnery]

It's not even about Rural Areas. Just the most populated cities in the U.S. would matter. Do we really want a presidential campaign where the candidates spent all their time in California and Newyork. At least they have to go to fairly diverse areas of the country now.

And North Dakota is more diverse than California and New York, now, is it?

What is the relevance of that question?

I think that's pretty obvious.

Briareos is using the word diverse incorrectly.

The diverse population is found in cities and the heavily populated parts of the country. The sticks? Filled with monocultural "Christians" with ideas stuck in the 19th Century who are dragging anchor for the rest of us.

Why on earth the people with the least idea are allowed to dominate the rest of us, I just don't know. Frankly, why either Dakota, let alone both separately, gets to have as many as one senator is beyond me. The population simply doesn't justify it.

[Briareos]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.

[bartl]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.
I'm trying to understand this. People you agree with are "diverse", and therefore "good", and people you don't agree with are "not diverse" and therefore "bad"?

[badMike]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.I've lived in both cities. Both are VERY different places with different mentalities and different populations. To equate them as being the same is sadly mistaken. Why would they be the same anyway? What's the rationale?

And given the number of East Coasters who end up retiring down to Florida, I'd assume OH and FL to be kind of similar...

[Paul McEnery]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.

And both are heavily populated.

What's your point?

[NatGertler]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.So you've gone from talking about states to talking about the urban centers of states. California alone. Stretched between the big cities are huge rural areas, vast amount of agriculture transected by the freeways. This is a state of sunny beaches and sunnier deserts... with ski resorts in-between. It's a state often depicted as the liberal stronghold which has reelected its Republican governor and has passed some of the strongest anti-tax legislation of any state. Really, if you're confusing some depiction of Los Angeles (likely a less-than-accurate one) with California, you're confused.

[Steven Grant]

Bigger population means more exposure to more ideas, media, and ways of life.

However, the Internet is quickly chipping the hell out of that, and people who once felt completely at odds with their local culture - and, believe me, that's rampant out there in the Greater Midwest, and I know, that's where I come from - rather than having to bottle it up and blend in now have an outlet and a means to connect with people all over the world and create their own subcultures. It's this that has governments large and small throughout the world pissing their pants. But one of the biggest effects of the Internet, I think, is to erode any absolutes being imposed on local populations. The Internet's not only multiculturalism run rampant, it's nascent panculturalism... And that goes for North Dakota as much as anywhere else...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

By Diverse I mean say Ohio and Florida are more of a difference between them then say Los Angeles and New York City.

Oh, having lived in New York City and Los Angeles, I don't agree with that at all. I don't think there are two more different regions in the entire United States, and I'd wager Ohio and Florida are much more culturally similar to each other.

(Certainly their polling practices are.)

- Grant

[Briareos]

Oh god don't start with that. The idea that the 2004 ohio election was fixed is silly. Bush won by over 100000 votes there. A few polling places run mainly by Democrats with a few republican observers since they were heavily registered Democrat had problems. That seems to be a theme hmmm Places run by Democrats have problems. Could it be that instead of a conspiracy that conservatives and Republicans fix elections that maybe Democrats just tend to be more incompetent?

[Briareos]

Now, now, Paul... I think you're badly underestimating the number of yahoos who live in urban areas...

Just a thought... maybe we should stop calling Blacks, Latino-Americans, Hawaiians, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, etc. "minorities" and start lumping them all together as "multiculturals"... "minorities" kind of has this leftover 1950s dismissive paternalism to it, while I suspect for a lot of (mostly white) Americans, "multiculturals" would sound kind of scary... But I do suspect that while in the '50s-'70s, "urban" became a euphemism for "black" and that did frighten "middle America," today "urban" has become a euphemism for "multicultural," and, man, we can't get those border walls up fast enough...

- Grant


Of course the Democratic Party is on record as saying they don't want Hispanics promoted up to our higher courts...

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."



I know this was one staffer but to this day no one in the Democratic party has disavowed the memo.

[Steven Grant]

Of course the Democratic Party is on record as saying they don't want Hispanics promoted up to our higher courts...

Sure they do. They just want their Hispanics promoted up to our higher courts.

A lot of people and organizations don't disavow a lot of things they had nothing to do with. Ever find out what happened to the staffer who wrote the memo? The staffer ever identified?

- Grant

[Briareos]

Sure they do. They just want their Hispanics promoted up to our higher courts.

A lot of people and organizations don't disavow a lot of things they had nothing to do with. Ever find out what happened to the staffer who wrote the memo? The staffer ever identified?

- Grant

It's more then that. They specifically singled him out because he was hispanic. Don't remember if it was him or another nominee (the Democrats were blocking a dozen or so of his nominees at the time) and someone noticed that one of them had a extremely similar record as another nominee who went sailing through. The only major difference between them was the one that went through was white while the other was a minority (either Black or hispanic).

The Democrats have a long history of attacks against Conservative or Republican minorities because they can't dare let the idea that yes you can be a minority and be conservative.

[Briareos]

Also never sure what happened to the staffer that wrote it the mainstream media was too busy repeating the Democrats lie about how the memo was stolen by hacking into their side of the House computer network (it was accidently coppied into a public section of the network that a Republican staffer found which is how it became public) to divert attention away from it's contents.

[Steven Grant]

Also never sure what happened to the staffer that wrote it the mainstream media was too busy repeating the Democrats lie about how the memo was stolen by hacking into their side of the House computer network (it was accidently coppied into a public section of the network that a Republican staffer found which is how it became public) to divert attention away from it's contents.

It sounds fishy. If the message were on a public section of a network, the Republicans could easy point the press to the message - or to where it was removed, since these things don't get removed on most bulletin boards without leaving fingerprints - and put all the heat squarely on the Democrats. The idea the "mainstream media" cuts Democrats any crap on things like that is nonsense; they're willing to follow virtually any scandal where it leads these days. I can understand why the Democrats wouldn't disvow such a thing; these days we also live in a culture where disavowal is considered by many to be a de facto confirmation, or at least validation of the reality, of whatever's being discussed, and the White House routinely refuses to even acknowledge the existence of petty charges against it for the same reason.

As for minority Republicans, do you really think the Democrats aren't well aware of, and aware the public is well aware of, female Republicans, black Republicans, Latino Republicans, etc.? Of course, we now know there are also a lot more gay Republicans than the Republican Party ever wanted to let on. I bet there's even atheist Republicans. And do you really think the Democrats are sitting around darkened back rooms muttering about all those "minority members" who've "turned their back" on the Democratic Party and fixating on ways to screw them over?

I do remember there was considerable Democratic concern about Alberto Gonzales' ability to run the Justice Department properly, and it was framed by Fox News et al as a vendetta against conservative Latinos when it was nothing more than concern about Gonzales, but Gonzales got in anyway and look how that turned out...

- Grant

[Briareos]

It sounds fishy. If the message were on a public section of a network, the Republicans could easy point the press to the message - or to where it was removed, since these things don't get removed on most bulletin boards without leaving fingerprints - and put all the heat squarely on the Democrats. The idea the "mainstream media" cuts Democrats any crap on things like that is nonsense; they're willing to follow virtually any scandal where it leads these days. I can understand why the Democrats wouldn't disvow such a thing; these days we also live in a culture where disavowal is considered by many to be a de facto confirmation, or at least validation of the reality, of whatever's being discussed, and the White House routinely refuses to even acknowledge the existence of petty charges against it for the same reason.

As for minority Republicans, do you really think the Democrats aren't well aware of, and aware the public is well aware of, female Republicans, black Republicans, Latino Republicans, etc.? Of course, we now know there are also a lot more gay Republicans than the Republican Party ever wanted to let on. I bet there's even atheist Republicans. And do you really think the Democrats are sitting around darkened back rooms muttering about all those "minority members" who've "turned their back" on the Democratic Party and fixating on ways to screw them over?

I do remember there was considerable Democratic concern about Alberto Gonzales' ability to run the Justice Department properly, and it was framed by Fox News et al as a vendetta against conservative Latinos when it was nothing more than concern about Gonzales, but Gonzales got in anyway and look how that turned out...

- Grant

I'm using the wrong word. It's not public in the sense that it's open to the public. There's a side that only the Democrats can use and one for Republicans. There's also a shared section. But I don't think you can login outside of the network. It wasn't a message board posting either. It was like a word document or such.

[Steven Grant]

I'm using the wrong word. It's not public in the sense that it's open to the public. There's a side that only the Democrats can use and one for Republicans. There's also a shared section. But I don't think you can login outside of the network. It wasn't a message board posting either. It was like a word document or such.

Still sounds fishy... and if it's a Congressional website, splitting it up like that doesn't make much sense either. (And that it doesn't make much sense and Congress runs it does up the story's credibility factor some...) Not to mention that if it's a Congressional board, then any information distributed on it, open to the public or not, is automatically part of the public record and it would be illegal to remove it, so once the press got wind of it there wouldn't be much difficulty in either getting the piece or prosecuting whoever had to take the fall for getting rid of it...

- Grant

[Briareos]

Here's a more detailed account of what happened:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3102

[Paul McEnery]

It's more then that. They specifically singled him out because he was hispanic. Don't remember if it was him or another nominee (the Democrats were blocking a dozen or so of his nominees at the time) and someone noticed that one of them had a extremely similar record as another nominee who went sailing through. The only major difference between them was the one that went through was white while the other was a minority (either Black or hispanic).

The Democrats have a long history of attacks against Conservative or Republican minorities because they can't dare let the idea that yes you can be a minority and be conservative.

The reality is, of course, that the Republicans have tried to promote a couple of fascist pricks under cover of them being non-white; and with the hope of being able to call the Democrats racist if they opposed them.

As we now see, Gonzalez shouldn't just have been opposed, he should now be imprisoned for the rest of his life. Preferably in the same conditions he condemned others to.

[Paul McEnery]

Here's a more detailed account of what happened:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3102

I'm also fascinated by your newfound excitement for affirmative action.

These people should be put through on the nod just because they're non-white? They shouldn't be clobbered for being fascist pricks?

[Briareos]

I'm also fascinated by your newfound excitement for affirmative action.

These people should be put through on the nod just because they're non-white? They shouldn't be clobbered for being fascist pricks?

This is about the democrats specifically singling out conservatives to attack because they are minorities.

This also applies to Michael Steele who was the Republican candidate for senate in Maryland. He was the target of some insanely vicious racist attacks (pictures of him in blackface on populer liberal blogs. Oreo cookies jokingly passed around at a college campus where he spoke) during the whole campaign.

The left cannot have any sort of role model or example of a conservative minority. They can't have miniorities that believe they don't have to be dependant on them.

[bartl]

The reality is, of course, that the Republicans have tried to promote a couple of fascist pricks under cover of them being non-white; and with the hope of being able to call the Democrats racist if they opposed them.
Just to set a zero point, May I assume that you consider Noam Chomsky to be "middle of the road"?

[Paul McEnery]

Just to set a zero point, May I assume that you consider Noam Chomsky to be "middle of the road"?

I don't know. May I assume that you've got no understanding of political theory?

Because it sounds to me like you're desperately clinging to the idea of politics as a continuum between right and left, which it isn't.

And of the distinction between fascism and liberalism as a continuum rather than a zero sum game.

[Paul McEnery]

And while I'm at it:

Because I say that a tree is made out of wood, therefore I must be a mineral.

Is that it?

[Paul McEnery]

And one more thing.

Accepting Noam Chomsky's self-assessment as a standard bearer for "the left" (whatever that's supposed to be) only shows the paucity of American political thought.

Chomsky is always wrong about everything. Even when his facts are straight, he falsifies them by jamming them into an epistemological framework that's straight out of the Enlightenment.

Which tends to be the problem in general for American mentation.

[Paul McEnery]

And another thing:

Neo-liberalism is just colonial imperialism in a Paul Smith suit. When you look at the real world consequences of the economic policy, you find the same forced exploitation of cheap labour and resources at the expense of local self-determination.

And neo-conservatism is just fascism in its underpants. Give it a cup of coffee and a slice of toast and it'd be happy to put on the boots and peaked cap. Any comparison between the real world effects of neo-conservatism and Eco's list of Ur-Fascist policies/psychology will bear this out.

So yeah, I think "fascist pricks" is being pleasant about it.

[Dennis]

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-primary-votes-miscounted.html

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

[bartl]

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-primary-votes-miscounted.html

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)
I've actually come up with a reasonable framework for an electronic election system, based on methodologies used by online games and banks. It's based on a series of tamper-evident black boxes with several layers of redundancy. The idea is that there's no single point of vulnerability. The major problem point in it is the printed ballot, as printers are much less reliable than most other components (among other things, each voting station will create two WORM disks, one containing who voted and the other containing the vote totals with the only record kept that will allow the voter to be matched to the vote will be a code on the printed ballot, which will enable the voter to look up on the internet and find out how their vote was recorded).

Thanks to the Constitution (at least the way I interpret it), although ID's may be required, a valid voting ID must be available without any charge to the voter (I would consider any fee, direct or indirect, for voting to be a poll tax, and I strongly suspect the SCOTUS would too, even Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. Well, maybe not Scalia).

[Dennis]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.