“GOP maneuvers to change take-all system”
Source: The Politico – 8/30/2007
Thoughts: I don’t really know where to begin with this. Martin Frost makes such a one-sided approach to this article while leaving out so many facts that it is almost sad. Let me try to fill in the gaps:
1) Both of the dominating parties do their best to secure votes for themselves including gerrymandering (which is how he lost his job as a Congressman). To think that this is a Republican-only concept is deceitful.
2) The proposed change to the California electoral vote distribution isn’t a “unilateral disarmament” of the Democratic party, unless he believes that there is no possibility of the Democratic party to ever regain the White House without carrying all of California’s electoral votes. Clinton had more than enough EV’s to spare in both elections and Jimmy Carter won the election without carrying California (even though California had 10 fewer EV’s back in 1976). Mr. Frost must not have much faith in his party.
(Article continues.)
4) The allocation of electoral votes is up to the discretion of the individual states. There is nothing in the Constitution that forces all the states to allocate their electoral votes in a uniform manner. If there was, then Maine and Nebraska would currently be violating the law. Maybe it’s because Maine only has four EVs and Nebraska five, and that they haven’t split their votes in recent history.
5) Unlike some instances, this proposal is being put up to the individual voters to decide on. If the citizens of California decide that they should remain a winner-takes-all state, then the will of the people have spoken. The same can be said if they vote to split the votes. Who, if not the voters themselves, can dictate how a state is suppose to represent its residents?
6) Lastly, this is the one that gets me the most and shows the true arrogance of both the Republican and Democratic parties. “If all states adopted a congressional district voter allocation system, this would make it easier for third and fourth party candidates to win some electoral votes and thus increase the possibility that no one would win a majority of electoral votes on Election Day.” Pardon me, but who is to say that a candidate must win an electoral vote victory on Election Day? Sure, it makes life that much simpler (and reduces the chance of a Florida fiasco), but should “simple” trump the will of the people?
It is true that both parties fear third-party candidates from winning electoral votes because it could trigger a change in the political spectrum over consecutive elections as people begin to focus on the other parties engaged in US politics. Democrats and Republicans alike have done their best to suppress the third-party vote for years, as any independent presidential candidate will tell you.
Anyway, I wanted to point out “the rest of the story” for you to consider after reading this article. And speaking of which, here you go.
Article: “GOP maneuvers to change take-all system”
By Martin Frost
Often when Republicans are worried about losing elections, they try to change the rules. That’s exactly what they are attempting in California right now with a statewide ballot measure regarding that state’s 55 electoral votes.
Let’s review a little history. In the early 1990s, Republicans were having a difficult time winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives because of a number of entrenched, veteran Democrats.
So what did Republicans do? They started promoting the concept of term limits so that veteran Democrats could not keep winning reelection.
The courts ultimately struck down term limits for members of Congress. Republicans won control of the U.S. House in 1994 for a variety of other reasons, but they had still tried to game the system to give them an advantage.
Then in my state of Texas, Republicans couldn’t defeat six veteran Democrats who kept winning GOP-leaning House seats. So they convinced the Texas Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional lines for a second time in a decade, to stack these swing districts with even more Republicans.
The newly Republican state legislature did redraw the districts in 2003, and Republicans were able to oust four veteran Democrats. (A fifth Democrat switched parties rather than run as a Democrat in his redrawn district.)
The legislature also redrew a seventh district (which had been controlled by minority voters) by splitting the minority community into five different districts, and thus the Republicans also picked up that seat (which I had represented for 26 years).
(Read the rest of the article here.)
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
