Senator Feinstein Misses the Point
Captain Ed goes to "sport fishing with power saws" lengths to slice & dice the Donks' latest windmill-tilting attempt to jettison the Electoral College.
Their rationale was set forth last week by DiFi:
In introducing the amendment, the Democrat from San Francisco is joining Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who last month introduced a similar proposal in the House, which she said she would reintroduce in the 109th Congress that convenes on January 3rd.
The two California lawmakers say the current system makes most Americans election bystanders, pointing toward the recent campaign in which President Bush and his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, focused almost all their time, energy and campaign funds on a handful of undecided states in search of their electoral votes.
The Cap'n observes that under the direct system DiFi proposes, "a handful of undecided states" would be traded in for a handful of mega-states in which the Dems, by definition, would do better.
My observation is a bit more straightforward: Only twice in the past 180 years has the winner in the Electoral College not also triumphed in the popular vote, and that includes the election held seven and a half weeks ago. Indeed, Kerry's only shot at winning depended precisely upon eking out a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, precisely the formula that Dems spent the past four years decrying when it worked against them in 2000. Conclusion? You can take away the Electoral College, but the underlying political dynamic that has consigned the Democrats to minority party status will still remain.
Maybe this is an implicit shot across Kerry's bow warning him against running again in 2008. But as an exercise in partisan system-rigging, to say nothing of civic/constitutional "reform," this scheme is flatter than week-old soda pop.
Their rationale was set forth last week by DiFi:
In introducing the amendment, the Democrat from San Francisco is joining Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who last month introduced a similar proposal in the House, which she said she would reintroduce in the 109th Congress that convenes on January 3rd.
The two California lawmakers say the current system makes most Americans election bystanders, pointing toward the recent campaign in which President Bush and his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, focused almost all their time, energy and campaign funds on a handful of undecided states in search of their electoral votes.
The Cap'n observes that under the direct system DiFi proposes, "a handful of undecided states" would be traded in for a handful of mega-states in which the Dems, by definition, would do better.
My observation is a bit more straightforward: Only twice in the past 180 years has the winner in the Electoral College not also triumphed in the popular vote, and that includes the election held seven and a half weeks ago. Indeed, Kerry's only shot at winning depended precisely upon eking out a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, precisely the formula that Dems spent the past four years decrying when it worked against them in 2000. Conclusion? You can take away the Electoral College, but the underlying political dynamic that has consigned the Democrats to minority party status will still remain.
Maybe this is an implicit shot across Kerry's bow warning him against running again in 2008. But as an exercise in partisan system-rigging, to say nothing of civic/constitutional "reform," this scheme is flatter than week-old soda pop.
posted by JASmius at 5:06 PM
<<< Home