Autocrats

First there was Florida 2K; then there would have been the sequel in 2004 if the presidential election results in Ohio had been several tens of thousands of votes narrower; and there was, of course, the successful heist of the Washington governorship that same year. Last Thursday evening came its manifestation on the congressional level.

In a Newsweek column today, Jonathan Alter gives ammunition to the argument that the Democrats' disavowal of democracy when it doesn't favor them is more than just an incredible coincidence (via CQ):

Our way of electing presidents has always been fer-tile [sic] ground for mischief. But there's sensible mischief—toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will—and then there's the other kind, which tries to rig admission to the Electoral College for strictly partisan purposes. Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008.

Right now, every state except Nebraska and Maine awards all of its electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in that state. So in mammoth California, John Kerry beat George W. Bush and won all 55 electoral votes, more than one fifth of the 270 necessary for election.

Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary). The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected.

"Toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will" is Alter's coy reference to a scheme under heavy consideration by the Left wherein state legislatures would disregard the presidential election results of their state and award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Left unspoken is "if the national popular vote favors the Democrat candidate."

Beats me how anybody could not make that inference from Alter's column. Say what you will about the Presidential Election Reform Act, but if that initiative gets on the California ballot and passes next June, at least the people of California would have had final say on that "gimmicky shortcut" instead of being summarily and dictatorially overruled by a cabal of Donk fixers. That it would stand to aid the GOP nationally is the only problem that Alter appears to have with it.

Or, put another way, according to Jonathan Alter, conservatives working within the democratic process to enhance their chances of winning national elections is a mortal threat to democracy, but liberals subverting or even openly eviscerating the democratic process to rig elections so only Democrats can win is critical to the survival of the Republic.

Methinks there's definitely a pattern here. One sufficiently forewarning of Democrat determination to take over the country by any means necessary that the Right should have no excuse not to be amply forearmed for this inevitable constitutional crisis as the 2008 campaign looms.