Tag Archives: Electoral College

There is Only One Way to Restore a Representative Supreme Court

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade we’ve heard the usual, predictable cries from liberals and Democrats. You know it because you’ve heard it before. “By god, we’re going to fight!”

“Fight” being a standard, and I would say treadworn cry from every politician desperate to rally supporters after some miserable defeat. It sounds fierce … but I’m sorry, it’s lame. It’s been rendered as stale as “thoughts and prayers” after each day’s mass shooting.

Nancy Pelosi’s “fight song” is calling for Democrats to, you know, get out and “vote” in November, and presumably throw out the current bunch of rat bastards. To which I say, “Yeah, great. By all means. Vote Democrat. That’ll slow them down for a while … maybe. Or at least until the next election when the bastards surge back, promising to restore $2 gas, close the borders and slap down the silly, woke mob.”

But let’s get real. Voting in fresh liberal troops is utterly transitory.

Post the Roe decision, we liberals can see our dilemna clearly and without any credible disputing evidence. We are dealing with an emboldened Supreme Court packed (via naked connivery) with conservative ideologues. These are partisan zealots with life appointments. And they’ve proven beyond any doubt that they are willing to override any legislation and any will of the people, no matter how long established and no matter how deep and vocal the reaction from the substantial majority of citizens.

Point being … unless “the Supreme Court problem” is resolved, no hard-fought legislative action or lower court victories ever mean anything. Literally everything is negatable, even after 50 years of being established law with the constant support of 70% of voting-age adults.

Which brings us to the one “fight” liberals must focus on with the intensity, focus and connivery, if necessary, that conservatives used to bring down Roe.

And that is … the elimination of the electoral college.

As many have noted, not one, not two, not three, but five of the votes against Roe were delivered from justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Alito and Roberts by George W. and of course, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett by that incorruptible conservative intellectual powerhouse, Donald Trump, (a guy who we have no reason to suspect has ever been personally involved in an abortion.)

Here’s a breakdown of the serious obstacles to neutering the electoral college by constitutional amendment and … and … an explanation of how the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could achieve the same end. Basically, once enough states pass the NPVIC into law to reach 270 electoral votes, the archaic Electoral College, created 250 years before 80% of the American population was living in cities, would be rendered moot.

(In Minnesota the Democrat-led House passed the NPVC in 2019, but it has been blocked by Senate-controlled Republicans ever since.)

It goes without saying that the current Supreme Court ideologues, driven by Sam Alito, will search high and low for another “novel legal argument” to overturn an NPVIC law. And can we say that after ramrodding both the Citizens United decision (all the dark money any politician could ever want) and the defeat of Roe, Alito is now a far, far more consequential figure than the hapless John Roberts?

And this is where the white hot focus of liberal legal scholars, big donors and activists becomes essential. They/we have to accept as brutal fact that all their “fighting” for, you name it, gay rights, climate legislation, gun control, immigration reform and on and on … and on and on … is for nought as long as the Electoral College keeps sending popular vote losers to the White House.

Given the other brutal fact, namely that the liberal coalition is a sprawling mash-up of hundreds of interest groups, many with little to no overlap, such a white hot focus strikes me … at this moment … as futile. Where conservative ideologues can coalesce behind a handful of issues — i.e. anything smacking of white Christian rights, more guns, lower taxes for the wealthy and resistance to silly woke liberalism — the progressive agenda is a longer read than your average Stephen King novel, and in some ways just as scary.

But you tell me, can you point to any other single “fight” promising as much deep and pervasive reform as putting an axe to the neck of the Electoral College?

Banning Trump From Ballot Doesn’t Pass Smell Test

Posted on by

cursor_and_democrats_right_to_vote_-_google_searchWhen it comes to the Minnesota DFL’s attempt to bar Donald Trump’s name from appearing on Minnesota ballots, the party is making a mistake by focusing on the could versus the should.

Yes, banning Trump from Minnesota ballots could be possible. It appears as if the ever-bungling Minnesota Republican Party perhaps didn’t follow the letter of the law in nominating their presidential elector alternates. I’m no great election law mind, so I’ll let the Star Tribune explain the DFL’s legal argument:

The petition said the state GOP erred at its state convention on May 20-21 in Duluth, where delegates “at large” and from each of Minnesota’s congressional districts nominated 10 presidential electors but failed to nominate 10 alternate electors.

The petition quoted the law (the italicized type is the party’s) as saying, “Presidential electors and alternates for the major political parties of this state shall be nominated by delegate conventions called and held under the supervision of the respective state central committees of the parties of this state.”

The petition continued: “This language is clear and unequivocal: Alternatives ‘shall’ be nominated — not unilaterally by party leaders — but by ‘delegate conventions.’

It sounds as if they might have case.  But letter of the law aside, should DFLers ban Trump?  The spirit of the law is that citizens should get to a chance to vote for the candidate who prevailed in the nominating process, in this case Trump.   That’s what Minnesotans of all parties feel in their gut.  The practical effect of the DFL’s move is to effectively disenfranchise Trump voters in Minnesota, more than one-third of the citizenry. For a party that justifiably preaches keeping democracy open to all voters, effectively disenfranchising at least one-third of the voters just doesn’t pass the smell test. It will offend many voters, including some who would otherwise be DFL-friendly, and it will seed even more cynicism in an already dangerously cynical citizenry.  That’s not good for our democracy.

Beyond the disenfranchisement of it all, DFL Party leaders perhaps should be wary of unintended consequences. An April 2016 Star Tribune-sponsored survey found Clinton with 48% of registered voters, Trump with 35%, and 17% undecided. While that’s a four month old poll, the chances are that Clinton still holds a lead in Minnesota. So, absent Trump being banned from the ballot by the DFL, Clinton probably would win Minnesota the old fashioned way, by earning the most votes.

So, there probably isn’t a lot to gain Electoral College-wise by gagging Trump voters. However, what happens if Trump refugees and undecided voters coalesce around Libertarian Gary Johnson?  What likely would have been a blue state could become, I don’t know, the Libertarian Party color.  That’s probably a long shot, but the possibility exists after the DFL kicks the Trump hornet nest by taking away their ability to vote for their hero.

DFL electoral tacticians likely see it differently. They may think that if Trump isn’t on the ballot, discouraged Trump voters will stay home, which will help the DFL win down-ballot races.  They’re banking on Trump voters to stay home and sulk, and they may be right.  But what happens if Trump voters instead get outraged enough by the perceived injustice of the situation to turn out in record numbers to vote against the party that they feel stole their votes?

DFL leaders probably feel quite self-satisfied about this clever little “gotcha” game.  I’m one strong DFLer who just doesn’t like it.  It feels like a betrayal of one of the party’s most admirable values – defense of every voter’s right to vote for the candidate of their choosing.  In my opinion this is not the Minnesota DFL’s finest hour.

Tea Party Proposes Mileage-Based Electoral College Reform

Posted on by

Gun Barrel City, TX — Tea Party activists announced today a sweeping proposal to reform America’s much criticized Electoral College presidential section process.

“When you look at a 2012 election map that reports results by county, it’s clear who really won the presidential election,” said Bud Remington, President of Tea Party Battalion.  “Don’t get confused by the junk science pushed by the east coast liberal elite, because anyone with common sense can tell by a glance of the map that the election was stolen in a treasonous act.”

Continue reading →

Obama Should Denounce The Electoral College, Even If It Saves Him

Posted on by

The New York Times’ poll-aggregating oddsmaker Nate Silver currently puts the chances of President Obama winning the Electoral College at about 86%, but his chances of winning the popular vote at only 51%.

In other words, there is a very real chance — a 6.9% chance according to Silver — that President Obama could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, as happened to President George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore in 2000.

In case you were sleeping through the film strip in Civics Class the day they covered the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Plan, the Electoral College is what counts.   Quite incredibly, the United States of America is the only democracy on the planet where candidates can and do become the national leader without having won the highest number of votes. Continue reading →