This is another long one and, predictably, oozing ridiculous.
That a party would even contemplate such a blatant scheme to rig the rules so that it might win elections, when any remotely fair standard dictates it ought to lose, boggles the mind. But this plot did not come out of nowhere, and it is not merely an exercise in momentary partisan opportunism. It is the expression of a durable American political tradition of skepticism of democracy (or, to put it more charitably, skepticism of majoritarian democracy). And as the Republican Party comes to grips with an increasingly hostile public, this tradition is coming to the fore.
If you listen closely to the arguments by the Republican vote riggers, you can hear rationalizations, yes, but also a real idea: Rural Americans deserve disproportionate political representation. Charles W. Carrico, a small-town Republican state senator from Virginia who sponsored his state’s Electoral College–alteration bill, said, “People in my district—they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don’t mean anything if they’re outvoted in metropolitan districts.” Jase Bolger, speaker of the state House of Representatives in Michigan, likewise fretted over the voting power of the urban hordes: “I hear that more and more from our citizens in various parts of the State of Michigan, that they don’t feel like their vote for president counts, because another area of the state may dominate that or could sway their vote.”
Those of us who remember the 2000 presidential election should be somewhat amused that any Democrat now holds the Electoral College sacred — they all wanted to scrap it then.
Chait also takes a few paragraphs to bemoan the Constitutional makeup of the Senate, only because it fits his premise that the people outside of Manhattan, Chicago and Los Angeles already have too much power because-OMG!-the Republicans are in control of the House.
There’s also some perfunctory whining about judicial activism, which is always delightful coming from the side of the aisle that invented it.
The real irony here is that what he’s describing in the states is a result of who is in power. As they are always fond of reminding us at the federal level, elections have consequences. He just isn’t a fan of that at the state level, where all of America isn’t falling in line for the GOP death march.
Perhaps this Chait fella can explain the statistical oddity of 100% (or better) turnout and 100% vote for one candidate in so many districts/polls in Clevland, Baltimore and urban NY….
Then there is that Florida County that had a 162% turnout…..with similar results…
Chicago…..
“New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles”
You forgot Boston.
That’s something I frequently try to do.
“It is the expression of a durable American political tradition of skepticism of democracy ”
You mean the one going all the way back to the Founding of our country?
You mean the tradition that backed the writing of the Constitution that was deliberately designed to limit the effects of democracy?
Then I am sure Mr. Chait has no issues if the rural areas go their own way.
Unless he is just an imperial man, wishing to impose his views and desires on all, as those of empires do.
I think Mr. Chait, should he actually think about it for a second, will realize this is nothing new in human history, nor will be the standard solutions usually attempted.
He needs to realize there was a reason why the Senate had to be, and why there is an Electoral College apportionment consisting of tallying both House and Senate seats. It wasn’t because some academic put in a paper about the most theoretical “holy” of arrangements–though the system works as if it had been.
If Mr. Chait wishes to have rule by brute power of numbers, then he better be prepared to rule by brute power.
They already have rule by brute numbers. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, L.A., New Orleans, etc. All those places show the result of democracy in action. The people were told by they could vote themselves free stuff from the treasury. All they would have to do in exchange was allow the liberal power junkies free reign. So began anew the cycle of fiscal and moral plundering of society by psychopaths. They’ve been playing the game on the national level, too, but with the cities now packed with millions of government dependents they have the power to do to the nation what they have done to those cities.
Chait? The guy who admitted he’s nothing but a bigot?
Why does anyone pay any attention to him? It’s like paying attention to the “Klan” — it’s what they’re after.
Oddly I find myself intrigued by the proposal. Elections have consequences and it seems like those of us out here in flyover country are the ones who are impacted the most by electoral decisions made by a handful of urban districts. IMHO, Obama’s EPA and Interior Departments might have a little more restraint if he had to be concerned about the voters in coal and oil country or farming and ranching country… and how about commercial fishing – those guys are dieing.
48 of 50 states now have more conservatives than liberals. The ONLY way Obama is still President is through fraud, as evidenced here:
http://www.ObamaVoterFraud.com/