In 2008, America elected a fellow named Barack Hussein Obama by a pretty large margin in the electoral college (365 VS 173). According to the popular vote, the vote was 52% against 45%. (This is because the electoral college lumps the votes of delegates from states together. That is, if 4 million vote for one candidate and 3 million vote for another, all the electoral votes go for the candidate with 4 million votes. If the winning candidate gets 6 million votes, s/he still gets all the electoral votes. It's a reasonable argument to say the system has some quirks, especially because the electoral college always overrules the popular vote. There have been 3 presidents elected while losing the popular vote: President Rutherford Hayes in 1876, President Benjamin Harris in 1888, and President George W. Bush in 2000. Interestingly, all these Presidents have been part of the Republican Party). Anyway, Obama was elected largely because of his promise of hope and change to 'business as usual' in Washington. People were sick of perceived and real cronyism and corruption and believed their voice was not being heard. Obama was elected to fix all of that. Lo and behold! He did!
Ok, not really. Instead he was met with a firestorm of criticism and incredible opposition to pretty much any policy he set down. While initiating the health care reform debate, grassroots organizations popped up and people began to voice their disappointment in politically powerful ways. In 2010, the Democrats lost control of the House and their majority in the senate also slid substantially. A few days after that election, the following was published.
"[That] debate was an introduction to a phenomenon I witnessed throughout my presidency: highly personal criticism. Partisan opponents and commentators questioned my legitimacy, my intelligence, and my sincerity. They mocked my appearance, my accent, and my religious beliefs. I was labeled a Nazi, a war criminal, and Satan himself... One lawmaker called me both a loser and a liar."
Yet the death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of twenty-four-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing. The toxic atmosphere in American politics discourages good people from running for office.
Over time, the petty insults and name-calling hardened into conventional wisdom. Some have said I should have pushed back harder against the caricatures. But I felt it would debase the presidency to stoop to the critics' level. I had run on a promise to change the tone in Washington. I took that vow seriously and tried to do my part, but I rarely succeeded."
One can imagine these words being written and spoken by President Obama. And yet, they were written in fact by a man many people believe to be the antithesis of Obama, President George W. Bush. The quote is from Bush's book, Decision Points. The debate he was referring to was stem cell research.
Bush did in fact run on a campaign of change, though not as loudly or symbolically as Obama. His opposition was Al Gore, who was President Clinton's VP. It wasn't a big step to take - electing Gore would probably lead to similar policies of Clinton's last two terms. So if a voter didn't like those policies, Bush was the alternative. The image on the right is actually a commemorative plate from Bush's first inauguration.Obama's campaign of change is more obvious. As indicated by the election results, Bush had divided the country more than Clinton. Or perhaps, the change would be more obvious. Not a whole lot happened in the 90s worth throwing a fit about. The Soviet Union finally fell in 1991, there were some bombings in the Balkans by American planes in 1999, and the biggest question on everyone's mind was how to prevent nuclear missiles in the old Soviet Union from being captured by terrorists (a term that Americans didn't really care about at the time, because most terrorism against America was in the form of embassy bombings, which was too far away to affect the population as a whole. Timothy McVeigh wasn't really seen as a terrorist but as a criminal, and the 1993 WTC bombing was pretty much a failure. Waco was a local Texas tragedy.) The big issue on everyone's mind was stem cell research, a scientific advance with a lot of promise and a lot of uncertainty. 2000 was a pretty calm time for America. 2008 was different.
Meanwhile, America had been attacked in 2001 by terrorists (a term that suddenly had meaning, albeit an occasionally racist one because it at times became synonymous with Muslims), and some people believed the Bush administration had orchestrated the whole thing as an excuse to invade Iraq and profit from its oil. To say the country was divided is almost too simple. Oh, and in 2008 the country suddenly entered a financial meltdown.
In 2010, change rose again. The Tea Party had appeared on the scene, and while most of their signs were like this, it was clear they were, again, advocating change. They were just advocating.... different change.
The whole point of the Tea Party is to change........ the change.
I can think of only one campaign that actively promoted non-change. John McCain's campaign in 2008. I recall McCain's supporters, at his rallies, chanting "4 more years." Liberals also used the phrase to vilify McCain, but I distinctly recall McCain embracing the idea at some point.... But I might be wrong. Maybe all politicians want change.
If that's the case, we need to stop voting for change. Change doesn't mean anything, except "not what we have now." That's a pretty general definition. That Bush and Obama and Rand Paul got elected on that word should show how diverse it is. I'd say it's not even a talking point or a buzz word, but just.... just a word everyone likes because they can pretend it means what they want.
In fact, I'll go a step further. America's political goal has nearly always been to change. It's our national heritage, and I'd say it is what the American Dream is if I didn't hate that term so much. Whether we want a house or to live in freedom or the opportunity to better ourselves through hard work, America is a country that is never at rest, and always striving for something new. All politicians are doing when they claim they want change is tapping into that national consciousness. Which is fine. We just have to stop fooling ourselves by thinking the change is the property of one candidate or party. They all want change. What we really need to do is to look at which policies they want to change, and which they don't. We need to focus on the issues. Which is what elections ought to be about anyway......
On a brighter note, all the ridiculous candidates I named in my speech at the Anchorage Rally to Restore Sanity lost their bid for election, and also those I was following but couldn't fit in my speech. Here's the text of that speech: http://takeitdownanotch4ak.blogspot.com/2010/10/alex-maslows-speech.html.
Let's check those election numbers!
Art Robinson. The racist, homophobic congressional candidate for Oregon's 4th district. He only got 45% of the vote. On the other hand, 45% of the population of Oregon's 4th district would like someone with his views to represent them. He's also running again in 2012 (according to his website). I hope he gets less votes then.
Tom Emmer, the gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. He only got 43% of the vote. However, this means 43% of all Minnesotians (is that the right term?) wouldn't have a problem that their governor would financially connected to "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide," a Christian hard rock ministry that performs at public schools around the state. Fine, I guess. Except their head said on their radio show if America won't enforce the laws of the Bible, God will raise an enemy who will. He seemed to be implying radical Islam was such an enemy. This is, literally, the same thing Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church says. When questioned, Emmer defended his connection by saying "They are nice people." Not fucking true.
Interestingly, Emmer lost the vote by less than 10,000 voters. There were 4 other candidates, but they got 1% of the vote between them all.
Mark Dayton | 919228 | 44% |
Tom Emmer | 910479 | 43% |
Tom Horner | 251489 | 12% |
Christine O'Donnel lost her senate bid in Delaware, taking only 40% of the vote. Simple enough, not interested in belaboring the issue.
Carl Paladino won only 34.4% of the vote in his bid to be the governor of New York City. I'm surprised so many people there voted for such a vocal homophobe. I figured the "The rent is too damn high" guy would have connected with more voters. When is the rent not too damn high?
Also, the party's website is pretty ridiculous. Turn your speakers up. There's definitely a rap about how high the rent is. How high? Too damn high. http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/
Richard Iott lost his bid to represent Ohio's 9th district. I actually have to express some regret in this case. I know nothing of his policies, but of course am aware of the media storm that blew up when pictures surfaced showing him dressed up as a member of the Waffen-SS. And as outrageous as his ignorance was, it probably didn't in the least reflect his policies. There is no reason to believe Iott would have any policies that are remotely resemble anything the Nazis had. The only thing we can say for sure is he either has an astonishingly terrible grasp on history or is horribly insensitive to historical catastrophes.
So if he wasn't voted in because the people in his district disagreed with his policy ideas, awesome. And if some people didn't vote for him because of his (however incredible) public relations faux pax, that's fine. That's how democracy works. A focus on issues with some character judgement. But if he wasn't voted in because people thought he was a Nazi...... then that's something we should be worried about.
Obama is not a Nazi or a Communist. You can disagree with his policies, but anyone saying he is a Nazi or a Communist is either spread misinformation. The same applies for any other candidate. In an interesting twist, I can end this half of the post in the same way I ended the first half. Instead of focusing on labels applied by political opponents, we need to focus on the issues. Which is what elections ought to be about anyway......
Damn that was a long post.......
There's hope for changing the quirky system of electing presidents.
ReplyDeleteThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE --75%, ME -- 77%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, RI -- 74%, and VT -- 75%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, and VA -- 74%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, WA -- 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Oh, I wish it were that easy. But I have to take issue with much of what you've said.
ReplyDelete"Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states." It would be about winning votes. But states with larger populations would still be more important, because they have more voters, it wouldn't make a difference. In fact, you would need to campaign HARDER because 55% support would be suddenly worth a lot less than it is now...
"Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states."
Why would they not care about the undecided voters? If there are 100 undecided voters in RI and 10,000 undecided voters in NY, guess where the candidates are going to campaign? There's still no reason to step foot into Rhode Island, except perhaps on a whistle-stop from MA to NY to PA.
"Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind."
Why would this change? If it's October and I'm leading with 60% somewhere, why would I campaign when there's a state I might be leading by 3% or less. Similarly, why campaign in a place where I only have 30% support.
I understand that the amount of lead in states is irrelevant in this new system, 1,000 new votes is 1,000 new votes whether before they switched to me I had 30%, 50% or 90% support in the state polls. So I suppose candidates would change their focus from 'swing states' to 'states with swing/undecided voters.' But what would that change? The focus of campaigns might be different, but there would still be a focus, this time with loyal supporters left out. And the only real response to that is for loyal supporters to threaten not to vote if they are not catered to. But then they aren't such loyal supporters. They also aren't going to do that, because even though it seems like a good idea it ultimately hands the election over to the opponent, and so no loyal supporter would ever actually do it.
"When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)."
That's ridiculous! Someone gets 45% of the popular vote and the other gets 55%, so the one with 55% of the vote gets ALL ELECTORAL VOTES in the country! Why is that a remotely good idea? That's even more divisive, because those in the minority may feel like their views are being silenced.
In any event, no news organization would run the electoral college map any more. They would switch to a map based on the local popular votes. Maybe by district to make it more interesting.
Overall, I like this idea, except for the electoral college bit (I'm not sure how I'd award those votes, but making it all-or-nothing NATIONALLY seems just as divisive). But I think it's silly to claim this change would solve all of our problems. Even the problems it solves, it simply creates new - and incredibly similar - problems to replace them. Swing states are ignored, but swing voters are more important. But swing states are swing states BECAUSE of swing voters. So ultimately, what is the difference? There's still little incentive to vote in areas where you have a commanding lead or are extremely behind.
I like the idea, we just need to be realistic with ourselves about the pros and cons of it.
Thanks for the thoughtful response!