The TRUE Lesson of Election 2000

[ulTRAX]

Sad to say.... most Democrats and Progressives STILL just don't get it.

You can have 100% voter participation. You can have 100% vote accuracy. All the poll workers can be perfectly trained. You can give the vote back to those 3.9 million ex-cons. You can have 100% public financing of campaigns. It can be perfect weather all over the country on election day. You can prevent exit polling from affecting other voters. You get rid of ALL shenanigans such that Jeb Bush, Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad and SCOTUS were behind in 2000.

But no matter what you do.... and much DOES need to be done... as long as the voting system itself is an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme such as we have with the Electoral College... it can STILL make the candidate REJECTED by the voters... into the next president.

THAT is the simple truth of Election 2000.

Unless you understand this.... you'll never REALLY fix our broken system.

[Cocoa]

1. I don't like the Electoral College either

And I think some dems and progressives don't like it either, but we're stuck with it until the Constitution is amended. Not before this coming election, it's pretty safe to say.

[Luvpurp]

2. and there is no chance the constitution will be amended

The repubs and the knuckle-dragging states realize they have a lot more power than the big states per-capita with the EC.

[DieboldMustDie]

5. It only takes 13 states to block an amendment...

and there are at least that many that benefit -- or at least think they do -- from the current system.

[ulTRAX]

7. Constitution is becoming more and more reform-proof.

I find it a damning indictment of the Democratic Party that it not only has failed to push for reform of the EC... but has been AWOL on the issue of whether our Constitution is too difficult to reform. Currently states with a mere 4.5% of the US population can block any reform.

Demographics is making the Constitution more and more reform-proof... giving a dwindling minority growing power to thwart any reform.

[Cocoa]

9. I think they have

I think proposals are initiated on a pretty regular basis, to abolish the electoral college, but that they get stuck in the first stages of the process.

But what do the dems say to you, when you communicate your concerns to them?

[ulTRAX]

10. what do Dems say?

Cocoa wrote: "But what do the dems say to you, when you communicate your concerns to them?"

I've come at the topic of our Constitution being anti-democratic from a number of angles.

Judging from people here... which I assume are most self-selected Dems and Progressives... I mostly get what you'd expect from someone whose political development ended with 4th grade history. Most will do ANYTHING to find some other excuse for Election 2000 rather than blame the EC. Underlying that belief is that the rationale used to sell the Constitution to the people back in 1787 is still valid and we should not mess with it. Since I try to return to basics... what are democratic principles... what constitutes morally legitimate government... what's the best way to protect legitimate minority rights... we're typically at an impasse.

Here's a perfect example from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1267081#1267336

[wakfs]

3. Alas, the Electoral College is here to stay

It's one of the Founding Fathers' big mistakes, IMHO.

But then again, you're talking about a bunch of wealthy landowners who simply wanted to be free of taxation by the English Crown and give as little economic freedom to the unwashed masses as possible.
I can just see it now, one of those mythological figures sitting in Philly saying "I want to shrink the British Crown to the size of a bathtub" a la Grover Norquist.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Anyway, we'll never get rid of that damned Electoral College.

[ulTRAX]

8. that damned Electoral College

wakfs wrote: "Alas, the Electoral College is here to stay. It's one of the Founding Fathers' big mistakes, IMHO."

From a democratic standpoint.... there are MANY defects in the Constitution. But I'll give the Framers the benefit of the doubt that given the politics of the era, it was the best they could do. The biggest mistake I believe they made was to set their politics in cement. On some level it has retarded political development in the nation and I believe it's why we're so backwards compared to other advanced industrial democracies. Even today all too many Democrats and Progressives feel bound by what the Framers intended. Take Election 2000. They look for EVERY other excuse why Bush is now President other than the EC itself.

"But then again, you're talking about a bunch of wealthy landowners who simply wanted to be free of taxation by the English Crown and give as little economic freedom to the unwashed masses as possible."

I think the Framers did a GREAT job in protecting the rights and prerogatives of those groups invited to attend the Constitutional Convention. One can only imagine how much better a document could have been devised if other groups were allowed.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Anyway, we'll never get rid of that damned Electoral College."

Yup... the Constitution is not just virtually reform-proof but getting more so. Even though it's now hostile to the very idea of morally legitimate self-government... that slavish adherence to 1787 politics is a formidable mindset. Such people place the will of the dead over that of the living. That's why I try to get others to look at our institutions from the vantage point of first principles.

As for a way out? A few weeks ago I posted one idea... that a state like California should threaten secession. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1199976

[rock]

4. The electorial college is not that bad

It's just one way of implementing a Democracy. It works pretty well. This is definately not one of the problems with Election 2000. If it had been a strict popular vote, then bushucks* would have concentrated on stealing those, rather than electorial votes.

[ulTRAX]

6. your observations don't ring true

rock wrote: "The electoral college is not that bad. It's just one way of implementing a Democracy."

Actually the ONLY intent of the EC was NOT to make the system democratic... but to make it anti-democratic.

"It works pretty well."

And what is the basis of that claim? 11% of the US presidents have imposed upon the nation without a plurality. And since when is a plurality enough? We need a popular vote and a run-off system.

The BEST the EC can do is confirm what the voters have done in which case it's not needed. At its WORST.... it can overturn the popular will leading to morally illegitimate minority government as we now have with Bush. The entire course of US history has been changed AGAINST the Will of the People. If government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed... the EC can only deprive the nation of self-governance. How is that evidence it "works pretty well"?

"This is definitely not one of the problems with Election 2000. If it had been a strict popular vote, then bushucks* would have concentrated on stealing those, rather than electoral votes."

The anti-democratic EC formula made it MUCH easier for Bush to "steal" the election. Why? Because the EC let one vote in Bush's Florida be worth 1000X as a vote in Gore's national lead.