This seems no big deal at first; just mildly dickish in the way those familiar with Virginia have come to expect from the Commonwealth. But simultaneously, there are measures afoot in Virginia and other states that would reapportion states' electoral votes more or less proportionally. Sounds okay to start, right? Except that those votes would be allocated along congressional district lines. You know, the maddeningly gerrymandered district lines that delivered another majority for John Boehner despite House Republican candidates falling a million votes shy of Democratic candidates in the last election. So that even with a clear popular majority in a given state, a presidential candidate might come out with fewer electoral votes because his/her support didn't come from the right parts of the state. But even with sensible district lines (ha!), the plan would essentially tie presidential elections to House elections, because we don't give a shit about checks and balances anymore. And along current lines, would give rural districts even more disproportionate influence than they currently possess. Not to mention the incredible import it would grant once every ten year post-census elections and the unignorable incentive it would give parties to turn congressional districts into twisted, electoral monstrosities (something Democrats can do, too, by the way).
This is also happening in Michigan. And Wisconsin. And Pennsylvania. Florida is discussing it, as well, but there of all places, GOP leadership is actually feeling queasy about the idea; Florida, on this issue, is less slimy than Virginia. I should point out here that some right wingers are highlighting the potential pitfalls of such a plan, which is heartening (cynical though the reasoning may be), but does nothing to change the fact that significant legislative time and energy has been spent on this issue.
The Republican Party is, we are told (by them), the party of personal responsibility and hard work. And here they are not taking responsibility for their recent failures; not doing the hard work of making themselves relevant for a changing electorate. They instead game the system to suit the aging, withering base that they cannot or will not pull themselves from. As this simple, country lawyer has said before, they care more about winning than governing. And when you're operating under that philosophy, even the spirit of democracy can be thrown under the bus.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to Larry Sabato, who points out that this "truly rotten" idea would,
"permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not a relatively small Electoral College “misfire” on the order of 1888 or 2000. Instead, it is a corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the scale for future Republican candidates. We do not play presidential politics with a golf handicap awarded to the weaker side."Or Ta-Nehisi Coates, who connects Virginia's scheme to the race-driven disenfranchisement efforts of the last century and a half and calls it "a bad sign for American democracy." Or Jamelle Bouie, calling the movement "a full-scale assault on the principle of 'one person, one vote.'" Hyperbole? Maybe. But it's hard enough getting people's attention on electoral reform, let alone attacks on the concept. This issue doesn't hit as close to home as an ongoing economic recovery. It isn't as visceral as the gun control debate. It isn't as sexy as Manti Te'o's dead, fake girlfriend (yes, that can be read as me finding fake dead girls to be sexy, but who are you to judge me?). It is, however, relevant.
Because when the basic tenets of democratic government can be ignored and politicians can chose their constituents--rather than the other way 'round--none of our other partisan bickerings will matter a whit.
No comments:
Post a Comment