Always fighting the last election
January 29, 2013, 7:26 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

After the traumatizing 2000 election, lefties started floating the idea of having states allocate their electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all. There was even a whole movement to get states to sign pledges – which many have, all still in effect to my knowledge – to achieve a similar outcome, to give their votes to the popular-vote winner in certain cases.

This movement was aligned broadly, albeit not completely, with the left. You see, at that time they apparently believed all future elections would have dynamics exactly like 2000. Thus, proportional-electors was a pro-left measure!, they figured.

Flash forward to 2012 and the proposal is considered to be “rigging the electoral system” by that same left. The fact that Rethugs would even propose such a thing just proves how bereft of ideas they are!

I’ll collect my 2 Consistency Points at this time by pointing out that I was opposed to proportional electors in 2000 and still am today. The (R)s proposing this are being just as silly and short-sighted as those who floated this twelve years ago. I look forward to redeeming those Consistency Points, once I’ve saved up 10, at my local Chuck E. Cheese in exchange for a plastic ring with a plastic spider on top that is too small for my pinky. In the meantime though, let us just marvel at the whiplash some on the left are capable of: the filibuster is crucial to the Republic! No wait, it’s an anti democratic abomination! Winner-take-all states are anti-populist! No, wait, they are necessary for black enfranchisement!

It’s as if they think we don’t remember things from more than a year and a half ago. Either that or they’re all, like, eleven years old, so they don’t remember. Maybe the latter in this case.

4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

I think the prospect article was silly. What I think the left is opposed to (reasonably, I think) is the allocation of electoral votes based upon popular vote within each congressional district.

They think that gerrymandering will result in ‘rigged’ elections at the national level (one could argue it already has some effect in congressional or local elections).

I believe the original proposal from the 2000s that you referred to would allocate electoral votes proportionally but across the entire state, not within each district. I also heard the proposal to dissolve the electoral college all together and have elections simply as national popular votes.

Comment by tangentstyle

The “Republicans are rigging the system” meme has really taken flight. IMO, all this about gerrymandering, citizens united, voter id, etc betrays a growing belief on the left that democracy has failed. I figure they will have abandoned it entirely as a governing mechanism by mid-century.

Comment by Matt

The electoral college is the most reactionary aspect of US elections. Therefore, I predict it will be destroyed for the sake of equality by the progressives, at some point in the future.

Comment by Dave

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a leftie to make a policy argument that doesn’t boil down to “who whom”. That it disadvantages the Rs in the present is sufficient reason to advocate such a policy. If it should become necessary to advocate a different policy in 2016, the media and median voter will surely take no notice.

Comment by SkepticalCynical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 501 other followers

%d bloggers like this: