Paul Burka and Walter Shapiro
Let Weirdness Reign
By Walter Shapiro
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2000, at 12:09 PM ETThis is one of the most glorious mornings in my (eek!) quarter century of writing about politics. Everybody's fixated on the election, but there are blessedly no TV ads, no polls, and no recycled stump speeches. The mood (or at least my mood) is so laid-back that I can almost hear Olivia Newton-John singing, "Have you never been mellow?" So in this peaceful interlude before the first wave of exit polls, political junkies can let their minds wander over the kind of what-if possibilities that normally only pop up in Washington novels with titles like The Faithless Elector.
Paul, I'm less worried than you are that the Republicans would be so self-destructive that they would dare disrupt the graduation ceremonies of the Electoral College. Remember, even Richard Nixon decided that he would not challenge the Daley machine's vote-stealing tactics in 1960. But still, I'd feel a lot more confident about the process if electoral votes were only symbolic tally numbers rather than real-life party hacks who could be swayed by flattery, threats, or cash under the table.
The Election Day potboiler award goes to Phil Kuntz in the Wall Street Journal, who spins out a wonderfully inventive scenario. Start with a 269-269 Electoral College tie, which is theoretically possible given the states in play. That would throw the election into the House, where every state would have a single vote. As Kuntz explains, there would probably be enough split delegations to continue the deadlock. Meanwhile, the Senate could conceivably end up with a 50-50 split, which would prevent the selection of a vice president. That would mean that the new speaker of the House would become acting president. Kuntz also envisions that control of the House would pivot around the strange loyalties of nominal Youngstown, Ohio, Democrat James Traficant, who is the congressman least likely to pass a sanity test.
I hope somebody pays Kuntz for the movie rights. The only wrinkle he missed is Bill Clinton's panting eagerness to stay on in the Oval Office until the constitutional deadlock is resolved. Wait, Kuntz also forgot to conjure up the delicious possibilities and baroque legal challenges that would occur if Missouri elects a dead man, the late Mel Carnahan, to the Senate.
One of my favorite columnists, Gail Collins in the Times, has also come up with a devilishly clever conceit. She first notes that both John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Harrison were elected president even though they lost the popular vote. Her conclusion: "Has anybody ever noticed that when the direct descendant of a president runs for the White House, something weird happens?"
So here's my selfish Election Day wish: May weirdness reign long into the morning hours on Wednesday, just so long as the outcome doesn't provoke a constitutional crisis.
Let Weirdness Reign
By Walter Shapiro
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2000, at 12:09 PM ETPaul Burka is the executive editor of Texas Monthly. Walter Shapiro is a political columnist for USA Today.
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor:
Wednesday, and the Electoral College is the hot topic. There are more unlikely scenarios: here from Andrew Lazarus (don't be fooled by the earnest title), and Republican states should secede, here, from Gabe Harris. If you were feeling cheerful for any reason, today's doomposts will take care of that. Look for these titles: Potential End of Humankind, A Coming Civil War, It's Midnight in America, and Coming Fourth Branch-led Mayhem. Here's an update on History Guy's Microsoft election indicator (see below): stock falling, which is good for Gore. (The Fray is not responsible for financial or political decisions based on this information.)]
I have not heard much discussion/support for the idea of retooling the Electoral College in the way that Maine and Nebraska have. As I understand the process, the winner of the popular vote of the state receives 2 votes (1 for each Senator of that state) and then receives an additional vote for each congressional district vote that they win by popular vote of that district. While this does not do away with the Electoral College, I believe that it answers some of the deficiencies that are being cited in the wake of yesterday's election. The argument against the popular vote is that it unfairly represents the smaller states, while the argument against the "all-or-nothing" Electoral College seems to be directed at the "all-or-nothing" part of the equation.
This is just a thought, but it might be worth examining over the options of "do away" or "do nothing".
--Rob Hale
(To reply, click here.)
The most interesting thing about the Electoral College (EC) is that the majority of the general public doesn't understand what its effect is on the outcome of the presidential election. I'm of the opinion that if the EC were dissolved even more people would be inclined to be politically involved, especially young disenchanted voters (remember when you used to be one?). The old saying of "why vote when it doesn't matter" became null and void at this election. People understood that "their America" was at stake if the wrong guy got the office, illustrating this time that the vote of individuals did count. The EC served a purpose once when communications weren't as instantaneous as today. The election's moving back and forth as easily as the paltry metaphors falling from Dan Rather's mouth only highlighted the immediacy of today's communications and the media's resulting culpability in the matter. The EC has outlived its usefulness and this election illustrates it. If Gore wins the popular vote and loses the EC vote will Bush concede? I doubt it. Will Gore? Maybe not, but I think Gore will be more diplomatic if he ends up losing the EC than Bush will be about losing the popular vote.
--B.Petersen
(To reply, click here.)
Bush a uniter? Paul Burka must have snoozed through the past 8 years. Under Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party has specialized in the art of political bomb-throwing. That so many of them have blow up in their faces testifies that they haven't quite mastered the art. Half of George W. Bush's campaign was built around cynical manipulation of this political fact: the Republicans threw the bombs and Bush blamed the Democrats for not committing unconditional surrender.
The task that lies ahead of the Democrats in a Bush II presidency (if it comes to that) will be to master the art of trench warfare. All the advantages should be on their side: they will control neither executive nor legislative branch of government, so they will not bear the responsibility for making things happen. Bush (it appears) ran second in the popular vote, so he will lack electoral legitimacy his opponents will have. And the Democrats should have the best possible argument: we will not let the Republicans loot the government and squander eight years of hard work to line the pockets of their cronies. And they will have no choice: anyone who thinks Bill Archer and Trent Lott are going to "reach out" to the other side really has been sleeping for the past eight years.
--Jim Marks
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday's
notes from the Fray Editor: Wild imaginations win on election day. Click here for History Guy's scenario which has this end result: "An unelected African-American President, a Jewish Vice President from the other party, and the founding fathers turn over in their graves." And try here for his tip on reading the election through the Microsoft stock price. Post early, post often, History Guy, we like your ideas (even though at Slate we don't quite know how to check the Microsoft stock price, because we never do it). Now, on to that coup possibility:]
This talk about overturning the electoral college vote sounds like a Bushist idea--moronic. It's one of those deals that look good as long as you don't think about it too hard. Here's the acid test for any transaction: The side making the proposal should be willing to take either side in the deal or it is inherently inequitable.
So, Repubs, let's turn it around. If Gore leads in the popular vote but Bush pulls out a squeaker in the electoral college, are you going to urge him to decline the election? If you advocate the coup and you answered anything but a resounding, "Yes!" to the question above, you have just branded yourself, at least in your own mind, a raging hypocrite.
--Gilker Kimmel
(To reply, click here.)
Were there an electoral college tie, and the Bush and or Gore forces lobbied the electors to break it in their favor, this would NOT be a coup, it would be the system working the way it was originally intended to work!
Involving a popular vote in the process, and requiring electors to promise who they'll vote for, is just a Rube Goldberg contraption designed to create a democratic process out of something which was never intended to be democratic.
--Brett Bellmore
(To reply, click here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Did the NYT Just Call Joe Biden the Second Most Powerful Vice President Ever?
Meet the TV Genius Behind Jon & Kate, Table for 12, and the Duggars
Does the Health Reform Bill Really Restrict the Rights of Gun Owners?
Don't Fall for Best Buy's Scam To "Optimize" Your New Macintosh
Would Sen. Obama Approve of President Obama's Afghanistan Plan?
How Roald Dahl's Stories for Children Eclipsed His Fiction for Adults
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Wednesday, and the Electoral College is the hot topic. There are more unlikely scenarios: here from Andrew Lazarus (don't be fooled by the earnest title), and Republican states should secede, here, from Gabe Harris. If you were feeling cheerful for any reason, today's doomposts will take care of that. Look for these titles: Potential End of Humankind, A Coming Civil War, It's Midnight in America, and Coming Fourth Branch-led Mayhem. Here's an update on History Guy's Microsoft election indicator (see below): stock falling, which is good for Gore. (The Fray is not responsible for financial or political decisions based on this information.)]
I have not heard much discussion/support for the idea of retooling the Electoral College in the way that Maine and Nebraska have. As I understand the process, the winner of the popular vote of the state receives 2 votes (1 for each Senator of that state) and then receives an additional vote for each congressional district vote that they win by popular vote of that district. While this does not do away with the Electoral College, I believe that it answers some of the deficiencies that are being cited in the wake of yesterday's election. The argument against the popular vote is that it unfairly represents the smaller states, while the argument against the "all-or-nothing" Electoral College seems to be directed at the "all-or-nothing" part of the equation.
This is just a thought, but it might be worth examining over the options of "do away" or "do nothing".
--Rob Hale
(To reply, click here.)
The most interesting thing about the Electoral College (EC) is that the majority of the general public doesn't understand what its effect is on the outcome of the presidential election. I'm of the opinion that if the EC were dissolved even more people would be inclined to be politically involved, especially young disenchanted voters (remember when you used to be one?). The old saying of "why vote when it doesn't matter" became null and void at this election. People understood that "their America" was at stake if the wrong guy got the office, illustrating this time that the vote of individuals did count. The EC served a purpose once when communications weren't as instantaneous as today. The election's moving back and forth as easily as the paltry metaphors falling from Dan Rather's mouth only highlighted the immediacy of today's communications and the media's resulting culpability in the matter. The EC has outlived its usefulness and this election illustrates it. If Gore wins the popular vote and loses the EC vote will Bush concede? I doubt it. Will Gore? Maybe not, but I think Gore will be more diplomatic if he ends up losing the EC than Bush will be about losing the popular vote.
--B.Petersen
(To reply, click here.)
Bush a uniter? Paul Burka must have snoozed through the past 8 years. Under Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party has specialized in the art of political bomb-throwing. That so many of them have blow up in their faces testifies that they haven't quite mastered the art. Half of George W. Bush's campaign was built around cynical manipulation of this political fact: the Republicans threw the bombs and Bush blamed the Democrats for not committing unconditional surrender.
The task that lies ahead of the Democrats in a Bush II presidency (if it comes to that) will be to master the art of trench warfare. All the advantages should be on their side: they will control neither executive nor legislative branch of government, so they will not bear the responsibility for making things happen. Bush (it appears) ran second in the popular vote, so he will lack electoral legitimacy his opponents will have. And the Democrats should have the best possible argument: we will not let the Republicans loot the government and squander eight years of hard work to line the pockets of their cronies. And they will have no choice: anyone who thinks Bill Archer and Trent Lott are going to "reach out" to the other side really has been sleeping for the past eight years.
--Jim Marks
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday's notes from the Fray Editor: Wild imaginations win on election day. Click here for History Guy's scenario which has this end result: "An unelected African-American President, a Jewish Vice President from the other party, and the founding fathers turn over in their graves." And try here for his tip on reading the election through the Microsoft stock price. Post early, post often, History Guy, we like your ideas (even though at Slate we don't quite know how to check the Microsoft stock price, because we never do it). Now, on to that coup possibility:]
This talk about overturning the electoral college vote sounds like a Bushist idea--moronic. It's one of those deals that look good as long as you don't think about it too hard. Here's the acid test for any transaction: The side making the proposal should be willing to take either side in the deal or it is inherently inequitable.
So, Repubs, let's turn it around. If Gore leads in the popular vote but Bush pulls out a squeaker in the electoral college, are you going to urge him to decline the election? If you advocate the coup and you answered anything but a resounding, "Yes!" to the question above, you have just branded yourself, at least in your own mind, a raging hypocrite.
--Gilker Kimmel
(To reply, click here.)
Were there an electoral college tie, and the Bush and or Gore forces lobbied the electors to break it in their favor, this would NOT be a coup, it would be the system working the way it was originally intended to work!
Involving a popular vote in the process, and requiring electors to promise who they'll vote for, is just a Rube Goldberg contraption designed to create a democratic process out of something which was never intended to be democratic.
--Brett Bellmore
(To reply, click here.)