Paul Burka and Walter Shapiro

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.)