Paul Burka and Walter Shapiro
Prove It, Dubya
By Paul Burka
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2000, at 11:35 AM ETPunditry fails me. I have never--never--felt anything so intense as the emotions of the crowd in front of the capitol last night. When the jumbotron announced the recall of Florida from the Gore column, the instant explosion of noise that followed was a howl that was part relief and part release and part something so primitive that I can't yet explain it. It went beyond anything that I've ever heard at an athletic event--the joy of the kill, perhaps. I was long gone by the time that the networks reversed themselves a second time, taking the election away from Bush for the time being, but a friend who stayed on called this morning and said his first impulse was, literally, to kill the messenger--to throw something at the giant screen.
I think that the Electoral College has got to go. As an otherwise forgotten Texas legislator once said of a bill he opposed, "It's a time bomb headed for a banana peel." The Electoral College creates three problems: 1) It undermines the legitimacy of a winning candidate who does not lead in the popular vote. 2) It invites mischief. When the vote in the Electoral College is very close, as it is this year, the temptation for candidates to lobby (or bribe) electors to change their allegiances is too great. 3) The biggest problem is that state-by-state scoring system of the Electoral College does not produce a true national election. Oh, we all get to vote, but unless we live in a swing state, we never get to experience the campaign, much less see a real live candidate. All the time and resources are directed to the states that are in doubt. This has to depress turnout everywhere else.
I share your concerns about what happens next. I just got a call from one of the Bushies saying that Gore has a wonderful opportunity: He ought to say that it's time to move on and concede the election to Bush and wish him well. This instantly rehabilitates himself, the argument goes, shows that he's a statesman, and becomes the first speech of his 2004 candidacy. And I'm sure that it's just what Karl Rove would have had Bush do if the shoe were on the other foot. NOT.
You ask if there is a way out of this mess? I think it's up to Bush, not Gore. He's going to have to find just the right combination of strength and humility at a time when his own party, and especially the Christian Coalition, is going to be putting enormous pressure on him to take advantage of the fact that the Republicans will control both the presidency and Congress. He said that he is a uniter, not a divider. Now he's going to have to prove it.
Prove It, Dubya
By Paul Burka
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2000, at 11:35 AM 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
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
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.)