Posted on 10/25/2004 6:06:38 PM PDT by farmfriend
The first point that the commentary misses is that the remedy that the author suggests wouldn't have changed anything in 2000. As part of the analysis of Colorado's proposition to change the electors are selected, someone analyzed the 2000 race by Congressional districts and states. Using that analysis, President Bush would have still won the presidency. The only difference is that a few areas of Florida wouldn't have controlled all of Florida's electoral votes, so there would have been no post-election drama.
The second point is that most battleground states are battleground states because they represent so much of the country's demographics. Florida is a mix of traditional southerners with snowbirds from the Northeast and Latin immigrants. Ohio is a mix of rust belt workers, suburbanites, and rural people. Pennsylvania is similar to Ohio with different kinds of farmers. New Mexico is a mix of people who are there largely because of government or high-tech investment with people from a native Indian or Spanish heritage. Colorado is similar to New Mexico with a more Caucasian influence. The candidates who are safe in other states cannot do much to chase these battleground states because doing so will alienate their bases in their safe states.
For instance, if the GOP nominates Rudy Guiliani in '08, it runs a very serious risk of losing its grip on the South. Rudy Guiliani has said on national TV that he doesn't believe that private individuals should be allowed to own handguns. To me, that statement disqualifies him from being president, and I suspect that it would keep many Southerners from supporting him. In addition, he wants to keep abortion legal and is pro-homosexual. Those stances will cause him to lose many votes in the South. If he is nominated, the entire South will become a battleground region once again.
The danger that the author almost identifies correctly is how far apart Americans have drifted and how regionalized those differences are. The problem is not that our elections are coming down to a few battleground states in every election. The problem is that instead of the parties being defined by relatively small differences of opinion between neighbors on specifics, the parties are defined by large differences of opinion across regions on the principles. That split is what could cause big problems.
Bill
OR like the fools in Colorado who will vote to cancell out the power of it's state to ratify it's vote and nominate the President.
I htink the Colorado "split the delegates" initiative is just another "perfect Storm 'play by the Dems to throw a monkey wrench in the election they are sure they are losing.
I like this. It's originally Karl Mundt's plan. The Liberals hate it. The Democrats have fought this ever since Mundt proposed it.
The point is that fraud in one congresional district (say in California) only affects that district (and the two state EVs partially) but doesn't affect other districts.
The learned professor seems to have forgotten that the United States was set up as a constitutional republic - not a democracy. A good definition of democracy that some smart Freeper posted is: Three wolves and a sheep hold a vote on what to have for dinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.