- In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked
by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew
their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes.
They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for
Gore. But they fought - amid the confetti of hanging chads - to stop the
state's votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed
George W. Bush on the nation.
-
- Today, that contempt for democracy is on display
again. In California right now, there is a naked, out-in-the-open ploy
to rig the 2008 presidential election - and it may succeed.
-
- To understand how this works, we have to roam back
to the 18th century and learn about the odd anachronistic leftover they
are trying to use now to thwart democracy. Back then, America's Founding
Fathers decided not to introduce a system where U.S. presidents would be
directly elected, with the votes totted up in Washington, D.C., and the
winner being the man with the most. Instead, they chose a complex system
called the Electoral College.
-
- This stipulates that American citizens do not vote
directly for a president. Instead, they technically vote for 539 statewide
"electors," who gather six weeks after the election to pick the
president.
-
- The founders designed it this way for a number of
reasons. They wanted the smaller states to have a say, so they gave them
a disproportionate number of Electoral College votes. They also believed
that, in a country that was largely isolated and illiterate, voters wouldn't
know much about out-of-state figures and would be better off picking intermediaries
who could exercise discretion on their behalf.
-
- It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing
perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such
a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state Electoral
College votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got
to be president. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and - most tragically
for the world - in 2000.
-
- Today, the Republicans are trying to exploit the
discontent with the Electoral College among Americans in a way that would
rig the system in their favor. At the moment, every state apart from Maine
and Nebraska hands out its Electoral College votes according to a winner-takes-all
system. This means that if 51 percent of people in California vote Democrat,
the Democrats get 100 percent of California's electoral votes; if 51 percent
of people in Texas vote Republican, the Republicans get 100 percent of
Texas' electoral votes.
-
- The Republicans want to change this - but in only
one Democrat-leaning state. California has gone Democratic in presidential
elections since 1988, and winning the sunny state is essential if the Democrats
are going to retake the White House. So the Republicans have now begun
a plan to break up California's Electoral College votes and award a huge
chunk of them to their side.
-
- They have launched a campaign called California Counts,
and they are trying to secure a statewide referendum in June to implement
their plan. They want California's electoral votes to be divvied up not
on a big statewide basis, but according to the much smaller congressional
districts. The practical result? Instead of all the state's 54 Electoral
College votes going to the Democratic candidate, around 20 would go to
the Republicans.
-
- If this were being done in every state, everywhere,
it would be an improvement. California's forgotten Republicans would be
represented in the Electoral College, and so would Texas' forgotten Democrats.
But by doing it in California alone, they are simply giving the Republicans
a massive electoral gift. Suddenly it would be extremely hard for a Democrat
ever to win the White House; they would need a landslide victory everywhere
else to counter this vast structural imbalance against them on the West
Coast.
-
- You can see this partisan agenda if you look at who
is behind the campaign. It was set up by Charles "Chep" Hurth
III - a Republican donor to Rudy Giuliani. It was drafted by Tom Hiltachk
- a Republican attorney. Its signature drive was coordinated by Kevin Eckery
- a Republican consultant.
-
- Its funds were provided by Paul Singer - a Republican
billionaire and one of Giuliani's biggest donors. Its chief fundraiser
is Anne Dunsmore, who went there straight from her post as national deputy
campaign manager for Giuliani. Seeing a pattern yet?
-
- Indeed, this bias is so blatant that the state Republican
Party itself has now chipped in $80,000 to the campaign. Of course, the
campaign is not marketing itself as a Republican rigging escapade. They
insist: "This initiative is not about helping any one party or candidate.
It simply ensures that every vote cast in our state counts in the Electoral
College." But the best they can do to provide "balance"
is to point to the fact that one of the men who has given them $20,000,
Edward Allred, once also gave $2,300 to the campaign of Democratic contender
Bill Richardson. Wow.
-
- There is a real risk they could succeed. They are
close to getting the number of signatures they need to secure a referendum
in June. (The Los Angeles Downtown News claims to have witnessed signature-gatherers
offering homeless people food in return for signing.) The turnout for the
referendum is expected to be extremely low, because the statewide primaries
usually held on that date have been moved forward to February. So the Republicans
only have to activate a small part of their base to push it through - and
they have the cash to do it. California dreamin', on such a winter's day.
-
- The Democrats in response shouldn't be trapped in
the conservative position of defending the indefensible Electoral College.
There is an alternative way to reform it - one that would be fair to all
parties. It used to be thought it was all but impossible to ditch the system
because it would require a constitutional amendment, which needs the approval
of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, plus three-quarters of state
legislatures.
-
- But then constitutional scholars realized there was
another way. The Constitution only requires that each state must "appoint"
its presidential electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof
may direct." That leaves a glimmer of hope. The Campaign for a National
Popular Vote is campaigning for every state simply to commit its delegates
to the Electoral College to vote 100 per cent for the candidate who wins
the popular vote.
-
- This would render the Electoral College a forgotten
technicality. It's very revealing that when the California state Senate
voted to introduce this genuinely democratic system last year, the Republican
governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, vetoed it, with the support of his party.
-
- It shows that the Republicans' rhetoric of wanting
"fairness" and "equal representation" in California
is a honeyed lie. They want a system that retains their power, even if
it subverts the will of the people. It risks becoming Florida Part II:
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the polling booth ...
Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy election.
-
-
|