Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Who says Republicans don't have principles?

Republicans in Pennsylvania are mounting a bid to end the political battleground state's winner-take-all system for electoral votes...Under the proposal of Pennsylvania Republicans, who control the legislature and the governorship, the winner of the state would get two electoral votes but remaining electoral voteswould follow results in each congressional district.

Perhaps the principle that it's hardlly fair for 100 percent of a state's electoral college votes to go to a candidate who may only win 50 percent plus one of the vote?

A Republican-backed proposal to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all presidential electoral vote system appears to be stuck in committee for the remainder of this year's legislative session....Republican State Chairman Mark Fahleson, who had designated the proposal as a priority concern for the party, said the GOP remains "committed to its passage, whether it be this legislative session or the next, because it's the right thing to do for all of Nebraska....When we choose a governor or a U.S. senator, we speak with one voice across the state," Fahleson said. "But ...when it comes to picking our president, Nebraska is a state divided -- urban versus rural, Omaha versus everyone else."

The principle that a state should speak with one voice?

Hmm? What the principle truly at work here? Oh, the same principle that animates the GOP's wild-eyed concern with the nearly non-existent problem of voter fraud and all the limits they are attempting to put in place on registration, early voting and ballot casting:

Barack Obama must be defeated.

Posted at 05:53:16 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

States' rights, just like that great Republican, Abraham Lincoln, fought to preserve.

I don't think they don't reproduce here, but I love the ominous italics. As if in the last election, the Democrats were thinking, we'll give it the old college try, but if McCain wins, hey, that's the way it goes, fair play and all.

Are we forgetting that Obama first got elected into office by using greasy machine tactics to toss prospective opponents off the ballot? Guess all was fair in love and war then.

ZORN REPLY -- As more of a ballot-access guy I'm not fond of petition challenges in general, but Obama's challenge to Alice Palmer's bogus petitions wasn't "greasy." She bowed out of the race, gave him her blessing, then changed her mind and ginned up a slipshod, dubious petition effort. Nothing "greasy" or "machine" about it.

What's greasy is trying to change the rules of the game to better suit your team. Greasy and contemptible.

John K; That is rather an oblique response. I happen not to like any of those, but our host Mr. Z has a trait of implying that political opposition to Obama and a sincere desire not to see him be president for another term must be driven by irrational malice, rather than just a principled disagreement with his view of government. I am not saying Zorn does it, but at a lot of other left-wing redoubts, the conclusion is that opposition to Obama must be the product of racism.

Of course, no hateful bile was ever slung at George W; it was always high principle.

A survey of 800 Pennsylvan­ia voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republican­s, and 76% among independen­ts.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.

***

A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,

16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide);
27% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and
57% favored a national popular vote.
In a third question, 39% of voters think that changing the method by which Nebraska awards its electoral votes should be a high priority for the Nebraska Legislature in 2011, while 61% said that it should not.

The first question was: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

On the first question, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others. By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the First congressional district, 66% in the Second district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the Third District. By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men. By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65. By race, support for a national popular vote was 68% among whites and 63% among others.

The second question was: "Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like in Nebraska where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of Nebraska's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

Come the end of voting on Election Day, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

But, it was passed SEVEN times Jimmy, under W. I'm pretty sure 17 times under Ronald Reagan. 17 times. A lot of us complaining about W saw some things coming. Like the biggest crash of the economy since the great depression. Cutting taxes during wartime. Keeping the expenses for those wars off the books. Stuff that never happenned before. For myself personally, it's the concentration of wealth at the very top 1 or 2%. Hasn't happened since 1929. We know what happened then. We are stuck even harder at those numbers now. And let's not forget, George W. Bush rose through the ranks of qualified people to be both a Texas Gov., and President. No sleazy stuff there. Great stuff, for the kid from the slow reading group. Equal opportunity I'd call it. No sleazy tactics there.

I mean passing raising the debt ceiling. Had some responses in between. Jimmy and Quote should acknowladge the debt ceiling got raised under Sainted GOP Presidents. 17 times under Reagan. St. Ronny. Had Colbert's rant in my head, let's see if I remember. 2002, 2003, 2004, twice in 2006,,,,,All that is probably right, but I forget the rest. Most likely, I forgot to double up a year under W. Watch the right wingers act like this never happened.

Jimmy, I don't have the information in front of me at the moment. But I'll ask. From a fiscal conservative like yourself, if it was a protest vote, looking to put the cost of the Iraq and Afghanastan wars on the books for the first time under that administration, do you agree? Or did you like the fact that the wars in the Middle East were kept off the books of the Federal Budget?

What the hell happened to this thread? Anyway. Nate Silver discussed the Pa. plan and thought it had more potential to backfire than to be beneficial for Republicans. I like early voting whether you need forty days of it like we have here in is open to debate. I live in a town with a major university. Sorry I do not think out of state students should vote in local city elections on matters that don't really affect them. I can't enter my daughter's high school during the school day without showing a picture ID. I don't think requiring an ID when you vote or register vote is an onerous requirement.

What principle is at work here? I work at a major national company which is non-union that has been targeted by the teamsters with very little success. So Why do the Democrats and Obama staunch supporters of voting rights support card check, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections, changing notification laws on when an election will be held, changing the amount of workers and votes needed to certify a union? All of these things have been issues where I work and all are extremely unpopular. Yet their efforts never cease. Keep making changes and try gaming the system until you win I guess.

@John k :You misread or misunderstood my point.. I said I don't want out of state college students voting on local municipal matters there should be a residency requirement. If they want to vote, get an absentee ballot from the state they live in. I didn't say I don't won't local citizens to vote. I said I needed to show a picture Id when entering my daughter's high school. My point was not about voting age. It was about the requirement to show a valid Id when you vote or register to vote. There are any number of things which require prove who you are. I don't think requiring an ID to vote is onerous or an attemt at voter suppression.

Good luck getting the voting laws changed in college towns. The fact is, these kids rent in your town 9 months or more a year. They have rights. As for showing an ID to vote? I'm a 47 year old white male. I don't think I've ever had to show I.D. I have no problem with folks showing an I.D. So, how many college kids are not showing I.D.? The ACORN thing was shown to be a farce, and instances of voter fraud are sketchy at best. (I know this is Chicago,. Did YOU vote twice last time?) Richard, I'm going to disagree with you. The kids who rent places 9 months a year, in my opinion, are entitled to vote what they think. Denying the right to vote is a dangerous precedent. I don't want to go there. Pretty sure this is still America. No rules about owning land and such, to be able to cast a ballot. You gotta rethink this..

The thread would be a lot more interesting if it were more about the principles behind the election system vs. the politics around it. Better yet, the principles that would actually take into account the very same human nature that leads to the expedient switching of "principles". But, alas, trying to determine who out-sleazes whom seems to excite everyone here so much more.

Richard, you still haven't answered the question. How long do you think someone should have to live in a place before you will allow them to vote? Also, you seem to have a thing against college students voting where they go to school. Would you feel differently about allowing someone to vote in an area where they were living only part-time, or on a short assignment, if they were not a college student?

My feeling is that college students are often much more engaged by the politics of the towns and cities where they go to college than where their parents live. We have laws on residency in Illinois and as John K. points out, college students usually far exceed that length of time.

@john K: John I would like to apologize for pointing out a spelling error in your reply to me. I may have misinterpreted your remark concerning my "goofy spelling". It was petty on my part.

ZORN REPLY -- As I've noted previously, I make the effort, when I have the time, to fix spelling errors / typos in the comment threads. Just fixed one above, in fact! And I also make the effort to delete attacks on grammar and spelling errors. We ALL make them, in part because there are often words that vex us particularly and in part because our fingers go too quickly sometimes. And in general there isn't a high correlation between typo/braino/spello errors and the quality of thought behind the post. In other words, real idiots can be meticulous and precise, and very clever people can transpose letters or just spell words wrong.

All this started when Richard, here, hit "post" too soon on a comment that was clearly still a rough draft. Only later did I have time to go back and tidy it up for him, something I usually don't have to do on his posts.

Granted, it does not mention the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, the Daily Kos, Ezra Klein, or MIchelle Bachman. But it does explain the electoral college and why it is set up the way it is from a mathematical perspective.

It's possible that the Pennsylvania state Republican party believes that proportional representation is best for its state and the Nebraska Republican party believes that it isn't right for its state.

How a state divides its electoral votes is a state issue and legally there isn't much the courts can do to prevent a state from going to a proportional system or return it to winner-take-all. In general, I'm not opposed to political gamesmanship but, in this case, I'm not sure that I would support either plan. Regardless, setting right and wrong aside, I would expect any state political party to use whatever legal means they could to secure the best result for themselves (after all these are politicians). Anyone who thinks the electoral college will be abolished is indulging in fantasy. Good luck getting that Constitutional amendment passed.

ZORN REPLY -- The reason it's a fantasy goes into my brief against states -- there are too many little states whose power is magnified by the EC for it ever to be overturned, so you're right. Allowing the states to decide how they're going to apportion their EC votes is,then, the worst of all possible systems for mischief.

The Democrats have a nice circular argument about no fraud associated with same day registration, no-ID, and voting by mail. Once the election is over, it is almost impossible to trace or demonstrate. Voting by mail is especially prone to hijinks. Since you can see how a person is filling out the ballot, you can bribe him with certainty. In South Dakota, the Democrats go to reservations and provide mass free meals where ballots are handed out.

And I guess Acorn was flooding registrars with phony registrations just for the fun of it.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Thank you for a link to a great article! Indeed, people should understand the merits of the system before trying to change it.

It is not surprising that Democratic Party politicians tend to be in favor of a raw majority voting. The Democratic platform is oriented towards distributing small bribes to large blocks. It tends to be the opposite with the Republican Party, except perhaps when it comes to winning votes by spreading fears and stirring up parochialism; hence a bit more mixed attitudes towards the Electoral College on that side.

What surprises me more is that liberal intellectuals, the very same ones who would doggedly attack political corruption and arrogance – the result of politicians firmly believing in the power of the machine to get the majority vote, the very same intellectuals who use the Jim Crow South – an expression of a majority rule - as a whipping boy at every opportunity, are so eager to remove checks and balances in the path of a raw majority rule at the national level. If anything, I would think they should see the benefit of having an Electoral College like systems at the state and local levels.

Did anyone read David Orr's commentary in the Sun-Times, I think it was Saturday? I don't have it in front of me & have no time to find it online today (if I even can), but I remember some of his facts/comments. David is one of the very truly honest guys in politics, and voting is his thing. He said that there have were 4, repeat 4, instances in one state where there was evidence that someone tried to vote as someone else, and none that they actually got to vote. Another state had NONE. Requiring a Federal ID is another thing. 650,000 people in GA & 400,000+ in N Carolina (I think it was) have no federal ID; I'm sure there are more all over. Think, he said, about your elderly mom who no longer drives & didn't bother to renew her license. And that the requirements for what is contained on a student IDinclude things that are NEVER on a student ID. He is quite concerned about a concerted effort to keep people from voting (also consider the 8 nuns in IN who were refused last time because they had no Federal ID). Sorry I don't have all the details here, but do yourself a favor before commenting & look up his commentary. Voting stats are something that he has due to his job, and he presents a lot of them. It's enough to make a person think seriously about this.

"I have zero, repeat, zero problems with the notion of requiring picture ID's for voter registration and prohibiting registration on election day."

I believe this is already the process, at least up here in Lake County, you have to be registered by a certain date. I hope MCN will agree that once registered with proof of residency, one shouldn't have to produce a picture ID when they show up to vote.

Since many low poverty/minorities don't have driver's licenses, they often produce a current utility bill or two instead to prove residency. Unless the state also provides this photo ID for every citizen wanting to register, this shouldn't be a requirement. Forcing a certain demographic to purchase photo IDs merely to vote is aimed at a certain Democratic leaning population, there isn't any other credible reason for requiring this, the voter fraud excuse is a joke.

There are also attempts to stop early voting, and in one state, to ban Sunday voting - a lot of churches in that state take the people to vote after church. I suppose one could think that the churches are influencing the vote, but the reality is that in many rural areas it's not that easy to get around, especially if you're elderly & have no car (and that's the case with my "home" church, located as it is in the city of Chicago) and the churches are assisting people to get to a polling place, which is still not illegal as far as I know. This info was also in David Orr's commentary.

As quotidian pointed out, the evidence of lack of fraud in a system that has weak mechanisms for detecting fraud is an example of circular reasoning. Every day, for living, I deal with masses of data that represent people's behavior. Anyone who knows anything about probability, statistics and real life distributions of behavior would look at the reported 4 instances of fraud and tell you that it can not possibly be anything close to reality. There are probably a ton more voting people than that, who don't remember their own name. (Recall, we are talking out of millions of votes.)

1. I get on an airplane
2. I buy beer
3. I buy a violent video game
4. I withdraw money from a bank
5. I buy cigarettes
6. I try to get into a bar on the northside on Saturday night.
7. I go to an appointment in almost any high rise downtown

Why is voter fraud excuse a joke? Given human nature, in close contests, in a system with loose checks, the incentives to cheat are tremendous. And in close contests you don't need a large percentage to make a difference.

Churches that are assisting people to get to a polling place, could assist them with getting ID's, couldn't they? Particularly, when they are likely to be less than impartial assistants, interested in directing the votes a certain way.

NickQ, if you're a nun & don't have a drivers license, if you're poor & elderly & maybe even don't have a birth certificate & live in a rural area where transportation is limited, if you are just elderly & don't drive anymore & have no incentive to go spend time at the license bureau getting a picture ID, you could be denied your legal right to vote. As I mentioned before, there are 650,000 people in GA alone without a valid picture ID. I doubt very much that these people need to do most of the things on your list. If you're living in a small town & go to by beer and you're 60 or so, I bet that they don't card anyway, especially if that'e where you shop. Same at a bank. If they know you, you seldom have to show an ID. And I suspect that they never have to go into a downtown highrise.
Boris, please read the commentary by David Orr before saying anything. It's kind of like trying to kill a fly by dropping an anvil on it rather than using a flyswatter.

Perhaps you would like to look at the examples of voter fraud in the article that I linked to above. Perhaps your friend, David Orr, would care to explain this excerpt:

"Readers may remember that a California congressional election was almost overturned in 1996 because of illegal voting by non-citizens. Loretta Sanchez beat incumbent U.S. Rep. Bob Dornan by a mere 979 votes. The election was investigated by a House committee that found “clear and convincing” evidence of 624 invalid votes by non-citizens and “circumstantial” evidence of another 196 non-citizens’ voting. This election might have been stolen by illegal voting (and it probably was, since the House investigation compared the voter list only to INS records, which do not contain information on illegal aliens who have not been detained)."

[quote]
And I guess Acorn was flooding registrars with phony registrations just for the fun of it.
[/quote]

Posted by: quotidian | Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM

First off, Acorn wasn't "flooding" registrars with phony registrations" - it was proven that an overwhelming majority of the signatures that they turned in were valid. Secondly, Acorn wasn't doing it "just for the fun of it": federal and state laws REQUIRED them to turn in every registration card, including any that were signed by Mickey Mouse, the Dallas Cowboys defensive linemen, etc. It was then up to the local registrars to validate or nullify the voter on each signature card according to their internal records; Acorn had nothing to do with it.

But thanks for repeating a Republican talking point, especially one that has been proven to be 100% false.

ZORN REPLY -- And I may be wrong, but I think the registrars had some financial incentive to get as many names as they could. Is/was there a risk that someone would show up, claim to be Mickey Mouse, and get to vote? No.

Y'all call it what you want, I call asking people to purchase a photo ID in order to vote the new poll tax, and this should be declared unconstitutional unless every state that requires this issues free photo IDs at registration and to voters already registered.

Registering to vote requires time and transportation costs. So does voting. Is that a poll tax? But I guess we can wait for the courts to weigh in. And if that's your last ditch objection, my guess is supporters of voter id will be OK with subsidizing IDs for the small percentage that do not already naturally have it.

@Lizh
I am not sure I found exactly the commentary by David Orr you are referencing, but I found articles quoting him. There is nothing there to change what I said about the circularity of the "I have blinders on, I can not see anything => there is nothing out there" logic. My guess is David Orr understands probability distributions and statistics about as well as the general public. That is to say, zilch,

A great quote there from the guy who did the proof: ""Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform, but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle." Perhaps that sports analogy will encourage people to read the article.

First of all, the commentary was on the Editorial page of the SunTimes last week - thought it was Saturday, but I don't know. 2nd, just because the cases he mentioned were only part of the whole, it doesn't make the situation any different. Maybe he didn't go back to 1996 to find the case of 624 votes, but compare that to the possibility of 650,000 voters in GA being disenfranchised by not having a photo ID. Is it a minor effort if you have to take time off work (hourly work, that is) & travel somewhere to stand in line to get a photo ID, not to mention come up with money for the ID plus transportation? What if you're elderly or disabled? Or don't have a birth certificate, as is common in rural areas. Oh yeah, and I don't think that it's quite as easy in rural GA or similar places just to pop into an office somewhere to get an ID. I know, they can drive there (without the ID that they don't have because they don't have a car). Regarding the voter REGISTRATION "fraud", any org that registers voters is required by law to turn them ALL in. I actually know someone who works in the County Clerk's office (which is how I know David Orr's character). They receive the forms gathered at registration (say, at Jewel), already separated by potentially valid & obviously not valid, i.e. Santa Claus or Mickey Mouse, which the registering org is required to do, and they are carefully vetted, one by one. And the handwriting is deciphered, and cross-checked to see if they are already registered (maybe they moved, and this is a new address), and then registration cards are sent out. Any returned due to "not at this address" or incorrect addresses are checked again. So it is impossible to see how too many truly illegible voters could vote, unless there is some kind of conspiracy.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.