WTF: LA Times Editorial -- this is just psychotic...

[EMunster]

Did someone leave the editorial board unlocked over the weekend?

EDITORIAL
Bush Wins, Again

December 13, 2004

And you thought you were done with the 2004 election. Today the electoral college formally meets to reelect George W. Bush as president. Barring any last-minute surprises, the vote should be 286 for Bush, 252 for John Kerry.

This ratification will elicit yawns instead of the outrage it did in 2000, when the electoral college went for the loser of the popular vote. But don't think 2000 was such an anomaly. The country barely dodged a bullet this time around. Had 59,388 Ohioans switched from Bush to Kerry, 2004 would have repeated the acidic result of the electoral college winner — the next president — being the popular-vote loser. This time the travesty would have been even greater, as Kerry would have been sworn in despite receiving 3.3 million fewer votes than Bush, who received 543,895 votes fewer than Gore in 2000.

We have often been highly critical of the Bush administration, but because of his decisive win in the popular vote, we surely are glad that he is the certified Ohio winner. Even die-hard supporters of Kerry should thank their unlucky stars that he lost Ohio, to spare the country such an undemocratic outcome.

Not to mention an outbreak of flip-flopping. Imagine how unseemly it would have been — had Ohio gone for Kerry — to see all those Democrats singing the virtues of the electoral college, while Republicans extolled the virtues of the popular vote.

Americans of all political persuasions should agree that it's time for this 18th century constitutional compromise to go. America's democracy has lasted far longer than most others in history, in large part because it has displayed the capacity to change. The electoral college only produces a corrosion of confidence in and stoking of cynicism about the overall election system.

Electoral college reforms won't occur suddenly, given that they would require a constitutional amendment. Dissatisfaction with the process has long been building. Colorado's eruptive bid to split its nine electoral votes proportionate to the state's popular vote failed on Nov. 2, stumbling in part over its potential immediate effect. Such efforts reflect simmering dissatisfactions, the kind that devalue people's faith in our democracy. With today's anticlimactic electoral college vote, we fear that the steam behind a reform drive is likely to dissipate for 47 months. It shouldn't.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-elect13dec13,0,3635496.story

[imenja]

1. the overall point of abolishing the electoral college is good

the rest is pandering, and seems deliberately so.

[stirringstill]

3. Does not compute

Yup. They must have a whiff of what is brewing in Ohio. Things are going to get bumpy because most of us are programmed to abhor anything which might shock the SYSTEM. The media in particular promotes stability and does not cope well with playing any other role. It is indeed sad to see an editorial board actually prefer an illusion over reality. I heard Brokaw and countless others in the media say "I don't care who wins as long as it is decisive." They are all so well trained.

[imenja]

4. I believe they've reported on Ohio

I think I recall reading some critical pieces about the election process in the LA Times.

[alittlelark]

5. They are not 'programmed to compute'

all hail the MSMorans....

What have we become as a nation? Never mind.

[mulethree]

9. heh thats what the voters said

I know he's a moron and is ruining the country, but at least he's decisive and doesn't flip flop.

[SaveAmerica]

27. decisive about ruining the country n/t

[genieroze]

29. They are brainwashed imbeciles. eom

[sunnystarr]

30. I'm screaming at my puter screen reading this sentence !!!!

Is this guy on drugs???????

"Even die-hard supporters of Kerry should thank their unlucky stars that he lost Ohio, to spare the country such an undemocratic outcome."

Maybe we "die-hard supporters" should all let the *sshole know how we feel! I'm writing my response to him and the rag that printed that slanted, prejudice, diatribe now!!

[thanatonautos]

32. This line is so bizarre it made me feel the editorial might be satire,

for a moment, but unfortunately, I think it is a straight
line.

It's an ugly argument, given the present situation. Just
as ugly as one finds on occasion in the editorial pages of
the paper of record.

Why do they want to spit on Kerry supporters in this fashion?

Can't they think of any more serious undemocratic outcomes
that have occurred in recent times?

[thanatonautos]

2. Yeah, they're a bunch of pompous twits. Electoral college reform

is a dead issue, dead as a doornail.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.

While they're maundering on about hopeless causes like
this, why don't they also ask for a constitutional
amendment so that the 26 smallest states, who together
have 52 Senators, but only 18% of the US population,
get the level of representation in the Senate that
they actually deserve?

Sheesh, what idiots.

SOMEONE, PLEASE TELL THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT OHIO.

Why don't they suggest reforming the voting system,
so that the great American Republic can finally overcome
it's extremely long history of election fraud at
every level, local, state and national?

I'm going to send them a letter.

[alittlelark]

6. Electoral reform will NEVER EVER HAPPEN!!!!

uh, yeah.....

[thanatonautos]

10. Electoral College Reform isn't the same as Electoral reform.

The first requires a constitutional amendment,
and is against the interests of a majority
of the States. So it is simply a non-starter.

[alittlelark]

7. I would love to hear your analysis of 'why'

electoral reform is impossible..........

[thanatonautos]

11. Not electoral reform in general, but

eliminating the electoral college. It is
a non-starter because it is against the
interests of small states. They give up
too much influence in national elections
if the electoral college is abolished ...
just consider how many people are assigned
to one electoral vote in a state like Wyoming
versus how many are assigned to one electoral
vote in a state like California.

[thanatonautos]

18. I was happy to oblige, and I would love to hear your response. n/t

[dzika]

8. There are a lot of people...

...who are not aware of the facts. For us that have seen the damning
evidence, statistics, Blockwell's tricks, and the list goes on.

For us, it seem like those people that aren't aware of these facts
and experiences, seem to be asleep or living in a whole different
world.

I do know that if you take the time to rationally explain the facts
to someone they will experience a little culture shock but they will
believe you because facts are indisputable.

Considering the media we had today, this story is going to get more
difficult to ignore.

[EMunster]

13. These aren't regular people. They ARE aware of what's going on...

...and the purpose of the editorial is distract attention to side issues, ones they clearly aren't serious about.

I can just imagine the staff meeting that brought this editorial about:

staffer: it's looking like kerry might end up winning Ohio's electorial votes afterall.

editor: I'm feeling like we should take a strong stand on abolishing the electoral college.

That's what's outrageous. Kerry made some major news yesterday...and they ignore...mentioning him only with preemptively ridicule, repeating that GOP favorite about "flip-flopping" in case kerry does somehow manage to win the electoral vote.

[thanatonautos]

15. Bingo. This is a clear attempt to take people's eyes

off of the ball, which is why I am so angry about it.

And the likelihood of abolishing the electoral college
is near zero, given the politics which will come
into play as soon as such an amendment is put up. So
it's most definitely not the kind of discussion
they should be encouraging now, and not something
people should be thinking about.

What we need now is election reform, not electoral
college reform.

[bemis12]

19. Given that the number of Senators

is pretty clearly spelled out in the Constitution, how many do YOU think the small states "deserve"?

[thanatonautos]

21. If the argument is that a system of proportional representiation is best

for the presidency, then why not for the Senate, too?

[thanatonautos]

22. In other words, I was being sarcastic!!!

[thanatonautos]

23. I would like to see a system that apportions political representation

strictly in proportion to population. It doesn't
mean that I think it is realistic to imagine
that it can be achieved.

[thanatonautos]

24. How would I propose to do this in fact?

Abolish the whole Senate, or relegate it to
a purely ceremonial role, like the House of
Lords.

Let the arguments be conducted mainly by the
people's direct representatives, rather
than by a group (the Senate) who were clearly
imagined by the Framers to be far superior to the
unwashed mob.

Take a look at the terms for Representatives
relative to the terms for Senators, as specified
in the Constitution.

If we are going to discuss constitutional reform,
let's go all the way, and make some serious
changes that would make a difference.

[Truman01]

26. The senate represents the STATES not the people of those states

if that makes any sense. The House of Representatives is the peoples voice in government. The states are equal with each other regardless of size or population. This is why the Senators were not popularly elected but appointed by the state legislators. I think it was a mistake to make them elected by popular vote. Small states are protected from big states by the fact that they have an equal representation in the senate. The bigger states enjoy a majority in the house. The electoral college performs a similar function in the Executive Branch insuring that New Hampshire has a weighted voice in selecting the President.

As I have posted before, DU members would be very upset if the electoral college was abolished. Fraud would be much harder to pin down, and states that are our strengths like CA and NY would be diluted because we would no longer take all their votes by winning a thin majority. Let's put it this way, without the Electoral College there would be no talk of election fraud in Ohio this time. 3.5 million votes would be the margin instead of 117,000

TC

[thanatonautos]

28. TC, this was, basically, my original point.

The country was certainly formed as a Federation
of States, which are supposed to be in some
sense equals.

It is not at all a trivial matter to change the
compromises that were made at the founding of
the country.

I do not propose to do anything of the sort,
I want us to forget it. It is not likely to happen.

I have been attacked for saying that electoral
reform, such as the abolition of the electoral
college will not happen, for precisely
the reason that you have cited. Namely, the
States rights question.

I think that for all the reasons you give,
the whole issue of abolishing the electoral
college is a non-starter.

It's dead on the vine, unless the distribution
of population becomes much more even, as well
as the distribution of political opinion.

I hope that it's clear that that is my opinion,
though I might have wished that when the Federal
Income Tax was introduced, more consideration
had been given to the effects which that had
on the initial compromise, which was based
on Direct Taxation.

To wit: Blue states generally pay out more
in income taxes than they receive back
from the Federal government, while in Red
states the situation is the opposite.

[Red State Blues]

35. Actually...

Kerry winning Ohio with a loss of the popular vote would be the best ever chance for scrapping the electoral college. Considering 2000, and how pissed the Republican's would be because it matters when it happens to them.

As far as fairer representation, while not scrapping the Senate, proportional representation could be accomplished just by forming more states. The rules are all there in the Constitution, there's no rule that says we have to quit subdividing at 50. If California were to say, split into 7 states, they would have 12 new Senators and Representatives who were actually more "representative" of the population.

[thanatonautos]

38. ROFL. Good point about the situation if Kerry wins Ohio.

There is certainly no rule that says a State may not
subdivide, although there is a rule that says there
can't be more than 1 representative per 30,000,
which certainly does allow for quite a lot of subdivision.

What does the California constitution say about that?

Do they need to have a civil war to accomplish it,
or can they just have a referendum?

And above all, what does Ahnold think?

[AntiFascist]

12. Electoral reform is not the immediate issue....

if evidence of widespread election fraud is uncovered. The editorialist is obviously trying to derail the issue. Specifically, if electronic voting systems systematically "padded" votes for Bush in unlikely places then the national total giving Bush the advantage would be just as false as his win in Ohio.

Statistical analyses of voting discrepencies already show that this is likely, all that is needed is hard evidence where touchscreen systems and/or tabulation systems were systematically hacked.

[sharman]

36. exactly

and the congressional races, and 2002 races?

[WritersBlock]

14. Someone mentioned "conditioning" in an earlier thread.

I think this is just more of it. Once the truth about Ohio is public knowledge, all they'll have left is the "popular vote" fallacy. So they're starting to push it early.

Just my cynical take on it. }(


(Edited for clarity)

[Bill Bored]

16. Morons!

Don't they know that there was virtually no campaigning outside of the swing states? Popular vote doesn't mean squat. That's just how the game is played. (Sorry to digress from talking about the fraud!)

[Blue_In_AK]

17. That's right.

We didn't even have TV ads for the presidential election up here (except a few on cable), much less anybody coming up and campaigning. Who cares about three little electoral votes?

[Bill Bored]

33. Even in large Blue states, no campaigning for Pres!

The popular vote is irrelevant. They are just trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. If they want to come out against the EC, that's fine, but don't spin that into kissing Shrub's ass!

We should write to this rag and tell them what we think.

They only campaigned in swing states, except for a few Bush rallies in TX, which could have added some votes for him.

[Bill Bored]

34. Even in large Blue states, no campaigning for Pres!

The popular vote is irrelevant. They are just trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. If they want to come out against the EC, that's fine, but don't spin that into kissing Shrub's ass!

We should write to this rag and tell them what we think.

They only campaigned in swing states, except for a few Bush rallies in TX, which could have added some votes for him.

[Chimpanzee]

20. Does not compute!

If * received 543K less votes than in 2000, and with all the new democratic registrations and Bush-switchers, how did Dumbass get 3MILLION more votes than Kerry??????

[Virginian]

31. I agree, does not compute.

So many people registered to vote for the first time in this election and history shows most of those (who have been eligible for years, but just got around to registering) should have been against the incumbent.

[tngledwebb]

25. The big and bogus margin for Bush this time

-just flip that popular vote margin around for the REAL winner's total- shows why MSM are talking 'bout electoral college reforms. They were pretty quiet on the issue in 2000, were they not?

[sharman]

37. Exactly the reason

Shrub was determined to get the popular vote this time. Can you believe the hypocrisy? Not a peep in 2000, when Gore won the popular. Now they use the reported popular vote for Bush as an excuse to ignore allegations of fraud.