Bob Herbert on the GOP's naked power grab in California.
Bob Herbert writes about the GOP's naked power grab in California. This naked power grab, which would apportion the states by congressional district, would mean that the Democrats would have to come up with 20 more electoral votes somewhere if they were to win the White House in 2008. This effort, cloaked under the guise of reform, is actually a continuation of the Republican Party's efforts to gerrymander the Congressional districts and the electoral votes to ensure control of Congress and the White House.
Earlier this year, the Republican Party radically redistricted Texas so that they could increase their control of Texas. But now, they have gone as far as they can with such tricks, and they are forced to fish for other methods of trying to increase their hold on power.
We all agree that our current system of electing the President is not perfect. But any radical change in the way that votes are apportioned will have ramifications that go well beyond the intent of even those with the best of intentions. For instance, if the country were to switch to a direct popular vote, that would mean that Presidential candidates would spend all their time campaigning in the big states and not in the small states.
The burden of proof should be on the promoters of any alternative system of electoral reform to explain why their system would be better than the one that we have now. They should be able to work through the different ramifications of their plan, and they must be able to show that their plan does not disproportionately benefit one party or the other. But given that the very people promoting this are the same ones who bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans, there is a slim chance of that happening.
Obamathon
