I'm sure the points of discussion are deep and interesting, but I am currently considering them an introduced distraction, with no basis in principle, as the desire for change is prompted entirely by the Democrats believing they can win another way. My evidence is that many of them said the opposite before the 2000 election, then changed after it.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others. Groucho Marx.
as the desire for change is prompted entirely by the Democrats believing they can win another way.
ReplyDeleteThe 2000 election recount changed me from Third Party to yellow dog Republican. There was a Democrat-controlled county in Florida had a lot of rejected ballots. Democrats informed us that these rejected ballots needed to be "interpreted" as votes for Gore, as voters didn't understand the ballot instructions. As Democrats designed the ballots in that county, the allegedly poor ballot design was entirely their responsibility. After the election was a bit too late for Democrats to complain about a Democrat-designed ballot.
As another example of Democrat principles, consider the number of times in recent decades that Democrats in Massachusetts have changed the way to fill a vacant US Senate seat. IIRC, there have been at least three changes in recent decades.
Richard - I think you're remembering the Broward (there they are again!) and Palm Beach county 'butterfly ballots'. And they are still causing issues because they haven't changed them. And I think the leadership in the counties is still Democrat.
ReplyDeleteI remember the explainers about how Gore might be elected via an EC win under the assumption that he was going to eek out narrow victories in high EC vote states like Illinois and New York while W won big popular victories in the South and West. IIRC California was much less a one-party state back then.
Dems always want to change the rules when they lose elections.
ReplyDelete@RichardJohnson - the MA senate law is an interesting case because the major change actually worked against the Dems in MA more than it's worked for them. They changed it from Governor appointment to special election thinking Kerry might win, taking away Romney's ability to pick.
ReplyDeleteOf course Kerry didn't win in '04, so it wasn't used until 2009 when Kennedy died. By then there was a Dem governor, but Scott Brown won. The only tweak they got through was to let the governor due a temporary appointment, which had initially been barred.
There was talk of changing it further when Warren was a possible VP nom for Hillary, but I don't think that happened.
Anyway, just proves the rather obvious point that these rule changes don't always work out the way people want them too.
More history:
https://www.wbur.org/news/2013/01/20/senate-vacancy-law
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/03/harry-reid-studies-legal-scenarios-for-filling-senate-seat-elizabeth-warren-gets-vice-presidential-nod/3FSrNJlAhqRoiWt6iQMK7J/story.html