But once I begin to question friends and family, those whose eyes initially glazed over, their understanding of what is a representative democracy and what is their right to vote and how that relates to our case of seeking the right to vote our free will as presidential electors, suddenly, albeit begrudgingly, it becomes apparent to their right of free will to vote their conscience in any and all elections is connected to an Elector's right to vote their conscience. Some begin to get it, but then again they still want their vote for president to count. How can both be?
Then I read this on December 29th in the Washington Post, buried at the end of an article about Trump and attempting to "please his base with his shutdown over his wall."
"Trump’s 2016 victory was dependent on winning over white voters in the Midwest who did not attend college by using populist and nativist pitches, and some officials and allies continue to believe he can repeat the same success.
In a 2018 study of the nation’s changing demographics, Brookings Institution political scientist Ruy Teixeira concluded with his colleagues that increasing margins and maintaining turnout among this group provided Republicans the greatest opportunity to continue to win the White House.
If Republicans expanded Trump’s 2016 margin among non-college whites by a hypothetical 10 percent and other voting patterns are unchanged, the party could keep winning the electoral college through the next five presidential elections, the report concluded, overcoming the growing diversity in the general electorate and even losses in the popular vote.
'It’s the way to finesse the structure of the electoral college,” Teixeira said. “White non-college, in the center of the country.'"Using the term finesse is an understatement, to say the least. On its face value, this reporting insinuates, no---suggests that a political minority interest (the Republican Party) can and will circumvent the very nature of our democracy, as it has since 2000, but now is more openly looking at this electoral college strategy as a governing policy. Not that these interests have not already taken place since the 2000 election as two of three Republican presidential wins lost the popular vote---while winning the Electoral vote. But now it is their only strategy.
The Republican's only popular vote win in 2004 could have resulted in a Democratic victory in the electoral college, while like 2000, losing the popular vote if Kerry's campaign had switched 60,000 votes (1.1%) in Ohio. An even deeper examination of Ohio in 2004 suggests that Kerry should have won as over 90,000 (1.6%) undervotes for President than what was recorded for Senator. Coincidentally, this was most concentrated in high democratic voting precincts in urban areas in what was blamed on the antiquated punch card system (remember Florida 2000), that suspiciously didn't record over 90,000 presidential preferences. All that and still not including blatant voter suppression activities that also emerged in heavy minority precincts as being the deciding factor in 2004. Interestingly similar efforts were made in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 2016's election.
Digging deeper where I found the extensive and comprehensive study by Guy Tiexeira along with other contributors titled: America’s Electoral Future; Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition available on the American Progress website, published April 2018. And the study does not include the Mid-term elections data which belies the notion that voting patterns not changing as they did significantly, but the work underscores what and where Republicans (and now foreign interests) have been working with since at least 2000.
Essentially, the finessing of the electoral college can only happen to this degree where A) Electors must vote in a directed way, (binding them to state's popular vote) and B) the winner take all protocol outside of Maine and Nebraska's splitting with Congressional Districts. The defense to this political minority manipulation is to one; allow Electors like all representatives in our governing system to vote their conscience and free will where if it is identified implicit or explicit manipulation has occurred in the election they are duty bound to act. The second defense is that finessing or manipulation of voters at the polls is greatly reduced when the results are decentralized as in selecting Electors by popular vote totals by way Congressional Districts with two state at-large Electors in each state. It would mean that in most cases each state would have a split vote in the Electoral College. The final defense is instituting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where states choose electors based on pledges that they vote for the winner of the national popular vote.
Ironically led by Larry Lessig's Equal Citizen's projects which I am proud to be associated with in our lawsuit, as there is a corresponding lawsuit regarding equality vote, both appear headed to the Supreme Court. By challenging this unequal, “winner take all” system under both the First Amendment to our Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The winner takes all system allocating of electoral college votes is not in the Constitution. It was adopted initially by states as give themselves more power in the presidential election. Once when (practically) all states had adopted this, it no longer amplified any state's power of any particular state. All it did and has done nationally is to assure that the President does not get elected by all the people.
Complicated as these cases may seem what they are seeking is to protect and enhance the sanctity of each citizen's vote that is fundamental equal by measure to every other citizen, one person---one vote. Of course, this is stridently in opposition to Tiexeira's study which has found how a minority could beat the majority in this democracy. Regardless what is your partisan identity, a democracy is and only based on majority rules. When a minority rules it no longer is a functioning democracy (govern by the people), but is something else; be a plutocracy or oligarchy or some modern manifestation that a new name has to be conceived to describe. Simply look at Tiexeira's graphics:
Notice only once out of four future presidential elections that the Republicans win both the electoral college and the popular vote where three other scenarios the Republican's win the White House but lose the popular vote were in none of the scenarios do the Democrats win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
Not that I went into this detail with family and friends as to what my suit is all about using bullet points, but then most appreciated what we are doing. What a few stated that you are just a common citizen how can you do this? I took liberty from history and by no means, I am comparing myself to the bravery of Rosa Parks, but in reality what we tried to do and what Micheal Baca did as did the fellow Electors in Washington, Minnesota, and Maine was to choose to where they wanted to sit on the public bus despite what the law demanded them like how the law demanded Rosa to sit in the back of the bus. That is free will and by voting faithless, it too is free will.
Polly Baca and I had different circumstances whereas we sought openly to gain the right to strike the law we were ordered by the court that if we voted faithless as we intended, we would have faced state charges of contempt of court besides the Attorney General's threat of perjury and dereliction of official duties. Demanding to vote one's conscience is what is essential for a democracy to function. Take away one level of conscience voting and you can take away all levels. Displace one vote and there would be diminishment, displace a group of votes and the democracy begins to fall. Which again comes back to your vote. The only way a citizen's vote counts is if the electoral college is reformed where either it reflects the winner of the national popular vote. How that is reformed is to decentralize to it to reflect the congressional districts or lastly we eventually pass a constitutional amendment putting the popular vote as the mechanism of electing a president and vice president. The electoral college primary purpose was to be the obstacle for a president who was beholden to a foreign interest, and in 2016 that did not happen.
Make note that a study published in Psychology Today found that social conservatism is deeply predisposed to equality and seek to have unequal voting status, finding ways to restrict voting access. Inherently they know that their vote possesses greater weight. Further, they see equality and especially equality of minorities as leading to chaos. While social liberals seek equality and inherently believe that only through equality and equal access that major social disruption is held at bay since the voices are heard and addressed. Liberals fear authoritarianism which includes police and military.
We will find out soon if the 10th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with our arguments on Elector's freedom on January 24th and if so then it will most likely, go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Stay tuned. But in the meantime, smart amoral political strategists are scheming how they can finesse the Electoral College and manipulate or block your vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment