. . . Hugh Hewitt makes a serious proposal on how General Petraeus' forthcoming report should be revealed to the public.
It's a big moment, and deserves the sort of major attention that Hewitt suggests it receives. The big papers should print it in full, and all the cable outlets and the broadcast networks should show the press conference in full without interruption.
It won't happen as he suggests it should. The media loves to mediate, and presenting General Petraeus unmediated would make it that much harder to push their preferred narrative afterwards.
Maybe by making the suggestion early and publicly, you can shame the media into doing the right thing by the American people, but I seriously doubt it.
(and please, save the name 'immodest proposal' or 'modest proposal' for satire)
Showing posts with label Un-modest Proposals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Un-modest Proposals. Show all posts
19 August 2007
01 August 2007
A Reform Scheme That I Might Have Come Up With . . .
. . . an un-modest proposal in California threatens to shake up national electoral politics. From a national election standpoint the passage of an initiative that made the largest state in the nation a non-winner take all state, would be disastrous for the Democratic party.
Given that this state leans strongly Democratic now, it would seem this has little chance to pass, but there are ways to sell this. Here's the bullet points for presenting this proposal to all voters (but especially independents and non-hardcore Democrats, presumably Republicans should be thrilled with the idea and should support it en masse)
As far as fairness goes, it was the Democratic party after 2000 that suggested a national winner take all election would be fairer. If California 'disarms' unilaterally, it will put a great deal of pressure on other states to follow suit. Allocating electors by Congressional district would be the simplest way to get closer to a national popular election, which Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and others have argued for in the past.
If each district is contested, then fewer people will perceive their vote as 'not counting'. That should be a strong selling point for this proposal. It's also a party neutral selling point.
Making California matter in the national election should be an easy selling point for all Californians, regardless of party. CA hasn't had a closely contested presidential election since 1976, and California has never factored into electoral politics. The few close elections in CA haven't effected the national results. Going to a system where each district is contested (and the overall winner gets a bonus of 2 electors), would mean that California's voters would be crucial for candidates of either party, and would matter in most every future election. We write the checks that finance these campaigns, it's about time they're forced to spend some of that loot on our airwaves.
Folks tend to complain about gerrymandering, yet there's no strong incentive for our state legislature to refrain from this undemocratic process. If the districts factor into the presidential vote, the party in power would want to have fewer 'safe' districts and make many more districts competitive (right now, there are no competitive districts in CA), instead of designing a bunch of 65-35 districts that favor either Republicans or Democrats, the Dems in the legislature might be pressured to make much more balanced districts giving a national candidate a chance in 'GOP' districts (and by doing so, they'd be forced to make fewer strongly 'Dem' districts).
Here's a link to the PDF of the actual initiative, it's a work in progress, and may not qualify for the ballot, but I suspect that this proposal will make it on the ballot for the next election and the serious problem this presents for 'progressives' can best be illustrated by this histrionic article from the New Yorker.
(as a footnote, I should add, it would be idiotic for any large state to unilaterally 'disarm' where the electoral college is concerned, but that doesn't mean I can't root for idiocy, and just cause it would be idiotic from a realpolitik standpoint, doesn't mean you can't sell this issue on the bullet points above, voters in the aggregate tend to ignore realpolitik and vote based on personal perceptions of fairness)
Given that this state leans strongly Democratic now, it would seem this has little chance to pass, but there are ways to sell this. Here's the bullet points for presenting this proposal to all voters (but especially independents and non-hardcore Democrats, presumably Republicans should be thrilled with the idea and should support it en masse)
- Fairness
- Should increase voter participation
- Force candidates to campaign in California
- Strong disincentive for gerrymandering
As far as fairness goes, it was the Democratic party after 2000 that suggested a national winner take all election would be fairer. If California 'disarms' unilaterally, it will put a great deal of pressure on other states to follow suit. Allocating electors by Congressional district would be the simplest way to get closer to a national popular election, which Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and others have argued for in the past.
If each district is contested, then fewer people will perceive their vote as 'not counting'. That should be a strong selling point for this proposal. It's also a party neutral selling point.
Making California matter in the national election should be an easy selling point for all Californians, regardless of party. CA hasn't had a closely contested presidential election since 1976, and California has never factored into electoral politics. The few close elections in CA haven't effected the national results. Going to a system where each district is contested (and the overall winner gets a bonus of 2 electors), would mean that California's voters would be crucial for candidates of either party, and would matter in most every future election. We write the checks that finance these campaigns, it's about time they're forced to spend some of that loot on our airwaves.
Folks tend to complain about gerrymandering, yet there's no strong incentive for our state legislature to refrain from this undemocratic process. If the districts factor into the presidential vote, the party in power would want to have fewer 'safe' districts and make many more districts competitive (right now, there are no competitive districts in CA), instead of designing a bunch of 65-35 districts that favor either Republicans or Democrats, the Dems in the legislature might be pressured to make much more balanced districts giving a national candidate a chance in 'GOP' districts (and by doing so, they'd be forced to make fewer strongly 'Dem' districts).
Here's a link to the PDF of the actual initiative, it's a work in progress, and may not qualify for the ballot, but I suspect that this proposal will make it on the ballot for the next election and the serious problem this presents for 'progressives' can best be illustrated by this histrionic article from the New Yorker.
(as a footnote, I should add, it would be idiotic for any large state to unilaterally 'disarm' where the electoral college is concerned, but that doesn't mean I can't root for idiocy, and just cause it would be idiotic from a realpolitik standpoint, doesn't mean you can't sell this issue on the bullet points above, voters in the aggregate tend to ignore realpolitik and vote based on personal perceptions of fairness)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)