“Of the 58 presidential elections in the history of the United States, 53 of the winners took both the Electoral College and the popular vote. But in five incredibly close elections—including those for two of the past three presidents—the winner of the Electoral College was in fact the loser of the popular vote.” History.com. John Qunicy Adams (1824 – all candidates were in the same party), Rutherford B Hayes (1876 – Republican), Benjamin Harrison (1888 – Republican), George W Bush (2000 – Republican) and Donald J Trump (2016 – Republican). Is it odd that in every two-party election where the winner lost the popular vote, a Republican was the victor?
Most of our states were configured and our bicameral Congress was structured predicated on a deep distrust by farmers and landowners of powerful concentrations of people in urban centers – merchants, bankers, lawyers, laborers and “city slickers” – who could use their population to outvote them. In 1789, 94% of America was rural and agricultural. Clearly, in terms of sheer numbers, they had the power then. Even Washington and Jefferson were owner of large tracts of farmland.
The New Jersey Plan (or “compromise”) – which established Congress – guaranteed that individual states could never be outvoted by insuring that, regardless of population, each state would have two US Senators (Wyoming with about 600,000 and California with 40 million people each have two Senators). The Senate alone has the power to approve presidential appointment to most senior military and cabinet positions and to ratify treaties. The House of Representatives was based on Census-determined population, and all appropriations bills had to originate there. The anomaly becomes even clearer when you realize that 30% of the Senate represents 70% of the US population (heavily urban states)… with the obvious reverse calculation: 70% of the Senate only represents 30% of the American population. They rule.
But there was one huge additional constitutional bias that favored rural states. Since the country was divided primarily based on land mass and not population, and since the constitution pretty much relegated districting and election process to the states (not the federal government), there was one more layer of rural control that could tilt elections away from urban concentrations. State legislatures. And because states were configured based primarily on land mass, there are more rural state legislatures than urban.
If you add up all of the above factors, and if you listen to the political conversations conducted rather openly by Republican party officials across the land, particularly in that majority of GOP controlled states, there is a unified effort to marginalize voters who might support Democratic candidates. Through clever redistricting (gerrymandering) and voter suppression: imposing voter restrictions and using inconvenient location of polling stations while limiting voting by mail. They are taking advantage of a longstanding practice of the United States Supreme Court, absent clear and undeniable unconstitutional bias (e.g., racial discrimination in voting rights), to avoid interfering in state districting and voting processes.
Anthony Izaguirre and Acacia Coronado, writing for the Associated Press (January 31st) address the wave of refocused gerrymandering efforts in states with GOP-controlled legislatures: “Republican lawmakers in statehouses across the country are moving swiftly to attack some of the voting methods that fueled the highest turnout for a presidential election in 50 years.
“Although most legislative sessions are just getting underway, the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy institute, has already tallied more than 100 bills in 28 states meant to restrict voting access. More than a third of those proposals are aimed at limiting mail voting, while other bills seek to strengthen voter ID requirements and registration processes, as well as allow for more aggressive means to remove people from voter rolls… ‘Unfortunately, we are seeing some politicians who want to manipulate the rules of the game so that some people can participate and some can’t,’ said Myrna Pérez, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center.
“The proposals are advancing not only in Texas and other traditional red states but also in such places as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania that supported Donald Trump four years ago, only to flip for Joe Biden in November.” Done right, Democratic voters can be diluted by creating oddly shaped districts where such voters are unnaturally combined with vast swells of rural traditional GOP voters. Austin, Texas, for example, is an exceptional bright blue city (as are most of the large cities in Texas), but 4 of the 5 congressional districts that represent the city, pictured above (2018 districts are the same as 2020) are configured to reach way into the hinterland, farm country and small towns with none of Austin’s urban issues, to force a GOP majority. One district, Austin’s inner city (the green area in the map), was allowed to remain blue. 4 red and 1 blue congress person = Austin.
Here’s a little more detail from Reid J. Epstein and Nick Corasaniti, writing for the January 31st New York Times: “Republicans hold total control of redistricting in 18 states, including Florida, North Carolina and Texas, which are growing in population and expected to gain seats after the 2020 census is tabulated. Some election experts believe the G.O.P. could retake the House in 2022 based solely on gains from newly drawn districts… Already, Republicans are discussing redrawing two suburban Atlanta districts held by Democrats to make one of them more Republican; slicing Democratic sections out of a Houston district that Republicans lost in 2018; and carving up a northeastern Ohio district held by Democrats since 1985.
“‘I would say that the national vote could be the same as this year two years from now, and redistricting by itself would easily be enough to alter who controls the chamber,” said Samuel S. Wang, the director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. He estimated that reapportionment alone could net the Republicans three seats, and gerrymandering in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida another five seats.
“With Democrats holding a 222-211 edge, Republicans would probably need to flip just six seats to win back the majority. But Dr. Wang and other good-government experts cautioned that other factors could determine the majority.”
And then there’s voter suppression, mostly focused on limiting mail-in voting and efforts by civil rights groups to get out the vote… and an occasional lingering effort to require government issued photo-ID that need to be physically presented at the polling station. Almost always a driver’s license… which presupposes that the owner drives a car (less likely in inner city neighbors with minority voters). The last election was, according to the Department of Homeland Security (specifically, it’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), “the most secure in American history.” There was no credible evidence produced in over 60 challenging lawsuits of any significant voter fraud. Still more than three quarters of GOP voters still believe that mail-in votes were effectively sanctioned voter fraud. Even as so many states, for many years, have used mail-in voting as legitimate and normal.
“In last year’s presidential election, nearly 70% of all ballots cast nationwide came before Election Day, with an estimated 108 million people voting through the mail, early in-person or by dropping off absentee ballots. The surge came after states expanded access to mail voting and early voting, with a few states sending absentee ballots to all registered voters in response to the coronavirus pandemic that raised safety questions about large crowds at the polls.
“In Texas, the nation’s largest Republican-controlled state, the 2020 presidential election was considered a resounding success by almost any measure. Millions took advantage of early in-person voting to shatter the state’s turnout record. There were no reports of widespread system meltdowns, voter disenfranchisement or fraud.
“But some GOP lawmakers there are seeking new criminal offenses to deter voter fraud, even though actual fraud is exceedingly rare. Other bills would prohibit independent groups from distributing application forms for mail-in ballots and clarify who can request an application. In September, the state sued Harris County, home to Democratic-leaning Houston, to stop officials from sending mail ballot applications to the more than 2 million registered voters there.
“Texas Rep. Jacey Jetton, a Republican, said he hopes lawmakers will pass new regulations for verification of voters’ identity for mail-in voting to ensure ‘elections are accurate and that people feel it is conducted in such a way they are getting a fair, accurate election result.’ Absentee voting already is limited in Texas, mostly allowed for voters who can’t make it to the polls on Election Day because they will be out of town or have a medical condition…
“In Arizona, Republicans have introduced bills that would eliminate the state’s permanent early voting list, require mail ballots to be notarized, require mail-in ballots to be hand-delivered to a voting location and allow lawmakers to overturn presidential election results.
“In Georgia, where Biden's win was verified in three separate tallies, Republicans in the GOP-controlled Legislature are gearing up to impose new barriers on mail voting, which was used heavily by Democrats in the presidential and Senate run-off elections.
“A Republican senator has introduced a bill that would require voters to make copies of their photo ID and mail it to election officials twice in order to cast an absentee ballot. The state's Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state have backed the idea of requiring a photo ID for mail voting, though it's unclear if they support that specific bill.
“Despite the fact that Republicans know and understand there was no fraud, they are scared of their base,” said Georgia Democratic Rep. Debra Bazemore. “That's the base that is loyal to Donald Trump. If they do not do anything, if they go against him, they might not be in office long.” AP. Does any of this upset you even slightly. Even if you skew Trump-conservative, at what point does making sure that any opposition cannot vote or can vote only under the most difficult circumstances that mostly impact minority and urban voters, effectively repealing democracy, seem worth it?
I’m Peter Dekom, and if we care about democracy in this nation, we need to prove that we even deserve a democracy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment