|
Then and now
In 2000, when Al Gore received more popular votes in the general election, but George W. Bush received more electoral votes, the Democrats suddenly discovered that electing a president by the electoral vote (which is the way the country had been doing it under the Constitution since 1789, and which was, of course, the very system under which Gore and Bush themselves had campaigned and sought to win), instead of by the popular vote, was a horrible, grotesque travesty of justice suppressing the true voice of the people, and therefore the election of Bush was illegitimate. In 2008, when Hillary Clinton received more popular votes in the Democratic party’s presidential primaries and caucuses, but Barack Obama received more pledged delegates, and when Hillary, appealing to the very principle that all Democrats in 2000 believed was holy and good, argued that her victory in popular votes had earned her the super delegates and thus the nomination, Democrats suddenly discovered that this appeal to the popular vote (which, unlike the argument for Gore in 2000, was entirely within the existing rules of the system and the discretion of the super delegates) was a grotesque travesty, showing how washed-up, desperate, unrelenting, crazy, and totally uncool Hillary Clinton really is. Yecch! Get that woman out of here! Ann Coulter concludes:
In the Democrats’ “1984” world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia. Michael Jose writes: In your recent post, you wrote:
In 2000, when Al Gore received more popular votes in the general election, but George W. Bush received more electoral votes, the Democrats suddenly discovered that electing a president by the electoral vote (which is the way the country had been doing it under the Constitution since 1789, and which was, of course, the very system under which Gore and Bush themselves had campaigned and sought to win), instead of by the popular vote, was a horrible, grotesque travesty of justice suppressing the true voice of the people, and therefore the election of Bush was illegitimate.That’s not exactly the case. A lot of Democrats unhappy with the results did suggest that we ought to change things so that the popular vote was the deciding factor, but very few people suggested that the electoral college should be ignored and Gore installed based on his victory. [LA replies: I did not say that Democrats were saying the electoral college should be ignored. Obviously, the Democrats. were trying to win on the basis of a Florida recount that would give Florida’s electoral votes and thus the presidency to Gore. However, anti-electoral vote rhetoric was heard constantly, saying that Gore got more popular votes, that the American people had intended to elect Gore, and that Gore was “really” the president. This was never the Democrats’ formal position, but it was their emotional position, operating parallel to their formal position,and it provided the fuel to build support for the idea that the result in Florida, including the recounts, the Supreme Court decision, etc. was a tantamount to a coup d’etat by fascist Bush. Indeed, without the emotional positon, it’s impossible to imagine the Democrats getting so steamed up and self-righteous over the supposed notion that they had been somehow cheated of the proper vote outcome in Florida. Their own demands were so scurvy (e.g., suppressing write-in votes of military personnel), that their rage over Florida would not have been sustainable without their conviction of the “deeper” truth that the American people, as shown by the nationwide popular vote, had “really” intended to elect Gore.] Most of the rage about “suppressing the vote” was based on the idea that irregularities in Florida were being decided unfairly, and that in an “honest count” Gore would have won in Florida, not about the national popular vote. (And it is very likely that had the ballots in Florida all been idiot-proof that Gore would have won, although that does not mean that discounting spoiled ballots was wrong or unfair).
In 2008, when Hillary Clinton received more popular votes in the Democratic party’s presidential primaries and caucuses, but Barack Obama received more pledged delegates, and when Hillary, appealing to the very principle that all Democrats in 2000 believed was holy and good, argued that her victory in popular votes had earned her the super delegates and thus the nomination, Democrats suddenly discovered that this appeal to the popular vote (which, unlike the argument for Gore in 2000, was entirely within the existing rules of the system and the discretion of the super delegates) was a grotesque travesty, showing how washed-up, desperate, unrelenting, crazy, and totally uncool Hillary Clinton really is. Yecch! Get that woman out of here!But whether she won the popular vote or not is debatable; she didn’t unless you count the Michigan primary and don’t give Obama any of the “uncommitted” votes. Hillary gets to say that she won the popular vote largely because she tried to get the rules they were playing (in Michigan and Florida) changed halfway through the process. (Indeed, Hillary is the hypocrite on the MI and FL issue, bemoaning that the campaign is over too early in the year and then trying to prevent the Democratic Party from punishing states to keep the primary season from starting too early). [LA replies: I agree with you and I’ve said the same myself. But, as I’ve also said, there is another way of seeing this, which is that the people of Michigan and Florida should not have been deprived of their ability to participate in the nomination process because of rule breaking that they had nothing to do with. From this point of view, which was also the underlying point of view driving the Florida situation in 2000 as I described above, the fundamental right of representation is more fundamental than rules, and therefore the proper solution should have been that both states hold the primaries again, which I believe was proposed, but was rejected. The Hillary campaign of 2008 was not appealing to the formal position of the Democrats in 2000, but it was appealing to their rhetoric and broad principles, that the “true” will of the people must be recognized.]
Email entry |