polygon
|
|
The faithless elector possibility
| 
Dec 15 01:22 UTC 2000 |
I'm not hearing much about this in the media, but there is (at least) one
more presidential election drama still to be played out: the meeting of
the Electoral College on Monday, December 18.
If any presidential electors fail to vote as expected on Monday, there
will be a gigantic blaze of publicity, and all who do so will briefly
become nationally known, vilified or praised along party lines.
The right of electors to vote for whoever they choose was the original
intent of the Constitution, and the same "safe-harbor" provisions which
the Supreme Court found to be so important would require that their votes
be counted, regardless of whether they were voting with their slate.
Seven electors since WWII have voted for someone other than the candidate
they were elected to vote for.
If there are a net of at least two switches away from Bush, causing a
change or at least continued doubt about the outcome, THAT will be the
coup de grace for the Electoral College. All this business about
tradition and reverence for the constitutional scheme of states, etc.,
will all be cast aside, and an amendment will move forward at record
speed with strong bipartisan support.
Of course Gore (if he gains enough votes) would be put in the incredibly
awkward position of winning the election after having conceded twice, but
Democrats would be outraged if he went through with his claimed intention
to "not accept" such a result. Or he could go back on that and face the
outrage of the Republicans. Either way, his political career would
presumably be over.
The precise arithmetic: take two or more votes away from Bush, and the
election goes to the House. Add three or more votes to Gore, and he wins
the presidency.
In general, electors are party loyalists who are unlikely to be tempted by
any thought of voting for the enemy. Practically any elector of either
party who "flipped" would also face being vilified and disowned by family,
friends, political and business associates. Their lives would also be
picked apart by the media, in search of the bribe or secret that partisans
would assume caused them to defect.
But electors are not a monolithic army hand-picked by state party leaders
or the presidential campaigns. They are, instead, mostly chosen at
congressional district party caucuses, and receive zero formal scrutiny or
vetting.
They tend to be much older than average party activists. That usually
means they have a track record of party loyalty; on the other hand, that
also means they are not likely to have a political future at stake.
It's not hard to imagine a Bush elector, a longtime active Republican, who
has qualms about actually putting GWB in the White House, or vice versa
for a Democratic elector. My father's Republican cousin, now dead, was
the co-chair of Nixon's 1968 campaign in Michigan, but detested Nixon and
actually voted for Hubert Humphrey. What is harder to imagine is such a
person defying everything in their background and surroundings and casting
the treasonous vote right out in public.
Trying to envision a Bush elector who would "flip", I can see two
plausible scenarios.
Scenario One would be an elderly, curmudgeonly lawyer, someone who is
accustomed to going against the grain. Possibly, someone who was a
Republican in Alabama or Mississippi or some other southern state before
the 1960s, when Republicans were reviled and hated in the South. He would
have to be a lawyer, because in order to motivate him, he would need to be
horribly (if secretly so far) shocked by the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore
decision. Being elderly, he would not have a career to lose. Despite
being an elector, he would also have to be someone who was uneasy about
the Electoral College and electing the popular vote non-winner, so he
wouldn't be too concerned that his defection might bring about its
abolition.
Elderly political figures becoming apostates is not at all unknown.
Consider former liberal Democratic congresswoman Martha Griffiths, a
Republican for some years now, or Barry Goldwater in his old age endorsing
gays in the military.
Scenario Two would be a black Republican, chosen as elector in an
overwhelmingly black district, perhaps in Cleveland or St. Louis.
Whatever his reason for being a Republican, he lives in an environment
where almost everyone he knows is not a Republican, so again, he has to be
used to going against the grain.
On the other hand, black Republicans have a well-earned reputation for
opportunism. Joining the Republican Party as a black person offers
tremendous opportunities, since the party is eager to defend itself
against charges of racism, and tends to have a shortage of activists and a
surplus of money. I don't mean that to sound too negative: we shouldn't
look down on someone for making a wise career move, and if you're a black
person interested in public policy from other than a welfare-state
perspective, being a Republican is a very smart thing to do.
Becoming a national figure might be an appealing prospect for someone who
already has a tendency to be opportunistic, and the downside is a lot less
for a black person who lives in an all-black congressional district than
it would be for a white person who would have to contend with the rage of
his Republican neighbors. Imagine three black Republican electors sitting
around a kitchen table realizing that they themselves could change the
outcome of the presidential election, and that their neighbors would
proclaim them as heroes.
In the meantime, Republican strategists, undoubtedly well aware of all the
above, are very likely out seeking Gore electors to vote for Bush. This
is much, much easier to do than the reverse, for several reasons.
First, Gore has already conceded, and most of the Gore electors probably
figure they're just going through the motions, not really deciding the
outcome. They might even see it as "healing" and "patriotic" to preserve
the outcome that the public is already accepting. Thus the rage against
them, and the glare of publicity is going to be vastly less.
Second, a large proportion of the Gore electors are conservative Democrats
(not really very enthusiastic about Gore) who live in conservative rural
areas with few active Democrats as neighbors and associates. Like the
black Republicans, these Democrats are somewhat insulated from the
downside risks of being seen as a traitor to their party.
Note, too, that since the urban black congressional districts in
Bush-carried states are basically in Ohio and Missouri, which vote on
Eastern and Central time, the Bush campaign would have a crucial two hours
to get to Gore delegates in California. Probably the right move for Bush
would be to convince California delegates in advance to vote Republican
**only** if their votes were actually needed. And it's easier to imagine
a Gore elector agreeing to that, "to preserve the outcome."
Of course, this doesn't protect Bush if the three Alaska electors all vote
for Gore, but that would be unlikely in the extreme.
My prediction: two or three Bush-to-Gore switches, made up for by five or
six Gore-to-Bush switches. A total of seven to nine, and a net of two to
four electoral vote gain for Bush. Gigantic publicity over all this,
partisan recriminations, etc., etc.
Awful downside for me personally: the presidential elector lists on my
website (sure to attract attention during the coming melee) are a mess,
and there's no time to fix them before Monday.
Damn.
|