Recently read an editorial on how the “Evil” Republicans are pulling schemes and tricks to disenfranchise the Democrats through redistricting that would be humorous if it were not so obvious that writer was serious. Ever the masters of hypocrisy, the Democrats are screaming the injustice of the redistricting, acting as though they – pure as the driven snow – would Never do such a thing. Even referencing the Republicans as racist because it was done on the MLK Jr. holiday and the inauguration (one Dem senator left, leaving the door open for the vote).
While I prefer to avoid this kind of action, it must be done periodically to insure that the opposition knows that you will. I am pleased that the Republicans have finally gotten enough backbone to do back to the Democrats what they have been doing for over 100 years. Ever the party of “we don’t stoop to their unfair practices” and always sucker punched because of it, they finally manned up and made a statement that they are willing to play hardball with the postulate purveyors of chicanery.
And what is the Democrats reaction? “I’m shocked, shocked at such behavior”! They might be shocked because they did not expect them to have the steel to do it, but not at the action. They only believe it is wrong when someone does it to them, but is okay for them to do to others.
As for the contention that this is an effort to steal future elections by changing how the Electoral College is counted – please, you steal elections through voter fraud (can you say voter ID, and purging old rolls of dead voters) not through changes in method of representation in the Republic. I’m still undecided on the Electoral College, but it has worked fairly well for 200 plus years, so let’s not jump to can it overnight. Changing the distribution from a winner take all format to a district by district one would not be evil as stated in the editorial – changing the EC vote from 332-206 (62% to 38%) to 271-267 (51% to 49%) might slash Obama’s margin of victory, but it would be much more reflective of the popular vote not some evil scheme to steal elections.
What it would do is take power away from large metropolitan areas with huge Democrat majorities (can we say government give-aways) and provide better representation for rural areas where the government gets less bang for the hand-out buck (harder to influence the vote with government money, which by the way is not theirs, but ours). This is why we have distributed representation in the first place – so the heavily populated areas (or states) cannot dictate to all the others what is done and how taxes are spent. This is a simple civics lesson that is not being taught, or even discussed.
With a few more firm stands like this, maybe the Republicans can get the Democrats to change their definition of “compromise” from its’ present meaning of “you do it our way” to a true balance of give and take. Government of and for the people, not done to the people.