Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Why the GOP Occupied Texas II

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Though Texas is now thought of as a 'red' state, it was not always so. From January 15, 1874 to January 16, 1979 every Texas governor was Democratic. Moreover, most of them could be described as 'progressive Democrats'.

This topic has come up as Texas is now thought of as GOP occupied territory, i.e, a 'red' state. If this is, indeed, the case, the GOP had best be kind to Texas. A cursory survey of the red-blue map of the U.S. indicates that Texas is the only state among GOP/red states to have electoral votes in two digits. As a result, Texas may be essential to the GOP which seems hell-bent on self-destruction, courting irrelevance, skirting eventual oblivion.

Under the Constitution, the office of President is supposed to represent the 'people'. If that is the case, then WHY are Presidents elected by states and appointed 'electors'? The final 'vote count' is watered down to the extent it may be irrelevant.
There are several remedies but one is most urgent: the abolition of a relic called the Electoral College! What IS it good for? Absolutely NOTHING! (apologies to Edwin Starr)

There are, in fact, various methods by which a popular vote could and would allow the people to elect their representatives directly, thus cutting out the middle man. The office of President is, under the Constitution, responsible directly to the people --not the states. It is, therefore, absurd that the holder of that office be elected by any method other than a direct election of the people to whom the President is ultimately responsible.

That, of course, is why the GOP will oppose this proposal!

The question is: how responsive is the government to the will of the people? It is self-evident that public officials should achieve public office by way of elections that most accurately reflect the will of the people. Otherwise --why have elections? The most egregious outrages against this principle include election thefts as, in fact, happened in Florida. That is, in itself, an outrage. It might have been predicted that the only beneficiary of this outrage --George W. Bush --turned out to have been among the very worst Presidents in U.S. history. That alone is outrageous and even more so as it followed Bush v Gore, the very worst SCOTUS decision in U.S. history.

Questions remain; solutions are scarce. Nevertheless, there must be a better way. The good news is: there is a better way: the President could be elected directly by the people. Party machines capable of 'stealing' elections may be bypassed, made irrelevant. An election can be made scientific, the tabulation of votes made accurate and the casting of votes themselves made more representative of the 'will of the people'.

I have in mind a direct election of the office of President by all of the people. This has the advantage of getting powerful 'state machines' out of the 'national election' business save for the primaries. The office of President --responsible directly to the people --should, therefore, be elected by the people, not the States. The 'electoral college; should, therefore, be abolished and good riddance!

Why was Texas targeted for occupation by the GOP?

That's easy, covered in 'Election Grabbing 101', first semester! With 38 electoral votes, Texas is, by far the plum in the GOP bag o' dirty tricks. If Texas should turn blue, the GOP is FINISHED. Look at the other 'red' states with electoral votes ranging from 3 to 16. I will put it this way --the GOP needs Texas a hell of a lot more than Texas needs the fucking carpetbaggers of the GOP.

Under the current system, some votes are worth more than others. For example, a single vote in a state having very few electoral votes (Rhode Island with 3 electoral votes) is not worth nor should be worth as much as a single vote in a large state like Texas with some 38 electoral votes or California with 55. At last, 'Southern Strategy' EXPLOITS the present system and is in fact, a huge argument in favor of the kind of reforms I propose.

ALL the people!

Currently, typically minorities are inadequately represented. That's the point behind direct elections. Cut out the middle man; stop 'watering down' the vote. Prior to re-districting by one Tom DeLay, Texas had not been the solid 'red state' that millions now believe it to be. For a period of some 100 years, for example, EVERY TX governor had been Democratic. Some --like the Furgusons --were VERY PROGRESSIVE. It was a better state for it.


MarkH said...

Didn't Obama win florida?

Len Hart said...

That's what the map indicates with a 'blue' Fla. Alas, fla is not typical of the south as a whole from a demographic standpoint.

LanceThruster said...

Howdy, Len.

Came across a great site by a Texas mom (http://kidswithoutreligion.wordpress.com/) and introduced her to you in the process. Makes me proud of all those who persevere behind the 'red' curtain.

Len Hart said...

Thanks for sharing with us, Lance. I look forward to checking it out.

Robert Wold said...

Looks like a lot more than the electoral college is in for a change.

Len Hart said...


you're absolutely correct. But --hey : ) ---ya gotta start somewhere. Why not start it with a VALID election. Wouldn't that be a change?