Suffice to say that the Republican move in Pennsylvania is not motivated by the idea of a more democratic method of electing presidents. Instead, it’s a cynical manoeuver to take advantage of redistricting to ensure that a state Obama will likely win will no longer be in play in the 2012 election. Nobody has ever had the nerve to do that before. Indeed, changing something so fundamental to our federal election system for craven short-term gain would have been unthinkable in the past. Not anymore.
As it happens, there has been pushback from Pennsylvania’s Republican members of congress, and as a result, the plan is unlikely to pass. It turns out that even though the plan might be helpful to the Republican presidential candidate, it could end up hurting Republican congressional candidates, because Democrats would be able to move resources to challenge them in their districts. But it’s notable that the idea that it would be injurious to our democratic system to go about changing the rules to suit the partisan configuration of the moment hasn’t been mentioned. This is all self-serving political expediency. Principles have nothing to do with it.
A “Yes on D” vote is a vote for the status quo. A vote against D is a vote for uncertainty with a side of Tea Party madness. As much as I disagree with (Mayor Jerry) Sanders and Company, the specter of the lunacy associated with the far right (and it is impossible to untangle the libertarian and religious threads that make up that movement), means I’ll hold my nose and vote “Yes” on D.
by Doug Porter, O.B. Rag
a weak endorsement for the ½ ¢ sales tax increase in The City of San Diego
I’m a big reddit fan but this issue might well be the thing that gets me to move on. reddit has been hurting for cash and the corporate masters are going to hamstring them on such an innocuous issue as marijuana legalization? Lame.