“One year after the election, has time proven Romney right?”


If you like your high personal approval ratings, you can keep them. Period.


The pleasure of saying “I told you so” is real, but, alas, it’s also distinctly limited.




Three more years!



A very nice day in every regard (some of it confidential)
"Ending Tax Exemptions Means Ending Churches"
On judging people
"How to Save the Mormon Sabbath"
  • RaymondSwenson

    If the Electoral College votes were assigned to each congressional district, rather than being given to the winner of a mere plurality in a popular vote in a state, Romney would have been elected along with the Republican majority in the House. The winner-take-all policy of most states “steals” the electoral college votes of voters supporting the minority political party in each state, and enslaves them to the majority party. Thus, even though a dozen congressional districts in California elected Republicans in 2012, none of the presidential votes of the Republicans in that state had ANY effect in helping elect the Republican candidate. Instead, the electoral college votes earned by those voters were shanghaied into the service of electing the Democratic Party candidate!
    Could we make a case that this is unconstitutional? This is more than depriving minority voters of their vote in presidential elections, it is actually using their votes to elect the candidate of the other party! The major reform in state legislative districts, and congressional districts, was brought about by a Supreme Court decision that reversed the prior practice in almost every state of giving more power to rural, less populated counties in electing members of the House and to the state legislature. What interest does the state have in depriving minority party voters of their participation in the presidential election? It gives the majority party more power, but that hardly justifies government action in a case of discrimination against minority voters, any more than the previous interest in giving more power to rural counties and congressional districts constituted legal justification for that discriminatory practice.
    While the “conservative” reflex is generally to suport “states’ rights” against the Federal government, here we are talking about the processes that form our Federal government. What “right” does a state have to distort the election of presidents by shanghaiing the votes of the minority in that state to be used for the opponent of the candidate they actually voted for! Why shouldn’t we insist that the states are denying us our right to elect the president by having “winner take all” elections?
    If we won the lawsuit, the result would be that the party with a majority in the House would also elect the president. The candidacy of congressmen and presidents would be tied together. The biggest change would be that, instead of just ten states, that are close to being evenly divided between the parties, having the power as “swing states” to decide the presidential election, every congressional district with a real contested congressional election would also be a “swing district” for president, so a Republican could pick up electoral votes in California, and Democrats could find one or two in Utah. The presidential election would become more of a true national election, and I believe it would actually improve the chances of the candidate of the minority party in each state having a chance to persuade more of the people in the opther party to his/her viewpoint. Right now, the winner-take-all system tells minority party voters that their votes for president don’t even count, so it depresses turnout for congressional and other candidates. By increasing the actual power exercised by voters, there will be more voters participating in all states from both parties.
    An added benefit of a tying each electyoral college vote to a congressional district is that the fiasco of Florida in the 2000 election would be almost impossible to repeat. Looking for added votes in a district you have already solidly won, the way Al Gore looked for more votes in Miami where he had over 60% of the vote, would have no point under the new system, because you would already have that electoral vote. You could try to look for more viotes in a swing congressional district, but at most you would get only one more vote, and it is unlikely to change the outcome of a national presidential election. And if you did not have a decisive majority in that district before a recount, the chance of getting more votes in a recount would be low. By pushing the presidential votes into congressional districts, rather than by statewide popular vote totals, uncertainties in the presidential vote would be drastically reduced.
    The Democrats’ notion of having a nationwide popular vote for president would have the potential to put the entire nation through a 50 state, plus DC, Florida 2000 style debacle. It would invite fraud on a massive scale in areas strongly controlled by one party, while basing electoral votes in congressional districts would limit the benefit of election fraud. There would be absolutely NO incentive to earn more than 51% of the vote in any district.
    So is there anyone out there who would like to sign up as a plaintiff or a pro bono litigator for an effort to create a more rational and just presidential election system? One that would have elected Mitt Romney last year with exactly the same votes?

    • Lucy Mcgee

      I’m reading a book by Jack Abramoff, “Capitol Punishment”. We need to reform much more than the workings of the Electoral College, it seems to me.

      For anyone interested, here’s an interview Abramoff did with Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkvIS5pZ0eI

      He understands inside politics as well as anyone and there has been a real effort to discredit him. I congratulate his efforts and hopefully, someday soon our citizenry can force Congress to change it’s ways. We deserve much better from our representatives.

    • David_Naas

      I’m sort of real big on the original set-up of the Constitrutoin, including the election of Senators via State Legislatures.

      So, I say, leave the electoral college alone. Here’s why:


  • dangerdad

    On the one hand, it’s pretty hard to believe anyone could be worse than Obama. On the other hand, I don’t like Fascists more than Socialists. Romney’s adventure in Massachusetts showed him as just another government thug who will tell you how you may live.

    He was right, but he would also have been a nightmare.

    • DanielPeterson

      I’m more conservative/libertarian than Mitt Romney, but to describe him as a “fascist,” a “thug,” and a “nightmare” is . . . umm, somewhat overwrought.

      • dangerdad

        It seems to me Romney thinks of government like business, that its job is to get things done, rather than maintain liberty. One of Romney’s big successes in MA was finally fixing the Big Dig, but probably his biggest failure was Romneycare, the precursor to Obamacare. Romneycare has decimated the MA health industry and the state budget. I think had he won in 2012 he would have tried to fix Obamacare like he did the Big Dig–the problem however is that it can’t be fixed, it needs to be scrapped. As it is now, we may have a chance of removing it. If we got into bi-partisan “fixing-it”, it would just be a slightly slower road to disaster.

        I was a bit surprised that a Mormon would fall for Satan’s plan “surrender your agency and I’ll protect you”, but that’s the essence of what Romneycare and Obamacare each are. The facism of dictating how all people will buy into the system, and how all the workers and companies in the system will act is the same in both.

        I had other concerns about Romney’s governing style and personal interactions (especially in the campaign he seemed to make a number of decisions that traded principles for politics). So yes, maybe a bit inflammatory, but I stand by “nightmare”, “fascist” and “thug” (okay, “thug” might be redundant).