HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Under the United States Constitution, today is actually the day we elect the next President. That's right, today.

Last November, you didn't actually vote for President. You voted for a slate of electors, individuals who themselves vote for the President. Last month, these electors met, cast their ballots, and today, in accordance with the Constitution itself, those votes are counted, totaled, and certified.

Now in normal years, the vote happens with even a hint of controversy. And for that reason, it's largely ignored by both the media and the public. Mind you it shouldn't be - if this day got more coverage in the media I suspect we'd see much more widespread support for electoral reform.

But today is different. Today, for only the second time since 1877, members of both the House and the Senate joined to object to the counting of the votes from Ohio. And for two hours, beginning at 1pm today, a debate was held to discuss the nature of the objections.

"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election," Boxer wrote in a letter to Tubbs Jones, a leader of the Democratic effort. The action seems certain to leave Bush's victory intact because both Republican-controlled chambers would have to uphold the objection for Ohio's votes to be invalidated. Supporters of the drive said that rather than changing the election outcome, their hope was to shine a national spotlight on the Ohio voting problems. "The goal is to debate the issue," Tubbs Jones said in an interview. "And why not? We go across the world trying to ensure democracy, but there are some problems with the process in the United States."

First off, let me say I wholeheartedly agree with them. As I've said from the beginning, the point is to make sure all the votes are counted fairly and freely. It is not to change the outcome of the election. We need debate, we need reform, and we need it now. Fraud is something that happens nearly every election - its conventional wisdom that Kennedy would not have won in 1960 if Mayor Daly hadn't "delivered" Chicago for him - so this should be an issue around which everyone can unite.

But unfortunately that's not likely to happen. It kills me to say that, but I believe its true. Two pieces of anecdotal evidence for you:

* At 3:15pm ET, right smack in the middle of a historic debate, not one of the major newspaper websites has given the story prominent coverage (The WaPo seems to be ignoring it entirely), and not one of the cable TV news networks is providing live coverage. A challenge has been called to the election of the next President, something that's only happened a handful of times in our history, and it's being ignored.

* Even people I normally have a great deal of respect for, like Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, can't see themselves clear to supporting true electoral reform, regardless of the political outcome. In California, Gov. Arnold has proposed the creation of a nonpartisan commission to handle redistricting, but because it may result in a pickup of seats for the GOP, he's put aside principle to oppose the issue.

Me, I cannot do that. The point - the entire point - of our system is to give people the right to chose the men and women who govern them. Everything can, should, and must be done to ensure that this choice is honored and respected, regardless of the political outcome. If Americans want to live in a theocracy, so be it. It is their right, and it must be honored. The point, of course, is to hold elections to find out. So... if ending partisan gerrymandering and electoral oversight will make sure the people get the representation they want, I'm all for it. If allowing early voting encourages more people to vote, count me in. If requiring voting technology to be both secure and reliable means fairer elections, I'm in support of the idea. Viewing this issue through a partisan lens is missing the entire point of a representative democracy.

Make the elections free and fair. Let the people have their say. In the end, I'm confident that my side will emerge victorious, but if it does not, so be it. Losing a rigged election is one thing. Losing a fair one is something else entirely.

UPDATE: Tom DeLay is now speaking on the floor of the House. He just claimed that this is an "assault on democracy," a "threat to our ideals," a "false morality play," and a "crime against American democracy" aimed to "undermine American democracy." How ridiculous and disgusting. And why is it he can't say "Democratic Party"? He keeps saying "Democrat Party" and "Democrat candidate". Is this some kind of stupid attempt to not call them "democratic" or is he just an idiot? I'll let you answer that one for yourselves.

--------