Who Can Really Say?

Bursting Kristoff's Bubble

Captain Ed does a nice job of bursting Nicholas Kristoff's latest bubble but misses a big point in the process.

Kristoff proposes three electoral reforms, the first of which gets no argument from Ed or I -- de-politicizing the Congressional redistricting process. The second is direct election of the President, a/k/a elimination of the electoral college. Captain Ed:

In other words, Kristof wants the President selected by New York, Massachussetts, Texas, California, and Florida. Kristof compares the Electoral College unfavorably to the election in Afghanistan, but the truth is that America is a much larger, more far-flung country than Afghanistan; the electorate here differs widely between rural, suburban, and urban settings, as well as regionally. Kristof's vision would lead to the diktat of urban centers over the rest of the United States, a result I'm certain Kristof desires. Gone would be private-property rights and a host of other issues crucial to farmers, ranchers, and others.

All you need to know about that suggestion is contained in the county-based map of the presidential election. Kristof would have the sparse blue districts dictating policy to the vast red areas.

It's not about whether the red states or the blue states get to dictate. It's about the States, period. We are the United States of America. The Constitution starts out: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" of those States . . . . The Constitution is a compact among States. It is all about the States. If it weren't, there would be no Constitution and no United States. And today, if you think less than 13 of the smaller states will oppose an amendment to the Constitution (it takes 3/4th's majority of the States to ratify an Amendment) then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

But if you really think this is a good idea, then why stop with Presidential elections? Let's start at the top -- we can change the Constitution so that future amendments aren't based upon whether States ratify those amendments -- we'll just have a big referendum. While we're at it, let's do away with Congress, which is essentially an electoral college in miniature. The House is apportioned based upon population, but the Senate is apportioned based upon the States with each one getting two Senators. If Kristoff is right, then this has to go too. Which all goes to show just how radical Kristoff is on these points.

The third suggestion is pretty silly although it sounds good on paper for about a second -- require all campaign donations to be made anonymously through a blind trust. That way, I can give my candidate a gazillion dollars, but the candidate will never know where the money came from. Captain Ed covers this one pretty well:

This one gave me a fit of the giggles until I realized he was serious. With money disappearing into all sorts of 527 ratholes in this past election, Kristof thinks the solution is to make all donations untraceable. Brilliant! I especially like the part about all the boasting making politicians doubt their constituents. I guess Kristof is unaware of a relatively new invention called the "receipt". It's necessary for all money transactions these days. How difficult is it to show a candidate the paper record of a transaction? How about another new invention, the "cancelled check"?

If you want campaign-finance reform, the best method is to quit being so hypocritical about it and insist on full disclosure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and requiring instant disclosure on all donations will immediately allow the public to know who finances any campaign. End the silly distinctions between different uses of the same money, and force the cash back into the campaigns to make the candidates politically responsible for its use. Eliminate the 527 tax benefit for outside organizations. If people want to form groups to campaign for their cause, they don't have a right to be tax-exempt while doing so.

Posted by Peter at November 20, 2004 05:48 PM