I remember Carter’s concession speech. It was fairly gracious, and for lack of anything better to say, promised a smooth transition.

Since Obama is often compared to Carter, whom he has made look good, and this election has been compared to 1980, albeit less Reaganesque, and is likely to be “unexpectedly” an electoral exclamation, I wondered how Obama’s concession might compare. It sometimes seems he no longer cares to win. At the same time, there are expectations that if he wins, it will be through fraud. There have even been suggestions of a more overt coup, though that seems less likely than it might have several weeks ago.

Has he written it yet? Thought about what he might say? Will it be dragged out, reluctantly delivered?

I don’t picture it being gracious. Any more than I picture a gracious transition, or a lame duck period free of danger for the country. We may see how much havoc executive power can wreak in just a couple of months.

Even before giving this any thought, we’d talked about what kind of ex-president he might be. He’s young. Which I suppose means I can’t think of myself as being old, since Obama went and made our mutual birth year look bad. I’m only four months older. I’d also like to think I could have done a better job of being President in my sleep. But I digress. Maybe he could write another autobiography? Perhaps he’ll be neither as overtly bitter nor as embarrassing as Carter turned out to be. At least I can find multiple good things to say abou Carter as President. I can find exactly one to say about Obama, and his space policy (not NASA policy and the Muslim outreach, but space) was probably accidental. It is what Republican/Conservative policy should be, and arguably isn’t in part due to wanting not to match, because Obama must be wrong, and because Republicans aren’t so much small government as they are differently big government. Which in this case should be enough to delay or even avert the end of the United States.

̿ȁကĀŸ5ᗰƭ

Large swaths of these “coincidences” I’d not heard of before. I’d been aware of the LA Times withholding an incriminating tape, but can’t recall ever seeing what that was all about. Still don’t buy the birth part, although that released certificate was pretty strange.

Someone mentioned the electoral college on Facebook, and while the question actually involved why bother if the electors can vote how they want, not honoring the popular vote in the state, I’d been thinking so much about the topic again that I spewed forth this comment:

Things changed a lot since they set it up that way. The idea was that it was the collection of states forming the federal government, so there was a balance between state and individual representation. Each state had the same number of senators, regardless of size, representing the interests of the states and appointed by same, not directly beholden to the populace. Representatives were directly elected by the people, representing the people, with as close to an even population per as reasonably possible. Presidency was a mix of the two. People voting, but to come up with the preference of the people in the state, and weighed by population plus a base for each state. The idea of senators representing the states went out the window with the 17th amendment, so they are glorified representatives. Strengthening the federal government in the 1860s probably made that inevitable. The more direct representation got skewed by limiting the size of the house of representatives, entirely aside from what the early invention of gerrymandering and rise of political parties did. Not that there was no merit in the fear of its size becoming unwieldy, but that certainly would be an antidote to the problem of excess legislation. Once the rest was decoupled from the concept of a federal system with representation of states plus individuals, the electoral college method started to seem increasingly odd. It still makes a lot of sense to me, as a traditionalist with a clear understanding of how it was meant to work, but I understand the confusion and the arguments for direct election. That would have its own problem, but on a national rather than state scale. Take away Boston and the vote in MA would no longer be lopsided and predictable. Take away the coastal cities in California, ditto. A case can be made that it’d be scary and rural votes would never count at all the other way, too.

Followed by this related comment:

There are those of us who see things as having gone downhill since the 17th passed, and would gladly repeal it. The argument against repealing it is that state legislatures can be corrupt and appoint a senator you’d never consider. On the other hand, that moves the action closer to home, giving everyone reason to try to turn over the state legislators if they can’t get senatorial selections right.

All of which is part lesson that anyone ought to be able to follow, and part opinion with a dash of opposing view to consider. I’ve debated the topic before with Steven Taylor, who is vehemently opposed to the electoral college. I used to find that odder than I do now, especially coming from a political science professor, than I do now. I am still not convinced, and might rather undo the changes that have rendered it less logical, but I come closer to seeing it than I once did. Still, I predict that if it comes to pass, with all else being equal, the result in practice will be worse than you’d expect. As is often the case for seemingly laudable ideas.