Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio - the "Flag City" - where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. What the Post didn't report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.) It's just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.
But reality says otherwise. Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided." State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes - with hints that November could become a rout. Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates). The media won't admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.
Yesterday, I posted a diary about possible ballot petition fraud going on in Santa Barbara, California related to the Electoral College Initiative that seeks to split California's electoral votes by congressional district.
There have been some developments, so I've decided to post an update.
Really fabulous write-up in Slate this morning about how the GOP proposition to change how our electors are determined (i.e. the plan to steal 20-22 electoral votes) is unconstitutional:
"In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters-whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature-cannot do this on their own."
The more people know this the more likely it is to die a final death. "You can vote for it but all you'll be doing is costing the state a lot in legal fees while it gets challenged all the way up to the supreme court!" is a pretty good argument against voting for it.
Stockton Record, "Awarding California's electoral votes based on the outcome in each congressional district is unfair, harmful to democratic precepts and a blatant political power grab."
OC Register, "A proposed change, which could be on next June's ballot, in the way California's votes are allocated in the presidential election might have a sheen of fairness, but it is nakedly partisan and profoundly subversive of our constitutional system."
