Swingers
by Bob Cook

The 2004 Presidential election looks like it's going to be quite exciting, with the closest margin of victory since, what, probably four years ago. But it's difficult to share in the giddiness if you don't live in a swing state.

Those of you in the hardcore red and blue states know what I'm talking about. President Bush assumes — probably correctly — that he will win the red states, which generally lean Republican. Sen. John Kerry assumes — probably correctly — that he will win the blue states, which generally lean Democratic. So instead of crisscrossing the country, trying to engage the American people in the democratic process and a discussion of the important issues of our time, Bush and Kerry concentrate their campaigns on only a few states. One would be excused in thinking that Bush and Kerry are not running for the presidency, but rather for governor of Ohio.

Exactly why should the undecideds be allowed to hijack national electoral politics? Red-staters and blue-staters, we may be portrayed as total opposites — the Goofus and Gallant, respectively, or the Gallant and Goofus, respectively, of democracy. But we can agree that it's a huge mistake to hand over the decision of who should lead the free world to Pennsylvanians who probably can't even decide what they want on their pizza ("I'll take pepperoni. No, sausage! No, pepperoni! Wait, change that back to sausage! Wait...").

This is the sort of thing that gets people ranting about the Electoral College, but no one is going to even think about amending the Constitution to allow direct election of presidents, at least not until it's amended to prevent flag burning and gay marriage. But there is something drastic we red-staters and blue-staters can do to get some attention. Tell the presidential candidates, like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction," we will not be ignored!

No, we won't boil anybody's pet bunny. Instead, red-staters and blue-staters, I want to organize a national campaign to get the red states to turn blue, and the blue states to turn red. That's right — this is the year to change your vote! Vote for the guy you hate!

Here's the deal. Red states and blue states will never get the attention they deserve unless they're wild, unpredictable and swinging, traits we no doubt have long associated with West Virginia. The presidential candidates are like Hugh Hefner, who famously put a sign over the front door of the Playboy Mansion that read, in Latin, "If you don't swing, don't ring." It's as if the red and blue states responded with signs on their front doors that read, not necessarily in Latin, "We don't swing, so don't ring."

But if Montana were to turn blue, or Maine turn red, presidential candidates would leap up, hit their heads on the top of their campaign jets and realize they have to spread themselves across the country to get votes. No more having Michigan on the itinerary for 20 stops.

Now, I'm not recommending we do this vote-changing in a way that would throw the presidential election to a particular candidate. In order to persuade you to change your vote, I must assure you that such an action will do nothing to alter what would have been the actual result of the election. The swing states can still be the deciding factor. Plus, this vote-changing needs to be done subtly. We want to get attention like spoiled toddlers, but we don't to actually be perceived as spoiled toddlers.

So here's my solution. To ensure that the election is not thrown out of whack, states should arrange even electoral-vote trades with other states. For example, Oregon, a blue state, and Oklahoma, a red states, could work out an even-up trade for their seven electoral votes. Red state North Carolina, with 15 votes, could go blue, as long as it has assurances from blue state New Jersey that its 15 votes will go red. And more than two states could be involved in a trade. My blue state, Illinois, with 21 votes, could work something out with the red states of Indiana (11 votes) and Arizona (10 votes). Blue state Washington and its 11 votes could go red with Utah (five votes) and North and South Dakota (three votes each) promising to go blue.

And, to make the trading a little less obvious, the 30-to-45 percent who generally vote for the losing candidate in their state would now need to flip their votes. So those Georgians (15 votes) who voted for Al Gore in 2000 would need to vote for President Bush, while those who voted in 2000 for Bush in Massachusetts (12 votes) and Washington, DC (three votes) would need to flip to Kerry.

I don't expect that there will be a complete flip-flop in who's red and who's blue in 2004. But if you want your state to get a campaign visit or some great 527 "(Insert Name Here) for Truth" ads in 2008, I would expect you to give my plan some thought, and to help me make it come true. Even if you don't usually swing, just remember: it would be nice for someone to ring.

E-mail Bob Cook at bobc@flakmag.com.