Why did Romney lose?

In the weeks following Election 2012, there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth from Republicans who were sure they were going to win, yet who came up short. In the "sour grapes" moment of the year, Mitt Romney has even said that Obama won because of the "gifts" he gave to some voters. Those comments from Romney are beneath a man of Romney's stature and obvious gifts, and they don't really answer the question of how Romney lost, especially with a weak economy and high unemployment that usually guarantees a Republican victory. So why did Romney lose Election 2012?
   1. Romney lost because the Democrats successfully painted him as rich, white and out of touch with average Americans: This is the same trick that both parties have been using on each other for years. In 2004, Republicans successfully used it against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Because he is married to Theresa Heinz of the Heinz Ketchup fortune, Kerry was painted as an elitist blue-blood who couldn't relate to average "folks." Never mind that Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam War hero. His campaign ads, in which he tried to show himself doing regular things such as hunting were tone-deaf and only made the situation worse. In the end, he lost handily to President George W. Bush.
   In 2012, it was Romney's turn to be tarred with the "elitist" brush. To be fair, Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a self-made man. He's made millions in business. He managed to get himself elected governor of Massachussets as a Republican, and he was a succesful governor. That's impressive, considering how "blue" a state Massachussets usually is. In a field of candidates trying to outdo themselves as being the most conservative in 2012, Romney was by far the most moderate. He looked and he sounded presidential.
    The problem was, Romney never figured out how to talk to average people, or to break down his grand ideas into bite-size, easily digestible pieces. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Romney came across as stiff when speaking and he looked uncomfortable in crowds. He came across as the businessman that he is. He wasn't the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with in your local bar (a gift shared by both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Instead, he looked like the boss you would complain about over those beers.
2. Romney lost because voters couldn't figure out where he stood on the issues: Romney said all the right thngs. He spoke at length about repealing "Obamacare," even though he had fought for and passed a similar program in Massachussets. He criticized Obama about the weak economy and the high unemployment. The problem was, he didn't come across as a strong man of principle, as Ronald Reagan had.
   In fact, if you look at his record, Romney came across as quite the opposite. While governor of Massachussets, Romney said he was for gay marriage, or at least civil unions. In fact, he even instructed the county clerks in Massachussets to start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. When he began running for president, presto! He was strongly against gay marriage. At one time, Romney identified as pro-choice in the abortion debate. As a presidential candidate, he became strongly pro-life.
   To be clear, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds on issues. At one time, I was firmly pro-death penalty. Now, I'm against it. The problem wasn't that Romney changed his mind. It was how he did it. He never came across as someone who had wrestled with the deep moral issues before changing his mind.  Instead, he came across as a slightly sleazy political opportunist who would tell voters exactly what they wanted to hear, as long as it won their vote. He came across as the "flip-flopper" that Republicans have detested for years. As a result, voters could never get a clear picture of where Romney stood on the issues, or what he would do if elected.
3. Romney lost because the our nation is changing, and Republicans haven't changed with it: If Election 2012 did anything, it should have showed the national GOP that the message they have relied on since the 1980s just isn't working anymore. In the early 1980s, the GOP hitched its wagon to the "Moral Majority" championed by Jerry Falwell, and later the "Christian Coalition" run by Ralph Reed. Instead of being just the pro-business party, the party of smaller government and lower taxes, Republicans became synonymous with moral issues and religion. They began waging fights against gay marriage and gay rights in general. They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. And they have fought in recent years to stymie promising stem cell research. Over time, moderate and liberal Republicans were driven from the party in the name of ideological purity. Today, it is clearly the extreme wing of the party that is calling the shots.
   But guess what? America is not a nation of extremists. In fact, most voters sit somewhere in the middle on political and moral issues. Sure, the GOP enjoys strong support throughout the South and large swaths of the Midwest. But more and more, the polls are showing that increasing numbers of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana and are in favor of same-sex marriage, just to name a couple issues. Americans are becoming more open, while the GOP stubbornly clings to its traditional view on morality.
   America is also coming more diverse. Hispanics are growing in number and in political clout. It is estimated that by 2050, if not sooner, they will become the No. 1 ethnic group in America, supplanting whites. Yet, the Republicans continually come across as xenophobes and fearmongers with their push to fence off our southern border and deny the children of illegal aliens a chance at an education and a better life.
   Fair or not, that's what Romney represented to millions of people who voted on Nov. 6. Romney wasn't necessarily a terrible candidate (though there have certainly been better). He's a smart, successful man who I believe honestly loves his country. He simply represented a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream.
   Hopefully, this Election has woken up the national GOP and given them a clear plan of what they need to do to remain relevant. . Until they abandon the fringe elements of their party and move toward the middle; and until they realize that they are badly out of tune with a rapidly changing America, their defeat in 2012 may be just the beginning of a long stretch in the political wilderness.

Some thoughts on Election 2012

   It's Wednesday morning, Nov. 7, 2012, not quite 24 hours after President Barack Obama secured reelection. Finally, we can breathe again. Finally, the endless campaign ads can stop. Finally, we have answered the questions of who will control Congress for the next two years and who will lead this nation for the next four. Now, life can return to normal, right? Not quite.
   If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
   Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
   Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
   The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
   Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that  candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
   The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California  -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
   At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
   One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
   Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
    Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
   My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.