I missed this. So Christine Gregoire was elected Governor of Washington state after all. I'm glad Iraqi elections aren't run the same way...
Apologies for the appalling lateness of this report. That said, what comes out of the various recount efforts in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 for presidential elections and Washington 2004 for the gubernatorial election is just how shambolic decentralization is. I shall assume that the result is a fair one in Washington, and that Miss Gregoire was properly elected. But the problem is that if her election was rigged, we couldn't tell.
If you have an election where polling stations open and close at different times and where reports of the likely result can be broadcast before all the polling stations have closed, there has to be an opportunity for vote-rigging. For presidential elections the solution is simple but drastic. No votes at all should be counted until the last postal vote has been received and the last polling booth closed. And that also means no exit polls until then either.
It is also absurd that within the same election different methods can be used for voting ballots. In Washington State, some counties showed virtually no change in the two recounts, others showed over a thousand votes added or lost. With the feeble system in place, I would assume that any political party could rig the ballot, given the flimsiness of the set up. At one point several hundred votes were found in a car park.
As daft attempts to improve turnout go, it is hard to beat on-the-day electoral roll registration (I believe they had this in Ohio). This means that someone can drive around all day crossing election county lines, and register fraudulently in several areas. There is no time to check for fraud and the evidence suggests that election boards don't share information effectively. I would expect that any determined effort to fraudulently register several hundred people in a series of statewide elections would succeed in many U.S. states. (You might not get away with voting a dozen times for Governor, but you've got a good shout a getting several votes in congressional seats.)
Maybe the system is free of fraud. If so only the restraint of the political parties can account for this. In a bad-tempered election, it would take the virtue of angels to resist the temptation to cheat.
10/27/2005
Virginia problem (and opportunity) for Democrats
The gubernatorial election in Virginia this year throws up problems and an opportunity for the Democratic Party. The bad news for the Democrats is that it looks like we're going to see a Republican gain on Thursday 8th November. This is largely because Virginia is unusual as U.S. states go: Mark Warner, the hugely popular Democratic Governor is limited by law to one full term. There is little doubt that he would secure re-election if he were permitted to stand.
So we're down to twenty-one Democrat and twenty-nine Republican Governors by the end of the year, unless something dramatic happens in the New Jersey gubernatorial election where Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Corzine comfortably leads his Republican rival. Not for the first time, the electoral cycle is proving lucky for the Republicans. Considering the débacle of the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court, it must be intensely frustrating for Democratic Party campaigners not to have any Republican targets to hit in a fortnight's time. I'd be climbing the walls if I was on the Democrat payroll right now. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the Machiavellian figures around the President have managed the timing of the current crises, in order to let the Democrats peak too early.
Beyond the gloom of a likely defeat in Virginia (Bill Clinton couldn't win here in '92 or '96, let alone Vice-President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry), Democrats should take a look at Mark Warner.
Winning a normally Republican state less than two months after 9/11 in a state which houses a significant military vote should be enough to make any political strategist sit up and take notice. Maintaining approval ratings of over 70 percent ain't bad either. As Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner has the sort of executive experience that seems to translate into a better presidential candidate than a long-time Senator (as John Kerry discovered to his cost last year). If the Democrats were to win Virginia in a presidential election, it is most likely that they would win nationally. According to my favourite internet bookies, Mark Warner is currently second-favourite to be the Democratic candidate for President (admittedly a long way behind front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton (New York).
Comparing Mark Warner to John Edwards, the last guy who was supposed to unlock the South for the Democrats, there is little doubt that Warner is the stronger candidate. The truth is that John Edwards would surely have been defeated if he had chosen to seek re-election in 2004 in North Carolina.
The question for Democrats is will anyone other than Hillary Clinton mobilize the grass-roots. And won't she simply guarantee a bigger "anyone but Hillary" Republican turnout.
The most easy mistake to make in warfare is to "fight the last war". In Colorado last year, the Democrats probably did their chances of winning that state no good by backing a rule change that was obviously partisan, and would have been irrelevant in 2004. They let their anger over the 2000 election decide their strategy for 2004.
The next Republican candidate for the presidency is the person the Democrats should be aiming to defeat, not George W. Bush. It's a good time for the Democrats to think about the kind of candidate who can win for them in 2008.
So we're down to twenty-one Democrat and twenty-nine Republican Governors by the end of the year, unless something dramatic happens in the New Jersey gubernatorial election where Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Corzine comfortably leads his Republican rival. Not for the first time, the electoral cycle is proving lucky for the Republicans. Considering the débacle of the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court, it must be intensely frustrating for Democratic Party campaigners not to have any Republican targets to hit in a fortnight's time. I'd be climbing the walls if I was on the Democrat payroll right now. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the Machiavellian figures around the President have managed the timing of the current crises, in order to let the Democrats peak too early.
Beyond the gloom of a likely defeat in Virginia (Bill Clinton couldn't win here in '92 or '96, let alone Vice-President Al Gore and Senator John Kerry), Democrats should take a look at Mark Warner.
Winning a normally Republican state less than two months after 9/11 in a state which houses a significant military vote should be enough to make any political strategist sit up and take notice. Maintaining approval ratings of over 70 percent ain't bad either. As Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner has the sort of executive experience that seems to translate into a better presidential candidate than a long-time Senator (as John Kerry discovered to his cost last year). If the Democrats were to win Virginia in a presidential election, it is most likely that they would win nationally. According to my favourite internet bookies, Mark Warner is currently second-favourite to be the Democratic candidate for President (admittedly a long way behind front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton (New York).
Comparing Mark Warner to John Edwards, the last guy who was supposed to unlock the South for the Democrats, there is little doubt that Warner is the stronger candidate. The truth is that John Edwards would surely have been defeated if he had chosen to seek re-election in 2004 in North Carolina.
The question for Democrats is will anyone other than Hillary Clinton mobilize the grass-roots. And won't she simply guarantee a bigger "anyone but Hillary" Republican turnout.
The most easy mistake to make in warfare is to "fight the last war". In Colorado last year, the Democrats probably did their chances of winning that state no good by backing a rule change that was obviously partisan, and would have been irrelevant in 2004. They let their anger over the 2000 election decide their strategy for 2004.
The next Republican candidate for the presidency is the person the Democrats should be aiming to defeat, not George W. Bush. It's a good time for the Democrats to think about the kind of candidate who can win for them in 2008.
7/02/2005
Democrat or Democratic?
An anonymous correspondent writes:
Considering that the District of Columbia's electoral college votes have never been allocated to any other Party than the Democrats' and considering also the complaint about my alleged partisanship, my guess is that I have irritated a Democratic Party voter.
1) The Democratic Party uses the web domain name www.democrats.org, so perhaps the Party itself does not mind which term I use. I tend to use "Democrat" because it is harder to confuse with the generic term a "democratic" party. Any political party that contests elections, has a system of accountability to its members, and does not resort to violence when the result goes the wrong way, could be considered democratic. The only reason that I don't use "GOP" instead of "Republican" is that most of my readers are European and so are unfamiliar with the expression. If "Republicanists" or "Republicists" were in common use, I would tend to use that expression to avoid confusion with an anti-monarchist Party.
However, Mr or Ms anonymous, I appreciate the tip. By the way, I am not eligible to vote in a U.S. election, I have never worked in an unpaid or paid capacity for any Republican candidate or campaigning organisation.
Because I have no wish to upset supporters of any democratic political party, I shall try to use "Democratic" more often, where there is no chance of confusion.
2) Washington D.C.
It is an anomaly that Washington D.C. has 3 electoral college votes in the U.S. presidential election. The allocation of E.C. votes is meant to be on the basis of the number of Senators and House Representatives that each State has. Like Puerto Rico and Samoa, the District of Columbia has no Senators and no full representative in the House of Representatives. Therefore, D.C.'s status is preferential compared with other Territories and States alike. As I understand it, the purpose in having the District of Columbia was to prevent any State from having a preferential position, by virtue of housing the federal government.
The 23rd Amendement is a compromise, and in my view a bad one for two reasons. In a close presidential election, Washington D.C. could determine the winner, which contradicts the principles on which the U.S. Constitution rest. The other Territories have a reasonable grievance in that they are excluded from the presidential vote.
I'm sure I would hold this view if the D.C. votes had gone for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. It would be funny if they had gone for alternative Parties each time, Libertarian, Green, Socialist etc. But the point remains.
3) Cheney....
OUCH!
Thank you, Mr or Ms anonymous for pointing out my mistake. My embarrassment is only mitigated by the fact that future readers have been spared my ignorance.
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
I hope you didn't enjoy it too much!
You make D.C.'s three electoral votes sound somehow illegitimate. They were awarded by the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1961.
Also, elsewhere on your site: although you claim to be non-partisan, you use "Democrat" as an adjective--a maddening practice characteristic of Republicans who can't bring themselves to use the proper term "Democratic." And by the way, the Vice President and his wife are Dick and Lynne CHENEY.
Considering that the District of Columbia's electoral college votes have never been allocated to any other Party than the Democrats' and considering also the complaint about my alleged partisanship, my guess is that I have irritated a Democratic Party voter.
1) The Democratic Party uses the web domain name www.democrats.org, so perhaps the Party itself does not mind which term I use. I tend to use "Democrat" because it is harder to confuse with the generic term a "democratic" party. Any political party that contests elections, has a system of accountability to its members, and does not resort to violence when the result goes the wrong way, could be considered democratic. The only reason that I don't use "GOP" instead of "Republican" is that most of my readers are European and so are unfamiliar with the expression. If "Republicanists" or "Republicists" were in common use, I would tend to use that expression to avoid confusion with an anti-monarchist Party.
However, Mr or Ms anonymous, I appreciate the tip. By the way, I am not eligible to vote in a U.S. election, I have never worked in an unpaid or paid capacity for any Republican candidate or campaigning organisation.
Because I have no wish to upset supporters of any democratic political party, I shall try to use "Democratic" more often, where there is no chance of confusion.
2) Washington D.C.
It is an anomaly that Washington D.C. has 3 electoral college votes in the U.S. presidential election. The allocation of E.C. votes is meant to be on the basis of the number of Senators and House Representatives that each State has. Like Puerto Rico and Samoa, the District of Columbia has no Senators and no full representative in the House of Representatives. Therefore, D.C.'s status is preferential compared with other Territories and States alike. As I understand it, the purpose in having the District of Columbia was to prevent any State from having a preferential position, by virtue of housing the federal government.
The 23rd Amendement is a compromise, and in my view a bad one for two reasons. In a close presidential election, Washington D.C. could determine the winner, which contradicts the principles on which the U.S. Constitution rest. The other Territories have a reasonable grievance in that they are excluded from the presidential vote.
I'm sure I would hold this view if the D.C. votes had gone for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. It would be funny if they had gone for alternative Parties each time, Libertarian, Green, Socialist etc. But the point remains.
3) Cheney....
OUCH!
Thank you, Mr or Ms anonymous for pointing out my mistake. My embarrassment is only mitigated by the fact that future readers have been spared my ignorance.
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
Dick and Lynne Cheney
I hope you didn't enjoy it too much!
5/21/2005
Washington Governor court case begins Monday
From the Washington State Secretary of State's website:
The case is being brought on behalf of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate. The election of Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire last December (after two recounts)could be overturned if the complaint is successful. The trial will focus on alleged voting irregularites.
Media Advisory
Issued: April 05, 2005
Superior Court Judge John Bridges today announced the 2004 gubernatorial contested election case will go to trial May 23 and end within two weeks.
This allows nine business days for the trial given the Memorial Day weekend.
The case is being brought on behalf of Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate. The election of Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire last December (after two recounts)could be overturned if the complaint is successful. The trial will focus on alleged voting irregularites.
5/01/2005
3/26/2005
A trick question
A reader wanted to know who was the first U.S. President elected by the 50 states. This was John F. Kennedy in 1960.
However, if the question was "Who was the first President to be elected by the current size (538 votes) of the Electoral College?" then the answer would Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The District of Columbia (D.C.) was awarded three electoral college votes in time for the 1964 presidential election, despite the fact that the U.S. federal capital does not have any U.S. Senators or Representatives (there is a non-voting "Territorial Delegate" to the House of Representatives).
The number of Electoral College votes per state is determined by 1) the number of U.S. Senators (two in each state), and 2) the number of House of Representatives members (minimum of one, but otherwise in proportion to the voting population).
If the question were: "Who was the first President elected by the current distribution of electoral college votes?" then the correct answer would be George W. Bush... in 2004 (not 2000). Because the number of Representatives is re-calculated every ten years after the census, and the last census was in 2000, the 2004 was the first time that the current electoral college distribution was used, and 2008 will be the only other time.
Finally, some thoughts to conspiracy theorists looking for "proof" that the census of 2000 fixed matters the Republicans' way.
1) The most recent census was carried out during Bill Clinton's Democrat presidency.
2) The last congressional seat to be allocated was given to North Carolina, a decison that was taken to the Supreme Court by the state of Utah. Both states went Republican in both 2000 and 2004.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina should get the final seat, not Utah. For the record, the Democrats did not bother campaigning in Utah in 2004, although North Carolina was at one point considered a long-shot for them.
So the evidence does not support a fix by Republicans in the allocation of Electoral College votes.
However, if the question was "Who was the first President to be elected by the current size (538 votes) of the Electoral College?" then the answer would Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The District of Columbia (D.C.) was awarded three electoral college votes in time for the 1964 presidential election, despite the fact that the U.S. federal capital does not have any U.S. Senators or Representatives (there is a non-voting "Territorial Delegate" to the House of Representatives).
The number of Electoral College votes per state is determined by 1) the number of U.S. Senators (two in each state), and 2) the number of House of Representatives members (minimum of one, but otherwise in proportion to the voting population).
If the question were: "Who was the first President elected by the current distribution of electoral college votes?" then the correct answer would be George W. Bush... in 2004 (not 2000). Because the number of Representatives is re-calculated every ten years after the census, and the last census was in 2000, the 2004 was the first time that the current electoral college distribution was used, and 2008 will be the only other time.
Finally, some thoughts to conspiracy theorists looking for "proof" that the census of 2000 fixed matters the Republicans' way.
1) The most recent census was carried out during Bill Clinton's Democrat presidency.
2) The last congressional seat to be allocated was given to North Carolina, a decison that was taken to the Supreme Court by the state of Utah. Both states went Republican in both 2000 and 2004.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina should get the final seat, not Utah. For the record, the Democrats did not bother campaigning in Utah in 2004, although North Carolina was at one point considered a long-shot for them.
So the evidence does not support a fix by Republicans in the allocation of Electoral College votes.
3/13/2005
Why Senators make bad presidential candidates
Real Clear Politics put the boot into Senator Robert Byrd recently, on the issue of filibusters in the Senate. The specifics of the issue need not concern us here.
The problem for Senator Byrd, or Senator John Kerry, or Senator John McCain or any other Senator with the sort of experience to be considered a viable presidential candidate is simple. In two terms of office a Senator clocks up twelve years of speeches, letters and votes on the Senate floor or in committee. He or she may block legislation or propose a panacea that turns out to be a curse.
All of the issues that a Senator concerns himself with are either national policy, or can be presented as self-serving. Either way it is open to criticism.
Let us assume for one moment that Senator Byrd were to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2008. Every single vote in committee or on the floor of the Senate, every letter to a constituent, becomes a potential soundbite against him.
Contrast this with a Governor. He or she has no international or national political responsibilities. The track record is typically over a four to eight year period of office. There are fewer hostages to fortune. The Governor can display a leadership style, and employ a Cabinet, all of which is better preparation for the image of a President. Better still, a Governor has to guide legislation through the State legislature, a process not dissimilar to that of the President. Any executive skills will show up. So a successful Governor (especially one who beat an incumbent from the other side) from a significant State will always have the edge of a Senator in a dirty fight.
So the solution for Senators would seem to be to run for one term or to stand for president during the second term, as former Senator John Edwards did and Senator Hillary Clinton might be considering. The problem in the case of the then Senator Edwards of North Carolina is that he didn't get the nomination for President, as Vice-President he didn't deliver North Carolina to the John Kerry campaign, he is out office, and his Democratic nomination successor for the Senate in North Carolina lost. What this means is that by 2008 he will have been a one-term Senator from a state his Party has given up on, and one without a particularly memorable record to boot. Or as a cynic might put it: a has-been mediocrity, in short.
Whether by chance or design, Senator Clinton's timing looks good. She can run for re-election in 2006, hopefully win the race, giving plenty of media exposure. Or she can stand down and generate a frenzy of speculation about when she times her declaration of intent.
If either Party, Republican or Democrat picks a Governor to fight a Senator, it looks like a foregone conclusion. But right now, both sides seem set to pick Senators.
The problem for Senator Byrd, or Senator John Kerry, or Senator John McCain or any other Senator with the sort of experience to be considered a viable presidential candidate is simple. In two terms of office a Senator clocks up twelve years of speeches, letters and votes on the Senate floor or in committee. He or she may block legislation or propose a panacea that turns out to be a curse.
All of the issues that a Senator concerns himself with are either national policy, or can be presented as self-serving. Either way it is open to criticism.
Let us assume for one moment that Senator Byrd were to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President in 2008. Every single vote in committee or on the floor of the Senate, every letter to a constituent, becomes a potential soundbite against him.
Contrast this with a Governor. He or she has no international or national political responsibilities. The track record is typically over a four to eight year period of office. There are fewer hostages to fortune. The Governor can display a leadership style, and employ a Cabinet, all of which is better preparation for the image of a President. Better still, a Governor has to guide legislation through the State legislature, a process not dissimilar to that of the President. Any executive skills will show up. So a successful Governor (especially one who beat an incumbent from the other side) from a significant State will always have the edge of a Senator in a dirty fight.
So the solution for Senators would seem to be to run for one term or to stand for president during the second term, as former Senator John Edwards did and Senator Hillary Clinton might be considering. The problem in the case of the then Senator Edwards of North Carolina is that he didn't get the nomination for President, as Vice-President he didn't deliver North Carolina to the John Kerry campaign, he is out office, and his Democratic nomination successor for the Senate in North Carolina lost. What this means is that by 2008 he will have been a one-term Senator from a state his Party has given up on, and one without a particularly memorable record to boot. Or as a cynic might put it: a has-been mediocrity, in short.
Whether by chance or design, Senator Clinton's timing looks good. She can run for re-election in 2006, hopefully win the race, giving plenty of media exposure. Or she can stand down and generate a frenzy of speculation about when she times her declaration of intent.
If either Party, Republican or Democrat picks a Governor to fight a Senator, it looks like a foregone conclusion. But right now, both sides seem set to pick Senators.
3/12/2005
Just when you thought it was over...
The Washington State Governor saga continues. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed (the official responsible for the conduct of elections) has now stated that he supports the challenge in the courts by Republican candidate Dino Rossi. The November 2004 election is still not over.
The story so far. After more than 500 votes were "found" in the most heavily Democratic area of the State of Washington, the Republican lead of 261 in the initial count was overturned, first by a machine recount that gave Mr Rossi a lead of 42, then the hand recount that produced a lead of 129 for Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire.
The wild discrepancies between electoral districts when it came to the two recounts (some making virtually no changes at all, others boosting one or several candidates votes upwards, yet others reducing the number of accepted ballots) give rise to the suspicion that serious incompetence is at stake or that the result was fixed.
I can't help drawing parallels with the Ukraine, where similar discrepancies in December led to street protests and the eventual re-run of the election. Clearly, the gubernatorial election in Washington state is not considered by locals as epoch-making, which is no bad thing.
The silence of the heavily pro-Democrat media in New York and Washington D.C. is deafening, considering the coverage given to attempts by pressure groups to get the Presidential election result overturned by querying the score in Ohio.
The value of the Washington State election for governor in 2004 is that it has become a microcosm of all the problems facing election organisers in the U.S.A.. Add the problem of time differences and results being declared (sometimes falsely) whilst other people are still voting and one gets a U.S. Presidential election.
The story so far. After more than 500 votes were "found" in the most heavily Democratic area of the State of Washington, the Republican lead of 261 in the initial count was overturned, first by a machine recount that gave Mr Rossi a lead of 42, then the hand recount that produced a lead of 129 for Democratic Party candidate Christine Gregoire.
The wild discrepancies between electoral districts when it came to the two recounts (some making virtually no changes at all, others boosting one or several candidates votes upwards, yet others reducing the number of accepted ballots) give rise to the suspicion that serious incompetence is at stake or that the result was fixed.
I can't help drawing parallels with the Ukraine, where similar discrepancies in December led to street protests and the eventual re-run of the election. Clearly, the gubernatorial election in Washington state is not considered by locals as epoch-making, which is no bad thing.
The silence of the heavily pro-Democrat media in New York and Washington D.C. is deafening, considering the coverage given to attempts by pressure groups to get the Presidential election result overturned by querying the score in Ohio.
The value of the Washington State election for governor in 2004 is that it has become a microcosm of all the problems facing election organisers in the U.S.A.. Add the problem of time differences and results being declared (sometimes falsely) whilst other people are still voting and one gets a U.S. Presidential election.
2/08/2005
Problems with polls
One of the problems with opinion polls in elections is that the margins of error are often greater than the majority for either side.
This can be seen most graphically in the Electoral Vote Predictor for last November's U.S. presidential election.
On election day this map shows what the editors of Electoral Vote Predictor believed the result would be.
Apart from getting the overall result wrong by predicting a john Kerry victory, no fewer than five states were won by the opposite party, and the errors were not all to the Democrats. New Jersey was also called an "exactly tied" state. I note Virginia listed as "Barely Bush" when it was won by about 9 percentage points.
The fault is not with the website editors, although they could have disregarded the less credible Zogby polling.
This can be seen most graphically in the Electoral Vote Predictor for last November's U.S. presidential election.
On election day this map shows what the editors of Electoral Vote Predictor believed the result would be.
Apart from getting the overall result wrong by predicting a john Kerry victory, no fewer than five states were won by the opposite party, and the errors were not all to the Democrats. New Jersey was also called an "exactly tied" state. I note Virginia listed as "Barely Bush" when it was won by about 9 percentage points.
The fault is not with the website editors, although they could have disregarded the less credible Zogby polling.
2/07/2005
In praise of RealClearPolitics.com
Mrs Lynne Cheney, the wife of U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, is quoted from a recent television interview as being a regular reader of blogs, including RealClearPolitics.com.
Mrs Cheney said of blogs in general: "It is a real democratization of information so that people don't have to rely on one or two sources, they've got multiple sources. And I can tell in about two minutes on a blog whether this is someone whose opinion I value or not."
RealClearPolitics in particular Mrs Cheney said that she "certainly looked at a lot during the campaign."
For the basic mechanics of U.S. elections, I have found that the Green Papers is the most encyclopaedic source. If you want to know what the term limits for the Governor of Virginia are (1 four year term) or what the election cycle of U.S. Senators in Utah is (classes 1 and 3), or which are the six states that have been won by every succesful presidential campaign since 1972 (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee), then the Green Papers is for you.
However, if you want to know what's in the media right now, what the shape of the present political climate is and who's going to win next time, RealClearPolitics is an essential guide.
Not only is the sheer volume of material awesome: the home page alone is almost enough to make me quit blogging. The combination of totally professional opinion poll selection and analysis on the one hand and fearless commentary (on a different page) is a model for the rest of us, including the so-called mainstream.
I don't know what Charlie Cook's politics are, and I suspect that the editors of the Green Papers may have a liberal outlook. Both however have no hesitation in recommending RealClearPolics.com. I suspect that I am not alone in using RealClearPolitics as a portal for non-Republican sites.
The only complaint from me is that the typeface used is not as legible as using Arial would be.
Mrs Cheney said of blogs in general: "It is a real democratization of information so that people don't have to rely on one or two sources, they've got multiple sources. And I can tell in about two minutes on a blog whether this is someone whose opinion I value or not."
RealClearPolitics in particular Mrs Cheney said that she "certainly looked at a lot during the campaign."
For the basic mechanics of U.S. elections, I have found that the Green Papers is the most encyclopaedic source. If you want to know what the term limits for the Governor of Virginia are (1 four year term) or what the election cycle of U.S. Senators in Utah is (classes 1 and 3), or which are the six states that have been won by every succesful presidential campaign since 1972 (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee), then the Green Papers is for you.
However, if you want to know what's in the media right now, what the shape of the present political climate is and who's going to win next time, RealClearPolitics is an essential guide.
Not only is the sheer volume of material awesome: the home page alone is almost enough to make me quit blogging. The combination of totally professional opinion poll selection and analysis on the one hand and fearless commentary (on a different page) is a model for the rest of us, including the so-called mainstream.
I don't know what Charlie Cook's politics are, and I suspect that the editors of the Green Papers may have a liberal outlook. Both however have no hesitation in recommending RealClearPolics.com. I suspect that I am not alone in using RealClearPolitics as a portal for non-Republican sites.
The only complaint from me is that the typeface used is not as legible as using Arial would be.
2/01/2005
On the Defensive
The New York Times is concerned about the "chequebook politics" employed by U.S. Senator Jon Corzine in the race for the Democratic nomination for the New Jersey governor's election in November this year.
In 2005, there are no elections scheduled for either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, leaving only two gubernatorial elections: New Jersey and Virginia.
With acting governor of New Jersey Richard Codey announcing that he will not stand for a full-term and his predecessor (James E. "Jim" McGreevey)having stood down in controversial circumstances, New Jersey is a relatively good target for a Republican gain.
Meanwhile in Virginia, the state has a one-term of office limit, meaning that Governor Mark Warner (Democrat) cannot stand again. Considering that the previous elected Governor was a Republican and the state's strong Republican showing in statewide elections, and this looks like an even better Republican win prospect.
With 28 Republican governors out of 50, and the tainted election in Washington State still bubbling away quietly, the ambitions for Democrats in 2005 are restricted to holding onto what they have.
In 2005, there are no elections scheduled for either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, leaving only two gubernatorial elections: New Jersey and Virginia.
With acting governor of New Jersey Richard Codey announcing that he will not stand for a full-term and his predecessor (James E. "Jim" McGreevey)having stood down in controversial circumstances, New Jersey is a relatively good target for a Republican gain.
Meanwhile in Virginia, the state has a one-term of office limit, meaning that Governor Mark Warner (Democrat) cannot stand again. Considering that the previous elected Governor was a Republican and the state's strong Republican showing in statewide elections, and this looks like an even better Republican win prospect.
With 28 Republican governors out of 50, and the tainted election in Washington State still bubbling away quietly, the ambitions for Democrats in 2005 are restricted to holding onto what they have.
12/24/2004
12/23/2004
Lead switches in Washington State
The counting is over.
Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate for Governor of Washington State has overturned a 261 vote deficit on polling day (November 2) to win by 130. The score is subject to final confirmation by the Washington Secretary of State's office and of course, the lawyers...
As a former candidate myself in three much smaller scale local elections, I can honestly say that Dino Rossi the Republican candidate must be absolutely gutted.
Having apparently won by 261 votes, Rossi saw his lead whittled to 42 by the combination of a machine recount and what to a British audience can only be described as bizarre election procedures. His lead then grew to 50, before King County's late return changed the outcome.
First, voters who somehow were not included on electoral lists were allowed to vote "provisionally". Bluntly, this is nothing less than an open-door to massive voting fraud or error. As a means of encouraging turn-out it is simply crazy. It encourages people to not bother registering to vote properly and gives election officials an easy excuse for lazyness ("Don't bother with that, Mr Smith, just show up at the polling station on the day and my colleagues will let you vote").
Second, those who filled in ballot papers incorrectly but made a "clear intent" were added. This procedure in isolation is perfectly legitimate, provided of course that the same standards are used in all polling stations. Given the bizarre fluctuations in recount scores from different counties, let's just say I think the process was run by incompetent amateurs or crooks.
Third, postal votes franked on the day of the election were allowed. If the US Post Office is as slack as its British counterpart, then the practice of posting letters with the wrong frank mark (i.e. posted the day after the date marked on the envelope) cannot be ruled out. Even if no fraud occurred, it is imbecilic to have an election held up by the post. There is no excuse for not having a cut-off of votes received before or on polling day.
Fourth, it appears that different standards were applied for accepting votes during the course of the recounts. It can't be fraud! It's too obvious, it must be incompetence.
Fifth, allowing King County to report after the rest of the State is ridiculous. It means that any corrupt practice in that district will automatically succeed in its object. If the King County favoured candidate needs 100 extra votes to win, no problem, they can be found... The truth is that no result where the lead changes once the last county declares a result several days after the others can be accepted without serious concerns for the propriety of the counting process.
Whoever lost this election has more than sufficient grounds for feeling cheated. How did over 500 ballot papers disappear for a month? If Rossi had won, Gregoire would surely want to know.
What really bothers me is the thought that the US government is supervising elections in civil war-torn Iraq in January 2005. How the hell will the Iraqi parties deal with this sort of incompetence?
Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate for Governor of Washington State has overturned a 261 vote deficit on polling day (November 2) to win by 130. The score is subject to final confirmation by the Washington Secretary of State's office and of course, the lawyers...
As a former candidate myself in three much smaller scale local elections, I can honestly say that Dino Rossi the Republican candidate must be absolutely gutted.
Having apparently won by 261 votes, Rossi saw his lead whittled to 42 by the combination of a machine recount and what to a British audience can only be described as bizarre election procedures. His lead then grew to 50, before King County's late return changed the outcome.
First, voters who somehow were not included on electoral lists were allowed to vote "provisionally". Bluntly, this is nothing less than an open-door to massive voting fraud or error. As a means of encouraging turn-out it is simply crazy. It encourages people to not bother registering to vote properly and gives election officials an easy excuse for lazyness ("Don't bother with that, Mr Smith, just show up at the polling station on the day and my colleagues will let you vote").
Second, those who filled in ballot papers incorrectly but made a "clear intent" were added. This procedure in isolation is perfectly legitimate, provided of course that the same standards are used in all polling stations. Given the bizarre fluctuations in recount scores from different counties, let's just say I think the process was run by incompetent amateurs or crooks.
Third, postal votes franked on the day of the election were allowed. If the US Post Office is as slack as its British counterpart, then the practice of posting letters with the wrong frank mark (i.e. posted the day after the date marked on the envelope) cannot be ruled out. Even if no fraud occurred, it is imbecilic to have an election held up by the post. There is no excuse for not having a cut-off of votes received before or on polling day.
Fourth, it appears that different standards were applied for accepting votes during the course of the recounts. It can't be fraud! It's too obvious, it must be incompetence.
Fifth, allowing King County to report after the rest of the State is ridiculous. It means that any corrupt practice in that district will automatically succeed in its object. If the King County favoured candidate needs 100 extra votes to win, no problem, they can be found... The truth is that no result where the lead changes once the last county declares a result several days after the others can be accepted without serious concerns for the propriety of the counting process.
Whoever lost this election has more than sufficient grounds for feeling cheated. How did over 500 ballot papers disappear for a month? If Rossi had won, Gregoire would surely want to know.
What really bothers me is the thought that the US government is supervising elections in civil war-torn Iraq in January 2005. How the hell will the Iraqi parties deal with this sort of incompetence?
Kos says shoot Kerry and his team
I am reminded of the poster in the Kingston-upon-Thames offices of a local branch of a British political party in 1987.
Apologies for the relative dearth of postings this week. I'm waiting for news from Olympia, Washington about the gubernatorial race.
The Six Phases of an Election
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. The Search for the Guilty
5. The Punishment of the Innocent
6. Rewards and Honours for Non-participants
Apologies for the relative dearth of postings this week. I'm waiting for news from Olympia, Washington about the gubernatorial race.
12/18/2004
King County should fix it for Gregoire
With only one county left to report, from 39, the Democrat position in the Washington State Governor election seems unassailable. King County, which polls 3 to 2 for the Democrats against the Republicans is expected to find an extra 500 votes or more. In the previous re-count, 593 extra votes for the Democrat candidate Christine Gregoire were counted, compared with 348 for Dino Rossi, her Republican opponent. Because the result currently stands at at Rossi lead of 42, plus eight net votes added from the other 38 counties of Washington State, it would now be extraordinary if the King County manual recount does not produce a Democrat win, despite Gregoire being behind in both statewide tallies so far.
The conspiracy theorists don't have far to look for evidence that something odd happened between November 2 and December 23 2004. Consider the discrepencies between the standards of different counties. Not one county managed to achieve the same score in the original count, the machine recount and the hand recount. Cowlitz county managed to reduce the scores of both major parties in both recounts, whilst finding one extra Libertarian vote. Given that provisional ballots were being checked for possible inclusion this pattern is completely at odds with the rest of Washington state. Wahkiakum county produced the only figure that makes sense. There the machine recount added one vote to Rossi and the hand recount found one less, suggesting that the original count was good. It is obvious that the standards are either inconsistent from one county to another, or fraud is taking place under the noses of election officials. Reports of several hundred votes "forgotten" in King County suggest either a degree of open fraud that beggars belief, or a degree of incompetence that is simply awesome. Get FedEx in to run the polling stations and handle the delivery of ballot boxes!
For Rossi, defeat in these circumstances seems likely to propel him into a Senatorial campaign in two years time, a campaign he might well win.
The conspiracy theorists don't have far to look for evidence that something odd happened between November 2 and December 23 2004. Consider the discrepencies between the standards of different counties. Not one county managed to achieve the same score in the original count, the machine recount and the hand recount. Cowlitz county managed to reduce the scores of both major parties in both recounts, whilst finding one extra Libertarian vote. Given that provisional ballots were being checked for possible inclusion this pattern is completely at odds with the rest of Washington state. Wahkiakum county produced the only figure that makes sense. There the machine recount added one vote to Rossi and the hand recount found one less, suggesting that the original count was good. It is obvious that the standards are either inconsistent from one county to another, or fraud is taking place under the noses of election officials. Reports of several hundred votes "forgotten" in King County suggest either a degree of open fraud that beggars belief, or a degree of incompetence that is simply awesome. Get FedEx in to run the polling stations and handle the delivery of ballot boxes!
For Rossi, defeat in these circumstances seems likely to propel him into a Senatorial campaign in two years time, a campaign he might well win.
12/16/2004
Back in the Ukraine
According to Michael Fumento on TechCentral Station, Viktor Yushenko's poison was not as deadly as anti-chemicals activists have claimed. Bizarrely, Mr Yushenko may owe his life to the fact that his would-be murderers believed environmentalist propaganda!
The Ukrainian presidential election second round re-run will take place on December 26.
"We don't know of a single person who has ever died of acute dioxin poisoning," says Robert Golden, president of the Maryland-based consulting firm ToxLogic.
It's also terribly rude to say dioxin is not a human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer insists it is, and the EPA desperately wants to call it one but its own review panels keep getting in the way.
Yet in addition to the Ranch Hands, we have cancer data from throughout the world concerning workers or townsfolk exposed to dioxin through accidental releases. No type of cancer shows up consistently. As a paper in last December's Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology concluded, "The long-term accumulation of negative, weak, and inconsistent findings suggests that [dioxin] eventually will be recognized as not carcinogenic for humans."
The Ukrainian presidential election second round re-run will take place on December 26.
12/15/2004
Spinning coin...
The Washington State gubernatorial election saga enters its eighth week and there is still no clear outcome. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed believes he will be able to declare a result by December 23.
On the one hand, Democrats are cheered by news that 561 ballots that were "mistakenly rejected" not once but twice, should be included in the King County total. As King County (including Seattle) accounts for over 35% of the Democrat score and the Democrats there outnumber Republicans by almost 3 to 2, such a change would appear to spell doom for Dino Rossi's chances of holding his lead.
In the original count Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. After a machine recount which also saw many provisional ballots added to the toal, the Republican candidate's lead was cut to a mere 42 out of more than 2.8 million votes cast.
On the other hand my analysis of the corrections occuring in counties that have reported for the second and manual recount suggests that the picture is less rosy for Gregoire.
Across the whole State the average increase in the Democratic vote from the original to the first (machine) recount was 33.1 votes per county. For the 33 counties that have reported at the time of writing, the figure was 6.1 votes per county. So far in the second (hand) recount the number has incread to 6.1 per county, suggesting that the overall score could be 51.8 per county, or 1820 votes across Washington State.
However, the equivalent calculations for the Republican candidate suggest that his vote could increase by 2508 votes across the state, giving Rossi a majority in the region of 700 votes. The Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett could add about 95 votes to an already impressive total of more than 63,000. Bennett scored more than five times the number of votes gained by Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian presidential candidate) in the State of Washington.
All this of course depends on the notion that the errors and challenges to disputed votes break evenly in the six remaining counties.
The coin is still spinning...
UPDATE: With results published for a 34th county (Skagit), a total of 24 ballots fewer have been counted. This marginally affects the calculations and does not alter the prognosis I have made above. It's still increadibly tight, but Rossi has picked up a thin advantage, with King county to come.
On the one hand, Democrats are cheered by news that 561 ballots that were "mistakenly rejected" not once but twice, should be included in the King County total. As King County (including Seattle) accounts for over 35% of the Democrat score and the Democrats there outnumber Republicans by almost 3 to 2, such a change would appear to spell doom for Dino Rossi's chances of holding his lead.
In the original count Rossi beat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. After a machine recount which also saw many provisional ballots added to the toal, the Republican candidate's lead was cut to a mere 42 out of more than 2.8 million votes cast.
On the other hand my analysis of the corrections occuring in counties that have reported for the second and manual recount suggests that the picture is less rosy for Gregoire.
Across the whole State the average increase in the Democratic vote from the original to the first (machine) recount was 33.1 votes per county. For the 33 counties that have reported at the time of writing, the figure was 6.1 votes per county. So far in the second (hand) recount the number has incread to 6.1 per county, suggesting that the overall score could be 51.8 per county, or 1820 votes across Washington State.
However, the equivalent calculations for the Republican candidate suggest that his vote could increase by 2508 votes across the state, giving Rossi a majority in the region of 700 votes. The Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett could add about 95 votes to an already impressive total of more than 63,000. Bennett scored more than five times the number of votes gained by Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian presidential candidate) in the State of Washington.
All this of course depends on the notion that the errors and challenges to disputed votes break evenly in the six remaining counties.
The coin is still spinning...
UPDATE: With results published for a 34th county (Skagit), a total of 24 ballots fewer have been counted. This marginally affects the calculations and does not alter the prognosis I have made above. It's still increadibly tight, but Rossi has picked up a thin advantage, with King county to come.
12/10/2004
Bad for Rossi, Good for Gregoire
The hand recount in Washington State for the gubernatorial election of November 2, is underway, and is showing anomalies between the machine recount and the present check. As expected, the Libertarian candidate has been losing votes. Although the Republican Dino Rossi has (on paper) increased his lead to 43 over Democrat candidate Christine Gregoire, the signs are the King County will find sufficent extra votes to overturn the result. Some Republican activists have actually called on Rossi to concede in protest.
With 10 counties reporting, the discrepancies stand at: Democrat +28 votes, Republican +29 votes, Libertarian -2 votes. King County, which includes the city of Seattle, accounted for over 875,000 votes or over 30% of all votes cast. On current trends a discrepancy of over 800 would be consistent with 500 going to the Democrat candidate, sufficent to win the race for Governor. In the machine recount, King County found 971 extra votes of which 593 went to Gregoire.
Recounts in the US have a habit of boosting the Democrat score, whether in Washington, Ohio or Florida. Depending on one's political allegiance this is either cheating by Republicans who prevent good votes from counting, which is rectified in the recount, or cheating by Democrats who stuff the ballot boxes after the polls have closed. Either way, a bad taste is left by these lapses.
With 10 counties reporting, the discrepancies stand at: Democrat +28 votes, Republican +29 votes, Libertarian -2 votes. King County, which includes the city of Seattle, accounted for over 875,000 votes or over 30% of all votes cast. On current trends a discrepancy of over 800 would be consistent with 500 going to the Democrat candidate, sufficent to win the race for Governor. In the machine recount, King County found 971 extra votes of which 593 went to Gregoire.
Recounts in the US have a habit of boosting the Democrat score, whether in Washington, Ohio or Florida. Depending on one's political allegiance this is either cheating by Republicans who prevent good votes from counting, which is rectified in the recount, or cheating by Democrats who stuff the ballot boxes after the polls have closed. Either way, a bad taste is left by these lapses.
12/08/2004
Was it the Guardian wot won it for Bush?
I just had a discussion about Operation Clark County, that fatuous attempt by the London-based Socialist-leaning Guardian newspaper, to persuade Ohio voters to back John Kerry in the November 2 election. The question being considered was: did the Guardian (nicknamed the Grauniad for its frequent typographical errors and its leftist obsessions) win the presidential election (accidentally) for George Bush? In 1992, the Sun newspaper proclaimed on its front page after the fourth consecutive defeat for the British Labour Party that "It Was the Sun Wot Won It". Did the Guardian's patronizing meddling produce a similar, if unintended effect?
The set-up was as follows. The Guardian calculated (correctly) that Ohio would be a key state in the presidential election. Ian Katz and Oliver Burkeman, the 'geniuses' behind the campaign selected Clark County on the basis that Al Gore had supposedly won that county by a mere 324 votes or 1%. The Guardian also claimed that George W Bush had won Ohio by 4%, but that polls were showing a tight race with a virtual dead heat expected.
The truth was slightly different. Clark County did go for Gore, but only by 0.56%, and Bush won Ohio by 3.51% in 2000. So the background information was slightly wrong to begin with.
Robin Grant of perfect.co.uk, went one better, not only claiming to have set up the campaign but actually collecting local press coverage, including expressions of outrage from Clark County residents. Grant's smug chuckles at the right-wing bloggers look funny now, but not the way that he had intended.
The result of thousands of Guardian readers sending letters to independent voters in Clark County was nothing less than dramatic. The campaign, despite being a "roaring success" was cancelled as soon as letters began to arrive in Ohio.
A typical report of the time reads:
The local paper ran a story with the headline "Butt out Brits, voters say". USA Today describing the Guardian as a "left-leaning newspaper", poured scorn on the campaign, portraying it as at best a publicity stunt.
Both local Republican and Democrat campaigns described the move as self-defeating. The scorecard shows the cost of Operation Clark County to John Kerry's hopes of winning Ohio.
So the Guardian swing was 2.0% from the Democrats to Bush. Clark County was the only Ohio county to switch from a Democrat majority in 2000 to a Republican one in 2004. In fact such a swing only occurred in 5% of the whole country's 3,113 counties according to USA Today. If we imagine what effect Operation Clark County might have had if the Guardian had run it across the whole of the USA we get some startling results.
Kerry would have failed to win the only State to switch his way from 2000, New Hampshire with 4 electoral college votes. Worse still, Michigan (17 votes), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10) would all have fallen to the Republican onslaught if the Guardian effect had been felt in those states. The final outcome would have been a 355 to 183 electoral college massacre for Senator Kerry.
It gets worse.
The Guardian ended up giving out contact details for 14,000 voters out of the 56,000 originally planned for. If these had been sent and they had achieved the same scale of effect then the swing would have been eight per cent more to Bush. So a nationwide Guardian campaign could have given a further eight states totalling 130 electoral college votes for Bush. At 485 to 53, the Democratic Party can only pray that next time round no progressive billionaire pays for such an operation.
The short answer to the original question is 'No', Operation Clark County cannot be credited with finding the 118,775 votes for George Bush that got him re-elected. In the event, the entire voting population of Clark County going for John Kerry would not have been enough. But the margin of victory, which encouraged Senator Kerry to concede gracefully on November 3, might not have been there without the efforts of Guardian readers. I understand that the local Republican campaign office wrote a letter of thanks to the Guardian.
One final question. Did the Guardian pay for the copy of the electoral roll, or do the taxpayers of Clark County have to find an extra $25? I hope Mr Katz pays up. It's the least he can do for the 'impoverished' masses of Ohio.
The set-up was as follows. The Guardian calculated (correctly) that Ohio would be a key state in the presidential election. Ian Katz and Oliver Burkeman, the 'geniuses' behind the campaign selected Clark County on the basis that Al Gore had supposedly won that county by a mere 324 votes or 1%. The Guardian also claimed that George W Bush had won Ohio by 4%, but that polls were showing a tight race with a virtual dead heat expected.
The truth was slightly different. Clark County did go for Gore, but only by 0.56%, and Bush won Ohio by 3.51% in 2000. So the background information was slightly wrong to begin with.
Robin Grant of perfect.co.uk, went one better, not only claiming to have set up the campaign but actually collecting local press coverage, including expressions of outrage from Clark County residents. Grant's smug chuckles at the right-wing bloggers look funny now, but not the way that he had intended.
The result of thousands of Guardian readers sending letters to independent voters in Clark County was nothing less than dramatic. The campaign, despite being a "roaring success" was cancelled as soon as letters began to arrive in Ohio.
A typical report of the time reads:
The Springfield News-Sun also received about a dozen e-mails, starting early in the day, about the Guardian campaign, from places as diverse as New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Alaska and Switzerland, almost all of which expressed some degree of outrage.
The local paper ran a story with the headline "Butt out Brits, voters say". USA Today describing the Guardian as a "left-leaning newspaper", poured scorn on the campaign, portraying it as at best a publicity stunt.
Both local Republican and Democrat campaigns described the move as self-defeating. The scorecard shows the cost of Operation Clark County to John Kerry's hopes of winning Ohio.
| Clark County | 2004 | 2000 | ||
| votes | % | votes | % | |
| Republican | 34,938 | 50.78 | 27,660 | 48.06 |
| Democrat | 34,534 | 48.74 | 27,984 | 48.62 | Others | 331 | n/a | 1,915 | n/a |
| Ohio | 2004 | 2000 | ||
| votes | % | votes | % | |
| Republican | 2,858,727 | 50.82 | 2,351,209 | 49.98 |
| Democrat | 2,739,952 | 48.70 | 2,186,190 | 46.47 |
| Others | 26,952 | n/a | 167,058 | n/a |
| Republican majority or deficit (%) | |||
| 2004 | 2000 | swing | |
| Ohio | +2.12 | +3.51 | 0.7% to Democrat |
| Clark County | +0.56 | -2.04 | 1.3% to Republican |
So the Guardian swing was 2.0% from the Democrats to Bush. Clark County was the only Ohio county to switch from a Democrat majority in 2000 to a Republican one in 2004. In fact such a swing only occurred in 5% of the whole country's 3,113 counties according to USA Today. If we imagine what effect Operation Clark County might have had if the Guardian had run it across the whole of the USA we get some startling results.
Kerry would have failed to win the only State to switch his way from 2000, New Hampshire with 4 electoral college votes. Worse still, Michigan (17 votes), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10) would all have fallen to the Republican onslaught if the Guardian effect had been felt in those states. The final outcome would have been a 355 to 183 electoral college massacre for Senator Kerry.
It gets worse.
The Guardian ended up giving out contact details for 14,000 voters out of the 56,000 originally planned for. If these had been sent and they had achieved the same scale of effect then the swing would have been eight per cent more to Bush. So a nationwide Guardian campaign could have given a further eight states totalling 130 electoral college votes for Bush. At 485 to 53, the Democratic Party can only pray that next time round no progressive billionaire pays for such an operation.
The short answer to the original question is 'No', Operation Clark County cannot be credited with finding the 118,775 votes for George Bush that got him re-elected. In the event, the entire voting population of Clark County going for John Kerry would not have been enough. But the margin of victory, which encouraged Senator Kerry to concede gracefully on November 3, might not have been there without the efforts of Guardian readers. I understand that the local Republican campaign office wrote a letter of thanks to the Guardian.
One final question. Did the Guardian pay for the copy of the electoral roll, or do the taxpayers of Clark County have to find an extra $25? I hope Mr Katz pays up. It's the least he can do for the 'impoverished' masses of Ohio.
12/07/2004
Losers
A federal judge has ruled that a full recount in the state of Ohio should go ahead, following lobbying by David Cobb, the Green Party candidate and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party for US President.
To be honest the request makes no sense whatsoever for either candidate.
David Cobb wasn't even on the ballot and received 186 write-in votes, 11,721 less than the next placed candidate (Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate). He only got 72 votes more than Joe Schriner, a local independent. So for the Green candidate the only outcome that could change is that instead of finishing 5th, he could finish 6th.
For Michael Badnarik there is even less sense. As the Libertarian Party candidate, he might be expected to turn down a chance to waste taxpayers' money. Instead he demands a recount. As the LP candidate scored 14,695 votes in Ohio, or 2,725,357 fewer than John Kerry (Democrat), it does not seem plausible that Badnarik thinks he could finish second. On the contrary, the LP only finished 2,717 votes ahead of his nearest rival (Peroutka). So again there is only one plausible change, Badnarik could finish 4th instead of 3rd.
If there was any chance the result might give the minor parties automatic registration on the ballot next time, I could approve of the attempt.
Of course the real reason for the sudden enthusiasm of Libertarians and Greens for a full recount has more to do with the perception that if a recount lead to a Kerry win in Ohio, which overturned the presidential election, then both the Green and Libertarian parties could proclaim that they had achieved a massive impact.
However, unlike Florida in 2000, the gap between the Republican and Democrat candidates is greater than the total number of minor party votes combined (119,775). At 2.12%, the lead President Bush enjoyed over Senator Kerry was more than 230 times greater than that of Florida in 2000.
UPDATE: I found this news release from the Libertarian Party. It claims that the purpose of the recount is to "expose irregularities" in the election process.
More revealing of Michael Badnarik's agenda is the following quote:
So there we have it. Badnarik wants the John Kerry to win the presidency. And he is willing to waste $1.5 million of Ohio's taxpayers' money to try to achieve this aim. No amount of spin can dress this up as a vehicle for advancing Libertarian ideas.
To be honest the request makes no sense whatsoever for either candidate.
David Cobb wasn't even on the ballot and received 186 write-in votes, 11,721 less than the next placed candidate (Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate). He only got 72 votes more than Joe Schriner, a local independent. So for the Green candidate the only outcome that could change is that instead of finishing 5th, he could finish 6th.
For Michael Badnarik there is even less sense. As the Libertarian Party candidate, he might be expected to turn down a chance to waste taxpayers' money. Instead he demands a recount. As the LP candidate scored 14,695 votes in Ohio, or 2,725,357 fewer than John Kerry (Democrat), it does not seem plausible that Badnarik thinks he could finish second. On the contrary, the LP only finished 2,717 votes ahead of his nearest rival (Peroutka). So again there is only one plausible change, Badnarik could finish 4th instead of 3rd.
If there was any chance the result might give the minor parties automatic registration on the ballot next time, I could approve of the attempt.
Of course the real reason for the sudden enthusiasm of Libertarians and Greens for a full recount has more to do with the perception that if a recount lead to a Kerry win in Ohio, which overturned the presidential election, then both the Green and Libertarian parties could proclaim that they had achieved a massive impact.
However, unlike Florida in 2000, the gap between the Republican and Democrat candidates is greater than the total number of minor party votes combined (119,775). At 2.12%, the lead President Bush enjoyed over Senator Kerry was more than 230 times greater than that of Florida in 2000.
UPDATE: I found this news release from the Libertarian Party. It claims that the purpose of the recount is to "expose irregularities" in the election process.
More revealing of Michael Badnarik's agenda is the following quote:
In addition to other perceived fraud -- or at least irregularities -- in Ohio's presidential election, Badnarik pointed to the "disturbing" fact that exit polls in many states showed Kerry winning the race.
"The phenomenon that is most damaging, in my point of view, is that for 20 years now, the media have been doing exit polls and using that information to project who was going to win that election," he said. "And because people leaving the polling places are typically very candid, the exit polls have historically been within 1 percent of the actual vote totals.
"Now, all of a sudden in this election, the exit polls and the vote totals differ by a significant amount -- and the talking heads on television are looking at it and wondering why the exit polls were wrong in this election. From what I can see, there's no reason to believe the exit polls were wrong, and fairly good reasons to believe that it was the election process that was faulty."
So there we have it. Badnarik wants the John Kerry to win the presidency. And he is willing to waste $1.5 million of Ohio's taxpayers' money to try to achieve this aim. No amount of spin can dress this up as a vehicle for advancing Libertarian ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
