2005:Blogged, gets a review in the Guardian's online newspaper edition. Tim Worstall's book reprinted my posting on this site of "Operation Clark County".
It's nice to know that my criticism of a bungled attempt to win the 2004 Presidential election for Democratic Senator John Kerry, does not prejudice Guardian reviewer Jane Perrone.
However, I bet someone at The Grauniad is smiling: 2005:Blogged's index contains a misspelling of my name.
11/25/2005
11/22/2005
Elections around the world in 2006
For democracy nerds everywhere, here's a list of countries where elections are expected to be held at national or State level in 2006. I've included two proposed referenda on the E.U. constitution, although neither are likely at present: the British government has declared the constitution in its present form as not worth putting to the vote and the Czech government won't hold a referendum until everyone else has. There are local elections planned in other countries amnd I'm sure I've missed a few anyway, but then Wikipedia missed out Angola and Israel when I looked.
Angola (possible)
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic (Referendum EU constitution)
Fiji
Finland
Israel
Italy
Peru
Ukraine (Parliament)
U.K. (Referendum on EU constitution)
U.S.A. (House of Representatives, Senate and gubernatorial elections)
Updates as I get them.
Update
Wikipedia (see above) now shows the Israeli election, but not the Angolan. Also we both missed the Palestinian Authority legislative elections in January 2006.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority's own website doesn't have any details on the election timetable does not help. From the Australian parliament's website comes the following: "President Abbas has announced that it will be held on January 25 2006".
Angola (possible)
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic (Referendum EU constitution)
Fiji
Finland
Israel
Italy
Peru
Ukraine (Parliament)
U.K. (Referendum on EU constitution)
U.S.A. (House of Representatives, Senate and gubernatorial elections)
Updates as I get them.
Update
Wikipedia (see above) now shows the Israeli election, but not the Angolan. Also we both missed the Palestinian Authority legislative elections in January 2006.
The fact that the Palestinian Authority's own website doesn't have any details on the election timetable does not help. From the Australian parliament's website comes the following: "President Abbas has announced that it will be held on January 25 2006".
11/21/2005
Israeli election date no later than March 28
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has asked President Moshe Katsav to dissolve the Knesset (Israel's unicameral or single-chamber parliament). Mr Sharon has also announced that he is leaving Israel's right-wing Likud party to form a new political movement aimed at the political centre of Israeli politics. Meanwhile, President Katsav has proposed a date of "no later" than March 28 2006 for elections.
The Knesset can vote to set a different date for the election, and my instant gut feeling is that it might not suit either Likud or Labour to go along with a snap election as both parties will have recently changed leaders and both may be wary of giving Mr Sharon the benefit of a short election campaign. (I wouldn't in their shoes, but then I'm not hired by any of the parties to do their campaign strategy, so what do they know!)
The fractious nature of Israel's proportional representation system makes such Mr Sharon's move difficult to predict. Small and often extreme political parties tend to hold disproportionate bargaining power in the formation of a coalition government. Mr Sharon appears to be calculating that he is better off outside Likud and offering to support either of the main two parties (Labour being the left-wing party), in exchange for a moderate position towards the Palestinian Authority.
In America or in the U.K., such a move would be a simple case of political suicide. However, with a proportional representation system, it's in the hands of the party horsetraders... after the next election.
The Knesset can vote to set a different date for the election, and my instant gut feeling is that it might not suit either Likud or Labour to go along with a snap election as both parties will have recently changed leaders and both may be wary of giving Mr Sharon the benefit of a short election campaign. (I wouldn't in their shoes, but then I'm not hired by any of the parties to do their campaign strategy, so what do they know!)
The fractious nature of Israel's proportional representation system makes such Mr Sharon's move difficult to predict. Small and often extreme political parties tend to hold disproportionate bargaining power in the formation of a coalition government. Mr Sharon appears to be calculating that he is better off outside Likud and offering to support either of the main two parties (Labour being the left-wing party), in exchange for a moderate position towards the Palestinian Authority.
In America or in the U.K., such a move would be a simple case of political suicide. However, with a proportional representation system, it's in the hands of the party horsetraders... after the next election.
Angola may hold general election in 2006
The Angolan government has publicly stated in the past 24 hours that it aspires to organising a general election during 2006.
However, the tone of Edeltrudes Costa (the Deputy Minister of Territory Administration) speaking to a press gathering yesterday was more hopeful than confident.
However, the tone of Edeltrudes Costa (the Deputy Minister of Territory Administration) speaking to a press gathering yesterday was more hopeful than confident.
Finland's presidential election January 2006
The first round of voting for the presidential election in Finland is scheduled for 15 January 2006. The date is chosen as being the third Sunday in January.
The system is identical to that used in France and the State of Louisiana in the U.S.A. - if a candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. The run-off - if required - will take place on 29 January 2006.
The system is identical to that used in France and the State of Louisiana in the U.S.A. - if a candidate fails to win a majority of the votes cast, there is a run-off between the top two candidates. The run-off - if required - will take place on 29 January 2006.
11/11/2005
Election Watch ambition
In case readers are wondering why the occasional foray into elections outside the U.S., (Canada, Ukraine [and here], Palestinian Authority, U.K.) I'm putting together a database of all election contests at national level around the world.
I'm concentrating first on countries whose election systems I am most familiar with, or that spring up in the news: Europe, U.S., Central Asia, Middle East. So unless I get requests, don't expect any particular method in the forays into new countries. For now, at least.
I'm concentrating first on countries whose election systems I am most familiar with, or that spring up in the news: Europe, U.S., Central Asia, Middle East. So unless I get requests, don't expect any particular method in the forays into new countries. For now, at least.
11/10/2005
Are the Democrats celebrating the right things?
The Democrats are excited. Not without just cause. But perhaps about the wrong things.
The present unpopularity of President George W. Bush is causing Democratic commentators to dream of capturing both Houses of Congress in 2006, as the prelude to a Democrat victory for the presidency in 2008. I'd say such forecasts are way premature, if not outright utopian.
Where the Democrats can take considerable satisfaction is in the three gubernatorial elections of 2005. I'm including the recounted and court-challenged Washington state election, as well as Tuesday night's more orderly elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
The was every reason to fear that the Republicans could win all three, one by judicial review (Washington), one because of scandals affecting local Democrats (New Jersey), and one by simply not having as good a candidate as the previous one (Virginia). This would have left the Democrats with 19 Governors to the Republicans' 31.
So 2005 is an excellent year for the Democrats in terms of containing the Republicans, given that there have been no opportunities for making electoral gains so far.
Next year's Congressional elections are unlikely to see any change of control for purely technical reasons. The House of Representatives is showing a falling number of truly competitive seats (28 according to Charlie Cook [see "Political Dashboard"]). The Republicans only need to win three (they currently hold 17 of them) to retain control of the House.
In the Senate, another bad tactical situation exists for the Democrats. Last year they were defending 19 Senate seats to 15 Republican, the Democrats promptly made a net loss of four seats. In 2006, the Democrats will be defending 17 Senate seats (plus the Independent seat of Jim Jeffords in Vermont). The Republicans will only be defending 15 seats and would need to lose at least a third of them to lose control of the Senate. At this stage, I don't see this as likely.
Where the Democrats really have chances are in the gubernatorial elections. No fewer than 36 States are due to elect a Governor in November 2006. Only 14 are Democrats, and a staggering 22 are Republicans. Here's were the opportunity to do some real damage lies.
California, Florida, New York and Texas are the big four states with 147 electoral college votes for the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010. All four presently have Republican governors who are up for re-election. Two of them, Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki in New York will not be seeking re-election. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in California during a special election in 2003, he would do extremely well at this stage to win a primary and general election. That leaves Texas.
Among the other states up for election there are plenty of chances for both sides. For the party in opposition nationally, this is the kind of scenario campaigners need.
A reasonable set of goals for 2006 would seem to be to make whatever gains in the House of Representatives are possible. In the Senate to come away with any increase would be a satisfactory outcome (the real chance for change will be in 2008, when 19 Republican senators face the voters). But in the gubernatorial contests the target has to be to win back at least California and New York, and pick off several other states. A majority of the Governors should be the goal of the Democrats for next year.
Meanwhile, of course we have the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. At this stage I can't see him failing to be nominated to the Supreme Court bench, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Alito won't have to be a hardline conservative to tilt the balance of the court away from liberalism. In the long run, that may be the biggest election of the year.
The present unpopularity of President George W. Bush is causing Democratic commentators to dream of capturing both Houses of Congress in 2006, as the prelude to a Democrat victory for the presidency in 2008. I'd say such forecasts are way premature, if not outright utopian.
Where the Democrats can take considerable satisfaction is in the three gubernatorial elections of 2005. I'm including the recounted and court-challenged Washington state election, as well as Tuesday night's more orderly elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
The was every reason to fear that the Republicans could win all three, one by judicial review (Washington), one because of scandals affecting local Democrats (New Jersey), and one by simply not having as good a candidate as the previous one (Virginia). This would have left the Democrats with 19 Governors to the Republicans' 31.
So 2005 is an excellent year for the Democrats in terms of containing the Republicans, given that there have been no opportunities for making electoral gains so far.
Next year's Congressional elections are unlikely to see any change of control for purely technical reasons. The House of Representatives is showing a falling number of truly competitive seats (28 according to Charlie Cook [see "Political Dashboard"]). The Republicans only need to win three (they currently hold 17 of them) to retain control of the House.
In the Senate, another bad tactical situation exists for the Democrats. Last year they were defending 19 Senate seats to 15 Republican, the Democrats promptly made a net loss of four seats. In 2006, the Democrats will be defending 17 Senate seats (plus the Independent seat of Jim Jeffords in Vermont). The Republicans will only be defending 15 seats and would need to lose at least a third of them to lose control of the Senate. At this stage, I don't see this as likely.
Where the Democrats really have chances are in the gubernatorial elections. No fewer than 36 States are due to elect a Governor in November 2006. Only 14 are Democrats, and a staggering 22 are Republicans. Here's were the opportunity to do some real damage lies.
California, Florida, New York and Texas are the big four states with 147 electoral college votes for the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010. All four presently have Republican governors who are up for re-election. Two of them, Jeb Bush in Florida and George Pataki in New York will not be seeking re-election. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in California during a special election in 2003, he would do extremely well at this stage to win a primary and general election. That leaves Texas.
Among the other states up for election there are plenty of chances for both sides. For the party in opposition nationally, this is the kind of scenario campaigners need.
A reasonable set of goals for 2006 would seem to be to make whatever gains in the House of Representatives are possible. In the Senate to come away with any increase would be a satisfactory outcome (the real chance for change will be in 2008, when 19 Republican senators face the voters). But in the gubernatorial contests the target has to be to win back at least California and New York, and pick off several other states. A majority of the Governors should be the goal of the Democrats for next year.
Meanwhile, of course we have the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. At this stage I can't see him failing to be nominated to the Supreme Court bench, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Alito won't have to be a hardline conservative to tilt the balance of the court away from liberalism. In the long run, that may be the biggest election of the year.
Canada limps towards general election
Canada's minority Liberal government is limping towards a general election either around Christmas or early next year according to this report in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
The fact that the Liberals are expected to win most seats is no doubt limiting the ambition of opposition parties to force the issue.
The fact that the Liberals are expected to win most seats is no doubt limiting the ambition of opposition parties to force the issue.
11/09/2005
Democratic Party holds Virginia
Tim Kaine has convincingly won the election for Governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia last night, defeating his Republican opponent by nearly six percentage points. The result will undoubtedly give some cheer to Democrats, who retain both [link to New Jersey results] Governorships up for election in 2005. With nine precincts yet to report in Virginia, the results show [hat-tip to The Green Papers]:
Provisional figures suggest that a swing of about 0.5% to Democrats has occured, although late returns could affect this analysis.
I must admit that this is an impressive result, which should avoid the acrimony of the Washington State poll last year that I have written about ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Mark Warner, the outgoing Democratic holder of the Governorship in Virginia, was thought to be the perfect candidate for the Democrats in that state, with his relatively conservative outlook and running an administration considered to be among the best, if not the best in the United States. His successor has increased the Democrat lead, albeit with a slightly reduced share of the vote.
On the one hand, Mark Warner's position as challenger to Hillary Clinton is enhanced. Virginia along with the recapture of the two states (Iowa and New Mexico)lost by Senator John Kerry in last year's presidential election would be sufficient to win the presidential election for the Democrats. Governor Warner did campaign for his successor Tim Kaine, just as President George W. Bush campaigned (and very successfully fundraised) for Jerry Kilgore.
On the other hand, the more Tim Kaine is perceived to have won the election on his own merits, the less necessary Mark Warner becomes.
Watch out for Hillary Clinton fans talking up the merits of Tim Kaine!
My own view (given that I got this result wrong) is that Mark Warner's status as the conservative Democrat candidate is enhanced, at the expense of Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennessee) among others.
All of a sudden though, we're looking at a clutch of effective Democratic Party Governors, and for the time being, I don't see the Republican candidate with the same background, unless Jeb Bush (Florida) makes a run, and one has to wonder if being the brother and the son of two presidents isn't too much of a good thing!
TM Kaine 1,019,206 votes (51.71%)
JW Kilgore 907,039 votes (46.02%)
Others (including write-ins) 44,705 (2.27%)
Voter turnout 1,970,950 (44.27)
Precincts reporting 2417 out of 2426 (99.63% of votes confirmed)
Provisional figures suggest that a swing of about 0.5% to Democrats has occured, although late returns could affect this analysis.
I must admit that this is an impressive result, which should avoid the acrimony of the Washington State poll last year that I have written about ad nauseam here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Mark Warner, the outgoing Democratic holder of the Governorship in Virginia, was thought to be the perfect candidate for the Democrats in that state, with his relatively conservative outlook and running an administration considered to be among the best, if not the best in the United States. His successor has increased the Democrat lead, albeit with a slightly reduced share of the vote.
On the one hand, Mark Warner's position as challenger to Hillary Clinton is enhanced. Virginia along with the recapture of the two states (Iowa and New Mexico)lost by Senator John Kerry in last year's presidential election would be sufficient to win the presidential election for the Democrats. Governor Warner did campaign for his successor Tim Kaine, just as President George W. Bush campaigned (and very successfully fundraised) for Jerry Kilgore.
On the other hand, the more Tim Kaine is perceived to have won the election on his own merits, the less necessary Mark Warner becomes.
Watch out for Hillary Clinton fans talking up the merits of Tim Kaine!
My own view (given that I got this result wrong) is that Mark Warner's status as the conservative Democrat candidate is enhanced, at the expense of Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennessee) among others.
All of a sudden though, we're looking at a clutch of effective Democratic Party Governors, and for the time being, I don't see the Republican candidate with the same background, unless Jeb Bush (Florida) makes a run, and one has to wonder if being the brother and the son of two presidents isn't too much of a good thing!
11/07/2005
Voting machine, Party machine?
Amy Alkon discusses a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office into the opportunity for fraud using voting machines.
Her conclusion is that the winner must have stolen the election, which I think isn't proven beyond resonable doubt (see the first comment by Radwaste who takes a similar line). What is clear however is that my views of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 (which resulted in a narrow Democratic Party victory there) are echoed by critics of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 (although the margin of victory for the Republican candidate there was several orders of magnitude greater).
As far as voting machines are concerned, I see them as a solution to yesterday's problem: "Hanging chads" anyone? It's a classic "Willetts".
What's wrong with a piece of paper with a box next to each name, and the voter marks "X"?
Her conclusion is that the winner must have stolen the election, which I think isn't proven beyond resonable doubt (see the first comment by Radwaste who takes a similar line). What is clear however is that my views of the Washington gubernatorial election in 2004 (which resulted in a narrow Democratic Party victory there) are echoed by critics of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 (although the margin of victory for the Republican candidate there was several orders of magnitude greater).
As far as voting machines are concerned, I see them as a solution to yesterday's problem: "Hanging chads" anyone? It's a classic "Willetts".
What's wrong with a piece of paper with a box next to each name, and the voter marks "X"?
11/06/2005
Even the best polls underestimate Republican vote
Rasmussen Reports, the U.S. pollster has a self-congratulatory article about its polling for the 2004 presidential election.
It is true that Rasmussen forecast the overall result in terms of the popular vote, getting within half a percent of President George Bush's score and even closer with Senator John Kerry's.
However, is it really clever to publish a list of 25 states that shows that Rasmussen underestimated George W. Bush's vote in 23 of them? With only New Mexico spot on and New Jersey the only state overestimated for the Republican candidate?
I would have a lot more time for opinion polls if in a tight race the over- and underestimates showed more consistency. As it is I expect polls to underestimate Republican voting figures, which is why commentators may believe that I'm biased against Democrats.
According to Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist: "Scott's [Rasmussen] polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat."
It is true that Rasmussen forecast the overall result in terms of the popular vote, getting within half a percent of President George Bush's score and even closer with Senator John Kerry's.
However, is it really clever to publish a list of 25 states that shows that Rasmussen underestimated George W. Bush's vote in 23 of them? With only New Mexico spot on and New Jersey the only state overestimated for the Republican candidate?
I would have a lot more time for opinion polls if in a tight race the over- and underestimates showed more consistency. As it is I expect polls to underestimate Republican voting figures, which is why commentators may believe that I'm biased against Democrats.
According to Matthew Dowd, Bush's campaign strategist: "Scott's [Rasmussen] polling data was dead on this election. Both nationally and at the state level, his numbers were hard to beat."
11/05/2005
Antoine Clarke's Election Watch in print
Tim Worstall has asked for permission to republish my posting about Operation Clark County in a book about blogging.
This book is called "2005: Blogged", and is apparently available through Amazon.co.uk (not the U.S. site). Launch date is November 18.
Coincidentally, I should be travelling to the U.S. on that date. One of my stops (I hope) will be to Clark County. I would like to find out if the Guardian ever did get round to paying for their copy of the Clark County electoral register!
This book is called "2005: Blogged", and is apparently available through Amazon.co.uk (not the U.S. site). Launch date is November 18.
Coincidentally, I should be travelling to the U.S. on that date. One of my stops (I hope) will be to Clark County. I would like to find out if the Guardian ever did get round to paying for their copy of the Clark County electoral register!
11/04/2005
New Jersey and Virginia Governor contests tighten in final week
The news from Virginia is that the opinion polls are showing a close race for the governorship with Democratic Party candidate Tim Kaine the leader. This represents a turnaround since my last posting, when I forecast a Republican victory in the "Old Dominion".
In off-year elections (especially perhaps for elections occurring the year after a Presidential election) turnout is everything. I note that the online bookies still rate Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore as the favourite, whereas the pollsters seem to have made up their minds for Mr Kaine.
I'm going to stick with my forecast of a Republican gain in Virginia, partly because this was a state that Democrats and pollsters said would be close this time last year, before producing an eight percentage point lead for President George W. Bush.
In New Jersey we see a state that in gubernatorial contests has often been competitive (indeed the last Governor of New Jersey to be elected, as opposed to nominated by the State Senate was Republican Christine Whitman). Last year the polls for the presidential election showed a far closer result than was in fact the case, with Democratic candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry winning by nearly seven percentage points.
The online bookies are clear in backing Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidate with odds in the region of 90 percent. The pollsters however aren't so sure. Republican candidate Doug Forrester has not come within four percentage points of his opponent in 32 of 33 opinion polls.
I'm also sticking with a Democratic Party hold for New Jersey, but Forrester's odds are so bad on Tradesports that it might be worth a bet. You could win nearly seven times your stake, when I last looked.
In off-year elections (especially perhaps for elections occurring the year after a Presidential election) turnout is everything. I note that the online bookies still rate Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore as the favourite, whereas the pollsters seem to have made up their minds for Mr Kaine.
I'm going to stick with my forecast of a Republican gain in Virginia, partly because this was a state that Democrats and pollsters said would be close this time last year, before producing an eight percentage point lead for President George W. Bush.
In New Jersey we see a state that in gubernatorial contests has often been competitive (indeed the last Governor of New Jersey to be elected, as opposed to nominated by the State Senate was Republican Christine Whitman). Last year the polls for the presidential election showed a far closer result than was in fact the case, with Democratic candidate U.S. Senator John Kerry winning by nearly seven percentage points.
The online bookies are clear in backing Jon Corzine, the Democratic candidate with odds in the region of 90 percent. The pollsters however aren't so sure. Republican candidate Doug Forrester has not come within four percentage points of his opponent in 32 of 33 opinion polls.
I'm also sticking with a Democratic Party hold for New Jersey, but Forrester's odds are so bad on Tradesports that it might be worth a bet. You could win nearly seven times your stake, when I last looked.
10/27/2005
And the winner was...
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
