The last thing I would want to see

All the talk about Bloomberg making an independent bid for President brings to mind a possible scenario: All three candidates in the general election being technically from New York. That would be, as the title of this post states, the last thing I would want to see (and I agree with MSS's comment over at Poliblog that it is something of an unlikely scenario).

While MSS (Matthew Shugart, head orchardist over at Fruits and Votes) suggests in the above linked comment that Hillary will likely be the Democratic candidate, I can only hope that he is wrong. I have never liked Hillary, even when she was first lady. I loved Bill, but disliked Hillary. And while I would prefer to see someone more experienced than either Obama or Edwards get the nomination, I would certainly prefer for either of them to get the nomination over Hillary Clinton.

On the Republican side of things, I agree that Giulliani is not the most likely candidate to win the nomination. I can't imagine that he holds too much appeal in the Republican base, other than his stance on the Iraq war. It would seem that his appeal as the hero of 9/11 could only take him so far in light of his other positions, like on social issues for example.

Bloomberg, of course, doesn't stand a chance of winning, but could draw votes from either side that is dissatisfied with their party's choice of candidate, or so it would seem to me.

As a side note, I wonder if Ron Paul will jump in the fray as a Libertarian candidate again if he doesn't win the Republican nomination.

We definitely need to change our electoral rules in this country. Direct popular vote with a majority requirement would be much preferable.

That seems odd

I had heard that if Fred Thompson was going to run for president he would have to leave Law and Order because of campaign laws. I thought it sounded familiar, like I had heard something similar about Arnold not being able to act during the campaign or while in office. I wasn't sure what the rationale was for the prohibition so I did a little looking around and found this article (WaPo - Fred Thompson's Presidential Hopes Could Put 'Law' Reruns in Lockup). It appears that it is tied to the equal air-time provision.

Federal campaign law requires broadcasters to give all candidates equal time on the airwaves. That rule applies to entertainment programs like "Law & Order," meaning stations that run the show would be required to give other GOP candidates a like amount of prime-time exposure.

Okay, that sorta makes sense, but what doesn't really make sense to me is that it doesn't apply to all air-time.

Candidates' appearances on newscasts, interview programs and at news events are exempted from the rule. So are incidental appearances in documentaries.

So why is it that the news media can talk about the front runners all day long and ignore the also-rans. It seems to me that that is much more inequitable than having the world see Fred Thompson play Arthur Branch for a few minutes on an episode of Law and Order. I just don't understand why news and talk shows are exempt from the rule. It seems unfair.

More on the Electoral College and its future

NYT - Maryland Takes the Lead

Although the article is an editorial and not so much a news article per se, it does include some info on the movement to circumvent the EC that I wasn't familiar with. The article states:

The reform movement, driven by a bipartisan coalition called National Popular Vote, has a long way to go. But Hawaii is close to approval, and hundreds of legislators are sponsoring the change in more than 40 other states. It is an ingenious way around the fact that the alternative strategy of trying to amend the Constitution would require the approval of three-fourths of the states, leaving veto power in the hands of smaller states over-represented in the college.

It is an interesting strategy. I would prefer a Constitutional amendment, but I really feel that the Electoral College needs to go, one way or another.

Circumventing the Electoral College?

Via WaPa - O'Malley Revels in Legislative Successes

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law yesterday a measure that would circumvent the Electoral College by awarding the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

The bill, one of 105 signed by the Democratic governor the day after the General Assembly adjourned, makes Maryland the first in the nation to agree to let the national popular vote trump statewide preference. It would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- agree to do the same.

I must confess that I was totally unaware of this movement. I knew that some argued that the elector college should be abolished, but I didn't know that any states were working to circumvent it in this way. I would never have thought that such a bill could pass. It will be interesting to see if any other states follow suit.

Numbers don't lie. . .

but they help people lie all the time. And if you can't get the numbers to line up in the way that you want them to, start arguing over definition.

NYT - Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud

A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.

Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.

The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states.

Democrats say the threat is overstated and have opposed voter identification laws, which they say disenfranchise the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely to have photo IDs and are more likely to be Democrats.

Though the original report said that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,” the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that “there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”

[. . .]

And two weeks ago, the panel faced criticism for refusing to release another report it commissioned concerning voter identification laws. That report, which was released after intense pressure from Congress, found that voter identification laws designed to fight fraud can reduce turnout, particularly among members of minorities. In releasing that report, which was conducted by a different set of scholars, the commission declined to endorse its findings, citing methodological concerns.

[. . .]

The original report on fraud cites “evidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression” of voters by local officials, especially in some American Indian communities, while the final report says only that voter “intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation.”

So to recap, a bi-partisan committee commissions some reports on voter fraud. They didn't like the findings so they rewrote them in such a way as to not really come to any conclusions at all. They determined that there was "a debate" and problems with definitions. Sometimes I think that if political scientists (and social scientists in general) couldn't argue over definitions anymore, we would just all have to quit our jobs and find something else to do.

Maybe there were methodological problems, most studies have some methodological problems and those who don't like the results are always the first to find those problems. But I agree with Mr. Martinez's assessment of the situation:

“Methodology concerns aside, we commissioned the reports with taxpayer funds, and I argued that they should be released,” he said, referring to the delay in the release of the voter ID report. “My view was that the public and the academics could determine whether it is rigorous and if it wasn’t then the egg was on our face for having commissioned it in the first place.”

Oh, and for those keeping score at home:
Democrats say there is little voter fraud
Republicans say there is wide spread voter fraud

Some good advice from the governors

NYT - Surveying ’08 Field, Governors Urge Moderation

Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat, said the party’s presidential candidates should study his election and the success of other moderate Democrats like Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

“We have learned a way of speaking to the middle with a pragmatic, problem-solving agenda,” Mr. Ritter said. “We have something to teach the rest of the country.”

Ms. Sebelius said, “We have figured out a way to convince voters in our states to cross party lines.”

I think they have a real point here. In the past two presidential elections the Democratic candidates have tended toward the "me, too" school of campaigning. They have tried so hard to win over the independents and left-leaning Republicans that they have ultimately failed to distinguish themselves in many ways. This is really a poor strategy because the voters really have no incentive to cross party lines under these circumstances.

As these Democratic governors have proven, Democrats can win in some traditionally more conservative states if they speak to the right people in the right way. The Democratic Party has some really good points going for it, if they would just learn to play them up.

Voter Error Determined in Florida

Once again, the voters take the blame. NYT - Panel Cites Voter Error, Not Software, in Loss of Votes

Florida election officials announced yesterday that an examination of voting software did not find any malfunctions that could have caused up to 18,000 votes to be lost in a disputed Congressional race in Sarasota County, and they suggested that voter confusion over a poor ballot design was mainly to blame.

The main problem with the vote in this Congressional race in Florida was that approximately 18,000 people voted in the other races on the ballot, but didn't cast a vote for this race. It's true that the ballot design is bad:Notice the lack of highlighting to clue voters to the race in question. But this still seems rather odd as an explanation for so many uncast votes, as the article points out:

While some voters in Sarasota bristled yesterday at the idea that they had done anything wrong in casting their votes, or that nearly 13 percent of all voters could have failed to spot the race on the ballot, members of the investigative team said that those remained the only plausible theories.

There is another explanation offered:

Edward W. Felten, a Princeton University computer scientist, wrote last night that the security weaknesses need to be fixed before this type of machine is used again. He also wrote: “The study claims to have ruled out reliability problems as a cause of the undervotes, but their evidence on this point is weak, and I think the jury is still out on whether voting machine malfunctions could be a significant cause of the undervotes.”

And some sort of malfunction, be it software or something else, would seem to be the only explanation for this type of problem;

Ms. Ward-Jenkins and more than 100 other voters contacted The Sarasota Herald-Tribune shortly after the election to complain that even though an “X” appeared on the touchscreen when they pressed the box for Ms. Jennings, their votes had disappeared by the time they got to a final screen for reviewing their choices.

I don't know what it is going to take for Florida to clean up its act when it comes to voting, but something has to be done. Additionally, if the problems really do come down to flawed ballot design, someone needs to start doing something to ballot designers and stop giving them a free pass when they screw things up so royally.

The livingroom campaign

NYT - In Iowa, the Living Room Has Fallen Out of Favor

Iowa, with its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, has been celebrated for 30 years for its intimate campaigns where future presidents would perch on living room couches or sit at kitchen tables and take questions from 20 or 30 people late into the night.

[. . .]

A chapter in American political history that began in 1976 when Jimmy Carter rose from obscurity by working the living rooms and kitchens of Iowa may be drawing to a end. It is, at least for this election cycle, the victim of an era of celebrity candidates tracked by busloads of reporters, and of intense interest in the 2008 race among voters, who are turning out in numbers that would fill many, many living rooms.

It seems to me that the living room campaign, invented by an obscure candidate, is best used by the obscure candidate. The living room campaign is not likely to work too well for this election. There are many big-name candidates and with the shift forward of many primary elections, they just don't have the time to sit around in people living rooms.

But I wouldn't count this method of campaigning out all together. It worked in 1976 for the little guy. The one that needed to do something special to get people's attention. If this tool stops being the norm, it can once again be the tool of the little guy who needs special attention. If the "rock star" candidates neglect the personal aspect of campaigning for several election cycles, it just might open the door for the obscure candidate to use it as something special (and nostalgic) to get the voters' attention in the future.

A paper trail in Florida

NYT - Florida Shifting to Voting System With Paper Trail

Gov. Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of Florida’s counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.

I'm glad to hear it. The system that they had in 2000 was inexcusable, but going from hanging chads to paperless touch-screens was a step too far in my opinion. Technology is a good thing, but it can never be trusted completely with something so important as vote counts. There needs to be some paper involved. And this is not just my opinion.

Election experts estimate that paperless electronic machines were used by about 30 percent of voters nationwide in 2006. But their reliability has increasingly come under scrutiny, as has the difficulty of doing recounts without a paper trail. Federal technology experts concluded late last year that paperless touch-screen machines could not be secured from tampering.

As I was reading the article, I knew the issue of the price of the endeavor would come up eventually, and it did. I was very happy with the response because it was exactly what I was thinking.

Asked how he felt about discarding tens of millions of dollars worth of touch-screen machines just years after they were acquired, Mr. Crist said, “The price of freedom is not cheap. The importance of a democratic system of voting that we can trust, that we can have confidence in, is incredibly important.”

Hopefully Florida will be on track for a smooth election in 2008, but adjusting to new technology just before a big election is probably going to cause some confusion. Let's just hope they get it all done in time.

Can it be done?

My husband emailed an article from The Nation to me this morning. It's called "The Way Down South" and it is about the Democrats finding a strategy to win votes in the South during the Presidential election and future Congressional elections. If you are a Democrat and interested in how this can be accomplished, the whole article is worth a read.

The article makes an excellent point about the need to differentiate from the opposition:

[Harold] Ford's loss was widely chalked up to race-baiting attack ads run by the Republican National Committee. But his defeat--like those of all but one of the Democrats' chosen candidates in the South last year--can also be viewed as a lesson in the limitations of Clintonian compromise. So can the results from the border South state of Kentucky, where self-described "liberal" John Yarmuth--whose pleas for national funds fell on deaf ears--pulled off a startling upset in the state's 3rd Congressional District by running a campaign that was the antithesis of Ford's. "The mistake Democrats have made here over the years is that they never provided a sharp contrast," says Yarmuth, who bested five-term Republican incumbent Anne Northup. "I said from day one, 'Anne and I are 180 degrees apart. If she believes something, I don't.' I was that clear. I wanted the voters to have a real choice and see where they'd go." They went with the frank-talking, antiwar, labor-loving candidate his own party considered too "liberal" to win.

The point of having two parties is to give voters a choice. When the choices are practically the same, apathy prevails.

There was really only one statement in the whole article that just struck me as stupid:

While no President had ever been elected without winning a sizable chunk of Dixie

That's funny, I don't remember President Lincoln taking "a sizable chunk of Dixie." He may possibly be the only exception, but it has obviously happened. Maybe they mean the modern United States with its current 50 state configuration, but that is not what it said. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Primary Fever

NYT - Big States’ Push for Earlier Vote Scrambles Race

As many as four big states — California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey — are likely to move up their 2008 presidential primaries to early next February, further upending an already unsettled nominating process and forcing candidates of both parties to rethink their campaign strategies, party officials said Wednesday.
. . .
The developments mark the latest upheaval in a political calendar already in disarray. The Democratic Party voted last year to allow Nevada and South Carolina to move their nominating contests into the narrow period at the beginning of the process that once was confined to just Iowa’s caucus and New Hampshire’s primary.

The developments mark the latest upheaval in a political calendar already in disarray. The Democratic Party voted last year to allow Nevada and South Carolina to move their nominating contests into the narrow period at the beginning of the process that once was confined to just Iowa’s caucus and New Hampshire’s primary.

It has always seemed unfair to me that Iowa and New Hampshire had so much pull in the nominating process. The idea of adding a state from the South and a state from the West to the early process makes sense. I really don't feel like New Hampshire and Iowa are necessarily representative of the views of the nation as a whole. I do feel like smaller states need some advantage in the process or else they get almost completely ignored. It seems like a difficult balance to strike.

The New Hampshire reaction seems almost childish, however:

But New Hampshire officials, protective of their first-in-the-nation primary status, have responded by saying they will schedule their primary as early as it takes, even before Jan. 1, to protect its traditional role. And no one seems to know where the scramble for influence among the states will end.

Early primaries do have a major impact on later voters and everybody wants to have a chance at influencing that impact. As a voter in Alabama, I've always felt like my vote in the Presidential primary was meaningless. Now that Alabama has moved its primary forward I have felt like the change has improved our position and increased the attention we receive from candidates, so I can understand NH not wanting to loose that power. But just insisting on continuing to move theirs forward if other get too close could escalate into utter nonsense.

Another interesting part of this whole process for me, considering my current study of party politics and candidate selection processes, is the loss of power the party is experiencing:

The developments suggest that the national parties are losing any control they have had over the calendar by which they will nominate presidential candidates in 2008.
. . .
It has sowed unease and confusion among campaign staff members as they have tried to measure its implications, and has prompted them to begin making moves now to prepare for a whole different nominating system.

I wonder what that last comment could foreshadow.

Update: For more commentary on the unfairness of the current system check out what Steven Taylor has to say on the subject over at Poliblog.

In case you were wondering

For those of you out there who are wondering who all has thrown their hat into the ring at this point (as so many have it is hard to keep up), I found this website that seems to have a comprehensive list of declared candidates (in bold) and possible candidates. There is an abundance of them.

Issue Ads in the spotlight

CNN - High court takes 'issue ad' cases

Jumping into a heated free-speech dispute a year before the presidential primaries, the Supreme Court on Friday accepted a pair of appeals over a sweeping campaign-finance reform law that limits "issue ads."

Oral arguments in the cases will be held in late April, with a ruling expected by late June -- six months before the 2008 election officially kicks off with primaries and caucuses in such states as Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

The question for the high court is whether issue ads aired mainly on television -- and funded by businesses, labor unions, and other groups -- can be banned 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary.

That restriction was a key part of the McCain-Feingold congressional bill setting strict limits on political spending and the message behind it.

The issue ads are widely used to promote particular causes such as environmental protection or tax reform, and they specifically cannot endorse or even mention any particular candidate or political party.

I have to admit that I was not familiar with that part of the McCain-Feingold bill. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Allen Concedes

MSNBC - Allen concedes in Virginia Senate race

Republican Sen. George Allen conceded defeat Thursday to Democrat Jim Webb, sealing the Democrats’ control of Congress and the political downfall of a man once considered a White House contender.

“I respect their decision,” Allen said of Virginia voters during a speech to supporters. “I called to congratulate Jim Webb and his team.”

I'm really glad to hear it, and not just because I'm glad to see the Democrats take control of the Senate (although I am glad of that fact).

It is important to remember that democracy has to have winners and loser. Losers have to be willing to accept the will of the people and bow out gracefully for the system to work. It is nice to see the system work the way it is designed to work.

County-by-county results

Looking at Poliblog's list of counties affected by Amendment 2 on yesterday's election and Al.com's county by county election results, I compiled this list.

Autauga - yes (54.58%)
Barbour - yes (54.92%)
Bibb - no (57.52%)
Blount - no (58.60%)
Chilton - no (53.65%)
Conecuh - yes (59.94%)
Covington - yes (52.75%)
Crenshaw - no (by 3 votes) (50.05%)
Cullman - no (67.75%)
Dale - no (52.83%)
Elmore - yes (51.08%)
Fayette - no (64.79%)
Hale - no (51.35%)
Houston - no (59.20%)
Jackson - no (51.09%)
Lamar - no (61.48%)
Lawrence - no (59.67%)
Limestone - no (54.42%)
Marengo - yes (54.57%)
Marion - no (58.29%)
Montgomery - yes (61.03%)
Pike - yes (60.85%)
Tuscaloosa - yes (51.01%)
Walker - no (64.95%)

Out of 24 affected counties, 9 voted in favor of the Amendment. I didn't list the totals or the percentages, but some of the counties that passes it did so by a good margin, others were close. The same was true of the ones that did not pass it. It was really a mixed bag.

I did not check the counties that were not affected, but obviously there was substancial support for the amendment even in the counties that were affected.

Update: It just seemed incomplete without the percentages so I went back and added them.

Webb carries Virginia

Democrat Webb wins Virginia Senate race: AP
The AP has called the Virginia Senate race in favor of Democratic challenger James Webb. From what I can find, Allen has not yet conceded, however. All the talk seems to indicate there will be a recount, but it seems that for the moment the Democrats have won the Senate as well as the House.

Tester wins in Montana

National Post - Democrats win Montana Senate seat

Democrats erased the Republican Senate majority Wednesday with a cliffhanger victory in Montana, hours after taking control of the House in an election that delivered a rebuke of GOP scandal, the Iraq war and the course of a nation.

With Democrats now assured of 50 Senate seats, the battle for outright control came down to Virginia, where the party's candidate, Jim Webb, held a small lead.

I can't say as I know that much about Montana, but I have been there before. When I think about it, it doesn't really surprise me that they ousted their Republican. I think that in the West there is a strong sense of personal accountability. I think that is what ultimately did Burns in.

Too close to call

NY Times - Democrats Seize Control of House; Senate Hangs on Virginia and Montana

But the fate of the Senate remained in doubt this morning, as races for Republican-held seats in Montana and Virginia remained too close to call as Election Day turned into the day after. Democrats would need both seats to win control of the Senate as well.

In Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, a Republican, was trailing Jon Tester, a Democrat, by a narrow margin. The race in Virginia — between another Republican incumbent, Senator George Allen, and Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger — was so close that some officials said it would have to be resolved by a recount.

I think it is interesting that the Democrat is actually in the lead in the states that are too close to call. Things are looking better than I thought they might be at this point. It is certainly going to be interesting times ahead.

Returns update

In the Alabama election returns it appears that the close races I commented on last night have now been called.

With 98% reporting, Folsom retains 51% of the vote.

With 99% reporting Cobb has a slightly larger lead with 52% or the vote.

The Amendment actually passed pretty handily. With 99% reporting, the "yes" vote had 59% of the vote. (It had actually been called before I even went to bed last night.)

There are, of course, other states with Senate races still too close to call.

Election Returns

From what I've seen, it looks like Amendment #2 will pass. It is currently 90% reporting and 58% voting in favor. I guess Tal was better informed than I was. I am, however, pleasantly surprised.

I'm also happy to see that Jim Folsom, Jr. is in the lead. I hope he pulls it out. With 92% reporting Folsom has 52% of the vote.

Also with 90% reporting, Sue Bell Cobb is leading with 52% of the vote.

I'm going to bed now. Maybe nothing will have changed drastically by the time I wake up in the morning.

All returns stats via WSFA.