Asymmetrical Information

Iowa law prevents gerrymandering? How?

The law requires that districts be drawn as compactly as possible, and I believe also that they follow county lines. The result is that Iowa's districts look like what you'd draw if you didn't know or care how the people in them voted.

Jane:

You want us to condemn a little strategic dirty work by the Dems? Are you kidding? The prevailing feeling among most Dems I know is anger that our "leaders" have been so prim in responding to Republican dirty tactics. I'm a little tired of Dems playing at being Caesar's wife; finally they're aiming for Caesar.

I'm not glad about the Nader thing, but any indication that the Dem leadership has some fight in it is welcome, even if it's a rabbit-punch like this. Now that instinct just needs to be trained and focused. Because right now, it's not enough.

Those species known as "principled" Democrats and Republicans are so tiny as to be inconsequential. The acquisition of power, so as to force others to submit, is all that matters, and every position taken, from ballot access, to campaign finance "reform", etc., etc., is with this goal in mind.

Seems like only a couple of elections ago that it was the Republicans complaining that they were too nice to combat the Clinton attack engine. Anyone who believes that a major political party is "nice" is capable of believing anything. It's all about being in power.

I guess I would make two points in clarification:

1. I'm not arguing that Dems don't ever engage in dirty pool; I think cherry-picking the counties in which to recount in FL was pretty skeezy. Unfortunately, it was also pretty stupid. That's probably my primary complaint about the Dem leadership. It's not enough to be willing to go dirty; you have to be dirty and good at it.

2. I'm unaware of anything in recent memory that compares to the McCain whisper campain in SC about his daughter, or the whispers about McCain's sanity. I could be totally wrong, but this Bush group strikes me as particularly bad actors. You have to play the game of whoever holds the court.

My idealistic political hope used to be that a great third party candidate could come along and get a competent, principled administration into office. I still haven't seen that candidate but that's another story...

In practical terms a third party candidacy seems just another opportunity for political manipulations by both sides. See
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=216 for another example.

Incidentally the factcheck.org site looks very promising for debunking propaganda from both major candidates:
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.aspx

I think Will Allen's got a real valid point in his comment above...

You are totally wrong Tim. (Let's set aside the fact that the Bush campaign, at least officially, wasn't involved with the smears on McCain. It was an independent group.)

I've heard those kinds of things going on in both parties. Here's a recent example: the Kerry girlfriend rumor from the primaries. It turns out (as far as anyone can tell anyway) it was the loathesome Chris Lahane who was spreading the rumor.

Or, how about the NAACP running ads in 2000 implying Bush was responsible for the lynching of James Byrd? I'd put that up with what McCain endured. (And yes, I know it wasn't the Gore campaign--but it's the same analogy as what was done to McCain by independent groups.)

Sorry, but it gets really tiresome hearing liberals complain they just aren't as mean and tough as the GOP. Give me a break. (I won't even get into alleged voter fraud the Dems have been involved in for years--that's a whole can of worms in itself)

Trust me Tim, both parties do whatever they have do to win.

Two words: James Daly.

OK, two more words: Tammany Hall.

I'm a little tired of Dems playing at being Caesar's wife; finally they're aiming for Caesar.

Geez, Tim, it took you twenty-two whole minutes to start bleating your version of the Dems standard line: "We would win more elections if only we were willing to be nasty like Republicans are! But we're just too darn smart and nice for that!"

You're slipping, pal.

Whisper campaign? If only the Dems would limit themselves so.

Remember the Montana race where the Republican candidate was rumored to be gay? In Dem party TV commercials, no less?

What about Jack Ryan whose sealed court records were splashed all over the news--just to answer an libelous accusation that had no basis in fact.

Where did we see that? All over television.

A whisper campaign. Please. Republicans would sing halleilujah if Democrats did something as innocuous as start a 'whisper campaign'.

From the article it looks like the so-called Democrat efforts against Nader are independent and locally coordinated, but the Democratic party absolutely should come out and condemn these kinds of actions. Yet another indication that the party needs new leadership.

This type of thing is equally reprehensible to those who argued against recounts in Florida. That should not have been a Democrat-Republican battle at all, by the way, but a joint cooperation to ensure the most accurate possible accounting given the result was so close. Efforts should have been made to rectify the butterfly ballot error as well, which was proven as definitively as possible by statistical analysis to BE an error. If we can have different states voting months apart during the primaries (so that Iowa, NH, and a few others effectively determine the choices available for the remaining 90% of the nation's people), it should not have been a problem to hold a revote in that county a few days later.

The Florida recount aftermath demonstrated to the world that we are a nation of the immature.

Jack, the Dems had nothing to do with the release of Ryan's records. It was Ryan's GOP opponents in the primary who attacked him over their nonrelease. The Demos had their own primary battle to worry about.

Sigh...Of course you're right Jane, we democrats SHOULD support any type of third party candidacy, since more democracy is better and more options and more people on the ballot ensure that we, as voters, have more choices.

However, we here in reality realize that what SHOULD happen in the ideal and what NEEDS to happen are two completely different things. The fact is many people who are pro-Nader would vote for Kerry but for Nader's presence on the ballot are facts. At least the polls seem to indicate this. Given how close this election is, it is simply a matter of good politics, which has nothing to do with what is right, to keep Nader off.

Just as it is simply a matter of good politics for the republicans to try to get Nader on the ballot in battleground states, regardless of whether they plan on voting for him or even agree with anything he says. The motive, to win, is the most important thing for either major party. Period.

Jack,

I would also like to point out that by the time Ryan's record were made public Abama was already up by 20 points in the polls. He didn't even need the withdrawel.

What's so outstanding about this thread is that people aren't even *trying* to make excuses that "aren't some version of 'We want to force people to vote for John Kerry instead of the candidate they prefer'."

They're saying flat out that what needs to happen is that people are forced to vote for John Kerry instead of the candidate they prefer (Kate) -- and furthermore that it's about time the Dems started playing dirty pool like this because gosh darn it they've just been too nice (SomeCallMeTim).

I have to say I'm impressed by the honesty of the message. Repulsed by the message itself, but impressed by the honesty.

Screw that DRB, it has nothing to do with the candidate they would perfer. It has to do with the fact that I'M not going to do anything to assist this guy getting on the ballot. If there are enough people in each state who want to vote for him then I think it's great that he gets on the ballot. I'm not going to cry for him that the democrats are attempting to prevent him, nor am I gonna get all up-in-that about the fact that republicans, for equally bad reasons, are attempting to get Nader on the ballot. They can vote for lots of people besides John Kerry...no one is forcing them to vote for him. They can vote for the Green Party Candidate or the Libertarian Candidate or whatever. I'm not going to faciliate Nader just like I'm not going to faciliate Buchanan.

I admit it's really slimey, but it's also reality. And the Republicans aren't any better. So suck it up.

Exactly why is it that taking steps to ensure that Nader actually complied with the ballot access laws "dirty pool"? Should the Democrats sit back and let Nader get on the ballot illegally and at their expense? If there really is a grounswell of support for Nader, he should have no problem getting enough legal signatures to get on the ballot. Why the Democrats should simply sit back and Nader to undercut them is beyond me.

Going back to Jane's reply - comment # 2 - her summary of Iowa's rules is pretty much correct. In addition, the drafting is done by the Iowa Legislative Service Bureau, which takes a lot of the politics out of the process. Two congresscritters had to move to keep their seats last redistricting - one from each party.

The Legislative Service Bureau has a summary of their rules on their website at:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Central/LSB/Guides/redist.htm

Did you guys actually read the article Jane linked to? This isn't about "taking steps to ensure Nader complied with the ballot access laws". This isn't about "not doing anything to assist him in getting on the ballot." This is a concerted effort to destroy his campaign by devouring all his time, money, and resources in the quagmire of the legal system. And it's exactly what Kate called it -- slimey.

As for Kate's comment that it's slimey but it's reality so I should just "suck it up", let me put it this way:

It is of little consequence for the survival or progress of the United States of America whether Bush wins or Kerry wins in 2004. Despite the hyperventilating by partisans on both sides, there is very little to differentiate these two guys. There is very little to differentiate their parties. On a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being a raving left-wing socialist and 100 being a wild-eyed right-wing fascist, the Democrats are a 48 and the Republicans are a 52. That 4-point difference is not a big deal when it comes to deciding the fate of this great country. In regards to all important elements of this nation's progress, who wins this election is Not A Big Deal.

So if you are willing to sell out your principles in favor of slimey pragmatism for something this unimportant...well, I pity you for living in a world where it is a matter of life and death whether the tax rate on the top income bracket is 32% or 38%.

Get some perspective, but more importantly, get your principles back now so you still have them available when something actually important comes up.

I should clarify that I don't think Dems are too nice to play dirty, but it's certainly understandable that you'd see the Caesar line and think that's what I believe. Or, I should say, I don't think Dems are less dirty than Republicans generally. I just think this group - Bush/ Rove - is particularly dirty.

I didn't see the NAACP ad, but it sounds more like the Willie Horton ad than the attacks on McCain. I was particularly offended by the attack on McCain because it took what was basically a really decent act (adopting a kid from Bangladesh) and used it by (a) lying about it (illegitimate kid), (b) playing to the racism of some SC Republicans (claiming the kid's black), and (c) involving a young kid to get at her parent (I think she was around 2 at the time). Oh, and obviously, (d) it worked. To me, that bit established the new bleeding edge of "dirty pool" conduct, and Dems better be willing to play right up to that wall (as necessary) if we want to win.

I've never understood why everyone's so worked up about Nader when it was clearly David McReynolds (Socialist Party of the USA, 620 votes in Florida) that cost Gore the election.

(This joke [c] Doug Henwood, 2000).

DRB, I read the article in hard copy before Jane posted and reread it here and I found this little nugget:
Samuel C. Stretton, a Philadelphia elections lawyer who represents Mr. Nader, said Wednesday that he was "getting nervous" because his own spot check of the signatures was showing that, just as the Democrats had charged, many were not those of registered

So yes, it is about making sure Nader has complied with applicable ballot access laws. Nader's own lawyer admits that a spot check shows that many signatures were invalid. In Airzona, where Nader failed to qualify, his own campaign spokesman admitted submitted a defective petition. With this in mind, what is so wrong about making sure Mr. Nader actually complies with the law? Democrats should sit still, let Nader and Co. violate election law at their expense? Nuts to that! If he hasn't got the money to run an effective campaign, perhaps he should drop out. I don't find anything slimey about making sure that laws are complied with. If you think the laws are unfair, that is one thing, but you have to play under the rules you have.

I dunno, what was so wrong about making the Florida recount comply with the law, instead of redesigning the law to "count every vote!"?

So your answer is basically that you want to uphold elections law only when they favor you?

No, my objections to the recount had to do with the fact that people, including, it seemed to me, the Florida Supreme Court, were trying to change the standards based on the outcome said standards would likely produce. But since I was a tepid Gore voter, and didn't really care who won the election, I was a distinct minority among the arguers.

In the same way that I couldn't see a really good argument for keeping Lautenberg from subbing for Torricelli, I can't see a good argument for this. What good is served by keeping him off the ballot, other than partisan interest?

Why is enforcing the law not a good argument?

Eamon, if you genuinely believe this effort is occurring because the Dems think a significant fraud is being perpetrated by Nader, I have a bridge to sell you. This is, as I stated above, an attempt to destroy Nader's campaign by devouring his time, money, and resources in a legal quagmire.

That said, I'm glad we've finally gotten around to the "excuses for this behaviour that aren't some version of 'We want to force people to vote for John Kerry instead of the candidate they prefer'" that Jane was so breathlessly awaiting.

Yes, the Democrats are just trying to protect the sanctity of the ballot access process. Right.

"If he hasn't got the money to run an effective campaign, perhaps he should drop out." Which Founding Father was it who said that? Sounds positively Jeffersonian...no wait, surely that was Washington. A joyful tear comes to my eye when I hear people express such a wonderful democratic principle so succinctly.

I said above that while I was repulsed by the message I was impressed by the honesty. Guess that didn't last long...

'what was so wrong about making the Florida recount comply with the law, instead of redesigning the law to "count every vote!"?'

I realize that the applicable laws mandated certain constraints that should not be violated lest confidence in a "rule of law" be eroded, but if the matter had been approached from a cooperative standpoint rather than an adversarial one every step of the way we should have been able to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion and as a bonus not look like failed kindergartners scrabbling over free candy in the process. The law is not so strictly written that the intent (one hopes, to ensure a fair and accurate election) is completely at the mercy of the letter. The recent election in Taiwan provides an example of a similar situation that was handled better, not perfectly, but better.

Because the Dems have shown no interest in, for example, enforcing laws keeping felons from voting, and they certainly weren't interested in the electoral law in Florida or NJ.

I don't like the law, for starters. But Nader is clearly NOT an example of the sort of thing it might legitimately be designed to prevent -- random crazies flooding the ballot office -- since the reason that Dems want to keep him off is not that he's a waste of ballot space, but that all too many people want to vote for him. And the description of how its being "enforced" seems to me to be highly abusive.

In short: I don't like the law. I don't like the Democratic Party's motivations for enforcing it. And I don't like the methods they've chosen. I don't expect any better from a political party, but I'm somewhat disappointed to find that not one Democrat on this board even pretends to have believed their own talk about "counting every vote".

DRB, See, and I don't think Bush is a 52...I think he's about a 75. And I don't think Kerry is a 48, I think he hovers somewhere around 40. I think most Republicans tend to be a 52 and I think most Democrats tend to be a 48.

I took one of those on-line polls on "who I should vote for" and based on the answers I was 83% in agreement with Kerry, 82% in agreement with Kucinich (sp?) and about 25% in agreement with Bush. It's a pretty substantial difference. I know in NY you can write in a candidate. If Nader has such a groundswell of support, can't his supporters just write him in? If people just want to vote for a none of the above candidate there are plenty of third part candidates to choose from.

I just don't think you're arguement holds water. As I have repeatedly said I don't approve of how either party is handling Nader, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it regardless. It's strictly politics and if you don't understand or like how the system works then perhaps you should try to change it, as opposed to just whining about it.

"but I'm somewhat disappointed to find that not one Democrat on this board even pretends to have believed their own talk about 'counting every vote.'"

I don't really understand what you're talking about. There are no votes to count - what could "count every vote" possibly mean in that context? If you mean "reflect the potential choices of every potential voter," OK, but that's a different argument. And not one any Democrat made in 2000, so not really "our own talk."

I think I know why you're a Republican - the people you think are Democrats are not, in fact, Democrats.

Jane, I believe in counting every vote that is properly cast, but doesn't the counting come after the ballot is printed and people vote? I am all for counting properly cast Nader votes, assuming he can make it on the ballot legally. He appears to be having great trouble doing so. I don't know why any rational person would think that the Democrats should simply sit back, let Nader get on the ballot illegally and at their expense. It just isn't human nature to expect this to happen. It may not be pretty, but democracy never is.
As for Nader not being one of those random crazies flooding the ballot office, I am not so sure that he isn't. He has run for president three times now, Twice as a Green and now as a member of the Reform Party. In 96, he has two different running mates at the same time. He says with a straight face that Gore took votes away from him and cost him the election and that his support this year will come from conservatives mad at Bush. He is now running under the banner of the Reform Party, which itself is a bit crazy these days. I am not sure his candidacy should be taken seriously. Is not his failure to garner enough valid signatures to get on state ballots a measure of the demand for his candidacy?

ABR. Cry all you like with respect to the Founding Fathers, but also remember that they didn't even provide for us voting for the electors, thought it was neat to count slaves as 3/5 of a person, and wouldn't let us elect our own senators. I wouldn't be so sure that they disapprove of ballot access requirments. I am not arguing that the ballot access laws are sacrosanct, clearly they are not, but they are valid and the Dems have every righ to enforce them. Are they motivated by self interest, of course, but that doesn't make their legal arguments any less valid.

Kate,

The people (and the two major political parties) of the United States have jointly agreed a number of major decisions regarding the progress of this nation:

1. The USA will run basically under free-market capitalism with some amount of government regulation and a small social safety net. The exact amount of regulation and the size of the safety net are subject to some debate within a fairly tight set of parameters. Partisans pretend this debate is earth-shaking, anyone with a global and historical perspective recognizes it as insignificant.

2. The USA will have the strongest military in the world, far stronger than the closest competitor. Exactly how much stronger is subject to some debate within a fairly tight set of parameters. Partisans pretend this debate is earth-shaking, anyone with a global and historical perspective recognizes it as insignificant.

3. The US government will be funded in part by a progressive income tax. Exactly how progressive the tax will be is subject to some debate within a fairly tight set of parameters. Partisans pretend this debate is earth-shaking, anyone with a global and historical perspective recognizes it as insignificant.

4. The USA will generally operate under principles of free trade, with some amount of protectionism tolerated to favor certain groups. Exactly how much protectionism and which groups is subject to some debate within a fairly tight set of parameters. Partisans pretend this debate is earth-shaking, anyone with a global and historical perspective recognizes it as insignificant.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The larger decisions that will chart the progress of this nation have been made. The two political parties fight -- viciously and venomously -- over the unimportant details within those larger decisions.

Your argument is the one that doesn't hold water. There is nothing a President Bush or a President Kerry can do to change these larger decisions ("meta-decisions") beyond the tight constraints set by the public over the course of numerous elections. And the exact place each party lands within the constraints is pretty much meaningless.

Bush is not a 75. Not even close. Signs saying Bush = Hitler don't make it so. Nothing approaching a 75 would be tolerated in the American political process. The policies implemented with Bush in office would for the most part have been applauded by Democrats if they'd been proposed and implemented by Clinton. Take the partisan blinders off. Get some perspective. If you think pushing for a 32% top tax bracket rather than a 38% top tax bracket constitutes a "substantial difference" between parties, you're out of your mind.

Let me be clear -- I don't care if Nader gets on the ballot. I'm just annoyed by partisan nutjobs insisting that the 4 point difference between Bush and Kerry is something I should be concerned about. And I'm disturbed that some people are so ready to jettison democratic principles for something so meaningless.

When I was young and did or said something particularly foolish, my father would simply look at me and shake his head. Those of you who believe that all's fair in politics, I am shaking my head at you.

I'm tired of the redistricting for political advantage. I'm tired of the campaign finance laws that require everybody involved to be a lawyer or a CPA or both. And I'm really tired of people trying to keep other people off of ballots for whatever reason.

How many of you even know that before about a hundred years ago, voters could produce their own ballots and cast their votes for whomsoever they wished? The government hasn't always had this control over the process.

Silly me. I thought the vote BELONGED to me. Thanks for setting me straight.

Eamon:

I'm surprised that you mentioned that the founders "...thought it was neat to count slaves as 3/5 of a person..." Where, pray tell, in the Federalist Papers does it mention this intent of the founders?

Would you have preferred that the slave states get more influence in Congress (counting slaves as part of the population) thus ensuring the continuation of slavery or would you have preferred that we not have a Constitution for the lack of a deal? Didja ever hear of the "3/5ths *compromise*"?

Just askin'

The Un-Candidate wrote:

Would you have preferred that the slave states get more influence in Congress (counting slaves as part of the population) thus ensuring the continuation of slavery or would you have preferred that we not have a Constitution for the lack of a deal? Didja ever hear of the "3/5ths *compromise*"?

Exactly, another aspect was that the delegates agreed that the federal government would have the power to ban the international slave trade after 1808 which it proceeded to do on January 1, 1808 unanimously.

The results of three-fiths compromise would be that (a) instead of forming their own country (where the practice of slavery could and probably would ahve continued unabated) the Southern States joined with the Northern States to form the United States where because of the compromise (b) they had less political power in Congress than they would have had but for the three fifths compromise and in twenty years (c) we had the ban of the international slave trade.

Considering the alternatives of two seperate countries (which may or may not have been able to survive on their own) or a Congress in which Slave States had more political influence or the continuation of the international slave trade, I'd say that the three fifths compromise was clearly better than the either of the likely alternatives.

Tim said:

"2. I'm unaware of anything in recent memory that compares to the McCain whisper campain in SC about his daughter, or the whispers about McCain's sanity. I could be totally wrong, but this Bush group strikes me as particularly bad actors. You have to play the game of whoever holds the court."

What short a short memory you have. Cynthia McKinney claimed Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 and allowed terrorists to murder 3,000 people to profit his friends. Michael Moore claimed, and Terry McAuliffe concurred, that Bush invaded a country leading to many deaths in order to allow an oil pipeline to be built. (Aside, obviously this accusation is false since the pipeline wasn't built despite the Karzai government's efforts. How can so many people be deluded by such a fool as Moore who presents such demonstrably false accusations?)

Somehow, I can't agree that what Bush's supporters did was worse than either of these, nor is it worse than inferring Bush was a racist via the Jasper ads as noted above.

How can indirectly playing to a voters racism be worse than inferring the candidate is a racist? Being called a mass murderer is on a whole different plane.

Your diagnosis seems pretty closely tied to your politics.

Sigh. SomeCallMeDim, ideological lies and evasions dripping from his keyboard.

Gee Willikers DRB, I never thought of it like that! I bet both parties agree that pets shouldn't get the vote! And that we shouldn't shoot babies for sport! And I bet both parties can agree that baseball is Americas past time!

But the point it that on the general scale of American politicians (i.e. foreign policy, economic development, social issues, entitlements etc...) these two guys are pretty different. Disagree with me if you want. It's your right.

Kate, in terms of what I want most, which is a smaller government, they are depressingly similar.

Well, this honorable Democrat, at least, will be a poll judge in Ohio in November, just like he was last May, seeing that every vote is counted.

And he thinks that, like all of us, Jane will just have to close her ears if she doesn't want to here "one more word" about anything from the opposite party.

I do agree that the gerrymandering (coupled with term limits in state offices) is probably the most troublesome election problem we have, and I also would like to see the Iowa system applied to all fifty states.

Will it happened? Well, as Falstaff was once quoted as saying, in Henry II, "Honor pricks me on! But if Honor pricks me off, what then?"

Gee Willikers Kate, there were times in America's history when the points I listed above were NOT generally agreed upon by the American public! But hey, pets voting, whatever. I assume that means you don't have a real rebuttal.

At least we managed to get to "disagree with me if you want, it's your right" as opposed to the "screw that" and "suck it up" that you started with. I guess I'll take my progress where I can get it.

I suspect that one reason Iowa is able to have such fairly drawn districts is because it is so racially homogenous. Federal law requires congressional districts to be drawn so that the proportion of districts where a majority of constituents are of a racial minority is roughly the same as the proportion of racial minorities in the population. That tends to create awkwardly drawn districts and districts that excessively concentrate Demorcats, which fuels partisan gerrymandering. That's not a problem in Iowa because it is impossible to draw a district where a majority of the constituents are of a racial minority.

DRB

Just to clarify further, can you briefly sketch what you think the policies of a "75" might be?

Thanks,

Tom

DRB says, 'If you think pushing for a 32% top tax bracket rather than a 38% top tax bracket constitutes a "substantial difference" between parties, you're out of your mind.'

The difference in top tax brackets (individual and corporate) has a substantial effect, at the margin, in economic growth rates. I bet Jane can tell us how much.

Courtesy of Tyler Cowen, over at Marginal Revolution (who is decidedly NOT out of his mind)
this is how much difference it makes:
"The importance of the growth rate increases, the further into the future we look. If a country grows at two percent, as opposed to growing at one percent, the difference in welfare in a single year is relatively small. But over time the difference becomes very large. For instance, had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990. At a growth rate of five percent per annum, it takes just over eighty years for a country to move from a per capita income of $500 to a per capita income of $25,000, defining both in terms of constant real dollars. At a growth rate of one percent, such an improvement takes 393 years."

Tom,

I'm not sure I could do it briefly. Try taking the four examples I outlined above and then go outside the bounds. E.g. on example 1 (economic system), a 75 would push for unregulated, cutthroat, devil-take the hindmost free market capitalism. No SEC, no EPA, etc -- very much like the era of the American robber barons. There would be no welfare checks or food stamps at all -- you work, or you starve.

On example 3, progressive income tax, a 75 would push for a flat tax or even the elimination of the income tax altogether. Go further and you get regressive, with only the poor facing the tax burden and the elite simply benefiting from it.

I will leave the question of policies toward immigrants and treatment of minority populations as an exercise for the reader -- just remember that on this subject not even Hitler should be considered a 100. There should always be some room to go to the right (and the left) of anything that has actually happened in world history.

The problem as I see it is that many people in the US want to imagine the Democrats at 20 and the Republicans at 80, so they think the delta between the two groups is more dramatic. I think this is incorrect and misleading -- they're not leaving nearly enough room to go toward the extremes. And in the course of American history and world history, people have gone much, *much* further toward the extremes than the modern-day Reps and the Dems.

In addition, DRB, there's a difference in 1) what they want, 2) what they can get or 3) what Congress is willing to give...

I'm guessing that most ideological conservatives would be happy with a presidency that wanted 70, asked for 61 and then would crow about 56.

As for a bold move, I'd say that HillaryCare (I can't find a good shorthand for that) was probably a 30 move where the US was willing to lean towards 43. Just a guess -- this is a fun game!

Thank you, Un-Candidate, I believe your examples make my point much better than I ever could.

As you say, regardless of where the candidates may actually be, they have to deal with the rest of the government and the American people in order to get their policies implemented...and the rest of the government and the American people are not going to cooperate if those policies are "outside the bounds."

So now I'm gonna take your post and all those earlier postings and bring it on home. To reiterate -- it is Not A Big Deal who wins the upcoming election, because policies that have a significant impact on the overall progress of the US are not going to be implemented unless they fall within a narrow set of generally acceptable parameters.

Therefore, people who believe this election is a matter of life and death -- people who are willing to jettison their democratic principles in order to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot and help their guy win -- really need to take a deep breath and get some perspective.

Now if it was Hitler vs. Jesus in '04, well, maybe I'd engage in some dirty pool myself to make sure Nader didn't lure votes away from the Jewish carpenter.

I don't really follow what's going on in the Nader campaign, so I'm not sure what the facts are. If the Democrats are trying to prevent Nader from getting on the ballot by illegitimately challenging legitimate petitions to get on the ballot, well, that's just bad. But is that what's going on? Or is it that local Republicans have compiled questionable lists of names to get Nader on the ballot to help prevent a Kerry victory? I gather that there's at least a little bit of the latter that's going on, and that demands intervention by the Dems.

Finally, because Jane started it, under Florida law every ascertainable vote must be counted. It has long been a part of Florida jurisprudence. Ignoring Fla. Supreme Court case law doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's why Gore was stupid to concede the "double" votes -- that is, those who both punched "Al Gore" and wrote in "Al Gore."

Jane,

Where exactly is the contradiction between wanting to count every vote that was cast and trying to legally prevent someone who might take votes from you from getting on the ballot?

Detached: What's the difference between keeping your favored candidate off the ballot and throwing out your vote?

One has to do with enforcing laws we have, as a society, imposed on all who wish to be on the ballot.

The other has to do with counting votes diligently to avoid the errors created by voting machines, hanging chads, and so on.

Wheres the similarity? I don't see any, except for both of them being related to voting.

I will believe there is someone honest in the Democratic Party when they stop registering tombstones, housepets and illegal aliens or stop trying to disqualify absentee ballots from military personel. The Republicans are meerly slimey, the Democrats are positively criminal.

I will believe there is someone honest in the Republican Party when they stop disenfranchising black people, relying on the supreme court to win elections, or start getting serious about actually counting votes. The Democrats are meerly slimey, the Republicans are positively criminal.

"It is already a crying shame the way the Republicans and Democrats have colluded to make ballot access as difficult as possible. There is simply no excuse for this blatant attempt to keep Nader from running, and I hope that honorable Democrats will say so, loud and clear."

Ms. McArdle, that might be true if Nader himself was actually running to try to win -- rather than obviously running just to try and tilt this election to Bush as he did the last one, either out of pure petty spite, or (as Mark Kleiman suggests) because his very profitable position as head of Public Citizen becomes even more profitable if there are more right-wing government scandals for him to yell about.

In any case (as has been very often pointed out), if Nader had actually been sincere about running for President, he would have done the perfectly obvious thing and run for the Democratic presidential nomintion instead. If he can't get a majority of Democratic primary voters to support him over candidates to his Right, he sure as hell can't get a majority -- or even one-third -- of voters in the general election.

What all this really ultimately proves, of course, is that our current electoral system is cretinously dysfunctional and that we need to replace it with a system incorporating either a runoff or an instant runoff. (Nor are the Democrats the only party suffering from the depredations of fringe nitwits under the current system: the Democrats owe several of their current Senate seats -- in South Dakota, Washington state, and maybe Nevada -- to the fact that the Libertarian candidates keep bleeding off votes from the GOP Senate candidate. Still, the Libertarians at least have the excuse that they're closer to the GOP economically but to the Democrats on social issues, whereas Nader is to the Left of the Democrats on literally every issue -- and, as I say, knows perfectly well what he's doing, unless he's a complete drooling cretin.)

I'm too busy laughing at this and this to make a decent comment. So sorry.

Make every vote count. Two or three times, if possible.

Comments are Closed.