Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 30th, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Blog
HBO’s new movie “Recount” is an entertaining look at the controversial 2000 Presidential election results in Florida.
You don’t need to be an election geek to enjoy this film. “Recount” is a fun and educational way to revisit the 2000 Florida vote debacle. Everyone interested in the 2008 election should watch “Recount”.
Unfortunately, some people today still have a simplistic, uninformed view of the Florida election controversies. Some believe that George W. Bush won Florida fair and square. Those who think Al Gore won Florida may be correct, but “Recount” sets the record straight: Florida 2000 was a big, ugly mess with no clear winner.
“Recount” dramatically shows the many dimensions of the whole Florida vote battle as a series of controversies. Superb editing keeps a brisk pace. We see political insiders in emotional arguments over rules, angry protests, funny protests, frantic election officials, citizens illegally denied the right to vote, court proceedings in Florida and the Supreme Court. “Recount” spotlights the most important points but never bogs down into tedious detail. Who knew that dimpled chads could be so much fun? Watch “Recount” and you will really know and also care about chads, and especially, why election rules are so important.
Like all good historical movies, “Recount” is very accurate about the important facts but takes some dramatic license with the historical characters. I was disappointed with the screenplay’s portrayal of Warren Christopher (played by John Hurt), but that is a minor quibble. “Recount” is a literary tragedy: we already know the outcome but we are fascinated in watching the story unfold.
Precisely tabulating millions of votes will remain impossible for the foreseeable future. Have you ever experienced: a paper jam in a 3-hole punch or shredder or printer or copy machine or document feeder, a staple jam, a computer glitch, a typo? If you answered “yes”, then you get the idea - “stuff happens”. If you answered “no”, then you’ve never worked with information. We must do everything we can to attempt to count every vote correctly.Â
Much of the Gore vs. Bush legal battles involved the concept of voter intention. Many Floridians accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore, because some people (especially older voters with vision problems) were confused by the infamous “butterfly” ballot. “Recount” demystifies the 2000 Florida recount controversies. We see how missteps in the very practical “nuts and bolts” election mechanics ultimately determined who would be the next President of the United States.
Today’s computerized solutions worry me because the systems are unproven, and technology requires vigilant auditing and maximum security. The “old-fashioned” paper ballot method is open to human error and vote fraud. A consensus is forming that a combination of technology and paper is the best approach. Preventing cheating is paramount.
I remember when I was a kid, my parents took me along when they went to vote at their polling place in Chicago (during the Richard J. Daley years). The Democratic Party precinct captain was quite proud to show me how he could easily cancel a vote if he thought the voter was a Republican. That is my earliest memory of elections, and I guess that was my first step in starting this website.
Links about “Recount”:
Other political movies I highly recommend:
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 26th, 2008 — in Green Party, Bob Barr, Libertarian Party, Ralph Nader, 3rd Party Politics, Blog
Some of the most passionate citizen voices in U.S. politics gravitate toward “third” parties.
Vote in our Opinion Poll about Third Parties!
I remember a printed political cartoon I saw when Ross Perot was running for president in 1992. A man was watching the news with his wife and he says, “America needs a third party”. Then the news reports that Ross Perot is running for President as a third party candidate. The man says to his wife, “America needs a fourth party”.
The U.S. has a number of “third” parties. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party have shown the most staying power over recent years. Ross Perot (running as the Reform Party candidate) gained about 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but did not win a single state, and therefore also had zero electoral votes.
This website will include some discussion of third parties. In 2008 our focus is on the Democratic and Republican candidates, unless a viable 3rd party candidate emerges. Those involved in 3rd party politics are quick to say, “The whole U.S. political system is not fair.” Election Referee tends to agree, but this a long discussion. This article is a first glance at this discussion.
Quick History
In the 20th century, there were several examples of significant third party efforts.
In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt ran for President as a candidate for the Progressive Party, more popularly known as the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt won over 27% of the popular vote and over 16% of the electoral votes. TR came in second place behind Democrat Woodrow Wilson, but ahead of the third place Republican incumbent President William Taft.
Racist “third party” segregationist presidential campaigns had some success winning a few Southern states, and therefore, some electoral votes. In 1948 Strom Thurmond won four states and in 1968 George Wallace won five states.
The United States political system has been stuck in a two-party model throughout its history. The “modern” U.S. political party system really began in the 1828 presidential campaign (partly in response to the controversial 1824 election). The Democratic Party candidate Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams of the “National Republican” Party. By 1836, the Whig Party solidified into the alternative to the Democratic Party. Whig candidate William Harrison won the presidency in 1840, and the Whigs enjoyed success and power until the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.
The last truly successful third party was the Republican Party. The Republican Party emerged as a force in 1856. The Republican Party organized a new coalition by essentially replacing the Whigs and bringing into its new big tent other political forces, including Free Soil Party members, abolitionists, and disillusioned Democrats. The Whig Party did not keep up with the times and seemed irrelevant, while the Republican Party addressed the slavery issue head-on. In 1860 the Republican Abraham Lincoln won the presidency and the Republican Party won a significant number of seats in both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Since the emergence of the Republican Party, no 3rd party has won the presidency or even had a major impact beyond one or two election cycles.
Grassroots Party vs. Cult of Personality
Third party efforts usually fall into one of two categories: grassroots party or cult of personality. Sometimes we need the benefit of time to truly assess what is happening.
Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot won a significant number of votes and appeared to tap into popular sentiment. However, without these specific personalities leading their parties, Roosevelt’s Progressive/Bull Moose party and Perot’s Reform party never gained traction. Additionally, these were “top down” efforts. While Roosevelt and Perot gained significant vote totals, their parties did not win any significant number of seats in Congress. They are simply anomalous though interesting blips in the course of presidential election history. These third party efforts demonstrate important voter dissatisfaction with the two party system of that time, but they failed to coalesce into a more powerful, lasting force in U.S. politics. Ultimately, the voters receded back into the two party system or dropped out, disillusioned with the electoral process.
Socialist presidential candidates (Eugene Debs, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas) won enough votes over the years to be a footnote in election history, but little more. They perhaps impacted policy to some extent by helping to publicize and popularize important progressive (and often much needed) social reforms such as workers rights and social security.
The Libertarian Party and the Green Party are by far the most important third parties over the last few elections.
Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000 is the most recent impactful third party campaign. In 2000 Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate and won 2.73% of the popular vote. This was significant because this candidacy combined a popular figure at the top of the party’s ticket along with some true grassroots organization. I find it very strange that in 2004 and 2008, Ralph Nader has abandoned the Green Party. I have read on the Green Party’s website that they wanted Nader to be their candidate in 2008. I have contacted the Nader campaign to ask why he is not running under the Green Party, but I never got a response. Except for Nader’s 2000 run, the Green Party has not gained any significant number of presidential votes. The Green Party has won some local government seats and has some minor influence in a few small areas scattered around the U.S.
The Libertarian Party has enjoyed a bit a staying power since 1980 when their candidate Ed Clark received just over 1% of the popular vote. Ron Paul led the Libertarian ticket in 1988 but won only 0.47% of the vote. In fact, since 1980, no Libertarian candidate has won more than 1%. Like the Green Party, Libertarians occasionally win some local elections.
Although their ideologies differ in very many respects, the Green and Libertarian parties have much in common. They each have legitimate grassroots organizations strong enough to have national conventions. They consistently have presidential candidates and also run in some local elections. Their political philosophies are more coherent and consistent than the big two parties. Libertarians and Greens view the two-party system as thoroughly and inherently corrupt and unfair. They usually think the Democratic Party is essentially and fundamentally the same as the Republican Party; the two big parties differ only in minor nuances. Despite this, they occasionally work with candidates in either major party who are like-minded on at least some issues. Sometimes between elections, Libertarians and Greens participate in campaigns to influence Congress (and local government) on issue-specific legislation.
Will a Third Party ever emerge as a powerful force?
Probably, some day. The American people actually want a third party according to many opinion polls. There are many obstacles. It is difficult for a third party to gain the necessary media attention. Getting on the ballot in 50 states is a difficult task. Although many people want more political choices, there is no consensus on one third party. If the Green and Libertarian parties merged they might have some synergy and gain some traction, but this would never happen because they have polar opposite views on many fundamental issues.
While the Green and Libertarian parties think the two big parties are too similar, many others see too vast of an ideological divide between the Democrats and Republicans. One scenario is a “centrist” third party designed to split off votes from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Ross Perot did this to some extent, but didn’t build a meaningful organization to sustain this movement beyond Perot’s personality. The suggested Michael Bloomberg presidential candidacy fits this model, but it never got off the ground. Centrist John Anderson won 6.6% of the vote in 1980, but no lasting centrist party emerged.
The most realistic scenario for a new powerful party to emerge is that one of the two parties suffers an irreconcilable divide or a large implosion. We have not seen this in American politics since the demise of the Whig Party and subsequent emergence of the Republican Party. The two big parties today often seem corrupt, entrenched, and out of touch with the American people. Sometimes these parties seem to stand for nothing while also being so opposed to each other that they never get anything done. The world keeps changing so quickly, are the two parties adequately prepared to address the future? Maybe we’re due (or even long over-due) for a shake up.
A long-term successful third party needs a strong grassroots organization that can run well-known national presidential candidates every four years while also winning elected seats in state, county, and local government. The fact that Ralph Nader and the Green Party are running two separate presidential campaigns seems ludicrous to me. There may be good reasons for this split, but none of us care, and it sure does not inspire many people that either Nader or the Greens are good alternatives. Successful politics typically involves coalitions and synergy.
The U.S. political system presents major obstacles for a third party. Unlike many democracies in the world, the U.S. does not have a parliamentary form of government. Parliamentary government enables multiple parties to gain at least some power much more readily than in the U.S system. The astronomical costs and necessary resources of running a national (and often even local) campaign prohibit most third party efforts from breaking through and into the mainstream. Many critics believe that very powerful corporate, media, and corporate-media interests prop up both parties.
Viability is a major threshold and “catch-22” for the third parties. The major media will give only very limited coverage to third party candidates this year. Even websites like this one will NOT devote much effort to discussing any presidential candidates except for John McCain and Barack Obama in 2008’s general election. Also, the election debates do not include third party candidates unless they are “viable”. The media networks and two big parties decide what “viable” means, and it’s usually something like 10% support in major polls. In 1992 Ross Perot broke through the two party and media lock down. He was viable because he was “viable”.
Winning isn’t everything. Third parties often enjoy a “gadfly” role while publicizing and pushing for their position on their favorite issues. They tend to like ideological purity, except for the “centrist” model, which is the opposite. Many argue that Ralph Nader lost the election for Al Gore in 2000 and Perot’s candidacy gave the election to Bill Clinton in 1992 and (less significantly) in 1996. At least theoretically, a third party may not win, but they can help decide who wins and loses.
In 2008, the only possibly relevant third parties are the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Ralph Naders. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr may attract enough potential Republican voters to give a headache to the McCain campaign, especially if Ron Paul and supporters of his “revolution” join with the Libertarians. The Greens and the Ralph Naders will likely annoy some Obamaniacs in places like Madison and Berkeley, but it’s unlikely they will impact the outcome in any state.
Perhaps the best possible third party and third party candidate is named “None of the Above“. It would be interesting if voters had this choice on the ballot.
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 24th, 2008 — in Referee whistle, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Blog
In South Dakota yesterday, Hillary Clinton made a very unfortunate comment during an interview with the Editorial Board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper.
While discussing why some people want her to end her campaign, Clinton said the following:
I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June.
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.
This video of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is the most passionate criticism of Clinton’s statement that I have heard:
See these related links:
My commentary on this controversy:
I agree with much of Keith Olbermann’s commentary. It seems that every time I write something positive about Hillary Clinton, the next day she sparks a new, unfortunate, ill-advised controversy. I have always had a “soft spot” for Hillary Clinton because I don’t like the way she has been unfairly demonized over the years. Sadly, her 2008 campaign has alienated many people unnecessarily.
These recent remarks by Clinton cross a line, touch the third rail. Obviously, her comments were not intentionally meant this way. But it shows a lack of judgment. She should know better than anyone else to be more thoughtful in presenting her political messages. Everyone makes mistakes, and when we do, it is important to correct them as effectively as possible. Her “apology” was oblivious to the seriousness of her mistake.
I have gone out on a limb by advocating an Obama/Clinton ticket. I’ve always had doubts about this, but I have thought the potential upside outweighs the downside. Today I am much less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.
I do believe in redemption. Hopefully, her next attempt at an apology will invoke her “better angels”. Hillary Clinton needs to prove that she can transcend her own narrow political ambitions. She needs to do this because it’s the right thing to do instead of weighing the potential political consequences.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 23rd, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog, Democratic Party Rules
John McCain is not officially the nominee of the Republican party, he is only the “presumptive” nominee now. The party nominee is not the official nominee until a majority of delegates at the party convention officially vote for the candidate.
Soon Barack Obama will be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton must decide how long she will keep her party in limbo.
Hillary Clinton continues to fight for every last delegate. She will certainly end up with the best second place showing in modern party nomination history. But as Mitt Romney knows, politics does not award “silver medals”.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 21st, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
 Today is one of those days when political coverage is more like sports news.
*************Â WRAPÂ ******************************Â
Yesterday’s double-header between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama resulted in a predictable split decision.
Clinton defeated Obama in Kentucky, outscoring Obama 37 to 14 in pledged delegates. In Oregon, Obama won over Clinton, and we’re still waiting for the final score.
May 23rd UPDATE: Oregon resulted in 31 delegates for Obama and 21 for Clinton.
Media analysts repeated the usual exit poll demographic discussion. Some white voters in Kentucky apparently don’t like Obama. Hillary is in it until the final primaries on June 3rd. Most speculate that Obama will be the official Democratic Party nominee by mid-June at the latest.
Obama needs only 57 more delegates to clinch the nomination and finally advance to the political World Series against John McCain. To defeat McCain, Obama needs to expand his roster to bring in as many Clinton voters as possible.
*************Â BOX SCORES ***********************
GAME 1 - KENTUCKY
Delegates:Â Â Clinton: 37Â Â Â Â |Â Obama: 14
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 65%Â |Â Obama: 30%
vote totals: Clinton: 459,124Â |Â Obama: 209,778
keys to the game: white working class voters, lower-middle income, more rural
GAME 2 - OREGON
Delegates:Â Â Clinton:Â 21Â Â Â |Â Obama: 31
% of vote:Â Â Â Clinton: 41%Â |Â Obama: 59%
vote totals: Clinton: 252,270 |Â Obama: 360,728
keys to the game: progressive white voters, middle income, more urban
************* SCHEDULE Â ************************
3 primaries contests remain (the number of delegates at stake is in parentheses):
- June 1st: Puerto Rico (55)
- June 3rd: Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)
Also, we are waiting for approximately 209 super delegates to announce their intentions.
Hang in there, it’s almost over, really!
************* STANDINGS ************************
*Delegate Count: Obama needs 57 more delegates to clinch the nomination.
Obama: 1969 (total), 1660 (pledged), 309 (super delegates)
Clinton: 1779 (total), 1500 (pledged), 279 (super delegates)
Edwards: 7 (total), 7 (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated May 23, 2008, according to CNN.
2,026 delegates required to win the nomination.
Note on delegate counts: each news agency has its own set of numbers. This is primarily due to the complex rules involved in awarding delegates to the candidates. I’ve been using CNN as a baseline, but this is somewhat arbitrary and not an endorsement of CNN. Their website updates the count frequently and I find it easy to use and informative. See MSNBC and FoxNews for alternative delegate counts.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 18th, 2008 — in Comic Relief, John McCain, Blog
John McCain appeared on Saturday Night Live (SNL) last night and he was pretty funny. He addressed the “age issue” head-on, saying, “We need to elect someone who is very, very, very old”.
It is interesting that presidential candidates have devoted time to appear on comedy shows and other popular TV shows in recent years. Some people criticize this, but I like it as long as we don’t lose sight of the real issues. It is important for our president to be able to connect with the voters, but let’s not elect someone simply because we think they would be a good “drinking buddy”.
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 16th, 2008 — in Barack Obama, Talk Radio, John McCain, Blog
On Thursday, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, George W. Bush gave a speech before the Israeli Knesset (congress). One part of Bush’s speech has been controversial:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
The Obama campaign and some political analysts have interpretted Bush’s statement as a direct attack on Barack Obama’s policy of willingness to “meet with our enemies”. Obama hit back and proclaimed he “welcomes this debate”. In campaign rallies, John McCain focused criticism on Obama’s foreign policy ideas.
The general election battle between Obama and McCain has started in earnest. Some interesting Democratic Party stories are still playing out, but now the media is paying much more attention to John McCain, and, of course, Obama vs. McCain.
George Bush does have a way with words. Some Bush supporters claim that Bush was referring to Jimmy Carter. It really doesn’t matter now, and who wants to spend more time looking into “Bush’s brain”?
“Appeasement” is one of the most historically-politically charged words in the foreign policy lexicon. At least we have a good history lesson and it’s the first real salvo in a critically important foreign policy debate. If you never have, now is good time to read a book about World War II (or at least read these links: Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill). Appeasement is when you give up something important (for example, Czechoslovakia) to your enemy with the hope that the concession will end their treachery.
This foreign policy debate is just beginning.
I enjoyed watching MSNBC’s Chris Matthews give a history lesson to right-wing talk show host Kevin James. Rachel Maddow’s introduction and follow-up interview with Chris Matthews are good too!
Sphere: Related Content
No Comments »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 15th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
On Wednesday, former presidential candidate John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama. The endorsement from Edwards signaled another step toward Obama’s nomination. John Edwards is an important leader of the Democratic Party and was John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.
John Edwards ran a somewhat disappointing campaign in 2008. He did not win a single primary or caucus. He did sharpen his message, specifically reaching out to people struggling with economic hardship. His prestige within the Democratic Party and support especially among a segment of blue collar and lower-income voters helped pressure both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to pay more attention to poverty issues.
John Edwards’ wife Elizabeth Edwards is also very well-respected and liked. Many speculate that Elizabeth Edwards supports Hillary Clinton.
This endorsement was good timing for Barack Obama’s campaign. A key rule of politics is that when the media is focused on negative stories about you, you need to change the story. Obama’s loss to Clinton in West Virginia by a huge margin was the negative story, and the Edwards endorsement replaced it.
John Edwards has been a harsh critic of the Iraq War and a passionate advocate for universal health care. Edwards won 7% of the vote in the West Virginia primary even though he has not been a candidate since February.
Edwards’ appeal to white working class voters may help Obama slightly, but ultimately Obama needs to do a better job reaching out to this constituency. In the aftermath of his endorsement, 8 of Edwards’ 19 pledged delegates are now pledged to Obama. Meanwhile more super delegates are jumping onboard Obama’s bandwagon.
This has been a long and interesting ride. Hang in there, this one is almost over. I sense that even Hillary Clinton and her campaign realize that she will not be the nominee in 2008. The battle between John McCain and Barack Obama is just beginning.
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Posted by John Publius Jr. on May 14th, 2008 — in Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Blog
Hillary Clinton won an overwhelming victory over Barack Obama in Tuesday’s West Virginia primary. As a result, Clinton picked up 20 pledged delegates while Obama gained 8 delegates. Clinton swept West Virginia, winning every county in the state, which is an unusual feat for the 2008 Democratic nomination race. However, for Clinton, this is “too little, too late”.
West Virginia has been an important swing state in recent presidential elections, even though it represents only five electoral votes. Again, demographics perhaps played the most important role: West Virginia’s population includes many white working-class and older Democratic voters. These demographic groups have been Hillary Clinton’s base. Barack Obama needs to improve his vote totals among these groups to win the general election in November.
Schedule of the five remaining primaries contests (the number of delegates at stake is in parentheses):
- May 20th: Kentucky (51)Â and Oregon (52)
- June 1st: Puerto Rico (55)
- June 3rd: Montana (16) and South Dakota (15)
Also, we are waiting for approximately 240 super delegates to announce their intentions.
Despite her impressive win in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton’s only feasible (although highly unlikely)Â chance for the nomination is that the Obama campaign suffers a catastrophic implosion.
Delegate Math Scenarios:
This “delegate calculator” from CNN’s website is a good tool for exploring scenarios. To clinch the nomination, Barack Obama needs to win 33% of the vote in the remaining primaries and also 33% of the remaining super delegates. Conversely, Hillary Clinton needs 72% to win the nomination.
*Delegate Count: Obama needs 141 more delegates to clinch the nomination:
Obama: 1884 (total), 1600 (pledged), 284 (super delegates)
Clinton: 1718 (total), 1445 (pledged), 273 (super delegates)
Edwards: 19 (total), 19 (pledged), 0 (super delegates)
* Updated May 14, 2008, according to CNN.
2,025 delegates required to win the nomination.
Note on delegate counts: each news agency has its own set of numbers. This is primarily due to the complex rules involved in awarding delegates to the candidates. I’ve been using CNN as a baseline, but this is somewhat arbitrary and not an endorsement of CNN. Their website updates the count frequently and I find it easy to use and informative. See MSNBC and FoxNews for alternative delegate counts.
Sphere: Related Content
1 Comment »
Loading …