A Political World with No Limits
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Last Thursday, the New York City Council voted 29 – 22 to permit incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-N.Y.) to seek a third mayoral term, extending the current eight year citywide limit to twelve years. Therefore, not only may Mayor Bloomberg seek a third term, but so may each of the fifty-one members of the New York City Council. Without the extension, approximately two thirds of the City Council would have been prohibited from seeking reelection in 2009.
The vote of the City Council supersedes a previous referendum passed by New York City voters in 1993, which imposed the two-term limit. In 1996, the City Council first attempted to extend two-terms to three-terms, but voters rejected the extension in another referendum.
How do you feel about the New York City Council vote? Are you in favor of term limits? Against? Ambivalent?
Articles of Confederation
The concept of term limits dates back to ancient Athens. Term limits were also considered by the Founding Fathers of the United States and incorporated into the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1, 1781, which governed the United States of America before adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Article V of the Articles of Confederation set forth, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years…” While this provision did not set a hard limit on duration of service, it did serve to maintain a constant flow of new personnel into Congress.
As I was reading the Articles of Confederation, I came across an interesting provision (although one that has no relevance whatsoever to term limits). Article XI states, “Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.” Canada did not have to do anything to become part of the United States. We made it easy. And still, it decided to go it alone!
United States Constitution
The United States Constitution, ratified on June 21, 1788 after New Hampshire approved it (see Note 1 below), which amended (or more accurately, replaced) the Articles of Confederation, did not make any provision for term limits. Therefore, under the Constitution as originally ratified, any President, United States Senator or Representative could serve indefinitely.
The George Washington Example
After two terms as President of the United States, George Washington declined to run for reelection in 1796, even after being urged to do so. Because the United States had only been led by one President, its first President, the first transition of power had yet to occur. Washington’s retirement paved the way for the first real Presidential Election and the first real test of the durability of the mechanisms that the Constitution put in place to transition to a new political regime.
Keep in mind that back in 1796, no one knew with certainty whether an orderly transition would occur. The last government transition in which America participated was the Revolutionary War.
The two-term example that Washington set persisted until 1940. Although whether subsequent officeholders never served more than two terms in an effort to honor America’s patriarch, support the idea of term limits or pursue some other agenda, no one knows.
Bucking the Trend
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt decided to seek a third term as President, which he won. Roosevelt also won a fourth term in 1944. If FDR had not died during year 13 of his Presidency, he might even have sought a fifth term.
Why? Probably because of the developing war in Europe. Roosevelt was a strong leader that had led the nation through the Great Depression. He had tremendous brand value across the United States. And with strong Republican gains in Congress during the 1938 elections, the Democratic Party likely opted to nominate its strongest candidate, who happened to be the incumbent President. World War II logically explains why Roosevelt sought a fourth term, which Roosevelt won in 1944.
The Twenty-Second Amendment
Following the conclusion of World War II, Congress reacted by passing the Twenty-Second Amendment, ratified on February 27, 1951, which prohibited a President from serving more than two full terms. While the Amendment specifically exempted the currently serving President, then Harry Truman, from the two-term limit, Truman voluntarily stepped down after serving the remainder of FDR’s fourth term and one term of his own.
The text of the Twenty-Second Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”
In practice, the Amendment means that a President can only serve more than two terms if he becomes President by succession (i.e. he is the Vice President and the President dies, resigns or is thrown out of office) with less than two years left in the term.
For example, President John Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, he served the rest of Kennedy’s term, which was less than two years (Presidential terms, currently, run from noon on January 20 following the Election until 11:59 AM January 20 for years later). Therefore, Johnson could have run for reelection in 1964, which he did, and 1968, which he did not.
The States
Term limits existed among the States even prior to the Articles of Confederation, reaching back to the Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties of 1682, which provided for a triennial rotation of officeholders on the Provincial Council (see Note 2 below).
Today, in some form or another, thirty-six States have term limits.
Some states have a strict term limit, meaning that an officeholder can serve no more than a certain number of consecutive terms. For example, Arizona limits gubernatorial service to two terms. Therefore, incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano (D-Az.) cannot stand for reelection in 2010.
Others have a term limit within a specified period of time. For example, Virginia limits service by prohibiting the Governor from serving consecutive terms. So incumbent Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va.) cannot seek reelection in 2009; however, he can seek reelection in 2013.
Still other states have no term limits. For example, North Dakota, where incumbent Governor John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is now running for his third consecutive term.
The Arguments for Term Limits
- They provide a constant influx of new officeholders, which brings new personalities, new ideas and new energy. But is this a good or bad thing? What if Congress (as hard as this might be to believe), is doing a good job? Do we always want new blood?
- They add an additional check on political entrenchment and entrenchment often leads to abuses of power and office. The more power an officeholder accumulates over time, the more valuable he becomes to corporations and industry groups to affect their agendas.
- They allow a greater opportunity for more citizens to become involved in government through serving in elective office. Is participation in government not our civic duty?
- They are a counterweight to the power of the incumbency. The amount of name recognition, money, prestige and news coverage current officeholders enjoy puts them at a significant advantage over challengers.
- They offer less incentive for officeholders to cater to the popular whims of powerful constituencies. If officeholders are not worried about reelection, they can “vote their conscience.”
The Arguments Against Term Limits
- As the business of government has become more complex, effective officeholders must have years of experience dealing with issues and the political process for the government to function properly. Term limits would force officeholders to rely more heavily on career lobbyists and legislative aides. Do we want novices steering public policy in Congress?
- Term limits would serve to focus the attention of officeholders on whatever political office or job to which they aspired next. For instance, once an individual was elected to the House of Representatives, he would act in a way that does not hurt his chances of running for the United States Senate when his term limit arrives. Or obtaining a position in the business world.
- Voters have the freedom to remove an officeholder on each Election Day. That choice should be left to voters. If the officeholder is performing well, why deprive voters of continued services of that officeholder?
Even more evidence, as the late self-styled political philosopher George Carlin once said, “Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans.”
My Opinion
In my opinion, a regime of no term limits is preferable to term limits. Because I think that solutions exist to counter most of the arguments against no term limits.
First, the influx of new people.
I am concerned with the lack of experience of novice officeholders not only with respect to policy, but also with respect to process. One cannot learn the intricacies of geopolitical relationships or other policy issues quickly and on paper. A thorough understanding only comes from dealing with them over a period of time.
Additionally, the legislative process is complicated. One reason that former President Lyndon Johnson (D-Tx.) was able to push his Great Society legislation through Congress is because of his mastery of the legislative process as a United States Congressman, Senator, Senate Majority Whip, Senate Majority Leader and Vice President. Although, maybe officeholders who are unfamiliar with how Congress is “supposed to” work would make the process more efficient.
Second, the check on entrenchment.
Officeholders who serve for ten, twenty, thirty or more years learn over time how to work the system. While I like to think everyone is honest, I have gotten fake phone numbers before. But I also like to think that we have a judicial system and electorate that can weed out those who take advantage, like the House Democrats involved in the check-bouncing scandal in the early-1990s and former Connecticut Governor John Rowland (R-Ct.), who used the Office of the Governor to benefit himself financially. In response, the electorate installed a Republican Congressional majority in 1994 and Rowland resigned and went to federal prison. But while there are many instances of the judicial system and electorate holding abusive officeholders accountable, there are likely even more instances that we will never learn about where they did not.
Third, the greater participation argument.
Honestly, I do not want so many more people involved. I want the best and brightest involved. If that is not you, perform your duty of civic participation another way.
Fourth, the power of the incumbency.
This is a serious concern. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent, at any level of government. Which leads to entrenchment. However, I believe that if we modify our campaign finance laws, and there are several interesting proposals out there, to level the playing field, I think that the power of the incumbency can be minimized. Although since incumbent officeholders are the ones who decide what campaign finance reform is passed, the playing field likely will remain unlevel.
Fifth, the pandering issue.
If officeholders were limited to one term, they would not ever worry about reelection. But any regime of term limits likely would specify more than one term. So except for the last term, officeholders would have to worry about reelection. And even if they were limited to one term, there remains the issue of climbing the political ladder. A term limit in one office does not apply to a different office. So career politicians would still have to act in a way that keeps them in the good graces of voters. The problem does not actually change. There is no easy fix for this issue.
New York City 2009 Mayoral Race
As you can imagine, neither of the leading contenders to challenge Mayor Bloomberg in 2009, New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, supported the proposal to extend city term limits. The popularity of the incumbent Mayor, the power of the incumbency and Bloomberg’s intended use of $80 million for the campaign make unseating him almost an impossibility.
Although I wonder if either Thompson or Weiner would have supported the extension if he were the incumbent Mayor.
Weekly News Update
(Soon to be Former) Senator Ted Stevens: On Monday, a federal court in Washington, DC convicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ak.) on all seven counts (see Note 3 below) for which he was indicted. This Senate seat is now a sure win for Anchorage Mayor, and Democrat, Mark Begich (D-Ak.).
Republican Endorsements of Obama: Over the past week, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld each endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.): Murtha finds himself in a much closer race than expected thanks to the following comment he made to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” He apologized for the remark, then later commented to Pittsburgh’s WTAE that, “this whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” Seriously? Bite the hand that feeds you? Racist, redneck, all the right words to describe the people who vote for you. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is dumping money into Murtha’s Twelfth District to save him. If he survives, it will be narrowly.
Republican Triage: According to the Washington Post, the list of abandoned Republican incumbents is growing. In an effort to minimize the bleeding and concentrate its dwindling financial races on seats they are more likely to retain, the NRCC has cancelled all media buys on behalf of Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-Co.), Tom Feeney (R-Fl.) and Joe Knollenberg (R-Mi.).
Palin ‘12: Recent news reports have raised the conduct of Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin (R-Ak.), in going “rogue” and off message to placate conservatives. Some suggest that she is doing so because she believes that Senator John McCain will lose the Presidential Election and she wants to establish herself independently as a Republican Party leader, perhaps to set herself up for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. Odds of Palin becoming the Republican nominee in 2012? Same odds as Ted Stevens winning reelection. Zero.
Statue of Liberty: Exactly one hundred twenty-two years ago today, President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.
Next Tuesday: Election Predictions.
------------------------------
Sources
Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/news/ny-nyterm225893354oct22,0,2215389.story
Gotham Gazette: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050314/200/1348
The U.S. Constitution Online: http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.com
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10termlimits.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6-IqwvI2Wmh9h06Alh_H1zp6z6AD943Q5V80
Politics1: www.politics1.com
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203107.html
------------------------------
Notes
Note 1: New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. Article VII of the United States Constitution required nine states to ratify before it became effective.
Note 2: The Provincial Council was the upper chamber of the colonial Pennsylvania Legislature.
Note 3: For a list of counts, see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/744566.html.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Right to Vote
Right to Vote
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Former President Harry S Truman once said, “It's not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It's the hand that casts the ballot.” When was the last time that you, as a voter, felt that you held the destiny of America? That your vote really affected anything at all? Well, if you voted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida…
Truman believed that ultimately, political power rested with the people, not with the government. Theoretically, the notion is true. Because the government itself is an instrumentality artificially created by the people and through voting, the people can, theoretically, recreate or even uncreate it. Unfortunately, in practice, the only permissible change is one to different officeholders, who may prove no better.
Conceptually, the power of the vote is vast. Although rarely can we understand just how vast because one vote seems immaterial amidst so many others. The collective vote is almost omnipotent, but each individual vote, because of their wide dispersion, much less so. But each year, races do come down to the hundreds of votes. The 2000 Presidential Election is just the grandest example.
History of Voting
The United States Constitution, in its original form, does not address the right to vote. The individual States conferred, or denied, the right to vote through their State Constitutions. Below are two examples.
New Jersey
Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (since revised) set forth the following with respect to voting.
“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for, twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be, entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
Georgia
Article VI of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 (since revised) states the following.
“The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected;… and they shall be of the Protestant on, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
In New Jersey, voting restrictions included age, wealth and state residency. In Georgia, voting restrictions included age, wealth, state and county residency and religion. These and other extralegal tactics were used to limit the universe of voters essentially to landed, white men.
Why the limitations? Probably for two reasons.
First, those who drafted the State Constitutions, as well as the U. S. Constitution, were landed, white men. They shared similar interests with other landed, white men. These men felt that they should take responsibility for governing because they were the educated, elite and wealthy. They had, or so they felt, greater interests than the common man in the business of government. And second, landed, white men did not trust the masses to vote intelligently. They felt that the uneducated masses would not know how to vote in their own best interests.
The first reason reeks of self-interest. Although we certainly do want highly intelligent people serving in government, those intelligent public servants need not be wealthy or elite. But in the 18th Century, those in power felt otherwise at least in part because generally, only the wealthy were educated.
The second reason begs an interesting question. Should only those citizens who are informed about the issues and candidates be permitted to vote? Certainly, the idea seems reasonable. Although instituting a regime where an impartial body must verify the veracity of knowledge of each citizen probably is unworkable.
Other than taking a written civics exam, how else could society determine which of its citizens are educated enough to vote for public office? And who would write such an exam? A government entity? An impartial body? The College Board (which administers the SAT)? And what questions would the test include? If a voter knows everything about healthcare, and bases her vote on that, but knows nothing about foreign policy, would she qualify to vote? In the words of the sagacious Jeffrey Lebowski, there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous.”
The Vote Evolves
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, marked the Federal Government’s first intervention into the sphere of voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment sets forth, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Following ratification, some states enacted poll taxes and literacy exams and employed various other tactics to deny the franchise to African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, did away with poll taxes.
Nineteenth Amendment
Women obtained the right to vote upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 18, 1920. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” It is interesting to note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment applies only to federal elections.
Twenty-Sixth Amendment
In response to the Vietnam War draft that conscripted eighteen year olds into military service, the United States ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment on July 1, 1971, which reduced the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Americans with Disabilities Act
In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, which required that polling places be accessible to citizens with disabilities.
Other Groups
In various ways, states tended to deny Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos the vote in ways similar to African Americans. Their ability to vote was spotty until citizenship laws governing the citizenship of members of these groups changed and voting restrictions, like the literacy requirement, were outlawed.
Who Should Get to Vote?
Let’s start with the presumption that everyone should get to vote. Then we can peel off certain groups. The federal government has already peeled of citizens under the age of 18. Why? The age of eighteen is arbitrary. I remember when I was in middle school, my history teacher would grill my class every week on current events. I knew Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense (and remembered his name because as a seventh grader, I found it particularly amusing). I assure you that in 1991, my seventh grade class was better informed than many adults. Certainly, children who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should not be permitted to vote. But all others? Why not?
States treat the right to vote of convicted felons differently. Some deny the franchise to convicted felons while incarcerated, others through post-incarceration parole and yet others forever. Why? Because convicted felons have violated their contract with society to adhere to the law. This is society’s way of punishing convicted felons. That and sending them to up to Rikers, probably the less appealing of the two.
States also have different standards for denying the vote to the mentally insane. In 2007, the American Bar Association recommended withholding the vote from only those who cannot indicate, with or without assistance, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.” Why? Maybe for the same reason as denying the vote to a newborn baby. No capacity to reason. Although another justification could be avoidance of coercion. No independent judgment. But in this case, is a mentally insane person any different than your friend who knows nothing about politics, asks you how to vote and then votes that way? He is certainly not exercising independent judgment.
Who else should we peel off? The guy who sits next to you at work who doesn’t even know who’s running for President? Or the New York City cab driver you rode with yesterday who did not know where Times Square was? Or anyone who plans to vote for the other guy (or gal)?
While there might not exist an equitable way to determine who is informed and who is not informed, I still think that our democracy would benefit from a well-informed electorate. It does concern me that people vote who do not understand the true ramifications of their vote. Many do understand. But many do not. Although it is also important to note that even if a voter does understand precisely the ramifications of his vote at the present time, the preferred candidate might change positions or act totally contrary to the words and actions upon which the voter based his vote.
I know what you are thinking. “Of course only informed people should have the right to vote. Because I am an informed person!” Really, are you?
12 Questions
See how many of the following twelve questions you can answer (see answers below). I actually had to double-check the answer to #6.
1. Name the Democratic and Republican nominees for President.
2. Name the Governor of your State.
3. Who must approve a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court?
4. What President established Social Security?
5. What three countries made up George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil?
6. Allegedly, nine world nations have nuclear weapons. Name five of them.
7. Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
8. With what governmental body must all federal taxation laws originate?
9. What is the Laffer Curve?
10. Who is second in the line of Presidential Succession (after the Vice President)?
11. What does NAFTA stand for?
12. Into what independent nation did Russia recently move Russian troops?
Still think only well-informed citizens should vote?
Who Should Vote?
I am confident that the majority of eligible American voters could not answer even half of the questions above correctly. But does that mean that we should not permit them to vote. If only the truly informed could vote, how many of us would actually cast a ballot. I assure you that I would not.
Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I can assure you that the average voter does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or the purported benefits of a flat tax. Or the arguments for and against ethanol subsidies. Or the non-monetary benefits of an entire citizenry that has heath insurance. Or what caused the melt down on Wall Street and how to fix it (if you know that, please call Hank Paulson immediately).
Which is not to say that the voter is uninformed. Policy in the twenty-first century is more complicated than policy in the eighteenth century. To understand every nuance of every issue would be a full-time job. Most elected officials do not know all the answers either. Which is why they have a staff and why lobbyists prosper.
Unfortunately, there is no simple or equitable way to purge the ranks of the voting public of those who are underinformed or uninformed. Primarily because we cannot precisely define a precise standard of “informed.” Even if you answered all ten questions above correctly, don’t pat yourself on the back so quickly. You are not necessarily informed.
How Do Voters Decide How to Vote?
If every American voter knew every little detail of every policy issue and understood precisely the implications of the policy positions of each candidate, would that change how the voter votes? Do voters even vote based on policy?
Voters decide for whom to cast their ballot for a wide variety of reasons. There may be one issue (eg. abortion) that trumps all others. Or across all issues, one candidate is more in line with the beliefs of the voter. Or one candidate exudes better character. Or is more trustworthy. Or is a better leader. Or is a better speaker. Or shares the same values as the voter.
There are myriad reasons why a voter votes for one candidate over another. Some reasons are good (eg. I like Obama’s plan for universal health care). Others are bad (eg. Obama is a Muslim).
Ask yourself the following question. Because while I suspect you have strong reasons for voting for whichever candidate you intend to vote for (to the extent you have already decided), you may not precisely understand why.
Why am I voting for Obama? Or McCain? Make a list of reasons.
Once you have the list, I ask that you check to make sure that those reasons, if fact based (eg. policy positions, personal facts about the candidate) are accurate. Make sure you have all the facts, because with all the emails flying around, misleading commercials and rumors, it is often hard to parse truth from the falsity.
And once you have the facts, go vote! Unless you are going to vote for the other guy… Just kidding.
Some Current Events of Note
Presidential Election Update
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are no longer swing states. Senator Obama leads by a solid margin in each of the four. Obama is now leading by at least 5% in each of New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. Of the seven states that now look like swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida), Obama leads in all but West Virginia (he trails by 1.5%) and Indiana (he trails by 3.8%).
Canadian Elections
Congratulations to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for securing enough seats in Parliament, although not a majority, to hold onto his post as PM, at least for a little while longer.
They Never Learn
Do you remember former Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst a scandal of sending sexually charged instant messages to male House pages? Since the Republican Party could not replace his name on the 2006 ballot, his Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, won the election (although by only about 4,500 votes) in a reliably Republican District. I guess Mahoney did not learn that a sex scandal is not good for one’s reelection prospects. Recent reports indicate that Mahoney was having an affair with one of his Congressional staffers, who found out that she was not the only one, and threatened to sue the Congressman. Mahoney then agreed to pay her over $100,000 to avoid a lawsuit. Extramarital affair. Staffer. Payoff. Representative Mahoney better call the movers. And given the sunny prospects for Democrats at the polls this year, Mahoney’s own Democratic will not bother to come to his rescue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already asked for a House Ethics investigation. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
------------------------------
Answers
1. Democrat: Senator Barack Obama; Republican: Senator John McCain;
2. Depends on state. See http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.42b929b1a5b9e4eac3363d10501010a0/?vgnextoid=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov;
3. United States Senate;
4. Franklin Roosevelt;
5. Iraq, Iran and North Korea;
6. United States, France, Russia, China, Great Britain, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel;
7. Gordon Brown;
8. House of Representatives;
9. A graph showing that sometimes increasing tax rates can lower total tax receipts;
10. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
11. North American Free Trade Agreement;
12. Georgia.
------------------------------
Sources
CNN.com: www.cnn.com
US Constitution Online: www.usconstitution.net
OpenElections: www.openelections.org
Drug Policy Alliance Network: www.drugpolicy.org
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
Former President Harry S Truman once said, “It's not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America. It's the hand that casts the ballot.” When was the last time that you, as a voter, felt that you held the destiny of America? That your vote really affected anything at all? Well, if you voted in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida…
Truman believed that ultimately, political power rested with the people, not with the government. Theoretically, the notion is true. Because the government itself is an instrumentality artificially created by the people and through voting, the people can, theoretically, recreate or even uncreate it. Unfortunately, in practice, the only permissible change is one to different officeholders, who may prove no better.
Conceptually, the power of the vote is vast. Although rarely can we understand just how vast because one vote seems immaterial amidst so many others. The collective vote is almost omnipotent, but each individual vote, because of their wide dispersion, much less so. But each year, races do come down to the hundreds of votes. The 2000 Presidential Election is just the grandest example.
History of Voting
The United States Constitution, in its original form, does not address the right to vote. The individual States conferred, or denied, the right to vote through their State Constitutions. Below are two examples.
New Jersey
Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (since revised) set forth the following with respect to voting.
“That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for, twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be, entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
Georgia
Article VI of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 (since revised) states the following.
“The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this State, and three months in the county where they shall be elected;… and they shall be of the Protestant on, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.
In New Jersey, voting restrictions included age, wealth and state residency. In Georgia, voting restrictions included age, wealth, state and county residency and religion. These and other extralegal tactics were used to limit the universe of voters essentially to landed, white men.
Why the limitations? Probably for two reasons.
First, those who drafted the State Constitutions, as well as the U. S. Constitution, were landed, white men. They shared similar interests with other landed, white men. These men felt that they should take responsibility for governing because they were the educated, elite and wealthy. They had, or so they felt, greater interests than the common man in the business of government. And second, landed, white men did not trust the masses to vote intelligently. They felt that the uneducated masses would not know how to vote in their own best interests.
The first reason reeks of self-interest. Although we certainly do want highly intelligent people serving in government, those intelligent public servants need not be wealthy or elite. But in the 18th Century, those in power felt otherwise at least in part because generally, only the wealthy were educated.
The second reason begs an interesting question. Should only those citizens who are informed about the issues and candidates be permitted to vote? Certainly, the idea seems reasonable. Although instituting a regime where an impartial body must verify the veracity of knowledge of each citizen probably is unworkable.
Other than taking a written civics exam, how else could society determine which of its citizens are educated enough to vote for public office? And who would write such an exam? A government entity? An impartial body? The College Board (which administers the SAT)? And what questions would the test include? If a voter knows everything about healthcare, and bases her vote on that, but knows nothing about foreign policy, would she qualify to vote? In the words of the sagacious Jeffrey Lebowski, there are “a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous.”
The Vote Evolves
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, marked the Federal Government’s first intervention into the sphere of voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment sets forth, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Following ratification, some states enacted poll taxes and literacy exams and employed various other tactics to deny the franchise to African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, ratified on January 23, 1964, did away with poll taxes.
Nineteenth Amendment
Women obtained the right to vote upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 18, 1920. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” It is interesting to note that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment applies only to federal elections.
Twenty-Sixth Amendment
In response to the Vietnam War draft that conscripted eighteen year olds into military service, the United States ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment on July 1, 1971, which reduced the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. The Amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Americans with Disabilities Act
In 1990, Congress passed the ADA, which required that polling places be accessible to citizens with disabilities.
Other Groups
In various ways, states tended to deny Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos the vote in ways similar to African Americans. Their ability to vote was spotty until citizenship laws governing the citizenship of members of these groups changed and voting restrictions, like the literacy requirement, were outlawed.
Who Should Get to Vote?
Let’s start with the presumption that everyone should get to vote. Then we can peel off certain groups. The federal government has already peeled of citizens under the age of 18. Why? The age of eighteen is arbitrary. I remember when I was in middle school, my history teacher would grill my class every week on current events. I knew Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense (and remembered his name because as a seventh grader, I found it particularly amusing). I assure you that in 1991, my seventh grade class was better informed than many adults. Certainly, children who lack the capacity to reason for themselves should not be permitted to vote. But all others? Why not?
States treat the right to vote of convicted felons differently. Some deny the franchise to convicted felons while incarcerated, others through post-incarceration parole and yet others forever. Why? Because convicted felons have violated their contract with society to adhere to the law. This is society’s way of punishing convicted felons. That and sending them to up to Rikers, probably the less appealing of the two.
States also have different standards for denying the vote to the mentally insane. In 2007, the American Bar Association recommended withholding the vote from only those who cannot indicate, with or without assistance, “a specific desire to participate in the voting process.” Why? Maybe for the same reason as denying the vote to a newborn baby. No capacity to reason. Although another justification could be avoidance of coercion. No independent judgment. But in this case, is a mentally insane person any different than your friend who knows nothing about politics, asks you how to vote and then votes that way? He is certainly not exercising independent judgment.
Who else should we peel off? The guy who sits next to you at work who doesn’t even know who’s running for President? Or the New York City cab driver you rode with yesterday who did not know where Times Square was? Or anyone who plans to vote for the other guy (or gal)?
While there might not exist an equitable way to determine who is informed and who is not informed, I still think that our democracy would benefit from a well-informed electorate. It does concern me that people vote who do not understand the true ramifications of their vote. Many do understand. But many do not. Although it is also important to note that even if a voter does understand precisely the ramifications of his vote at the present time, the preferred candidate might change positions or act totally contrary to the words and actions upon which the voter based his vote.
I know what you are thinking. “Of course only informed people should have the right to vote. Because I am an informed person!” Really, are you?
12 Questions
See how many of the following twelve questions you can answer (see answers below). I actually had to double-check the answer to #6.
1. Name the Democratic and Republican nominees for President.
2. Name the Governor of your State.
3. Who must approve a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court?
4. What President established Social Security?
5. What three countries made up George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil?
6. Allegedly, nine world nations have nuclear weapons. Name five of them.
7. Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
8. With what governmental body must all federal taxation laws originate?
9. What is the Laffer Curve?
10. Who is second in the line of Presidential Succession (after the Vice President)?
11. What does NAFTA stand for?
12. Into what independent nation did Russia recently move Russian troops?
Still think only well-informed citizens should vote?
Who Should Vote?
I am confident that the majority of eligible American voters could not answer even half of the questions above correctly. But does that mean that we should not permit them to vote. If only the truly informed could vote, how many of us would actually cast a ballot. I assure you that I would not.
Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I can assure you that the average voter does not know what the Bush Doctrine is. Or the purported benefits of a flat tax. Or the arguments for and against ethanol subsidies. Or the non-monetary benefits of an entire citizenry that has heath insurance. Or what caused the melt down on Wall Street and how to fix it (if you know that, please call Hank Paulson immediately).
Which is not to say that the voter is uninformed. Policy in the twenty-first century is more complicated than policy in the eighteenth century. To understand every nuance of every issue would be a full-time job. Most elected officials do not know all the answers either. Which is why they have a staff and why lobbyists prosper.
Unfortunately, there is no simple or equitable way to purge the ranks of the voting public of those who are underinformed or uninformed. Primarily because we cannot precisely define a precise standard of “informed.” Even if you answered all ten questions above correctly, don’t pat yourself on the back so quickly. You are not necessarily informed.
How Do Voters Decide How to Vote?
If every American voter knew every little detail of every policy issue and understood precisely the implications of the policy positions of each candidate, would that change how the voter votes? Do voters even vote based on policy?
Voters decide for whom to cast their ballot for a wide variety of reasons. There may be one issue (eg. abortion) that trumps all others. Or across all issues, one candidate is more in line with the beliefs of the voter. Or one candidate exudes better character. Or is more trustworthy. Or is a better leader. Or is a better speaker. Or shares the same values as the voter.
There are myriad reasons why a voter votes for one candidate over another. Some reasons are good (eg. I like Obama’s plan for universal health care). Others are bad (eg. Obama is a Muslim).
Ask yourself the following question. Because while I suspect you have strong reasons for voting for whichever candidate you intend to vote for (to the extent you have already decided), you may not precisely understand why.
Why am I voting for Obama? Or McCain? Make a list of reasons.
Once you have the list, I ask that you check to make sure that those reasons, if fact based (eg. policy positions, personal facts about the candidate) are accurate. Make sure you have all the facts, because with all the emails flying around, misleading commercials and rumors, it is often hard to parse truth from the falsity.
And once you have the facts, go vote! Unless you are going to vote for the other guy… Just kidding.
Some Current Events of Note
Presidential Election Update
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are no longer swing states. Senator Obama leads by a solid margin in each of the four. Obama is now leading by at least 5% in each of New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. Of the seven states that now look like swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida), Obama leads in all but West Virginia (he trails by 1.5%) and Indiana (he trails by 3.8%).
Canadian Elections
Congratulations to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for securing enough seats in Parliament, although not a majority, to hold onto his post as PM, at least for a little while longer.
They Never Learn
Do you remember former Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl.), who resigned amidst a scandal of sending sexually charged instant messages to male House pages? Since the Republican Party could not replace his name on the 2006 ballot, his Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, won the election (although by only about 4,500 votes) in a reliably Republican District. I guess Mahoney did not learn that a sex scandal is not good for one’s reelection prospects. Recent reports indicate that Mahoney was having an affair with one of his Congressional staffers, who found out that she was not the only one, and threatened to sue the Congressman. Mahoney then agreed to pay her over $100,000 to avoid a lawsuit. Extramarital affair. Staffer. Payoff. Representative Mahoney better call the movers. And given the sunny prospects for Democrats at the polls this year, Mahoney’s own Democratic will not bother to come to his rescue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already asked for a House Ethics investigation. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
------------------------------
Answers
1. Democrat: Senator Barack Obama; Republican: Senator John McCain;
2. Depends on state. See http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.42b929b1a5b9e4eac3363d10501010a0/?vgnextoid=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov;
3. United States Senate;
4. Franklin Roosevelt;
5. Iraq, Iran and North Korea;
6. United States, France, Russia, China, Great Britain, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel;
7. Gordon Brown;
8. House of Representatives;
9. A graph showing that sometimes increasing tax rates can lower total tax receipts;
10. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
11. North American Free Trade Agreement;
12. Georgia.
------------------------------
Sources
CNN.com: www.cnn.com
US Constitution Online: www.usconstitution.net
OpenElections: www.openelections.org
Drug Policy Alliance Network: www.drugpolicy.org
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html
Real Clear Politics: www.realclearpolitics.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Four More Weeks
Four More Weeks
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
We are exactly four weeks from Election Day 2008, which is Tuesday, November 4. The general election season is in full swing. The conventions are over. We are on the last leg of the elective marathon that began for many almost two years ago. And for others including Senator John McCain (R-Az.), even longer than two years ago.
Running for office is no easy feat. It is physically, mentally and emotionally grueling. For a candidate, each race is like a personal Superbowl. The entire elective process builds to one climax, Election Day, and a binary outcome. Victory or defeat. After the voters decide, none of the yard signs, TV commercials, endorsements, fundraising milestones or catchy slogans matter.
To the winner goes the spoils; to the loser goes absolutely nothing save constant reflection on mistakes the campaign made. In many ways, American elections are akin to two men competing for the affection of the same woman. And only one ultimately wins her.
Emotional Impact
There are two kinds of losing candidates. One who cannot win and another who can win. The emotional strain of losing an election is directly proportional to the chance a candidate has of winning that election. The emotional strain for a candidate with no chance of winning (eg. Libertarian Presidential nominee, and former Congressman, Bob Barr (R-Ga.)) is minimal. He knows his chances. The emotional strain for a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning (eg. Democrat Mark Begich, Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska) is larger.
But even the candidate who cannot win, and intuitively knows he cannot win, still thinks he can win. Because like the guy at the poker table chasing one card in the deck to the river, there is always that small chance of winning.
Take Senator Joe Biden (D-De.), the Democratic nominee for Vice President. In 1972, at the tender age of 29, he ran against incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs (R-De.), who had the strong backing of the Republican Party and President Richard Nixon. Biden stood no chance of winning. But in a stunning upset, he beat Boggs by about 3,000 votes.
Even the sure losers feel the emotional loss. But as a candidate’s strength increases, so does the intensity of the emotional impact of the loss.
Take Democratic National Committee Chairman, and former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean (D-Vt.). At the outset of his campaign in 2001, only the most avid political junkie even knew the name Howard Dean. But the Vermont Governor gained traction and became the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. At some point before the Iowa Caucuses, in which Dean placed third behind Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Dean believed he would be the next President of the United States. Then his campaign collapsed. Quite a fall. From thinking he would be President to, “Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”
Or take former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). In 2005 and most of 2006, Allen was arguably the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Never heard of George Allen? Well, that might be because he lost his 2006 race for reelection to the United States Senate to challenger Jim Webb (D-Va.). Can you imagine the emotional impact of falling from the Republican frontrunner to unemployed (in the short span of a few months)?
The emotional roller coaster is real for all candidates, from sure losers to sure winners (unless no one challenges them). While sure winners like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) do not lose sleep when running against sacrificial lambs like 2006 Democratic nominee Pete Ashdown (http://peteashdown.org/election-2006.html), I assure you that sure winners breath a sign of relief when Election Day is over and CNN airs the opponent’s concession speech. Ashdown won 31% of the vote. He never had a chance. Unless Hatch suddenly dropped dead before the election. Or the press uncovered an extramarital affair or something worse. As my friend Peter Hort, who was the 2004 Republican nominee for Congress in New York’s Eighth Congressional District, told me, you put yourself in a position to get lucky. And for that, hope always exists.
Example: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
My favorite example of the raw emotions evoked by elections is a picture that Rusty Hills, former Michigan GOP Chair and former professor of mine, showed our class. The photograph pictured former Detroit Mayor, Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick, immediately after Kilpatrick won his 2005 reelection race. The Mayor was slumped in a chair, grinning ear-to-ear and physically drained. The photograph personified the emotional trial of running for elective office. The human reaction to triumphing in an emotionally tough adventure. Imagine his demeanor if he lost.
According to polls leading up to Election Day 2005, Kilpatrick trailed his opponent, fellow Democrat Freman Hendrix, by double digits. The deficit was the result of various scandals and questionable behavior. Kilpatrick improperly spent taxpayer dollars on a car for his wife and hotel rooms and meals for himself. He also stood watching as one of his bodyguards beat up a reporter. Mayor Kilpatrick lost the Democratic Primary by 10 points. But in the Election Day runoff, Kilpatrick rebounded to win a second term with approximately 53% of the vote.
The Feeling of Loss
Think of what an election might tell a losing candidate. Voters did not like his message. Or his policies. Or even the candidate as a person. In a Presidential Election, that could mean 60 million people. 60 million people telling a candidate that he is not good enough, not smart enough, not trustworthy enough and/or not capable of effectively handling the office.
Of course, the voters may not think all of these things. They may not think any of these things. But when a constituency picks the other guy, what else can the losing candidate think?
I remember running once for Class President in High School. I lost. And I thought, how stupid are all of the people in my class. How could they not vote for me? I mean, it’s ME!
Most candidates cannot avoid the feeling. Especially since the decision to run for office is partly predicated upon the confidence of a candidate in himself. And given the amount of time, money and energy candidates spend running for office, the feeling is understandable. Run for office and see for yourself.
Jon Lovitz, playing 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee, and Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis (D-Ma.), in the 1988 SNL Presidential Debate skit articulates the sentiment in his response to Dana Carvey playing George H. W. Bush. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764935).
In the end, the winner-take-all system of voting means that there is only one Prom King. One officeholder. The other guy goes home to find a job. Unless he already has one. Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) returned to the Senate. Vice President Al Gore went to teach at the Journalism School at Columbia University, became active in the fight against global warming among other pursuits. Senator Bob Dole retired.
So in 2008, who are the David Cooks and who the David Archuletas?
Election Update
Within the last two months, much has changed. The Vice Presidential nominees were selected. The Conventions occurred. The subprime mortgage debacle sent some banks into bankruptcy, others into the hands of new owners. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pushed a recovery plan through Congress, making the federal government a new heavyweight on Wall Street. The Palin Bump is flattening. The first Presidential Debate was held. And the Vice Presidential Debate happened.
So how did these events affect the Presidential and down-ticket races? Hard to say. But it does seem clear that the nation prefers Senator Obama to manage the economy than Senator McCain. Because if Senator McCain wins the election, maybe he will suspend his Presidency during the next economic crisis (sorry, I could not help myself).
Here are the latest polls and predictions on the Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial races.
The White House
Two months ago, national polls (which we all know are largely worthless) forecasted a very close race. About a month ago, national polls indicated that John McCain enjoyed a slight lead. Currently, Senator Obama leads nationwide and is in firm command of the Presidential Election.
Check out the most recent swing state poll numbers (from RealClearPolitics). Obama leads in every one of them. These are the important polls because they foreshadow how the electoral votes will fall. Brackets contain the name of the poll followed by the date of the poll.
Colorado (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 45 (OBAMA +6)
Florida (Mason-Dixon, 10/7/08): Obama 48, McCain 46 (OBAMA +2)
Iowa (Research 2000, 10/1/08): Obama 55, McCain 39 (OBAMA +16)
Michigan (PPP (D), 10/2/08): Obama 51, McCain 41 (OBAMA +12)
Missouri (FOX News/Rasmussen, 10/6/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Nevada (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 47 (OBAMA +2)
Nevada (Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 43 (OBAMA +7)
New Hampshire (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 45 (OBAMA +8)
New Mexico (Albuquerque Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 45, McCain 40 (OBAMA +5)
Ohio (PPP (D), 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 43 (OBAMA +6)
Ohio (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Virginia (SurveyUSA, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 43 (OBAMA +10)
Virginia (Suffolk, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 39 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (SurveyUSA, 10/7/07): Obama 52, McCain 42 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 46 (OBAMA +5)
Some states once thought to be safe for the Republicans are now becoming competitive for Senator Obama.
Georgia (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/2/08): McCain 50, Obama 44 (MCCAIN +6)
Indiana (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 51, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +5)
Indiana (Research 2000, 10/7/08): McCain 46, Obama 46 (TIED)
North Carolina (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 49, Obama 49 (TIED)
West Virginia (Rasmussen, 9/24/08): McCain 50, Obama 42 (MCCAIN +8)
West Virginia (CNN/TIME, 9/23/08): McCain 50, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +4)
Four weeks before Election Day, Senator Obama wins the election with 364 electoral votes.
Congress (Senate and House)
On the coattails of the emergent Barack Obama, the Senate races are heavily favoring Democrats. As I mentioned in my August 14, 2008 article, “The Magic Number 60,” only Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was in jeopardy of defeat. The most recent poll shows Landrieu leading her Republican opponent, State Treasurer John Kennedy (R-La.), by 13%.
Not a single Democratic Senate seat will be lost in 2008.
As for Republican seats, I will now predict that the Democrats will pick up 8.5 of them. Although I am confident that 8.5 will round up to 9 or higher come Election Day.
Certain Democratic Pick-Ups (4)
Colorado (Open): Former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) v. Congressman Mark Udall (D)
New Mexico (Open): Congressman Steve Pearce (R) v. Congressman Tom Udall (D)
Virginia (Open): Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) v. former Governor Mark Warner (D)
New Hampshire: Senator John Sununu Jr. (R) v. former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Likely Democratic Pick-Ups (3)
Alaska: Senator Ted Stevens (R) v. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D)
North Carolina: Senator Elizabeth Dole v. State Senator Kay Hagan (D)
Oregon: Senator Gordon Smith (R) v. State House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D)
Toss Ups (4)
Mississippi (Special Election): Senator Roger Wicker (R) v. former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Minnesota: Senator Norm Coleman (R) v. Al Franken (D) v. former Senator Dean Barkley (I)*
Kentucky: Senator Mitch McConnell (R) v. Bruce Lunsford (D)
Georgia: Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) v. former State Representative Jim Martin (D)
If the trend toward Democrats continues in the next four weeks, even more states, such as Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas could become competitive.
Generally, as the Senate goes, so goes the House. In my August 28, 2008 article, “Breaking Down the House,” I predicted that the Democrats would pick up 21 seats. Given recent polling trends and the overall political environment, I now believe that the number will be closer to 30.
Governor
In 2008, there are 11 gubernatorial contests.
8 are safe for 6 incumbents and 2 candidates of the incumbent party in open seat contests. Democratic Governors Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia will win reelection. Republican Governors John Hoeven of North Dakota, John Huntsman Jr. of Utah and Jim Douglas of Vermont will also return to their respective State Capitols.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon (D-Mo.) and Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell (D-De.) will be the next Governors of their respective states.
3 races are toss-ups.
Indiana: Incumbent Governor Mitch Daniels (R-In.), former Budget Director under President George W. Bush, is battling former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson (D-In.) for a second term. Recent polls indicate the race is very close.
North Carolina: Governor Michael Easley (D-N.C.) is term limited. Charlotte Mayor, Republican Pat McCrory (R-N.C.), and Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D-N.C.) are running to succeed Easley. Recent polls give McCrory a narrow lead.
Washington: Incumbent Governor Christine Gregoire (D-Wa.) is facing a rematch against former State Senator, and 2004 Republican Gubernatorial nominee, Dino Rossi. Recent polls evidence a tight race.
In a year favoring Democrats, each of Thompson in Indiana, Perdue in North Carolina and Gregoire in Washington has some additional wind in their sails. Which is not to say that each will win; however, in close races, every vote helps.
Conclusion
In the past two months, the tides have risen dramatically for Democratic candidates at all levels. Senator Barack Obama is leading and extending his leads in each of the battleground states. Senate Democrats are within striking distance of a filibuster-proof majority (i.e. 60 votes for cloture). And the House Democratic Caucus is certain to expand; the only question is by how much.
So that leaves the question, then what?
Will Democratic control of the White House and Congress lead to the change that Senator Obama regularly speaks of? Will the Democrats pull troops out of Iraq? Send more to Afghanistan? Find Osama bin Laden? Address nuclear weapons in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia? Establish universal health care? Lower taxes on the middle class? Make college tuition tax deductible? Fix the financial crisis and credit markets? Work to make America energy independent? Tackle global warming? Institute a program of national service? Stop making air travelers remove their shoes at airports (neither the United Kingdom nor Israel make passengers do this)? Secure the northern and southern borders (and pacify Lou Dobbs)?
We have to wait and see. Although historically, candidates seem to make more promises than they deliver results. Because delivering change is hard. Like moving a brick wall. But ultimately, through the effort of former President Ronald Reagan and others, even the Berlin Wall fell. But after Reagan left office.
Change is difficult, but possible. And it takes a long time. But change must start sometime. Maybe that day is Election Day 2008.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Governor Jesse Ventura (I-Mn.) appointed Dean Barkley, of the same Independence Party of Minnesota, to fill the Senate seat vacated by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.), who died in a plane crash before Election Day 2002. Former Vice President Walter Mondale (D-Mn.) replaced Wellstone on the ballot and lost to former St. Paul Mayor, and now United States Senator, Norm Coleman on Election Day. Barkley vacated the Senate seat just a few short months after taking office when the 108th Congress was sworn in.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/full.list/
RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Zach Sheinberg
We are exactly four weeks from Election Day 2008, which is Tuesday, November 4. The general election season is in full swing. The conventions are over. We are on the last leg of the elective marathon that began for many almost two years ago. And for others including Senator John McCain (R-Az.), even longer than two years ago.
Running for office is no easy feat. It is physically, mentally and emotionally grueling. For a candidate, each race is like a personal Superbowl. The entire elective process builds to one climax, Election Day, and a binary outcome. Victory or defeat. After the voters decide, none of the yard signs, TV commercials, endorsements, fundraising milestones or catchy slogans matter.
To the winner goes the spoils; to the loser goes absolutely nothing save constant reflection on mistakes the campaign made. In many ways, American elections are akin to two men competing for the affection of the same woman. And only one ultimately wins her.
Emotional Impact
There are two kinds of losing candidates. One who cannot win and another who can win. The emotional strain of losing an election is directly proportional to the chance a candidate has of winning that election. The emotional strain for a candidate with no chance of winning (eg. Libertarian Presidential nominee, and former Congressman, Bob Barr (R-Ga.)) is minimal. He knows his chances. The emotional strain for a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning (eg. Democrat Mark Begich, Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska) is larger.
But even the candidate who cannot win, and intuitively knows he cannot win, still thinks he can win. Because like the guy at the poker table chasing one card in the deck to the river, there is always that small chance of winning.
Take Senator Joe Biden (D-De.), the Democratic nominee for Vice President. In 1972, at the tender age of 29, he ran against incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs (R-De.), who had the strong backing of the Republican Party and President Richard Nixon. Biden stood no chance of winning. But in a stunning upset, he beat Boggs by about 3,000 votes.
Even the sure losers feel the emotional loss. But as a candidate’s strength increases, so does the intensity of the emotional impact of the loss.
Take Democratic National Committee Chairman, and former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean (D-Vt.). At the outset of his campaign in 2001, only the most avid political junkie even knew the name Howard Dean. But the Vermont Governor gained traction and became the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. At some point before the Iowa Caucuses, in which Dean placed third behind Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) and Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Dean believed he would be the next President of the United States. Then his campaign collapsed. Quite a fall. From thinking he would be President to, “Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”
Or take former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). In 2005 and most of 2006, Allen was arguably the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Never heard of George Allen? Well, that might be because he lost his 2006 race for reelection to the United States Senate to challenger Jim Webb (D-Va.). Can you imagine the emotional impact of falling from the Republican frontrunner to unemployed (in the short span of a few months)?
The emotional roller coaster is real for all candidates, from sure losers to sure winners (unless no one challenges them). While sure winners like Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) do not lose sleep when running against sacrificial lambs like 2006 Democratic nominee Pete Ashdown (http://peteashdown.org/election-2006.html), I assure you that sure winners breath a sign of relief when Election Day is over and CNN airs the opponent’s concession speech. Ashdown won 31% of the vote. He never had a chance. Unless Hatch suddenly dropped dead before the election. Or the press uncovered an extramarital affair or something worse. As my friend Peter Hort, who was the 2004 Republican nominee for Congress in New York’s Eighth Congressional District, told me, you put yourself in a position to get lucky. And for that, hope always exists.
Example: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
My favorite example of the raw emotions evoked by elections is a picture that Rusty Hills, former Michigan GOP Chair and former professor of mine, showed our class. The photograph pictured former Detroit Mayor, Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick, immediately after Kilpatrick won his 2005 reelection race. The Mayor was slumped in a chair, grinning ear-to-ear and physically drained. The photograph personified the emotional trial of running for elective office. The human reaction to triumphing in an emotionally tough adventure. Imagine his demeanor if he lost.
According to polls leading up to Election Day 2005, Kilpatrick trailed his opponent, fellow Democrat Freman Hendrix, by double digits. The deficit was the result of various scandals and questionable behavior. Kilpatrick improperly spent taxpayer dollars on a car for his wife and hotel rooms and meals for himself. He also stood watching as one of his bodyguards beat up a reporter. Mayor Kilpatrick lost the Democratic Primary by 10 points. But in the Election Day runoff, Kilpatrick rebounded to win a second term with approximately 53% of the vote.
The Feeling of Loss
Think of what an election might tell a losing candidate. Voters did not like his message. Or his policies. Or even the candidate as a person. In a Presidential Election, that could mean 60 million people. 60 million people telling a candidate that he is not good enough, not smart enough, not trustworthy enough and/or not capable of effectively handling the office.
Of course, the voters may not think all of these things. They may not think any of these things. But when a constituency picks the other guy, what else can the losing candidate think?
I remember running once for Class President in High School. I lost. And I thought, how stupid are all of the people in my class. How could they not vote for me? I mean, it’s ME!
Most candidates cannot avoid the feeling. Especially since the decision to run for office is partly predicated upon the confidence of a candidate in himself. And given the amount of time, money and energy candidates spend running for office, the feeling is understandable. Run for office and see for yourself.
Jon Lovitz, playing 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee, and Massachusetts Governor, Michael Dukakis (D-Ma.), in the 1988 SNL Presidential Debate skit articulates the sentiment in his response to Dana Carvey playing George H. W. Bush. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764935).
In the end, the winner-take-all system of voting means that there is only one Prom King. One officeholder. The other guy goes home to find a job. Unless he already has one. Senator John Kerry (D-Ma.) returned to the Senate. Vice President Al Gore went to teach at the Journalism School at Columbia University, became active in the fight against global warming among other pursuits. Senator Bob Dole retired.
So in 2008, who are the David Cooks and who the David Archuletas?
Election Update
Within the last two months, much has changed. The Vice Presidential nominees were selected. The Conventions occurred. The subprime mortgage debacle sent some banks into bankruptcy, others into the hands of new owners. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pushed a recovery plan through Congress, making the federal government a new heavyweight on Wall Street. The Palin Bump is flattening. The first Presidential Debate was held. And the Vice Presidential Debate happened.
So how did these events affect the Presidential and down-ticket races? Hard to say. But it does seem clear that the nation prefers Senator Obama to manage the economy than Senator McCain. Because if Senator McCain wins the election, maybe he will suspend his Presidency during the next economic crisis (sorry, I could not help myself).
Here are the latest polls and predictions on the Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial races.
The White House
Two months ago, national polls (which we all know are largely worthless) forecasted a very close race. About a month ago, national polls indicated that John McCain enjoyed a slight lead. Currently, Senator Obama leads nationwide and is in firm command of the Presidential Election.
Check out the most recent swing state poll numbers (from RealClearPolitics). Obama leads in every one of them. These are the important polls because they foreshadow how the electoral votes will fall. Brackets contain the name of the poll followed by the date of the poll.
Colorado (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 45 (OBAMA +6)
Florida (Mason-Dixon, 10/7/08): Obama 48, McCain 46 (OBAMA +2)
Iowa (Research 2000, 10/1/08): Obama 55, McCain 39 (OBAMA +16)
Michigan (PPP (D), 10/2/08): Obama 51, McCain 41 (OBAMA +12)
Missouri (FOX News/Rasmussen, 10/6/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Nevada (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 47 (OBAMA +2)
Nevada (Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 43 (OBAMA +7)
New Hampshire (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 45 (OBAMA +8)
New Mexico (Albuquerque Journal, 10/7/08): Obama 45, McCain 40 (OBAMA +5)
Ohio (PPP (D), 10/7/08): Obama 49, McCain 43 (OBAMA +6)
Ohio (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 50, McCain 47 (OBAMA +3)
Virginia (SurveyUSA, 10/7/08): Obama 53, McCain 43 (OBAMA +10)
Virginia (Suffolk, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 39 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (SurveyUSA, 10/7/07): Obama 52, McCain 42 (OBAMA +10)
Wisconsin (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): Obama 51, McCain 46 (OBAMA +5)
Some states once thought to be safe for the Republicans are now becoming competitive for Senator Obama.
Georgia (InAdv/PollPosition, 10/2/08): McCain 50, Obama 44 (MCCAIN +6)
Indiana (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 51, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +5)
Indiana (Research 2000, 10/7/08): McCain 46, Obama 46 (TIED)
North Carolina (CNN/Time, 10/7/08): McCain 49, Obama 49 (TIED)
West Virginia (Rasmussen, 9/24/08): McCain 50, Obama 42 (MCCAIN +8)
West Virginia (CNN/TIME, 9/23/08): McCain 50, Obama 46 (MCCAIN +4)
Four weeks before Election Day, Senator Obama wins the election with 364 electoral votes.
Congress (Senate and House)
On the coattails of the emergent Barack Obama, the Senate races are heavily favoring Democrats. As I mentioned in my August 14, 2008 article, “The Magic Number 60,” only Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was in jeopardy of defeat. The most recent poll shows Landrieu leading her Republican opponent, State Treasurer John Kennedy (R-La.), by 13%.
Not a single Democratic Senate seat will be lost in 2008.
As for Republican seats, I will now predict that the Democrats will pick up 8.5 of them. Although I am confident that 8.5 will round up to 9 or higher come Election Day.
Certain Democratic Pick-Ups (4)
Colorado (Open): Former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) v. Congressman Mark Udall (D)
New Mexico (Open): Congressman Steve Pearce (R) v. Congressman Tom Udall (D)
Virginia (Open): Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) v. former Governor Mark Warner (D)
New Hampshire: Senator John Sununu Jr. (R) v. former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Likely Democratic Pick-Ups (3)
Alaska: Senator Ted Stevens (R) v. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D)
North Carolina: Senator Elizabeth Dole v. State Senator Kay Hagan (D)
Oregon: Senator Gordon Smith (R) v. State House Speaker Jeff Merkley (D)
Toss Ups (4)
Mississippi (Special Election): Senator Roger Wicker (R) v. former Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Minnesota: Senator Norm Coleman (R) v. Al Franken (D) v. former Senator Dean Barkley (I)*
Kentucky: Senator Mitch McConnell (R) v. Bruce Lunsford (D)
Georgia: Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) v. former State Representative Jim Martin (D)
If the trend toward Democrats continues in the next four weeks, even more states, such as Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas could become competitive.
Generally, as the Senate goes, so goes the House. In my August 28, 2008 article, “Breaking Down the House,” I predicted that the Democrats would pick up 21 seats. Given recent polling trends and the overall political environment, I now believe that the number will be closer to 30.
Governor
In 2008, there are 11 gubernatorial contests.
8 are safe for 6 incumbents and 2 candidates of the incumbent party in open seat contests. Democratic Governors Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia will win reelection. Republican Governors John Hoeven of North Dakota, John Huntsman Jr. of Utah and Jim Douglas of Vermont will also return to their respective State Capitols.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon (D-Mo.) and Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell (D-De.) will be the next Governors of their respective states.
3 races are toss-ups.
Indiana: Incumbent Governor Mitch Daniels (R-In.), former Budget Director under President George W. Bush, is battling former Congresswoman Jill Long Thompson (D-In.) for a second term. Recent polls indicate the race is very close.
North Carolina: Governor Michael Easley (D-N.C.) is term limited. Charlotte Mayor, Republican Pat McCrory (R-N.C.), and Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue (D-N.C.) are running to succeed Easley. Recent polls give McCrory a narrow lead.
Washington: Incumbent Governor Christine Gregoire (D-Wa.) is facing a rematch against former State Senator, and 2004 Republican Gubernatorial nominee, Dino Rossi. Recent polls evidence a tight race.
In a year favoring Democrats, each of Thompson in Indiana, Perdue in North Carolina and Gregoire in Washington has some additional wind in their sails. Which is not to say that each will win; however, in close races, every vote helps.
Conclusion
In the past two months, the tides have risen dramatically for Democratic candidates at all levels. Senator Barack Obama is leading and extending his leads in each of the battleground states. Senate Democrats are within striking distance of a filibuster-proof majority (i.e. 60 votes for cloture). And the House Democratic Caucus is certain to expand; the only question is by how much.
So that leaves the question, then what?
Will Democratic control of the White House and Congress lead to the change that Senator Obama regularly speaks of? Will the Democrats pull troops out of Iraq? Send more to Afghanistan? Find Osama bin Laden? Address nuclear weapons in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia? Establish universal health care? Lower taxes on the middle class? Make college tuition tax deductible? Fix the financial crisis and credit markets? Work to make America energy independent? Tackle global warming? Institute a program of national service? Stop making air travelers remove their shoes at airports (neither the United Kingdom nor Israel make passengers do this)? Secure the northern and southern borders (and pacify Lou Dobbs)?
We have to wait and see. Although historically, candidates seem to make more promises than they deliver results. Because delivering change is hard. Like moving a brick wall. But ultimately, through the effort of former President Ronald Reagan and others, even the Berlin Wall fell. But after Reagan left office.
Change is difficult, but possible. And it takes a long time. But change must start sometime. Maybe that day is Election Day 2008.
-------------------------------------
Notes
* Former Governor Jesse Ventura (I-Mn.) appointed Dean Barkley, of the same Independence Party of Minnesota, to fill the Senate seat vacated by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.), who died in a plane crash before Election Day 2002. Former Vice President Walter Mondale (D-Mn.) replaced Wellstone on the ballot and lost to former St. Paul Mayor, and now United States Senator, Norm Coleman on Election Day. Barkley vacated the Senate seat just a few short months after taking office when the 108th Congress was sworn in.
-------------------------------------
Sources
NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13clemens.html
CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/full.list/
RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com
Politics1: http://www.politics1.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)