Third Party candidates, another false equivalency

A Los Angeles Times article on the death of John Anderson blames his candidacy for Jimmy Carter’s loss in the 1980 Presidential Election.

These articles rarely, if ever, blame the losing major party candidates for the loss.  A more thorough analysis would include the turnout.  How many Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Hilary Clinton lukewarm supporters stayed away?  I think poor turnout has far more to do with a major party candidate’s loss than anything else.

Why we have our electoral mess

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, supposedly in 1858.  See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:547?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

The electoral college was one of the Constitutional stratagems slave owners used to protect themselves from the North taking away their slaves.  Another was counting slaves as three-fifths persons. This increased the number of representatives they got far beyond the number of actual voters.  Also basing the Senate on states rather than population, these less-populated states further increased their furtive power grab.

By increasing their relative state power in presidential elections, they hoped they could keep the end of slavery at bay.

They unleashed a long bloody war to protect this despicable practice. Unfortunately, they forgot the Constitutional provision that Congress could call out the militia to suppress insurrections.  (In our own time, Congress seemed to forget this provision in dealing with the Bundys.)

So, the Electoral College differs from democracy and the five victories because of the Electoral College in our country's history have differed from democracy.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.

See also "More on the Electoral College".

Election prediction and telephones

In 1948, the headlines were “Dewey Wins”.  However, the result was that Truman won.
See “Dewey Defeats Truman”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman.

See”A ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ Lesson for the Digital Age”, Jim Gutenberg, New York Times, 2016-11-09, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/business/media/media-trump-clinton.html;
“Case Study 2: The 1948 Presidential Election”, https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case2.html

However, what really counted was how polls were taken, often by telephone.  In 1948, many who leaned towards Truman did not have telephones and weren’t called.  See “Dewy Defeats Truman, Joe Walter, “The True Facts, 2019-05-31, http://www.thetruefacts.com/dewey-defeats-truman/

So, were the predictions off because too many people don’t answer their cell phones if they don’t recognize the number?  I know that I do.

Another thought, maybe many of Trump’s supporters who did answer their phones didn’t admit that they were Trump supporters.

I still don't believe the polls

… and I don't really have any well-based predictions of my own.

Consider that our phone rings several times a day.  We don't answer and very few leave a message on the answering machine.  Those who do leave a message have some meaningful connection to us.  Given the approaching election, these "empty" calls are

1) Robo-calls for a candidate or a party
2) Person calls for a candidate or a party
3) Poll calls

Also consider that many people have cell phones but no land line.  Although some pollsters say they are calling both land lines and cell phones, many cell phone numbers are not in any directory.  My cell phone has few calls and the two recent unknown calls may have been misdials or random spamming.  Besides, I generally have it off.

Which way will those who are not reached by a poll lean?  I can't really say.  Will too many younger voters stay away because they didn't think Obama didn't do enough?  Are those who don't answer more likely to lean toward Obama?  As I write this yet another call came in that stopped after three rings.

How likely are those who respond to actually vote?  One of the questions is if the respondent is a likely voter.  Many people say they are likely voters because they are embarrassed to admit that they don't plan on voting.

I think the election will be determined by the balance of unhappy people, which group will stay away in larger numbers - Tea Party types who don't think Romney is "conservative" enough or "liberals" who don't think Obama did enough.  My inclination is that the latter will be the larger group.

I hope you, dear reader, will not be a stay-away on election day.  Please remind your friends to vote.

Why I don't believe polls

I've long been suspicious of polls, especially political polls.  I also dislike polls because they turn elections into horse races rather than thoughtful consideration of candidates and because they reinforce the myth of "the two-party system".

The first question is who is asking what questions of who.

Who are the pollsters?  Are they completely neutral or are they hired by a party or a candidate?

What are the questions and what order were they made?  Were the questions framed to get a desired response?  Were questions asked in an order to set up the responder for a desired answer?

Who responded to the poll?  Was it only people who happened to be at home?  Was it only people who always answer the phone and politely enter into a dialog?  How many people screen their calls and won't respond to pollsters or other solicitation calls?  How many people who did answer hung up right away?  What about people who only have cell phones?  Even if cell phones are called by pollsters, do the phone owners screen their calls and don't respond to unknown callers?

For some of these difficulties facing pollsters, see "Pollsters struggle to find the right sample of voters", John Harwood, Star Tribune, 2012-08-06.

Polls also can be very far off.  One iconic picture is Harry Truman holding up a newspaper in November 1948, "Dewey Wins".  Harry Truman didn't even stay up for the results, but the polls were way off.  It was one of the first telephone polls, but nobody seemed to think that many Democratic voters didn't have telephones.

More recently, the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial polls predicted Hubert Humphrey III (DFL), Norm Coleman (Rep), and Jesse Ventura (Reform Party) in that order.  The result was just the opposite with Ventura winning with 36.99 percent of the votes.  The turnout was 60 percent, and so Ventura came in second to none of the above.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_election,_1998.

I wonder if anyone bothered taking a poll of the 40 percent who didn't show up.  What fraction were Democrats who didn't feel Humphrey would do "enough", what fraction were ex-Republicans who didn't like the direction the party was taking even then, and what fraction were people who just didn't give a damn about getting good governance?

Subtle racism in the presidential campaign

Mark Penn, an aide to the Clintons, wrote a memo about Obama's "lack of American roots." According to E. J. Dionne, Washington Post, 2008-08-14, "Clinton thankfully declined to take up this idea, but John McCain's ads are now subtly toying with it."

Let's see, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which some maintain disqualifies him from the presidency. And has he forgotten the "No Irish need apply" signs of the past?

We now have a three-party system

I read Frank Rich's "One night, two Americas" in today's New York Times.

He essentially writes that Clinton and McCain are of the past and Obama is of the future. From this I thought of how both the left and the right are stuck in battles and world views of the past; Obama has captured the hopes of those who look to the future. My quick diagram of this is

|| –

The vertical lines are the parties of the past, stuck in the past; the horizontal line is the party of the future moving forward. Another way to look at it is the right is the party of globalization of business but of anti-globalization of politics (we know best) and the left is the party of anti-globalization of business but of globalization of politics. They are also stuck in the polarization of ideas many Americans would rather not take a firm stand on: gun control, abortion, immigration, and so on.

I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future. He will win because he will get more people voting than ever. He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders. He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker. Finally, he will win because people do want change.

"Democrats Win Landslide Victory" Hoax or reality?An email supposedly from former Sen. Bill Frist is making the rounds. It is titled "Democrats Win L

An email supposedly from former Sen. Bill Frist is making the rounds. It is titled "Democrats Win Landslide Victory". It is a request for donations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee because Obama is working hard so that "new voters and record resources will produce a Democrat landslide victory this fall."

I am always suspicious when people quote an email in the hope of nailing the author and his associates. I have tried looking for a denial of this email or for a posting on a Republican website supporting the email. I have found neither using the keywords "Democrats Win Landslide Victory", frist, and nrsc.

I can only conclude for now that Frist actually sent it. Such emails and letters often go out to huge mailing lists which often include opponents and non-interested persons. Many of these non-supporters probably jumped on it with glee. Look what the Republicans have been doing with Clinton's and Franken's words. Turnabout is fair play.

As to Frist's concerns, I believe heavy voter turnout has generally favored Democrats. Remember that Bush didn't win because of Nader in Florida; he won because too many Democrats stayed home.

Just who's voting for Clinton?

It seems to me that Hillary Clinton has been "winning" more primaries since John McCain gained enough delegates to clinch the Republican nominaton.

Could it be that people who call themselves Republicans are voting for Clinton because they think she will be easier to beat than Barack Obama?

If so, will these voters be there for her in November if she does win the Democratic nomination?

Can you believe the polls anymore?

In the 1948 presidential election, many polls predicted that Thomas Dewey would beat Harry Truman. They were so wrong. The polls were made by telephone, but many Democratic voters had no telephone. So, they were not counted.

Now more people have telephones; and polls, except exit polls, are conducted by telephone. But two things make them inaccurate. Many polls are conducted by robo-dialer and a large number of people hang up when there is silence on the other end. Polls are conducted to numbers that are in some database, but many of those database are based on listed numbers. People with unlisted numbers might not be called. Cell phone numbers generally do not appear in listings. Many young people have cell phones only. So many young people will never be called by polls.

Barack Obama is attracting and energizing many young people. Will a representative number of his supporters be called? Some polls show him getting fewer votes than John McCain. Will John McCain be the 2008 version of 1948's Thomas Dewey?

A better way to elect a President

The current way of electing the President of the United States is limiting and unfair.

It is limiting in that our choices are self-selected candidates from two tired old parties. This further limits our choices in that they must appeal to the "base" of either party, even if the rest of the country sees different problems and solutions than either "base".

It is unfair in that people who have no affiliation with either party get to vote to select a party's candidates. It is also unfair that people who have leanings toward one party or are even affiliated with that party get to vote for a candidate in the other party. It is also unfair that party members are now supposed to rally behind a candidate that was not of their choosing.

If we're going to have such "grass roots" selection, let's really make the start of the process "grass roots". In the spring before the presidential election, all voters can submit the names of an eligible pair to run for a president. How wide open this part should be is open to discussion. It could be by online voting, by petition with a certain number of signatures, or by a mail-in ballot.

Order the candidates by nominations and select the candidates whose nomination totals add up to some threshold. Or take the top so many candidates. Now the entire voting population can select one candidate.

If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, we repeat the process until one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote. Depending on how many candidates we start with, it could take four to six cycles.

Will Americans turn out so many times to vote? Maybe, maybe not. But all the candidates, and all civic-minded citizens should stress the importance of voting. Supporters of this system should also stress the alternative of absentee voting.

This idea will meet much resistance, but if we keep doing things as we have, we are going to be stuck with more of the same old, same old.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Obama's Vice-President?

Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, may be the ideal V.P. for Barack Obama, both for the election and for the administration.

She is a uniter, not a divider. Her Lt. Governor was a Republican.

She is a governor, which would counterbalance Obama being a Senator.

She is more concerned with governance, that is, making Kansas work, than with ideology.

She is supporting Obama for the nomination.

Campaign finance reform, a different idea

Stifle big money in politics! Don't infringe on political speech! Back, forth, up, down, and around go the arguments for and against any attempt to control the amount of money going into political campaigns. The one thing everybody appears to agree on is that it have become very expensive.

One of the ideas floated is that there should be free time on TV for political candidates. Free to who? The broadcasters would resist, rightly so, the mandating of giving away time, especially prime time. If the time was subsidized by the federal government, what rate should apply?

Why not reserve a couple of channels to be operated by the federal government? To qualify for use of the channel, candidates would need to get so many signatures, an existing requirement to be on the ballet in many states now.

The government would break the time into short, medium, and long spots randomly throughout the day. Then it would assign spots randomly each day to qualifying candidates. It would be up to the candidates to either appear live or provide a tape for their spots. The candidates could change their tapes as often as they wish. These spots would also be made available on the web.

The financing would be by the income tax checkoff as is now done to allocate public funds to candidates.

Religion in politics

I recently read three interesting columns on religion in politics and politicians who try to show how religious they are.

Faith vs. the Faithless
David Brooks
New York Times - 2007-12-07

Brooks wrote a good analysis of Mitt Romney's speech on faith about the conflict between those who want religion to be very much part of public discourse and those who want to leave religion as a private matter.

Brooks thinks the speech was a good one, but he is not enthusiastic about it. Rather than various religious points of view competing in the public square, Romney maintains that those with "faith" are being victimized by the faithless. "Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?" "There was no hint of ... the religion most people know–the religion that imposes restraints upon the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings."

The Times also wrote "The Crisis of Faith", 2007-12-07

"A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office."

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune wrote "The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply" about the religious test several candidates are expecting; that is, one must believe in a single god. Agnostics, atheists, and humanists need not even try. They seem to ignore the provision in the U.S. Constitution "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office".

I read Chapman's column in the 2008-01-02 Star Tribune; his latest column available on the Chicago Tribune web site was 2007-12-23. He did write several on religion in presidential politics.

Who should be president? Difficult choices for us

Actually, the choices aren't so much ours as they are the choices of editors and popular bloggers. See Making news or reporting news? They are the ones who choose the so-called front-runners and give more coverage to them.

So, being a not-so-popular blogger, I'll give my own list of front-runners. However, later I will give you an alternative for choosing a presidential candidate, by-passing all of us media know-it-alls.

My order does not reflect my current preferences. It's just as they pop into my mind.

Hillary Clinton has some good ideas and some bad ideas. From what I've read, she is the one coming up with concrete proposals for many domestic issues, like health care. On the other hand, she has cast votes in the Senate that have led us into the current mess in Iraq. I have not seen any concrete proposals for a smooth extrication from Iraq.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, has experience in governance. That is, making government work to the benefit of most of the people. I favor this qualification for President over any other, including "foreign policy experience". The Current Occupant certainly didn't have any of that and still doesn't after seven years on the job. I would have to examine Richardson's record more to see how well he governed. It would be nice if the major newspapers gave him as much coverage as Clinton and Obama.

All the Republicans are more of the same Goofy Old Party that has gotten us into many of our current problems. The only Republican I might consider voting for is Ron Paul, but I have only two reasons. As a libertarian, he has an independent streak that is refreshing in the current "The President's way or the highway" mindset. He did vote against the Iraq War, my second reason for favoring him. However, libertarians minimize common good, something in short supply among Republicans.

What alternatives to we have, outside of getting involved in a party or an individual campaign? There is a group called Unity08 that will hold an online nominating convention in June 2008. Once the convention selects a candidate pair, Unity08 will endeavor to put them on the ballot in every state. Visit Unity08 for more details on participating in the convention.

My own quirky choices: Kathleen Sebelius, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, or Olympia Snowe. The thinking of any of these is better than many who are currently more prominent in presidential politics. Any pairing from this selection of politician-politician or politician-journalist would give us a more serious discussion of the issues than is currently available.

Will we ever have representative government?

I was updating my The Moderate Manifesto I checked the links. When I looked at Unity08 I read a few of its pages.

In short, Unity08 thinks that the nominating process is not serving the country. As another choice "we will prepare to hold, in June 2008, the first-ever online convention where millions of Americans will nominate a Unity ticket for President and Vice President of the United States. We will work to achieve ballot access for that ticket in all 50 states. We will elect them to the White House in November 2008." - About Unity08

This sounds great, but I don't think those participating will be representative of the electorate.
According to the survey Unity08 took of its membership, it is 90% with some college or more, 50% over 50, 73% male, 53% business or professional class (slide 26), 90% have high-speed internet access (slide 27), and generally half don't watch politic pundits on TV (slide 28).

Well, I guess that's not so bad. Except for the TV viewing, it looks much like the demographics of the current major parties.

The upside is that people will be participating in the selection in a small time frame, and that the selection of candidates will be as large as the participants wish. The winnowing will not be determined by a small number of people in a few parts of the country.

It will be interesting to see how big a role money will play in this campaign. It might be more a matter of time to post sufficient comments. And there may be ways to game the system, like recruit people by whatever means to vote for a given candidate.

Do decide for yourself if this is a reasonable alternative to the system few really like.