OT: Good to read during off hours... more politics.
A Call to Inaction
As a US citizen, who votes for representatives in our republican form of government who are supposed to represent the best interests of the nation (and not just my interests), I have a suggestion for both major party competitors for the office of President: Shut up.
Seriously, if either or both of you truly believes you are a public servant, ready to serve the nation upon completion of this strained and unique elective cycle, there is no better time to demonstrate it by shutting up, by getting your partisan supporters to tone down the rhetoric, and waiting for a legal and orderly outcome to take place.
There was a time and place for the political wrangling and finger pointing. It was called the campaign, and each of you took your best shot at it. That you both aimed so squarely at the middle of the road so successfully is evident in the outcome. The popular and electoral votes are as near to a tie as has ever occurred.
I'd say this demonstrates exactly the failure of your common approach to campaigning. Both of you failed to demonstrate a significantly compelling reason to vote for you in the numbers required to achieve an immediately apparent conclusion to us all. And like the rest of your quarter million plus fellow citizens, you're just going to have to wait till the matters under review are decided before attempting to advance your political agendas further.
I mean no rudeness with my suggestion. Indeed, the early signs of petty histrionics emanating from both quarters is troubling to the extreme, because of the risks you are taking with our national security. Perhaps you can understand it better if I spell it out for you, point-by-point.
1) It is common sense that US citizens have a broad variety of opinions on every issue. Pollsters over-simplify these differences of opinions by pointing out the different preference percentages between men and women, between difference races and religious faiths, and other such distinctions. And the media maps of the election outcome, at first glance, suggest that great and troubling regional divisions exist, as well.
2) While the overwhelming majority of US citizens are law abiding, with sufficient maturity and civility to accommodate and even fraternize with neighbors whose opinions differ from our own, there remain individuals and groups who are not so tolerant. Some of them are so extremist in their intolerant philosophies that they would eagerly exploit an opportunity to magnify differences of opinion into lasting divisions. Such extremists believe themselves to be among the elite, and given ample fodder, they would enjoy creating polarities based on race, faith, or region. Racial supremacists, some militia movement members, and descendants of wars long past have been known to resort to violence.
3) In the pursuit of political gain, it is not uncommon to promote divisiveness by heightening emotions in the electorate. Yet when such emotions are raised to fever pitch, it grants hateful extremists fertile ground to exploit and incite others beyond the bounds of the civil behavior they normally confine themselves to.
4) In the two days following Election Day, I've heard partisans of both candidates use terms like "Constitutional crisis", "opening an endless Pandora's box", and "grave danger." Such characterizations are mere 'spin' to you and your supporters, but that rhetoric alone is the only clear and present danger to the nation. Because it fuels the wrongful notion that democracy, justice and lawful order are on the verge of breaking down.
5) Such lies will not cause that breakdown, but they may promote a few outrageous and hateful acts of violence by extremists.
Since both candidacies helped create the current complications requiring a just resolution, it's the height of irresponsibility to risk the irreversible damage to the citizenry that may result if the rhetoric is not swiftly contained. Thus, shut up.
The Myth of the Great Divide
Of course, I figure there's a fat chance the partisan blowhards will shut their yaps. So it's up to the citizenry to move beyond emotion and consider the facts.
There is no great regional crisis. In 40 out of 50 states, neither candidate gained the consent of 3 out of 5 voters. The most partisan outcomes in the other ten occurred in Idaho and Wyoming (69% Bush), Utah (67% Bush), Nebraska (63% Bush), Rhode Island (61% Gore), North Dakota (61% Bush), New York and Massachusetts (60% Gore), and Oklahoma and South Dakota (60% Bush).
The cumulative totals in the 7 most partisan Bush states were 2.5 million for Bush, 1.3 million for Gore, and the combined vote represents less than 4% of the nation's voters.
The cumulative totals in the 3 most partisan Gore states were 5.6 million for Gore, 3.2 million for Bush, and the combined vote represents less than 9% of the nation's voters.
Where 85% of the US voting population lives, and in 80% of the states, less than 3 out of 5 supported either candidate. Also noteworthy is the fact that none of the heavily partisan states were Southern, destroying old notions of the South as a polar opposite to the North.
The perceptions that one party or the other takes positions beneficial to one economic group, race, religion or gender creates other divisions, yet once again, only a couple of those divisions are agreed upon by more than 3 out of 5 within the groups defined.
We are not as fractured a nation as the maps, pollsters and politicians want us to believe.
Pandora Unboxed
The outcome of the Florida vote cannot be known till all the absentee ballots are in sometime next week. There is a chance that court challenges may delay the outcome longer. The claim that the Florida recounts and court actions will unleash the endless pursuit of similar challenges in other closely contested states is an exageration.
First, the closeness of the Florida vote mandated the recount by Florida law, and at Florida's expense. To conduct recounts elsewhere will likely cost the national parties tens of millions of dollars in each state, which means they're likely to be limited to a very few states.
Reviewing the numbers, the GOP might seek a challenge in Oregon(7), New Mexico(5), Iowa(7), Wisconsin(11), and Maine(4). That's 34 electoral votes. But such a response would occur only if Gore wins Florida after the process is completed there. If that happened, the electoral vote would be 292 Gore vs. 246 Bush. To gain the 270 votes needed to overcome that, the GOP would have to win the Wisconsin challenge plus Oregon and Iowa. In other words, they'd need the three largest or 2 of the 3 largest plus 2 of the reamaining 3. It could happen.
If Gore fails to win Florida, no further action by either party is likely. But if the worst case scenario gets played out, Gore would win the Florida vote and Bush would mount successful challenges in at least 3 of the 5 close states that Gore won.
The Democrats could counter with challenges in New Hampshire(4), Nevada(4) and/or West Virginia(5).
But lets put that in another perspective. Bush's task is this. Wisconsin was decided by 6000 votes, so 3000 would have to be reversed. Oregon was decided by 3400 votes, so 1700 would have to be reversed..... but Oregon, with its new mail-in voting system, might prove difficult to challenge, since the system has never been tested in any court before. Iowa was decided by 5200 votes so 2600 would have to be reversed. New Mexico was decided by 8700 votes so 4350 would need to be reversed. And Maine was decided by 31500 votes, which would require the Herculean reversal of 15,750 votes.
Although these figures might vary somewhat after all absentee ballots are counted, the current scenario requires that the Democrats successfully reverse about 1000 votes. To counter that, the absolute minimum the GOP faces is a reversal of 7300 votes in 3 states. If they fail to do so in any one of the first three, they face the task of reversing 40,550 votes in four states. For the Pandora's Box scenario to play out, the GOP would need a substantial string of reversals and would have to be willing to assume an enormous cost with no guarantee of success.
Common sense suggests Maine is out of reach for the GOP. So let's assume they reverse Wisconsin, Oregon and Iowa (7300 cumulative) and reap New Mexico for added insurance. Reversing 11,650 votes, Bush would have 276 Electoral College votes.
Pandora at her worst would have the Democrats challenging 2 of these 3 successfully: the 21600 Nevada margin (a reversal of 10800), the 6300 New Hampshire margin (a reversal of 3150) and/or the 38650 West Virginia margin (a reversal of 19325 votes). A West Virginia reversal would be as improbable as the GOP reversing Maine.
The minimal Pandora scenario would see the Dems taking Florida (1000 vote reversal), the GOP taking Wisconsin, Oregon and Iowa (7300 reversed), the Dems taking New Hampshire (3150 reversed), the GOP taking New Mexico (4350 reversed) and the Dems taking Nevada (10,800 reversed).
Certainly, nobody can guarantee that Pandora's Box won't play out, but two things become obvious in this process of challenges and counter challenges:
1) If the Democrats succeed in reversing 1000 votes in Florida, the GOP faces far higher numbers to overturn in more states every step of the way, until the final Dem attempt at reversing Nevada. It would prove a costly and enormous undertaking.
2) Even getting past step two requires reversals in four states overall. Were that to succeed, it would, without doubt, instill justified doubts about the validity of our entire voting process nationwide. We would appear, as a nation, to be a fraud to the rest of the world.
The risks are minimal and the odds are not long, with the challenge in Florida. But the risks, costs and odds increase so significantly if the GOP chooses to attempt a counter move that it makes the Pandora Box very hard to open.
Unravelling Florida
There's several layers to the Florida challenge. Yet the Democrats are guilty of adding unwarranted fuel to the fire that only succeeds in making citizens more cynical about politicians without any positive reasons for doing so.
Jeb Bush may be George W. Bush's brother, but county elections officials run the polls, and they come from both parties. The logistics of the Governor manipulating the vote would be enormously complex. Not a shred of evidence exists to suggest he has done so or that he even could. If the Gore partisans won't shut up on that point, they ought to put up.
Most of the questions raised center on the Palm Beach County vote, administered by a Democratic official. The complaints there:
1) The 'butterfly' ballot was confusing to voters and caused miscast votes. Many votes intended for Gore got cast for Pat Buchanan.
2) Buchanan's totals exceeded the registered Reform Party members by tenfold.
3) Nearly 20,000 ballots that got double-punched in an effort to correct the error, were thrown out completely, disenfranchising many voters.
4) Haitian immigrants, legally entitled to vote, were turned away.
Elsewhere in the state, there were scattered complaints that state troopers blocked some black voters, preventing them from going to the polls at all.
In addition to the automatic state recount, the Democrats are seeking a recount by hand, to eliminate the possibility of a machine error. Private citizens upset with the results have staged street demonstrations and several plan to file lawsuits.
The media and the politicians will not judge the outcome. That's the job of impartial justices. The fine lines requiring definition are:
1) If the butterfly ballots do not explicitly violate a state law, it is quite likely they'll be ruled permissible. Ballot descriptions and wordings can confuse. Confusion can be rectified by asking pollworkers for assistance during the voting process. Confusion alone is not likely to present a reason for judges to overturn a vote, as judges tend to be reluctant to tamper with that process.
2) The number of double punched ballots thrown out may be significant. Invalid ballots are not uncommon at voting precincts. But the large number thrown out in one county raises eyebrows. Comparing to the throwout numbers in other counties is the likely way a judge will determine whether the number is normal or excessive. An excessive number lends support to the claim of a confusion and correction.
3) Officials and troopers blocking access to the polls is a far more serious problem. If it can be substantiated, and the numbers affected exceeds the vote total difference, a judge may decide a re-vote is the only remedy. Appeals all the way to the Supreme Court would likely precede such a remedy.
Of course, it's troubling that the AP report reducing the margin of victory to a 300+ edge for Bush noted errors in numerous counties. That the errors are not confined to one county suggest a hand count is necessary. Until two successive counts produce the same numbers, every recount is suspect.
It is possible that a judge might order just a revote within Palm Beach County. Because voters could switch their votes, such an outcome is unlikely unless some pretty egregious errors have occurred.
But prior to any ruling, the final absentee ballots will be counted, which might negate any necessity for a judgment.
Lead, Follow, or ...
National political campaigns have been refined more than white flour. Scripted and rehearsed before focus groups, they produce an equally bland and uninspired campaign. It's evident when the media coverage focuses on body language, eyerolls, the fact that a candidate knows too much or was able to talk without biting his tongue.
Leadership is not sticking a wet finger into the air to find the prevailing wind direction. It means having ideas that may draw controversy or criticism but demonstrate a willingness to do the best for the benefit of all.
Candidates Bush & Gore chose the safe approach to campaigning and now we're all reaping the result. The GOP had a real leader in Senator McCain and they talked him out of the race to permit their anointed one to run unimpeded.
The complaints of left and right about being shut out by the middle road movement have been proven right by this outcome. But I doubt that either will start listening to my advice or that of Ralph Nader. It's far easier to discredit Ralph and disrespect the voters who chose him in pursuit of a better government. Labelling both as spoilers, they truly believe Nader caused the current dillemma.
Maybe if they'd shut up, they'd hear something important. Because it's not about Daley or Christopher or Baker or threats of Pandora's box or snippy neener-neenerisms or Constitutional crisises. There's no reason that a just outcome needs to be rushed precisely because of the strength of our Constitution.
It's about representing the strengths, talents, freedoms, civillity and greatness of the citizens who are this nation. It doesn't take spin doctors and handlers to do that. It doesn't mean taking risks by deepening divides that can provoke violent outcomes.
It means lead, follow, or just shut up.
______________________________ |
