response 15 of 57:

Dec 15 15:06 UTC 2000

Re 14.  I really don't know about the 2000 electors, since I haven't
collected information about them yet.  My comments about what electors are
like are based on my knowledge about electors in past years, especially in
Michigan from 1940 to 1996.  There were no faithless electors in Michigan
during that period, but there was at least one (Zolton Ferency in 1968)
who resigned because he couldn't bring himself to vote as pledged.

I have been thinking more about your comments and will have more to say
about these topics when I have a moment.

I appreciate your thoughtful and not overly confrontational responses.

response 17 of 57:

Dec 15 15:27 UTC 2000

Yeah.  If the Supreme Court decision had been presented as fiction, two
months ago, I would have hooted over such patently absurd paranoia.

response 19 of 57:

Dec 15 17:07 UTC 2000

and it would only take, wha? three electors to change their minds to to
flip the election?  might there be three electors from gore's homestate
who regret that Gore won the popular vote and didnt get the win, who would
change their votes on principal?

response 21 of 57:

Dec 15 17:12 UTC 2000

(And, yeah, Jan is right to question my prediction of as many as seven
flips.  I'm guessing now more in the range of zero to one.)

response 23 of 57:

Dec 15 18:25 UTC 2000

My vague recollection is that one of the DC electors announced a plan to 
abstain, in protest against DC's lack of voting representation in 
Congress.

response 25 of 57:

Dec 15 20:04 UTC 2000

Another article, this from the conservative Washington Times:


   Three 'faithless electors' could still give election to Gore

     By Frank J. Murray
     THE WASHINGTON TIMES


   A month-long crusade to persuade three of Texas Gov. George
   W. Bush's 271 hard-won electors to switch sides still could
   make Vice President Al Gore president.

   In his concession speech Wednesday, Mr. Gore assured
   Americans that the Electoral College would ratify Mr. Bush
   as president-elect when electors meet Monday in 50 state
   capitals and in the District of Columbia.

   But there is nothing in the law or Constitution that can
   prevent "faithless electors" from deserting their candidate.
   That has sparked speculation since November, when a veteran
   Democratic operative said that he was "trying to kidnap"
   Bush electors who might be willing to switch to Mr. Gore.

   And in the five weeks since Election Day, tens of thousands
   of e-mails, letters and phone calls bombarded 172 Bush
   electors as a result of an Internet campaign engineered by
   two California college students, who say the popular vote
   should prevail over the Electoral College.

   "I think this is exactly the kind of situation where the
   Founders, who originated the Electoral College, might want
   unbound electors to exercise discretion," said Beverly Ross,
   of Coral Gables, Fla., co-author of an Electoral College
   study cited twice in Tuesday's Supreme Court decision in the
   case of Bush vs. Gore.

   There is precedent for mass defection as recently as 1960,
   when six Alabama electors who signed pledges to Sen. John F.
   Kennedy voted for Sen. Harry Byrd, Virginia Democrat, under
   a segregationist plan hatched by a Montgomery, Ala., lawyer
   who also persuaded Oklahoma elector Dr. Henry D. Irwin to
   switch from Richard Nixon to Mr. Byrd.

   Other electors made their political statement one at a time,
   but none ever changed an election outcome. No electors
   switched sides in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes won by one
   vote in the Electoral College.

   Mr. Gore would have to get votes from three "faithless
   electors" to achieve the 270 electoral votes needed to
   become president. Gaining those three electors is the goal
   of an organized effort to convince Bush electors that Mr.
   Gore's 337,576 popular-vote plurality trumps the
   Constitution's system for choosing presidents.

   Two switchers would only tie the vote 269-269 and throw the
   election into the House, where a Republican majority is
   likely.

   There are 140 Bush electors totally unbound either by state
   law or signed pledge _ including 11 in Mr. Gore's home state
   of Tennessee, where the electoral vote is by secret ballot.
   The remaining 131 _ including 59 in other states using
   secret ballots _ know that no "faithless elector" has ever
   been prosecuted for switching sides.

   In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that political
   parties could require electors to sign a pledge to vote for
   their party's nominee for president. Six states and the
   District have such a pledge, enforceable by party
   discipline.

   Twenty states have statutes binding delegates to vote for
   the candidate they were elected to vote for. New Mexico,
   Oklahoma and South Carolina prescribe criminal penalties and
   three others _ North and South Carolina and Michigan
   _nullify "faithless" votes and replace the elector on the
   spot.

   When published reports identified four Bush electors as
   potential converts, those four were bombarded with calls,
   pro and con, more heavily than the overall group. "I am
   casting my vote for George W. Bush," said Frances Sadler, of
   Ashland, Va., contradicting those reports.

   "No way would I switch," said Joe Arpaio, of Scottsdale,
   Ariz., the sheriff of Maricopa County, who gained fame for
   housing 1,400 of his 7,300 jail inmates in a tent city,
   forcing female convicts to work on chain gangs, and muting
   macho males by clothing them in stripes and underwear dyed
   pink.

   "I guess you have First Amendment rights, but if they come
   down here and violate any law, try to bribe me or anybody
   else, they're going to be in Tent City wearing pink
   underwear," Sheriff Arpaio told The Washington Times.

   The other two electors targeted in a Wall Street Journal
   report _Wayne McDonald, of Derry, N.H., and Mamon Wright, of
   Memphis, Tenn. _ were not answering phones or taking
   messages.

   While the recount still was at an impasse, the vice
   president's campaign actively studied ways to recruit enough
   electors to win, even as it publicly repudiated free-lance
   efforts to "kidnap" a few votes, The Times learned from an
   authority on the Electoral College who was advising the Gore
   organization.

   "Gore is three electors away from a victory, two away from a
   tie. Some might defect," he said, refusing to respond when
   asked if any recruits were on board.

   His statements seemed to contradict public disavowals by
   Gore strategists, including former Secretary of State Warren
   G. Christopher.

   "The vice president has said he never would engage in that
   kind of activity and I'm sure he wouldn't. I believe he
   would discourage it," Mr. Christopher said.

   "No matter what happens in Florida, switching electors will
   still be an open question. . . . Gore and Christopher can't
   control that," said former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, a
   Democrat.

   "I take Secretary Christopher at his word. Mario is
   dreaming," countered John Sununu, former Republican governor
   of New Hampshire and President Bush's first chief of staff.
   "Republican electors aren't leaning one iota toward changing
   their commitment."

   That was the view from Bush headquarters in Austin after
   supportive conference calls urging Republican electors to
   stay true, according to campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan.

   "It's certainly unusual for one side to contact the others.
   We were disappointed with the Democrats' efforts to
   investigate Republican electors and try to pressure them
   into switching," Mr. Sullivan said.

   "We expect our electors to support Governor Bush," he said.

   The Gore campaign consultant, who asked not to be
   identified, also said the now-defeated Florida slate of
   Democratic electors still could meet Monday and mail their
   vote to Washington without certification. If that happened,
   according to a National Archives official, the competing
   slate also would be placed before the Joint Session of
   Congress on Jan. 6.

   The Times learned yesterday that Florida Democrats had a
   contingency plan to do precisely that. Until Mr. Gore's
   concession speech, the plan was so solid the Democratic
   Party reserved a meeting room in the state Capitol.

   "We had to be prepared," Tony Welch, Florida Democratic
   Party communications director, said in an interview when
   asked if that prospect had been floated.

   "More than raised and studied _if there was no concession
   and the Florida Legislature had done what we think is
   illegal and Gore had won the vote based on a recount, we
   were ready with our electors meeting," Mr. Welch said.

   "My understanding is that, as of this very moment, our
   electors are not going to meet," Mr. Welch added, saying
   that reflected the policy of Florida Democratic Chairman Bob
   Poe.

   Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the National Archives, which
   administers Electoral College affairs, confirmed such a ploy
   would put a conflicting slate's claim before Congress, as
   occurred in 1960, when Hawaii sent three claims for their
   three electoral votes, two of them certified by succeeding
   governors of opposite parties.

   "What we did in that case and what we would do again, if the
   situation comes up, is let Congress decide. We would send
   forward any certificates we received," Miss Cooper said.

   Dozens of Bush electors contacted by The Times uniformly
   reported barrages of phone calls, e-mails and letters. About
   one-third were from Democrats urging them to switch sides,
   and most of the rest asked them to stick to their guns, they
   said.

   "No one has been so indecorous as to be threatening or to
   say they'd open a seven-figure bank account for me in the
   Caymans, but a lot of callers seemed to come from the
   shallow end of the gene pool," said West Virginia elector
   John McCutcheon, executive director of the Bush campaign in
   that state.

   Much of that uprising was the Internet-based brainchild of
   government majors David Enrich, 21, of Boston, and Matt
   Grossmann, 21, of Columbia, Mo., at Claremont-McKenna
   College in California.

   Their project began two years ago under the name Citizens
   for True Democracy to abolish the Electoral College system.
   It transformed on Dec. 10 into Vote With America, whose Web
   site (www.votewithamerica.com) sparked the outpouring of e-
   mail to 172 Bush electors, whose addresses were posted.

   "We hope that two or three electors will agree with our
   logic," said Mr. Enrich, who said he and Mr. Grossmann side
   with neither candidate. He also said they do not endorse the
   implied threat of investigating electors' backgrounds that
   was raised by Democratic consultant Bob Beckel of Alexandria
   during a cable-television interview.

   "I'm trying to kidnap these electors in states that [Mr.
   Bush] won that are not legally bound to him that have a
   right to vote how they want to," said Mr. Beckel, whose plan
   was publicly disavowed by Mr. Christopher.

   While conceding that Mr. Beckel would not break any laws so
   long as he avoided coercive acts that look like extortion,
   constitutional law professor Paul Campos, of the University
   of Colorado, countered with a war of words against the
   crusade.

   "I think the unfortunate tendency we have in this culture is
   to equate what is legal with what is sort of decent," Mr.
   Campos told The Times. "You can go on television and
   announce your plans to burgle the presidency of the United
   States, and nobody blinks an eye. The very fact that
   Beckel's plan could actually succeed . . . is a testament to
   the risk that a kind of mad corruption will soon engulf this
   whole affair."

   Mr. McCutcheon, the West Virginia elector, agreed and said
   the modest Beckel plan to find three votes may fail only
   because he went public, galvanizing Republican slates
   nationwide.

   "Beckel might have succeeded if he hadn't been open and
   notorious," Mr. McCutcheon said. "What the coordinated
   effort by the other side has done is make us all stick
   together."

response 27 of 57:

Dec 16 00:55 UTC 2000

You can still win electors by demonic possession.

response 29 of 57:

Dec 16 19:39 UTC 2000

Satan for President!  :)

response 31 of 57:

Dec 16 20:04 UTC 2000

It depends on whether we are going to continue to be a federation of
independent polities or become one big megastate. Whatever the choice, though,
winner-take-all-by-state has to go. If we continue the compact-of-governances
model, the proper way to do presidential elections is:

* Each State gets *two* electors, that th respective States may choose
  any way they want;

* Each *Congressional district* gets one elector, selected by popular vote
  within the respective districts.

This better mirrors the way Congress is set up, and makes popular/electoral
result mismatches a lot less likely.

DC could still have its three votes, I guess. AFAIAC, DC should get squat,
as a political entity. Instead, let each person in DC vote as a resident of
his State of origin - and be able to choose a state of origin if it's not
known. DC is supposed to be common territory - an extrality zone, if you will.

response 35 of 57:

Dec 17 00:12 UTC 2000

Re 34.  I wrote that I could have left the black/white thing out
completely, but it would have been misleading.  The word "race" may be
meaningless as a biological concept, but it still has tremendous power as
a socio-political concept.  Black voters as a group have different views,
different loyalties, different religious practices, different residential
patterns than similarly situated white or Hispanic voters.  If you talk
about politics, these differences are going to come up.

You ask why skin color should be any criteria of this.  Well, it's not.  I
do frequently use the word "black" interchangably with "African-American",
because the one-syllable term is much less awkward to use.  It's not a
literal reference to skin color; it's a reference to a group
identification.  Nobody I know, regardless of the color of their skin or
their group self-identification, uses the term "African-American"
completely to the exclusion of the term "black".  And since I am in
politics, I hear these terms being used on an almost daily basis. 

I thought I explained the word "opportunist" pretty thoroughly already.  I
know lots of opportunistic people in politics.  Public figures who I have
repeatedly called opportunistic include Jerry Kaufman (many times a
candidate for Michigan Supreme Court), and Ralph Reed (one-time head of
the Christian Coalition).  An opportunist (in politics) is someone who
joins a political campaign or party or crusade for other than reasons of
belief or dedication.  Often their lack of sincerity for the cause shows,
or perhaps their willingness to abandon it when something better comes
along is more telling. 

Since I believe that the difference between the Democratic and Republican
party is pretty deep and significant, I think that a political activist or
politician who changes from one to the other is making (or acknowledging) 
a major change in their views and values.  But people change, and parties
change, so it is inevitable that individuals are going to have to go
through this kind of thing.  I have known people who have done so, in both
directions.  If you're a already a politician, changiing parties usually
means that you're leaving behind most of the political associates and
supporters, and even friends; it's a bit like moving from one world into
another, earning the animus of your old friends and never quite getting
the full trust of your new friends.

But when a person does this REPEATEDLY, as Jerry Kaufman has for example,
and especially when it's to personal advantage, as it is in his case, you
start to wonder at how flexible his political views must be.

Certain times and political situations seem to attract people like Jerry.
When your party is almost totally irrelevant, has never won anything and
seemingly never will be more than a footnote in your state or area, you
are in no position to question the sincerity of anyone who walks through
the door.  You're just grateful for the help.

Yes, Detroit is an economically depressed area which also has districts
which are overwhelmingly populated by people who describe themselves as
black, and which vote for Democrats by gigantic majorities.  But I didn't
say "economically depressed" because that by itself does not even begin to
explain why such districts have only tiny numbers of Republicans.

Some of the poorest, most economically depressed counties in the United
States are also overwhelmingly REPUBLICAN -- look at Hancock County,
Tennessee, for example.  Even in cities like New York, Chicago and Los
Angeles, economically depressed districts which are ethnically diverse do
have MUCH more than trivial numbers of Republican activists and voters.

The reason why it was logical to single out the African-American
communities in my original message is that there is no other substantial
population group in the United States which votes Democratic so solidly.
And, despite rising incomes (which might be thought to make people more
politically conservative), this is even truer now than it used to be.  Al
Gore got a higher percentage of black votes than Bill Clinton did in 1996,
which means that George W. Bush did worse among black voters than did the
seemingly hapless Bob Dole.

Those kinds of facts get the attention of politicians.  And that kind of
reality, in areas where African-American voters make up the electorate,
creates an awkward situation for Republican organizations on the ground,
leading to the possible naming of electors who might not have the same
commitment to the Republican Party and its candidates as the average
Republican elector does. 

I mentioned ideological conservatives because that is one obvious way to
develop a deep commitment to the Republican Party.  I did not mean to
imply that there were not other ways.  One important example of probably
many: Less than a lifetime ago, to be African-American meant that you were
a Republican politically.  Every important advance for the rights of black
people across decades of American history (from the 1850s almost to the
1950s) was brought about by Republicans.  I know that a small but
significant number still remember that and have stuck by the party from
those days to this.

I'm not interested in looking over the lists of electors and predicting
who will do what.  I was, rather, putting myself in the future and
imagining that one or more electors HAD deserted Bush.  Starting from that
assumption, who would it have been?  Hence the speculation.  No, I don't
think it's terribly likely -- we'll find out on Monday -- but Timothy Noah
in Slate thinks the chances are better than even that there will be at
least one.

The reason I envisioned three people sitting together is that it is not
often in history that as few as three ordinary people are given the power
to completely change the national course of events without committing
violence.  One or two alone couldn't do it -- it would take three.  I put
it with Scenario Two because the guy I imagined in Scenario One was a
loner.

Most people would not do it, even if they didn't care about political
parties and who won the election, because the act of breaking with
expectations under such circumstances would require tremendous chutzpah. 
It would require facing the in-person rage of probably hundreds of people
on that day alone -- many of them people you know -- an almost intolerable
experience for the average person. 

So who could possibly do that kind of thing?  Maybe somebody who lives in
a community but dissents from its overwhelmingly dominant political
predilections.  Somebody who advocates a political party that his
neighbors detest, and who is seen as a turncoat simply for doing so.  That
is a fair description of a black Republican activist in an all-black urban
environment in the U.S.

That doesn't mean that an elector from say, urban St. Louis would
necessarily do this.  Almost certainly not.  But maybe alone among the
people in the room (on December 18), he or she would have the strength of
purpose to make that decision, defy the rage of the other electors and
officials.

That's what I meant by "willingness to go against the grain."

response 37 of 57:

Dec 17 02:31 UTC 2000

resp:35

(theory is more fun to work with than facts, isn't it?  when you work 
with facts, such as who the electors actually are, or why electors have 
been faithless in the past, or even which states prevent their electors 
from switching votes, you're boxing off such wonderfully fantastic 
possiblities as two or three similarly-hued Americans sitting around a 
kitchen table, planning how they could change the face of politics or 
at least get their name in the paper.  really, you could make a movie 
with such a dramatic, colorful [*cough*] outcome.  heck, they could all 
sign multimillion dollar book deals, and then it wouldn't matter what 
their neighbors thought about their actions.)

(I mean, you could have suggested a scenario where an elector or two 
throws their Bush-pledged vote to someone like Nader, or Buchanan, or 
maybe even Leiberman.  it would only take two of them to throw the 
whole election to the House, who would [likely] pick Bush anyway.  no 
lasting harm done, same message made.)

(you speak of people who make a habit of switching parties, or who are 
insincere about the cause they're supporting.  having worked on a 
political campaign, I'm familiar with insincere people working for a 
candidate in whom they don't believe.  I'm not convinced that these 
people are selected as electors; maybe they are in the third parties.)

(you also speak of this monolithic force you call "black" [or "African-
American" when it isn't _awkward_ for you] that, according to you, 
doesn't refer to skin color, but rather some sort of self-described 
socioeconomic description.  how do you *think* this group came up with 
whatever self-description du jour they happen to be using at any given 
moment?  do all these people get together and say, "we're 'black 
colored African-American negroes' because 90% of us voted for Gore!"?  
I don't think so.  as much as I disagree with the concept, the self-
description comes from skin color. BUT, I would suggest that, in most 
cases, these people didn't vote the way they did because of some 
narrow, outdated self-description.  rather, I would suggest they voted 
based on one issue or another.  isn't that how most people vote?  or is 
it that these people get together and say, "we're 'black colored 
African-American negroes' who vote however Jesse Jackson says we 
should, except for 10% of us!"?)

(ever looked at a map of Africa?  it's especially interesting to look 
at one before and after the Europeans pulled out.  you'll see large 
areas of land splintered because colonizers had no regard for keeping 
tribes separate, tribes that were more often than not in direct 
conflict.  heck, they all look the same, they must all be the same, 
right?  it's that attitude that I see whenever I see the 
words "black", "African-American", etc., used to describe a group that 
really has almost no unifying characteristic save for skin color.)

(you speak of these people voting overwhelmingly for Gore.  didn't 
Democrats vote overwhelmingly for Gore too?  oh, wait:  you did 
describe these people as "solidly" Democratic.  I wonder what they make 
of Colin Powell, who today described himself as "African-American".  
maybe he's the exception?  maybe he's an "opportunist"?)

(I wonder how many of these self-described "black Republicans" you 
know, how many of them have earned the derision of their neighbors, how 
many of them are waiting for that one day when they can do that one 
thing that will get them a congratulatory phone call from Jesse Jackson 
[speaking of an "opportunist"...] or at least that respect which you 
imply they crave, at the expense of their self-respect.)

(again, I ask you what sort of twisted opportunity would be gained by 
being a faithless elector.  and, if you can't find even one elector 
from St. Louis who fits your suggested scenario, then I suggest either 
picking another city or revisualizing your scenario.)

response 39 of 57:

Dec 17 03:25 UTC 2000

carson demonstrates one of the reasons why racial divisions are so hard to
work on improving in this country -- we aren't even allowed to *talk* about
them.  It's such a hot-button issue that you can't even mention the fact
that, for example, people tend to self-segregate by skin color, without
being accused of being a racist for describing the obvious.