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.

response 41 of 57:

Dec 17 05:27 UTC 2000

resp:39

(uh, not exactly.  one, I haven't accused anyone of being a racist.  two,
my gripe here is assigning one thought to an entire group based on skin
color.  if people self-segregate, that's their choice, and it shouldn't
mean that everyone else should be lumped in with them.  three, what have
Larry and I been doing if *not* discussing it?)

response 43 of 57:

Dec 17 07:37 UTC 2000

resp:42  ("soft-spoken.")

response 45 of 57:

Dec 17 07:53 UTC 2000

(Because Carson has been using parentheses for years.  It's his trademark)

I think I see the disagreement here.  Larry is starting with the premise that
there may be Bush electors voting for Gore, and working his way back in terms
of if that happened, what sort of person would likely be responsible.  What
Carson seems to be challenging is working through the scenario in the other
direction.  Larry is saying that for somebody to get away with that sort of
thing, there is a certain background they'd probably have to come from, and
a certain type of community they'd probably have to live in.  If I'm reading
Carson correctly, he's pointing out that it would not be reasonable to predict
that the sort of person Larry says could get away with this would be likely
ot try it, or would even want to.  However, I don't think Larry was claiming
that such a person would be likely to try it, or would want to; just that if
it did happen it would have to be somebody from that background.

It's easy, maybe even reasonable, to inject race into this.  The US
unfortunately has a racial history such that race often dictates how people
are treated, what oportunities they are given, and where they are allowed to
live.  This was far more so in the past, but remains a pretty contentious
issue in American politics.  It stands to reason that most (although certainly
not all) of the people most negatively affected by this (defined by Larry not
only in terms of race, but in terms of living in a segregated community),
would allign themselves with the political party seen as most likely to
improve their situation.  As long as we're speaking in statistics, that seems
a pretty fair generalization to make.  Of course, the moment it becomes an
absolute generalization ("all urban black Republicans are just opportunists
who would change their vote when it brings them personal gain") it does become
almost certainly false.  However, Larry wasn't claiming it to be an absolute,
just a contributing factor.

response 47 of 57:

Dec 17 08:13 UTC 2000

One slightly jocular point re 37.  You write:

>  you speak of these people voting overwhelmingly for Gore.  didn't
>  Democrats vote overwhelmingly for Gore too?

I didn't go looking for this, but as I recall from reading polls, only
about 75% to 80% of self-identified Democrats voted for Gore.  Not as
overwhelingly, in other words, as self-identified African-Americans.

The objection to that, of course, is that lots of people self-identify (in
polls) with parties whose candidates they don't necessarily support very
often.  Note that self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" are even
less monolithic, perhaps because much of the public defines those words
differently than the cognoscenti do.

Further, a political identification is not really a "population group".

GWB did better among self-identified Republicans than Gore did among
self-identified Democrats, but not all that much better -- about 85% if I
recall correctly. 

Maybe someone could go pull up the exit polls on a news web site and post
the exact numbers.  I'm too tired to do it now.

response 49 of 57:

Dec 18 03:05 UTC 2000

Most of the data we have on group characteristics and attitudes come
from things like the Census and polling, which ask respondents to
identify their race or ethnic origin.  If you, Jan, had put down on the
Census form that you were black, the computer would unquestioningly
added you and your characteristics to the "black" category.  That's why
the weasel word about all Census-based data on this sort of thing is
"self-identified."

I specifically rejected "skin color" as being the measure of race because
it's such a poor determinant.  My father, with no African ancestry of
which I'm aware, was darker than a number of black politicians I know.

The 2000 Census, for the first time, allows people to select more than one
race category.  That will highlight and help explore the messiness of
these categories.

response 51 of 57:

Dec 18 06:54 UTC 2000

Re 50.  Good points, and thank you for the kind words.

It was not at all useful to suggest that anyone would become a "faithless
elector" out of a "poverty of personal ethics."  I think I was taking it
for granted that anyone who would even consider such a thing had much
deeper reasons for doing so.  The "kitchen-table"  scenario, which I
regret having mentioned at all, was intended to point out, not a
motivation for defecting, but the possibility that doing so would make a
difference as opposed to being just a protest vote. 

Elsewhere, it has been pointed out that, though quite a few electors
across American history have voted in other than the expected way, only a
VERY few have actually crossed over and voted for an opposing party's
nominee.  A North Carolina Republican elector in 1968 voted for George C. 
Wallace.  (That's why North Carolina now has a Michigan-style
vote-wrong-and-you're-out law.)  A Virginia elector in 1972 voted for the
Libertarian candidates.  There might have been a case in 1800.  I think
that's it.  There's a striking lack of Democrat-to-Republican (or Whig) or
vice-versa switches.

Much more often, stray votes are cast for other figures in the elector's
own party, e.g., a Dukakis elector in 1988 who voted for Bentsen, a Ford
elector in 1976 who voted for Reagan.

When I wrote the original, which was done admittedly too casually, I was
unaware of just how infrequent it has been for electors to vote for the
opposition.  Of course, this is an unusual election in modern times, and
as I said earlier, it's the kind of situation which might conceivably
motivate an elector to cross party lines for reasons of principle.

Well, we should know the answer later today.

response 53 of 57:

Dec 18 15:27 UTC 2000

The  guy on NPR this morning mentioned that in some states, the electors vote
by secret ballot.  FWIW. 

response 55 of 57:

Dec 18 22:54 UTC 2000

(there goes that theory.)  :^)

response 57 of 57:

Dec 19 02:46 UTC 2000

well bush won the electoral college 271-266, the only elector who
flipped was a Gore elector from D.C. who entered a blank ballot in
protest of DC's lack of representation in congress.  So Bush is the
next president unless congress refuses to ratify the vote.