response 40 of 57:

Dec 17 04:43 UTC 2000

The Constitution requires that the electors all meet on the same day.  It
occurs to me that one reason for that *might* have been the desire to
forestall the electors voting one way or another based on what had happened
elsewhere: it would take more than a day for news to travel from even
New York City to Boston.  Perhaps it's time for Congress to establish the
*time* of the meeting, as well as the day.  I don't see anything in the 
text that would forbid their doing so.  (Although I can also see some states
refusing to meet at the established time just to be contrary.)

response 42 of 57:

Dec 17 05:28 UTC 2000

(Why are you whispering?)

response 44 of 57:

Dec 17 07:43 UTC 2000

Re 41.  I'm relieved to hear that your original comment was not an
accusation.  Thank you.

If you want to quarrel with the concept that a "black community"
exists in the U.S. which has a significant amount of group cohesion,
fine.  I think we can agree to disagree on that point.

I did post articles above which specifically identified which states
have which kinds of laws.  Probably the only effective laws are in
Michigan and both Carolinas.  About half the states have no laws on
the subject.

Again, my off-the-cuff prediction was overly ebullient.  I now think
that if there are any switches among Bush electors, they are much
more likely to be for McCain than for any Democrat.  Yes, that puts
the choice to the House of Representatives if Bush loses two or more.

Yes, I have seen insincere and opportunistic people get desirable
positions, sometimes even as a reward for switching parties.  Consider
1940s Michigan Governor Kim Sigler, a former Democrat whose party switch
appears, in my opinion, to have been motivated by opportunism rather than
principle.  THAT DOES NOT AT ALL MEAN that anyone who switches parties is
an opportunist.  NOR DOES THAT MEAN that a faithless elector would
necessarily get, or expect, any such reward.  NOR DOES THAT MEAN that
insincere and opportunistic people are likely to be chosen as electors.

I'm baffled at some of the things you're saying.  I don't at all imagine
that anyone has become an elector with the explicit plan of switching
his or her vote.  I DO imagine that changed circumstances or disgust
with the nominee may occasionally motivate someone to vote differently
than expected.  The consequences of such an act are so severe for the
actor that it can reasonably be described as self-destructive.

But you go farther than that, and see such an act as never being
justified, always being morally wrong no matter what, and that I am
slandering someone by suggesting that anyone might even consider it. 
Others, such as the editorial writers I quoted above, seem to think that
such an act could potentially be heroic.  But WHATEVER the motivation,
whether you agree with it or not, whether it's heroic, foolish, or evil,
it is an act which (1) takes a lot of courage or chutzpah or willingness
to go against the grain, and (2) leads to negative personal consequences. 

My point, which I have repeated in different terms so many times I'm
getting tired of it, is that such an act is more likely to occur among
people who have the greatest amount of the (1) against-the-grain
qualities, above, and face the least amount of (2) consequences.

I mentioned positive personal consequences in #0, as if this were a
motivating factor, but on reflection it's hard to imagine that this would
play any real role.  Very few people seek out notoriety, and those who do
would never have the patience to work the political vineyards for years.
So you are right to be skeptical about that, and I was wrong to bring that
up as being a factor.  Agreed, it is not.  And, note well, that pretty
well knocks out opportunism as such as being relevant here, though lack of
strong commitment to party remains.

Again, all this was a speculation about the behavior of 538 people, almost
none of whom I know, or even know anything about.  The U.S. House contains
435 members, many of whom are quite well known and understood, and people
speculate about its behavior all the time with varying success -- not
necessarily with reference to names and vote counts, but its behavior and
the behavior of its members in general and as undefined individuals.

(I think I'll delete the rest, go to bed, and continue this some other
time.)

response 46 of 57:

Dec 17 07:55 UTC 2000

Re 36.  Hmmm, good point about the original setup.  I may have overstated
the case for independent electors.  I will look into this some more and
get back to this.

response 48 of 57:

Dec 18 01:13 UTC 2000

The question of identifying race keeps coming up here.  It's seems a
combination of genetics, skin color, cultural background, self-identification
and identification by outsiders.  It's amazingly fuzzy.  There are all sorts
of borderline cases.  A Jamaican.  An American-born child of Nigerian
immigrant parents.  A person light-skinned enough to pass as "white".  A
person who at the age of 40 discovers one of his parents was a light-skinned
black passing as white.  A dark-skinned (East) Indian or an Australian
Aborigine living in the U.S.   I think the whole "self-identification" thing
comes from trying to avoid writing rules about what race all the odd cases
are, while still preserving enough of a concept of race to allow discussion
of it.  "I don't know if this person is black, let's just ask him."  Probably
the honest answer would usually be "in some ways."

The problem with the "self-identify" buzzword is that it suggests you get to
choose.  I could decide to be black, or Michael Jackson could decide not to
be (OK, bad example).  It might help to think about how people become black.

Most commonly, you are raised by a family who impresses on you many ideas of
blackness, from cultural tastes to expectations about how you will be treated
by others.  This is regularly confirmed to you by contacts with strangers who
seem to categorize you as a black in various ways.  None of this is a
voluntary process, but it's not inherently evil either, it's the way we all
build our self-identity.

Most "black" people's families probably teach them values, tastes and
expectations that differ substantially from those "black" values seen on TV.
They find themselves in many ways not matching the expectations of "blacks".
The child of Nigerian immigrants might get almost none at all of those, and
might be astonished to be treated as "black" by strangers, just because he
looks black.  He might rebel against this classification, or he might develop
a preference for the company of others who are treated the same way and accept
him more easily.  He might decide he is black, or not.  Only way to tell is
to ask.  Hence "self-identification".  But mostly not "self-identification
because you get to make up your own mind" but "self-identification because
only you can tell what the cummulative effect of mountains of external pressure
has been on your mind".

Being a Democrat is certainly part of the "as seen on TV black stereotype".
Politicians campaign at groups of people, not individuals.  So the groups
are real to them no matter how fuzzy they are on the ground.

response 50 of 57:

Dec 18 06:09 UTC 2000

(one of the things I've learned in my political science classes at 
college is that most political theory doesn't work in the real world, 
and most political theorists don't even base their work on real world 
examples.  Larry's "analysis" not only didn't [and doesn't] jibe with 
my admittedly-limited experience, it also struck me as offensive.  as 
Larry has clarified why he came to his conclusions, my initial reaction 
has morphed into confusion, and is settling into understanding, 
although I still disagree.)

(it's not that I think a faithless elector would have to make the 
choice to be faithless well in advance in order to act; for the most 
part, I've referred to Larry's example of the kitchen-table meeting, 
which, if at all conceivable, could occur the morning of the vote.  
it's certainly not that I think faithless electors don't become so for 
moral reasons; indeed, gelinas's reference points out that, at least 
with recent history, it's been one of the few reasons electors have 
ever switched their vote.  it's that Larry didn't, IMO, present a moral 
dilemma, but instead described a scenario motivated by a poverty of 
personal ethics.  *that*, I personally found offensive.)

(I'm also unconvinced that being a self-described "black" Republican 
and being a faithless elector are comparable, or even relatable, 
examples of "going against the grain."  rather, the way Larry presented 
his scenario, tossing in details of neighborly acceptance and reverent 
thank-yous, it's practically an example of going back to "the grain."  
maybe Larry was thinking of it as "going against the grain" of "going 
against the grain.")

(it bears repeating that my disagreement isn't with Larry, who's been 
extraordinarily patient in responding to my challenges of his 
conclusions.  given his many years in politics, I'd normally defer to 
his insight.  however, I don't feel this is the appropriate forum to 
gush about Larry's many accomplishments, but rather to discuss what I 
feel is an embarrassingly faulty "analysis" of the possible impact of 
faithless electors on this year's election.  nearly all of my responses 
to this item have been offered in the spirit of getting Larry to both 
explain and rethink his position.)

(in hindsight, I'm surprised Larry didn't suggest the potential for 
faithless electors in Florida.  there you have electors who are, one, 
pledged for Bush; two, faced with the prospect of voting for someone 
who, in some minds, didn't earn the vote; and, three, pribly would have 
diminished fallout from their surrounding communities, since the vote 
was so evenly split.  with both the compelling moral reason and a 
potential for getting others on board, there's a recipe for throwing 
the election to Gore, which is the situation speculated upon in the 
first place.  sure, it doesn't explicitly say so, but these electors 
could be people with "against-the-grain qualities" and not necessarily 
party loyalists.  I vaguely recall reading an article focusing on some 
of the Republican electors; a few of them sounded like average folk who 
just happened to belong to the Republican party.)

(to briefly touch on a point Larry raised about his "analysis" in 
resp:44 toward the end:  sometimes it's OK to speculate about groups 
you don't know as "undefined individuals," and you're correct in that 
many people do so with varying degrees of success.  however, it doesn't 
hurt to learn as much as you can, and to change your hypothesis as new 
information is discovered.  there's a difference between good analysis 
and poor analysis, and I'd like to think that you would prefer to be 
credited with the former as opposed to the latter.)

response 52 of 57:

Dec 18 07:22 UTC 2000

In response 51, paragraph 2, 1st line, s/useful/useful for me/

response 54 of 57:

Dec 18 20:43 UTC 2000

The Florida electors voted 25-0 for Bush.

response 56 of 57:

Dec 19 01:50 UTC 2000

Nomore chance of faithless electors, Bush is confirmed as President elect.