carson
|
|
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.)
|
polygon
|
|
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.
|