For a long time I have wanted to write about the aftermath of the
2000 elections. The results of the 2000 election were rather remarkable.
What with the court cases over the Florida recounts and the arguments over
things like dimpled chads! But, to me, the other remarkable thing was that
had Mr. Gore won, it probably would have been with a minority of the popular
vote. Yes. I know. He received a narrow majority of the raw vote that night.
But, if he had won, it could very well have been with a minority of the
vote. There is a phenomenon behind this, and it may be the real reason
why Mr. Bush won. The behavior of the marginal voter. That may be the real
story behind this election. And, what a story.
The Marginal Voter
In most elections the majority of us do not vote. In some recent American
elections less then a fourth of those eligible actually voted. Oh, the
percentage may go up if there is some hot button issue at stake. But, in
most elections the majority of use do not go out and vote. This fact creates
an interesting phenomenon. If the electorate is evenly divided the numbers
necessary to tilt an election can be very small, so the behaviors of those
on the margin between voter and non-voter can be very important. Now, I
think potential voters can be divided into several categories. First, there
are those people who vote because they see it as a civic duty. These people
always go out to vote. However, they do not always necessarily know what
they are voting for. But, I think these people tend to be moderate. Second,
there are the extremists, those at the far ends of the political spectrum.
These people always vote too. But, what are they voting for? The cause,
regardless of the issues. For example, Ralph Nader may have cost Al Gore
the election by siphoning off liberal voters who were disgusted with the
“conservative”
policies of the Clinton administration. Eight years earlier, Ross Perot
probably cost George Bush senior the 1992 election by siphoning off angry
conservative voters. Third, there are those who are committed to some issue
or cause, but are otherwise outside the conventional liberal-conservative
spectrum. These people go out and vote when their issue is at stake, but
at other times they may not. For example, the democrats lost control of
congress in 1994, in part, because of the gun control legislation they
had passed. That law brought many, usually non-voting, gun owners to the
polls, and their numbers helped swing the election. Also, there are the
homosexuals, who will come out in droves if their issues are at stake.
And, there is the religious right. And, there are many other groups. Politicians
actively court (or at least avoid annoying) these voters because their
votes can swing elections. Finally, there are the marginal voters. These
are people who may, or may not, go to the polls on election day; depending
on how they think the election is going. If their candidate seems likely
to win, they don’t vote. But, if their candidate is in trouble, they vote.
Understand, it’s not that they’re “undecided”. They have definite political
opinions. It’s that they only care when their side is losing. So, their
behavior can be unpredictable. And, if they get a chance they can swing
an election. The elections of 2000 were so close that the marginal voters
made the difference.
The Results from Florida and the West Coast
I think the most important event in this election may have been when
the pollsters called Florida for Gore early that night, an hour before
the polls closed in West Florida. Apparently, they did not realize that
the florida panhandle was in the next time zone, so the polls would be
open for another hour. That blunder gave the marginal Bush voters a chance
to act. A chance to rush to the poll and impact the election. Understand,
the florida panhandle is heavily republican, but the pundits had been calling
the state for Bush in the weeks leading up to the elections. So, the marginal
Bush voters had no reason to act. After all, the governor, Jeb Bush, was
George Bush’s brother, and he controlled the state political machine. That
meant there was little for marginal republican voters to worry about. So,
“Why vote?” “My candidate is going to win anyway!” But, for marginal democrats
the issue of the election was at stake. Al Gore was behind. He was losing.
They had to go out and vote. So, when the pollsters called the state for
Gore (not realizing that the polls were still open in the west), that gave
the marginal republicans in the panhandle a chance to rush to the polls.
This also gave the marginal democrats in the panhandle a reason to stay
home. After all, their candidate had “won”. But, the election was so close
that only a thousand votes were enough to swing things (the data was available
on television). So, when the state ended up going for Bush, it could have
been the marginal voters of the panhandle who did it.
Later that night the elections took a new turn as the raw vote tallies slowly tilted away from George Bush towards Al Gore. What happened? The marginal voters struck again. This time from the heavily democratic west coast (a.k.a. the Left Coast). Marginal democratic voters out on the west coast saw their candidate failing, so they just had to help if they could. Now, the pollsters had called these states for Gore months before. This was the “Left Coast” after all. So, marginal Gore voters had no reason to vote. But, when they heard that things were going badly for their Gore, they acted. Technically their votes were useless because the electoral college is based on state vote tallies, but they had to help. This was enough to swing the raw vote to Gore. Note, the day before the election one poll predicted that Al Gore would win, but Bush would have the majority of the popular vote. That might have happened if the pollster’s had held off announcing the winner in Florida for an hour. Because the marginal Bush voters in Florida would not have had a chance rush to the polls, and the marginal Gore voters on the west coast would not have had a reason to vote.
In the 2000 elections it was the impact of the marginal voter that was decisive, and it was the marginal voters who largely caused the post election controversy. Bush won because the marginal republican voters in the florida panhandle acted. If Gore had won, the majority of the raw vote would likely have gone to Bush, because of inactive marginal democrats on the west coast. In the end, this was an interesting, perhaps unique, election, regardless of who actually won.
But, Who Should Have Won?
I think George Bush should have won. Why? Because Al Gore could not
carry his home state of Tennessee. The people of his home state are the
people who know him best. They are the people who have had to deal with
him on many issues. Now, in nearly every presidential election on record,
the loser has at least carried his home state. Yet, in this election Al
Gore could not carry either Tennessee or Arkansas. If the people of his
home state wouldn’t vote for him, why should anyone else? And, what does
it mean when the people of Arkansas, the home state of Gore’s patron Bill
Clinton, would not vote for him either? Was this a referendum on Bill Clinton’s
scandals? In that case, Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s innocent victim. Note,
the only good reason I can see to vote for anyone is expected performance
in office. But there are other reasons to vote, or not vote, for a candidate;
party loyalty, adherence to ideology, or the behavior of the candidate’s
predecessor. These are poor reasons to vote for anyone. Now, I think Al
Gore lost because he was tarnished by the scandals of Bill Clinton. This
had nothing to do with the man behind the media image, or his expected
performance in office. This had everything to do with Bill Clinton. However,
if a presidential candidate cannot carry his home state, he should not
win. And, if a candidate does manage to win in this case, it probably has
more to do with political loyalty, or ideology, then with anything positive.
So, George Bush should have won.
But, Who Did Win (really)?
I don’t know, and it does not matter. This election was so close that
many little things effected it. It was the little things that made the
difference. For example, I heard that the republicans in California complained
about absentee votes not being counted after the election. The (presumably)
democrat election officials said that counting those votes didn’t matter,
because it could not effect the outcome. The republicans countered by saying
that many of these votes were from military personnel stationed abroad,
who were more likely to vote republican then democrat (perhaps). So, if
those votes had been counted, perhaps Bush would have gained a little in
the vote totals (then again, perhaps not). Understand, this election was
so close that little things made all the difference. For example, there
was the decision by a Florida election official to stuff all the presidential
candidates on one page. But, the official, Terresa Florres, was in a bind.
On the one hand, it was illegal arrange the ballot this way. On the other
hand, the law required that all presidential candidates be on the same
page. So, she was breaking the law either way (at least as I understand
it). Again, there was the way the Federal Government treated the relatives
of a little boy named Elian Gonzalez. Sending Elian back to his father
in Cuba was the right thing to do (at least according to what the psychologists
say, and the standards of international law). But, the way
the Clinton administration
did it was wrong politically. Perhaps Mr. Gore could have brought up the
Americans who’s children were being held in foreign countries. Many American
children are kidnapped and taken to foreign countries, usually in divorce
disputes. Then, he could have asked, “How can we work for the return of
these American children, if we allow you to do this in Florida?” But, that
is not what happened. I think the way the federal government handled this
was too high handed. And, at least one Florida recount was stopped when
the counting got to returns from heavily Cuban American districts. Perhaps
there was a reason. The point is, either candidate could have won. It was
that close. Very small things could have tilted the election one way or
the other. Little things made all the difference. A little boy name Elian
Gonzalez. A ballot with a flawed design. And, the behavior of the marginal
voters.
I hope you enjoyed reading this.
The Curse of Janet Reno
Or was it Janet Reno? I think she had this thing
about protecting children. Or, was it a curse? I’m
not sure. I heard that her political career began a prosecutor in Florida.
That she made a name for herself during the child sex abuse craze of the
late seventies. Remember that? It started
when prosecutors learned that they could badger a child into saying anything.
Because
children will lie out of fear or to please adults. And, children
don’t understand the consequences of the lies they tell. So, in
some cases, ambitious prosecutors got children to say the most outrageous
things on the witness stand. But, if you look at the tapes of the
prosecutors interviewing these children. There was a kind of feedback loop,
with the prosecutors putting adult ideas about sex crimes in the children’s
minds. The testimony these children gave eventually put
their parents, or teachers, in jail. Then,
years later, the, now grown up, child witnesses had to go back into court
to get their victims out of jail; telling the judges that they had been
pressured into lying by the prosecutors. All because
ambitious prosecutors were trying to build their political careers on spectacular
cases.
Now, I don’t
know to what extent Mrs. Reno was involved in this. But,
if she did have innocent victims, there could have been spiritual ramifications
(prayers tend to do that).
It could have made
the angels angry. It could have generated
a lot of bad Karma. If so, she was doomed.
It’s funny, but the most outrageous things that she
ran into while serving President Clinton involved protecting children.
For
example, her attempts to protect the children locked up in the Branch Davidian
compound. The FBI “cowboys” running that operation
ignored her orders on several occasions.
But,
they did manage to forward various allegations to her, about the ways David
Lee Koresh “loved”
the children of his followers. Or, so I’ve
heard. Then again, I think David Lee Koresh
was a mentally deranged fanatic. He was trying to commit a glorified version
of suicide by cop, and take his followers with him. So, Mrs.
Reno may have been trapped in this situation. And, of course, there
was little Elian Gonzalez. Were armed troops really necessary to return
him to his father? That incident could have turned into a bloody shootout.
I wonder, what would have happened if Mr. Gonzalez had simply walked up
to the Florida relative’s house, and asked for his son? This would have
been the best possible solution. If the relatives refused to give him his
son, he could have gone into court for a writ of something or other. And,
that would have been the basis of another (politically less palatable)
solution. So, could this have been arranged politically? I don’t know.
But, it would have been the best solution, or at least the basis of a solution.
And, it would have prevented the bad blood that cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
<return>
5 November 2000 - 20 July 2001
Revised 12 March 2004