Centerfield

Ok, Lieberman managed to pick up five percent of the republican vote and Lamont gained one. The CT GOP is supposedly scrambling to replace their cantidate with someone viable, and if they succeed in doing that Lieberman is finished.

Posted by: Chris P at August 13, 2006 05:38 PM

Ct. GOP "supposedly scrambling"? Says who? Everything I've seen suggests the GOP is going to very happily sit by and watch Ct. GOP voters put Lieberman back into office as an Independent.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 13, 2006 06:15 PM

All I'd say is that I don't feel very reassured by Lieberman's 5% lead. I just hope he can get a competent political director who could, among other things, correct certain misperceptions like Lieberman supporting Bush's version of the Iraq War/criticism of critics of Bush's methods of pursuing that war as opposed to Bush's pursuit of that war.

Posted by: Scott Smith at August 13, 2006 06:29 PM

Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

I like Leiberman but with this poll data the Democratic "powers that be" (i.e. Reid, Clinto etc) should support Lamont because clearly by both the primary and the polls Joe isn't supported by a majority of Democrats (? democratic voters). Now if Joe wins then the Dems should be concerned that in this instance their party couldn't "pick a winner".

I'm not sure the Republicans should feel confortable with the numbers. As BOTH parties lean toward the extremes, a Lieberman victory would put in question the nomination process for BOTH parties.

And probably the most significant bit of data regarding the survey is the date (August). November is a LONG way away.

Posted by: c3 at August 13, 2006 08:46 PM

As BOTH parties lean toward the extremes, a Lieberman victory would put in question the nomination process for BOTH parties.

I'd like to propose a modest solution. Scrap the primaries and let everyone run in the general election.

Posted by: Scott Smith at August 13, 2006 11:08 PM

Not that radical, Scott. We do it that way here in Louisiana. Sadly, because of federal nit-picking, we have been forced to switch to the traditional party primary system for Congressional elections starting 2 years from now.

I prefer it, but it's no panacea to produce moderate candidates. We had David Duke and the quintessential crooked demagogue politician running against each other for governor a while back after several more moderate candidates split the middle, rational thinking portion of the electorate. The 20-25% on the wings on each side were enough to put them both in the runoff.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 13, 2006 11:40 PM

I'd like to propose a modest solution. Scrap the primaries and let everyone run in the general election.

Scott; That would be messy (i.e. six candidates with no one getting more than 30% of vote). Obvious next consequence, multiple run off elections. Here's an example of such an election. Posted by: c3 at August 13, 2006 11:42 PM

Here's a video version if you like (not the best quality)

Posted by: c3 at August 13, 2006 11:52 PM

The comment about a search for a new GOP cantidate was back from a few weeks ago and is likely no longer a factor these days. I haven't seen anything since then regarding those rumors.

According to the latest polling I've seen, the war in Iraq is opposed by 60% nationally and 85% of democrats. Lieberman is welcome to the 15% of democrats that still support the war if Lamont picks up all those opposed to it.

Posted by: Chris P at August 14, 2006 01:07 AM

According to the latest polling I've seen, the war in Iraq is opposed by 60% nationally and 85% of democrats.

But how of those opposed would make a trump issue of it? Also, does opposition mean thinking it was wrong to go in or thinking that we should pull out now or by some specified date? Even Dean, who clearly fit the former definition, held that we messed the place up therefore we have to fix it.

Posted by: Scott Smith at August 14, 2006 08:40 AM

Scott; That would be messy (i.e. six candidates with no one getting more than 30% of vote).

That's only an issue with plurality voting. Which raises the issue of also scrapping plurality voting, but that's for another day.

Posted by: Scott Smith at August 14, 2006 08:42 AM

According to the latest polling I've seen, the war in Iraq is opposed by 60% nationally and 85% of democrats. Lieberman is welcome to the 15% of democrats that still support the war if Lamont picks up all those opposed to it.

That calculus relies on the assumptions that a) merely being against the war equates to support for Lamont and b) for those voters who are opposed to the war but who are not Democratic primary voters (3,122,374 vs. 283,191) are sufficiently engaged by the single issue of the war to vote based only on that criterion. But my suspicion - and the reason I think Lamont's support has peaked - is that the only people who are sufficiently engaged with the war as the defining issue of this election are democratic primary voters. For Lamont, winning more support would mean being about more issues than the war, and the simple fact is that the war is the only issue where he's "competetive" against Lieberman. Posted by: Simon at August 14, 2006 09:11 AM

Lamont could only manage to the Democratic primary by 4 points. Since I'm assuming the Republicans are far more pro-war and the Independents at least as much as the Democrats if not more, and because NOW Lieberman can broaden his appeal as more-or-less a McCainiac, the polls will soon have him pulling ahead.

I think, however, Lieberman would be well-advised to moderaton and independence in Connecticutt. After-all Connecticutt did go for Kerry in 2004, though by less than it did for Gore or Clinton for that matter. If he stresses his independence from both parties he shouldn't have any problem winning.

Pat, tell me more about this Federal meddling? Didn't realize you were a Loosianan? Seems to me you've had this open-candidate system forever and it's only recently they've just now gotten around to meddling. First it was the idea that the open primary couldn't be held any other day than General Election day, which for Louisiana was the day reserved for the run-off. Now that this has changed, I'm guessing now they think the run-off needs to be held on General election day, too. They're just not satisfied with dissent.

Whether 3rd parties ever emerged out of such a system being adopted in other states or not this is the kind of system I think America should have. Instead of simply choosing the top two, though, for the run-off no matter what their vote-share, I think a threshold of 10% would leave the choice open to the voters. O.k. you might have the occasional muddled race, but considering the polarized nature of most two-party contests, the more issue-oriented result in this case might be refreshing. I think it would also limit personal attacks as support for those who engage in them bleeds over to 3rd and 4th candidates.

I'm opposed to democratic systems that force voters to make a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils. In most cases, those will still be the viable choices, but at least they'd have the option of registering their disgust with the system, perhaps encouraging a more ideal contest the next time.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 14, 2006 12:30 PM

I'm opposed to democratic systems that force voters to make a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils.

Then you're pretty much opposed to democratic systems, aren't you? Even mutiplying the number of candidates doesn't solve the problem, because then you're just as likely to end up choosing between the least-of-a-half-dozen-evils.

Whether 3rd parties ever emerged out of such a system being adopted in other states or not this is the kind of system I think America should have. Instead of simply choosing the top two, though, for the run-off no matter what their vote-share, I think a threshold of 10% would leave the choice open to the voters.

One of the great practical advantages of the way the electoral college has tended to function -- with rare breakdowns caused by successfull third-parties -- is to avoid plurality governments. So its abberational, for example, that we spent eight years of the 1990s with a President who never once won a majority of the popular vote. It is not required by the Constitution, and it really doesn't make much odds on those terms whether an incumbent won a majority or not, but I think it's an intriguing paradox that your attempt to make the system more democratic would also make the system less democratic, by making it less likely that the winner was supported by a majority. Before you start advocating such a system, you should study postwar Italian politics, and then contemplate whether you really want to consign the United States to that kind of chaos.

The problem, I think, is that you confuse "more open" or "more candidates" with "more democratic." I'm not so sure they're synonyms.

Posted by: Simon at August 14, 2006 01:42 PM

I should add, by the way, that I continue to be of the view that the system as it is presently constituted works just fine, which is in itself sufficient argument for its retention. It may not necessarily always work for you or me, in the sense that we don't always like the candidates, but to say that means the system is broken because it doesn't produce results we like is to fall into the trap I pointed out last week of confusing a right to participate with a right to prevail. The present system has kept America safe from the ugly vicissitudes that have plagued other democracies. One thinks of postwar Italy and its miserable experience with proportional representation, or France, which is currently on its seventeenth Constitution since we adopted ours (by coincidence, they have also amended their present Constitution seventeen times since its adoption in 1958). Our system has worked incredibly well, and has proven flexible enough to meet almost every challenge thrown at it; to justify making a drastic change either to the framework or operation of our system would require an astonishingly compelling solution to a singularly intractable problem, and that solution would have to be absolutely certain to fix the problem while causing almost no harmful side effects. Frankly, I think at least two amendments presently on the books fail that test, and it is hard to imagine a reform of the kind you mention passing it either.

Posted by: Simon at August 14, 2006 01:54 PM

Simon,

It's very interesting that you equate democratic with majoritarian. That's a completely arbitrary assertion on your part.

This automatic assumption that democratic government should always have a mandate to act is LIBERAL. It's a left-wing LIBERAL idea, Simon. Lately, when given even only 3 options to vote for no one of them ends up with a majority. And that's under the CURRENT system which discourages 3rd parties and independent candidacies.

Personally, I believe a true democracy allows a majority to form on its own. When the people are ready to give it.

But you engage in hyperbole on this subject, Simon. Someone even mentions 3rd parties, and and all of a sudden you've got us with 100 3rd parties. I'd just like to have two, thank you very much.

I've studied them all Simon. I know what I'm talking about when I propose what I do. No one here is proposing Proportional Representation. Any system which allows for more than two parties to even contest the election seems to run together with all the others for you.

I would suggest that it's YOU that doesn't care for democratic systems, Simon. In fact, I'd say YOU'RE IN LOVE with idea of the lesser of two-evils.

Democracy is ABOUT choices, Simon. Yes, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Certainly the Italian and Israeli polical systems are quite excessive. But there are systems in between where we are and the PR systems of these countries that could bring about much more satisfying election results.
At least the America people.

I find that, even under the current system, the American people have a wonderful way of STUMPING the pundits. A habit I imagine you're not fond of. But they keep the politicians guessing none-theless.

As for Constitutions I think France is on it's 12th since we adopted ours.

The Founding Fathers put a Constitutional Convention IN the Constitution, Simon. I don't think they'd mind if we used it once in awhile.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 14, 2006 03:13 PM

I should add, by the way, that I continue to be of the view that the system as it is presently constituted works just fine, which is in itself sufficient argument for its retention.

Right! We live in the best of all possible worlds. Pangloss. That the nation endures is sufficient evidence that no change is needed, nor improvement possible. This argument is indeed indisputable.

Posted by: bk at August 14, 2006 05:55 PM

Sure BK, but what about NEXT week???

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 14, 2006 06:54 PM

Very funny, you guys.

Yes, Pat, there are states where the Rep candidate is in good shape, but Conn. isn't one of them. Schlesinger (or "Gold" as he liked to be called in the gambling days he doesn't remember) has been running at 9% tops, which ordinarily wouldn't matter; in states where there's a powerful incumbent, you're lucky to get anyone to run. (As Tully can testify, the Kansas Dems gave on getting anyone to run for Senate in the last election year.)

Now, however, when there's a sliver of sunlight, the Conn. GOP wants a candidate who actually has a chance to win. They've asked Schlesinger to step down and he's refused. Even W won't help him. (Wow. How hostile does the territory have to be for that?)

In fact, if Schlesinger stays in the race, he may pull his 9% from Lieberman's support, who would then fall behind Lamont, who'd go on to win the race. The two center right candidates would help the left center candidate win.

Heh. Have a little irony...it's good for your blood. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 15, 2006 01:30 AM

Jean, my response about the Republicans "supposedly scrambling" was in reply to Scott's suggestion that they were scrambling to get a new candidate to replace the obvious loser Schlesinger. I don't think anybody is asking Schlesinger to step down in order to put up a better candidate, they're asking him to step down from the race to help Lieberman get elected. He was always just a token candidate anyway, not expected to win, and his continued presence would help the odds of a Lamont victory. The only real GOP fight going on right now is whether to leave Schlesinger in, in hopes that Lamont will win and thus hurt the Dems nationally in '08, or whether to pull Schlesinger in hopes that Lieberman will win, which will make life more pleasant for the last 2 years of the administration. Nobody that I've heard of is "scrambling" to replace Schlesinger with a stronger GOP candidate.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 15, 2006 10:33 AM

They're running in the opposite direction. How little support can they give Schlesinger and not have him drop out?

As Tully can testify, the Kansas Dems gave [up] on getting anyone to run for Senate in the last election year

Yep. Why waste the money and effort? But they still line up to run against Tiahrt, hopeless as it is. I know most of those candidates personally--it's both an ego game and a "get the name out for future runs" thing.

On the bright side, we'll get another Republican in the Lt. Governorship, and hopefully one in the AG's office as well. All they have to do is call themselves Democrats and run against the far-right so-con Republicans.... ;-)

PS, Jean--wanna put some time in for Morrison? I can send you info. Even a Republican moderate in sheep's party registration is better than Kline, right?

Posted by: Tully at August 15, 2006 02:19 PM

It's very interesting that you equate democratic with majoritarian. That's a completely arbitrary assertion on your part.

Actually, it's completely arbitrary on the part of the Merriam Webster Corporation: de·moc·ra·cy[;] 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. The very term is derived from the Greek for "the people prevail": demos kratia. Even John C. Calhoun, arguing against "majoritarianism" argued that democracy should best involve the concurrent majority rather than the numerical majority - but still for the majority. That is why America is not a democracy, incidentally: it is a constitutional republic with significant democratic elements, but wherein the majority is thwarted by the Constitution, itself the product of a supermajority.

This automatic assumption that democratic government should always have a mandate to act is LIBERAL.

Only in the most broad sense of the term (as in, for example, "liberal democracy"). A government elected by the mechanism of the U.S. Constitution has the authority to undertake any act not proscribed or regulated by the U.S. Constitution.

No one here is proposing Proportional Representation.

I'm delighted to hear it, but what you are asking for is scarcely better: without a runoff, a plurality winner becomes exceedingly likely. Moreover, I think that since you are ultimately concerned with more choice, PR becomes the logical next step when (or if) this reform fails to produce the results you desire.

I would suggest that it's YOU that doesn't care for democratic systems, Simon. In fact, I'd say YOU'RE IN LOVE with idea of the lesser of two-evils.

It seems fairly hard to try and pin that label on me since no one who posts here, with the possible exception of Pat, is more concerned with proper process than am I. Indeed, Brian has routinely castigated me for being TOO concerned with democratic systems and not concerned enough about the results, particularly where abotion was concerned (an arena in which he, in keeping with most pro choicers, are absolutley desparate to prevent the question being placed back into the control of the democratic system).

As for Constitutions I think France is on it's 12th since we adopted ours.

As I said before, this is their seventeenth. It succeeds the Constitution of 1789-90; the Constitution of 1791; the Constitution of 1793; the Constitution of 1795; the Constitution of the Year VIII, adopted December 24, 1799; the Constitution of the Year X; the Constitution of the Year XII; the Charter of 1814; the additional act to the Constitutions of the Empire during the Hundred Days of 1815; the Charter of 1830; the constitution of the Second French Republic, 1848; the constitution of the French Second Empire, 1852; the constitution of the French Third Republic, 1875; The Vichy Regime 1941-1943; the constitutional law of 1945; the constitution of the French Fourth Republic, 1946; and finally, bringing us bang up to date, the constitution of the French Fifth Republic, 1958. See Wikipedia, Constitution of France.

The Founding Fathers put a Constitutional Convention IN the Constitution, Simon. I don't think they'd mind if we used it once in awhile.

They also put the powers of impeachment, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of War IN the Constitution, but that does not mean they hoped those powers would be used other than in the most cautious of fashions and in the most necessary of circumstances. If a Constitutional convention were called, I dread to think what would come out of it. The amendment process is one matter; the calling of a convention is quite another, and should be resisted as if it were the coming of judgement day. I shudder to think what violence would be wrought on the Constitution - should it even make it out of the convention this time - by such an event. Posted by: Simon at August 15, 2006 04:46 PM

Simon,

O.k., it's 17, but you found the reeeeeeeeally obscure ones, too. With THAT many changes there were BOUND to be provisional constitutions as well. I stand corrected.

"without a runoff, a plurality winner becomes exceedingly likely."

Why do I feel like I'm going to be barking up a tree again. Yes, exactly my point. Do you not recognize that even when a run-off is issued there are any number of people supporting a 3rd party who could NOT stomach the two leading candidates?

With a run-off you are forcing them to validate incumbency or not be counted at all. Here's the question Simon: What happens when the MAJORITY does not agree on the same candidate or position? Or is it only a majority when they DO? Turnout in elections goes continually down and down, meaning people don't like the choices given them. Is it democratic, i.e. government by the people, especially: rule of the majority, for the system to talk back and say, TOUGH, GET OVER IT?

There is a fundamental bias at work here in which moderates become liberals by ensuring that government ALWAYS has a mandate for activism. Sure they always have a mandate to protect our rights and make the trains run on time, but what I'm specifically getting at is the dynamic whereby Presidents and probably Governors, too, win with less than a majority of the vote. In such cases power flows back to the legislature and activism is limited, as it should. It works on legislators, too, because when THEY fail to get a majority they temper their own judgement with that of others in hopes of forming a majority at the next election.

As someone who believes in checks and balances can you not see where keeping majority election victories to a minimum is a GOOD IDEA. And that my idea allows for majorities WHEN people are READY to allow them? After all, even under my system, given the prevalance of incumbents, you'll almost always get 2 leading candidates, so when people vote for a 3rd party in the second round they're still doing what they do in the current system, i.e. holding it accountable. You'll still get many 3rd partyists voting for one of the top two "viable," candidates, but they have the option of expressing disgust with the choice given by their fellow voters, still being counted, and possibly diminishing the influence of those who WIN, but DON'T obtain a MAJORITY.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 15, 2006 10:53 PM

Did you think I was making fun of you or something, Pat? I really WOULD like to know more about what is going on in Louisiana regarding it's two-round system, and the litigation to get rid of it.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 15, 2006 10:55 PM

No, didn't think you were making fun of me, just haven't been following the current status of everything all that closely. I'm not working in a terribly political arena at the moment, so I've had no professional call to pay attention to it.

All I know for sure is that we still have the open primary for state races, and will have the closed primary for federal elections in 2008.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 16, 2006 12:28 AM

Fair 'nuff, Pat.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 16, 2006 11:37 AM

I also think it should be considered, Simon, what the Founding Fathers themselves would say about our state of government were they alive today.

I don't think they'd be as reticent to even consider Constitutional options.

As in their day they'd probably be all over the place, but I think many of them would think as I do (of course I would say that) that it is the politicians who are not worthy of their people, NOT the other way around. Also that the people should be more agressive in laying claim to their government. Like Reagan and Goldwater they'd wage WAR on Liberalism not simply use it as a foil to win elections and then cut a deal out of weakness. They'd recognize the spiritual crisis which the country is in. Identify it for the people, and wage war against THAT, too.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 16, 2006 02:09 PM