Sorting, whats the big deal?

Sorting is simply the process of identifying common characteristics of people who vote in a particular way or align themselves with a particular party. Of course politicians and campaign managers will statistically analyze variables associated and correlated with voter choice in order to make the most accurate predictions and design the most effective campaign strategy. I don't know what else to say. We were all very impressed when Pascal and Fermat came up with the probability theory back in the 17th century. But today, organizing and making predictions based on the statistical analysis of data is so common place that it goes without saying.

So how about that Oprah endorsement? Her audience consists of 8.6 million viewers, 75 percent are women. More than half are older than 50, 44 percent make less than $40,000 a year and about 25 percent have no more than a high school diploma, according to Nielsen Media Research.. If I were Hillery I would be pissed, you know she was banking on those votes. Up until this point celebrity endorsements have had minimal, if any effect on voters, but Oprah isn't your average celebrity. She's Oprah. It will be very interesting to see how this affects the upcoming primaries and caucuses, especially in Iowa. If Hilary can keep it close early, I predict that any effect Oprah has on voters will ware off and her endorsement will fade from the voters memories.

The Critical 90's

It is my contention that the 90's were a critical era, but to a lesser extent than that of the 60's. Aldrich defines a critical era as "one of rapid change leading to a new period of relative stability." The 90's did bring rapid change in some respects. The 90's completed the shift from party-centered campaigns and new technologies aided the effectiveness of the candidate centered campaign. The success of independent candidates such as Parrot and the decrease of the incumbency advantage demonstrate the shifting voter patterns of the 90's, specifically the shift of voters away from parties to independents. The Contract with America and Newt Gingrich brought about great changes to the way in which parties influenced policy and politicians in congress which further supports the claim that the 90's were a critical era. However, because the 90's lacked the great upheaval and controversy over the social issues of the 60's, I don't see the 90's as critical as I do the 60's.

Persistently Static Iraq

The Bush Administrations policy on Iraq has remained unchanged for one simple reason, Bush's views have remained unchanged and the Democrats lack the necessary 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to over ride a veto.

Like it or not, Bush is in control of our military and our state department. As long as he continues to get funding, he will continue to enjoy the discretion to run the war the way he wants to. Its his administrations policy and he believes that it is the most appropriate one. He doesn't have to worry about getting reelected so there is little reason to be swayed by public opinion other than out of concern for his parties performance in the next election. Even though polls show overwhelming disapproval of Bush and that the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the war, I believe Bush's popularity will have very little effect of a conservatives allegiance to the Republican party or their preference for Republican politicians. All the Republican party stands to loose due to displeasure with Bush's policy are some of the independent voters, but even they could be maintained with a Republican nomination who is moderate enough and who effectively distances himself from Bush.

The only way that the Democrats could get Bush to change his policy is by continuing to pass funding bills that contain troop withdraw time tables, which Bush would veto, until all of the previously allocated funds run out. This would force Bush to make some tough decisions. He could try to maintain the current forces on a much lower budget or he could do the responsible thing and bring them home instead of leaving them their with inadequate resources. However, this course of action by the Democrats would hurt them in the next election because of the all to familiar notion that cutting funding for the war is sinominous with abandoning the troops.

Compromise through Party Irresponsibility

Yesterday, two democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they would break ranks with the party and support Mukasey's nomination for Attorney General. Despite grave concerns over Mukasey's refusal to declare waterboarding an illegal and torturous method of interrogation (which given the fact that the specifics of the technique are top secret and therefore unavailable for his review and comment, isn't all that out of line), Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer were able to find some common ground with Mukasey. They were confident that he would maintain a high degree of independence and would abide by and uphold the law in spite of pressures from Bush. In a closed door meet with Schumer, Mukasey said that if Congress chose to enact a law banning "enhanced" interrogation techniques, Bush would have to follow it. Schumer stated that "He flatly told me that the president would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law" and that "He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law."

Had the two Senators been tied to the decrees of their parties leadership, this process would have taken a little longer and might have resulted in Bush simply nominating another candidate who is just as unappealing to the Democrats. This delay would only have served to give ammo to President Bush and prevented the Dems from focusing their efforts in an area where they could have an actual impact. Instead, these Democrats were able to compromise and choose their battles. They now can shift their focus to activities that will genuinely affect the actions and efforts of the White House, like passing a law making water boarding illegal. What ever your views on the legality of water boarding are, the fact is the Senate Intelligence Committee has reviewed the technique and approved it. Whether or not I, or anyone else, thinks it's illegal is irrelevant. It's not illegal until Congress passes legislation making it so, or the Courts find it repugnant to existing law. Neither of which has happened.

The State of the Parties Address

Our two party system is created by our electoral system. To talk to about the pros and cons of the parties is impossible without talking about the pros and cons of our electoral system. It is true, we are a two party system, but our parties are far from united. They consist of factions and the politicians within a party have differing values and ideologies with respect to many issues that reflect (or supposedly reflect) the values and ideologies of their constituents. This makes for two rounds of compromise. The first is internal. The party members from around the country must work together to create a platform that will satisfy as many of their supporters (nationally) as possible. This renders our party platforms almost meaningless and is the reason for low discipline within the two parties. The second round of compromise happens between the parties. If one party has a clear majority and the presidency, the round is not necessary and the only substantial compromise will take place internally within the party. I believe the biggest failing our party system is due to a failing of our electorate system. Our electorate system drawn in manor that excludes some voters from having an influence over policy. I would remedy this by implementing proportional representation. The greatest benefit our country could stand to gain from a proportional system is not the multiple party system that it would ultimately lead to, but that it would give justly proportional influence to those voters whose votes are often rendered meaningless due to the way their electoral district is drawn. To do this though, House and Senate electoral districts would have need to combined into one electoral district for each state. Everyone would vote for their party of choice, and the state parties would get to choice their allotted number of representatives. For this to work though, every senator would have to be up for election at the same time, so I am not sure how this would affect the responsiveness of the Senate during the years they don't have to worry about getting reelected. This would create parties with meaningful platforms and strict discipline among members. It would reduce the amount of compromise in the first stage and increase the amount of compromise in the second. But because voters are not silenced by their electorate, the second round of compromise would lead to a more justly proportional compromise and cause policy to more accurately reflect the preferences of all Americans.

A side note: the greatest injustice in America today is the fact that our fellow citizens who reside in the District of Columbia are without representation in Congress. Because the constitution only provides representation in Congress for states, D.C. not being a state or officially party of a state prevents them from electing politicians to the House or to the Senate. They are given one non-voting member but does not give them the voice in Congress that the rest of us enjoy. D.C.'
s population of 581530 entitles them to one member of the house but one could argue that does not entitle them to the 2 senators statehood would provide (despite the fact that D.C.
s population is greater than that of Wyoming who gets to enjoy the representation 2 senators). So I believe that, short of statehood, D.C. should, at the very least, be allocated one house seat and included in the state of Maryland or Virginia for the purposes of electing members of the Senate.

The Blackwater Lawsuit: Politically Motivated or Widow Motivated?

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater security company, was recently quoted by Reuters as having called the lawsuits filed against his company for the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians "politically motivated." The petitioners of the law suit are a wounded victim and relatives of 3 deceased victims. Those don’t sound like the kinds of people who care whether the Republicans maintain control of the White House, they sound like the type of people who have sustained injury or lost loved ones at the hands of mercenaries and are unable to seek restitution in their homeland because the White House has secured Blackwater immunity from Iraqi prosecution. Erik points to the filers of the lawsuit, the Center for Constitutional Rights, as evidence of the political motives behind the charges. I’m will to grant that the motives behind the Center for Constitutional Rights decision to take up the case may be political, just as the Christian Coalitions decision (although decision implies an actual consideration) not to take up the case is political. But these are the motives of the counsel not the motives of the petitioners. If Erik wants to discuses political motivations, he should talk about something he knows about, like how his company secured its defense contract. Considering that the Pentagon did not take any bids, its award decision certainly wasn’t because Blackwater was the most economical choice and if current events indicate anything then it certainly wasn’t because Blackwater was the most competent. So then what were the Pentagons motives, under the direction of a Republican President, in choose to award a no bid contract to a Republican owned security firm? One thing is for sure, they certainly weren't the same motives of the Iraqi petitioners.

The role of the Minority Party in Congress

The role of the minority party in congress varies in accordance with several internal and external conditions. Charles O. Jones of the University of Arizona identifies and analyzes these conditions and categorizes the type of minority party influence that will result under certain conditions in his paper "The Minority Party and Policy-Making In The House Of Representatives." The following is a synopsis of the former.

External Conditions:
1. The general temper of the times, is there a particular general issue or mindset dominating policy making such. 911 is an example of an external event that dominated policy making and made anti-terrorism a top priority for Americans.
2. The relative political strength of the minority party outside of Congress. Is the party strong or weak in local or state governments or bureaucracies?
3. How united is the national party?
4. Is the President of the minority or majority?

Internal Conditions:

1. Rules and procedures of the House. Where there recently large or small changes?
2. The size of the majority and minority.
3. The strength of the majority party leadership and organization.
4. The strength of the minority party leadership and organization.

Depending on where all of the Internal and External conditions end up, the minority party will fall into one of 3 categories or roles:

1. Restricted Minority: majority party president and the actives and political strategies are limited by political conditions inside and outside of Congress. These minorities are usually limited to supporting the majority or offer inconsequential opposition. Relatively little, if any, influence on policy. Must focus on next election.
2. Participating Minority: minority party president but still limited by internal and external conditions.
3. Unrestricted Minority: one with a minority party president and favorable internal and external conditions.

Participating and Unrestricted Minorities have a number of strategies at their disposal:
- Consequential Partisan Opposition: employed to defeat the majority party through absorbing defectors.
- Consequential Constructive Opposition: the minority party counters the majority with their own proposals.
- Innovation: the minority party initiates its own proposals and builds their own coalition.
- Cooperation: the minority and majority work together.