Chaos 2008
Next year's American election is heading for legal and political chaos, regardless of the dangerous economic situation America is in. The potential exists for an election to take place which could be the most destructive since 1968. This, some readers may think, is long overdue, and in some sense karma for the abuses and pretences of the past three decades. The result, however, may be that the hyperpower would be in epileptic turmoil. All this as the world financial system, the environment, the middle east and europe fall into what The Onion would no doubt describe as a variety of metaphorical states of illness ranging from strokes and heart attacks through to seizures, fits and embolisms.
The Primary system seems to be breaking down in a way that may lead to nasty legal challenges to the legitimacy of whoever is nominated. Huge numbers of delegates to both conventions may be barred from attending or casting a vote. Both Republican and Democratic National Committees (which nominally run parties) are in a stand-off at this minute with the major states of Michigan and Florida, which want to hold primaries before New Hampshire and the Iowa Caucuses. The National Committees are threatening not to seat delegates from those states and leading candidates on the Democrat side are not campaigning in states which want to upset the primary applecart. So votes could boost any candidate, and then be ignored in nomination; a recipe for legal challenge and disruption since state delegations could still turn up at party conventions.
Secondly, even if the primary system worked, a 'brokered convention' in one or both parties would lead to damaging and semi-clandestine 'floor fights' in the conventions, with nominees actually being made to fight for their coronation, and to expose their backers and those of the other side. This would mean that the extraordinary (to a European eye) corruption of American politics would not only be exposed, but those who had swum in the system would become radioactive in terms of public appeal. Any remaining faith on the part of sensible Americans in their civic religion of democracy may be sorely tested, with any number of reactionary or populist results becoming possible.
One twist is that this could lead to an election of billionaires, whether with their own money or, as in Barak Obama's case, with a peculiar combination of small donations and mega-celebrity cash. This would only occur, however, after a nasty nasty fight last hinted at in the Reagan-Ford competition on 1976 but not seen since 1960 at least. The phrase 'smoke filled room' incidentally, comes from the practice of nominating candidates at brokered conventions way back in the early twentieth century, and is a by-word for corrupt deals and backstabbing.
Thirdly, Republicans in the State of California are all but rigging the poll in a way which, whilst perfectly defensible democratically, almost guarantees them a huge increase in electoral votes and denies Democrats the toal electoral votes of California.
Electoral votes are the votes every state casts through delegates equivalent to the number of representatives by population it has plus the number of senators (always 2). The whole amount of electoral votes is wielded by delegates called electors who form an 'electoral college', which though like a papal conclave or a Polish Royal diet, never actually meet as a body. They meet in statehouses and elect the President and Vice-President.
A populous state like California, with 53 members of the American House of Representatives and 2 senators has 55 votes. Previously, the winner of the general election won all the electoral votes in California by general agreement. Republicans want the electoral votes to be split roughly equivalent to the Democrat-Republican split. This would mean that a previously solid 100% Democrat electoral vote went 60-40.
It would be, however, very arguably unconstitutional. Some states pretend that electors are 'mandated' to vote in a certain way. So a few 'faithless electors' usually vote for someone else regardless of their state, but most respect the popular vote. The Constitution, however, not only says that they are independent, but that ultimately the state legislatures are in charge. So a State run by republicans--like Florida in 2000-- could have ignored both the popular vote and the electors and voted how it wanted, and a republican supreme court would have to decide who to listen to. The last time this happened was in 1876 in South Carolina.
What if California changes its rules; Democrats win, but are denied the white house; the californian electors split; the 2/3 democrat california legislature nominates its own candidate; the supreme court backs the republican; and the electoral college loses any majority because the republican, democrat or independent tie nationally?
Democrats would, after all, need to find electoral votes greater than those of the whole state of Ohio just to return to Kerry's near-score tie of 2004 but given Republican unpopularity this is possible.
The constitution again then comes into play. If the electoral college cannot produce a majority candidate across the nation, the election of the President goes to the House of representatives, states voting as a bloc. Nancy pelosi, the Democrat speaker of the House, would almost certainly deliver a Democrat President. But the election of the Vice-President goes to the Senate. There are 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans, Joe Lieberman, one independent...and (if he holds onto his seat) Larry Craig. The casting vote would be held by the present Vice-President, Richard B.Cheney. That's right. Dick Cheney.
In addition to California, keep you eye out for the introduction of electronic voting technology by states under republican control with contracts going to republicans; the elimination of all felons and people with the same name as felons and people who might be felons from voting lists; the rules governing when and where people vote, on a working tuesday; and the supreme court's upcoming rulings about minor primary matters which may contain serious asides and hints about what the court will and won't want to see. If you haven't gone mad at the looniness of all this. At least, next time a neoconservative sings paeans to American democracy you can point this byzantine madness out.
Fourthly, almost all the leading candidates create antipathy in large sections of their own party and threaten to, by their candidacy, discourage many voters whilst encouraging the most partisan. It is not too much to imagine the election being a clash of Hillary-haters and Giuliani-antagonists, of whom there are many. This may tempt Bloomberg, the New York Mayor, and Chuck hagel, the Nebraska Senator, in as independents. This in turn would make an electoral college upset likelier.
So--chaos could rein. I'm not some apocalypticist, but none of the above points are predicated upon asteroids or climate change or anything like that. They are very real, and coming to a superpower near you very soon. America went through extreme political instability in 1828,1860,1888,1912,1968,and 2000. These moments of instability were viscerally linked to the electoral system, which in turn reflected vast cleavages in society. On four of those occasions, the winner of the popular vote lost the white house. On five of those occasions, the next President led the USA through war or shows of military force, with some looking to war as a way of uniting the nation. And on all of those occasions a broken society was set round with assassinations.
The world economy, largely because of Anglo-American debt and demands on energy and food, is in big trouble. The environment is clearly changing. Huge states are sharpening swords.
Enjoy the ride!
Next year's American election is heading for legal and political chaos, regardless of the dangerous economic situation America is in. The potential exists for an election to take place which could be the most destructive since 1968. This, some readers may think, is long overdue, and in some sense karma for the abuses and pretences of the past three decades. The result, however, may be that the hyperpower would be in epileptic turmoil. All this as the world financial system, the environment, the middle east and europe fall into what The Onion would no doubt describe as a variety of metaphorical states of illness ranging from strokes and heart attacks through to seizures, fits and embolisms.
The Primary system seems to be breaking down in a way that may lead to nasty legal challenges to the legitimacy of whoever is nominated. Huge numbers of delegates to both conventions may be barred from attending or casting a vote. Both Republican and Democratic National Committees (which nominally run parties) are in a stand-off at this minute with the major states of Michigan and Florida, which want to hold primaries before New Hampshire and the Iowa Caucuses. The National Committees are threatening not to seat delegates from those states and leading candidates on the Democrat side are not campaigning in states which want to upset the primary applecart. So votes could boost any candidate, and then be ignored in nomination; a recipe for legal challenge and disruption since state delegations could still turn up at party conventions.
Secondly, even if the primary system worked, a 'brokered convention' in one or both parties would lead to damaging and semi-clandestine 'floor fights' in the conventions, with nominees actually being made to fight for their coronation, and to expose their backers and those of the other side. This would mean that the extraordinary (to a European eye) corruption of American politics would not only be exposed, but those who had swum in the system would become radioactive in terms of public appeal. Any remaining faith on the part of sensible Americans in their civic religion of democracy may be sorely tested, with any number of reactionary or populist results becoming possible.
One twist is that this could lead to an election of billionaires, whether with their own money or, as in Barak Obama's case, with a peculiar combination of small donations and mega-celebrity cash. This would only occur, however, after a nasty nasty fight last hinted at in the Reagan-Ford competition on 1976 but not seen since 1960 at least. The phrase 'smoke filled room' incidentally, comes from the practice of nominating candidates at brokered conventions way back in the early twentieth century, and is a by-word for corrupt deals and backstabbing.
Thirdly, Republicans in the State of California are all but rigging the poll in a way which, whilst perfectly defensible democratically, almost guarantees them a huge increase in electoral votes and denies Democrats the toal electoral votes of California.
Electoral votes are the votes every state casts through delegates equivalent to the number of representatives by population it has plus the number of senators (always 2). The whole amount of electoral votes is wielded by delegates called electors who form an 'electoral college', which though like a papal conclave or a Polish Royal diet, never actually meet as a body. They meet in statehouses and elect the President and Vice-President.
A populous state like California, with 53 members of the American House of Representatives and 2 senators has 55 votes. Previously, the winner of the general election won all the electoral votes in California by general agreement. Republicans want the electoral votes to be split roughly equivalent to the Democrat-Republican split. This would mean that a previously solid 100% Democrat electoral vote went 60-40.
It would be, however, very arguably unconstitutional. Some states pretend that electors are 'mandated' to vote in a certain way. So a few 'faithless electors' usually vote for someone else regardless of their state, but most respect the popular vote. The Constitution, however, not only says that they are independent, but that ultimately the state legislatures are in charge. So a State run by republicans--like Florida in 2000-- could have ignored both the popular vote and the electors and voted how it wanted, and a republican supreme court would have to decide who to listen to. The last time this happened was in 1876 in South Carolina.
What if California changes its rules; Democrats win, but are denied the white house; the californian electors split; the 2/3 democrat california legislature nominates its own candidate; the supreme court backs the republican; and the electoral college loses any majority because the republican, democrat or independent tie nationally?
Democrats would, after all, need to find electoral votes greater than those of the whole state of Ohio just to return to Kerry's near-score tie of 2004 but given Republican unpopularity this is possible.
The constitution again then comes into play. If the electoral college cannot produce a majority candidate across the nation, the election of the President goes to the House of representatives, states voting as a bloc. Nancy pelosi, the Democrat speaker of the House, would almost certainly deliver a Democrat President. But the election of the Vice-President goes to the Senate. There are 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans, Joe Lieberman, one independent...and (if he holds onto his seat) Larry Craig. The casting vote would be held by the present Vice-President, Richard B.Cheney. That's right. Dick Cheney.
In addition to California, keep you eye out for the introduction of electronic voting technology by states under republican control with contracts going to republicans; the elimination of all felons and people with the same name as felons and people who might be felons from voting lists; the rules governing when and where people vote, on a working tuesday; and the supreme court's upcoming rulings about minor primary matters which may contain serious asides and hints about what the court will and won't want to see. If you haven't gone mad at the looniness of all this. At least, next time a neoconservative sings paeans to American democracy you can point this byzantine madness out.
Fourthly, almost all the leading candidates create antipathy in large sections of their own party and threaten to, by their candidacy, discourage many voters whilst encouraging the most partisan. It is not too much to imagine the election being a clash of Hillary-haters and Giuliani-antagonists, of whom there are many. This may tempt Bloomberg, the New York Mayor, and Chuck hagel, the Nebraska Senator, in as independents. This in turn would make an electoral college upset likelier.
So--chaos could rein. I'm not some apocalypticist, but none of the above points are predicated upon asteroids or climate change or anything like that. They are very real, and coming to a superpower near you very soon. America went through extreme political instability in 1828,1860,1888,1912,1968,and 2000. These moments of instability were viscerally linked to the electoral system, which in turn reflected vast cleavages in society. On four of those occasions, the winner of the popular vote lost the white house. On five of those occasions, the next President led the USA through war or shows of military force, with some looking to war as a way of uniting the nation. And on all of those occasions a broken society was set round with assassinations.
The world economy, largely because of Anglo-American debt and demands on energy and food, is in big trouble. The environment is clearly changing. Huge states are sharpening swords.
Enjoy the ride!
Comments