Comments on: Spoils of Victory

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:24:45 +0000

My bad. The error’s fixed now.

By: Kynn Bartlett

Kynn Bartlett — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:55:36 +0000

“Like Henry I was bemused by Randy Bartlett’s MSNBC effort.” Pssst…that’s actually Randy Barnett. —Kynn Bartlett

By: nick sweeney

nick sweeney — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:33:48 +0000

Seth: how about doing away with ‘registration’ in its current US form? Sure, open primaries have the potential to attract tactical voting, but if both sides get involved, you’d have Pat Buchanan vs Al Sharpton for the presidency, rather than Bush and Gore trying to out-’centre’ each other.

By: Seth Gordon

Seth Gordon — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:16:55 +0000

In the UK (correct me if I’m wrong), you have to actually pay a political party for the privilege of becoming a member. In the US, there is no similar procedure: in most states, you can vote in whichever party’s primary strikes your fancy, and people who have never given money to a politician in their lives still tell the pollsters that they are “Democrats” or “Republicans”.

On the one hand, this means that banning “party members” from involvement in the electoral process would not be so easy in the US, and just because a judge is labeled “Democrat” doesn’t mean that he’s ever given money to the Democratic party. On the other hand, since it costs so little to become a “party member”, most of these “members” aren’t particularly loyal to the party, anyway.

By: Ichikawa

Ichikawa — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:41:59 +0000

Didn’t Fidel Castro offer to supervise the U.S. elections? He’s not affiliated with either of our parties…

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:43:17 +0000

I’d forgotten that Iowa does have the kind of system I was praising. That’s a nice demonstration that this kind of thing really is possible, even in America. And you know politicians do occasionally vote to take powers away from themselves. When the Labor Party took control of both houses of Parliament in Victoria (my home state) one of the first things they did was to keep a promise to pass electoral reforms more or less guaranteeing that no party would ever again have sole control of both houses. (The state upper house will be elected by proportional representation from now on, which makes a majority for any party highly improbable.) And this was despite the fact that they were pretty much a lock to keep control after the next election, if the system hadn’t been changed. I don’t think I’ve ever been prouder to be a member of a political party.

By: nameless

nameless — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:32:21 +0000

Why is everyone so high on Barnett? He seems like a standard issue Federalist Society hack to me. Also, his legal textbooks are crap.

By: anno-nymous

anno-nymous — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:08:45 +0000

This isn’t directly applicable to the discussion of political appointees to these electoral commissions, but it addresses a similar issue—state legislatures determine the borders of congressional districts after the Census (traditionally), so a party in power can generally quite easily keep itself in power through the magic of gerrymandering. From what I’ve heard, however, the state of Iowa has successfully managed to set up an independent committee which determines the districts in a nonpolitical manner. Presumably the people involved are just as partisan and biased as everyone else, but somehow the system seems to work, and to keep the House elections there competitive. I don’t know how it’s done, but this seems to prove that it’s possible to get around some of the apparently systemic and unavoidable problems of American democracy. Of course, even if a fair and practical system can be set up, you still have to convince the officials presently in office that they should reform the system and, in so doing, weaken their power.

By: Brian Leiter

Brian Leiter — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:49:01 +0000

Barnett’s piece is a complete embarrassment, especially for a law professor who is not usually a fool. Barnett knows full well that his characterization of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conduct in Bush/Gore couldn’t be defended in front of anyone who knew anything about the case. But I suppose that’s why he posted on MSNBC, rather than making the argument in front of law professors.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:43:31 +0000

I was struck by Barnett’s assertion that this is a question of fact. Surely “rogue” is a value judgment.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:58:27 +0000

Now if we could just depoliticize the rest of the political process, we’d be set.

By: PG

PG — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:00:39 +0000

It’s a great suggestion, to depoliticize the making of election rules. Now we just have to find the fair-minded, apolitical souls who will do it. Good luck! People who are interested in elections tend to be interested in politics, and thus have a partisan affiliation. I haven’t donated money to anyone’s campaign because I believe in public financing, but I’m still partisan as hell. Also, I think people in other countries may come to government work with the desire to make the current structure run properly, while Americans are more likely to come to such work with the desire to effect change. In the interests of partisanship, don’t forget Katharine Harris’s becoming a Republican congresswoman from the strength of her notoriety in the 2000 election.