Let the “Battle” Begin–The Targeting of States and Voters in 2012

BATTLEGROUND STATES 08 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The direction of the 2012 presidential election will become increasingly apparent in the days and weeks to come as the candidates and their supporters target important battleground states.  Battleground states are states that are considered to be contestable in the upcoming election; in other words, the state is worth visiting and investing substantial resources in.  Non-battleground states are states that candidates do not expect to win, making them less likely to receive much attention from candidate or their surrogates.  The identification of battleground and non-battleground states begins just as the election results of the previous presidential election are being tallied.  Campaign managers, political scientists, journalists, and others have been studying campaign maps for decades; especially Electoral College maps for presidential elections going back to the 1960s.

Battleground states are more likely than not to be states that have a history of voting democratic or republican.  Battleground states can also be determined by the margins of victory by various statewide elected officials (governors, etc.) in recent elections.  For example, if republican candidates have won recent elections in a state by what are considered wide margins the state is not likely to be considered a battleground state by the democratic party (they will basically write it off).  Once the battleground states are identified the process shifts toward identifying swing voters in battleground states that can make all the difference in a close election.  Hispanics, women, younger voters are likely voting blocks that will be targeted by candidates in the 2012 election.  What do you think about candidates for the Presidency targeting some states and ignoring others?  Should all fifty states receive their fair share of attention?  Is this even possible given the costs associated with national elections?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• Three Key States, Split Evenly (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Election 2012: Battleground States Where It?s All About Women (forbes.com)
• Demographics Versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election (prosumerzen.net)

Voter Turnout—Come Rain, Shine, or the Victory of Voter Suppression

voting day in a small town (Photo credit: Muffet)

Elections in a winner-take-all system award victory and the spoils of victory to the candidate who collects the most votes.  Given the simplicity of the process it is easy to forget that there is more than one way to skin a cat—whether the cat is a Democrat or Republican.  Winning more votes than an opponent doesn’t always mean going out and exciting your base, registering new voters, or actually driving voters to their polling places.  To put it another way, winning more votes than an opponent doesn’t even mean effectively collecting more votes at all—not in the common sense.

Voter suppression campaigns have been a part of Democracy in the United States since the very beginning.  And that doesn’t even include the periods of time when certain people were denied the franchise (women, men who didn’t meet property requirements, slaves, former slaves, etc.).  Voter suppression refers to purposeful activities intended to dissuade otherwise eligible voters from voting; voting for your opponents.  Classic yet contemporary voter suppression activities include negative campaigning or mud-slinging (you may not have received a person’s vote but you’re going to do everything you can to keep them from voting for your opponent).  The most current form of voter suppression to be in vogue seems to be the move to require government issued identification at the polling booth (photo IDs in particular).  The need to prevent fraud is a legitimate, but policies that are intended to prevent fraud cannot be legitimate if they have the effect of suppressing legitimate voting by citizens of the United States.  Preventing one’s vote from being diluted because of fraudulent voting cannot be defended if it denies one American his or her entire vote.

What’s next, seeding clouds to make it rain on election-day in the red or blue state of your choice?  What do you think?  How does voter suppression impact democracy?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• No Taxation Without Representation! A Field Guide to Voter Suppression (motherjones.com)
• GOP Voter Suppression ID Laws May Affect Millions of Legal Voters (alternet.org)
• Voter ID laws suppress legitimate voters (thegazette.com)

The Tool of Taxation

Old hammer during reconstruction of the building in Pleszew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In graduate school a professor of mine often referred to the “toolbox of government.”  The characterization must have resonated with me because I still use it in my own classes almost fifteen years later.  Of course he was referring to the variety of actions that governments at all levels have at their disposal to implement and otherwise enforce public policy.  For our purposes we can narrow the contents of the “toolbox” down to the bare minimum:

• The power of government to deprive a person of liberty (think incarceration and in the most extreme form, the death penalty)—the hammer.
• The power of government to deprive a person of property (think real property and money)—the hammer.

Confused?  Don’t be.  Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) is credited with expressing the position that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  In this regard the power to tax is the power to punish those who violate the law, ignore regulations, or otherwise challenge the general welfare—the hammer.  The power to tax citizens and residents, businesses, corporations, is generally available to most governments—from Congress to your local water district.  Check your text books, one of the first concurrent or shared powers listed is the power to tax.  Moreover, taxes are ubiquitous—fees: taxes; assessments: taxes; dues: taxes; levies: taxes; taxes: taxes.  The power to tax is the power of government to deprive.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) , much will be made of the taxation aspect of the now upheld health care reform package—especially the individual mandate, which requires people capable of paying for health insurance to do so or risk a penalty (tax).  What do you think, is it the most intrusive tax ever devised by government (in this case by democrats)?  Is it a new tax?  Is it a tax increase (even though it only applies to people who don’t buy their own health insurance—and wouldn’t we otherwise call these people free-riders or equate them to people who don’t buy car insurance and drive up all of our rates)?  With all the hammers we get hit with every day, is this the one we’re really going to object to?  Ouch!  I know how to fix it; where’s my hammer?!

–DENNIS FALCON

Get Ready for Several Weeks of Useless Analysis

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render its ruling on the constitutionality of Obama Care. However, the media coverage of the ruling and the resulting political fallout will be the same. Regardless of the ruling, both republicans and democrats will try to spin the Supreme Court’s ruling in a way that benefits their side. Meanwhile, the news media will overflow with coverage concerning the political impact of the ruling, but will ultimately fail to explain the ruling divorced from the typical horse-race coverage.  Horse race refers to the news media’s focus on which candidate is up or down in the latest public opinion polls. My prediction is that the news media, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama Care, will bombard its audience with poll numbers for the next several days along with a bloviated analysis of said poll numbers with a pretentious and misguided sense of accomplishment for delivering what they consider to be the news. Get ready for several weeks of useless analysis and blatant political spin.

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Purges and Repubican Forms of Government

Vote Oregon! (Photo credit: jugbo)

According to the Constitution of the United States individual states are required to provide to their citizens a republican form of government.  The guarantee of a republican form of government in the Constitution is vague, but it provides a wide door for rights related to voting, representative-based government, and the sovereignty of the people in all fifty states.  The clause in the Constitution is also used as a foundation for each state to organize and conduct all elections in a state, whether the elections are for local, state, and even federal offices.

The state of Florida is currently involved in a legal dispute with the federal government over the issue of voter registration rolls.  The state of Florida is arguing that it has the right to purge voter registration rolls of names of persons not eligible to vote in Florida elections.  The state is arguing that it has the right to establish voter qualifications that do not directly deny citizens of the United States their fundamental right to vote and that maintaining voter registration rolls that are accurate and based on state law includes taking reasonable steps to protect their integrity.  In the current dispute, the federal government is arguing that the state of Florida recently purged properly registered voters from the rolls causing citizens of the United States to be denied their right to vote simply because they have the same name as a person who is ineligible to vote.  Both sides of the dispute are well-grounded in law, precedent, and practice—unfortunately, the specters or partisanship and electoral self-interest are seen at work on both sides as well.  The current dispute is about to peak in the middle of a presidential election year in a well-known battle ground state.  Do you believe the issue can be addressed by the courts impartially?  Do you think the current dispute is a legitimate clash of opinions and positions or a side-show of the election season we are watching unfold?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• US Sues Fla. Over Voter Purge (abcnews.go.com)
• Rick Scott fights DOJ, says it’s protecting illegal voters more than legal ones, undermines Constitution (miamiherald.typepad.com)

Race and the Hispanic Vote

English: White Hispanic and Latino Americans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is the second in a series of blogs focusing on what some like to refer to as the Hispanic vote.  It is intended to edify those elements of the MyPoliSciLab community that may just be learning of the increasingly important role Hispanic voters will play in American politics.  This installment will consider the significance of race as a factor influencing our understanding of the emerging Hispanic vote across the country.

First of all, the term Hispanic does not actually discriminate according to race (although many researchers do take race into account when studying Hispanics).  Hispanics born in the United States as part of the baby boom generation (and for decades before that) would have been designated as “White” or “Caucasian” on their birth certificates.  Of course, Hispanic newborns with parents or a parent displaying “Black” or African American features or characteristics would have likely been designated as “colored” or “Black” depending on the particular time in history.  In actuality Hispanics can be White and Black—or both as in the case of a bi-racial individual.  Given the state of political science research on the matter, traditional voting models that take race into account and predict that White voters are more likely to support republican candidates and African American or Black voters are more likely to support democratic candidates, are problematic when we take into account Hispanic voters.  The current state of the discipline suggests that including Hispanics in the models is reasonable based on the understanding that Hispanics represent a different population.  I am suggesting that they do not.

Hispanics, as we currently understand the term, come from the nations of North, Central, and South America.  They are White, Black, and Indian (indigenous, indígena) and every possible iteration you can think of.  Discussions regarding the Hispanic vote in both the mainstream and new media are still likely to follow in the footsteps of those who have an over-simplified understanding of their Hispanic brothers and sisters.  What do you think?  Should political scientists lead the way in terms of changing the way we talk about Hispanic political behavior?  Can the media make heads or tails of the issues involved?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• The future of whiteness (salon.com)
• Texas primary a test for the parties’ base (kens5.com)
• If Zimmerman Is a “White” Hispanic, Does that President Obama Is a “White” African American (thewesternexperience.com)

Due Process and the American Creed

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of independence (1776) were all of British descent. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution include references to due process any time a person is in jeopardy of life and property.  While the Amendments themselves do not specifically define what due process is, the Constitution itself provides elements of due process as have subsequent court decisions through the years.  For example, the right to know what one is charged with in all criminal matters is in the Bill of Rights, as are the rights to a public trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against you.  Any legal proceeding in the United States that fails to uphold these protections is not living up to the protections we claim to value so highly.

A former U.S. Senator is currently fighting for his freedom, as is a former Hall of Fame caliber baseball player.  All over America, people high and low are depending on due process to level the playing field, to diminish the power of Goliath, and to stand a chance when forces that want to destroy them are at play.  In some cases the guilty will go free; in others the innocent will be punished unjustly.  Regardless of the particulars, every American should take a solemn oath to protect and defend the tents of due process, just like the oath sworn by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence.

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

What do you think?  Is due process something most Americans understand?  Can you identify how various elements of due process have been important in your life?  How important is due process to the American creed? As for me, I pledge my life, my Fortunes and my sacred Honor.

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• Can the President Kill You? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Substantive Due Process News (volokh.com)

Race, Justice and Equal Protection–Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin - Million Hoodies March 2012 080 (Photo credit: calvinfleming)

The tragic death of Trayvon Martin has catapulted the problem of racial profiling to the top of the nation’s consciousness. Racial profiling is an expression of racial stereotyping that leads to discriminatory treatment. The term itself is primarily applied in cases involving government actors engaging in behaviors that violate the tenets of equal protection (e.g., police officers subjecting African Americans to higher levels of scrutiny during traffic stops).

In this sad case the perpetrator was a civilian volunteer—a private actor not representing government law enforcement—who believed the victim was suspicious based on a number of circumstances. George Zimmerman was a community watch volunteer who claims that recent residential burglaries had made him suspicious of Trayvon’s presence in the gated-community he was patrolling. According to media reports, George Zimmerman decided to report Trayvon to the police and then follow him despite police instructions to break off contact. There appears to be no claim that Trayvon was violating any law or had been identified as a trespasser at the time he came to George Zimmerman’s attention. Given the absence of any other reason for George Zimmerman’s attention, the possibility that race may have played a role in the evolution of the incident is only reasonable.

The fact that polls are showing that attitudes about the case vary based on race is not surprising. If anything, the difference in attitudes concerning the case actually supports the supposition that race may have played a part in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. How do you view this case? Is this a case of racial profiling? Should the term racial profiling be used when a non-government actor is the protagonist? Will this become a civil rights case that goes beyond the actual criminal charges recently filed against George Zimmerman?

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• Why Trayvon Martin Matters to Me (caligirlinmo.wordpress.com)
• George Zimmerman is charged with 2nd-degree murder in Trayvon Martin shooting (washingtonpost.com)

The Politics of Healthcare and Birth Control

Healthcare policy refers to the government regulations and guidelines that exist to operate, finance, and shape the delivery of healthcare. Healthcare policy covers a range of health related issues including: the financing of health care, public health, preventive health care, chronic illness and disability, long-term care, and mental health.

Currently there is a debate concerning the availability of birth control coverage to American woman and religious freedom protected by the 1^st Amendment. The problem is the reality that not all women take the pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In fact, women are often prescribed the pill for the therapeutic benefits it offers including protection against:

• bone thinning
• cysts in the breasts and ovaries
• ectopic pregnancy
• endometrial and ovarian cancers
• extremely irregular menstrual cycles
• headaches and depression associated with menstruation
• iron deficiency anemia
• pelvic inflammatory disease
• serious infection in the ovaries, tubes, and uterus

As such, the Obama administration views birth control as merely a women’s health issue. However, for some, the whole notion of birth control violates a religious belief that life begins at conception.  Should employers be forced, as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to provide a service that violates their personal religious conviction? In other words, which liberty is more important, the privacy rights of the employee or the religious freedom of the employer?

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Related articles

• Letter: Birth control and family planning have improved women’s lives (tcpalm.com)
• Should Birth Control Be Covered By Health Insurance? You Tell Us. (blisstree.com)

The Christian Republic of America

Separation of church and state is one of many great attributes that separates the United States from Iran, the Taliban and Al Qaida. The concept of separation of church and state refers to the segregated relationship between organized religion and the institution of government. The term is originally derived from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which Jefferson states:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Nevertheless, many Americans wholeheartedly believe the U.S. to be a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. Constitutionally the United States, while a nation of Christians, is not a Christian nation. However, even in the modern era political groups are openly carrying out a Christian theology litmus test to determine which candidate for office is authentically Christian and therefore legitimate. Obama is regarded by some as either a closeted Muslim or a radical black Christian. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith is viewed as not Christian enough.  Religious tests for holding public office are banned under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, yet politicians are compelled to disclose and discuss their personal faith ad nauseam.

Are we the United States of America or the Christian Republic of America?

– TERRANCE MULLINS

 

Related articles

• War on Religion (thecollegeconservative.com)
• 5 Brave Religious Leaders Who Fought Christian Theocracy in America (alternet.org)