Pimpin' the 538

You should go to fivethirtyeight.com NOW and read their current headline piece about Barack Obama's chances to win Georgia. Contrary to our earlier discussion some months ago about Black turnout, Nate Silver makes the impressive case that black turnout can win Georgia for Obama. He notes that, for example, blacks were 25.4% of the electorate in 2004, but are now surging in early voting at 40% of the vote. Yes, the election is already underway. The fact that about 40% the voters nationwide don't vote means that there is quite a big field to mine out there. That reflects a massive organizational effort by the Obama camp.

On a very tangential note about an extended election period, I read a terrific book about the election of 1800 a couple weeks ago. Back then, while several states chose electors by popular vote on the first tues in November, others had state legislatures appoint electors. More importantly, the method of allocating electors - whether proportionately or winner-take-all, was changed each election (there had been two prior) depending on political climates in each state. So when the Adams/Jefferson fight got set up at the end of 1799 (with the death of Washington whom the federalists wanted to re-draft), everything got underway fast. State legislative votes were almost all annual, and were often not simultaneous. New York City voted for its state legislators in April 1800, which was considered a *presidential* contest because it determined which party would control New York's legislature, and hence its electoral votes. And everybody was very well aware of that. Jefferson may only have won because the federalist governor of Pennsylvania adjourned the newly-elected federalist-leaning Penn assembly on a point of honor rather than change to a proportional vote rule that would favor Adams. And, since electors did not rubber stamp their state's preferences, the campaigning continued until the electors cast their ballots in February, 1801.

Aside from the fact that, yes, long election campaigns for the presidency are not just a new phenomenon, I was struck by the extreme sophistication of the electioneering described in this account. No wonder there was an American revolution: American electoral politics in the 18th century demonstrate a very modern political world totally incompatible with the concept of aristocracy and monarchy.

Another fascinating thing was the account of how elections were conducted on election day. Voting was not secret, but done in the open. This meant that candidates would personally electioneer AT THE POLLS, then send surrogates to "monitor" the polls and intimidate people who tried to vote against the prevailing wind in their district (or against their lodge, boss, etc.). Aaron Burr apparently appeared at every single electoral station in New York City on behalf of Jefferson, which was an unheard-of display of personal fortitude that helped whip up the Republican vote. A show of Republican strength in one Federalist district may have won NYC for Jefferson by allowing Republicans to vote somewhat freely.

The long and the short of this post is twofold: (1) the image of voting we were taught in Social Studies classes is a total myth - election politics in the USA is and always has been a dirty and very sophisticated game. (2) Good organization matters, and may win the day in Georgia.