Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Nov. 9, 2000 / 11 Mar-Cheshvan, 5761

George Will

George Will
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

No, the System Worked -- AS THE 1932 election approached, President Herbert Hoover, about to be swept from office, received a telegram from an angry voter eager to wield the broom: "Vote for Roosevelt and make it unanimous." Boring unanimity is not America's problem just now.

Amid the welter of uncertainties remaining as this is written at noon yesterday, there are three certainties. The ferocious campaign, unprecedentedly competitive across the continent, will produce one president, two tenuously controlled legislative chambers and a bumper crop of bitterness.

If Al Gore loses Florida by a number of votes substantially smaller than Ralph Nader's vote total, Democrats will feel deprived of victory by a frivolous faction. As we enter an impassioned debate about electing presidents by electoral votes, ponder this:

Replacing the electoral college, and the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes by states (not a constitutional requirement; a choice made by all states except Maine and Nebraska), with direct election of presidents by popular votes, or by proportional (to the popular vote) allocation of electoral votes, would be an incentive for minor parties to splinter the electorate, producing muddy mandates rendered in a raspy and uncertain national voice.

If Bush loses Florida, having lost other states by whiskers, Republicans will suspect that victory was snatched from them when he lost momentum due to the election-eve tempest about a 24-year-old driving-under-the-influence infraction. Everyone, regardless of political allegiances, should execrate all partisans, such as the fool in Maine who initiated the tempest, who recklessly play with the process.

In Congress, the remarkable Democratic Party, which believes that a baby kicking in its mother's stomach should not be considered alive but that a dead Senate candidate should be considered alive, came tantalizingly close to capturing both houses. And this time the familiar axiom--that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades--is not apposite. Closeness deepens disappointment, and some senior Democrats, whose long experience in the majority make the drudgery of minority status especially galling, may now retire.

In the Senate, two Democratic seats are uncertain. If Joe Lieberman becomes vice president, Connecticut's Republican governor will appoint a Republican replacement. And Missouri's Jean Carnahan may be a long way from securely occupying the seat for which she did not run--at least she did not if you subscribe to the perhaps quaint notion that candidates running have their names on ballots.

Furthermore, a Republican seat from a state with a Democratic governor hangs by the thin thread of an old man's health: South Carolina's Strom Thurmond will be 98 in December and is ailing. Which means that Democrats could control the Senate at any moment.

There is a pretty paradox in Tuesday's surge in turnout: Many of the people--for example, the editors of The Post and other newspapers--who are most distressed by low turnout are also disturbed by one thing that helped produce the surge. The flood of political money, much of it not raised by or spent through candidates' campaigns, produced an extraordinary--and on balance wholesome--cacophony, which energized the electorate.

Those who favor higher turnouts and less political discourse--limits on campaign giving and spending indisputably mean less communicating--cannot have it both ways. Those who favor less discourse include many members of the political class, who resent losing control of the national conversation, and hence of their campaigns. Too bad. Politics is not their private property.

The Post, which is constantly amazed by the hydraulics of political money, has yet again discovered that when you impede the flow of funding for political opinions in one stream, funding increases in other streams. The Post, which favors limits on contributions to candidates, notes with alarm that "spending is increasingly channeled not through candidates' coffers but through supposedly independent organizations." Yes, indeed--through the myriad party committees and issue-advocacy groups (for and against gun control, right to life and on and on) that helped bestir more than 4 million more voters than participated in 1996.

Let there be no mistaking what happened Tuesday: Our system of constitutional democracy worked well. It is a system of representation, and it has, with splendid precision, represented the strengths of the parties, and hence the division in the public mind. There exists between the parties a parity not known since the last quarter of the 19th century, when five consecutive elections produced plurality presidents.

Tuesday the nation elected its third consecutive president with less than a popular vote majority. Whoever he is, he earned the job.

Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.


11/06/00: The case for Bush
11/03/00: The Framers' Electoral wisdom
10/30/00: Political astronomy
10/27/00: Candidates condescending
10/23/00: No Partners For Peace
10/20/00: Talking peace with thugs
10/11/00: A feast of retreats
10/10/00: .. And what's gotten into the Danes?
10/05/00: The Agony of Debate
10/02/00: Senate Canvas
09/28/00: Milosevic: Not Another Saddam
09/25/00: Blaming the Voters
09/22/00: Saying No to the Euro
09/18/00: Farewell, Mr. Moynihan
09/14/00: When 'Choice' Rules
09/12/00: Colombia Illusions
09/08/00: Will He Spend It All?
09/04/00: Back in the U.S.S.R.
08/31/00: Stonewalling School Reform
08/28/00: Uphill for a California Republican
08/24/00: Sauerkraut Ice Cream
08/21/00: The Partial-Birth Censors
08/18/00: A Party to Prosperity
08/14/00: The National Scold on the Stump
08/10/00: The Thinking Person's Choice
08/07/00: The GOP of Powell And Rice
08/03/00: Panic in the Gore Camp
07/27/00: . . . Both Radical and Reassuring
07/06/00: Harry Potter: A Wizard's Return
07/03/00: Recalling the Revolution
06/29/00: An Act of Judicial Infamy
06/26/00: Life, Liberty and ... the Pursuit of Foxes
06/21/00: Fumble on Prayer
06/19/00: The unified field theory of culture
06/15/00: Schools Beset by Lawyers And Shrinks
06/12/00: Missile Defense Charade
06/07/00: The Grandparent Dissent
06/05/00: Liberal Condescension
06/01/00: Great Awakenings
05/30/00: Suddenly Social Security
05/25/00: Forget Values, Let's Talk Virtues
05/22/00: AlGore the Hysteric
05/15/00: Majestic Avenue
05/11/00: Just How Irrational Is the Exuberance?
05/08/00: Home-Run Glut
05/04/00: A Lesson Plan for Gore
05/01/00: The Hijacking of the Primaries
04/28/00: The Raid in Little Havana
04/24/00: Tinkering Again
04/17/00: A Judgment Against Hate
04/13/00: Tech- Stock Joy Ride
04/10/00: What the bobos are buying
04/06/00: A must-read horror book
04/03/00: 'Improving' the Bill of Rights
03/30/00: Sleaze, The Sequel
03/27/00: How new 'rights' will destroy freedom
03/23/00: Death and the Liveliest Writing
03/20/00: Powell is Dubyah's best bet
03/16/00: Free to Be Politically Intense
03/13/00: Runnin', Gunnin' and Gambling
03/09/00: And Now Back to Republican Business
03/06/00: As the Clock Runs Out on Bradley
03/02/00: Island of Equal Protection
02/28/00: . . . The Right Response
02/24/00: Federal Swelling
02/22/00: Greenspan Tweaks
02/17/00: Crucial Carolina (and Montana and . . .)
02/10/00: McCain's Distortions
02/10/00: The Disciplining of Austria
02/07/00: Free to Speak, Free to Give
02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money

© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group