Why No Secession or Talk of Secession?

[J. Noble]

At 11:57 AM -0400 6/28/06, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
>I can't see how close elections can mean the absence of polarization.

Because it sometimes means the absence of meaningful differences on 
significant issues. I know it's counter-intuitive, but I see sharp 
divisions of public opinion in landslides (Johnson-Goldwater in '64, 
Nixon-McGovern in '72), which were about the Cold War and Vietnam 
War. You can add Nixon's threadbare win in '68 if you figure that he 
would have gotten Wallace's 13% of the vote in an election about Race 
and the Great Society.

In very close elections (Kennedy-Nixon in '60, Bush-Gore '00), I see 
a failure to identify issues and articulate positions that sharply 
separate the candidates politically. Kennedy squeaks out a victory as 
a Cold War Democrat, and Bush slips in as a compassionate 
conservative who campaigned on education.The political center is not 
volatile. Unless circumstances or the candidates supply the basis for 
sharp political choices, you get an electorate comprised of a 
minority of polarized voters who are equally, if sharply, divided 
over political philosophy; but the outcome is determined by the 
center, which is divided mostly by public appeal based on personal 
affinity, the political equivalent of a coin-toss (Carter-Ford '76, 
Bush-Gore '00), even though the coin-toss sometimes provides a larger 
margin because the public appeal based on personal affinity is 
lopsided (Reagan-Carter '80, Reagan-Mondale '84, Bush-Dukakis '88, 
Clinton-Bush '92, Clinton-Dole '96)

John Noble
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060628/e7f94239/attachment.htm