Primaries: McCain wins with almost 5% of the voters.

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Some 84% of New Hampshire residents failed to go to the polls in
Tuesday's primary. The figure represents a sharp increase in
non-participation by over the last primary held when there were hotly
disputed contests in both parties, which was in 1992. Some 20% of the voting
age population took part in the balloting eight years ago, compared to 16%
today. So far this election cycle I've yet to see one story exploring why
the crushing majority of the population is abstaining. On the contrary,
based on the coverage you would assume that participation was in the 80s,
and abstention in the teens.

    The non-turnout is particularly striking for two reasons. First, all of
the bourgeois press has been filled for weeks with stories about the
campaign and the keen interest in New Hampshire in this electoral process.
Second, television accounts throughout the day had stressed the big turnout,
emphasizing that the likelies beneficiary of this would be John McCain,
since this would mean many "independents" were coming out.

    Actually, the TV networks had, of course, no clue as to whether the
turnout was unusually heavy or light. The only source for the"big turnout"
talk was the secretary of state's office, which is charged with organizing
elections. It was, of course, only too happy to make totally groundless,
completely self-serving comments.

    It seems the more electoral participation declines, the more eagerly the
networks, and especially CNN, which usually sets the tone for the day's
coverage, swallows cock-and-bull stories about record breaking turnout. This
was true in the 1992, 1996, and 1998 general elections but not in 1994, when
turnout was said to be low. And in each case of high turnout, we were told
this would likely mean the democrats might do better than expected, whereas
in 1994, the supposed low turnout was taken to be an omen of a Republican
sweep.

    And if you follow this sort of thing you'll see how in the coverage
reviews the next day CNN will get high marks for having spotted the trend
early, and drawing out the real significance of the events.

    This, needless to say, is a load of crap. When the TV gasbags were
pontificating about a heavy turnout being a good omen for McCain, or for
Clinton in 1992, or for the Democrats in 1998 they actually had no idea what
the turnout was. What they DID know was how the election was going. The
first wave of exit polls arrives many hours before the polls close, and even
with a 1000-person sample, something like the nearly 20 point lead McCain
had is hard to miss.

    So the search is on to explain why the pre-election polls, which showed
a much narrower spread between McCain and Bush, and a much bigger Gore
advantage over Bradley, were wrong. And just then, oh happy coincidence, up
pops the secretary of state's office doing its civic duty of informing the
public about what a great job it is doing. And thus all the baloney about a
big turnout.

    Now, the reason the pre-election polls were wrong is that they were
doctored. These are typically polls of "likely voters," but deciding who is
a "likely voter" is a fairly arbitrary decision. If you voted last time, and
plan to vote this time, then you're "likely." Once you get the figures, then
they are mathematically massaged to fit the pollster's preconceived notion
of the electorate.

    First you throw out everyone who refused to participate. This, OF
COURSE, is *also* a response and any responsible statistician will tell you
it MUST be included in the results. Then you throw out all the people who up
front admit they're not going to vote. Then you take the answers by everyone
who is Black, Hispanic, or poor, and give them a lower weighting
because --again, according to polls, in this case exit polls from previous
elections-- fewer Blacks, Hispanics and poor people vote. The you "up" the
weighting of certain demographics, like white people who are fairly well
off.

    Your actual results look something like this:

    Sample: 2,500 margin of error 2.5%

25%  -  Refused to cooperate
40%  -  Not voting
35%  - Claim will vote
            Of which:
            5% Gore
            5% Bradley
          10% McCain
            5% Bush
            7% Undecided
            2% Forbes
            1% Keyes

    So instead of these REAL results, the public is offered a doctored poll
that shows something like:

            Poll of 450 likely democratic voters:

           50% Gore
           42% Bradley
                                    Margin of error +/- 6%.

(this usually is left off the charts as shown on TV)

               8% Undecided

    That's the Democratic part of a poll of 900 "likely voters." Gore has
gone way up -- his "demographics" are good, Bradley is pulling a lot of
independent voters, and they're less likely to vote, so we've shaved his
figure a few percent. Most of the undecideds won't vote, so we've given them
only a 50% weight. Depending on the anchor and the spin, this will be
presented as either a "statistical tie" (a goofy bit of meaningless
journalese) or as a commanding Gore lead. and everything in between. Very
often you'll find that the poll is "spun" in a contrarian direction -- that
is, if Gore is supposed to be way ahead, then the margin of
error/statistical tie will be stressed. If the race was considered a dead
heat, Gore's "pulling ahead" will be remarked on. The exception to this is
in the week or so leading up to the vote, when all polls no matter WHAT they
say will be said to represent that the race is "tightening." This is usually
easy to do since the late polls are of "likely" voters, the sample sizes are
smaller, and thus the margins of errors balloon from 3% to 5 or even 6%.

    It is axiomatic that going into any election, whenever possible it be
presented as "neck and neck". For despite their purely theoretical "neutral
observer" pretense, every single news organization in the U.S. the covers
politics supports the electoral process and wants a big turnout. The message
is, go out and vote, this time YOUR vote really could be the one to decide
the race. Moreover, it makes a better morning-after story:

(From, the Texarkana Daily Bleat:)

    "A surprising last-minute surge by Democritan candidate Gov. Joe
Blowhard blew away Republicrat Jim Windbag to give Texarkana's favorite son
a stinging defeat in the race for..."

    Or just imagine a bleary-eyed Peter Jennings filling dead air with Cokie
Roberts at 2 a.m. in the morning with the race still undecided saying, "Well
our polls told us it was a dead heat, Cokie, and so it has been." "That's
right, Peter, the lead has now see-sawed back and forth 22 times -- what's
that? (screwing he earpiece into her ear), no, Peter, wait, now I'm told 23
times, just in the time I've been talking to you it's changed again. What an
exciting finish to a hard-fought battle, blah blah blah."

    The truth is that in something like 98 or 99% of the races in which
there is an incumbent, the outcome is a foregone conclusion and most of the
time there is only token  opposition. For virtually all other posts (and in
the U.S., depending on the jurisdiction, just about anything and everything
is elected, from judges to dog catchers), the support of the locally
dominant electoral machines or bosses settles the matter. In a given general
election, there will be balloting for hundreds or thousands of positions in
every state, nationwide, there are tens of thousands of contests. Of these,
a couple of dozen --out of tens of thousands-- will merit attention because
they are closely contested fairly high offices (President, U.S. House and
Senate, Governorships, big city mayors) or because some issue is at stake.
And in any given metropolitan area, the local press will try to whip up
interest in at least a couple of races.

    Now, working people realize instinctively that in this setup, they've
got absolutely no control over who "represents" them, especially in the
positions that most directly affect their lives -- school board, local
district attorney, judges, sewer and water authority, zoning board, city
council and county commission.

    This is so much the case that even in the last presidential race, just
under half the population bothered to vote for President, and voter
participation goes lower and lower the further away you get from the top of
the ballot. So towards the bottom of the ballot, the big majority of votes
registered are simply "party line" votes effectuated by turning one lever on
the voting machine or punching one hole in the paper ballot. Very, very few
votes are ever cast for individuals at a level below state legislature or
mayor.

    The *other*  thing that working people realize instinctively is that
even if you were to elect Princess Diana and Mother  Teresa to the local
school board, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. The government has
such a monstrous bureaucracy that doing anything that goes against the
stream is impossible. You can pass a resolution in the local school board,
but might find it goes against state policy. Or that some federal commission
has to okay it so you don't lose funding for school lunches. Or that the
state constitution requires a separate referendum vote to use funds for that
purpose. Or that opponents of the resolution have taken you to court, or
appealed an unfavorable ruling to the federal courts.

    With half a million or so elected positions, you have countless
well-meaning, sincere individuals who run for school board or other elected
office with the intention of making a difference. But it's just not possible
if it means going against the "general line" of the ruling class in the
local area.

    All of this, of course, is a mystery sealed with seven seals for the
talking heads on television. With their six- and seven-figure salaries they
live in a world apart, attending White House receptions and society parties,
sending their kids to the Stilwell academy, and, of course, professionally
engrossed by the electoral process. When CNN first started the daily show
"Inside Politics," I kept wondering how someone like Bernie Shaw could stand
doing the program every day. But the truth is Shaw and the others on this
circuit have contracted the incurable malady of electoral cretinism, which
consists of thinking that the entire future of the world depends on whatever
tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee race they're covering at that very moment. Deep in
their hearts, they are convinced it actually MAKES A DIFFERENCE whether Gov.
Blowhard or Sen. Windbag is elected president. Probably the only other group
with such enduring faith in the promises of bourgeois politicians is the
post-1934 U.S. Communist Party.

    Actually, it isn't very hard to show it makes no difference whatsoever
who you elect. Lyndon Johnson ran for President in 1964 as a "peace"
candidate. "We must love one another or die" his voice-over to the famous
1964 girl-picking-a-daisy ad said. And while running, he was all the while
plotting with McNamara and Rusk the escalations of the War in Vietnam.

    Nixon had a squeaker victory against Hubert Humphrey because he had a
"secret plan" to end the war. Turned out his secret "peace" plan was the
same as Johnson's.

    Jimmy Carter promised America "a government as good as its people" and
brought us instead the worst economic times in post-war history, a
witch-hunt against Mexican immigrants and the reinstitution of the death
penalty.

    Reagan ran as a fiscal conservative to balance the budget, and then ran
up the biggest budget deficits ever in the history of the human race.

    Bush centered his whole campaign on a single, unbreakable,
cast-in-concrete promise: "read my lips, no new taxes." It took eighteen
months before the promise became "inoperative." In late 1969 he was hailing
the fall of the Berlin Wall as ushering in a new era of peace and
international cooperation. A few months later he was leading a coalition of
the imperialist countries in trying to bomb the Iraquis back to the stone
age.

    Clinton, he was a Democrat, come to town to put an end to the
Reagan-Bush cutbacks, expand medical insurance for the poor and so on.
Instead he put in tax increases, shredded the already tattered social safety
net, and did what Reagan had promised, which is to balance the budget
(needless to say, on the backs of working people).

    There's a very simple reason why the answers politicians give during
election campaigns and the ones they give in office are so different. And
that is, the questions are different. In an election, the question is which
one of them can fool the most of us. That requires one kind of answer. In
office, the question is, what best serves the interests of the U.S. as an
imperialist power, the so-called "national interest."

    The net result is that the masses of people are driven out of politics,
as effectively disenfranchised and denied a say as if they were openly and
directly denied the right to vote. This is the essence of bourgeois
democracy in the most purely bourgeois country in the world at the very
apogee of its power. Given the chance to have a disproportionate impact on
selecting the next president (because New Hampshire has the first primary),
5 out of six residents of New Hampshire didn't vote. And this despite
saturation coverage and a bombardment of political advertisements, debates,
town meetings and rallies that covered every inch of that small state from
one end to the other.

    Thus we have the real results of the balloting:

    5 % - McCain
    3%  - Gore
    3%  - Bush
    3% - Bradley
    1% - Forbes
    1% - Keyes
    0% - Others

   84% - No, thank you.

José