Okay, I’ll confess up-front that what I’m about to say is pretty unhip, and that it hasn’t the slightest trace of pomo-ironic hyper-informed edginess about it. It’s pretty old-fashioned. But what the hell, I’m getting old.

Anyway, here goes. You know what worries me more than swing states and electoral college scenarios and unaccounted-for polling groups? You know what worries me more than poll challengers and last-minute ads and absentee ballots? You know what I’m starting to care about more than . . . gasp . . . who actually wins this election?

   more »

[UPDATE 10-29-04] by nadezhda

For a more thorough "political science" discussion of this episode and its importance for the future evolution of the EU, see Henry Farrell's prognostications at Crooked Timber. It's the latest of several, and it seems to support Henry in a running "friendly argument" with Dan Drezner "over whether or not the European Union is a standard international organization (i.e. a creature of its member states) or something more." As John Quiggin notes, this looks like a data point in Henry's favor for the "something more" position.

So I was taken aback a bit by Matthew Yglesias' characterization of the outcome as "continuing the drift toward supranationalism." If a "supranational" is an organization of states that has independent governance functions, but with limited autonomy vis a vis its members, this recent brouhaha would seem rather to be adding another dimension not usually included in the concept -- some form of separate accountability to voters other than through the "transmission belt" of their own countries.

In line with Henry's predictionss and Le Monde's reasoning cited below, Barroso has the opportunity to wrest more actual autonomy from the national members. As the Economist notes:

Mr Barroso's allies in the national capitals, on the other hand, will be enraged. They jealously reserve the right to nominate whomever they want as commissioner, however unfashionable his views. Rome will not readily bow to Strasbourg.

---

[original post 10-28-04]
Unfortunate for Sr Barroso, but good for European democracy, is the conclusion of a number of European commentators, including in the FT and Le Monde.

No one could disagree that it's been a tough way to start though. Even before taking office, new President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has had to withdraw his slate of 24 candidates to fill his cabinet. The climb down came after Barroso's initially stone-walling and then trying to manage the uproar over the comments on homosexuality and single mothers by the candidate for the Justice portfolio, Italian Christian Democrat and friend of the Pope Rocco Buttiglione.   more »

The selection of political leaders by popular vote may be critical for the sustained legitimacy of the governing class. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that the outcomes of the election process reflect the true preferences of the public, if surveys of voter attitudes and behavior in the US are any guide.

In "The Unpolitical Animal" (The New Yorker,Aug 30, 2004), Louis Menand offers a delightful, and somewhat scary, overview of political science literature on decision-making by American voters.

Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don’t understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.

   more »