News from PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Office of Communications
Stanhope Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-5264
Telephone 609-258-3601; Fax 609-258-1301Contact: Marilyn Marks (609) 258-3601, mmarks@princeton.edu
For immediate release: Dec. 13, 2000
Princeton University experts --
Supreme Court / election follow-up storiesFollowing is information on Princeton University faculty members who can comment on election issues likely to remain after the Supreme Court's decision last night.
1) Robert George, politics professor and director of Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, can comment on the general issues likely to be addressed by Congress, state legislatures and legal experts after election passions have died down, including the role and public view of the judiciary. He can be reached at (609) 258-3270 or rgeorge@princeton.edu.
George believes there will be intense discussion -- and probably action -- on numerous issues relating to elections and the act of voting. He expects states to take up the matter of setting clear standards governing what constitutes a vote, and believes federal legislators could propose a set of standards and encourage states to adopt them. "The chaos has really resulted from the fact that there weren't clear standards," he said. "What's clear is that, within the states, there have to be clear standards -- which can differ from state to state." Also look for renewed discussion on reform of the Electoral College -- including alternatives to the "winner-take-all" result used by most states, and for states to upgrade obsolete voting technology such as the punch cards used in Florida.
Among legal authorities, George expects an important discussion on the proper role of the judiciary in election contests, focused on the issue of whether the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority and took away discretion that had been given to Florida's secretary of state. He does not believe the public image of the U.S. Supreme Court will suffer in the long run, noting that "no matter how angry people get at the Supreme Court for particular decisions, their prestige and standing always seem to bounce back."
One encouraging note: Despite the chaos, George pointed out that -- unlike previous election controversies -- this one has not been marred by charges of corruption or election tampering. "This is a question of what law requires and what justice requires -- not a question of whether anyone has cheated," he said. "We're so hot and worked up right now that this point hasn't been noticed."
2) Fred Greenstein, an expert on presidential leadership and author of a new book called The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton, can comment on what George W. Bush could do in the next few months to increase his chances for a productive presidency. Greenstein is a professor of politics. You can reach him at (609) 258-4938 or fig@princeton.edu.
"I think it would be very advantageous for him (Bush) to make an extremely generous statement to people who voted for the other party," Greenstein said. "I think he could praise the vice president to having had a statistically equal percent of the popular vote. He would have to say he feels very strongly about the issues he's behind, but for the good of the nation the important thing is to find people who can work together and find common ground. He shouldn't try to get everything at once."
Greenstein suggested that Bush look to the presidencies of Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy as examples. Ford was viewed as a "healing" for his work in bringing the country together after Watergate. Kennedy, after an extremely close race with Richard Nixon, scaled back his programmatic demands while establishing a presence that led to high approval.
Some of Bush's Texas experiences bode well for this, Greenstein suggested. There, Bush laid out realistic goals and developed good relationships with key Democratic legislators. "He met with every member of the state Legislature, which is pretty unusual," Greenstein noted.
Greenstein believes that despite the sharp division over the election, Americans will accept the new president as legitimate. "Surveys are not showing that the public is very agitated," he said. "A lot of people are saying they would accept either one, as long as we have one."
Greenstein is a panelist today (Wed., Dec. 13) at a Washington conference on "In the Aftermath of the Election Contest: Assuring Confidence in the Presidency. The panel is sponsored by the Council for Excellence in Government.
3) Stanley Kelley, Jr., is an emeritus professor of politics at Princeton. He has published numerous works on political parties and elections, and can comment on some reasons why Al Gore lost the race for president. Please contact Marilyn Marks at (609) 258-5748 or mmarks@princeton.edu if you would like to speak with Professor Kelley.
"I believe that Gore ran a poor campaign, and that part of his misery is his own making," Kelley said, noting that peace and prosperity nearly always favor the incumbent party.
Kelley rejects the notion that Bill Clinton's indiscretions and impeachment hearings led to Gore's loss. Indeed, he noted, Clinton's approval rating has gone up during the campaign and stands at more than 60 percent, which is high for an outgoing president.
In Kelley's view, Gore erred in making "hardly anything" of a good economy. "Certainly, he could have made, politically, much better story and sent a stronger message out on the economy," Kelley said. Nor did Gore make enough mention of the Democratic party, its traditions and issues -- issues which were finding their way into the Bush campaign, Kelley said.
"It's very hard to prove the impact of the campaign, but campaigners have to make decisions, and it seems to me that he didn't make very good ones," he said.
4) Howard Strauss, a technical staff member in Computing and Information Technology, is an expert on voting methods. He can be reached at howard@princeton.edu or (609) 258-6045.
Strauss was a founding member and the computer expert of Election Watch, a public interest group that advocated ways to ensure the integrity of electronic elections. The organization no longer operates, but it was instrumental in getting the Federal Election Commission and other groups to review issues involved in electronic elections.
He believes the voting method using pre-perforated punch cards is the worst, most error-prone voting system. But it is also the cheapest, so he doesn't expect its use to lessen greatly over the short term. Strauss believes we will all ultimately vote on the Internet, but that there are serious problems to overcome before we get there.
5) Keith Whittington, an assistant professor of politics, can comment on various issues related to the election battle, including the role of the judiciary, possible moves to reform the electoral system, moves to reform the election system, and the notion that this year's election results pushed the nation into a Constitutional crisis. Whittington is the author of Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning, and is working on a book about the political supports for judicial independence. He can be reached at (609) 258-3453 or kewhitt@princeton.edu.
Although there is little chance that the unusual circumstances surrounding this election would ever be repeated, Whittington does expect some of the issues raised to get continuing attention at both the state and federal levels.
He expects continuing debate in the states on coming up with standards to determine what constitutes a vote. The federal government, he said, is likely to take steps to reform the voting system, such as providing grants to states to upgrade voting machines and get rid of punch-card ballots and re-evaluate U.S. law dealing with federal electors and the "Safe Harbor" deadline.
Despite media pronouncements of a possible Constitutional crisis, Whittington, an expert on the Constitution, does not believe this election qualifies as one. "I think that talk is overblown," he said. "My argument is that the United States essentially doesn't have Constitutional crises -- maybe secession in 1860, and even that is debatable, and that's pretty close to it. I think there are reasons why in the United States we don't have genuine Constitutional crises as other countries do."
/pr/news/00/q4/1213-election.htm