Four years ago, our State Duma expressed
concern over possible voting violations in the states of
Tennessee and Texas. Why Tennessee and Texas? Because
they were the home states of the presidential
candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush. Surely any
politician worth his salt will steal votes in his home
state, our Duma deputies reasoned. But their reasoning
was wide of the mark because in a U.S. presidential
election the key thing is to win a majority in any given
state, so there was no need to rig the results in Texas,
which, in any case, showed a clear preference for Bush
(or in Tennessee).
Now Veshnyakov fears a repeat of the
"Florida scandal" of four years ago, as he put it.
Although, in many ways, the events in 2000 are
confirmation of the electoral system's successful
functioning. After all, the victor was determined by
peaceful means, although the vote count was incredibly
close.
What is more interesting, however, is
the part of the U.S. elections that Veshnyakov will not
see. He will not see that debating controversial and
sensitive issues and extremely tough criticism of the
incumbent president during an election campaign do not
cause the country to collapse or undermine the
authorities. He will not see that electoral competition
forces candidates to move toward the center and modify
their policy positions; or that the four months spent by
Bush on the campaign trail, crisscrossing the country
and making seven or eight speeches a day, is certainly
not a waste of time. (Perhaps, if President Vladimir
Putin gave 200 speeches on public administration reform
in 50 different regions of Russia, he would realize that
the reform has not been sufficiently well thought-out,
to put it mildly.) And Veshnyakov will not see that
foreign and domestic policy is to a large extent
determined in the course of an election campaign and by
the outcome of an election.
However, today's election is too serious
to be written about completely seriously. It is hard to
refrain from making a prediction in a column that is
published on the day of the election, although a
professional political scientist would have to forgo
their principles with all opinion polls showing the two
main candidates neck and neck, both in individual swing
states and nationwide.
The most professional thing to do would
be to toss a coin. Instead, however, I will offer the
prediction not of a professional, but of a 3-year-old
child. It was made three years ago, so the child was not
influenced by short-term (in the grand scheme of things)
considerations such as the terrorist acts of Sept. 11,
2001, or the war in Iraq.
In June 2001, I was flying with my son
from Washington to Boston, when Senator John Kerry got
on the plane. My son turned to me and asked: "Dad, is
that the president?" Perhaps he was influenced by the
fact that the imposing man was wearing a white shirt and
tie, while everyone else was in shorts and T-shirts. In
any case, back then no one knew that Kerry would be the
Democratic presidential candidate, so half the
prediction has already come true. Today we will find out
whether my son was right about the other half.
Konstantin Sonin is an assistant
professor at the New Economic School/CEFIR.