New Law School Poll Results Show Barrett Lead Over Falk Growing

With the Democratic primary for governor in its last week, new results for the Marquette Law School Poll, released Wednesday, show Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett opening a larger lead over his main opponent, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, than was the case in March, before Barrett formally entered the race.

But there are still a lot of undecided likely-voters in the election set for May 8 – about 19% — which needs to be kept in mind, Professor Charles Franklin, director of the poll, said in an “On the Issues with Mike Gousha” session at Eckstein Hall.

Head-to-head poll results for a possible final election for governor on June 5 between Barrett and Republican Gov. Scott Walker indicate a race that is effectively a tie at this point. Results for both all registered voters and for those who say they are likely to vote put one percentage point between Barrett and Walker (in one case, with Barrett ahead, in one case with Walker ahead, and, in both cases, with differences that are clearly within the margin of error).

The poll results found Democratic President Barack Obama holding a nine point lead over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, an increase from the March results. But Franklin said Wisconsin is shaping up as a state that will be in play in the fall presidential campaign.

Full results for the poll, including video of the session at which the results were released and Powerpoint slides of key results, can be found by clicking here.

 

Continue ReadingNew Law School Poll Results Show Barrett Lead Over Falk Growing

The Use and Misuse of History

In his novel 1984, George Orwell imagined a future world where a government at war could switch allegiances with the country’s enemies and allies and a docile public would accept the revised version of history unquestioningly.  Orwell, a keen observer of the modern world, recognized that history itself could be manufactured and manipulated in the service of broader purposes.

This morning’s edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an opinion piece by Chrisitian Schneider of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) entitled “Not What They Meant Democracy to Look Like.”  In it, Mr. Schneider argues that the current effort to recall Governor Scott Walker and other elected state officials runs contrary to the original intent of Senator Bob La Follette and other advocates of the recall provisions of the Wisconsin State Constitution.  His op ed is excerpted from a larger piece that Mr. Schneider has authored for WPRI entitled “The History of the Recall in Wisconsin.”

In the newspaper piece, Mr. Schneider makes the assertion that “a review of documents and press accounts from the time the recall constitutional amendment passed shows that the current use of the recall is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned.”  His argument is that the recall provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution were intended to apply solely to judges and state senators, and not to executive branch officials such as the governor, because the two year term of office in place for governors at the time that the amendment passed would have made the recall of a governor impractical.

The historical record is completely contrary to Mr. Schneider’s assertion.  Moreover, the evidence that he relies upon is completely inadequate to establish the existence of the skewed original intent that he advances.

Continue ReadingThe Use and Misuse of History

In Praise of Flip-Floppers (Part III)

In my last two posts I scrutinized the tendency for voters, the media, and politicians to use flip-flopper critiques indiscriminately. Common usage is indiscriminate in part because it seems to accept without question that position changes by candidates are always a result of pandering, when in fact other, justifiable reasons may be the cause in any given case. Common usage is also indiscriminate because it denounces position changes by candidates for office without paying attention to how the constitutional features of the office influence the validity of the changes.

Given these defects, why does the flip-flopper critique remain so common? I have a few guesses:

First, perhaps voters and the media use the critique in an attempt to simplify the candidate selection process. Position changes complicate candidate identities, and complexity makes it harder to brand and distinguish candidates. By discouraging position changes, the critique facilitates voter choice.

Second, perhaps voters use the critique because they know that electoral mandates are difficult to enforce intra-term. If a candidate elected on one platform changes her position on a matter once in office, it is always possible for the electorate to vote her out upon the expiration of the term. But there is little that can be done until then. And in the meantime the official may work to create laws that reflect her new, unpopular position. Maybe voters scrutinize candidates for position changes to reduce the risk of this scenario. The flip-flopper critique, in other words, fulfills a vetting function, weeding out those candidates who are most likely to change positions in an unforeseeable manner.

Continue ReadingIn Praise of Flip-Floppers (Part III)