The Volokh Conspiracy - Changes That We Are Not Likely To See After the Election.

In a prior post, I suggested some of the changes in party dominance of American institutions that are likely to result if (as fully expected) the Democrats win today.

What we are unlikely to see over the next four years is progress on serious defects in the press and the electoral process that this election revealed.

It is ironic that in 2008 we probably have two of the most honest and decent men running for president that we have had in a long time, and yet this has easily been the most corrupt election in my lifetime.

First, we have never had so many illegal campaign contributions, including illegal foreign contributions, as we had this year.

Second, (in my lifetime at least) we have never had so much systematic election fraud; that the tens — or more likely hundreds — of thousands of illegal voter registrations have not been a major campaign issue is appalling -- and it's worrisome for our democracy.

Unfortunately, (as everyone knows by now) Obama has long ties to ACORN and its affiliated groups (as a trainer of staff, as their lawyer, as a foundation board member voting them funds, as the proponent of federal legislation allowing them to receive millions in federal funds, and as the head of a presidential campaign hiring them for services to the campaign). I would hope that the new president would bring a RICO action going after the most corrupt national political organization to surface in my lifetime. I won't be holding my breath.

Last, the press's performance in 2008 has been appalling. Unfortunately, we have a mediated democracy, mediated by the press. Until the newsrooms are integrated politically, it is difficult for citizens to get the information they need to make informed decisions.

I hope that the voting today is not so close that it was likely determined by voter fraud or tens of millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions. As to what the election would have looked like with a fair — that is, evenly biased — press, that is a counterfactual about which we probably don't have enough information even to make an informed guess.

UPDATE: Jonathan Adler disagrees with me, and Orin Kerr chimes in as well. Unfortunately, they don't offer any good reasons for doubting my claims, other than increased press coverage. In a new long post, I support my claims with both evidence and argument and ask Jonathan to do the same.

	[Jim Lindgren, November 4, 2008 at 1:19pm] Trackbacks Changes That We Are Not Likely To See After the Election. In a prior post, I suggested some of the changes in party dominance of American institutions that are likely to result if (as fully expected) the Democrats win today. What we are unlikely to see over the next four years is progress on serious defects in the press and the electoral process that this election revealed. It is ironic that in 2008 we probably have two of the most honest and decent men running for president that we have had in a long time, and yet this has easily been the most corrupt election in my lifetime. First, we have never had so many illegal campaign contributions, including illegal foreign contributions, as we had this year. Second, (in my lifetime at least) we have never had so much systematic election fraud; that the tens — or more likely hundreds — of thousands of illegal voter registrations have not been a major campaign issue is appalling -- and it's worrisome for our democracy. Unfortunately, (as everyone knows by now) Obama has long ties to ACORN and its affiliated groups (as a trainer of staff, as their lawyer, as a foundation board member voting them funds, as the proponent of federal legislation allowing them to receive millions in federal funds, and as the head of a presidential campaign hiring them for services to the campaign). I would hope that the new president would bring a RICO action going after the most corrupt national political organization to surface in my lifetime. I won't be holding my breath. Last, the press's performance in 2008 has been appalling. Unfortunately, we have a mediated democracy, mediated by the press. Until the newsrooms are integrated politically, it is difficult for citizens to get the information they need to make informed decisions. I hope that the voting today is not so close that it was likely determined by voter fraud or tens of millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions. As to what the election would have looked like with a fair — that is, evenly biased — press, that is a counterfactual about which we probably don't have enough information even to make an informed guess. UPDATE: Jonathan Adler disagrees with me, and Orin Kerr chimes in as well. Unfortunately, they don't offer any good reasons for doubting my claims, other than increased press coverage. In a new long post, I support my claims with both evidence and argument and ask Jonathan to do the same.