Stephen VasciannieA SENIOR colleague, a politically acute man of standing in the legal profession, has kindly shown me a copy of the United States Federal postal ballot for tomorrow's presidential election. No doubt, it makes interesting reading, but more than anything else, it takes a lot of reading. The postal ballot, presumably with every word crafted by six lawyers, is a technical document: I wonder how many persons without university degrees will use it.
But this is the point: my colleague made the effort to get it, and presumably will vote - and he has made the effort precisely because this election is so close, and the issues so important. Given how tight the race is, individuals have every right, and perhaps even a duty, to make their votes count. And bearing in mind the strength of feeling both for and against President Bush, it is not surprising that there has been an increase in voter registration since the last election.
VOTER REGISTRATION
Significantly, though, this increase from 68 per cent of those eligible to vote in 2000, to 71 per cent in 2004 is not evenly spread across the states of the Union. In Alaska, for example, there has been a marked decline in voter registration, giving rise to the suggestion that Alaska is all sewn up one side, so advocates of the other position are not overly anxious to register.
As is to be expected, however, in the battleground states, such as Florida, the increase in voter registration of persons eligible to vote has exceeded 10 per cent. People will make the effort to vote this time around, and indeed, there are already long lines of people who have decided to vote early, particularly in the states that will matter most.
On the Saturday morning before Tuesday's election, the latest figures in a Hotline poll reported on the reliable C-Span indicate that President Bush is leading by a short head. Three days before the big day, Bush is shown as having 253 Electoral College votes to Senator Kerry's 196, while 89 Electoral College votes are currently tied. This poll has President Bush ahead in 29 states, Kerry in 15, with 7 tied. A lawyer friend has jocularly described the election as a 'circus', but, to be sure, it is an exciting one.
PRO-BUSH?
Enter Bin Laden. Not by any stretch of the imagination the village clown, Osama bin Laden, has sought, through a taped message via Al Jazeera, to influence the proceedings on Tuesday. Will he succeed? And, more specifically, what impact will the bin Laden surprise have on the American electorate?
Both presidential candidates have been keen to reject Bin Laden's latest offering, and to remind us that this terrorist is an enemy of the American people. They have also reiterated America's determination to capture or kill bin Laden, bearing in mind the tragedy of September 11. So far so good. Notice, however, that, if anything, the bin Laden intervention could actually hurt the presidential prospects of Senatory Kerry, moreso than it may affect President Bush.
In the first place, bin Laden's reappearance, after months in the deep shadows, effectively disposes of rumours to the effect that he had been captured by American forces, and was being held for an 'October surprise'. As long as this rumour was in circulation, some voters might have been prompted to vote for Kerry: either because they were offended by the possibility that the Bush administration was being manipulative, or because, when Bin Laden was not presented as captured at the last minute, people would be disappointed in President Bush.
RESURFACED
Now that bin Laden has resurfaced, these possibilities have been removed. More importantly, however, Bin Laden may have helped Bush's prospects simply by keeping the issue of terrorism on the frontburner of the American agenda. In the weeks preceding the three presidential debates, the pundits moved to the consensus view that if the election could be framed mainly in the context of the war in Iraq, Kerry would have the edge; conversely, if it was mainly about the war on terror, Bush would have an advantage.
If that analysis was correct up to last Friday, then bin Laden has helped Bush by focusing American attention on terrorism. Moreover, bin Laden is not simply the face of terrorism in the abstract; rather, he is unquestionably associated, in the minds of most Americans, with the strongest indication of American vulnerability since Pearl Harbour. That, plus the sheer inhumanity of the September 11 attacks, could strengthen the American perception that it is not good policy to switch generals in the middle of the river. This counts for President Bush.
We will know by tomorrow night whether bin Laden's (inexplicable?) October surprise has been decisive.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law, Head of he Department of Government, UWI, and a consultant in the Attorney- General's chambers.
