- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al
by Sean Roach 11 Oct '99

11 Oct '99

I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate(a)open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
by Steve Schear 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it.

1 0

Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
by Steve Schear 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it.

1 0

Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
by Steve Schear 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it.

1 0

Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
by Steve Schear 10 Oct '99

10 Oct '99

At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it.

1 0

Oct. 10 column -- "free market" in the skies?
by Vin_Suprynowicz＠lvrj.com 09 Oct '99

09 Oct '99

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 10, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Let's launch an 'all-armed, all-smoking' airline A number of readers wrote in response to my column of Oct. 3, about bored functionaries "randomly" rooting through my laundry and personal effects even after my bags have cleared our now-standard metal detectors and X-ray machines. Many noted that private airlines have a right of private contract, which should allow them to set any such requirements they please, since we passengers always have the right to patronize another airline. I'm familiar with the argument for freedom of voluntary contract. In this case, it's purest steer manure. Suppose I raised $100 million and proposed to start AirGanja, "America's only all-armed, all-smoking airline"? I'd beef up my on-board air conditioning so I could advertise that our air quality is better than our competitors' even if the passengers on either side of you choose to chain-smoke cigars. My "flight attendants" would hand out free marijuana in First Class once airborne, and politely offer each boarding passenger a metal magazine (or revolver speed-loader) full or any caliber ammo they choose, urging them to reload their weapons for the duration of the flight with my special color-coded frangible rounds, designed to blow the head off any hijacker without penetrating our pressure cabins. (Needless to say, "controlled" drugs could not be used until we're airborne, at which point we're out of the jurisdiction of any local prohibitionist deviants -- the precedent already having been set by the fact that no airline today will refuse to sell you a cocktail while they're passing over the dry counties of Texas or Tennessee.) Of course, I'd charge a 15 percent premium for these improved services. Either I'd grow rich -- forcing my competitors to start offering some of the same options and services -- or, if my idea proved unpopular with the paying public, I'd go bankrupt. That would be a free market in air travel, and you would indeed remain free to choose a "non-smoking, no guns," strip-search airline (if that somehow makes you feel safer) instead of mine. Chance the FAA would allow me to launch such a competing service? Pinch yourself; you're dreaming. If such suggestions now sound absurd, it's only because we've forgotten what it was like to live in a free country. The average train passenger in 1912 could easily have found herself seated opposite a fellow passenger armed with a loaded revolver (concealed or otherwise), smoking an Indian hemp cigarette, and carrying a hip flask of laudanum. In fact, your great-grandmother would probably have felt somewhat more secure under such circumstances, knowing this fellow American was prepared to resist any attempted train robbery, as well as to provide a sip of cough syrup should the baby (your grandfather) grow fretful. The fact that we find it unthinkable today that an airline might be allowed any such options only means we have grown used to living under a burgeoning variety of fascism, an economic system in which private corporations are allowed to keep private title to their properties and extract certain after-tax profits (providing they don't grow large enough to attract the attention of the "Anti-Trust Division"), but where all substantive decisions about routes, "security," and so forth are actually made on a "one-size-fits-all" basis by unelected government functionaries. To argue any part of the current scenario is a true "voluntary, free contract" between passenger and airline is like saying the Todt Organization's slave laborers in various cannon works in Nazi Germany had no right to blame the government for their plight, since they'd entered into a "voluntary contract" with their employer. ("Volunteer for this labor contract, or go to the death camps. Choose quickly.") "Voluntary contract," indeed. I'm free "to not use their service" -- and try to find a passenger train with regular service from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas? And how long do you think we'll be free from having our luggage searched and being require to show our "government-issued photo ID" on the trains and highways? Whoops. "Random highway checkpoint" stops are already part of the War on Drugs, aren't they? And reporter P.L. Wyckoff of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reported this week: "They haven't attracted the attention that drug searches on the New Jersey Turnpike and other highways have. But charges of racial profiling are being leveled on another busy battlefield in the drug war -- the nation's trains and train stations. "Larry Bland, a black Bethesda, Md., resident, says he had just walked off a train in Richmond, Va., in July when police told him they needed to search his bag because drugs were coming through the station and he 'fit the profile.' "Carlos A. Hernandez, a former Newark, N.J., policeman, believes he was singled out for a tense drug search of his Amtrak sleeper cabin coming back from Miami that same month simply because his name is Hispanic. ... "Civil libertarians and attorneys say that, whatever the truth for Bland and Hernandez, such cases are widespread. ... 'That is really just a sliver of what's going on out there,' said David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who prepared a national report for the American Civil Liberties Union on racial profiling on the highways. "Train searches 'have been going on for a long time,' agrees Georgetown law professor David Cole. ..." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," available at 1-800-244-2224 or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

Oct. 10 column -- "free market" in the skies?
by Vin_Suprynowicz＠lvrj.com 09 Oct '99

09 Oct '99

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 10, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Let's launch an 'all-armed, all-smoking' airline A number of readers wrote in response to my column of Oct. 3, about bored functionaries "randomly" rooting through my laundry and personal effects even after my bags have cleared our now-standard metal detectors and X-ray machines. Many noted that private airlines have a right of private contract, which should allow them to set any such requirements they please, since we passengers always have the right to patronize another airline. I'm familiar with the argument for freedom of voluntary contract. In this case, it's purest steer manure. Suppose I raised $100 million and proposed to start AirGanja, "America's only all-armed, all-smoking airline"? I'd beef up my on-board air conditioning so I could advertise that our air quality is better than our competitors' even if the passengers on either side of you choose to chain-smoke cigars. My "flight attendants" would hand out free marijuana in First Class once airborne, and politely offer each boarding passenger a metal magazine (or revolver speed-loader) full or any caliber ammo they choose, urging them to reload their weapons for the duration of the flight with my special color-coded frangible rounds, designed to blow the head off any hijacker without penetrating our pressure cabins. (Needless to say, "controlled" drugs could not be used until we're airborne, at which point we're out of the jurisdiction of any local prohibitionist deviants -- the precedent already having been set by the fact that no airline today will refuse to sell you a cocktail while they're passing over the dry counties of Texas or Tennessee.) Of course, I'd charge a 15 percent premium for these improved services. Either I'd grow rich -- forcing my competitors to start offering some of the same options and services -- or, if my idea proved unpopular with the paying public, I'd go bankrupt. That would be a free market in air travel, and you would indeed remain free to choose a "non-smoking, no guns," strip-search airline (if that somehow makes you feel safer) instead of mine. Chance the FAA would allow me to launch such a competing service? Pinch yourself; you're dreaming. If such suggestions now sound absurd, it's only because we've forgotten what it was like to live in a free country. The average train passenger in 1912 could easily have found herself seated opposite a fellow passenger armed with a loaded revolver (concealed or otherwise), smoking an Indian hemp cigarette, and carrying a hip flask of laudanum. In fact, your great-grandmother would probably have felt somewhat more secure under such circumstances, knowing this fellow American was prepared to resist any attempted train robbery, as well as to provide a sip of cough syrup should the baby (your grandfather) grow fretful. The fact that we find it unthinkable today that an airline might be allowed any such options only means we have grown used to living under a burgeoning variety of fascism, an economic system in which private corporations are allowed to keep private title to their properties and extract certain after-tax profits (providing they don't grow large enough to attract the attention of the "Anti-Trust Division"), but where all substantive decisions about routes, "security," and so forth are actually made on a "one-size-fits-all" basis by unelected government functionaries. To argue any part of the current scenario is a true "voluntary, free contract" between passenger and airline is like saying the Todt Organization's slave laborers in various cannon works in Nazi Germany had no right to blame the government for their plight, since they'd entered into a "voluntary contract" with their employer. ("Volunteer for this labor contract, or go to the death camps. Choose quickly.") "Voluntary contract," indeed. I'm free "to not use their service" -- and try to find a passenger train with regular service from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas? And how long do you think we'll be free from having our luggage searched and being require to show our "government-issued photo ID" on the trains and highways? Whoops. "Random highway checkpoint" stops are already part of the War on Drugs, aren't they? And reporter P.L. Wyckoff of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reported this week: "They haven't attracted the attention that drug searches on the New Jersey Turnpike and other highways have. But charges of racial profiling are being leveled on another busy battlefield in the drug war -- the nation's trains and train stations. "Larry Bland, a black Bethesda, Md., resident, says he had just walked off a train in Richmond, Va., in July when police told him they needed to search his bag because drugs were coming through the station and he 'fit the profile.' "Carlos A. Hernandez, a former Newark, N.J., policeman, believes he was singled out for a tense drug search of his Amtrak sleeper cabin coming back from Miami that same month simply because his name is Hispanic. ... "Civil libertarians and attorneys say that, whatever the truth for Bland and Hernandez, such cases are widespread. ... 'That is really just a sliver of what's going on out there,' said David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who prepared a national report for the American Civil Liberties Union on racial profiling on the highways. "Train searches 'have been going on for a long time,' agrees Georgetown law professor David Cole. ..." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," available at 1-800-244-2224 or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

blunder, or forecast?
by Adam Powell 05 Nov '98

05 Nov '98

Once again the Net had it first, this time by accident... http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1998/11/4abc.asp ABC News election-eve Net 'mistake' accurately predicted most close races By Adam Clayton Powell III World Center 11.4.98 It did not happen, but just imagine if it had: The night before Fox television aired the World Series, the Fox Web site posts a complete set of inning-by-inning box scores for the upcoming Yankees-Padres games. After leaving the results online for a while, Fox pulls them down and says it was all a big mistake. Then the Yanks and the Padres play the Series, and nearly 90% of the innings show the same scoring as in the "mistake" posting. Sports fans, reporters and bookies would all cry foul, right? Now consider what happened this week: On Monday night, ABC News accidentally posted complete state-by-state election results on its Web site, hours before any votes were cast yesterday. ABC withdrew the numbers by mid-evening Monday, saying they were all a mistake and a test of their systems. "It wasn't our finest hour," Michelle Bergman, manager of communications for ABCNews.com, told the Associated Press yesterday. And, indeed, in the days before each national election, the major national news organizations hold "rehearsals" for reporting election night, using "dummy" numbers. Or maybe ... With almost all election districts reporting, those "phony" ABC News test numbers on Monday accurately matched the outcomes of the Senate and governor races in 61 of the 70 contests ^× 87%. It would be difficult to find a political analyst, pundit or bookie who even came close. While every major analyst on Sunday was predicting the Republicans would pick up anywhere from one to four Senate seats this week, ABC's test numbers on Monday had it right on the money: a 55-45 GOP-Democrat split, for no net change. Even more remarkable, in some of the most closely watched contests, ABC News election eve "test" numbers matched the final vote count almost precisely ^× within one percentage point. In the Florida governor's race, Jeb Bush beat Buddy MacKay by 55% to 45% ^× the exact final result rehearsed by ABC News on Monday. In Texas, Jeb's brother George won by 69% to Mauro's 30% ^× the very result used in the ABC rehearsal on Monday. ABC News rehearsal numbers also matched the exact final results, to within one percentage point, of the governors' races in Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin and Wyoming. All told, ABC's "error" had the correct candidates winning the governors mansions in 32 of 36 elections yesterday. The only gubernatorial contests where ABC had the wrong candidate winning were in Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota, where few predicted Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura would be the new governor. In the Senate elections, ABC's test numbers matched the winners in 29 of 34 contests, including all of the major races. ABC on Monday had posted "WIN" indicators next to Boxer, Schumer, Fitzgerald, Murray and Hollings, all of whom won close races in California, New York, Illinois, Washington and South Carolina, respectively. ABC also had the correct result in Wisconsin. The final vote totals this afternoon showed Russ Feingold narrowly won reelection by 38,410 votes. On Monday, ABC's rehearsal numbers showed Feingold winning reelection by a margin of 39,000 votes. But ABC is not claiming these numbers were the result of any new forecasting models or special analysis. "It was completely random," Bergman told free! this afternoon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

blunder, or forecast?
by Adam Powell 05 Nov '98

05 Nov '98

Once again the Net had it first, this time by accident... http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1998/11/4abc.asp ABC News election-eve Net 'mistake' accurately predicted most close races By Adam Clayton Powell III World Center 11.4.98 It did not happen, but just imagine if it had: The night before Fox television aired the World Series, the Fox Web site posts a complete set of inning-by-inning box scores for the upcoming Yankees-Padres games. After leaving the results online for a while, Fox pulls them down and says it was all a big mistake. Then the Yanks and the Padres play the Series, and nearly 90% of the innings show the same scoring as in the "mistake" posting. Sports fans, reporters and bookies would all cry foul, right? Now consider what happened this week: On Monday night, ABC News accidentally posted complete state-by-state election results on its Web site, hours before any votes were cast yesterday. ABC withdrew the numbers by mid-evening Monday, saying they were all a mistake and a test of their systems. "It wasn't our finest hour," Michelle Bergman, manager of communications for ABCNews.com, told the Associated Press yesterday. And, indeed, in the days before each national election, the major national news organizations hold "rehearsals" for reporting election night, using "dummy" numbers. Or maybe ... With almost all election districts reporting, those "phony" ABC News test numbers on Monday accurately matched the outcomes of the Senate and governor races in 61 of the 70 contests ^× 87%. It would be difficult to find a political analyst, pundit or bookie who even came close. While every major analyst on Sunday was predicting the Republicans would pick up anywhere from one to four Senate seats this week, ABC's test numbers on Monday had it right on the money: a 55-45 GOP-Democrat split, for no net change. Even more remarkable, in some of the most closely watched contests, ABC News election eve "test" numbers matched the final vote count almost precisely ^× within one percentage point. In the Florida governor's race, Jeb Bush beat Buddy MacKay by 55% to 45% ^× the exact final result rehearsed by ABC News on Monday. In Texas, Jeb's brother George won by 69% to Mauro's 30% ^× the very result used in the ABC rehearsal on Monday. ABC News rehearsal numbers also matched the exact final results, to within one percentage point, of the governors' races in Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin and Wyoming. All told, ABC's "error" had the correct candidates winning the governors mansions in 32 of 36 elections yesterday. The only gubernatorial contests where ABC had the wrong candidate winning were in Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota, where few predicted Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura would be the new governor. In the Senate elections, ABC's test numbers matched the winners in 29 of 34 contests, including all of the major races. ABC on Monday had posted "WIN" indicators next to Boxer, Schumer, Fitzgerald, Murray and Hollings, all of whom won close races in California, New York, Illinois, Washington and South Carolina, respectively. ABC also had the correct result in Wisconsin. The final vote totals this afternoon showed Russ Feingold narrowly won reelection by 38,410 votes. On Monday, ABC's rehearsal numbers showed Feingold winning reelection by a margin of 39,000 votes. But ABC is not claiming these numbers were the result of any new forecasting models or special analysis. "It was completely random," Bergman told free! this afternoon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Test: please ignore
by Brian B. Riley 22 Feb '98

22 Feb '98

test, please ignore, thanks Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson "With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." -- Ambrose Bierce's commentary on Johnson's definition.

1 0