Was it the Serbian-American vote? By TV Weber With the State of the Union message behind him, President Bush is making it clear that his second term is in full swing. "Spending his political capital" with seemingly reckless abandon, Bush has set forth a fairly bold agenda. With the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, it seems that the Bush legacy could be one of significant accomplishment. Whether history will judge his term of office favorably, of course, remains to be seen. Yet, only a few short months ago, many of those "in the know" were planning for, and counting on, a Kerry presidency. Pundits were divided as to which way the stream of American history would flow. By now, those prognostications are only a vague memory.
But what was responsible for tipping the balance of the electoral vote in Bush's favor? The answer never appeared in the mainstream media, and might not be obvious without further analysis. Voting Blocs Pundits look to a number of so-called "voting blocs" to predict the outcomes of elections. They watch the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the women's vote, the union vote, the rural vote, the gay vote, the Christian right vote, and any other vote for which someone has bothered to conduct a poll. Personally, I believe that, all too often, far too much emphasis is placed on the same few voting blocs, which have become almost a cliche. This is especially true when it comes to presidential elections. At least in theory, in a federal system such as ours, it is the States, not the people, who elect the president. Whether they know it or not, the people vote only for their state's electors, who will meet with the other electors to select the president. Even so, there are times when the behavior of certain voting blocs, particularly ethnic blocs, can tell an interesting story about what people in that particular community have on their minds. That Red and Blue Map Thus, the U.S. presidential election process may seem bewildering to a casual outside observer, who simply expects the candidate with the most popular votes to win the election. But that is not the way it actually works on election night. The Constitution allows the legislatures of each state to select its allotted number of presidential electors by whatever method it may choose. The recent popularity of "democracy" has led those state legislatures to delegate that responsibility to the eligible voters in each state. Almost every state uses a system of "winner take all." In other words, whoever wins the most votes in a given state, gets all of that state's electors. Even if a candidate wins a state by only ten votes, he gains all of the electoral votes that state has to offer. If he wins the same state by a million votes, he gets the same number of electors. Some states, such as Kansas, almost always go to the Republicans. Other states, such as Massachusetts, always seem to go to the Democrats. Until recently, the majority of states had been, more or less, up for grabs, so that the right candidate from either party could win them. However, since the 1990s, fewer and fewer of these "swing states" exist. In fact, on the night of the 2004 election, commentators correctly predicted that just three states would determine the outcome of the election: Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. As votes were being counted, Pennsylvania slipped into the Democratic column and Florida roared into the Republican column, leaving the decision to the voters in Ohio. Who Lives in Ohio? Eastern Ohio has traditionally been Democrat territory. Its rust-belt cities, such as Cleveland and Akron, are stereotypical backdrops for old-fashioned Democratic electioneering. As we move westward across the state, the Republican Party becomes more popular. Nonetheless, each vote cast throughout the state counts the same. The 2004 county-by-county red and blue map reveals that, even though this pattern was followed, the Democrats' strength in the East may not have been quite as strong as usual. Serbs for Bush? The media analyses of the election outcome missed the fact that a significant number of Serbian-Americans supported the Republican candidate in 2004. Even this Serbianna website proudly posted an ad for Bush. Of course, the Serbian people had good reason to hope that Bush would be reelected. Otherwise, Kerry would have come to power. Kerry had made it clear that many of the people from the Clinton administration would be back in government. These were the same people who, in 1999, had shamelessly participated in making war against the Serbian people. The Clinton administration fought that unprovoked war on behalf of the KLA, which is nothing more than the local affiliate of al-Qaeda in Kosovo. Thus, in the 2004 election, the survival of their cousins back in Serbia-and the danger and dishonor of America's collaboration with Islamic terrorists-may have been on the minds of many Serbian-American voters. Could it be that the Serbian-American voters of Ohio gave Bush his second term? The Serbian-American Population The Serbs claim to have the greatest number of immigrants in and around Chicago, Illinois. Significant Serbian-American populations also reside in California and Wisconsin. All three of these states voted for Kerry. But there is a very substantial population of Serbian-Americans in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio. The vote in Ohio was relatively close. Perhaps as few as 35,000 of those who voted for Bush in Ohio, had they so desired, could have given the entire election to Kerry. Especially considering the fact that a voter who is strongly committed is likely to convince others as well, the Serbian-American population could very well have been the deciding factor in the 2004 election. Given the likelihood that the Serbian-American voters of Eastern Ohio were the margin of victory, can the Serbs hope for some justice from the new George W. Bush administration? Only time will tell. http://www.serbianna.com/columns/weber/017.shtml Serbian News Network - SNN news@antic.org http://www.antic.org/
