Professors: Midterm election results may prove uncertain

As voters prepare to go to the polls next week, it is surprisingly unclear of what the outcome of the elections will be, according to some Tufts' Political Science professors.

These elections, many of them tightly contested, will decide all 435 House seats, as well as 34 of 100 Senate seats, and will be crucial in determining the United States' domestic and foreign policies for the next two years.

Though the hurting economy, terrorism, tax cuts and a possible war against Iraq are all big issues, there is no central polarizing issue, making it difficult to predict what issues the public is focusing on and how they will vote.

Although it is difficult to predict which way the elections will go, there is little debate as to what the effects of the different outcomes would be. If the election results preserve the Republican status quo, "the outcome is unlikely to strongly influence the course of foreign or domestic policy," said Political Science professor Jeffrey Berry. "If Democrats captured the House, though, things would be very different."

Professor Gary McKissick, an expert in interest-group politics, agreed with Berry, saying that this election could produce great changes in foreign and domestic policy. "The margins are so tight _ a few seats one way or the other and we get very different Congresses," McKissick said.

McKissick said that although media attention "has made Iraq look like the biggest issue of the campaign...voters don't seem nearly as engaged with the issue." According to Berry, polls indicate that the American public is most concerned with the economy.

"This election is distinct in that no issue has galvanized the electorate...the issues are muddied," Berry said

However, McKissick said Democratic voters do not tend to see the war as the most important issue, or even see a current need for action. "As long as the conversation's about war, then, many of these voters will likely tune out and stay home," he said.

This would be good for the Republicans, but bad for the Democrats. According to McKissick, this is why the Democrats are anxious to focus on the economy, while the Republicans "have done a very effective job of putting a focus on Iraq."

Questions of national security favor Republicans, and those of corporate accountability favor the Democrats, according to McKissick.

Despite the issues, reports released in recent weeks suggest that this election could just be a matter of numbers. Republican pollster Ed Goeas told The Washington Post that the lack of an overarching theme this year may mean a lot of people stay at home and only those who stand to gain will head to the polls. According to Goeas, the percentage of registered voters who say they are "extremely likely" to vote has dropped from the high 70s to the mid 60s. Furthermore, Goeas told the Post that usually senior citizens have the most to gain from a midterm election, but this year it appears middle-aged voters worried about the economy will turn out in equal numbers.

During past elections, there has usually been a single issue that separated citizens into opposing camps, making their decisions to vote for either Democratic or Republican candidates relatively simple.

Last week, however, The New York Times reported that voters are feeling particularly vulnerable going back to the polls this year, since many of them will be using the same voting machines they used in the bungled 2000 elections. Problems with counting votes have extended beyond Florida over the past few years. In the 2001 New York City Mayor's race more ballots were uncounted, unmarked or lost than in the 2000 Florida Election. In Michigan's primary this year, ten percent of the ballots could not be counted due to faulty ballot design, and in Florida the primary battle was drawn out for an extra week due to balloting problems.

Since so many races are neck-and-neck this year, Political Science department chair James Glaser says discrepancies in the number of people who vote could play a role in which party has the most political influence.

"If Republicans were to hold all three [branches of government], that would be very liberating for them in terms of their agenda."

With congressional Republican leadership, McKissick feels that the Republicans would not hesitate to push through a variety of policies that the Democratic Senate has currently been stalling.

"From tax cuts to energy bills to Social Security, we should expect to see a very different two years if Republicans have unified control of the government than if Democrats can control at least one chamber of the Congress," he said.

Iraq could be a deciding issue if much of the country proves to oppose the war, according to McKissick. "Those people who say Iraq is the most important issue to them say they'll vote for Democrats. People voting on the basis of Iraq are most likely liberals who want to take a stand against the Bush administration."

Though most politicians make decisions about whether they are going to run or not almost a year before the election, this last month has made the race between Democrats and Republicans even tighter, as each party is desperate to hold onto as many seats as possible. Sen. Robert Toricelli (D-NJ) resigned five weeks ago among ethics concerns, and in Minnesota, the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MI) may galvanize Democratic voters in that State as it is likely that former Vice President Walter Mondale will run in his place.

Glaser stressed that each election race has its own salient characteristics. "So much of the election was decided nine months ago, when members of the House and Senate decided to retire, to run, to give money _ all the things that line up the Democratic team against the Republican team," he said. "These things are already set, but it's hard to know the quality of each team until we know the results of the election."

Emily Chasan contributed to this report.