I don't have the answers yet, but I have learned enough to be dangerous, and ask better questions..

Not that you couldn't find these yourself online, but check out Florida. This is from the Salt Lake Tribune, October 7, 2004: http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2425173

Results of polls on the presidential race. Listed above each set of results is the name of the organization that conducted the poll, the dates, the number interviewed, whether they were adults, registered voters (RV) or likely voters (LV) and the margin of error (MoE). Results might not total 100 percent because of rounding. Trend, when available from the same polling firm, is in parentheses after the current numbers.
   
    NATIONAL
   
   ABC-Washington Post Oct. 3-5, 1,155 LV, MoE +/-3
   (Results from earlier this week in parentheses)
   l Bush, 49 percent (51)
   l Kerry, 47 percent (45)
   l Nader, 1 percent (1)
   
   ICR, Oct. 1-5, 762 LV, MoE +/-3.5
   (Results
  from mid-September ICR poll in parentheses)
   l Bush, 51 percent (51)
   l Kerry, 45 percent (44)
   l Nader, 2 percent (3)
   l Unsure, 4 percent (4)
   
    STATES
   
   Florida (Bush won in 2000 by 537 votes)
   l American Research Group, Oct. 2-5, 600 LV, MoE +/-4. (Results from August ARG poll in parentheses)
   (three-way)
   l Kerry, 47 percent (50)
   l Bush, 45 percent (43)
   l Nader, 2 percent (2)
   l Unsure, 6 percent
   
   (two-way)
   l Kerry, 48 percent (52)
   l Bush, 46 percent (44)
   l Unsure, 6 percent (4)
   
   New Hampshire (Bush won in 2000 by 1.3 percentage points)
   l American Research Group, Oct. 3-5, 600 LV, MoE +/-4
   (Results   from August ARG poll in parentheses)
   (three-way)
   l Bush 47 percent (42)
   l Kerry, 47 percent (49)
   l Nader 1 percent (2)
   l Unsure, 5 percent (7)
   
   (two-way)
   l Bush, 47 percent (43)
   l Kerry, 47 percent (50)
   l Unsure, 6 percent (7)
   
   New Jersey (Gore won in 2000 by 15.8 percentage points)
   l Quinnipiac, Oct. 1-4, 819 LV, MoE +/-3.5
   (Results from late September Quinnipiac poll in parentheses)
   l Kerry, 49 percent (48)
   l Bush, 46 percent (48)
   l Nader, 2 percent (2)
   l Unsure, 3 percent (2)
   
     
It looks to me like Kerry is just barely going to edge out Bush in Florida. Having been struck by not one, not two, but THREE hurricaines, I wonder just how Florida's electoral process is going to go. Without a little tampering, it might just go to Kerry.

Why do I make a comment like that?

I have said before that capitalism does not equal democracy. Despite our best efforts to marry the two, it's an uneasy truce. Democracy, as conceived by the Greeks (here I am thinking of Aristophanes' Lysistrata) means an involved public who thinks constantly about governing itself, thinks nothing of criticizing its leaders openly when they stumble, and features participation as the key. Capitalism is an economic free market system that seeks to maximize profits for private individuals. These two things are not equivalent, and in the US, have parted company some time ago. Capitalism is the system under which we prosper, but it is a mistake to confuse it with democracy. They are quite distinct, and often at odds with one another.

It is easy to see why this is so.

Democracy is concerned with everyone having a voice. Capitalism is concerned with the furthering of capitalism, and sometimes, the party benefiting needs its voice to be louder than all others. In our country, it takes millions of dollars to win a seat in the Senate, or to win the presidency. Therefore, only the rich or well-funded need apply though there are plenty of folks who would be good for the job(s). The founding fathers never meant for this to be a country run by the wealthy. When you have people of wealth running the country, it becomes difficult for others to have a voice, and activities that increase wealth (over say, increasing the well-being of the general public) will be given priority.

I am not for throwing away capitalism - don't misunderstand me, please. I merely want to make it clear that we need to stop confusing capitalism with democracy, and we need to understand how uneasy of a truce this is at times. If you wonder over the apathy of voters in this country, a quick glance (I suspect) will reveal that the main block of apathetic non-voters consist of the disenfranchised from capitalism. Remember, everything has a shadow, and the underbelly of capitalism contains the homeless, the indigent poor, the elderly who live on social security and not much else, single mothers (working and non-working), children, and anyone else who cannot effectively participate in the creation of wealth in some form or another. These are the voiceless, and the ones who don't vote as often because they perceive that no one in politics cares about their issues. Democracy was conceived by the Greeks as a fully participatory system of self-government. Each person has a voice, and all voices are the same in weight. Now, the Greeks didn't allow women or slaves to vote, so the equal vote was only for men, but men of all classes, and we have to forgive them for their short-sightedness on women and slaves. In the US, the lack of voting in certain communities points to a different system at work - one that responds to those constituents wielding some influence. That is the effect of capitalism in its marriage to democracy in our society. It will be important to keep this in mind in the coming election. This could of course be righted by these disenfranchised groups building strong coalitions for themselves, as we have seen in the black and Latin communities, but many of the disenfranchised often lack resources to do this very thing....until they are motivated by enough anger.

But I digress.

Back to the polls - If Florida again falls to the Republicans, you will see in action (again) how capitalism can be used to undermine democracy. That will effectively be a "bought" state for the second time. Then I wonder how Americans will perceive the election process going forward.....