Dear Alex,

I join you in commending George Loper for providing a forum for lively discourse on timely issues, and I thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting regarding the "American Candidate". I will be the first to admit that I did engage in a bit of hyperbole, but I got your attention, didn't I? (Also, I tend to be more expressive now that I have retired from the constraints of writing in the stilted prose of a political scientist.)

I should say, first of all, that I am well aware of the activities of the Center for Politics, and I applaud them heartily. Your Center is performing a vital function in trying to increase the political interest and awareness of young people. However, I am not aware of any activity of your Center, until now, that impinged directly on the real political world. Yours have been educational programs conducted in classrooms, video games on computers, research in publications and so forth.

Here we have the principle point of contention between your defense of the Center's participation in the Showtime show and my concerns about it. You don't think the show could impinge on the 2004 election; I do. You ridicule me for thinking that the "American Candidate" might spawn "a write-in contender capable of altering the outcome of our real election". You dismiss the possibility that the show will "fundamentally change the dynamics of the 2004 election". From this I conclude that you think that the program will fizzle -- that it will not attract enough interest or viewers to make any difference and that all of the contestants will be duds. Yet you also say that a contestant might make "enough of a splash to actually draw votes away from Kerry or Bush" because the contestant "had developed and expressed a message that resonated with voters." Isn't this exactly what the producers of the show hope for -- to make enough of a splash to get the attention of a lot of viewers by fielding interesting and dynamic contestants?

An examination of the "American Candidate" website indicates that the producers want their winning contestant to be a real player in the election. They hint at it strongly. They say "...once the show has ended, the winner of (or any other participant in) AMERICAN CANDIDATE may choose to run for president." Furthermore they say "What the participants decide to do with the visibility and momentum they will have at the conclusion of the series is entirely up to them. ... We anticipate that if a participant does run, he or she would be doing so on a write-in basis. Of course, with the publicity and attention the candidate will have received, it is feasible there could be a substantial amount of public support for him/her".

After what we all witnessed clearly in the 2000 election, a few hundred votes in just one state can change the course of history. Please do not dismiss so lightly the potential real effects that the Showtime candidate could have on the 2004 election.

I might add that I carefully studied the "American Candidate" website to learn as much as possible about the show before writing my open letter to Larry Sabato. The fact that one of the executive producers was Jay Roach, who directed such notable movies as the Austin Powers series and "Meet the Parents", did not instill confidence about the sincerity of the "American Candidate" show. Yes, R. J. Cutler is also an executive producer and he has filmed some outstanding documentaries. (In addition to "The War Room", he produced "Freshmen Dairies" and "American High".) His production company is named "Actual Reality Pictures". Is Cutler confusing "American Candidate" with actual reality?

If "American Candidate" had been produced and shown during any period other than when the actual presidential election was going on, I would not be concerned. It could have been an interesting experiment. But as it is, it is a sideshow that distracts from the serious business of electing a real President and it could very well effect the results of that election.

Best regards,

David RePass (electronic mail, June 19, 2004)

P.S. I think a number of those who read this will find it amusing that you call me a "traditionalist" . I think I am better known in Charlottesville as a bit of a mover and shaker for change. In my former incarnation as a professor of political science, I was also somewhat of a maverick. In addition to the 1971 article you cite (which almost did not get published because it departed too far from conventional wisdom), I was one of the creators of a hands on, laboratory type approach to exposing students to political data and allowing them to experiment with it. In 1976, in the pages of the American Political Science Review, I warned about the misleading methods being used by leading political scientists. Throughout my life, I have written articles, op-ed pieces and letters to the editor when I see something that is going badly awry.

I fear "American Candidate" could set in motion a set of events that could go badly awry.

I certainly encourage original and creative approaches to teaching and involving students. I just don't think the real world should be used as a laboratory.