text:
Jack Balkin:
jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres
ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin
sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban
david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone
mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain
lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein
dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel
siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Recent Posts
Why Election Systems Matter
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Why Election Systems Matter
Sandy Levinson
The current situation in the Democratic and Republican parties is almost entirely a function of the fact that they operate under two strikingly different election systems. It is "natural experiment" that has much to teach us about institutional design. The Democrats are operating under a classic system of proportional representation. The only real surprise is that it so quickly was reduced to a two-person contest, probably a function of the enormous amounts of money needed to finance a modern campaign. The Republicans, on the other hand, have chosen to operate, in many states, under a classic first-past-the-post winner-take-all system. This means that John McCain was able to get all of Missouri's delegates by getting, I believe, 34% of the total vote in that state. I haven't done the numbers to know what would be happening in the Democratic race if states operated on a first-past-the-post winner take all system. At the very least, Clinton would have hundreds of additional delegates from New York, New Jersey, and California, for starters, not to mention similar possibilities in Texas and Ohio, should she win either by even one vote. If Republicans had adopted a p.r. system similar to the Democrats, then John McCain would by no means have the nomination locked up, and we could all look forward to a circus at the Republican convention in Minneapolis. My own view is that the Democrats' system is more democratic precisely because it doesn't allow for the possibility that the person rejected by a quite substantial majority will "win" simply by coming in first. But, obviously, reasonable people differ about this, and the current contests provide much fodder for argument.
a factual question: in the general election, isn't it true that all of each state's electors go to the plurality winner? i.e., first past the post/winner take all? or, is it proportional representation for some states. I guess I'm wondering, are general, Nov. 08 presidental elections a amtter of state law, with 50 different systems, or do federal laws control?
The results of the proportional v. winner takes all nominating systems during the 2008 cycle recommends the electoral college style winner takes all system.
In their proportional system, the Dem candidates have largely ignored the smaller states and lived in the larger cities of the larger states because they are assured getting some delegates from the states they ignore and the larger cities of the larger states give more bang for the advertising buck.
In a winner take all system, you have to pay some attention to every state because you are only assured that state's delegates if you win. McCain spent a great deal of time in the winner take all states and far less in the proportional states so he could nail down a large delegate count.
The winner take all system in the staggered nominating process, as opposed to the single vote general election for electoral college delegates, also has the benefit of resolving the race earlier so the eventual nominee can get to work unifying support for the general election rather then engaging in the increasingly uncivil war we see between Obama and Clinton.
Sandy Levinson writes:
If Republicans had adopted a p.r. system similar to the Democrats, then John McCain would by no means have the nomination locked up, and we could all look forward to a circus at the Republican convention in Denver.
Isn't the GOP convention in Minneapolis? Or has something changed recently?
in the general election, isn't it true that all of each state's electors go to the plurality winner?
Yes, except for NE and, possibly, ME (I can't recall for sure). It's a matter of state law in each case.
I will shortly change "Denver" to "Minneapolis."
Whatever else may be said about this primary season, it is bizarre to accuse Obama, in particular, of ignoring the small states. And Rhode Island received visits last week from both of the candidates.
I won't rehearse all of the arguments about what I regard as a perverse and indefensible electoral college. Suffice it to say that no sane constitutional designer would advise its adoption by any country writing a constitution in 2008 (including the United States).
And Rhode Island received visits last week from both of the candidates.
As compared to how many dozens of visits to Ohio and Texas?
I won't rehearse all of the arguments about what I regard as a perverse and indefensible electoral college. Suffice it to say that no sane constitutional designer would advise its adoption by any country writing a constitution in 2008 (including the United States).
I also do not wish to regurgitate the arguments over the EC, but I would observe that we are not alone in using such a winner take all system.
I believe that the British Parliament and others who follow its structure uses a winner take all system in each member's district with the party or coalition of parties taking a majority of these districts using its party leader as PM. Like many of our plurality popular vote Presidents like Bill Clinton, Maggie Thatcher won her first majority with a plurality of the vote.
actually, before you change it to Minneapolis - the Convention itself will be held at the Excel Energy Center in downtown St. Paul.
I am shocked, SHOCKED!!, I tell you, to see that Baghdad Bart thinks the Republicans use a better system, even though their system dramatically increases the chances that most of them won't have a say in the eventual nominee.
The GOP did not invent the winner take all system nor do they use it for all their state primaries. I personally prefer it for the reasons I stated.
You Dems are welcome to use any system you wish to choose your own candidates. Let me know how you like the proportional system so far this election cycle.
The GOP did not invent the winner take all system nor do they use it for all their state primaries.
I never said they did.
Let me know how you like the proportional system so far this election cycle.
It seems to have done a great job narrowing the field to the 2 best candidates.
The rest of your rightwingnut friends (Limbaugh and his ilk) don't seem to share your love for the the winner take all system, or at least they're not too happy with the candidate it forced them to vote for.
I wonder why someone doesn't try a blended system. A candidate winning a majority of votes gets all of the delegates but if no candidate gets a majority, the delegates are allotted proportionally. That would seem to be the best of both worlds.
As I understand it, the problem with the Republican system isn't that it's winner take all. If it were entirely winner take all, McCain would still be fighting for his political life. Likewise if it were entirely PR.
The problem is that it's neither fish nor fowl, some states are winner take all, some PR. Because McCain was pulling off his plurality victories in the former, while losing in the latter, he got all the delegates where he barely won, and a fair share of them where OTHER candidates barely won. And so accumulated a delegate count wildly out of proportion to his vote totals.
Republicans are going to have to make up their minds which system they're going to use, and use it nation-wide. Mixing the two systems is potentially explosive.
There is another problem with the nomination system which reared its head tonight - allowing independents and members of the other party to vote in primaries and caucuses.
At the urging to folks like Rush Limbaugh, it appears as if around 10% of the voters in the Dem primaries today were GOP and they went for Hillary to keep the Dem contest going until the convention. With McCain securing the nomination, now all the GOP voters are available for this kind of mischief in future Dem primaries which allow cross over voting.
It also appears as if Hillary found her issue - questioning Obama's competence to be CiC. After Hillary's "3 AM" ad and McCain hammering Obama about his ignorance of the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq, late deciding voters broke heavily for Hillary.
Because Obama could not capitalize on a winner take all system like McCain to put this away and the new developments I discussed above, Hillary appears as if she is going to be able to drag this into the summer convention.
I think a salient point to keep in mind is, as previously mentioned, that the party electoral systems are realm of state law. States have a right to determine who participates and how the electorate works.
At the urging to folks like Rush Limbaugh, it appears as if around 10% of the voters in the Dem primaries today were GOP and they went for Hillary to keep the Dem contest going until the convention.
I think this charge is probably dubious at best.
Even so, it does make sense for some states to allow voters to cross party lines. States that are historically moderate (I'm thinking western states like Montana and New Mexico) for example, may want to allow voters who are registered Republicans, but are moderately so to determine the candidate from Democratic party that they may want to vote for as well. This actually increases democratic participation and lets voters maintain their freedom when voting, without having to adhere to obscure and arbitrary party lines and regulations.
"Al Qaeda in Iraq"
Dear Mr. DePalma,
Do you have an estimate of the
number of al Qaeda members in Iraq?
I have heard 2500. A formidable force
for the diminutive number of US soldiers.
jared said...
BD: At the urging to folks like Rush Limbaugh, it appears as if around 10% of the voters in the Dem primaries today were GOP and they went for Hillary to keep the Dem contest going until the convention.
I think this charge is probably dubious at best.
For sure, all the GOP voters who crossed over did not go for Clinton.
A couple weeks ago when McCain started to wrap up the nomination, the conservative blogosphere and talk radio started talking about voting for Obama to put a stake in Hillary's campaign. If you had not guessed, conservatives loathe the Clintons for the sleaze and lying that Obama supporters are beginning to pick up on now that it is directed against them.
However, last week, Limbaugh and Hannity started arguing that it would be a better idea to cross over for Hillary to keep the Dem blood letting going until the convention. The conservative blogosphere picked up on it and amplified it.
Well, the CNN polls have Hillary taking a majority of the roughly 10% GOP cross over vote, taking the late deciders and taking those who describe themselves as conservative.
The fact that conservatives who loathe Clinton went for her in these primaries indicates to me that a significant number of GOP voters went for Hillary to prolong the Dem nominating process.
Given that Obama was leading or tied in Texas prior to the primary and lost by 3% further indicates to me that this cross over can swing primaries.
Now that Mr. McCain is the nominee, all GOP voters who wish to cause mischief are free to vote in the Dem primaries which allow cross over voting.
After the NH primary, I blogged and complained about how people who were not registered with the parties were choosing the party nominees.
This morning, Obama supporters might better understand my complaint. They ought to be furious.
Anyone considering going to Baghdad Bart's blog to respond to his rants there should keep in mind that their comments will be censored.
I assembled and discussed the links concerning the GOP crossover vote here.
BartCop is on my "speed-dial" which is full at this time. In order to make room for Bart's I'd have to drop someone. BartCop rants humorously (as well as liberally) so I am reluctant to drop him. Perhaps I could make room by dropping Rush Limburger but he ranks with the rankest, providing me with political balance. Sorry
But IIRC, Bart was in favor of proportional apportionment of electoral college votes....
At least in California.
An equally likely explanation of the crossover votes for Obama and Hillary were protesting the poor candidates being put forth on the GOP ticket.
The brilliant political analyst kos also thinks that the sudden surge of GOP voting is the harbinger of a Dem realignment. He also thinks that 7 or more weeks of Obama and Clinton trading negative attacks will somehow help the eventual Dem nominee by making them tougher.
Swiftboating sure made Kerry tougher to beat in the 2004 general election.
The Clintons are not ones to discard a political hatchet when it works. Challenging Obama's foreign policy competency with ads like the Clinton 3 AM ad this past week is working. Expect the Clintons to take that hatchet to Obama with abandon until the convention.
The GOP crossover voting for Hillary could potentially give her some narrow victories and continued political viability, but is unlikely to change the delegate math which heavily favors Obama because the Dems run a proportional election system.
In effect, these GOP voters are not trying to give Clinton the nomination, but rather use her to run free negative ads against Obama through the spring and into the summer. Once Clinton tags out of the ring, McCain enters with his own campaign against a weakened Obama.
I am hardly alone with this view. Go to my blog linked above for further links to the pressies and Dems picking up on what is going on, even if the clueless kos is not.
Limbaugh started encouraging crossover voting as a joke. Now that it appears that tens of thousands of GOP voters took him up on the suggestion, it will be interesting to see if Limbaugh turns what was a joke into a campaign.
The brilliant political analyst kos
Baghdad, aren't you the same clown who used to think Rudy was a lock?
Excuse me if I don't look to a rightwingnut imbecile for political analysis of the Dem campaign.
Again, since the majority of GOP crossover voters in Texas voted for Obama (at least according to CNN's coverage last night), I'm not really sure what exciting power the Limbaugh "joke/campaign" is supposed to have.
Also, I'd hazard to guess the NAFTA-related concerns had much more of a pro-Clinton effect (especially in Ohio) than the laughable regurgitation of Mondale's "red phone" ad.
Leaving aside how many GOP voters voted in the Dem primaries yesterday and for whom they voted, Bart does raise a significant point. I think there is a problem with letting people who are not members of a political party vote for who the nominee of that party will be. I don't think it should be allowed.
I don't think it shows a Democratic realignment. I think it likely that a portion of the crossovers simply stay at home come the general. Republicans have a serious mobilization problem and it's evident that they are not particularly enthused about McCain.
The fact of the matter is that there will be little crossover when all the dust settles. If Hillary supporters are truly disenchanted with Obama (and vice versa) and Republicans are disenchanted with McCain, they'll stay home. In a hyper-partisan environment such as this, I don't see a hard core Democrat or Republican voting the other way.
Previously, Obama won the lower crossover voting heavily. As I noted above, this was unsurprising since GOP voters loathe the Clintons and many hoped to torpedo her campaign by voting Obama.
However, last week, Limbaugh made an argument echoed in the conservative blogosphere that GOP voters ought to crossover to vote for Hillary this time in order to keep the Dem "soap opera" going for another couple months.
Yesterday, the crossover voting was unusually heavy and the new voters went for Clinton, enabling her to almost tie Obama among crossover voters. Hillary was also pulling in voters who self identified as very conservative.
Now, very conservative GOP voters are hardly Hillary fans. This suggests to me that some thousands of conservative GOP voters decided to heed Limbaugh's suggestion.
Unfortunately, there are no cross tabs on the exit polling internals to get a better view of whether the surge in GOP voters, very conservative voters and last minute deciders are the same group. However, the evidence we do have is intriguing to say the least.
If you take a look at the internals of head to head polling between Obama and McCain, there appears to be a substantial crossover of what used to be called Reagan Dems to McCain rather than in the other direction.
These Reagan Dems are voting for Hillary right now like they did for her husband or Perot in the 90s. However, when the choice is between Obama and McCain, these Reagan Dems think McCain does a better job on every issue except health care and are either undecided or support McCain.
Baghdad, how is your boy Rudy doing with the "Reagan Dems" these days?
Once the Dems start hammering McCain with Iraq, the "Reagan Dems" will be back with whoever the Dems nominate.
Yes, polls show Obama's support amongst Democrats at around 82% with Hillary at 88% or so. Of course, anything that Obama loses he promptly makes up with folks coming over from the GOP. Hillary doesn't have that appeal.
As I said, it's a marginal impact and washes out once the dust settles.
David Weigel over at the Reason blog has broken down the how the "Rush Effect" changed the GOP crossover vote.
This anecdote may be some solace to you Obama supporters. After they had fun following Rush's advice and mucking up the Dem presidential primary, it appears that some Texas GOP voters were shocked to find that they were unable to vote in the rest of the GOP elections and are now calling into the talk radio shows to complain that they feel disenfranchised.
Imagine the world's smallest violin playing for their plight...
Let's just clear something up: the cross-over won't muck anything up for Democrats. I know, I know, everything is always good for Republicans, but the fact is the Democrats are putting forth two attractive candidates that are energizing people, while the GOP has a presumptive nominee who the base doesn't like, who isn't getting people to the polls, and whose delegate margin is completely skewed, thereby overstating his apparent GOP support.
The Democrats will still vote Democrat, by and large. The winner will emerge seasoned and ready for a fight, and with more money to spend than McCain ever thought of having. Rush/GOP can try to pat themselves on the back for "mucking things up" all they want, but in the long run, it won't make any difference.
Leaving aside how many GOP voters voted in the Dem primaries yesterday and for whom they voted, Bart does raise a significant point. I think there is a problem with letting people who are not members of a political party vote for who the nominee of that party will be. I don't think it should be allowed.
Some states do have "closed" primaries. Others have finessed the problem by allowing voters to 'vote' for whoever they want, but which allow the parties (the real "party of interest" in any such primary) to exclude the ballots of those not registered as party members.
Why states should run "primaries" at all is something that is beyond me, though.
Bart writes:
In their proportional system, the Dem candidates have largely ignored the smaller states and lived in the larger cities of the larger states because they are assured getting some delegates from the states they ignore and the larger cities of the larger states give more bang for the advertising buck.
In a winner take all system, you have to pay some attention to every state because you are only assured that state's delegates if you win.
How is it, then, that Obama has maintained a delegate lead by paying attention to smaller states with clinton winning the larger states?
Take another look at the internals of the polling to which I linked.
While McCain is not very popular among the very conservative talking heads, he has no real problem getting conservative votes. McCain did not win a quick nomination victory based on a liberal or moderate wings of the GOP because there are none. The GOP ranges from conservative to very conservative.
The polling internals to which I pointed indicate that McCain leads heavily in inter-party crossover and splits the independents with Obama.
McCain was not this conservative's top choice, but I and others will vote for him in the fall when the alternative is Obama. However, his ideological apostasies from conservatism purism to work with Dems make him a very popular candidate among independents and center-right Dems.
The question will be whether Obama can get a large enough turnout on the Dem left and among independents to make up for what appears to be the loss of Reagan Dems to McCain.
bitswapper said...
How is it, then, that Obama has maintained a delegate lead by paying attention to smaller states with clinton winning the larger states?
Obama's ground organization spent a great deal of time wooing caucus goers, while Hillary's organization did not. Obama has personally spent most of his time in larger states.
McCain won a quick nomination based on slim margins of victories in winner take all primaries. The guy is not energizing the base. He might be competitive because the media loves him, won't address the fact that he is not at all moderate, has flip flopped...er..."evolved" on a number of issues, shows incredibly poor political judgment (taking private jets looks better than riding commercial direct from PHX to DC? Are you kidding me?) and he's anything but a "straight talker"
Baghdad, it's interesting that when Dems cross over in a primary, it's because they don't like the Dem candidate, but when rightwingnuts cross over it's because they're shrewdly gaming the system.
Reading your posts one might think that there is nothing you righwingnuts can't do better than anyone else. Until one looks at the disaster in Iraq, and one quickly realizes that you're a lunatic.
Bart writes
Obama has personally spent most of his time in larger states.
Where do you see that? I mean, by what objective criteria do you support that? Any source? I've looked, but haven't found anything listing who has spent how much time/money/etc in which states. Where did you find it? Or is it a gut feeling?
I went to the CBS Estimated Democratic Delegate Scorecard to find out who is swinging which states, and just by cutting and pasting ans sorting by delegate count, hillary is doing better in states with big delegate counts(above 90 anyway), the exception being Illinois.
Remember, everything is good for Republicans...McCain could be caught in the sack with a 25 year old and it would just show that he is desirable, virile, and just the type we want as a CinC...
You are correct that McCain is not energizing the GOP base. He is going to have particular problems with religious conservatives. McCain is instead sitting smack in the middle.
The problem for Obama is that McCain is making up for religious conservatives lost from the GOP base by poaching Reagan Dems and thus reducing the Dem base. McCain is winning this exchange because the religious conservatives are not going for Obama, but rather will stay home.
The lineup for Obama appears to be the Dem left and independents.
The lineup for McCain appears to be a reduced GOP base, Reagan dems and Independents.
McCain's lineup is larger. Obama's challenge is to motivate his smaller lineup to come out and vote in larger numbers.
The thing that shocked me about the polling internals between Obama and McCain were not the fact that they are essentially tied with a large number of undecided. That is expected this far out from the election.
This far out, Dem candidates usually lead among independent voters and on who can better handle major issues. Instead, McCain has tied Obama among independents and dominates nearly every issue preference. Indeed, large percentages of Dem voters think that McCain is a better and more experienced leader than Obama. If those internals hold up over the next few months, the undecided will break to McCain in a big way.
Obama has a great deal of work to do to convince voters that he is up for the job.
Remember, everything is good for Republicans...
Mike, after 5 years of watching Baghdad Bart in action you would think I'd know that by now.
And yet I still feel the urge to rub his face in the obvious stupidity of his never ending bullshit.
BTW, everything is hardly peaches and cream for the GOP.
The GOP will most likely lose 3-4 seats in the Senate to the Dems.
The GOP will not regain the House, but may regain some GOP districts which were lost in the lower turnout off year election.
I thought a slight edge for the Presidency would go to the Dems, but Obama is looking more and more beatable as time goes on.
Time will tell. There is an eternity until election day.
BTW, everything is hardly peaches and cream for the GOP
Understatement of the year.
The rightwingnut base despises McCain, and he is shackled to a rotting corpse that is the disaster in Iraq. Good luck with that!
thanks mark field, that's what I thought. now, if it's true that in the general it's first past the post for almost every state, wouldn't it be better for a party to have the same set up for primaries?
Anyone classified as a "Reagan Dem" cannot be considered part of the base...
Odds are not good that Republicans pick up many seats in the House.
The lineup for Obama appears to be the Dem left and independents.
This is mistaken. Vs. McCain, Obama will take all the Dem base -- they are precisely the kind of people who don't want 4 more years of Republican presidency.
Many of the independents who might tilt to McCain as a "maverick" (gag) are also going to be attracted to Obama. Stupid, I know, but stupid people's votes count just as much as smart people's do ... witness the 2004 election.
"shackled to a rotting corpse that is the disaster in Iraq."
I could sort of understand this kind of rhetoric a year ago, but lately it seems the better things go in Iraq, the more florid the left's rhetoric about how bad things are becomes.
Clinton is closing in total popular votes if not delegates. If this trend continues, Obama could go into the convention with a pledged delegate lead based on the vagaries of the caucus system while Clinton goes in with a lead in popular votes.
Who has the better argument for the super delegates in the opinion of the Dems here?
Yeah, I'm in favor of closed primaries (and was well before whatever happened yesterday).
In the "good news for Dems" dept., a new Wash.Post/ABC poll has Hillary leading McCain by 6 points nationally, and Obama leading McCain by 9 points.
Per a new Washington Post/ABC poll, both Hillary and Obama are leading McCain.
Way too early to mean a lot, but still encouraging.
Your poll does not interview likely voters or even registered voters, but rather adults, over half of whom are self identified Dems or Dem leaners.
These kind of Dem media garbage polls are meant to provide their Dem readership with encouragement. I believe similar polls had Kerry leading by double digits over George Bush.
In the only two polls of likely voters over at Realclearpolitics, McCain is leading Obama between 1 to 5 points with the previously deadly accurate Rasmussen tracking poll which picked up the Clinton surge having McCain leading by 5 points. Because they have a reputation to maintain, Realclearpolitics does not pollute its averaged with garbage polling of adults.
However, as you correctly point out, the race has a long way to go.
now, if it's true that in the general it's first past the post for almost every state, wouldn't it be better for a party to have the same set up for primaries?
Not necessarily. The two elections serve different functions. Primaries benefit when the entire party is engaged (just look at the turnout numbers for the Dems this year). They also rally the troops for the general election later. It's important to make all groups within the party feel that they've been heard. At the end of the day, the party tends to agree on the nominee despite the primary battles (there are exceptions, of course).
In discussing the national election, I'll assume the EC. That's the only way the issue makes sense. What we really should do is eliminate the EC and then we wouldn't have to worry about the issue in the general election.
In the national election, each state maximizes its own influence in the EC by a "first past the post" rule. They figured this out very early on -- by 1800 most states had adopted it and by 1825 all but SC had. While states could do this in the primary as well, the stakes aren't as high within the family, as it were, as they are when strangers are involved.
Anecdotal evidence of Republican turnoff:
Two individuals I know who are registered Republicans, talked to me shortly after Super Tuesday and talked about how the felt about the likely nominee, McCain.
The first said that he had been a Thompson supporter, then switched to Romney when Thompson dropped out. After Romney fell, he just didn't care anymore.
The second supported Huckabee, and was disappointed that he didn't do better, and she would sit out this one. She then asked me, in an excited voice, how cool it would be if Huckabee was chosen as veep. I indicated that I would run for the hills. She then sounded crestfallen and felt that it wasn't worth it to vote, because the choices left were so poor.
I could sort of understand this kind of rhetoric a year ago, but lately it seems the better things go in Iraq, the more florid the left's rhetoric about how bad things are becomes.
# posted by Brett : 6:02 PM
Unless I missed the news that we found the huge WMD stockpiles and we really haven't been pissing away lives and money for the last 5 years, then McCain is still shackled to a rotting corpse.
Speaking of being shackled to a corpse, did you rightwingnuts see the nice warm welcome that Iran's president got during his recent visit to Iraq?
The Dems should run tape of that visit in their commercials for the next 8 months.
"Unless I missed the news that we found the huge WMD stockpiles and we really haven't been pissing away lives and money for the last 5 years, then McCain is still shackled to a rotting corpse."
I'm kind of at a loss for the connection between finding WMD stockpiles, and things going relatively well in Iraq. It's that one track mind, I guess.
I'm kind of at a loss for the connection between finding WMD stockpiles, and things going relatively well in Iraq. It's that one track mind, I guess.
# posted by Brett : 11:07 PM
OK, I'll clue you in. We didn't invade Iraq to build schools, provide Iran with a friendly ally, and officiate a religious civil war for the next 5 years while pissing away lives and money. We invaded because of the "threat" of Iraq's WMD stockpiles. When it turned out that the WMD was completely imaginary, it meant that the entire enterprise was a colossal waste of lives and money.
The people with the one track minds are the clowns who is still trying to find ways to justify this disaster.
Just ignore bb when he gets going about Iraq. No matter what the facts are on the ground, bb will contend that the United States lost the war.
When confronted with the facts on the ground, bb will claim that we lost the war because we didn't find any WMD (ignoring the 500+ canisters of sarin and mustard gas we found) as if we lost WWII because Eisenhower did not find the Nazi super weapons he feared were in Bavaria at the end of the war.
Patent silliness which does not deserve a response.
Patent silliness which does not deserve a response.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:47 AM
And yet, here you are responding...
In any case, my "silly" views appear to be held by the majority of Americans. Despite the current "success" in Iraq, the poll numbers for your disaster are still in the toilet.
as if we lost WWII because Eisenhower did not find the Nazi super weapons he feared were in Bavaria at the end of the war.
Eisenhower didn't fear super weapons in Bavaria, you imbecile, he was afraid of a Nazi attempt to conduct a long-term insurgent war based in Bavaria. Imagine that. Too bad the rightwingnut idiots who got us into this mess didn't have the same sort of insight. Of course, if they did they wouldn't have started this war in the first place.
ignoring the 500+ canisters of sarin and mustard gas we found
Oddly enough, the idiots who got us into this mess are doing the same thing. That should tell you what kind of "weapons" we really found.
bart writes:
Just ignore bb when he gets going about Iraq. No matter what the facts are on the ground, bb will contend that the United States lost the war.
We so often judge others by what we secretly dislike about ourselves. The number of time you blatantly fabricate facts, distort them, or make entirely unfounded and specious statements and then when confronted with facts pretend those facts don't exist happen too often to count, but it happens in nearly every thread you get into.
ignoring the 500+ canisters of sarin and mustard gas we found
Bush made clear assertions that Saddam was currently working on WMDs at the time of the invasion. Do those munitions date to that time?
"Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
I am not going to get way off topic here on Iraq like bb. If you would like to discuss Iraq, I will set up an open thread on Iraq over at my blog here. Please post any comments you wish concerning Iraq and I will be glad discuss them.
I have the post review function on at my blog to keep spammers like bb from cursing, name calling and posting off topic simply to ruin the site, so your post may be delayed until I approve it. I have no doubt, though, that you and most of the crew here will keep it civil and on topic.
Baghdad, you are a lying sack of shit. I have made plenty of posts on your blog that are on topic and contain no cursing or name-calling (although it is quite comical for you to whine about name-calling...), and for some reason they never get posted.
Baghdad, why would someone go to your blog to kick your ass in front of no one when they can have others watch them kick your ass here?
[Bartbuster]: The people with the one track minds are the clowns who is still trying to find ways to justify this disaster [Iraq].
It's a war in search of a reason. Been just as successful (and as funny, whihc is to say, "not very") as Dubya looking for the WoMD under the table.....
["Bart"]: Just ignore bb when he gets going about Iraq. No matter what the facts are on the ground, bb will contend that the United States lost the war.
The U.S. can't win the war. Part of the problem is the issue above; the continued ignoring of the Powell Doctrine. Regardless how you slice it, whatever comes out can't be worth five plus years (or a hundred, if you listen to McCain), trillions of dollars, and the lives of four thousand U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
FWIW, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show summed things up quite nicely with video of Ahmadinejad's visit, outside the Green Zone, convoyed down the Highway of Death, no hovering Apaches or Marines in armoured vests, being greeted by children with flowers.... Nothing so starkly illustrates the eedjitcy of the Dubya policy than this TDS segment. Iran says thanks, "Bart". Really.
For other U.S. [read: "Condi and Dubya"] eedjitcy, see here.
Take it elsewhere to your blog or mine (link above). I thought we agreed with the Profs to keep on topic.
["Bart" DePalma]: I thought we agreed with the Profs to keep on topic.
"Bart" lecturing other on manners.... ROLFMAO.
"Bart", I'm just responding (in part) to what you said.
I have the post review function on at my blog to keep spammers like bb from cursing,
That's just not encouraging. I mean, given just here examples like an offhand comment about the 500+ canisters found in Iraq which was dismissed even by the WH spindocters (who spin more than the worst drug addicts). I know by previous posts you had to know that was bogus but you put it out as serious anyway. How is that not mischief?
Or, just asserting with such factual appearance where Obama spends his person and direct campaign time with respect to states in an obviously unfounded way appears to be discussion shenanigans. It looks like that because you appear to be a political aficionado and I feel compelled to believe that you know where to cite a source for that assertion but then you do not, and this leads me to the conclusion that such a statement is made solely for the purpose of discussion tomfoolery. This is how with every good argument you make you doubly hamstring yourself when you slide down the pole.
While Arne, for example, may employ a high degree of color in his expression, the substance of his argument is felt more so in citation and logic. One cannot rely on abstinence from flare and expletives as a means to reach substance of meaning; one must use actual meaning for that. This is by no means the harbor of any camp philosophical, political, or social since integrity, logic, and honesty have no home but like water are found by the perceptive observer everywhere.
Well, I would just dispute Professor Levinson's claim that the Republican race would go to the convention if not for their winner-take-all system. It would take a little longer, but neither Huckabee nor Romney would have had nearly enough delegates to drag the race out that long.
Tray: "...neither Huckabee nor Romney would have had nearly enough delegates..."
Y'know, I pray you're right. Nothing scares me so much as the thought that my "fellow" Americans could elect the likes of either of them to much of anything, much less the White House. And yet after these years of rule-by-terror (and make no mistake of it, the GOP has opportunistically capitalized on terrorism far more than AQ ever could) I just don't really have any faith left in the average American voter. Half the time I find myself wondering if I can learn enough Spanish to emigrate south in time.
@Bart: Nice pic of you with the backpack; much more natural than the one at your site. Sorry to talk of you in the 3rd person as I'm about to.
@Arne, looks like the fur's really flying here and on Brian's post. Let me say to Bart's credit that he seems to have learned from his experiences at Greenwald's. At his worst in the couple of years I've wrassled with him here Bart has often skirted the edge of good manners and respect due his hosts, and has pretty uniformly argued in the most illegitimate manner, but he has not, so far as I've seen, really reached the level of overt slander which he apparently reached at Greenwald's. Maybe this is a good thing, something we should encourage? Say, by only talking to him a) when we agree with him (it does happen) or b) when we think he's dealing straight (which, again, does happen.) Truth be told, on more than one occasion of late Bart's response to our hosts has been on target and neither terribly provocative nor controversial. It's a shame in such situations to have what increasingly feels like a personal obsession with Bart's past offenses (real or merely perceived) derail what might otherwise have been the kind of interaction I suspect you would prefer to have had in the first place.
I'm as guilty as any. I'm working on the plank in my own eye here. That's why I've taken to pro forma critiques when I think he's cheating; a quick nod to acknowledged methods of cheating and I can move on. And I've been happy to share a couple of pleasant exchanges. With Bart, as with you and me and pretty much everything else, I'm just trying to put my energy where it will feed that which I like rather than that which I don't. I like this blog, I'm thrilled that our hosts, a savvy lot, put their thoughts out here for the public to see _and_ let us chime in with our $.02. I'd like to feed that.
abu hamza: Maine and Nebraska allot all but two of their electors by district, and the other two according to the at-large plurality winner. The other states all have a winner-take-all system, by state law as Mark Field says. Federal law and the Constitution don't specify the details of how electors are assigned by the states.
Usually, there's no split between the electors in Maine and Nebraska, so it doesn't matter much that they allot electors proportionally. Interestingly, though, SurveyUSA just did a state-by-state "if the election were held today" poll that showed an elector split in Nebraska between McCain and Obama, if Obama were the nominee.
Come to think of it, I shouldn't have used the word "proportionally" to describe the Maine/Nebraska system; it's not proportional, it's by district.
Let's get back on topic, shall we?
If you look at the structure of the Dem primary system vs. the Republican primary system, it seems to me to reflect a difference in each party's view of what the primaries are supposed to accomplish. It's pretty clear the Republicans take an instrumental and somewhat narrow view of what the process is supposed to do. They think the purpose is to choose a candidate and do so with some finality. Hence the large number of "winner take all" states: the system magnifies the scope of a victory, which means a winner becomes a real winner even if the victory was narrow.
Dems seem to view the process as a vehicle for expression by its various constituencies, which will ultimately (hopefully) result in choosing a good candidate. So everyone has to be heard and every piece of the party has to have a seat at the convention, even if it means cacophony.
Neither approach necessarily is right or wrong. It totally depends on what you're trying to accomplish. What I will point out, though, is that in countries with more or less pure PR systems (e.g. Italy or Israel), the governments tend to be unstable and the political horse-trading needed to create a coalition creates all sorts of temptations to corruption.
In the US, with the first past the post, at least we know who is in charge and we have someone definite to blame.
Your assertion: "What I will point out, though, is that in countries with more or less pure PR systems (e.g. Italy or Israel), the governments tend to be unstable and the political horse-trading needed to create a coalition creates all sorts of temptations to corruption."
-- could really use a bit of evidence. What about England? What about Iceland? For corruption, it's hard to beat the governments which, like the current administration in the USA, spend a lot of effort preventing the Public from having any Relation to their actions.
You say: "In the US, with the first past the post, at least we know who is in charge and we have someone definite to blame."
And yet, oddly, the persons in charge have never been held to account for the litany of misdeeds, nor is it likely, at this point, that they ever will. How does that fit in with your theory?
c2h50h, England doesn't have a PR system. It has district representation and a parliamentary system. I'm not familiar with Iceland. "PR" means you vote for the party and the parliamentary seats are allocated based on percentage of vote. In principle, in a PR system you'll never have a mismatch of the national popular vote and the representation in parliament because the representation is calculated based on the popular vote. In district systems you can have a mismatch.
Italy has a PR system. It has had how many governments in the last 10 years? I know Israel has either never or almost never had a government serve its entire term since it became a state in 1948, and I also can tell you that the small parties shake down the big parties for all sorts of goodies as the price of joining the coalition - it's the sort of thing that makes US congressional earmarks look like clean government.
In terms of accountability in the US, there is plenty of it - you toss the rascals out in the next election. That's how our system enforces accountability.
I'm afraid I have to agree with c2h50h on that one, boldface.
When you say that the correctness of the approach is dependent upon "what you're trying to accomplish." That statement certainly resonates well with me; the context of any behavior is important for evaluating its success.
The metrics you end up choosing, however, are stability and corruption. The problem I have with this is that there are simply too many factors to single out the primary's design as the prime mover. For instance: if the members of a party were all honest and moral to a fault, would the proportional system automatically corrupt them?
PMS, you're confusing correlation with causation.
Beyond that, though, I think we have to return to the point of the post here. The structure of each party's primary process does reflect each party's priorities and values to some extent. They have made different tradeoffs. To my eyes it looks like the Reps valued definiteness and stability, and assumed that people will accept defeat and stay in the party so long as the rules are clear and the process fair. The Dems valued keeping everyone in the room even if they lost, and didn't assume people will stay put if they lose, so they are willing to live with more internal conflict.
I'm not sure why people think this is controversial.
@boldface: for every Israel there's a Netherlands; for every Italy there's more than one Sweden -- countries with proportional representation and effective government. Research studies that compare all PR systems to all winner-take-all systems instead of cherry-picking examples from each list (Arend Lijphart, Bingham Powell) make it pretty clear that PR works better than winner-take-call.
I would like to think Prof. Levinson for his original post. This natural experiment, as he calls it, is getting talked about a lot in the election reform circles I travel in. It's good to see such a clear exposition here as well.
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
2013 Beyaz Eşya modeller
Sizlere Güvenlik Sistemleri ayarliyoruz
Arayin Hırdavat bulun
Samsung Nokia İphone Cep telefonu alin.
Super Led Tv keyfi
Amatör Porno - Amcik Porno - Anal Porno - Asyali Porno - Bakire Porno - Erotik Porno - Esmer Porno - Fantazi Porno - Gay Porno - Götten Porno - Grup Porno - Hard Porno - HD Porno - Hemsire Porno - Latin Porno - Lezbiyen Porno - Liseli Porno - Olgun Porno - Oral Porno - Rokettube - Sarisin Porno - Sert Porno - Tecavüz Porno - Travesti Porno - Türbanli Porno - Türk Porno - Ünlü Porno - Yasli Porno - Zenci Porno - Kari Koca Porno - Hayvanli Porno
Obat Kencing NanahPost a Comment
Obat Sipilis
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Kencing Nanah Ampuh
Obat Kelamin Keluar Nanah
Obat Sipilis Pada Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
Balkin.com homepage
Cultural Software
The Information Society Project
Useful Links
Syllabi and Exams


text:
I received an invitation to a tamalada (a tamale-making party) recently. The party was in Seattle, which might seem like a long way to travel in order to cook with friends, but you don't know just how much I love tamales. Unfortunately, however, the trip couldn't happen due to conflicts with both work and my bank account. But this didn't stop me from making my own tamales here in New York City. And while I usually make savory tamales, this time I decided to make chocolate tamales instead.
I used to tell people that instead of a silver spoon, I was born with a tamale in my mouth. As often as I can, you'll find me eating a tamale, either unadorned or smothered in chili gravy. I've always been partial to shredded beef tamales, but I won't say no to pork, chicken, cheese or bean as I'm an equal-opportunity tamale eater. And there is really never a bad time to eat tamales, morning or night, spring or fall. But the best time to eat tamales is at Christmas.
In Texas and Mexico, it's a long-standing tradition for people to come together this time of year and spend all day making stacks of tamales, to be eaten during Christmas and shared with friends and family. I suspect one reason for this is because making them takes a lot of work—not hard work, mind you, but it's certainly time consuming. And since it's not an everyday activity, the more hands you have on hand the faster the tamale making goes. You have a house full of family? Put them to work!
I will admit that I did not start making my own until later in life—my family missed out on all the fun by buying their Christmas tamales. But from the first time I attended a tamalada, I was convinced that there is probably no better way to gather with friends—it's the ultimate dinner party.
Now, as much as I love to make tamales, my friends and I only get around to it once a year. But this doesn't stop me from eating tamales as often as I can and fortunately there are people who sell them near my apartment on Sundays.
Last week there was a new vendor hawking their sweet tamales. I'd never had a sweet tamale before, so curious how it would taste I ordered one. As the seller pulled the tamale from the steamer, I was alarmed at the color, which was a bright pink that I suspected had not been achieved naturally. (Though you can dye the masa and husks with hibiscus leaves.) And if that wasn't bad enough, the stuffing was candied pineapple and some chewy sweet green thing I couldn't identify. The tamale may have looked festive but it tasted terrible. It was the leaden fruitcake of tamales and like the fate of that much-maligned Christmas pastry, this dessert also ended up in the garbage bin.
But not all fruitcakes are inedible and I knew that a sweet tamale could be good as well. So I decided to make my own.
When I made the masa, I threw in sugar, cinnamon and vanilla to make it sweet and chucked in some chopped pecans and dried cherries as well. For the filling, I simply placed chocolate chips in the center of my masa before rolling my tamales.
The hardest part about making tamales is the wait—after all that stuffing and rolling, you still have to steam them for two very long hours in which your house will become fragrant with chocolate, cherries and pecans. It takes a lot of restraint to not whip off the lid of your steamer and grab a tamale. But please, control yourself. And yes, when they're ready, your patience will pay off when you peel off the corn husk and take a soft, chocolate-rich bite.
1 cup butter
1 ½ cups brown sugar
4 cups masa harina
1 tablespoon cinnamon
2 teaspoons vanilla
1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
1 teaspoon salt
2 cups water
2 cups milk
1 cup pecans, roasted and chopped
1 cup dried cherries, chopped
2 cups semi-sweet chocolate chips
Place the corn husks in a pan of water and submerge until completely covered. Let soak for 20 minutes or until soft and pliable.
Cream together the butter and the brown sugar.
Mix together the masa harina, cinnamon, vanilla, ground cloves and salt. Stir in the water and milk and combine until the masa harina is a moist paste.
Add the masa harina to the creamed butter and sugar and whip until fluffy. Stir in the pecans and dried cherries.
To form the tamales, take a corn husk, which you'll notice has four sides and is in sort of a cone shape. Place the corn husk in front of you, with the pointed end at your right. In the center of the husk, spoon out 1/4 cup of the masa and spread it leaving a clean border around the masa. Place one tablespoon of chocolate chips in the center of the masa.
Now, join together the two long sides (NOT the pointed side and the wide side) and then roll the husk until it's about the width of a cigar. Take the narrower, pointed end and fold it up about 1/4 way of the tamale. Alternatively, you can rip strips from a corn husk and after rolling tie up each end like it's a package.
In a large pot, place a steamer basket or a colander. Add water to the pot just to the base of the basket (don't let the water get into it). Place the tamales in the basket seam side down, bring the water to a boil and then cover the pot and turn the heat down to low.
Check the water level occasionally to make sure there's enough in the pot, and steam tamales for two hours. You'll know they're done when the masa pulls cleanly away from the husk.
Let them rest for a few minutes and then serve warm. I like to eat them as they are, but they're also good with a dollop of sour cream mixed with cinnamon, a bit of sugar and vanilla. Powdered sugar sprinkled on top of them is a treat as well.
32 tamales
Lisa Fain
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Chocolate tamales with pecans
54 comments:
- Kelly @ EvilShenanigans said...
Never had chocolate tamales, but they sound lovely! The pink one you bought ... not so much! BTW, I agree about edible Fruit Cake ... I posted one just a few days ago that was really nice! Anyway, I always buy my tamales at the holidays because I have so much other food to make, but one day I am going to make my own. It may not be at Christmas, but I will make some, darn it! :)
- bluejeangourmet said...
oooh, I've never had a sweet tamale before, but I love all of these flavors in a cookie, so why not a tamale?
we were invited to a tamalada here in Houston on Friday night but already had a Hanukkah party on the books, so I think I shall have to make my own as you did!
- Elise @ The Foodie Forkful said...
What a cool idea! I'm planning to make Cuban tamales this week (one of my favorite foods since I was a kid) but I've never considered a sweet tamale.
- VeggieGirl said...
Fun party and delicious treat! :)
- Nicole Lang said...
These look so wonderful Lisa! So perfect for traditional Christmas tamales, but with a delicious desserty twist!
- Whitney said...
We used to make tamales every year around Christmas and give a dozen or so too all the neighbors. Oh man were they good.
The flavors in the sweet tamale sound AMAZING. Wow.
- Maggie said...
Would love to know your recommendations for best tamales in New York (for those of us who are lazy...) Love the idea of a sweet tamale....
- Donna said...
I have the best memories of making tamales with my grandma and aunts back in Texas when I was so much younger! My grandma would make sweet tamales with cinnamon sugar and raisins. Oh so yummy! Thanks for posting chocolate tamales. I will have to try these. A total labor of love!
- Emily said...
One of the few Christmas Days I wasn't in Kentucky, I'd just moved to LA. The neighbors kept us up much of the night before with an argument that (we later learned) was the result of drinking an entire bottle of tequila. They brought us turkey tamales the next day as an apology - which were amazing, and a great twist on the holiday. These look even better!
- Gabriela said...
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with sweet pineapple tamales. I remember having scrumptious tamales de piña y tamales de fresa back when I lived in Los Angeles.
These chocolate tamles look great! Maybe I'll make a few this weekend to share with friends.
- Esmer said...
Not a huge chocolate fan (I know!) but the cinnamon-y masa reminds me of some sweet tamales I had once in a restaurant in San Angelo. They had raisins, pecans, coconut and other yummy stuff in the masa, so they weren't "filled". More like a little masa cake that had been steamed. They were delicious with a cup of coffee!
- ~Molly~ said...
Sweet mother of God!!! I must find some friends willing to help out with this. Or maybe I'll make the children do it!LOL
- Lisa (Homesick Texan) said...
Kelly--I loved your fruit cake recipe! And definitely gather some friends and family and have a tamalada--it's a total blast!
Blue Jean Gourmet--Yes, have your own! But if you can make it to both parties, I recommend it.
Elise--I don't think I've ever had Cuban tamales. Are they wrapped in banana leaves?
Nicole--Thank you! And yep, they're wonderful at the end of a meal, though I've been known to make a breakfast out of them as well.
Whitney--Giving tamales to your neighbor sounds like the best gift!
Maggie--I like the street vendors on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. There's also a woman who goes to Union Square Greenmarket real early on Saturdays who has delicious tamales. Momofuku Noodle Bar is now selling them late night. I haven't tried them but David Chang makes consistently good food.
Donna--I bet the raisins would be great in these as well!
Emily--Now that's odd, tequila usually makes people happy. But hey, I'd listen to people rant and rave all night for a batch of turkey tamales!
Gabriela--Perhaps I just need to try them again, made with more care.
Esmer--Coconut! I'll have to add that to my next batch.
- squirrelbread said...
You are my hero! My boyfriend and I moved to TX earlier this year, falling immediately in love with the tamale shop around the corner. I bought some corn husks and masa the other day -- hopefully I can put those to use soon!
- suzinoz said...
Wow. Thanks for the memories! We've spent many a Christmas making tamales as a family. It's such a fun tradition and the results...well, delicious! I really miss tamales. Mexican or Tex Mex is very hard to come by here in Australia, and when you do find some, it's usually of the taco, fajita, burrito type. No tamales! =( I might just have to start making my own. We'll see if I can find the ingredients!!
- Texasann said...
Ooohhhh, that sounds like an unbeatable combination. The young daughter of my Christmas tamale connection makes a queso fresco, jalapeno, tomato tamale that is my new favorite. Like you, I eat them any time of day.
I just printed your aunt's praline recipe. I have several bags of nuts in my freezer. Think I'll try walnut pralines and almond! maybe a 3 nut version. You always peak my cooking soul to be adventurous! Thank you, Lisa, and happy holidays!
- deebswriting said...
I also am pretty picky when it comes to sweet tamale fillings - cinnamon and raisins = yes, bright pink fake-strawberry flavor = no, thank you. But the best US/Mexico melting pot example, and my favorite sweet tamales by far, are filled with pumpkin. You can get them in Tucson and the filling seems to be something like pumpkin pie filling, but obviously not as runny. My friends in Guadalajara think this is the strangest thing ever, but I love them.
- Marissa said...
I am too far away to go to my family's tamalada but I just got an e-mail full of photos from it on Saturday. I miss living close to them!
- Marjorie said...
I love tamales, made them at a cooking class once and decided I prefer to buy them. Lazy I guess!
I made fruit cakes today and I really hate fruit cakes but Martha stewart made them last week and she made them sound, and look so delicious. I spent quite a lot of money making her recipe, guess what? I still hate fruitcake.
- Memória said...
I've never heard of a chocolate tamal (the singular form of "tamales" is actually "tamal" :D)! Wow. Very interesting. Your tamal looks delicious. I have been planning on making savory tamales for Christmas this year, but I'm lacking a tamal steamer pot.
- apronless said...
I thought I didn't like tamales until this month. That's when I had a good tamal.
Inspired by that experience and now this drool-inducing post, I may just have to have a tamale party with savory and sweet types this month!
- susan said...
being the daughter of an texas oilman who moved around the world, we began a tradition early in my life that for christmas dinner we would eat mexican food. it manifested itself in different ways in different countries, but no matter where we were- homemade tamales were an order of business in december. My parent would stow away masa and husks in our summer visit home luggage and save them untill december. I have memories making flour tortillas in northern scotland, and my parents tamaladas in jakarta. Mexican food is Christmas food, and now I am dying to try these sweet tamales!
- Farmer Jen said...
Never had sweet tamales before, but I will try these. They sound good!
- Kim said...
again, thank you for another mouth watering recipe! i live in new mexico, and it is also a tradition to make tamales for the holiday season. having lived in new york too, i'd never heard of fresh masa until i moved here, and i now use that to make my tamales!
can't wait to make them! thank you again for making my mouth water! :) kim
- Tasty Eats At Home said...
Oh man, these sound amazing! I've never had a sweet tamale, but it's not hard for me to imagine - I've used masa in other sweet baked goods. Wondering if I can fit these in to my holiday sweet treats schedule!
- Alejandro said...
I love reading your recipes and always look forward to receiving your newsletter. I read this recipe and wondered how different they were made compared to the ones we make. We make the masa as usual (prepared masa, shortening, and hot water), but we add dried pineapples, raisins, and coconut. I know we'll be trying these out this season! Thank you!
- Claire said...
What a fun idea Lisa. I have had good tamales from Mexicans who have moved up to Washington State for orchard work. I have had bad tamales from restaurants in Washington State (until I stopped ordering them). I have never had a sweet tamale though. Sounds delicious. Do you think it would be as good with shortening instead of butter and coconut milk instead of milk? I have a dairy allergy, and would love to try making these.
Also, I love the idea of a tamalada. It would be great fun to have a party making both savory and sweet tamales! Food parties are so much fun!
Thanks for the idea.
- Lisa (Homesick Texan) said...
Molly--Put the children to work!
Squirrelbread--I hope you can, too--making tamales is such fun!
Suzinoz--I think you definitely need to start making your own and show those Ozzies how it's done!
Texann--I don't think I've ever had tomatoes in a tamale, I'll have to try that! And enjoy the pralines--they're delicious!
Deebswriting--Pumpkin sounds like it would be a fantastic filling.
Marissa--You need to have on in Seattle!
Marjorie--Good to know that even Martha's fruitcake is not very good!
Memória-Oh, I know--I'm just speaking Texan and not Spanish! And while the pot helps I do mine in a tall soup pot with a steamer basket.
Apronless--You definitely need to have the tamalada. And if it's in two weeks I just may crash it!
Susan--What a wonderful tradition! I can't think of a better way to feel close to home when you're far flung.
Farmer Jen--If you like chocolate and nuts you should like these.
Kim--Fresh masa is difficult to find in NYC--I think there's only one place that makes it. But it's so superior to the masa harina--the tamales are fluffier and richer.
Tasty Eats At Home--If you don't have time for them in your schedule, they'll certainly taste good any other time of year as well.
Alejandro--I definitely need to add coconut next time!
Claire--I think they would be fantastic with shortening and coconut milk!
- natanya said...
I grew up in El Paso so like you I might as well have been born with a tamale in my mouth (or maybe a gordita - it's a toss-up). I've made chocolate and cherry tamales where the chocolate is mixed into the masa (http://feteandfeast.com/2007/12/31/chocolate-yep-that%e2%80%99s-right-%e2%80%93-chocolate-tamales/), but I really love the idea of a more traditional masa with chocolate as part of the filling. We always have Mexican food for Christmas Eve and I think I'll add your tamales to our dessert menu. Thanks for sharing.
- Troy said...
I love your recipes! The chewy green thing in the pink sweet tamale may have been candied cactus (called acitron or biznaga). Cheers!
- "Guppy" Honaker said...
I LOVE tamales. Pecans and chocolate - you are a person after my own heart!
Aloe Vera 101
- Beatriz said...
My Mom can wip up some tamales in no time. When i was pregnant with my first daugther, I asked her to make me some chicken tamales before I had that baby. She started at 10:00 p.m boiling the chicken and preparing the masa. by 11:00 p.m, I was eating about 10 tamales, she makes the best. At 12:00, I had my first labor pain.
By the way, unless you are steaming a huge pot, I do not think you need to wait for 2 hours. Try to get the water boiling before you add it to the pot. Tamales will be very soft at the beginning (I love them like that) but will harden when cooler. An hour aprox. will be enough for 32 tamales, maybe less. I have steamed a couple dozens in 20 to 30 min. You may gently undo a tamal and check for uncooked masa). And may wrap it again. You will not mess it up after an hour.
- Teri said...
I want to come over for a tamalada! I just stumbled across your blog as I was looking for a mint chocolate cookie recipe and then got sidetracked...
I was raised in Texas and now live in PA. I miss Mexican food, so your blog totally appealed to me! My (step)dad just made tamales last weekend (I have yet to learn how to make them) and I ate some last night. The weird thing is I juts had a conversation with him about learning to make them and how they are a long process etc etc...then I find this blog post the same day!
Ok rambling....anyway what a novel idea to make sweet tamales. Sounds delish...but I need to learn to make the regular ones first I think haha
- thecosmiccowgirl said...
lisa, these look wonderful. i made some of alice tapp's chocolate tamales last year. i pushed them on everyone i could find. i thought they were lovely. i agree they would make a great breakfast, almost reminded me of a chocolate croissant. i love the addition of nuts and fruit, too!
- Tommy said...
Thanks for letting me know that sweet tamales exist.
Now that I have found a Mexican grocery store here in Toronto that carries many of the ingredients you use in your recipes, it is going to make things so much easier.
Who would have thought that corn husks and real Mexican dried chiles would get me so excited ?
- Laine Moore said...
Just wanted to say Thank You for giving me all those restaurant recommendations for San Antonio :)
Those look delish!!
- Kevin said...
I really like the sound of sweet tamales!
- Melissa said...
These sound amazing, and now I'm thinking that coconut suggestion was brilliance but might need a smear of dulce de leche...
- Andrea said...
I love (LOVE) tamales. I've never made a sweet one and intended to make a few with chocolate when I made red chili pork tamales today. Sadly, I forgot to get the chocolate, but it's on my list for next time. Thanks for this post!
- skatej said...
Sadly, though raised by a Houstonian who was raised by San Angelo farm stock, I never tasted a tamal before college, when my boss basically force-fed me one. Mom's a picky eater. I LOVE them though!
- lizmarsden said...
Hi Lisa,
that sounds delicious, if I ever visit America I'll have to try these! Is there a substitute for cornhusks (perhaps baking paper?) as we don't have them in dried form in the UK - I'd have to buy 32 corn on the cob!
- Christine Medifast said...
I've never actually had tamales before, but think it is nearing that time that I do. This recipe sounds delicious for a first tamale attempt!
Wish me luck,
- Devon said...
You had me with the title. How nice would one of those be with a glass of red wine? That's how I want to for a long day of work.
- Lisa (Homesick Texan) said...
Natanya--I think your chocolate tamales sound pretty dandy as well!
Troy--Ah! When you call it candied cactus it sounds quite delicious!
David--Pecans and chocolate are indeed an excellent combination. Thank you!
Beatriz--What a great story! Thanks for the tip. Next time I make them I'll check them after half an hour and see if they're ready.
Teri--Welcome! It's great to meet you! And I don't think it matters if you start with sweet or savory--making tamales isn't hard at all!
TheCosmicCowgirl--I think I prefer them for breakfast--they go so well with a cup of coffee.
Tommy--Now that y'all have a Mexican grocery store in Toronto, surely the taco trucks can't be far behind!
Laine--You're very welcome. It' a good eating town.
Kevin--They do sound good, don't they!
Melissa--Oh, yes!
Andrea--You're welcome. And those red pork chili tamales sound pretty amazing as well.
Skatej--I'm sorry you had to wait so long, but it sounds like it was worth the wait.
LizMarsden--You can use parchment paper in place of the husks or you can order corn husks from mexgrocer.co.uk.
Christine--Good luck! I know you'll do very well.
Devon--Never thought of that but I bet they would pair well with a glass of red wine. Great idea!
- FJK said...
I recently made my own Hanukkah tamales -- beef tzimmes tamales.
It was my first time making tamales but not my last. Thanks for the inspiration. I look forward to trying your sweet version.
- Anonymous said...
Masa Harina to make tamales? Like to use regular masa from the tortilla factory.
Never had a good experience eating sweet tamales. But this receipe sound great! I am going to have to make them during our regular/yearly (12/24) tamale making.
I love tamales. Thanks for the recipe!
- the fashionable traveler said...
Talk about a homesick Texan. For me tamales and christmas go hand in hand. I was sad to miss my cousin's tamalada last week. Can't wait to try the chocolate tamales.
- heathereater said...
I think I am in LOVE! All of your recipes are just too tempting to ignore... For this specific recipes is it ok to stack the tamales to cook them or do I make seperate batches every 2 hours...?
- Roxc said...
So you wouldn't reccomend using premade pink or yellow masa bought from the store?
- Lisa (Homesick Texan) said...
Roxc--You could use it if you prefer.
- Yvonne said...
A quicker way to steam your tamales is to cook them in a pressure cooker. use a steamer basket on the bottom with just enough water not to touch the basket, then fill your tamales in and cook on high till the pressure top is dancing then reduce heat and cook on about medium for about 20 min, they turn off the heat and cool till you can open the cooker, then pull out and let them cool, they will be firm. I make dozens of tamales all by myself all in a days time.
- Candela said...
We made these today! My husband says they're an abomination, but a tasty one. Fabuloso!
- Anonymous said...
Replace the pecans with raisins, and you have yourself a little taste of heaven.
-Nathan Kelly
- Meg Saunders said...
My sister and I made tamales for the first time in our life this past weekend. We decided to mix-it up a bit and used "creative" recipes for our batches of tamales: chicken pot pie tamales and the Homesick Texan's chocolate tamale recipe. OMG. I'm very glad we found the HST's tamales recipe.The reviews for the chocolate tamales are off-the-charts positive. I've been snacking on warm choco. tamales at work and, as I slowly bring out the dish from the microwave, I receive so many compliments about the aroma. I feel bad that I'm hording and not sharing the delicious dessert with others, but I justify this by saying this is a test batch: I am conducting a "taste test" to see how well the tamales hold up in the microwave. I must report that the choco tamales are holding up very well so far. We'll definitely be making the HST's recipe again. Thank you so much for sharing this decadent recipe, Ms. Homesick Texan.
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated to avoid spam. If you don't have a blog, please leave your name as it makes it friendlier that way! Also, please don't leave a link in the body of your comment. If you wish to direct us to your personal site, use that link when you sign in to comment. Thank you for reading and joining the conversation!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hi all!
I have the pleasure of muddling up Fuketsu's Iron Ox with you all.
Not sure what an iron ox is exactly, but then I am a lot like the axe man
In this case Fuketsu says his bit and Rohi steps up to the plate and says, yeah I get it! In his shoes I can see how that would seem to make sense, but if you are "ready for the seal" then you already have it - bringing forth to see it, its gone. Saying nothing, its gone.
So Fuketsu says his very direct bit to Rohi:
Used to as I am to scouring the ocean and catching whales, I regret that instead, there's a frog floundering in the mud.
an invitation for Rohi to "put his money where his mouth is" How could he have possible got out of the mud he jumped into?
Rohi pauses and the seal vanishes, in that moment between Fuketsu's statement and Rohi's pause there was the mark.
Fuketsu encourages Rohi to respond, a pause and the iron ox is vapourized. (but the stick and whisk seem to come to life!)
So the governor thinks he's got it and says as much and when asked to proceed further, he loses balance and drops.
In the modern example The manager does what ever is needed, when ever to keep things going smoothly with out concern of above or below them keeping things going. When the axe drops only then, does the upper management realize her function.
There is fine line here to me, perhaps the manager could have kept her job, in the modern example and spared the failure of projects negatively impacting clients, staff and the company by "being of rank" once in a while?
Balancing the absolute, being fluid and transparent, with the relative, she is the "boss" for that section helping out where needed but occasionally allowing folks to flounder for their greater benefit.
The modern example speaks volumes to me as this is my job. In my line of work I do exactly as she does, I help where ever I am needed, how ever. I wouldn't ask folks to do something I wouldn't myself do and I demonstrate that by jumping in when ever, where ever with out being asked. That said, in doing that, it sometimes leads others to not meet their full potential and they slack a bit, knowing I will pick it up, or my own duties get pushed aside and my upper management becomes displeased.
I was given some wise advice in that, sometimes its best to let something fail then to constantly come to aid. If we do not let it fail, how will we know where the problem lies and how to best fix it.
Anywho, I couldn't really come up with questions, so I ask all of us to reflect on a couple of things;
In Rohi's shoes how would you have answered?
Myself, I would be still be getting whacks from the whisk and the stick.
So When you are ready for the seal, will it leave a band for everyone to see and admire or will it be hidden from everyone, including yourself?


text:
Size:  (small)
Additional Hints
(No hints available.)
No attributes available
Advertising with Us
There are no Trackables in this cache.
View past Trackables
What are Trackable Items?
12 1
View Logbook | View the Image Gallery of 5 images
**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.
Current Time: 11/25/2017 3:36:10 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) (11:36 AM GMT)Last Updated: 2017-11-15T23:48:19Z on 11/15/2017 3:48:19 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) (11:48 PM GMT) Rendered From:UnknownCoordinates are in the WGS84 datum


text:
Kansas Reading authors to appear at Town CrierOctober 20, 2011
The Flint Hills Council of the Kansas Reading Association is joining with Emporia State University to host the 2011 Kansas Reading Association State Conference Thursday and Friday of this week. The conference theme is "Literacy Changes Everything!" The conference celebrates Kansas readers and writers.
A special feature of the conference is a session with seven Kansas authors: Roy Bird, Beverley Olson Buller, Lisa Harkrader, Paul Miles Schneider, Roderick Townley, Wyatt Townley, and Andrea Warren. In addition to their appearance at the conference, the authors will be at Town Crier Bookstore to sign copies of their books starting at 4 p.m. on Friday, October 21. The public is invited to get acquainted or reacquainted with these Kansas authors.
Check out our students' achievements and accomplishments on Emporia State's meritpages.com site


text:
Emsam Patch, Transdermal 24 Hours
This information is generalized and not intended as specific medical advice. Consult your healthcare professional before taking or discontinuing any drug or commencing any course of treatment.
Medical warning:
Severe. These medicines may interact and cause very harmful effects and are usually not taken together. Contact your healthcare professional (e.g. doctor or pharmacist) for more information.
How the interaction occurs:
The cause of the interaction is not known.
What might happen:
The effects of this interaction are not known.
What you should do about this interaction:
Contact your healthcare professionals (e.g. doctor or pharmacist) as soon as possible about taking these two medicines together. They may already be aware of this interaction and may be monitoring you for it. Do not start, stop, or change the dosage of any medicine before checking with them first.
1.Iopidine (apraclonidine) US prescribing information. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. April 6, 2017.
2.Ramsay RR, Dunford C, Gillman PK. Methylene blue and serotonin toxicity: inhibition of monoamine oxidase A (MAO A) confirms a theoretical prediction. Br J Pharmacol 2007 Nov;152(6):946-51.
3.Peter C, Hongwan D, Kupfer A, Lauterburg BH. Pharmacokinetics and organ distribution of intravenous and oral methylene blue. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000 Jun;56(3):247-50.


text:
We are currently searching "Store" for your search term.
If you'd like to search another section of our website,
please select another section from the drop down list.
$10 Credit is Applied on You Account
When Your friend place his first order.
Plus you will receive additional $5
For every 20 items that friend will
Active Filters:
You have no items to compare.
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I ordered (and received) the Home Mat. I have been decorating cakes for just under a year, as a hobby, for family and friends. I have used The Mat 3 times and have to say this is the best decorating tool that I have purchased. I really enjoy working with fondant and The Mat has taken all the guess work out of how much fondant to use and eliminated having to constantly measure the size that I've rolled out. I love The Mat and am so happy I ordered it. Greatest invention ever! Thank you so much.
Kind regards,
You have no items in your shopping cart.
2 Item(s)


text:
2ND XI: All Wells that ends Wells as Second Eleven win two again30-May-2012
Sussex made it two wins out of two for the second day running in the Second Eleven t20 tournament as they saw off the MCC Young Cricketers at Horsham CC.
In the first clash the MCC won the toss and elected to field. This saw Sussex run up a score of 175 all out from their 20 overs. The two top-scorers for the hosts were openers Luke Wells (53) and Matt Machan (59) who put on 99 for the first wicket. Former Sussex Academy bowler Jordan Rollings was the star with the ball for the visitors, taking 5 for 24 from his four overs.
In reply there was also a five-for for the Sussex attack as Will Beer starred, also taking 5 for 24. The MCC never really looked in the chase and two wickets apiece for both Chris Liddle and Michael Rippon added to their woe. The visitors reached 117 all out as Sussex won by 58 runs.
In the second match, both sides increased their score with the bat except this time it was the hosts won the toss and elected to take to the crease. Wells again hit a half-century, scoring 61 whilst Will Adkin hit 42 from only 29 balls. Jamie Hoddle, the son of former England football manager Glenn, took 4 for 32.
This time the MCC got closer to Sussex's target but the same result ensued as Sussex held out for a 23 run victory. Rippon was again in good form with the ball taking 3 for 26 whilst Liddle claimed two wickets for the second successive match. Henry Nicholls did show promise with the bat for the visitors though as the opener smashed 74 from 41 balls.
Four wins out four over two days in the t20 tournament for the Second Eleven and they're next in action on Friday 1st June when they take on rivals Surrey at the Kia Oval (11.30am start).
Match 1: Sussex CCC 2nd XI 175 all out (20.0 overs) MCC YCs 117 all out (17.5 overs)
Match 2: Sussex CCC 2nd XI 182 for 6 (20.0 overs) MCC YCs 159 for 7 (20.0 overs)


text:
- Home 4 beds 2.5 baths, 2,609 sf, 4,069 sf lot
No agent description available.
- - Built 2010 ...less
04/10/2015 Off Market$550,0003 years ago
Join thousands using Open Listings to make buying a home easier and more affordable
Play video
"All done and I couldn't be happier"
Alexis Ohanian, Co-Founder Reddit
$20K+ Refund
"The 50% commission refund paid our closing costs"
The Honeyfield Family
$5K+ Refund
"Fantastic to work with. Highly recommended!"
Jesse K.
$10K+ Refund
"They offer the best rebate I've seen anywhere"
Ken P.
$9K+ Refund
School rankings provided by Niche. Updated 4/12/17. School information is to be used as reference only. To verify enrollment eligibility for a specific property, contact the school or the local school board.
Tools designed to give you and edge in any market


text:
We create a uniquely fun experience that combines contemporary pictures AND one-of-a-kind picture gifts. No more boring, old fashioned pictures here! We are changing the face of portraits...forever. Have you heard of us? If not...YOU WILL! Currently, we have over 300 stores, and are growing rapidly nationwide. Which means GREAT growth opportunities for YOU!
Why apply today?
*Fast pace and fun!
*Competitive pay
*Plus bonus opportunities
*Excellent career track
*Sales contest awards
*Get to wear jeans everyday!
*50% discounts!
*Paid training program
*Driving sales and meeting daily sales goals
*Following up on customer service needs
*Taking and developing portraits / capturing lifetime memories
*Servicing our all-important customers
*Contributing to company wide success!
*Must be at least 18 years of age to apply.
* Experience with sales and/or customer service
* Flexible availability
* Able to multi-task
* High energy
* Excellent communicator, and highly organized
* Interest in learning portrait photography (some experience or schooling a plus but not required)
GrooveJob.com verifies all part time jobs and hourly jobs contained in our database but does not guarantee the validity or accuracy of information contained in the database. It is the job seeker's responsibility to independently review all posting companies and job opportunities.