How elections go down: a key determinant of Core v. Gap status
■"A New Election For Ukrainians Appears Likely: Reordering of Political Power Is Under Way," by Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, 2 December 2004, p. A1.■"U.S. To Increase Its Force In Iraq By Nearly 12,000: Many Tours Lengthened; Elections in January and Insurgents' Resiliency Cited as the Reasons," by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, New York Times, 2 December 2004, p. A1.
The Ukraine is in the Core because it can suffer the sort of election fraud it endured in this recent presidential election and, despite plenty of firepower and anger on both sides, this whole thing is likely to be resolved in the most logical of ways: with courts, new elections rules, and a new election itself. Beyond that there is serious movement toward shifting power from the president to the legislative branch led by a more robust prime minister—all of which sounds good.
Yes, there was noise about a territorial split, and frankly, that's all it was—noise. Instead, people voiced anger the old-fashioned way—with their voices. They voiced them in mass media, on the streets, and in political backrooms. And it looks like all that talking is doing the trick.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon announces it needs to plus up its troop strength in Iraq by another 12,000. Is the insurgency that bad? The question is really, How bad can the insurgents make the election? The military has a saying: you want it bad, you get it bad—and we want this election bad.
But clearly, if you have to worry about the insurgents disrupting an election, you're probably in the Gap. Whereas, if all it takes to rerun a disputed election is a bunch of peaceful street demonstrators and rallies with fireworks (of the non-lethal kind), then buddy, you might just be living in the Core!