Is the Electoral College "Fair"?

Is the Electoral College a fair way to decide who gets elected President of the United States? I guess it depends on what you mean by fair. First, a little history:

When the founders were putting together the Constitution, the framework for the governance of the United States, they did not really trust direct democracy. This distrust derived from several assumptions. James Madison warned about the rise of "factions"; he envisioned a single-issue faction growing to more than 50% and imposing its will on the rest (the tyranny of the majority). In general, the founders did not trust "the people" to always make the correct decisions and set up an additional layer in the Presidential election system “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” according to Alexander Hamilton. You can see the distrust for the will of the people in the early practice of Senators being chosen, not by direct election, but by appointment of state legislatures and by the restriction of the franchise to white landowners. The other influence on the creation of the electoral college was the fact that most people in that time viewed themselves more as citizens of their state than as "Americans". The United States under the Articles of Confederation was just that - thirteen "states" (state being back then more commonly applied to a sovereign nation than a subdivision of a larger country) - bound together by mutual treaties to act in concert, more like the European Union than the United States of today. Due to that attitude, much attention was paid to the rights of states, rather than individuals. Much was made of the more populous Northern states dominating the less populous Southern states, which is how we ended up with a Senate, which gave equal representation to each state, while the House of Representatives was proportional by population. Even within the House of Representatives, even the most sparsely populated states receive at least one representative, and are not joined together in one Congressional district with another state. It's interesting that state legislatures used to operate this way, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional, that it violated the principle of one man, one vote. 

When it came to organizing the electoral college, the principle of recognizing the distinctness of each state still held. Each state was assigned a number electors equal to the number of Congressional Representatives and Senators. In practice, 48 states award all of their electoral votes to whoever receives the most votes within the state (not necessarily a majority). Even the two that don't, break it down by Congressional district and award two votes to the overall state winner. 

Since we have had two elections in recent memory where the winner of the popular vote was not the winner in the Electoral College, there has been renewed concern. Admittedly, it's usually supporters of the candidate who lost in the Electoral College that make the most fuss, but it's a legitimate concern. 

One of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College is that with direct election, highly populous regions or urban areas would hold an undue influence on the result, that by focusing on ten or twelve large metropolitan areas, candidates would ignore rural areas and smaller cities. But how is that different than what we have now? The large cities in California dominate over the small cities and rural areas and take all of the state's 55 electoral votes. New York City is  much more Liberal/Democratic than the rest of the state and their population negates the more Conservative/Republican votes in the rest of New York. Nebraska is all but ignored, with our five measly electoral votes, safely in the R column, not really worth the effort of campaigning here. (Although in a close election, campaigning for that one vote in District 2 happens on occasion). No matter what system that we use, states with higher populations (and hence populous urban areas within those populous states) will have more influence. However, in the current system, rural states receive proportionally more influence, since every state is guaranteed a minimum of three electoral votes. A state with three electoral votes has 0.56% of the electoral votes, while Wyoming, which has three electoral votes, has only 0.17% of the nation's population. 

The difference in a direct election system is that the votes in say, New York City, will not negate the votes in upstate New York. Every vote in the state will contribute toward the result. 

I believe part of the fondness in some quarters for the Electoral College, other than "my guy won", is an attachment for the concept that we're primarily citizens of different, unique states, not primarily Americans. 

No matter what system we use, some areas will have more influence than others, no matter what system we use, candidates will campaign in areas where the most votes are, the difference with a direct election system is that the votes of the Republican rural potato farmer in upstate New York will count exactly the same as the vote of the Democratic schoolteacher in New York City; the liberal college professor's vote in Lincoln Nebraska will count the same as the rancher in the Panhandle. The vote in near-the-Arctic Circle Alaska will have as much influence as a vote in Los Angeles. I saw a map this morning (pictured to the right)which purported

to show that half of the US population lived in the counties shaded in blue. This map was used as an argument that we should retain the Electoral College, since these small geographical areas had more influence than the rest of the vast stretches of the nation. To this I say "so what?" If there's more people in an area, that area should have more votes. England in the early 1800's had what was called "rotten boroughs", where parliamentary districts shrunk in population, but the law made no provision for changing election district boundaries as population changed. The Wikipedia page on rotten boroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs lists eight districts with less than 50 voters, two with only seven! The law was changed in 1832 to reflect population changes. Of course, this is not exactly the situation in the United States, but we do have a system where one person's vote counts for more than another's simply because of where that voter lives. 

The one objection that I have for scrapping the electoral college in favor of direct election is operational. Right now, most states' elections are not that close and recounts are rare. When the majority of states show a clear winner, it isn't even necessary to count all the votes. For instance, if Nebraska has counted 92% of the ballots, and Trump is ahead 70% - 30%, there just aren't enough votes in that 8% of uncounted ballots to make a difference. Currently, we count them all, but we concede that Trump has won that state long before all the votes are in. In a close race under direct election, what might trigger a recount? What would be recounted? I believe that five days after the election, we're still counting votes from Election Day. How long does it really take to count all the votes? Better election day security and modernization of balloting and counting, as well as better fail-safes and paper trails would be necessary before a direct election could take place.

One probable side effect of switching to direct election of the President might be the proliferation of third parties. One of the main impediments to a third party presidency is the electoral college. In very few instances has an independent candidate gotten any electoral votes. A third party contender, even while losing, might garner enough votes to be able to receive support for future runs. Right now, the prospect of zero electoral votes discourages serious candidates. Some would welcome competition to the two major parties, others point to the sometimes chaotic elections in European countries or in Israel, where there are a dozen parties, many of them single-issue, all competing for votes, where governments can only form when two or more parties form a coalition.

All in all, what is "fair" is for the person who receives a majority of votes cast should be elected as President (maybe a runoff? - but that's an argument for another day). I'm not suggesting that the results of this election be overturned, or that the electors not vote according to the will of the voters in their states - Trump won the election by the rules that were in place at the start of the election - but that we seriously consider changing the rules so that every vote counts, and counts equally. 

Make America Great Again?

As slogans go "Make America Great Again" did the trick. It was short, not difficult to remember, easy to chant at rallies, and most importantly, completely meaningless.

The whole premise underlying "Make America Great Again" was that at one time America was great. Other presidents, especially the liberal Democrats, made America not-great. Donald Trump would erase all that not-greatness since he alone had the deal-making ability to fix it all. After two plus years of Trump, apparently America is great again since the new improved slogan for 2020 is "Keep America Great". This causes me much flummoxation (yes, I created that word all by myself). If America in 2016 was so anti-great, as Trump laid out for us in his inaugural address referring to "carnage", among other things, are we really supposed to believe that he reversed all the horribleness that he railed against? A charitable examination of his record shows that he signed a lot of executive orders, mostly reversing a lot of President Obama's executive orders, primarily negating environmental and safety regulations; declawed the individual mandate in the ACA; and worked with the Republicans in Congress to ram through an ill-considered tax code change that didn't come close to achieving what was advertised. Although, if you believe his claims, the last two years were a time of historic accomplishments. He also regularly claims credit for others' accomplishments (The Veterans Choice Act was signed into law in 2014 by President Obama after being pushed through Congress by Sen. John McCain, yet Trump claims that he accomplished it) So, it stands to reason that if America was such a mess in 2016, it's still a mess.

One of the things about politics is in order to unseat an incumbent, or the incumbent's party, you have to make a good case that things are bad enough that the country needs a change. If the Republicans are in power, the Democrats are going to paint a picture of a broken system that they are qualified to repair, and the reverse is true when Democrats are in power. Partisans are also going to get offended when the other party points this out and suggest that the other guy isn't patriotic, that he "hates America". Some of you may remember the outcry in 2008 when Michelle Obama said that she was "finally proud to be an American" during the 2008 election cycle. While Mrs. Obama was clearly talking about what she perceived as an atmosphere of hope in the context of a black man being a serious contender for the presidency, she caught a lot of flack for suggesting that she wasn't proud to be an American prior to that. Republicans were outraged, Democrats shrugged. The opposite of the reactions to Trump declaring that America was a wasteland.

Of course there's the question of how to define greatness. Trump pines for a time without "political correctness", where casual, systemic bigotry and misogyny were accepted. He's nostalgic for a time when we got our way by employing our military to threaten other nations into compliance with our will. A time where there was de facto apartheid.

"Make America Great Again" is a mindlessly repeated slogan without any concrete meaning. 

Enemy of the People

One of the most insidious positions that Trump has staked out is his characterization of the majority of the media as "enemies of the people".

Of course he isn't the first president to have problems and disagreements with elements of the press. Newspapers and television stations are going to report on what's happening, their opinion writers and commentators are going to give their opinion about what's happening. Not all of what's reported is going to flatter the president. Opinions will be at variance with what comes out of the Oval Office. Analysts and economists will reach different conclusions. None of this new.

What is new is that Trump's style begs for attention. His constant tweeting, as well as the out-in-the-open disagreements and sometimes outright feuding give the media plenty of grist for their mills. And don't forget that media outlets are not charities or nonprofits, they are for-profit businesses that need to outshine their competitors in order to turn a profit. So if some "insider" leaks information that paints the president in a bad light, someone is going to publish it, especially if it fits what we see publicly.

Trump's view of everybody, not just the free press, is that they exist primarily to support him and his agenda (if one can call something as vague and changeable as his utterances an agenda). Judges are only legitimate if they confirm his decisions; Congressional Republicans are disloyal if they disagree with him or speak out against him; Congressional Democrats "hate America"; bipartisanship means both sides doing what he wants them to do. He thinks that the press should act as a cheerleader for him and his actions. Since they don't, and he equates what he wants with what is best for America, in his mind, the press is obviously the enemy.

I read a lot of news reports, from a lot of different sources. Other than overtly partisan outlets, virtually all articles that I have read since Trump declared his candidacy have been neutral. By neutral I don't mean that they don't contain negative information about Trump. Take for example the recent Congressional testimony by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. If a paper reported that Cohen claimed that Trump was a racist and a con man, was this a negative article? If it was reported that Jim Mattis resigned as Defense Secretary and put in his resignation latter that he had differences of opinion regarding defense policy with Trump, would that be a negative article? If CNN reports record stock valuations and record low unemployment is that positive reporting? No, these are all examples of reporting. What Trump wants isn't reporting, he wants puff pieces lauding his decisions and his historic this and record that.

Trump is very much a "if you're not for me, you're against me" kind of guy. Since the media isn't behaving the way he wants them to, they're his enemies. And since he fancies himself as the "people's president", protector of the working man, therefore they're the enemies of the people as well. Trump also recognizes, as someone who has had his own pre-political reputation enhanced by the media, that the media can damage his repudiation as well. To counteract this, he does what he does to anyone who crosses him: he attacks them and their credibility. And among his core supporters, it's worked.

But it's one thing to question the accuracy of reporting, even his constant refrain of "fake news" doesn't rise to the level of "dangerous".

Calling the free press, or anyone for that matter, an "enemy of the people" is dangerous. Despite his disingenuous explanation that he's only calling "fake news" (which apparently is everyone other than Fox) the enemy, he has so effectively labelled news media as traitorous that those covering Trump rallies are in danger of being assaulted (in fact a cameraman at a rally was recently assaulted). Characterizing anyone as a national enemy puts the men and women of the press in bodily danger. Trump's authoritarian impulses put the very idea of a free press in jeopardy.

Is the Economy REALLY Doing Well?

There's always debate regarding whether economic conditions, good or bad, can be attributed to actions taken by the government. Politicians like to take credit for the good things and lay blame for the bad things. But it seems like the tendency has escalated under the current president.

It's true that there are certain economic indicators that are unambiguously positive right now; there's argument whether they are a direct result of the current administration's policies or a continuation of the previous administration's or have nothing to do with either. So let's say that I'm happy that the positives are positive.

There's an accusation from Trump supporters that those who oppose him want to see harm come to the country in order to see Trump look bad. Periodically the Facebook meme comparing the national situation to an aircraft pilot appears. In this meme, it is suggested that wanting Trump to fail is like wanting the pilot of the plane that you are on to crash. It's not that we want the country to go to hell, war to break out and a second Great Depression, it's that we don't agree that Trump's policies are good for the country and we want him to fail to implement those harmful polices.

But is the economic health of the United States unambiguously good? Certainly the unemployment rate is so low as to be effectively considered full employment. There have been a few months of record lows, but we're hovering around 4%. Trump likes to take credit for that, but when he was running in 2016 he derided the official numbers as "fake" and suggested that the official government published unemployment rate was much lower than the "actual" figure. He may have been right, since the official percentage does not take into account people who have given up looking for work, but if he was honest (ha!) he'd be consistent in the figures he uses. But the problem with unemployment being so low is that many jobs go unfilled, which affects productivity and growth. When I was in retail management this trend caused us untold problems servicing our customers and spent a large percentage of our time hiring and training. An aspect of the low unemployment rate that is seldom discussed is the lack of real wage growth. Usually low unemployment causes wages to rise, since employers are now competing for employees, but for various reasons, this isn't happening.

The rise in stock prices, which regularly set new records, is also seen as an indicator that the economy is doing well. High stock valuations can be an indicator that the economy is doing well, but there's more to that than meets the high (and Trump seems to think that an increase in net stock valuation somehow erases the national debt) See my earlier blog post for my take on Trump & The Stock Market

Another thing that gets emphasized by the administration is that manufacturing jobs are on the rise. It's certainly true that job growth as been healthy, at least as far as raw numbers go. But it's not clear whether there has been a net increase in high-paying jobs, in manufacturing or elsewhere. Reports of new jobs never seem to materialize and plant closings continue, despite bluster and threats by Trump.

And finally we have the "massive, historic tax cuts", which were neither massive, historic, and for many Americans, not even tax cuts. Initially advertised as tax reform that would eliminate corporate tax loopholes in exchange for lower marginal rates, as well as tax cuts for American workers that would effectively give us all an average annual "raise" of $4000, the "reform" gave corporations a huge windfall while raising the tax bill of many individuals. Lower withholding gave the illusion of more money in our pockets, an illusion that was shattered when tax time came around.

If you voted for Trump, or continue to support him, for economic reasons, you might want to reconsider.

A Clear & Present Danger

If you aren't convinced by now that Donald Trump is a danger to our democracy and its continued functioning as a constitutional republic, you just aren't paying attention. Hell, you haven't been paying attention since he declared his intention to run for president in 2016. His questionable (at best) declaration of a national emergency in order to deliver on a campaign promise that was never anything more than an applause line at his rallies is only the latest and most egregious abuse of presidential power. His autocratic tendencies have been on full display since very early on. This is, in part, the problem with electing the head of a privately-owned business.

Periodically we hear how our elected officials should run the government like a business. If you don't think about it too closely, this sounds good, fiscal discipline and all that. But the government isn't a business. The prime duty of a business is to turn as much of a profit as possible for its shareholders. That's not what a government is supposed to do. And even though we voters sometimes get seduced by talk of balanced budgets and efficiency, when push comes to shove we don't want cuts to the things that benefit us. One of the positions advocated by the government-as-a-business party is eliminating regulations, because, they say, regulations constrain businesses and cost them money. Currently, a major US railroad is attempting to cut labor costs by reducing the number of workers on their trains. The union is pushing a regulation that mandates a minimum number, for safety reasons. Obviously this regulation will cost the railroad money, but I'd bet real money that the union members advocating for this regulation voted for Trump. Many right wing/conservative voters loathe the IRS and support the continual cutting of the agency's budget under Republican Congresses, yet complain when they are placed on hold for an hour or can't get their questions answered. Populism is only a good thing when it targets "the other".

When the businessman-politician is the head of a privately-owned corporation, the problems multiply. The president of a family-owned or other non-public company answers to no one. There are no shareholders, there is no board of directors. There is no check on the CEO's impulses. Donald Trump, once his father died, never had to justify his decisions, never had anyone who could overrule him. The head of an organization like the Trump Organization is, in effect, a mini-dictator. As much as Trump (and other business heads) liked to deride the "swamp", someone with government or military experience knows that the president isn't all-powerful. A governor already has experience having her programs frustrated by a legislature and familiar with compromising in order to get things done. A Senator has a background working within a legislature, as well as exposure to foreign policy.

In addition to the authoritarian mindset that is part & parcel of being the head of a private organization, Donald Trump's family built much of their wealth on illegal activities, including tax evasion. There is a history of doing whatever it takes to make a buck or two or a million. Lying to the New Jersey gambling commission, stiffing contractors and shameless self-promotion all add to the noxious stew.

Donald Trump is incompetent, Donald Trump is ignorant. But he thinks that he is the smartest and most competent person in the room, indeed in the whole country. He has never had anyone dare to stand against him, or even so much as contradict him, so naturally he rejects expert advice and ignore any information that doesn't support his opinion of how things ought to be. It's why, despite his own government supporting the opposite of his assertion that we have a crisis at the border, he maintains this fantasy.

We have a president who is ignorant of how government works, how the US economy works, how tariffs work, about the role of the military, how international alliances work, about the separation of powers. He is incompetent at diplomacy, and deal-making, at leadership in general. He is unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with him, indeed he demonizes those who disagree with him and attacks them as enemies. He concocts "facts" and "stats" to shore up his paranoid fantasies. He is incredibly thin-skinned with a hair-trigger temper.

How is this not the real national emergency?

Did Your Taxes Go Up?

As much as I enjoy hearing Trump supporters enraged that their taxes went up under the new tax laws, most of the time the people complaining have no idea whether or not their taxes actually went up or down; all they know is how their refund changed. Looking at the size of a tax refund as a yardstick to determine what your taxes were is flawed - it's one indicator, and can be a good one if absolutely nothing changed, but there's more to it.

First of all, the money you get back after filing your taxes is a refund, it's not a return. Your tax return is the form you fill out every year: a 1040, or a 1040A or 1040EZ. But that's only the tip of the misunderstanding iceberg. A refund represents the difference between what the tax on your income (technically your taxable income) was and what you paid in during the year, either via payroll withholding or estimated payments. If you receive a refund you have let the government take more than what they were entitled by law to take; in affect, an interest-free loan. Personally I'd much rather have an extra $100 after taxes in my pocket every month than receive a $1200 refund, however I do understand that, for some people, money management is easier if they don't have that cash available every month. It gives the illusion that you're getting some kind of bonus, but it's only an illusion!

In previous years, if your income remained somewhat stable and you had the same number of personal exemptions, a refund could be a fairly accurate way to gauge whether you were better off or worse, however this year was the first year of the new tax laws. The brackets changed, the rates changed,the standard deduction went up, personal exemptions went away, withholding amounts changed, not to mention changes in what could be deducted. The only way to know for sure if your actual tax burden increased was to look at the line that tells you what your tax was. (The line number varies depending on what form you use) You then have to do some work. If your circumstances are identical to 2017 you can just look at the "your tax" line from last year. If there were some changes, you might have to plug this year's income into last year's tax form and see what the difference is.

For example, I don't get a refund, since I have a small business where I don't pay taxes up front. This year I have to write a check for about $200 more than I did last year. Did my taxes go up? Not so fast! My income was higher than last year, my withholding was lower, plus all the tax changes. What I did was take a 2017 1040 and enter all my 2018 information, then compare my 2018 figures under the old and the new laws. As it turned out, under the new law my tax liability was about $300 less than what it would have been under the old law. If all I had done was look at the check that I had to write, I'd have assumed that I had gotten screwed by the new law.

Was I surprised? Not at all, since all the information that I needed to estimate how my taxes would change under the new law was available last year: tax rates, brackets, etc. Anyone could have done the math and come pretty close in estimating how the changes would affect them, especially for people with relatively simple finances.

I think fewer people came out worse off under the new law than think that they did.

Ralph Northam

By now you've heard about the Democratic Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, and the fine mess that he's gotten himself into.

It started when a picture from his Eastern Virginia Medical School Yearbook surfaced, with a picture on his yearbook page showing one person in blackface and another in a KKK robe and hood. Initially it was not known which of the two individuals was Northam. First Northam said that one of them was him, but couldn't recall which one. Then he changed his story to say that neither was him, he didn't know how that picture got on his page, and by the way, he had once worn blackface in a Michael Jackson dance contest.

There are so many questions, so few coherent answers and Northam is backpedaling so hard that his bicycle is beyond repair.

I think that it's beyond dispute that wearing a KKK robe and hood, unless you're an actor in a movie, is inherently racist. I don't care if it was a "different time", or you didn't know it was racist, or it "was just a joke" or your one black friend supposedly wasn't offended, it's fucking racist! No matter how much you may have changed, or how much you now love black people, at least at that time, in that place, you were a racist.

I'm not sure about blackface. I don't quite get the racism inherent in it. But I don't have to understand it, every black person who I have seen give their opinion on it says that they think it's racist, so that's good enough for me.

The big question for me is whether an attitude that one had in the past (racism, misogyny, homophobia) that one no longer holds, should be held against them now. I'm not saying that any of these attitudes and mindsets should be excused as youthful indiscretions or that "it was a different time". But I wonder whether we should take into account whether someone has truly changed, or if the past will always be with us. For one period in my life, in my words and actions I was a homophobe. I bought into a doctrine that was being taught by the Christian group that I was associated with and pissed off many of my family members because of it. Eventually I shed that religion and with it my anti-gay attitudes. But if I ever run for office that part of my life will likely be used against me. I could say that it's not fair, but as they say, life, and especially politics, isn't fair.

Would it make a difference if aspiring office holders opened up about possible skeletons in their closets? It is impossible to say, but at least the voters of Virginia would have had that information up front and could have made their electoral decision based on facts that they now know about only in retrospect. We know that it doesn't seem to make any difference to Republican voters, Donald Trump got elected despite multiple potential disqualifying attitudes. Steve King is an unapologetic racist, yet he keep getting reelected.

I'm ending this post without having a clear idea what I think should happen to Northam, or whether past transgressions should affect the present. One thing that I am sure of is that Republicans don't have any moral high ground in this discussion and have no business commenting. Democrats at least condemn their own when caught in these circumstances, Republicans deny it or excuse the behavior.

One thing is clear: Governor Northam has lost the confidence of the people who elected him.