The Electoral College

 

Naval Academy Fight Song (Anchors Aweigh)

Stand Navy down the field, sails set to the sky;            

We'll never change our course, So Army you steer shy-y-y-y.  

Roll up the score, Navy, anchors aweigh!        

Sail Navy down the field and sink the Army, sink the Army grey!

Many us recognize and get emotional over college fight songs.  So what is the Electoral College fight song?

The Electoral College has received a lot of attention in recent months.  Many of us understand that there are 538 electors, but that number is NOT specified in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 of  the US Constitution specifies that each state has a number of Electoral College votes equal to the number of its Senators ( and there are two Senators for each state) plus the number of its Representatives.  The 23rd Amendment specified that the District of Columbia, which is not a state, would have three electoral college votes.  That the number of Representatives is 435 is due to a 1911 Act of Congress, not because of the constitution.  https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf

Congress chose the number 435 because the House wanted a manageable number of members.  The Constitution only specifies that each state should have one Representative and that the number of Representatives be proportional to population, specifically excluding only “Indians who are not taxed.”  (Prior to the adoption of the 14^th Amendment, enslaved persons counted as 3/5 of one person.)  There are a number of mathematical formulas that could meet the objective of at least one representative per state and representation proportional to population.  A simple procedure known as the “Wyoming” rule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule, would set the number of representatives in each state based on its ratio to the state with the smallest population, which according to the 2010 census was Wyoming. Had this change in apportioning the House of Representatives been adopted in 1930, it would NOT have changed the outcome of any presidential election since 1930, including the most recent election in 2020.  However the California congressional delegation would have increased from 53 to 66, which is in line with the size of its population which was 66 times that of Wyoming according to the 2010 Census.

This would require that the size of the House be increased from its current 435 to 537, according to the 2010 Census (the 2020 Census results have not yet been officially released).  While this rule would have required the size of the house to be 1343 in 1930, 537 in 2020 seems reasonable even if all members were to be accommodated by the current House Chamber.  Given today’s technology which also allows for remote attendance at debates and votes, adoption of the “Wyoming” rule would bring the apportionment of the House closer to one man, one vote; while meeting the constitutional requirement of one representative from each state.  This changes the numbers of the Electoral College but does not abolish the Electoral College.  But it does bring its size closer to its original intent.

Socialism Is NOT A Political System

 

Rocky Racoon 

Her name was Magill,
and she called herself Lil
But everyone knew her as Nancy. 

Names don’t matter if we truly understand something. They do matter if we don’t. 

Socialism has become a common slur in American politics applied by those on the right to policies promoted by the left.  Senator Mitch McConnel opposes a $2000 COVID stimulus because it is socialism for the rich.  Silly Senator!  Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Just as, Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. 

And socialism is also NOT communism, any more than the regulated American form of capitalism is unregulated capitalism.  Communism is where ALL means of productions and outputs of production are the property of the state, society.  Unregulated capitalism is where ALL means of production and outputs are the property of individuals.  However neither extreme is perfect. 

Under Communism, if all means of production and outputs are the property of the state, there is no incentive for individual members of that state, society, to seek more efficient solutions. 

Capitalism assumes, among other things, that all buyers have perfect knowledge and that all sellers have unlimited access to buyers. 

Socialism, as practiced in the Nordic Countries, is where, among other things, only SOME  economic sectors, for example health care or energy, are controlled by the state and all other economic sectors are controlled by individuals. 

Regulated Capitalism, as practiced in the United States, is where sellers are required to disclose certain things so that buyers have more perfect knowledge (e.g. Food Labels) and  are prohibited from keeping others from entering the market (e.g. anti-trust laws). 

The fact that some proponents of an economic system (e.g. Karl Marx, or Vladimir Lenin) were also atheists only means that they were atheists, not that communism, or socialism, is inherently atheistic, any more than capitalism is pro-religion.  A religious or philosophical  system is NOT an economic system. 

Game theory would characterize capitalism as a user optimal solution and communism as a system optimal solution.  The sum of user optimal, equilibrium, solutions is often NOT the system optimal  solution.  Regulated capitalism or socialism, which again is not communism, are both less extreme systems that seek to make the sum of the user optimal equilibrium solutions closer to the system optimal solution. 

A $2000 stimulus is a political solution intended to work for any economic system.  Characterizing it as socialism is a blatant attempt to change the discussion from the merits of a political solution to the merits of economic systems.

The War Against Christmas

 

You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch

You're a foul one, Mr. Grinch,
You're a nasty wasty skunk,
Your heart is full of unwashed socks,
Your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Grinch,
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk"!

The Grinch may have declared WAR against Christmas, but some Grinches are NOT whom you think they are.

Grinches didn’t like gift giving on St. Nicholas Day (Dec 6th) or Three King’s Day (Jan 6th) , so gift giving was moved to Christmas Day (Dec 25th). They objected to gifts being given by Santa Claus, so gifts were given by the Christkind.  When that failed to stop the holiday, they banned Christmas entirely.  But the spirit endured.  Now they have changed tactics and have claimed that they are fighting on the side of Christmas in a war against Christmas.  Never mind that the wife of the family, whom complained very loudly about the war on Christmas, said “who gives a f*** about the Christmas stuff and decorations?”.

But it isn’t about the decorations.  As even the Grinch learned,

“It came without ribbons. It came without tags.
It came without packages, boxes or bags.     
And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before.
What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store.
What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.” 

Whether you choose to call it Christmas, Diwali, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Festivus, or some other holiday, we are celebrating the triumph of hope that light and life will return in these shortest and deadest days of the year.  And that there will be “Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled.” And that is what Christmas is about, Charlie Brown.  I know who my enemies are, and when they are AT War , not AGAINST War, on Christmas.

Tyranny of the Minority

Big Boss Man

 

Big boss man, can't you hear me when I call? 

You ain't so big,  you're just tall that's all 

A real big boss should be a decision of the majority, not defined by a minority characteristic, such as being tall.

The founding fathers wrote the US Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority. They did a good job of that. They did not do such a good job preventing a tyranny of a minority. 

America was founded by those who fled persecution in Europe for largely religious, but also expressing other, minority opinions. When they arrived in what would become the United States, it would have been hoped that they would be aware of that  persecution and would take steps to ensure that they did not themselves persecute others. However as the early history of the Colonies portrays, the persecution of other minorities when they themselves become majorities was rampant. The Constitution and its Amendments took steps to ensure that its republican democracy never became a tyranny of the majority. Minority opinions were protected. It was not the intent of the founding fathers to substitute a “tyranny of the minority” for a “tyranny of the majority”. 

However the election process of “winner take all”, “second place is first loser” has evolved into a system with only two parties. The protections are such that minority opinion can dominate. For example, the Gallup Poll announced that Donald Trump was the Most Admired Man in the US in 2020, beating out Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Anthony Fauci. I would suggest that Donald Trump was NOT the second, third, or fourth choice of those selecting these other finishers. What is true is that the Donald Trump captured the largest number of FIRST place votes, even though that number of first place votes was a minority. This is NOT the way Most Valuable Players or Best College Football, or  Basketball, Team, or other polls work. Because it is an opinion, points are awarded for second, third, and other choices. In doing so the “best” does not have to capture the most first place votes, only the highest number of total voting points. 

The system in place, as opposed to the one in sports, or as proposed by rank choice voting, ultimately evolves into a two-party system, with a winner and a loser. It also leads to a polarized system where the losers may seek to overturn the determination that they are the loser by any means possible. Protection of a minority does not mean domination by that minority.

Caste Part III : Nature versus Nurture

I Believe

Dreamt a hundred thousand dreams before

Now I finally realize

You see I've waited all my life for this moment to arrive

And finally, I believe

If you dream that you can change your nature, is that possible? 

Albert Einstein was a Jewish refugee.  Marie Curie was a woman.  Stephen Hawking was paralyzed by ALS, confined to a wheelchair and spoke with mechanical aids.  Alan Turing was a homosexual.  John Coltrane was Black. Toni Morrison was both Black and a woman.  Benjamin Franklin was 70 years old when he helped in drafting the Declaration of Independence.  According to nativists, we are defined by our nature and that nature defines what we can achieve.  Thus, none of these people should have achieved their dreams and made the contributions that they did, but society is fortunate that they made those achievements.

Faith, nationality, immigration status, gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, age, and other measures of caste, should not define one's contributions and value to society. While, nature alone might be proper for animal husbandry it may not be the best way to define people.  However nurture alone is not an alternative.  Despite my dreams, I will never run a 100 meters in 10 seconds.  What is necessary that people be nurtured to support their dreams consistent with their nature.

Caste: Part II

You've Got To Be Carefully Taught

 You've got to be taught to be afraid
 Of people whose eyes are oddly made 
 And people whose skin is a different shade 
You've got to be carefully taught. 

 Caste is NOT the way things must be. We can choose not to teach caste. 

"Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents", the best selling book by Isabel Wilkerson, is a chilling depiction of how, among other things, the Nazis ( and for those who are against socialism, don’t forget that Nazi is a nickname for “National Socialism") modeled their own caste system after the successful caste system in the United States. The success of any caste system, where only a few can occupy the top rung, depends on convincing a majority that the ladder system of caste is the way things should be, and that everyone should stay in their place. Those in the middle rungs accept the caste system because they are promised to be above those in lower rungs. 

The lower rungs in the caste system in the United States appear to be reserved for: women, indigenous people, African Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, Asians, the disabled, etc. While the Amendments to the U. S. Constitution have attempted to grant rights to many of these groups, it is the caste system itself, not the rights that the caste system bestows, that should be in question. 

Before teaching or accepting the caste system, it is important for society to ask why there is a caste system at all? Does the existence of a caste system, which excludes the contributions of those on the lower rungs, advance the interests of society? Is violence against those who challenge elements of the caste system order,... or brutality? 

Those on the lowest rungs will soon outnumber those on the higher rungs. Does anyone seriously expect that the caste system will continue under these conditions?  It is in the best interest of society that the caste system in the United States be immediately discontinued and no longer taught.

Role of a Judge

It's Alright With Me

It's the wrong time and the wrong place

Though your face is charming, it's the wrong face

It's not her face, but such a charming face

That it's all right with me

It might be alright with Senator Mitch McConnell, but not with everyone.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, one argument that Republican Senators seem to be presenting is that the role of a judge is not the role of a legislator.  This is true but irrelevant.  If judges only interpreted the law, then there would only be 9-0 decisions of the Supreme Court.  Since there are dissenting opinions, the opinion of a judge, and what might be the basis for their dissent, matters.

Another argument that Republican Senators seem to be advancing is that the Democratic opposition to Judge Barrett is because of her Catholic religion.  If this were true then why is the Democratic candidate for President a practicing Catholic? Clearly not all Catholics have the same opinion or else a future Catholic President Biden would also be expected to nominate Catholic Judge Barrett.

Clearly opinion matters, and the consent of the Senate should be based on those opinions. 

The Mafia's definition of a Honest Man is one that stays bought.  Since the confirmation of Justice Barrett by Republican Senators appears to be a forgone conclusion, we can only hope that she has a different definition of honesty than the Mafia's definition, and that she understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law on behalf of all Americans, regardless of party.