"Super Tuesday" and Thoughts on the Coming Election

Yesterday, March 3rd, was "Super Tuesday," the day on which voters cast their ballots in presidential primaries in 16 states. As I have in previous elections, I served as an "Officer of Election" at my local precinct, rotating among various jobs to help ensure a safe, honest, and accurate tally. 

As I have many times before, I came away impressed with the thoroughness of the preparations, the professionalism of my fellow Election Officers, and the intricate, interlocking measures to prevent fraud and error. Here are a few of my comments on what I observed at our local precinct yesterday and what it all means in the long run.

1. Turnout. We had a turnout of about 30% of registered voters ... not too bad, given Americans' abysmal rates of voter participation, but - given the stakes in this year's presidential election - a bit disappointing. 

2. The Participants. Virginia had only a Democratic Primary, because the Republicans intend to canonize Der Furor by other means. But Virginia election law provides for open primaries, meaning that any registered voter, regardless of party affiliation, can vote in any primary for any candidate. There'd been some discussion of Republicans voting in large numbers in a "spoiler" action to skew the results toward a candidate they perceive easier to beat in the general election, but I didn't see any overt evidence of that happening. We did have one voter who came in wearing a bright red MAGA hat, but that's silly and not illegal.

3. Security vs Certainty. We had one voter who delivered a long and heated lecture to our Precinct Chief, demanding to know what Virginia was doing to make sure that he could be absolutely certain that his vote for his candidate was properly recorded. He insisted that in order to be fair and accurate, there must be a way to track the ballot cast by a specific individual to provide proof that the vote had been tallied to that individual's desired candidate. The Chief did a good job of explaining election law and the concept of the secret ballot while acknowledging that any voting system requires a certain level of trust on the part of the voters. The secret ballot is one of the things that separates our election system from those of dictatorships, which are designed to ensure a desired result by ensuring that voters cast their ballots for the approved candidate. Nobody needs to know for whom I voted, or for whom you voted ... and if you aren't concerned about the implications of a president with an overtly authoritarian philosophy having the ability to find out exactly how you voted and punish you if you voted the wrong way, you have a problem I can't fix. I place 100% of the blame for lack of trust in our elections on the Republican Party, which has spent decades undermining the authority and integrity of government at all levels and spreading wild conspiracy theories about "rigged elections."

4. You Can't Fix Stupid. We have two precincts that vote at the same local elementary school. Usually, one sets up in the gym and the other in the cafeteria, but this time we were both shoehorned into the gym. The precincts were set up on opposite sides of the gym, and a row of bright orange codes linked with bright orange tape ran down the middle of the room to keep them separate. It was a bit cozy, but there was still plenty of room ... the problem came when we tried to make sure that people stayed within their own precinct. For purposes of making sure all the numbers balance for each precinct (number of voters checked in = number of ballots issued = number of ballots scanned and recorded), it's important that people stay in their own precinct. Nevertheless, all day long we had people who would check in, get their ballots, then go to the opposite side of the room to mark and scan their ballots. We caught most of them, but in the end, the total for each precinct was off by two ballots - one of us over by two and the other under by two. The reason for this was clear, and was carefully documented in the official notes kept by each Precinct Chief, but if those errors are later seen individually and out of context, I think you can see people who are looking for irregularities pouncing on them as proof of insidious corruption. I should also note that EVERY PERSON we intercepted and steered back to the correct side of the room said that we should have put up signs to eliminate confusion ... despite the fact that they'd had to STEP OVER ROWS OF BRIGHT ORANGE CONES CONNECTED BY BRIGHT ORANGE TAPE to get to the wrong side. You can't fix stupid.

5. The Results. I won't comment on the results other than to say that I fear the Democrats are on the way to helping Der Furor gain another four years to continue his campaign to Keep America Terrible. If Joe Biden is the eventual candidate, the GOP will spend the entire election (and the next four years should he win) screaming about Ukraine, Burisma, and other manufactured crises (ignoring the documented fraud and mendacity of Der Furor's clique). If Bernie Sanders is the eventual candidate, the GOP will spend the entire election (and the next four years should he win) screaming about the ghastly evils of socialism while ignoring their own evils. In a nation of over 300 million people, you'd think we could do better than candidates like Der Furor, Biden, and Sanders.

That's it for now. If you live in a Super Tuesday state, I hope you went out and voted. If your state's primary hasn't happened yet, be sure you go out and vote when it does. And by all means, make sure you vote in November. The stakes have seldom been higher.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Putting Suppressors on the Wrong Noisemakers

As Congressional Republicans scramble to remake the country in their image, they are laser-focused on tackling some of the most critical issues facing the nation - like removing restrictions on the purchase of "silencers" (more accurately described as "suppressors") for firearms. Somehow, the uninfringed right to own suppressors was omitted from the Second Amendment during its writing, and the GOP is anxious to redress this awful historical blunder.

What the well-equipped shooter will be carrying in the future, should the act pass.

Fox News (among others) has reported that South Carolina Representative Jeff Duncan and Texas Representative John Carter, both Republicans, have introduced the "Hearing Protection Act." According to Duncan and Carter, this piece of vitally important legislation would help save the hearing of "millions" of Americans who dislike wearing hearing protection while shooting. The effort should fly through Congress, since the new Republican majority has extensive experience with the enabling of suppression. Of course, suppressing voting rights is a little different, but it's practical experience nonetheless.

Snark aside, I'm very glad that the GOP is so interested in public health. Perhaps this means they are also ready to make serious attempts to remedy the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act, bring down the price of prescription drugs, attack the Zika virus, deal with the problem of lead contamination in public water supplies, and come up with a viable plan for storing millions of tons of deadly nuclear waste.

And in any case, "Hearing Protection Act" does have a much better ring to it than, say, the "Enable Criminals to Fire Weapons without Attracting Police Attention Act."

Maybe it's just me, but I think we're putting the suppressors on the wrong noisemakers.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bilbo's Thoughts on Economic Policy

Yesterday in this space I wrote about some of my thoughts on tax reform, admitting at the end that I know next to nothing about economics. My knowledge of economic theory is limited to one simple fact: if I don't pay my bills, I will end up without food, water, or a place to live.

My meager understanding of economic theory is that it lies at the intersection of greed and herd psychology. You don’t need an MBA from Harvard Business School or a PhD in Economics from Yale to know that the economy is in trouble. I have a BA in Linguistics and an MS in International Relations, and even I can recognize that the economy is slowly clawing its way out of the toilet, largely to the benefit of the higher income classes. Why is this? While I’m untutored in the Mystical and Arcane Rites of the Holy Mysteries of Economic Policy, I nevertheless perceive a few things that ought to be obvious, and since lack of knowledge has never stopped any good blogger before, with a ruffle of drums and a blare of trumpets, here are my observations on national economic policy:

1. Spending More Than You Earn Is Bad. If you and I engage in reckless deficit spending, we go to jail. If the government does it, reinforced platoons of dry-as-dust economists with PhD’s, bow ties, and leather elbow patches will be marshaled to explain why it’s a good thing. Whether you’re a Tax-and-Spend Democrat or a Don’t-Tax-but-Spend-Anyhow Republican, balanced budgets are smart. You and I need to pay taxes and the government needs to spend responsibly. Unfortunately, only you and I are held to our part of the bargain.

1a. We Desperately Need a Rational Tax System. See yesterday's post.

1b. And Some Adults in Congress Willing to Consider Responsible Spending*.

2. Unrestricted Capitalism Is As Bad As Blind Communism. John Kenneth Galbraith once said that under capitalism, man exploits man, while under communism the exact opposite is true. A purely capitalistic society focused on the generation of wealth tends to protect the business community and upper classes at the expense of the middle and lower classes. A purely communistic society removes the incentive to work hard by removing its rewards. Sound economic policy lies somewhere between the two, and requires a free-market economy governed by rational regulations to prevent the sort of excesses with which we are now all too familiar.

3. Quarterly Earnings Reports Are Stupid. One of the biggest faults of US markets is that we lack a long-term perspective. Businesses driven by the need to show profits each quarter will focus only on short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth and health. The solution: eliminate quarterly reporting of all economic statistics and replace it with annual reporting. This will help focus on long-term economic health rather than short-term profit, and minimize the whipsawing of the markets in reaction to short-term problems.

4. “Too Big to Fail” Equals “Too Dangerous to Survive.” When a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, or Bear Sterns has grown so large that it’s failure can drag down large portions of the economy, something is wrong. Bigger is not necessarily better. The government must exercise some prudent judgment in determining how large a financial institution can grow before it becomes too much of a threat to the rest of the economy. Huge financial institutions are too big to fail, but you and I are too small to matter. Fired CEOs get huge golden parachutes, but you and I will get cents back on the dollar - if that - when our investments tank.

5. Bring Back the Concept of “Moral Hazard.” In economic terms, “moral hazard” refers to the responsibility borne by economic decision makers for their performance, judgment, and prudent risk-taking. It implies that those who make the huge salaries should also bear the risk of punishment if their performance is poor. In practical terms, moral hazard is dead. The CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fired, but each will walk away from the wreckage with millions of dollars in severance payments. Real People who exercise judgment that bad go to jail.

6. Publish the Full Details of Every Congressional Budget Deal in The Congressional Record, Along With the Names of the Sponsors. The Common American Taxpayer (Americanus Emptypocketus Ignoramus) has a right to know how the money he pays in taxes is being spent. Perhaps shedding a little light on the process will help bring it under control. Yeah, good luck with this one, too.

Remember that it was George Bernard Shaw who famously said that, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul."

And Paul's doing a lot better than you and I.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* "Responsible Spending" is not created by petulant squabbling that results in endless Continuing Resolutions rather than a coherent federal budget.

I Voted with Gritted Teeth

Yesterday was "Super Tuesday," the day on which a large number of states and territories (14, to be exact) held their presidential primary elections or caucuses. On the way home from work I stopped at my local polling place and cast my ballot. I'll tell you who I voted for later, but first I'd like to say a few words about this election season.

This is the first presidential election since I came of voting age that I am without a candidate I can completely support, unless it's ...

I first voted in a presidential election in 1972, and the first vote I cast was for Richard Nixon. I voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election up to and including the first candidacy of George W. Bush. After that, I have voted consistently for the Democratic candidate.

Frankly, the GOP scares me. There is no one running on the Republican side that I believe is qualified - by education, ability, or temperament - to be president. Donald Trump is an utterly unqualified megalomaniac and probably a sociopath, Ted Cruz is Trump Lite and a scary religious bigot, Ben Carson is a well-meaning nonentity, entirely out of his depth, and the other candidates are less overtly dangerous but still pander to the worst elements of the electorate. None of them appears ever to have read, much less to understand, the Constitution.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is not the Screaming She-Demon from Hell that the GOP thunders about, but I question her judgment because of her use of a private home e-mail server for the conduct of national diplomacy while she was Secretary of State. The issue of classified material on that server is, in my opinion, an overblown smokescreen that is of less importance than her use of the server itself. There is no direct and reasonable comparison to be made between the cases of Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, as much as the GOP would like to make it so. I can go into that in more detail another time if anyone is interested enough*. I think she is as much of a political opportunist as Trump or Cruz, but with a veneer of humanity.

Bernie Sanders is the only true and authentic person running for president. He cares about Real People and is consistent in his beliefs and actions. While I support most of his positions, particularly on education and health care, I don't think we can afford everything he'd like to do, and the country as a whole is probably not ready to go quite as far as he is. If he's elected, and you thought the GOP was reflexively opposed to anything President Obama ever said or did, you've got quite a show coming.

I cast my primary vote for Bernie Sanders as the least bad option in a year full of abysmal candidates.

Sue me.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* And having spent my entire professional life in the intelligence community, dealing with highly-classified material and the rules for its creation, handling, storage, and transmission, I think I can speak with some authority on the subject. In this, I know I will be at philosophical odds with many of my fellow intelligence and military veterans, but that's the way it is when you have Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

How to Improve Presidential Campaigns, Part 2

You may recall that I wrote a post back on December 10th titled How to Improve Presidential Campaigns, which included things like cage fights instead of "debates" and a requirement for candidates advocating military action to have actually served in the military. Some of you offered your own ideas, including John (who advocated shorter campaign seasons), and allenwoodhaven (who proposed electrified platforms for campaign debates that would deliver painful shocks to the bare feet of candidates who didn't answer the question that was asked, or went off on tangents). But I'm always on the lookout for new ideas, and I found one today as I was reading this article from Salon.com - It’s Time to Call Foul on the Cruelty of Beauty Pageants: Trump May Not Own the Miss Universe Pageant Anymore, but His Dehumanizing Worldview Permeates All Beauty Pageants.

The article, as you have probably guessed, is a fierce diatribe against beauty pageants that objectify young women. But although in our more enlightened era beauty pageants may no longer be as acceptable as they once were, I think they may have a role to play as a way of winnowing down the field of presidential candidates. Consider these new elements of the new Presidential Pageant:

The Tuxedo (for men)/Pantsuit (for women) Competition. Since we seem to pick our candidates on curb appeal* rather than intellect, why not replace useless "debates" with a series of evaluation events hosted alternately by GQ and Women's Wear Daily to help us evaluate candidates on the basis of their wardrobes?

The Speedo (for men)/Bathing Suit (for women) Competition. If the thought of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as president horrifies you, imagine how they'd come across in this competition. Look at it as a way to see what the candidates have to hide.

The Talent Competition. In a "normal" beauty pageant, the contestants do things like play the piano, sing, dance, or (I'm not making this up) field-dress a deer they've shot. The talent competition for presidential candidates might include events like Speed Lying, Fund Raising, Law Skirting, and Creative Blather (which evaluates the candidate's ability to talk for a given period of time without actually saying anything).

The Interview. Candidates are asked a series of softball questions by a tame media representative of their choice, and are evaluated on their ability to provide evasive or non-germane answers.

At the end of the pageant, the winner would be crowned President and make a poised and dignified walk across the stage while a chorus sings the traditional song, "There he/she is, Mister/Madame President!**"

It could work ... and it's certainly no more cynical and demeaning than the current process. What do you think?

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Term borrowed from the real estate field, but it also applies here ... perhaps we need signs posted everywhere that say "curb your candidate."

** Based on the traditional Miss America song.

Doing the Poll Dance

My daughter drew my attention yesterday afternoon to this article in the Washington Post: Voldemort Is Polling Better Than Many Republican Presidential Candidates.

The chart below, from the article, plots favorability ratings of the current crop of presidential wannabes from the latest Washington Post-ABC News and Quinnipiac polls against a survey of Internet users about their feelings toward four of Hollywood's favorite villains ...

What it shows is that Lord Voldemort - the epitome of evil from the Harry Potter stories - is more popular than most of the GOP front-runners ... and that all of the Democratic front-runners and the rest of the Republicans are less popular than Darth Vader, the Terminator, and the shark from Jaws.

Of course, this is not a fully scientific survey, but it does say something about the perceived quality of the people who want to convince us that they are capable and worthy of leading this great nation.

I don't know about you, but Lord Voldemort is looking pretty good right now. And so are others ...

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo