Thoughts about Elections

Yesterday, voters in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District went to the polls to select a successor to the late  Congressman Gerry Connolly, decisively electing Democrat James Walkinshaw to fill the seat. As I have for many years now, I served as an Election Officer at our local precinct, and I wanted to take a few minutes today to offer some thoughts on elections and the protection of our rights.

I have nothing but contempt for those who complain of vast voter fraud. Years of experience as a trained election officer have given me confidence in the strength and honesty of our elections and the near impossibility of manipulating the system at the precinct and county level. Of course, Fairfax County is a largely upper middle class district with a good tax base* that allows generous investment in equipment and training for election workers, and we have a strict code of ethics for election officers that we renew annually and take very seriously.

I would venture to say that the chances of someone sucessfully voting illegally in this county are virtually zero. If there is any question at the precinct level about someone’s eligibility (for whatever reason) to vote, we provide them a “provisional” ballot. My job, as a trained “Provisional Voting Specialist,” is to make sure that the voter provides enough initial information to allow the next level reviewers to make a judgement on the eligibility of the voter and allow their vote to be recorded. The most common reason for issuing a provisional ballot is that the voter requested an absentee ballot, but either lost it or decided to vote in person and did not surrender the unmarked absentee ballot at the polling place. In such cases, the person votes provisionally, and their vote is counted once the Election Authority verifies that the absentee ballot was not cast and counted. Another reason is that the voter resides in our district, but did not previously register to vote. In such cases, the Provisional Voting Specialist (yep, me) verifies the voter’s address and the date they moved into the precinct and makes a decision on whether the person can do a “Same Day Registration” (SDR, allowed by Virginia law) and cast a provisional ballot pending final confirmation of their eligibility. In some cases, the law offers a person who recently moved but but failed to change their registration to the new address the option either to return to their old precinct and cast a regular vote or to vote provisionally in the new precinct. Either way, the voter gets to vote.

The process of counting the votes at the precinct level is designed to prevent errors and fraudulent voting. Everything has to match or be otherwise accounted for: if X number of people checked in to vote, we need to show that X number of blank ballots were issued and X number of ballots were recorded by the optical scanner. If the numbers don’t match, we take excruciating care to figure out why. Sometimes a voter marks their ballot incorrectly or makes some extra mark that causes the scanner to reject it … they surrender the original ballot, which we mark as “spoiled” and retain, and we issue them a new one, in which case the record will show more ballots issued than voters checked in. Occasionally, we get what we call a “fleeing voter,” who has checked in and been issued a ballot, but who leaves the polling place without scanning their ballot or before the optical scanner indicates their ballot was rejected … in this case, the numbers will show fewer ballots scanned and recorded than voters checked in. We must account for every discrepancy, and can’t leave the polling place at the end of the day until we have.

Virginia voting law is designed to offer the maximum opportunity for eligible citizens to vote. At the pollling place, we will never tell anyone “you can’t vote.”  The system is designed to assume voter eligibility by allowing the casting of provisional ballots that are counted once the voter’s eligibility has been confirmed. The system allows everyone to cast a ballot while weeding out ineligibles through the verification process. The penalties for voting illegally are severe, in order to protect our most valuable right.

If you are one of those people who are convinced - against all evidence - that voter fraud at the polling place level is a thing, then put up or shut up - volunteer to be part of the process and learn how things really work. Volunteer to be an Election Officer, get the training, know the law, and see the process as it actually works, not as you’ve been told it does by people who have their own malicious agenda. 

Obviously, I can’t speak for the training, processes, and individual integrity of the election workers in every state, but I can tell you - from years of experience and extensive training - that elections in our county are as honest and trustworthy as they can be.

And I’m proud to be a part of it.

Have a good day. If you want to protect the integrity of your vote, become a part of the election system: volunteer to become a trained Election Officer in your county or parish, and regain your confidence in the process that protects your most important voice.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* And do I like to complain about that!

Do We Need to Rethink the Right to Vote?

In the wake of the presidential election, there's been a lot of commentary on both the left and the right about what the results say about the American electorate, and what it means for the future. Much of the commentary has revolved around the simple concept of voting, the right of each citizen to express his or her opinion, which is one of the bedrock principles of our democracy. 

Our cherished right to vote is now a political football, with most Republicans advocating more limits and most Democrats favoring more rights. The Constitution, surprisingly enough, says almost nothing about voting, most of the discussion of voting rights taking place in the amendments, most importantly:

- The 14th Amendment, which sets the right to vote to "male citizens 21 years of age" (changed by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment);

 

- The 15th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of "color, race, or previous condition of servitude;" 

- The 19th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote "on account of sex;" 

- The 24th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote "by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax;" and,

- The 26th Amendment, which forbids denying or abridging the right to vote to citizens over 18 "on account of age." 

Voting rights have generally been delineated and ensured by federal law, most importantly the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was readopted and strengthened in 1970, 1975, and 1982. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the act in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, allowing states to enact new and more restrictive voter identification and registration laws.

I think no one would credibly argue that every eligible US citizen has the right to vote in federal or state elections, and that laws which "deny or abridge" their freedom to do so are unconstitutional. 

They have the right to vote ... but should they?

I've been pondering this heretical question since Der Furor's return to power in the 2024 general election, for several reasons.

One reason is based on personal experience. I work as a precinct-level Election Officer (EO) here in Virginia, and as such I'm sworn to uphold all federal and state election laws. In this month's election, another EO and I were trying to register* a US citizen couple who were Vietnamese and spoke only minimal English. Usually, this is not an issue, as our ballots and related voting materials are printed in multiple languages (English, Spanish, Korean, and Vietnamese - the major languages in our county); however, these people were completely unable to understand either the voter registration forms or their provisional ballots. We had to scramble to find a Vietnamese interpreter approved by the Department of Elections and get him on the phone to help these people understand what they were doing. They eventually cast their provisional ballots.

Here's the issue: as US citizen residents of Virginia over the age of 18 and not previously convicted of a felony, these people met every legal qualification to vote. But, given that they were unable to understand either their voter registration forms or their ballots without serious linguistic assistance, should they have voted? Did they fully understand what they were signing and what the implications were? Were they ready to exercise not just their right to vote, but their (implied) duty to understand what they were voting for? Sadly, I don't think they were.

Here's another, related issue: since the election there have been voluminous reports in the news media featuring voters who were utterly uninformed about the major issues surrounding the election, in particular the state of the economy and the effect on it of each party's proposals. For instance, many voters interviewed did not know what a "tariff" is, who pays for it, and how it might affect the US economy. There was also a profound ignorance of Constitution and the structure and function of government**, as well as the US role in the international community. As US citizens over the age of 18, these people were perfectly eligible to vote. But given this lack of understanding - particularly on the structure and powers of their own government - should they have voted?

So, here's my dilemma: I absolutely believe that every US citizen has both a right and a duty to vote. Each of us depends on the smooth operation of our government and the capabilities and integrity of the individuals we elect to represent our interests. But do voters make rational decisions when they don't understand the issues? When they don't speak English - or whatever language*** - well enough to understand not just issues, but implications? When they base their votes on simple bumper-sticker arguments free of context and nuance? When they lack the education or knowledge to evaluate the potential outcomes of the votes they cast?

I think the time has come not for limits on the absolute right to vote, but on the requirements we should consider implementing to ensure that prospective voters are ready to responsibly exercise their right. Here are some of the requirements I'd like to see ...

- A test of basic citizenship knowledge. A 2018 survey showed that two-thirds of native-born American citizens can't pass the 10-question citizenship test given to those seeking to become US citizens ... they don't understand our history, how our government is organized, or other facts one might expect the averagely-informed citizen to know. In part, this is because we no longer emphasize the teaching of history or basic civics in schools†. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a voter who is a native-born US citizen to demonstrate the same level of basic knowledge about the nation, its government, and its history that we expect of those applying for citizenship. 

- A current events test. This doesn't need to be a deep-dive into the minutiae of the news††, but rather a simple test to reveal whether or not a prospective voter is at least passingly aware of events in the world and how his or her vote might affect them.

- I'd also like to see a basic literacy test - available not just in English, but in one of the other languages most commonly spoken in this country (generally Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Chinese), but that's probably a political and social bridge too far, given our past experience with the use of literacy tests as a voter suppression tool and the damage done over the years to our public education system. I'm not quite sure how such a test would need to be designed, but it should at least indicate that the person can understand what he or she is voting for†††.

I understand that this suggestion will generate howls of outrage from both ends of the spectrum. Democrats/liberals/progressives will rage about new methods of voter suppression that will deny the vote to (mostly) black or underprivileged citizens. Republicans/conservatives/MAGAts will argue that it doesn't go far enough to "purify" voter rolls.

I think we need not just to insist on our rights, but to make sure we're able to intelligently exercise them. There's more to our rights, our government, and our role in the world than noisy defense of the Second Amendment.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. Enjoy both your rights and your responsibilities to the country that guarantees them. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It's legal to register to vote on Election Day under Virginia law in appropriate circumstances. A person who registers on Election Day may cast a provisional ballot which is counted only after their registration has been approved by the Board of Elections.

** A shortcoming also found in some elected members of Congress.

*** Contrary to what many people believe, English is not the official national language of the United States, but as it is the most widely spoken, it is generally considered the de facto national tongue. Some states have designated English as their official language.

† Largely because of disagreements on how our history should be presented ("cleaned up" or "warts and all") and what the actual meaning of the Constitution is (consider the current scrum over the separation of church and state).

†† It's foolish to ask a question like "Who is the current prime minister of Zamboanga?," but it's certainly appropriate to ask a question like, "Name two major US trading partners," "who are your sitting Senators and your Representative?," or "name at least one country outside the United States where US troops are stationed."

††† Unfortunately, given that a lot of the things that we're asked to vote on (like bond issues or constitutional amendments) are written in  convoluted legal language, I'm not sure that the best-intentioned of linguistic experts will be able to design an appropriate test. 

Election Day

It's finally here.

All the tens of millions of dollars wasted on misleading attack ads, signs, flags, rallies, and stupid hats have come down to this day on which we will decide the future direction of the nation.

It's 3:30 AM as I write this; in an hour, I'll head to the precinct to serve as a county Officer of Election - one small cog in the huge and expensive machinery that ensures our elections are honest, secure, and scrupulously fair.

Don't listen to the ignorant dumbasses who scream "fraud!" when they don't win. The entire machinery of our election administration is designed to prevent fraud and chicanery, and it works. 

Vote, if you haven't already, and be confident that your vote will be counted. 

The future in which my grandchildren will live is, quite literally, in your hands.

Vote wisely.

Have a good day, and be sure your voice is heard. Vote.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

P.S. - Quit reading this and go vote.

B.

Do You Feel a Draft?

I never thought I'd say this, but Der Furor's crowd has finally suggested something I could support. 

Recent reports indicate that some conservatives have suggested that mandatory "national service" may be necessary to ensure that our Armed Forces are sufficiently manned for the challenges posed by an uncertain world, the growing power of China, and an aggressively resurgent Russia. The loaded term "draft" isn't being used yet, but if Der Furor and his ultra-conservative advisors come to power, you'll be sure to hear it.

As much as it pains me to agree with anything our modern fascist wannabes advocate, I don't think some form of mandatory national service ... not just military, but perhaps also civil or social ... is necessarily a bad thing. Here's my reasoning ...

Growing up in a middle-class, almost completely white, neighborhood, I didn't have much routine daily contact with anyone not white and "Christian" until I went to college and, in 1973, graduated via ROTC with a BA in Linguistics and a commission as an Air Force Second Lieutenant. I spent the next 23 years moving from assignment to assignment, working alongside (and frequently for) blacks, women, asians, hispanics, gays, lesbians, "Christians," Jews, Muslims, atheists, and every combination thereof. It didn't take long for me to realize that everyone was pretty much the same under the skin. There were good and bad, smart and stupid, strong and weak people of every kind working side-by-side. Color, religion, and sexual preference were no guarantee of worth. Daily experience drove the lesson home.

And this is why I think some form of mandatory national service could be a good thing. It would force people to work with and for people who are different. It would give people an opportunity (which, sadly, some would resent) to learn that the despised "other" is a person, too.

Obviously, there would be problems with a mandatory national service program. While it might have a voluntary aspect, it would still cost money to administer ... how would we fund it? Should anyone be able to refuse mandatory military service in a future draft? Who? How could it be enforced? What types of service other than military should be considered? What legal and Constitutional roadblocks might prevent such a program?

I think we should find out the answers. It's time for people to realize that citizenship involves not just rights, but responsibilities.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Election Day

Today, Tuesday, November 7th, 2023, is Election Day.

Many people view elections like today's to be relatively minor, with local offices on which we're voting mostly confined to more or less unexciting contests like (as here in Fairfax County), members of the state Senate and House of Delegates, County Sheriff, Chair and members of the County Board of Supervisors, members of the Soil and Water Conservation Board, local school boards, and various bond issues. 

Because there's no "major" office on today's ballot - President, Senator, or Member of Congress, for example - a lot of people won't come out to vote. This is a seriously mistaken viewpoint, though, because our state and local officials have a lot more impact on our day-to-day lives than our national leaders. You may complain about the federal income tax, for instance, but you pay a lot more taxes and fees imposed by your state and local officials. Your state and county (parish, in Louisiana) govern the zoning around your home, the sales taxes you pay, how your children are educated, and whether you have an honest and effective sheriff's department or a corrupt, lawless minor tyrant (see Constitutional Sheriff).

If you only vote in national elections, you are ignoring the offices that have the most effect on your life. True, it's critically important to make sure that a corrupt and ignorant wannabe tyrant like Der Furor never again reaches the White House, and that gawdawful ignoramuses like Ronny Jackson, Empty G, Matt Gaetz, Louis Gohmert, Rafael Cruz, and the like don't get elected or re-elected to Congress. But do you want someone who wears a tinfoil hat and despises much of the population because they're the wrong color, religion, or sexual orientation making decisions on your child's education?

I am working today, as I do each election day, as an Election Officer at my local precinct. I look forward to greeting my friends and neighbors as they arrive to do their civic duty, as I hope you will do yours.

As the old saying goes, "we're all in the same boat" ... just make sure you have a voice in how that boat is steered.

Have a good day, and vote today. If you don't, you have no cause to complain about your government.

More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

Election Day, 2021

This is it, folks. It's Election Day, the one day on which YOU - one American citizen - get to formally and officially commit your voice to the individuals, parties, and governing philosophies of which you approve. You don't do it with guns and unfocused rage, you do it by the simple and dignified act of going to your local polling place with your fellow citizens, standing tall, identifying yourself, and casting your ballot.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to give your decision on the candidates plenty of thought in these difficult times. Regardless of what you may think of the Democrats' specific policies and programs, they at least have some. The entire political program of the Republican Party consists of three things: wipe out taxes (especially on business and the wealthy), remove all restrictions on business, and worship Der Furor. All of these have led directly to the mess in which the nation now finds itself. 

If you believe in the Republican program of simply slashing taxes and eliminating programs, ask yourself what those taxes pay for and how those programs that are disappearing ultimately benefit you and your community. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but everyone likes the things they pay for. The simple fact that the government pays for a public service with your taxes does not equate to "socialism," "communism," or any of the other isms that are the boogeymen of the right.

Ask yourself what specific programs Republicans have advanced that directly benefit you, as opposed to big business and the top 1%. Ask yourself how much of that largesse has actually "trickled down" to you ... how much of the vast wealth at the top of the pyramid and the huge profits of big business have directly helped you. Has it improved your wages? Has it improved your life? Is your job more secure? Be honest.

For at least a decade, the GOP has railed against the horror of "socialized medicine" (however that is defined) and tried over and over again to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (AKA, "Obamacare") ... but has never - not once - provided anything that will replace it or improve the provision of affordable medical care to ordinary Americans. You'd think they'd have been able to come up with something.

Republicans have nothing to offer but unguided rage. They turn school board meetings into circuses by thundering against the horrendous evil of teaching Critical Race Theory to elementary and high school students ... without understanding what it is (just ask them to define it) or realizing that it is not a topic discussed anywhere below the university level. They insist on religious freedom, but only as it applies to evangelical "Christians." They insist that elections are "unfair" or "rigged" if they do not win, and rather than presenting policies and programs that will attract support from a broader swath of the population, they concentrate on simply reducing the number of people likely to vote against them by "scrubbing" voting rolls and gerrymandering electorally safe districts for Republicans*. While they insist that elections they've lost are "unfair" or "rigged," they have yet to provide the least bit of actual evidence that any measurable fraud or illegality has occurred ... their goal is simply to muddy the waters and encourage citizens to doubt the security of the electoral process.

The Democratic Party, at the moment, is doing its own imitation of the classic clown car, fighting with itself over its admirable goals and unable to present calm, rational summaries of its policies to push bak against the relentless Republican drumbeat of distortions, misrepresentations, selective statistics, and outright lies.

You have a choice today. 

You can vote for the party which is trying to make the government work for you, or for the party that has no clear policies or programs that will benefit you. 

You can vote for the party which is trying to protect your right to vote, or for the party that is trying to ignore and whitewash the violent and terrible riots that attempted to overturn the last election.

You can vote for the party which is trying to protect your right to vote, or for the party that is trying to make sure your vote won't count, even if they allow you to cast it.

I encourage you to vote for the party that is at least trying - however ineptly - to develop and present specific programs that will help you and I ... not those who need help least. 

Vote, dammit.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* To be fair, Democrats engage in gerrymandering, too ... but any dispassionate review would show that Republicans are far more thorough and relentless about it.

The Day After the Election, 2020

Those of you who are my friends on Facebook, and those of you who were readers of this blog as far back as 2016, know that I work as a volunteer Election Officer (EO) for Fairfax County during the election seasons. I have found being on the inside of the administrative process of voting to be an amazing civic education, one that I have embraced as a calming influence in these times of partisan insanity.

My first participation as an EO took place in the 2106 election, and I've worked a large number of general and special elections since then. You may want to read (or re-read) my precinct-worker-level commentary on the 2016 election here ... my observations of the system as it worked yesterday are very similar, but with a few changes and updates. In case you're interested, here's my take on the 2020 election at my precinct - number 626 - in Fairfax County, Virginia ...

Most of us turned out at the local elementary school to set up the polling place on Monday afternoon before the election. Under the direction of our experienced Chief Officer, we set up all the tables and desks, ran and taped down all the extension cords, put up all the new plexiglass safety barricades, taped up the 53 acres of various legally-required signs, measured and taped out six-foot distance markers to safely space people who would be standing in line, etc, etc. We did everything we could do in advance, leaving the last hour before the polls opened on Tuesday morning free for the things we could only legally do at the last minute: unpack and set up all our machines, update voting lists, verify starting numbers, sign paperwork, and take the official oath.

We on the election staff had a show time of 5:00 AM on Tuesday, and when the doors opened at 6:00 there were a great many people in line. My first job of the day was checking people in using our electronic "poll pads" linked to the county voter registration database ... this allowed us immediately to identify voters who were in the wrong place or who had already requested and received an absentee ballot. At the start of the day, we knew from the database that 169 absentee ballots issued to voters in our precinct had not yet been returned. In the course of the day, about half of those had been brought in by voters who wanted to exchange them (unused) for a paper ballot they could mark and file on the spot ... there was clearly concern on the part of many that their mailed-in or dropped-off absentee ballots might be not received, not be processed, or challenged as somehow illegitimate.

As in 2016, nobody questioned having to provide an ID. In fact, many people (particularly newer citizens and first-time voters) simply dumped every bit of ID they had into the tray and invited us to take what we needed!

We only had one person who came in without a mask. He wasn't trying to make a statement ... he was in a hurry and had simply forgotten to put it on when he left his car. We allowed him to vote without comment, as we were forbidden to require anyone to wear a mask, but he was visibly embarrassed about being the only person in the place without one.

Contrary to what I had expected in such a bitterly contested election, we had only two partisan poll watchers show up, and both were pleasant, orderly, and unobtrusive, never trying to insert themselves into any of our activities or challenging any individual voters. In fact, I couldn't tell which party either one represented. All of us on the staff, of course, took our oaths to be totally nonpartisan very seriously, and no one could have made a case that we were other than scrupulously fair and honest.

All the setup and organizational work we'd done ahead of time paid off in a very smooth and almost completely glitch-free day. We got a great many compliments from voters about how well organized and efficient we were, which was great to hear.

Interested in the results? Here are the final figures for our precinct as we recorded them at the end of election day in 2016 and 2020:

2016: Clinton, 1461; Trump, 739. Total ballots recorded: 2372.

2020: Biden, 594; Trump, 483. Total ballots recorded: 1114.

The total number of votes at the end of the day was about half of what we recorded in 2016, mainly as a function of the enormous turnout for early voting; thus, we won't know what the actual results for our precinct are until the early/absentee votes are tabulated and added to the totals. Plenty of time for drinking yet!

One last comment ... in the course of a very long day (5:00 AM to 8:45 PM) we had only a few minor complaints from disgruntled voters, almost all of them dealing with either directional signs or the accommodations we had to make for social distancing and hygiene. But the one HUGE complaint we heard over and over, all day long, was that we weren't handing out the traditional "I Voted!" stickers and the even-more-popular "Future Voter" stickers for children. Someone up the chain decided that the amount of handling and interpersonal contact involved in handing them out represented an unacceptable health hazard in the era of Covid-19. I think that's sad.

So those were my basic observations on the 2020 election. It was a long day, but I'm glad I did it. If nothing else, it gave me a day isolated from the constant bombardment of partisan political advertising in our resolutely non-partisan bubble!

Have a good day. If you didn't vote, shame on you; if you did vote, I hope it was for the right person and for the right reasons.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Should Everybody Vote?

This is going to be a little long and rambling, so bear with me. It's one of those topics I know will be loved and hated in equal measure.

GOP lawmakers in many states have made unfortunate names for themselves and their party by imposing onerous limitations on persons likely to vote for the other party ... not in so many words, but under the guise of "ensuring the sanctity of the ballot box" or "protecting against rampant* voter fraud." These efforts continue at the national level, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell** recently scoffed at a draft bill to make Election Day a national holiday, calling it "the "Democratic Politician Protection Act" and describing it as a "power grab" that changed "the rules of Americans politics for the exclusive benefit of the Democratic Party." That bill would have, in addition to making Election Day a national holiday and thus enabling millions of working people to more easily vote, also called for presidential candidates to release their tax returns, added a matching system for small donations, required super PACs to disclose donors who give more than $10,000, and prohibited voter purging. I find it difficult to see this as a "power grab," but then I'm not anxious to turn the clock back 150 years, either.

There are legitimate issues with the mechanics of voting, but beyond that we have a general problem with the acceptance of civic responsibilities. For instance, I'm not sure that making Election Day a national holiday would solve the problem of low voter turnout, partly because such a holiday would likely not be enforceable (look at how many retail and service businesses continue to operate normally on national holidays), and partly because many people don't vote because they've been turned off by the unseemly mud-slinging circus that our elections have become. There's also the problem that many otherwise well-qualified candidates are unwilling to subject themselves and their families to the gutter tactics of modern political campaigns, leaving the field open to those who are less-qualified or who seek power for its own sake.

Yes, there are a great many problems with our voting system, even without considering the impact of the anachronistic Electoral College***.

But I think a very large part of the problem also lies with the voting public itself.

In 2016, enough citizens voted for a supremely unqualified con man to allow him to lose the popular vote but win the election in the Electoral College and go on to lead one of the most chaotic, disruptive, and divisive administrations in our history. How did this happen?

One can make the argument that previous administrations were out of touch with the needs and interests of many Americans and that those people, anxious for a change to an administration that would listen to them and fix their problems, turned to a candidate who told them what they wanted to hear.

But why did those people make that choice? Why did they believe that a bombastic, secretive, self-described billionaire whose homes are decorated with gold, who had never held a blue-collar job of any type, who had never served in the military, whose business record reflects a string of bankruptcies, lawsuits, and the shameless stiffing of creditors, who was several times divorced and had been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women ... why did voters believe that this person, whose only qualification was supreme self-confidence and the ability to whip audiences to a frenzy with pithy bumper-sticker slogans, deserved to be the President of the United States?

At the risk of bringing the wrath of the Internet down upon my head, I have to ask: should everyone be allowed to vote? Should there be requirements other than citizenship and a minimum age that apply to the right to vote? While I agree in principle that every citizen of the republic should have a voice in the election of his (or her) representatives, I also believe it's incumbent upon each citizen to understand the structure and function of their government, comprehend the issues at play in the election, and be able to realistically evaluate the qualifications and competence of candidates for office. It appears to me - based on the results of the last election and the quality of many comments posted on the Internet - that many of our citizens cannot do any of these. For many reasons, the voting public has been dumbed down to the point where it can be swayed by the airy, uninformed promises of an endlessly bloviating con artist^†.

Although I realize that it will never happen because it flies in the face of our evolved political traditions, and that the very suggestion will enrage many at all points on the political spectrum (but mostly on the far ends), I believe that in order to register to vote a person must:

1. Be a citizen of the United States (duh...);

2. Be 18 years of age on election day (see the 26th Amendment); and,

3. Complete a course of instruction in basic civics and government, either as a routine part of a high-school-level education or, if necessary, as a mandatory requirement for voter registration. This course would cover the Constitution, the structure and function of the national government and that of the individual's state of residence, the rights and privileges of citizenship, and the economics of government (who pays for what, and how).

It would also be nice to be able to impose a requirement that each registered voter subscribe to multiple news sources representing varying points of view, but that's a bridge waaaay too far and I don't know how it could be enforced in the present media environment.

Should everyone vote? Can we impose reasonable requirements that do not unduly limit our most basic civic responsibility? Whether you agree with me or not, I care what you think. Leave a comment.

Have a good day. Vote, but do it carefully.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Yet continually unproven.

** A five-time Ass Clown awardee and winner of the 2018 Ass Clown of the Year Award.

*** While there are those who argue that the Electoral College is an essential protector of our form of representative government, I am not one of them.

† Like many other populations, like Germany under Hitler, Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro, Iran under the Mullahs)

Election Day

Today is election day here in Virginia and across the country. Here in the Old Dominion, we will vote for, among other positions, a new Governor and Lieutenant Governor (they run separately). I have already cast my vote through "In-Person Absentee Balloting*," authorized because I will again be working as an election officer at a local precinct.

If you are not registered to vote, shame on you.

If you are registered to vote, but do not go out and do your civic duty, shame on you.

If you are registered to vote, and your vote is governed by a visceral hatred for one side or the other, rather than a careful consideration of the individual candidates' and their party's positions on the key issues of the day, shame on you.

Politics is (are?) distasteful, but our right to vote is a right that many people around the world don't have. It's your voice. If you don't use it, I don't feel the need to listen to anything you have to say on the issues.

Get out and do your duty.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Reason 4a.

Jury Duty ... Again

You may remember last month, Dear Readers, that I was summoned for jury duty at the local Circuit Court. In Fairfax County, the way it works is that you are summoned to appear for one day. If selected for a jury, you serve until the end of the trial; if not selected, you are taken off the list of prospective jurors and are not eligible to be called up for three years.

Well ...

The same week I received the summons from the county court, I also received one from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ... a judicial double-header, as it were. The US District Court summons is a lot different from the local one: first of all, I'm on call for two weeks, rather than just one day; I had to call in after 6:00 PM last Friday to see if I was scheduled to appear today, and I have to call after 6:00 PM every day of the on-call period to see if I am scheduled to report on the following day. Today is the first day of my two weeks, and I don't have to report, but I'm still on the hook until September 1st.

I don't mind being summoned for jury duty, which is a small price to pay to live in the wonderful country I do. But I do wonder why the systems are so different.

For instance, on the day I was called up for Fairfax County, I reported to the jury assembly room at the courthouse, where my summons was scanned in by cheerful court officers. I was allowed to bring my phone and my iPad, and the room provided free Wi-Fi for the prospective jurors while we waited. At the US District Court, however, we are not permitted to bring phones or tablets or anything with a recording capability, which will make things difficult for those who haven't mastered (or who have forgotten) the art of reading actual ink-on-paper books and magazines. And, of course, being on call for two weeks makes it impossible to plan for any travel or daytime events during that period. AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Well, I guess we'll see what happens. I'll keep you posted. If I miss one or more days of posts over the next two weeks, you'll know what happened.

In the meantime, if you are near the path of today's total eclipse of the sun, please be careful when you watch it ... your eyes will thank you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Jury Duty

Yes, Dear Readers, yours truly has been summoned to report for jury duty at the Fairfax County Circuit Court today. I need to report to the courthouse early, so this will be a relatively short post.

Being summoned doesn't mean that I will actually end up on a jury ... just that I have to show up and be available for interview and possible selection to sit on a jury. If it goes like the last few times I was called up, I'll sit in the assembly room all day until a bailiff comes in, thanks those of us who haven't been selected, and tells us we can go home and be free for another three years, at which time we'll be eligible to be called up again.

Ah, well ... like paying taxes, it's one of the obligations of citizenship. And who knows? This time, I may even get selected! I'll let you know how it turns out.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Observations on the Virginia Primary Election

Yesterday, as you may recall, we had our primary election here in Virginia, where voters went to the polls to elect the candidates who will represent their parties in the November general election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor^†. As I did for last November's presidential election^††, I worked at my local precinct as a volunteer Election Official, which gave me the opportunity to make my own observations on our political processes and what they meant at the local level. Here are my take-aways from yesterday's experience:

* Because it was a primary election, the turnout was relatively light. The precinct at which I worked has 3150 registered voters; when the polls closed at 7:00 PM (after opening at 6:00 AM), 432 people had voted - about a 14% turnout rate.

* Virginia has an "open primary" system, in which voters may vote for either party, but may select only one. Essentially, there were two parallel elections: one for the Republican and one for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, with separate ballots. As election officials, we were required to be totally non-partisan, to the point where we were told to ask voters, "In which primary do you wish to vote?" rather than asking if they wanted a "Republican" or a "Democratic" ballot ... this was meant to avoid any hint that we might favor one party or the other. Oddly enough, this language caused some confusion for many voters, who just thought of the election simply as a single "primary," and did not expect to have to choose a party ballot. A few people objected to having to indicate by their choice whether they were voting Republican or Democratic. Sometimes, you just can't win.

* We rotated among various jobs during the 13-hour voting day, taking turns greeting voters at the door, checking them in with our electronic poll books, passing out blank ballots, operating the optical scanner, etc. I preferred greeting voters at the door and checking them in, which gave more opportunities to be sociable.

* At the risk of generalizing from a small sample, of the 432 ballots requested by voters in our precinct, about 112 were for Republicans and the remainder for Democrats, indicating a much more robust turnout by Democratic voters.

* As in November, there was absolutely no evidence of voter fraud, at least at our precinct. Every voter had proper identification, and none were shown in the official records of having voted more than once (for instance, had requested an absentee ballot and then tried to vote in person).

* The relentless drumbeat of allegations of voting fraud since the November election, whether accurate or not, resonated with some voters. We answered several questions from concerned voters about the accuracy of our record-keeping and how they would know that their votes "counted" once their marked ballots had been optically scanned by the vote-counting machines. Most people were satisfied with our answers, but one man in particular seemed to be completely convinced that every election was "rigged" and that he would never be able to be sure that we were completely honest.

* No partisan "poll-watchers" showed up to monitor our activities. I suppose this was to be expected, since the election was not a head-to-head contest between Republicans and Democrats.

Those are my major observations of the conduct of our primary election yesterday. I was pleased to have been a part of the little-d democratic process, and will continue to volunteer for future service as long as they'll have me.

One last happy observation ...

Late in the day I was working as the greeter, directing voters to the proper precinct (we had two precincts operating out different sides of the local elementary school gym) and making sure they hadn't left their IDs behind when the left the polling place. An elderly lady leaning heavily on a cane made her slow way up to the door, and I gave her my usual "two precincts, Alban to the right and Saratoga to the left" speech. She stopped and said pleasantly, "Thank you, young man!" before going on into the station; on the way out, when I asked if she still had her ID, she said again, "Yes, young man, thank you for asking."

It's been a long, long time since anyone called me young man, and it made my day.

Have a good day. Vote. And, if you can, volunteer to assist in the process. It's more important now than ever.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

† For some odd reason, here in The Old Dominion we vote for them separately.

†† You can read my observations on that experience in this blog post from last November.

Election Day, 2016

No post today - I'm working as an election officer at my local precinct from 5:00 AM until everything is packed and accounted for tonight. Be sure to do your duty as a citizen and cast your vote. We may wish for better candidates, but we go to the polls with the ones we have ... and if you don't vote, you forfeit the right to complain for the next four years.

Have a good day. Vote. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Your Papers, Please

One of the stock scenes in spy movies involves the steely-eyed secret police agent confronting a hapless citizen and demanding to see his or her "papers." The scene works because in most of the world, citizens are required to carry government-approved identification documents, and present them when requested by someone in authority. This isn't so in the United States, because our theoretical "right to privacy" supposedly prevents the Evil Government^TM from mandating a national identity document. This allows us to maintain a cherished freedom from demands from steely-eyed secret police agents, but proves problematic when those times arise when there's a legitimate need to prove definitively who we are (for voting, check-cashing, and other legal issues), how old we are (to buy alcohol or tobacco, or go to some movies), where we live (for tax or voting purposes), or whether or not we are actually citizens (to prevent illegal voting).

So, how do we do that?

Most of us don't carry ... or even have a copy of ... our birth certificate, which theoretically proves exactly who we are and where we were born - and thus our citizenship status. Unfortunately, it's not a photo ID, which is what is usually required. And chances are that if there were a picture on your birth certificate, you don't look very much like it any more.

Here in the US, the humble driver's license is the most common form of identity document ... we are, after all, a nation built around a culture of cars and driving, and the acquisition of a driver's license is more or less a rite of passage for young people. But it's not a universally acceptable form of identification, because while it provides basic information like a photo, name, age, sex, and address, as well as other information like a fingerprint or one's status as an organ donor, it does not necessarily prove citizenship. Also, every state's driver's license is different in format, organization, and data presented, making it not very useful for identification in Wisconsin if you are from, say, the Republic of Texas. And finally, what if you can't or don't drive, because of age or disability - should you be required to spend the money (as much as $55, depending on the state, not to mention the cost of any driver training required) for such a document?

Some Americans have a passport, which is the gold standard of identification in that it proves both identity and citizenship; however, relatively few Americans travel, and the cost of a passport ($135 for a first-time adult application) is beyond the reach of many lower-income citizens.

And so I ask again: how do we prove who we are? This is no small issue at a time when there's a vast, manufactured hysteria over in-person voter fraud. And because we are a nation composed of 50 individual states, populated by citizens intent on preserving the sanctity of their privacy, there is no single nationally-recognized, readily obtainable form of identification, universally accepted for all legal actions.

I started thinking about this when my friend Lily directed me to an article pointing out that in Wisconsin, a military identification card issued by the Department of Defense is considered valid ID for voting, but a photo ID issued to a former service member by the Department of Veterans' Affairs is not. A little study revealed that there is a tremendous difference among the various states as to what documents are considered valid as proof of identity for voting. The list of acceptable IDs for Virginia is here; for purposes of comparison, here is the equivalent list for Texas*.

Privacy interests notwithstanding, we have a common interest in making sure we can identify ourselves when necessary. If I were you, I'd check - right now - to make sure that you have a form of ID acceptable not only to your local election officials, but also to the endlessly suspicious and steely-eyed poll watchers from the major political parties. You don't want to be deprived of your right to vote because you don't have an ID everyone will accept.

Let me just finish by saying that I have absolutely no problem with requiring a person to show a valid identification document in order to vote. But if it is to be a requirement, it is the responsibility of government at the appropriate levels to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to obtain the required ID conveniently, and either free or at a reasonable minimum cost.

So now, before I wish you a good day, how about some ID to show me you're entitled to it?

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Naturally, Texas would accept a license to carry a handgun as proof of ID for voting. Oy.

The Things That Matter

One of my favorite songs is a John Denver ditty from back in the 70's called "Late Night Radio," which includes this line -

"I turn the dial a little bit past one-oh-one point two,
In time to catch the news and see who's shootin' who"

Those lines are more relevant now than ever before. What's wrong with our country that these things keep happening?

I think the best explanation of why things are the way they are was written in a 1972 memoir by Dennis Smith. Report from Engine Company 82 describes Smith's experiences - by turns dramatic, funny, and horrifying - as a career firefighter in New York City. Commenting on demonstrators who were pelting his crew with rocks as they tried to fight a fire in a New York slum, he wrote:

"I used to believe that people who threw rocks at firemen were motivated by conditions - the lower depths of American society. I used to believe that the fundamental problems were housing and education ... but I don't believe that anymore ... The disease is much more seriously latent, more pernicious than uncaring landlords, or bureaucratic, apathetic school officials. The malignancy lies in the guts of humankind at all levels. We have unlearned the value of a human life."

There are a lot of "explanations" for why we're stuck in this insane cesspool of violence. It's easy to spread the blame, and commentators from across the political spectrum are busy doing it. Depending on your political persuasion, the fault lies with the ready availability and glorification of powerful weapons, ultraviolent movies and television shows, parents who don't teach their children right from wrong, people who value individual freedom over responsibility to the community, religious and social bigotry, or any of a thousand other excuses. But the real reason is the one Dennis Smith identified more than 40 years ago - we have unlearned the value of a human life.

A human life. Not black or white or asian or hispanic. Human.

And I don't know what else to say.

Have a good day. And be careful. I need you all safe and sound.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we salute the Left Cheek Ass Clown for July.

Bilbo

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 2015

In the biblical book of Revelation, verses 1 through 8 of Chapter 6 introduce the figures we know today as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only one of them (Death) is actually named; the others are simply described - War, Famine, and Pestilence.

But the Bible was written more than a thousand years ago, and things change. The traditional Four Horsemen certainly are still with us, but I contend that they are slowly being displaced by the updated Four Horsemen - Vanity, Ignorance, Demagoguery, and Denial.

Vanity is exemplified by self-important celebrities and political figures interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. Many televangelists, and rabble-rousing community leaders like Al Sharpton follow the Horseman of Vanity.

Ignorance is exemplified by those who deny evidence and blindly follow their prejudices. Those who choose to ignore common sense, compassion, morality, and established science in favor of blind religious belief follow the Horseman of Ignorance.

Demagoguery represents political blowhards who rage endlessly and irresponsibly, without regard for the consequences of their ravings. Right-wing TV and radio gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, and irresponsible politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz follow the Horseman of Demagoguery.

Denial is the twin brother of Ignorance, and represents those who blindly follow their chosen beliefs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, refusing to admit or acknowledge objective reality. Climate change deniers and Second Amendment zealots follow the Horseman of Denial.

America is a free country, although there are those who would play upon our basest instincts and fears in an attempt to take those freedoms away. Nobody will ever take away the hundreds of millions of guns now in the hands of people who take counsel of their worst fears, but our other fundamental freedoms - of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion - are on the block*. We are afraid of the wrong things.

Look around you. Think. And if you're going to follow a horseman, do it at the track.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Look under "p" for Patriot Act.

Should Voting Be Mandatory?

There was a minor stir last week when President Obama suggested that one way to help minimize the influence of big money donors on our electoral process would be to make voting mandatory, as it is in at least 26 other countries, among them Australia and Belgium.

Should voting be mandatory? I don't think so.

For one thing, there are those on the far right who would refuse to vote just on principle, because they object to laws requiring them to do anything.

For another, I was always taught (and firmly believe) that voting is a civic duty - one of the foundations of our democratic society that allows us to choose our leaders, rather than submitting to rule by a family* represented by the reigning king or emperor.

And from a practical standpoint, how would you administer such a law? Who would be responsible for tracking down and arresting those who didn't vote? What would be an appropriate penalty - a fine, jail time, community service, or - what we might call the Saudi Arabian approach - chopping off the finger that should have been used to push the "vote" button on a machine, or the hand that should have wielded a pencil to place an X in the right block?

On the plus side, it might require rabid partisans at both ends of the political spectrum to finally agree on a fair and workable system for voters to identify themselves at the polls, minimizing the ludicrous spectacle of "poll watchers" practicing gotcha politics ... scrutinizing every voter in the hopes of maximizing their party's advantage while undermining the other party.

We live at a time and in a country where our most important civic duties are less important that what we demand as our rights. How many of those who - for example - demand totally unrestricted gun ownership because they feel threatened by the government nevertheless ignore their responsibility to vote for those who represent them in that government? And how many people who actually do vote cast their votes on the basis of a single issue or belief (no gay marriage, no abortions, no restrictions on gun ownership, get rid of unions/support unions, etc), without looking at the larger responsibilities of government or the interests of other citizens?

No, we don't need mandatory voting. We need citizens who are responsible enough to fulfill their duty to the country, rather than sitting at home on election day and then bitching about how awful the government is that they didn't bother to help elect.

Have a good day. Remember that your responsibilities are every bit as important as your rights ... if not more so.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Such as the Bush, Clinton, Adams, Roosevelt, or Rockefeller families, no?

Sorry, Wrong Nationality

Rant alert ...

The huge, screaming headline on CNN as I write this is

"U.S. Officials: American Died Fighting for ISIS."

Well, I hate to burst the bubble of those officials, whoever they are, but anyone fighting for ISIS is not an American. This ass clown made a conscious decision to turn his back on his family and his country and head overseas to fight for a bunch of genocidal religious fanatics who want nothing better than to turn the clock back to an imaginary seventh century paradise. He decided it was more important to be a homicidal religious bigot than a citizen of the greatest nation on earth.

If you think jihad in the service of murderous lunatics like ISIS is your destiny, there are lots of garden spots in the world (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, to name a few) where you'll be happier than here in the country you spurned. Good riddance.

If it were my decision to make, every one of these fools who leaves the country and fights for some quasi-religious band of thugs should have his passport cancelled immediately. No right of return, no consular protection, no more of the benefits of living in a country that gives him rights no rigidly theocratic regime would ever allow. Enjoy your jihad, but enjoy it somewhere else. You're not coming back.

Mr McCain can hold hell's door open for the rest of his friends. There's plenty of room left for their kind.

Have a good day. Do not refer to these morons as Americans in my hearing.

More thoughts tomorrow, when I calm down.

Bilbo

Election Day. Sigh.

Today is Election Day here in The Old Dominion*, and those of us who care will be electing a governor, an attorney general, and various other lesser luminaries. The choices are not inspiring.

Even by modern standards, the governor's race here in Virginia has been dirty and shrill, full of foul mudslinging, baseless charges, distortions of records, and statistics used wildly out of any context. If you pay attention to the advertisements that run every 13 seconds on TV and radio, we have a choice for governor between a far-right social conservative who would probably be too extreme for the most remote one-camel town in Saudi Arabia, and a crook who is just foaming at the mouth to be elected so that he can immediately raise taxes through the roof and spend his days in rapt adoration of an extreme liberal agenda that recklessly rids Virginia of jobs. At this point, there's no telling what the truth is, and no way of knowing what the candidates stand for, because it tends to shift based on the latest poll results ... and in any case, nobody is talking about issues Real People care about because they're too busy piling mud and insults on each other to do anything as mundane as explaining their own positions.

I'm glad that we use the sort of voting machines here in Virginia that use touch screens operated by a single finger ... it leaves the other hand free to hold one's nose.

The robo-calls are the worst part of any election season. I hate unsolicited political calls anyhow, but those that are simply programmed to deliver a recorded message are the worst. Had Dante but known when he wrote his Inferno, he would have probably created a separate level of hell for the inventor of the political robo-call. You don't even have the satisfaction of asking a live caller to explain his (or her) candidate's position on specific issues, telling him (or her) that his (or her) candidate is an ignorant dumbass, or just hanging up**.

I'm going to vote, anyhow, because that's what I'm supposed to do. But given the choices I have this year, it's not going to be fun.

Have a good day. Vote. If you don't, you have no right to complain about the results.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* That's what we endearingly call Virginia, when we're not mad at it.

** Even hanging up on an unwanted caller isn't very satisfying any more ... back in the days when a telephone was made of bakelite and solid steel and weighed about 75 pounds, you could slam the receiver down with a satisfying crash that sent an unmistakeable message and probably broke the table on which it sat. Nowadays, telephones are made of cheap plastic and printed circuits and are hung up by daintily pressing the "off" button ... if you slam a modern cordless telephone back into its cradle, it will shatter into a million expensive pieces.

Why Bother with Those Pesky Laws?

Do you mind if I philosophize for a moment?

Of course you don't. Of course, it's my blog, so I'll do it anyway, but I thought I'd be polite and ask.

I've been amazed at the ongoing circus over trying to come up with some common-sense ways to limit gun violence in our weapon-worshiping society. Many of the arguments made by both sides of the argument, but especially by gun advocates, are becoming increasingly shrill and wildly divergent from reality, to the point where it's all but impossible to have a rational discussion of a critical issue.

Here's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard from the NRA and other strident defenders of gun rights: "there's no point in enacting laws which restrict gun ownership, because the bad guys won't obey them and they'll only penalize law-abiding citizens."*

Well, duh.

If that's the case, what is the point of having any law about anything?

By definition, a lawbreaker is someone who ... breaks the law. The purpose of law is to protect the many from the depredations of the few. If we were all upright citizens who respected each other's rights and property, we'd have no need of laws. Sadly, that's not the case.

Laws aren't necessarily passed with the idea that they will proactively prevent people from being bad things, although that's certainly a part of it ... I'm sure there are some people who are dissuaded from committing crimes because of the possibility of experiencing the joys of prison life. But the law also provides a basis for punishing those who would willingly break the rules we as a society have enacted for our common protection.

My father always used to say that if you locked your doors and windows, it would keep out all the honest people, and that's true. It's also true that because we have laws, some dishonest people will be deterred from trying to break down those doors and windows ... and those that aren't know that they run the risk of arrest and prosecution.

The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill," and all civilized societies have laws which apply criminal sanctions to a religious law. Do some people kill anyhow? Of course they do. But the existence of laws will deter some and ensure others that they can be punished. The eighth commandment tells us not to steal. Will some people steal, regardless? Of course they will. But we have laws against theft which allow such people to be punished.

Here's my point: the argument that laws restricting guns are useless because bad guys won't obey them is utterly stupid and unworthy of rational consideration. Of course bad guys won't obey the law ... but the law tells all of us what things we have agreed are worthy of punishment, and protects all of us by providing a basis for punishing those who transgress the limits we have agreed to place on dangerous activities.

Leave a comment and let me know what you think, but don't waste my time by saying laws are useless ... because the law is what sets us apart from the animals, who often behave better than many people.

Have a good day. Obey the law - it's there for your protection.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The bumper-sticker version is "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."