Election Wrap Up: Getting Close - No Statewide Recount

Last week, there was still a possibility of a statewide recount of the race for Lt.  Governor. According to press reports, the margin between the two candidates was small enough to allow a request for a recount. There was also the possibility of a court challenge to NC provisional ballot procedures, and the possibility of a request for copies of the cover of all provisional ballots with non-public records (drivers license, social security number and date of birth) redacted. Responding to such a request would be a large undertaking.

This morning, we received notice from the State Board of Elections that Lt. Governor candidate Linda Coleman has decided not to seek a recount and has asked that her public records request of last week be withdrawn. There will be a few district and county recounts, but so far as we know, there will be none involving Pamlico County.

As an aside, my observation is that, given the procedures and equipment used in North Carolina, there is little likelihood that any recount will result in a different outcome.

House Of Representatives Problem

D.R. and M.D., writing in The Economist blog Democracy in America, take issue with Speaker Boehner's claim that the American people have given the House of Representatives a mandate by electing a Republican majority. They point out that the American people gave more votes to Democratic candidates for the house than to Republican members and attribute the Republican majority to successful gerrymandering: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/congressional-representation-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/callvotersuppression

Their blog post is interesting, because it addresses a number of problems with some of our historical assumptions about representation. The main issue the blog post addresses is that the maldistribution of seats in the house.

The authors do point out that "It is not the first time that a party has won a majority of seats in the House despite receiving fewer votes than its rival. Mr Gingrich’s team won re-election and a 26-seat majority in 1996, on 47.8% of the vote to 48.1% for the Democrats. In 1942 Sam Rayburn managed to attain a 13-seat majority for the Democrats in the mid-terms, even though his party won 46% of the vote to the Republicans’ 51% (small wonder that Rayburn holds the record as the longest-serving speaker). But rarely does it produce such a skewed result as we've seen in the House this year."

Actually, Sam Rayburn's accomplishment is less impressive when you realize it took place in an era before the Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr which established the principle of "one person, one vote." In other words, each member of Congress must represent an approximately equal number of citizens. That was not the case in 1942.

D.R. and M.D. tentatively suggest proportional representation as a way to avoid this problem, and then quickly back off because it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not so sure. The Constitution doesn't even mention Congressional Districts. There may be ways without such an amendment.

I posted some thoughts on the subject last May:

Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.

Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?

A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."

Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.

We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First Congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.

Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the Constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.

My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.

How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might just as well force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.

How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.

Originally Posted May 29, 2012 

Note: I would actually prefer proportional representation. Failing that unlikely outcome, a possible (but not necessary) consequence of enlarging the House might be to increase the possibility of third (or fourth...) parties. It might at least make it harder to have the kind of lock step voting patterns we see on the Republican side of the House today.

Pamlico County Election Canvass

Ten days after the election, every county board of elections meets at 11:00 a.m to make the preliminary count made on election day official. That happened yesterday all across North Carolina. In finalizing the count, the board considers timely absentee votes submitted by mail that were received after election day (we had eleven) as well as provisional ballots cast on election day.

In Pamlico County, sixty-three provisional ballots were cast. When we examined those sixty-three ballots, we determined that twenty-five of them met the legal criteria to be accepted as legal votes. The thirty-eight ballots that were rejected will still be processed as voter registration requests and many of the provisional voters will be added to the county's voter registration rolls.

Next Thursday, November 22, the county board will issue certificates of election for every contest involving only county offices, in the absence of a demand for recount or an election protest.  As of this writing, we do not anticipate a local recount or protest.

There remain two possibilities for a statewide recount: one congressional seat not involving Pamlico County and one statewide contest - that for Lieutenant Governor.

Once the election is truly over, I will have a few words to say about various candidates. In the meantime, my interest remains policy and process, not individual candidates.

Racist Dog Whistle Factory: Lee Atwater

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Lee Atwater, 1981

Here's a complete article from The Nation with complete audio of a 1981 conversation with Lee Atwater.

Life Expectancy

There are a lot of more or less rational arguments that can be raised in favor of changing some social and economic policies. One that does not withstand close examination is the idea that we should increase retirement age because "we are all living longer."

It turns out that "all" is a bit of an exaggeration.

In fact, it turns out that the life expectancy at age 65 of the lowest quarter (25%) of US males is down close to the life expectancy found in Eastern Europe. Not good.

Here is a link to some interesting graphs.

By the way, life expectancy for white people in America with less than a high school education is declining, as shown here.

Washington Post Fact Checking

I have mixed views about the proliferation of "fact checkers" as a specialty in many newspapers. I am of the view that reporters themselves should verify the truth of assertions made by interviewees, rather than "he-said, she-said" reports equating two sides. For one thing, there are often if not usually more than two sides to any controversy.

On balance, it is better to have fact checking than not. Still, it is not clear that we must trust the objectivity of the "fact checkers" themselves. Who checks the "fact checkers."

I have been particularly disappointed in the Washington Post "fact checker," Glenn Kessler. Particularly in the area of the national economy, he has from time to time awarded numerous "pinocchios" to statements that were actually true.

Today Kessler takes on Senator John McCain's comments about UN Ambassador Susan Rice's comments on "Face The Nation" on September 16 concerning the Benghazi raid. Kessler reviews the statement and makes it absolutely clear that John McCain completely misrepresents her comments and the context of them. In short, McCain's attack on Rice is a lie.

Kessler awards McCain two pinocchios.

Here is Kessler's scale:

"The Pinocchio Test

Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio

Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios

Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios

Whoppers."

Reasonable people can differ as to whether Kessler's own fact checking justifies four pinocchios  or only three. But two? No way!

Seventy Years Ago: Naval Battle Of Guadalcanal, Phase II

The first phase, November 12-13 of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal had resulted in the deaths of US Admirals Scott and Callaghan and the loss of two light cruisers and four destroyers. Japan lost battleship Hiei, two destroyers and seven transports.

Admiral Abe withdrew his forces, including his remaining battleship, Kirishima one light cruiser and eleven destroyers. Yamamoto postponed the planned Japanese landing on Guadalcanal until November 15.

The US had paid a high price for a two-day delay. Callaghan's forces thought they had won a great victory. Subsequent analysis revealed that Callaghan's force disposition failed to make best use of the capabilities of radar, with which he was unfamiliar, and that he had issued unclear and confusing orders.

The truth is, that once again Japanese training in night combat operations and superior Japanese torpedoes had inflicted a tactical defeat on American forces.

Strategically, Callaghan and Scott had turned back the Japanese invasion force.

Japan remained committed to reinforcing their troops on Guadalcanal and pushing the Americans off the island. They started the force back toward Guadalcanal, with battleship Kirishima, two heavy cruisers, two light cruisers and nine destroyers under command of Rear Admiral Kondo.

Halsey had few undamaged forces to send in to the fray. He dare not send the damaged Enterprise into a night time engagement. But he decided to send most of Enterprise's escorts, including four destroyers and the fleet's newest battleships, USS South Dakota (BB-57) and USS Washington (BB-58) under command of Rear Admiral Willis A. Lee, embarked in Washington.

Admiral Lee understood radar. He also understood tactics. He spent much of the evening of November 14 discussing how to use the ship's radar with Washington's commanding officer and gunnery officer. They knew what to do.

About 2300 that evening, Washington and South Dakota radars detected the Japanese forces, now under command of Admiral Kondo, in the vicinity of Savo Island. All ships were at general quarters (battle stations) and expecting action.

A few minutes after spotting the Japanese force, both Washington and South Dakota opened fire. The four US destroyers engaged the Japanese cruisers. Within minutes, two were sunk by Japanese torpedoes, a third had lost her bow, and the fourth took a hit in the engine room, taking her out of the action.

That left two new, untried battleships in defense of Guadalcanal.

The Japanese spotted South Dakota and brought all their guns to bear. Between midnight and 0030, the battleship was hit by 26 Japanese projectiles, none of which penetrated her armor. But about that time, South Dakota suffered a series of electrical failures, rendering her blind (no radar), dumb (no radio communications) and somewhat lame, though she suffered no major structural damage. She steered away from the action, in the direction of a previously agreed rendezvous point.

The electrical failures may have been caused by failure of automatic bus transfer switches (ABT) to work properly. Similar failures may have contributed to loss of Yorktown at Midway.

In any event, this left USS Washington alone against a Japanese battleship, two heavy cruisers, two light cruisers and as many as nine destroyers still effective.  The Japanese were still concentrating their fire on South Dakota and failed to spot Washington as she approached the action.

Once Admiral Lee was certain who was friend and foe, Washington opened fire on Kirishima at a range of about 9,000 yards. Kirishima and the destroyer Ayanami were badly damaged and burning. Both ships were scuttled and abandoned about 0325.

Believing the way clear for the invasion force, Kondo withdrew his remaining ships

The four Japanese transports beached themselves at Tassafaronga on Guadalcanal by 04:00 on 15 November, and the escort destroyers raced back up the Slot toward safer waters. Aircraft from Henderson field attacked the transports beginning about 0600, joined by field artillery from ground forces. Only 2,000–3,000 of the Japanese troops originally embarked actually made it to Guadalcanal, and most of their ammunition and food supplies were lost.


^{This was the last major attempt by Japan to establish control of the seas around Guadalcanal and to retake the island, though there would be more skirmishes.}

To Save A Woman's Life - Or Not

Here's a link to an account of a pregnant woman who was in essence tortured to death in a Galway hospital.

Judging from this Spring's Republican primary election debates, this is the kind of country some Republicans want us to become. Can any of them sense the cruelty of it?