Security for Ballot Drop Boxes

 Seems there's a controversy in AZ over a group which wants to put watchers over poll drop boxes, armed watchers.  The argument against is it's intimidating.  

I believe in transparency, but it seems to me the best approach is to put video camera(s) up, so people can watch in real time.  The video could be stored and analyzed later if necessary.

Fixing ECA

Before we fix SCOTUS we should fix the Electoral Count Act. 

Who, Me Worry? GOP Election Deniers

 Kevin Drum has a post on the election deniers who are seeking office. There's lots of concern over the idea that someone who thinks the 2020 election was fraudulent being in a position of authority over the 2024 election.

I'm not nearly as worried about it as others seem to be.

Why not?  Human nature.  Put briefly, I think once most of these people get into office (which I fervently hope does not happen), they'll try to run "fair" elections by their lights.  "Fair" may well include more restrictions on voting than I want, but I don't see many trying to stuff ballot boxes. 

Way too optimistic?  Maybe, but that's my prediction.

Thanks to Republicans

 Though I may never have voted for a Republican, I think we should acknowledge the principled Republicans who did the right thing--VP Pence for resisting the former guy's pressure and his mob; the representatives and senators who voted to accept the state results on Jan 6; and most of all the mostly Republican administrators of elections in WI, PA, GA, NV and AZ who affirmed the counts.

Most Important Election: 1952?

 Here's a discussion of which election since 1945 has been the most important. Sadly, the experts omit any discussion of my favorite: 1952.  (They focus on 2020, 2016, 1964, etc.)

Why 1952? What was critical was the Republican nomination: Robert Taft versus Dwight Eisenhower.  Either could win, as the country was tired of the New Deal at home and of the Korean War abroad. Taft was the more conservative, with an isolationist history from before December 7, 1941. Ike was the more internationalist and the more supportive of NATO. 

On paper, if Taft had won the nomination and the presidency the course of the Cold War looks very different than what happened.  

I say "on paper" because Taft died in 1953 and we don't know who he would have chosen as vice president.  It might have been someone from the Eisenhower wing of the party in an attempt to present a unified front against the Democrats.  Or it might not.

Concerns About Republican Changes to Voting Laws

 One of the things Republicans seem to be doing in several states is changing the law so that somebody can override the count of votes.  In a way they're fighting the last war: in the firm belief that Trump lost because of illegal/fraudulent votes, they're trying to make legal what Trump asked the officials in AZ, PA, GA, and WI to do.

This effort has a lot of Democrats very concerned.  It might be justified.  But I'm in a Pollyanna mood today, so let me outline why it might not be:

• I've not tracked them, but some of the law changes are, I think, occurring in red states, states the Republicans are apt to win in most elections.
• There's a big difference between Monday-morning quarterbacking and the beliefs you develop when you're part of the action. I'm relying on that idea here. In 2022 and 2024 the officials empowered by these changed laws will be active participants in the electoral process.  Hopefully we won't have a pandemic causing late changes to election procedures and laws, which was the big problem undermining Republican acceptance of results in 20S0.  So I'm hoping these officials will feel committed to the process and thus won't be looking and finding the false fraud which would justify their actions.

That's my prediction anyway.

1988 and 2016 in Broome County

 This site has maps of how each county voted in presidential elections from 1820 to 2020.  Naturally I looked at Broome County.  I was aware it was solid Republican through the years. It was back and forth for a while, but in 1856 it went Republican and continued for over a century.  In 1964 it voted for LBJ, but returned to the Republicans through 1984. Beginning in 1988 it went Democratic, with the exception of 2016. 

Trump and Goldwater are the two outliers in its history.  Interesting that Broome disdained the second and liked the first.

Election Reforms from the Past

 Thanks to someone (on the right but I forget the name) I looked up the Carter-Baker Federal election commission.

A blast from the past is this paragraph on the commission's homepage:

Full Report PDF (7.6MB) or Text Only
(Download will take approximately 20 minutes on a dial-up connection, 4 minutes on a cable or dsl connection, and under 30 seconds on a LAN.)

Apparently the report failed to attract support, perhaps for reasons indicated by the dissent.  Personally I like the idea of standard photo ID for voting, but that's my nerd/bureaucrat coming out.  I'd spend a few billion to get those IDs into the hands of everyone (including the majority of Native Americans (or possibly only Navaho members) who don't have individual mail service.)) and the very old, and then phase in use of the requirement.  I know liberals don't like this, and it's reasonable to say it's not cost-effective: the amount of electoral fraud due to identity fraud is small. 

 But, and it's a big but, many on the right don't trust the system. Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections, and that trend is likely to continue, meaning the distrust will only increase.  

So my grand bargain (which I've posted about before) is phase in photo-id of everyone, along with basic data (i.e., citizen/non citizen, age) to be used for election verification and for employment verification (E=Verify).  The right get assurance about election validity and strong immigration enforcement; the left gets voting eligibility for everyone in national elections.  I think it's a reasonable deal but I'm not optimistic.

Fixing the Election Process

One place where Republicans and Democrats should be able to reach bipartisan agreement is on fixing the election process. In the past Democrats have felt they do well with the biggest turnout and Republicans have mostly felt the opposite.  But in 2020 both parties did well with big turnout, although Democrats in the race for president and Republicans for Congress and the legislature.  That perspective on the facts might make it easier to reach a compromise. 

I don't see why technology can't be used to monitor the processing of ballots--put cameras in place and record everything. People should be able to agree on best practices among the states with the best records in handling mail and inperson voting.

 

My Predictions: 0 for 2

 Once again the elections defied my predictions.  I'm assuming Joe Biden will be inaugurated on Jan 20, but that's about the only thing I got right this year (won't talk about 2016).

Time enough for analysis when all the votes are in, but it seems the national polls once again were reasonably close, the state ones had their problems.

But the lesson for me, once again, is to warn that my picture of reality is warped by my desires for what reality should be. You'd think after almost 80 years I'd learn. 

What Dems Will Owe to Stacy Abrams and Beto O'Rourke

 As in my previous post, I'm confident of the election outcome.  Georgia and Texas might or might not vote for Biden/Harris, but it's clear that Democrats owe a lot to the efforts of Stacy Abrams in Georgia and Beto O'Rourke in Texas.

What We Will Owe to Arnon Mishkin

I'm confident that the Biden/Harris ticket will win, likely tonight.  In that confidence I want to link to this NYTimes article on perhaps the most important bureaucrat/nerd involved in the election: the man running the Fox decision desk.  

He's important because the media decision desks provide the data for analysts to call a state as having firm results. He's doubly important in my scenario because the Fox news people are the ones who have the credibility to persuade Trump supporters that their man has lost.  And he's triply important because of the big unknowns of this election: the impact of early voting, of the massive turnout, and of the pandemic. And he's quadruply important because of the uncertainty of Trump's reaction to a defeat.

A Bad Tuesday Evening- Unexpected Violence?

Some are worried by the possibility of  violence resulting from the 2020 election.  Their fears seem mostly to be that Trump supporters will be upset by a Biden victory and commit some violence.  The fear is of "sore losers" I suppose it's possible that some on the right have a similar "sore loser" fear of violence coming from Biden supporters if Trump pulls off another upset. 

As a general proposition I'm not that afraid of the scenario. But there is one which I just thought of which scares me.

I remember occasions, I think mostly when a college wins either the NCAA football or basketball championship where the students take to the streets and riot, destroying property, etc.  We normally dismiss such episodes, at least I dismiss them, as "boys will be boys".

But, there's a lot of emotion invested in the outcome of this election. Isn't it more likely that election violence will come from "exultant winners"?  I remember the election of 2008, when the winners exulted.  That was a victory of love, of belief in Obama, of the redemption of America, and I don't remember any particular violence, or animosity directed towards McCain supporters.

But a Biden victory on Tuesday would be a victory based on a lot of animosity towards Trump, and some of his supporters. 

I always like a metaphor, so think of the exultant winners and despondent losers as two masses of plutonium, back in the days of the Manhatten Project.  Keep them separate and everything is copasetic.  Bring them together and you get a nuclear explosion.

We Voted

My wife and I voted today, in Fairfax county's second day of widely available advance voting. A beautiful day, it wasn't too bad to spend 2 hours in line and voting.

 This is about 10 minutes after we got into line.

This is maybe an hour into the day.

This is the Democrats notice to voters--four languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean). Because Fairfax is part of 3 Congressional districts, it got a bit complicated.

As the second day of voting at this site things went reasonably well but I'm glad we waited until day 2.  (Harshaw rule).

In Lieu of Mail Elections

There's a move, led in part by my former candidate for President, Amy Klobuchar, to move to mail elections in the fall.

I've reservations about mail elections because I like the feeling of community you get by voting in person.  I've reservations about moving to mail for our national elections, fearing that people are underestimating the difficulty involved, particularly when you consider counties are basically in charge of elections (remember the butterfly ballot). IMO there would likely be a number of snafus in November because the Harshaw rule applies.

I'd suggest an alternative in case Covid-19 is a danger in November--move to multi-day elections.  Instead of "election day" we'd have maybe "election week", or 2-3 days  That way we'd not need to change the technology, just spread out the people as they come to vote, so they can maintain their 6 foot distance.  The big hurdle that comes to mind is the burden on the people manning the polling places--older folks usually and more vulnerable to sickness.  But, if the virus is still an issue unemployment will be higher, providing a pool of potential hirees.

[Update--it seems the Klobuchar/Wyden proposal allows in-person advance voting, which is the same as an "election week"--I knew she deserved my support

Photo IDs for Voters

I've blogged on this issue before. Today the new KY secretary of state is reviving it.

He and I think that requiring photo ids would be good for public confidence, even though there's no evidence of impersonation voter fraud.  For me at least the key is to ease into the requirement--make photo ids easy-peasy.  I suspect these days most young people get photo ids for driving or traveling.  That leaves one problem area--those on the margins of society--the old, the native Americans, the less fully assimilated (think Amish, Hasidic Jews, or whoever).  I think providing photo ids in these cases is worthwhile simply better to integrate people into society.

Voting Today: One of the Fears of Some Trump Supporters

My wife and I just got back from voting in VA. Polls seemed busy, although it was a longer ballot than our June primary election so that might have skewed my impression.

Some photos taken from by the exit of the elementary school room (cafeteria) .

[Updated: who knew that Google photos can make a panorama for you without your asking:

The original photos below]

:

I could have made a pan around the room but that's not something I've learned yet.  I didn't notice the flags around the room at first.  Counted over 30, perhaps more hidden from me in the third picture.  I assume they represent the countries of origin of the students, which explains my reference in tthe title to the fears of Trump supporters.

I suppose in some sense many of the kids have a "dual loyalty".  My ancestors have been in country for 134-300 years or so.  Because I know where they immigrated from I've a bit more interest in Ireland/Ulster/Scotland and Germany than in other countries.  I've also a bit more interest in Vietnam where I served and in China where my aunt and uncle were in the YMCA than in other countries. That interest no doubt can affect my position on issues relating to the countries, as will the much closer ties of the students in this school to their countries.  But the bottomline is they're in the process of assimilating, of absorbing American culture even as the school recognies origins.

BTW, the ballot today had instructions in four languages: English, Spanish, Vietnames, and I think Chinese ideograms.

Cleaning Files and Voter Suppression

Jennifer Rubin in the Post cites a Brennan Center report on voter list purges. The report emphasizes that counties which are no longer required to pre-clear changes in their electoral operations under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have increased their purge rates (roughly from 8 percent to 10 percent a year).

Rubin is concerned. 

I'm not, likely because I had some experience with the problems of maintaining lists in the past.  The bottom line: it's difficult to keep a list of name and addresses up to date because there's really no cost, no push to identify errors.  An example: one of my past employees resigned from ASCS relatively quickly--IIRC her husband in another agency decided to take an early out and they decided to move to Florida.  So her exit process was rather hurried and incomplete.  After I retired I would occasionally search the online USDA employee directory, just to see who still worked there.  For about 10 years, I'd still find Jane's name in the phone directory.

The way FSA counties were supposed to update their name and address list was to do an address check (not the right terminology) requested with USPS once a year..  I'm sure some didn't do it, and it wouldn't have been fool proof.  I gather that some purging of voter lists done differently, bouncing a voter file against another  database.  The problem there is using names to match. One of my employees noted her home county had a lot of people named "Johnson".

Although the color coding of the report is poor, some of the higher ranking states in purge rates are Maine, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin.  In some states (Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin) the rates among counties are very similar; in other states (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi) the rates vary widely among counties.

Without knowing the process being used to purge the files and the history of past purges at the county level, I think it's dangerous to draw general conclusions.  As a good liberal I am, of course, a bit suspicious of the actions of those counties which used to be covered by Section 5.  But I don't think the Brennan Center proved any wrongdoing. 

A final consideration: purging voter rolls isn't very important IMHO--having a dead or moved voter on list offends my bureaucratic sensibility and it wastes computer storage, but is very unlikely to open the door for any voting fraud

Re FBI; Barr Has a Point

Saw in surfing that AG Barr said something to the effect the FBI should not have investigated Trump.

I suspect my fellow liberals and Democrats will be aghast at the idea: no one should be above the law, etc.

But I'm old enough to think he has something of a point.  Apparently the FBI transcripts from their wiretapping of Martin Luther King have just been released, which should serve as a reminder of the power J. Edgar had in his heyday through the suspicion he had files on everyone in DC. 

My point is that investigations are power, and we should have checks and balances applied to the FBI when they investigate possible misdoing by high official, or candidates for high offices.  From what I understand of the background of the FBI investigation into Russian meddling and the involvement of the Trump campaign it was conducted well and had some oversight.  Certainly President Obama was aware of the proceedings and tried to take action.  But that seems to have been based on the judgment of the officials involved, not the operations of any particular legal structure.

To me, the whole Trump-Russian mess raises big questions: what sort of help can/should campaigns accept from noncitizens, from nonresidents, from citizens of friendly nations, from citizens of  possible adversaries, or members of the government of adversaries?  How is that defined in relation to the First Amendment?  To the extent we now have laws against such help, or decide to add them in the future, how should investigations of possible breach of such laws be handled?  We can't leave it to the FBI director--J. Edgar proves that.  We can't leave it to the appointed heads of Justice or the elected head of the government, can we?

Is a Democratic Victory in 2020 a Cinch?

Some twitter traffic suggesting that President Trump will be defeated in 2020 by almost anyone the Democrats put up.

I violently disagree.  Let me count the ways:

One: I remember the late 70's when it looked as if we liberals might be lucky enough to face Ronald Reagan in 1980.  We knew we could beat him with Carter or with Kennedy.  Look how that worked out.

Two:. Even if today's polls are reasonably accurate, and I don't doubt them, there's the issue of fundamentals:  right now Trump is riding the best overall economy in years, perhaps better than Clinton's late 90's boom.  He's also seeing "successes" in foreign policy--defeat of ISIS, withdrawal of troops from Syriana, and likely Afghanistan (by 2020), possible agreement with North Korea, renegotiated NAFTA, NATO countries responding to his harangues, etc. etc.  (I put quotation marks on successes because they mostly aren't, but as of now they can be sold as such.)  Those fundamentals would guarantee any normal person reelection.

Three: There's always the possibility of rally-round-the-flag episodes, a black swan event which rallies the US around its president.

Four: The reality is that some of the Democratic candidates and potentials can beat Trump, unless he has a real run of luck (somewhat like he had in 2015-16)and some can't.  Right now we don't know which is which.

Five: Because we don't know the future, we need to work, and contribute, and vote as if we're underdogs.

Six: My mantra is, even if we win the presidency it doesn't do much good unless we keep the House, gain the Senate, and take some more state legislatures.