The Declining Value of Signatures

Stories on the elections, particularly in Florida but also elsewhere, have touched on the issue of signatures, but without going into much detail.  I assume what happens is that the voting registrar has a voter's signature on file and is trying to match it to a signature on an absentee ballot or a mail ballot.

Thinking about my signature over the years causes me to believe that the process is of declining value:

• my signature has varied--usually I've signed "William D. Harshaw", but occasionally "William David..." I use "Bill..." for less official occasions.
• my bank may still have my 1968 signature on file, although perhaps it's been updated.  IIRC when I bought the house in 1976 I had to go to an officer of the bank to convince him I was me, because the difference in signatures over the 8 years was great enough to raise doubts.
• but that was back in the day when I made payments by check, signing 5 or more checks each month.  These days I likely write 5 or more checks in a year, so whenever I sign a check I'm really out of practice.  I'd predict that means my signature is more variable these days.
• I usually use a debt card instead of a credit card, but when I use the credit card I often have to sign using my finger on a tablet, not using a pen.  My tablet signal bears only a slight resemblance to my pen and ink signature.

So my bottom line is the bureaucracy should begin to steer away from signatures as a proof of identity.

[Updated: post on signatures.]

The Swings of National Politics

One of the theories of political scientists, I think including Jonathan Bernstein, is that voters engage in strategic voting--for example in 2016 they voted for Republican senatorial candidates expecting Clinton to become president. The effect generally and nationally is to swing power from one party to the other.

I've no citations to oppose the theory, but I've another one which may be at least complementary.  The book "The Politics of Resentment" argues in part that rural voters feelignored by the political establishments in Madison, WI and DC.  This fits with the idea that voting for Trump in 2016 was sending a message to the establishment.  What happens when the message is sent?  Perhaps enthusiasm wanes.

Women Who Don't Work?

Deb Perelman writes about bake sales: "They feel like a holdover from a time when many moms didn’t work "

We all know what she means--the women didn't work for pay.  They didn't have an employer paying them.

Economics skews our picture of reality.

When Are Farmers No Longer Farmers

From a Congressional Research Service report on 2018 Farm Income Outlook comes  a table which I can't incorporate.

You can access it here.  What struck me first, from the CRS report, was the rapid increase in farm household income from off farm sources, to the point that off-farm accounted for easily 3 or 4 times as much income as farm sources.

Then, as I tried to find a way to get the image into this post, and failed, I found this ERS spreadsheet.  We all remember the difference between "mean" and "median", right.  According to the table the median farmer had no income from farming in the years 2013-2018. 

That's weird, but this helps to explain it (from a Rural Development Perspectives article)

Almost 90 percent of elderly operators' average household income came from off-farm sources, with nearly half of their off-farm income coming from "other off-farm income," which includes Social Security. Another 19 percent of their off-farm income came from interest and dividends, reflecting savings and investments by these households during earlier years. Unlike elderly operators, operators under age 65 received most of their off-farm income from wages, salaries, or self-employment.

 That was my mother after my father died--for a number of years she continued the poultry operation, but SS income was really the basis of her livelihood.  But we don't think of these situations when discussing "farmers".

Klobuchar for President

Previously I've mentioned Hickenlooper as a possible candidate for the presidency. In October it was Hickenlooper and Klobuchar.  Today my preference is Klobuchar

I still like him, but now I'd like to see Amy Klobuchar   My number one priority is someone who can beat Trump in 2020.  Today I think she can.  More importantly, I predict on November 3, 2020 I'll believe it still.  Why:

• in 2020 she'll be 60 years old, 14 years younger than Trump and younger by a similar margin than Sanders, Biden, and Clinton, and 11 years younger than Warren., 8 than Brown''
• in 2020 she'll be 60,   4 years older than Harris, 12 years older than O'Rourke, 9 years than Booker, 6 years than Gillibrand,
• her experience in government relative to her competitors is roughly similar to her age--more experience than those younger, less than those older
• by 2020 I expect the great American electorate to have tired of Trump, even more than they have already.  The contrast between "Minnesota nice" and "New York crass [add your own adjectives] could not be greater.
• having been elected to the Senate 3 times from the Midwest battleground of Minnesota shows her ability to campaign and win.
• early analysis of the landscape for the 2020 election sees the MW states of WI, MI, and MN along with PA as key, so her  Minnesota background gives her a headstart.
• all else equal, I think a woman will do better in debates with Trump than a man would.  I see Clinton as having done better against him than the 16 Republican men.

What are her vulnerabilities:

• foreign affairs/national security.  Depending on the course of events over the next 2 years her lack of background could be a real handicap.
• perceptions: "too nice to lead", "not a tough enough fighter against Trump" would be my guesses at the lines of attack against her. I think her exchange with Kavanaugh helped her here, but much will depend on her ability in debates.
• not progressive enough.  That would be the view of the Sanders cluster of the Democratic party.  I think she's about as progressive as the nation will stand as a president in current circumstances, absent a recurrence of the Great Recession.

The History of NY Dairy, and the Future?

Civil Eats had a piece on Engelbert Farms of Nichols, NY, which isn't too far away from where I grew up.  The farm is partly in the flood plain of the Susquehanna, meaning it's got some good soil.  Our farm was partly (very small part) in the flood plain of the Page Brook flood plain, meaning we had less good soil.  The farm now consists of over 1,000 acres, owned and rented.  Our farm was 80 acres, owned.

From the Civil Eats piece I did a search for the farm's website, which has this history of the farm.

From the history you can infer much about the overall history of dairy in NY--the consolidation of farms, the competition for land from urban and industrial uses, the influence of Cornell and extension, etc.

The farm was an early, perhaps the early adopter of organic principles, so it might predict the future.

How Did I Do on Predictions

Scott Adams predicted a huge Republican turnout. I was somewhat skeptical, but he was right. He waffled on whether the Republican vote total would exceed the Democrats.  I predicted it wouldn't.

A few days ago I didn't predict, but considered the possibility that Trump's rallies presaged a surprising victory for the Republicans.  They didn't.

I didn't make any official prediction for the elections--I would have used the Fivethirtyeight estimates as the basis if I had, meaning I would have done okay but not great.

I Voted Today

My precinct had three sign-in stations where they scan your VA drivers license/ID card and ask you for your name and address.  Then you get your paper ballot, go to the booth and mark it, then scan it at one of two stations.

We waited maybe half a minute for a sign-in station to free up; no waits thereafter.

The precinct seemed busy.  I think usually we get around 700 votes.

Changing Times--Bureaucrats in FSA

I wish USDA had continued to publish an organizational telephone directory.  Back in the day, before computers, we had a printed directory for FSA and a separate one for all USDA DC employees.  I particularly miss the first, which showed employees by their unit.  As far as I know that information is no longer available.  Neither is the old USDA organizational directory which showed all the agencies with their managers down to at least branch level.

All this is triggered by the table in Notice MFP-4 showing the three program specialists to whom questions should be referred--all three are women.  Back in the day, a female program specialist in DC was rare, not unheard of but rare.  With an old-style phone directory I could figure out whether it's now the case that male program specialists are endangered.

Pro-Growth Will Win in 2020?

Michael Tomasky argues that to win in 2020 Dems need to argue for growth against the supply-side theories of the Republicans. 

Democrats, rather than merely appealing to people’s consciences, will be able to respond that government investments and wage increases are growth producers that will spread benefits well beyond the top 5 percent or 10 percent.

 I'm not sure that's right, not entirely.  

Frank Bruni talks to people about how to win in 2020:  A couple Republicans observe:

Be direct, blunt and consistent. “He has the same message today that he did the day he came down the elevator at Trump Tower,” Myers observed. “The message discipline is incredible. He has never wavered. It’s very real and very powerful.”Convey strength. More than ever voters seem to crave that, and many see it in Trump — in the steadiness that Myers mentioned, in the way he confronts cultural headwinds, in his sustained advocacy for Kavanaugh. “The American people like a fighter,” Lewandowski said. “Donald Trump proved that.”"

Trump is "consistent "?  That's not how I see him--he goes back and forth on many issues. But he comes across as "Trump" everyday, every way.