Artwork by Michael DiMilo
Featuring the Fabulous Dadbots: Mark M., Dave S., Mark O., Dennis C., Paul C., and Geoff Carter
A blood boiler below. For the 2nd time this week, the same Wisconsin potential impeachment of the newly elected State Supreme Court Justice—Janet Protasiewicz–has made the Times Headlines. Besides ‘splaining a new (to me) and nefarious “tie” wrinkle, the author does a good job cataloging the Wisco offenses—over the last 15 years that stem from gerrymandering. I kind of dove into this …(sorry)…the article is a ways down below. My dive is a little scattered, the inequities are: Senate, House, Electoral College, Popular Vote, State level Senates and Houses (these terms vary by state..in Wisco I’m told we call the House “The Assembly”—state level is the focus of the article below—specifically gerrymandering.
Folks have been watching this issue like a hawk…I remember Hope Kirwan’s voice, subbing for Brady Carlson (NPR—Wisco guy), calling it the day Janet won…put a damper on the hooray…the option of impeachment by the Wisco pubs…termed unlikely then but here it is.
The historical nature of the issue is perplexing (for me), maybe others can shed light. It stems from the very essence of governance. Its intent is—I assume for now–either noble or practical but the end result—Wyoming and other low population states having way too much say (not to mention 3M people in Puerto Rico having zero (Senators). The senate is the worst case of unequal representation, but the electoral college is another. Math enters the picture.
The House is analogous to the electoral college—some sort of population ratio—but again, I’m thinking CA gets short shrift—will check (charts below….house representation is population determined (great!), but not so fast there is some sort of “not more than cap” which screws the bigger states). And of course there’s the national vote? Hilary won by 3M votes! (2.87M). The electoral college chart below shows how out of whack it is. (or isn’t in many states). Surprise to me was that TX and FL get screwed too, NY (not too bad)…maybe this is why the left isn’t too vocal on this. Would it be true to say that if the electoral college was exactly based on population Trump would’ve beat Hilary be an even wider electoral college margin? Another subtlety is that Electoral college systems attenuates the “landslide” effect in certain states, so even if the electoral college was mathematically perfect with population, it would still not support pure majority rules. To further complicate matters only a percentage of the population votes (due to age or other). In case it’s not obvious I’m not lecturing on this, rather typing what I’m just now learning.
So breaking it down to basic governance:
- Caveman clan: Maybe some majority ruling, but stronger personalities, physical size dictates—basically a Dictator. Eventually smarts or savvy or lobbying skills replace the physical as the determining factor of the king.
- Civil societies: Rebellions eventually moved from totalitarian (King) to “majority rule”. I still don’t understand why physical areas trumped population size…maybe it had to do with resources…most likely Ag initially, then oil? This is the part that I think is most quoted as the rationale for non majority rule. Rural representation. Country mouse vs city mouse. And that made some sense for a time. Does it still make any sense? The word rural used to have a noble connotation…the family farm, salt of the earth, nation’s breadbasket…but today? Doesn’t make sense to me. (And this is not a bias due to all the evil rolling coal pick up truck drivers. I recently witnessed first hand (wife got blasted bad recently, right in front of me—just shocking how evil, regular people can be and somehow not recognizing their evil ways. These are NOT demented serial killers, just kids that have been taught that “moderate evil” is AOK.) Had to get that out of my system.
- (Never mind the autocracies/dictators of the world—for this discussion).
- Human scale: Canoe camping. How far to paddle today? Vote occurs, majority rules—unless there is a health situation or other compelling reason for the team not to accept the majority. Why does this not extrapolate to civil society’s governance?
- Be interesting to hear a stats expert view on this. Common sense says that once the populations are big enough the results are more valid. Another argument for Hilary…(and Janet).
Most of us just sigh and say it’ll never change…but articles like the below—as well as that fighting Bob LaFollette gene in all of us—occasionally breathes new life into the fire to not accept: same o, same o.
Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I’m a subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.
States Can Be Laboratories of Autocracy, Too
Opinion | A Breathtaking Contempt for the People of Wisconsin – The New York Times, 9/18/23
Dave S.
Yeah, those Wisconsin Republicans are really not cool with the prospect of losing their gerrymander. Their problem is that Judge Janet also represents abortion rights in Wisconsin. So if they take her down, they face yet another abortion backlash. That’s got to be a consideration.
Here are some inside baseball ruminations. Suppose Janet is impeached and then left in limbo by the State Senate. At that point, the only workable resolution would be for her to resign. I think Tony could then appoint a liberal replacement who would be up for election the following year. But the martyrdom of Janet would be so obviously unjust! It would put a human face on the situation, an actual victim of heartless GOP machinations. And it would throw gasoline on the backlash fire.
Hey, Alexander Hamilton got a major reputation enhancement from Lin Manuel-Miranda. But one Hamilton innovation, not highlighted in the musical “Hamilton”, is the Electoral College.
It’s probably not fair to pin the blame on Hamilton. The EC was a sop thrown to the smaller, less populated colonies, to entice them to join the Union. These colonies were mostly slave states. The Founders really bent over backward to give the slavers what they wanted.
Since the EC is enshrined in the text of the Constitution, it would take an Amendment to get rid of it. Amendments require ratification from 2/3 of the states, so it would require a lot of smaller states, voting to reduce their own political power, to get ratification. Unlikely. So we are stuck with it for the time being.
One of my favorite political podcasters, Dan Pfeiffer, asserts that the 2024 Presidential election will be decided by the number of people who attend an average Taylor Swift concert. These are the swing voters who live in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. The EC results of the 45 other states are pretty much predetermined.
Have you heard of the Electoral College Compact? It is a law, passed at the individual state level. It requires that individual state to assign its electors NOT to the winner in that state, but to the overall winner of the popular vote. If enough states— equaling or exceeding 270 Electoral votes— pass the law, it guarantees that the winner of the election is the winner of the popular vote. They are in the 200s at this point.
The only problem is that the US Supreme Court would probably declare it to be an illegal end run around the Constitution.
Mark M.
Re: The Electoral College–Good old Hamilton. He wanted to have Congress, rather than the populace, elect the President because he thought the ignorant masses could be too easily bamboozled into electing some power-mad demagogue. Guess he had a point there. Anyway, yeah, as Mark pointed out, the Founding Fathers hammered out some imperfect, clunky compromises that became the Electoral College. (One compromise allowed states to claim slaves as three-fifths of a person to boost the slave states’ electoral power).
But though the electoral vote is enshrined in the Constitution, the rules that govern it could be made more fair without a constitutional amendment.
Solution 1: Change the rules at the state level. Right now, every state, except Nebraska and Maine, has a “winner take all” policy that gives all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular election in that state. For example, If Trump wins Virginia by 50.1% of the popular vote he wins 100% of Virginia’s electoral votes. The “winner take all” electoral rules followed trends started by individual states in the 19th century. Why? IDK. Good question, But they could be changed to a more representative system somewhat more easily than trying to pass a constitutional amendment.
Solution 2: Move to Wyoming where its 3 electoral votes gives your one individual vote the power of four individual votes in California or New York.
DC
I’m done with the Constitution of the United States. Did even the Founding Fathers believe this clunky document cobbled together through years of political compromises in the 1780’s would be the supreme document governing a nation of 330 million citizens in 2023? How could a cabal of white male property owners with powdered wigs even imagine such an outcome. I know, there is a mechanism for amending the constitution and it’s been done many times. But the last meaningful amendment was ratified in 1971. There’s been no imperative for an update in 52 years? C’mon. Now, the Constitution is more of a religious document than a political one. Especially with the majority of the SCOTUS adhering to an originalist doctrine where they presume to decipher the true intent of the “Framers” when interpreting sections of the document as applied to, I don’t know, Artificial Intelligence Intellectual Property Rights?
Put it to bed and start over, from scratch. Or maybe take a cue from Mother England and just not have a written constitution.
I defer to the wisdom of the Dadblob at this point. Cheers.
MarkO
Goodness me, the Rochester Rogue is yet again besmirching the very fundamentals of America! Now it’s the very Constitution that he questions! To the fainting couch!
Given that our Instruction Book of Life— the Holy Bible— has been handed down from a traveling band of nomadic goat herders, with strict instructions not to deviate one jot nor title, I don’t see anything wrong with following a Constitution promulgated by slave-owning powdered wig wearing property owners who ran an agrarian society 250 years ago. Where’s the problem?
The recent gun 2022 decision (Bruen) from the black robes (who don’t wear wigs! huh) only solidifies our belief in the ultimate wisdom of our Founders. The decision is a masterpiece of originalism, clearly stating that “the only regulations that can be deemed constitutional are ones…that are ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition’ —meaning they have a parallel in the type of regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.”
So, suppose you wish to make it illegal to carry an AR-15 into a summer camp. Dumb idea, I’ll grant you, as this only identifies the camp as a non-hardened target. Well, looky here. Per the Bruen decision, yer out of luck, snowflakes! There weren’t any summer camps back in 1779. Checkmate, libs.
Also, folks, let’s not get too wound up about those Amendments passed after the original Constitutional Convention. Take the 14th for example. “Due Process of Law”, my ass. “Equal protection.” Very high concept, indeed. But if you’re going to actually apply these to women’s rights, for example, to keep abortion constitutional, well we KNOW the Framers had no such intention. Hell, they didn’t even let women sign contracts, much less vote. Now THAT’s what I call Originalism!
Hey Rochester, if you don’t like the Constitution, let’s go for broke and call an actual Constitutional Convention! I see no possible danger there. It will be our chance to get Jesus appointed head of state, guns distributed at birth, and the Green Bay Packers constitutionally declared as the actual, official, “America’s Team”! (And the Cowboys can go suck a dick.)
-Mark M
Entertaining. If I’m tracking, Rochester says follow the Brits lead…South of Cudahy says the Cowboys can suck dick….connecting dots I see concurrence on dessert. (and something a bot could cook…just remember to remove it from the can…)
FYI: Spotted Dick, a yummy pudding, microwavable of course, comes in a can, in England.
Stanistani, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Dave S.
Dave, if you want Spotted Dick for dessert, knock yourself out. I’ll pass. Anyway, I think we’re being a little harsh on the Constitution. Granted, it has flaws like the outdated Second Amendment and the Electoral College, but all these are amendable. Amendments were made to abolish slavery, give women, African-Americans, and eighteen-year-olds the right to vote. We came really close to passing an Equal Rights Amendment in the seventies—it’s really too bad we didn’t.
As Dennis pointed out the EC is an antiquated system designed to insulate the electoral process from the voters (ironic since voters over two hundred years later elected a would-be tyrant). The EC can be changed through a supermajority in the Senate and a three-fourths majority in the House. That wouldn’t be easy, and the truth is, little states like Wyoming or the Dakotas might balk at losing the only political clout they might have. Candidates would spend all their time campaigning in population centers and addressing their issues. But getting rid of the EC could be done.
I don’t know—when you look at the checks and balances, separation of church and state, the rule of law, peaceful transfer of power, the bicameral legislature, I think we have a pretty fair system. Perfect. Hell no. We need another, stronger McCain Feingold Bill to keep money out of Congress—that’s our bugbear right now. I don’t think Adams or Madison could have foreseen a two-party system and electoral process so dependent on money. Even the SCOTUS has succumbed to temptation—but they probably have for years. The problem is self-interests are so entrenched in Congress, we’ll need a crowbar to get those guys out of there. And we need age, if not term limits. At least we don’t have a Prince Charles to deal with…
The Rochester Radical is right about the fact that politicos cite the “will of the founders” when they find it useful to their own cause. Like Clarence Thomas, or Agent Orange or any Ron Johnson, they bend the document to their own ambitions. These are human faults, not the Constitution’s fault. I think the framers tried their damndest to anticipate the human flaws that might jeopardize our democracy. Yeah, the EC, the Second Amendment, and the Three-Fifths Compromise weren’t the best ideas, but balance those with almost universal (theoretical) suffrage, the end of slavery, and the two-term limit on presidencies.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yet.
G
Whoah! The bots are on a roll. From the Rochester Rogue’s pot-stirring manifesto, to Mammy’s really clever comeback, to Dave’s dot-connecting spotted dick puddin’ pic, to Geoff’s smart voice-of-reason response…. Nice!
All I can do is grab hold of the low-hanging fruit of spotted dick. My research has revealed that spotted dick pudding is, in fact, quite a popular dessert in England — a land of, shall we say, “interesting” culinary delights. “Spotted dick, a semi-sweet, sausage-shaped pudding, is spongy yet firm; served hot and generously drizzled with a white, creamy custard sauce.” (from taste of home.com). Wha…?? Ahem, all-righty-then, mates.
Moving on to loftier topics such as the Holy Constitution. I agree that trying to put together a new Constitution with the current crop of knuckleheads in office would be a shit-show. The OG version has held-up surprisingly well, despite obvious flaws and despite the vast and utterly unpredictable changes in America since 1787. Somehow those rich, white, misogynistic, slave-owning framers of the US Constitution managed to work through their differences to hammer out a pretty decent model of government “for the people and by the people”. I can’t even imagine what kind of constitution would be forged in the flames of today’s corporatocracy, general ignorance, and uncompromising zealotry. “South of Cudahy’s” vision comes close. (Yeah, Cowboys can suck spotted dick).
DC
OK, the Voices Of Reason have spoken. The Dads of Dads have brought order back to the house. I dare say that house looks more and more like a house of cards that is going to need rebuilding from the foundation up pretty soon. I have to agree that the current batch of sociopaths in D.C. are not up to the task. They wouldn’t get two blocks into a new foundation before the damn thing would tip over onto their dress-shoed feet.
Speaking of Dads and Voice of Reason, did you catch the retirement speech of that Mormon gentleman Mitt Romney. He explained that it’s time for younger leaders to take the reins of government and recommended that Mr.s Biden and Trump take his example and likewise recuse themselves from future office. Are you listening Nancy, Diane, Mitch, Clarence, ….? Ah, the halcyon days when we could identify Mitt as being the ultimate threat to our way of life. Sigh….
MarkO
Sidebar: With lightning dancing on the horizon last night, I was certain I heard raindrops. Wrong. ‘Twas the cacophony of Dairyland snickering as word of the torn Achilles spread.
-Dave
Bots,
The Judge Janet situation has been updated since we opined last. GOP Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has backed down verbally from impeachment talk. Instead, the Republicans have begun the process of approving a legislative proposal of their own for “fair maps”, modeled, they claim, after Iowa’s. I don’t know all the details, but it involves a theoretically nonpartisan committee which proposes maps to the Legislature, after each decade’s census. The Legislature gets an up-or-down vote on the maps. In the event of disapproval by the Legislature, there are a couple of rounds of this. I am not sure what happens if the Legislature does NOT approve. There are definitely devils in that set of details.
Governor Tony Evers has already said, “No way!” Dems view this as a deathbed conversion. It is, at a minimum, highly ironic that the engineers of the nation’s worst gerrymander have suddenly, when faced with a potentially hostile court, seen the light of electoral map fairness. Riiiiight. You could say there’s a failure of trust. Tony’s position is essentially this: There will be a lawsuit over maps. It will go to the State Supremes. They will rule against you. So sorry!
Tony can be a hard ass, despite his avuncular, pencil necked demeanor. Over here in Oak Creek, we are preparing the popcorn to watch the spectacle. My enjoyment of this type of conflict indicates some form of sickness, I believe.
-Mark M
You’re right about Tony. He is about the toughest Ichabod Crane I ever saw. “Bogus!” he said. “Bogus!”
Robin Vos reminds me here of one of my students trying to negotiate himself out of getting his hand caught in the cookie jar.
“I know you don’t want me talking during class, but you don’t know what I’m going through. I’m under a lot of stress. I need to get it out, man. I’ll talk quiet. I promise.” And so forth.
As Mark says, Vos is caught. If he goes ahead and impeaches Judge Janet, Wisconsin becomes the nation’s laughingstock and the poster child for ignoring voter rights and–ironically–rigging elections.
If Vos does nothing, he loses his precious maps and will have to start working at the used care dealership.
G
- Re this latest “non-partisan” line drawing idea that Tony disdains…I heard the (one?) reason for it was that in future eras, where one side controlled both the Assembly and the Governor’s office there would be no checks and balances. Thinking MM is spot on, given Dobbs, Robin V. and others would have the women of Wisco marching, (not to mention voting), with pitchforks and Molotovs, if they deny Janet her seat on the court. Also, I heard yesterday Planned Parenthood in Wisco was back in business—abortions performed! Surprised me…bottom 2 bullets ‘splain it. Crazy if this Dobbs ruling somehow has the opposite effect…energizes the discussion…educates so many on the issues…the options—the pill (Mifepristone), the neighboring states….tates overriding SCOTUS, (‘cept for MS and AL).
- Re Mitt: Not sure if you caught the below re RoJo. There is a longer article/interview in The Atlantic, where he goes off on Vance, Hawley, Cruz, McConnel, Pence, Ryan and RoJo. he Post link below distills them if you want to see more.
· ‘You sell yourself so cheap?’ Romney’s stark indictment of GOP cowardice, Washington Post, 9/14/23.
- Providers across the state stopped offering abortions following the June 2022 decision, fearing enforcement of an 1849 state law that appears to ban the procedure but had previously been nullified by the 1973 Roe ruling. A judge ruled last month that the 144-year-old law doesn’t apply to medical abortions.
- In light of the ruling, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin began offering abortions at clinics in Madison and Milwaukee again on Monday. The group did not say how many abortions it expected to perform but said appointments at its Milwaukee clinic on Monday were completely filled within 24 hours of announcing that services would resume.
-D.