a race based society

If you think that there is no one who wants to have a society in which race is the defining characteristic on a permanent basis consider the following:

"To say that we should get over race is like saying democracy should get over having elections."
Caleb Branch on Face the Nation August 25, 2013.

Racial entitlements

How should I have responded to the following question:

"When the whites become a minority (projected to be in 2043) won't they want some racial entitlement congressional districts set aside for them?"

Stasis fallacy 3

The stasis fallacy is the assumption that if the rules are changed, the actors will play the game in the same way they did before.

Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight (Jan. 25, 2013) contains the very interesting article Electoral College Changes Would Pose Danger for Democrats by Micah Cohen in which there is discussed a variation of how the Electoral College votes.  Mr. Cohen ends his article with an example of the stasis fallacy by making the logically invalid assertion that with one alternative method Mr. Romney would have won the last election.

When voting in the Electoral College almost all states use the winner take all system: the candidate who gets the MOST popular (people) votes in the state gets ALL of that state’s electoral votes.  Exceptions are Nebraska and Maine which use the “congressional district” method which allows 1 electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and two for the state at large.  (There was a variation in Virginia which would given the two statewide electors to the candidate who received the most district electors.  For our purposes, this is no different from the congressional district method.)

Mr. Cohen includes a complete compilation of how the votes that were cast in the 2012 election would have determined the electors if they had been selected by an alternative method:  a modified "congressional district" method.

"If the Virginia proposal had been adopted in 2012 and the other 47 states had adopted a system like Maine’s and Nebraska’s (where one electoral vote goes to the winner of each Congressional district and two votes go to the statewide winner), then 103 of Mr. Obama’s blue state electoral votes would have gone to Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama, by contrast, would have gained only 32 electoral votes in red states."

Mr. Cohen then moves from arithmetic to the area of logic as follows:

"And, by an Electoral College count of 277 to 261, Mr. Romney would be president."

This is not a valid conclusion, unless Mr. Cohen means that, after the election was conducted according to law, God came down and declared that the votes would be counted differently. However, the drift of the article is that a CHANGE to this new system would give the Republicans an advantage, which indicates that he means to be assuming that the new system would have been the law BEFORE the election.

Notice that I am not saying that Mr. Romney would not have won.  I am saying that the information at hand does not assure us that he would have won.

The flaw in the thinking in the article is the assumption that is implicit in counting the votes that were cast using method A and assuming that they would be cast in exactly the same way if the election were held by method B.  That in turn implies that the candidates would have campaigned (in election method B) in exactly the same way that they had campaigned in election method A.

This is the error.  Consider Texas.  In method A, Obama ignores Texas because it is hopeless.  In method B, Obama would likely campaign in Houston, Austin, Ft. Worth and perhaps Dallas.

For another example, consider Pennsylvania, 2012.  In method A, Obama, by the way he campaigned, piled up huge majorities in Philly and Pittsburg to overcome the Romney vote in the rural areas.  In this way he carried the whole state of PA.  In method B, those extra votes in the large cities will not be of nearly as much value (although they can still help win the 2 statewide electors).  Therefore, if we used method B, Obama would be moved to revise his campaign plan to be more consistent with the reality of that different method of counting.  

Once you recognize that the method of campaigning would change, then surely it becomes clear that the votes could change.

 Consider a simpler example from a different election. Al Gore obtained more popular votes for president than George Bush did in the presidential election of 2000. But Bush won the electoral vote and the presidency. We heard over and over again: “If the election of 2000 had been decided by popular vote, then Gore would have won.” The response was always some variation of: “But the election was not by popular vote”. For some purposes, that is a sufficient answer. But I think that this is worth a bit more reflection. Put aside your own political perspective and consider the logic of the statement: “If the election of 2000 had been decided by popular vote, then Gore would have won.” Again, suppose one is talking about God coming down after the election is over and decreeing that the voting system has been changed to popular vote. If that is what was meant by the statement, then the statement is obviously true, but also silly. For the statement to be meaningful it has to be about what would have happened if the rules had been changed (to popular vote election) before the election took place. To claim that the vote as actually cast would have been duplicated with those other rules, then one has to assume (among other things) that the candidates would have campaigned in exactly the same way. That is nonsense. In fact, if the rules had been changed, then the candidates would have campaigned very differently. With the existing system, it was totally irrelevant whether Gore won California (or Bush won Texas) by 1 million votes or 3 million votes. Either way he still got all of the electoral votes of that state and nothing else. There was no reason for either candidate to try to win the national popular vote. And they didn’t. If the rules had been changed to national popular vote, then Gore would have spent more time on the coasts and Bush on flyover country getting out their base voters. It is very possible - perhaps even likely - that Gore would have won.  But it is not certain. Also, even if one could know that Gore would have won a hypothetical national popular vote election it would have been because of how the votes had been cast in that completely different kind of election.  It would not have been because of how the votes were actually cast in 2000.

Critiquing the president's foreign policy.

.

I was troubled by Romney’s criticism of Obama in connection with recent events in North Africa –flag burnings and attacks on an embassy and murder – in connection with the anniversary of 9-11.  It was not that there is anything wrong with criticizing the POTUS and, given Romney's position, this was a point of difference between the two.  I know that what I think of as his subtle foreign policy is viewed by many of Obama’s opponents as “leading from behind”.  In this particular case I thought that Romney’s arguments were not unreasonable.  However, it still felt unseemly to me and I could not tell why.

I have been distressed lately that Charles Krauthammer’s rhetoric seems to be becoming ever more strident.
  
So I was surprised when he was able to resolve the discomfort mentioned above.  As he sees it Romney should attack Obama’s foreign policy in broad strokes – assuming that he disagrees with it.  That would involve generic policy principles.  These kinds of items should be left to his subordinates or as specific examples for the debates. 

I thought he was quite right.

.

Paul Ryan, VP Candidate

Well what do you guys think of that choice?  I was not as surprised that he was asked as I was that he accepted.  I guess he hadn't read the words of John Nance Gardner, a two term VP under FDR, who said famously that the Office of the Vice President wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss" (not my words, his words I'm quoting directly for historical accuracy).  It seemed to me that Ryan really took his position as chairman of the House Finance Committee seriously and felt that he was making a difference.  If VP Gardner's description of the VP office is accurate then there is not much of a difference he will be able to make as VP.  Of course you do get free housing.  It's hard to discount that as a pro to acceptance.  Ryan then will be living in a house paid for by the taxpayers (oh irony). 

Perhaps the party called upon his sense of duty or loyalty to the party or convinced him that his name on the ticket was their best chance of ousting Obama.  He is after all the anti-Obama, with Obama being the tax and spend Democrat and Ryan being the slash and save Republican.  The only problem with that, I think, might be if people start wondering why Ryan never made a peep when the Bush Administration was running up the national debt to over $10 trillion.  I guess he was just being a team player.

I really don't know if Ryan will help Romney or hurt him on election day.  It seems there are very few undecided left, percentage wise.  By all accounts Ryan is a decent man, smart as a whip and a fine speaker.  He'll likely eat Biden's lunch if they debate.  But I don't know if that will help since VP Biden has been known to eat his own lunch quite often.

NPV 7

.
National Popular Vote is starting to get some push back.

Americans Elect 3

.
As I said earlier this is a very interesting idea. I urge you to look at it on their website. You can also look to Rise of the Center.

Americans Elect 2

.
The first post on this topic was 8-3-11.

There was a story on PBS news last night about Americans Elect.

As noted before some on the left see this as a conspiracy against Obama.

However, the Tea Party is the most enthusiastic group out there. I think that if the Republicans nominate anyone close to the center like Romney, then the Tea Party folks may turn to this vehicle. It seems to fit some of their objectives.

But there is also a possibility that we will really have a revolution here. If the election looks like Obama vs a Tea Party candidate what could a combo of Evan Bayh and Joe Scarborough or Brown of MA or Pataki of NY or NYC Mayor Blumberg do?

Americans Elect

.
If I haven't already done so (and even if I have) I commend to you the following interesting idea.

Americans Elect

Added August 7: Some on the left see this as a conspiracy against Obama.

.

voter ID

.
I guess I am in favor of requiring people to prove that they are eligible to vote in order to vote.

In a post article Katrina vanden Heuvel argues against voter identification laws. Her approach is to attack the motivations of the advocates for the laws.

One of her techniques is to assume that the only cases (of voter fraud - added 7-28)that exist are the ones that have been formally proven.

PS One of the prominent experts that she quotes does not know the difference between effect and affect. (Nobody told him to just switch to "impact".) Whether that affects the credence that should be given to his views is for you to decide.

2012 Candidates - April 2011

New stuff in bold.
Changes in italics.
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The numbers in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them has, at this point, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.

Democratic
Obama (99) I would consider him.

Republican
Mitt Romney (24)(was 26) I would consider him. Some say he has a problem in that the Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare is. I think not. But I don't know if he can make the case.
Mike Huckabee (18) (was 21) - Fails the YAMSLT. Is he running?
Sarah Palin (18) (was 21) - A lightweight. Fails the YAMSLT.
Mitch Daniels (16) - I would consider him. Very straight forward.
Tim Pawlenty (16) (was 08) - I would consider him.
Newt Gingrich (4) - I would have considered him.
……… I do not like his position on Park 51 – not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (1) former PA Senator - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Bobby Jindal (1)- Fails the YAMSLT.
Jim Demint (1) - Too far right for me
Jon Huntsman -(1)
Haley Barbour (0) - probably self removed by his citizens council remarks.
Donald Trump - (0)- Will not be a credible candidate.

John Thune -Says he’s not running.
Mike Pence – Says he’s not running.
Chris Christie – Says he’s not running. I would haver considered him.
.

2012 Candidates - March 2011

2012 Candidates - Monthly update
Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The numbers in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them has, at this point, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.

Democratic
Obama (99) I would consider him.

Republican
Mitt Romney (26) I would consider him. He has a flip flop problem in some quarters. The Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan. Some say that it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare is. I think not, since a state does not have the same limitations on it that the Federal Government does – i.e. enumerated powers. (Yes, I do know that references to the Constitution are sooooo old fashioned.)
Mike Huckabee (21) - Fails the YAMSLT*.
Sarah Palin (21) - A lightweight. Fails the YAMSLT.
Mitch Daniels (16) - I would consider him. Very straight forward.
Tim Pawlenty (8) - I would consider him.
Newt Gingrich (4) - I would have considered him.
……… I do not like his position on Park 51 – not only that they should not, but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to, build there.
Rick Santorum (1) former PA Senator - Too far right for me. Fails the YAMSLT.
Bobby Jindal (1) Fails the YAMSLT.
Jim Demint (1) - Too far right for me
Jon Huntsman (1)
Haley Barbour (0) -probably self removed by his citizens council remarks.

John Thune -Says he’s not running.
Mike Pence – Says he’s not running.
Chris Christie – Says he’s not running. I would consider him.

YAMSLT
Q.1. If the budget for program X has a built in annual bump up of 11% per year and you reduce that bump up by 3% so that the budget for program X actually grows by only 8%, then the change in the amount spent for program X is most accurately labeled as:
a) an 8% decrease, b) a 3% decrease, c) a 24% decrease, or d) an 8% increase.

Q.2. Can we eliminate the deficit by making a modest increase in the tax rate for those in the top 1 percent of income earners?

Q.3. Do you believe in Evolution?

Q.4. Do you oppose teaching mythology in science class?

Desired answers: 1. d, 2. no 3. Yes, 4. Yes .

Quorum Denial 2

.
Part of the Wisconsin Senate Democrats' purpose in leaving was to slow the process down and focus attention on it. That is reasonable and they have succeeded. Now it is time to go back home and do the best that they can.
.

Congressional pay

.
I believe that MCs (Members of Congress) should be paid more than they are now. Quite a bit more.
1. The reason that people get upset about their pay is because they compare it to the average worker’s pay in this country. But MCs are by no means taking on average responsibility. This is a purely emotional argument.
2. They are 1/535 of the legislative branch of the government. They are responsible for a budget of roughly 2.675 trillion dollars. That is an average of 5 billion dollars each! So they should be paid on the order of what a CEO of a  corporation with and annual budget of 5 billion dollars is paid!!
3. If they are well paid then there would be much less reason for them to steal or sell their souls. Or for the more honest ones to quit so they can make enough money to send their kids to college.
.

2012 Candidates - February 2011

Here are some possible candidates for the major party nominations for president in 2012.
The numbers in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them has, at this point, of getting the nomination.
My principal reaction to each is listed afterword. If you will point out stuff to me I can improve this description over time.

Democratic
Obama (99) I would consider him.

Republican
Mitt Romney (25) I would consider him. He has a flip flop problem in some quarters. The Romney health plan in MA is similar to Obama’s national plan which some say it is therefore a contradiction for Romney to oppose Obamacare is . I think not, since a state does not have the same limitations on it that the Federal Government does – i.e. enumerated powers. (Yes, I do know that references to the Constitution are sooooo old fashioned.)
Mike Huckabee (20) - Fails the SLT*.
Sarah Palin (20) - A lightweight. Fails the SLT.
Mitch Daniels (15) - I would consider him. Very straight forward.
Tim Pawlenty (7) - I would consider him.
John Thune (5) - I might consider him
Newt Gingrich (4) - I would have considered him.
……… I do not like his position on Park 51 – not only that they should not but that Muslims do NOT even have the right to build there.
Rick Santorum (2) former PA Senator - Too far right for me. Fails the SLT.
Bobby Jindal (1) Fails the SLT.
Jim Demint (1) - Too far right for me
Haley Barbour (0) -probably self removed by his citizens council remarks.

Mike Pence – now says he is not running
Chris Christie – Says he’s not running. I would consider him.
*SLT = Scientific Literacy Test (see below)
Q.1. Do you believe in the Copernican Solar System?
Q.2. Do you believe in Evolution?
Q.3. Do you oppose teaching mythology in science class?
Desired answers: 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. Yes .
.

2012 Candidates January 2011

Here are 12 possible candidates for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. They were selected for spotlight by FoxNews Special Report (their daily news show- which is closer to the center than it is to their star shows – Beck and Hannity et. al.) .
The numbers in parentheses are my wild guesses about the percentage chance that each of them has at this point. My principal reaction to each is listed afterword.

1. Mitch Daniels. (15) I would consider him.
2. Haley Barbour-(0) self removed by his citizens council remarks.
3. Tim Pawlenty- (5) I would consider him.
4. Sarah Palin-(20) A lightweight
5. Newt Gingrich-(4) bad position on Park 51.
6. Mitt Romney-(25) I would consider him.
7. Mike Huckabee-(25) too retro for me
8. Bobby Jindal- (1) possible VP, perhaps more later
9. Mike Pence-(2) Don’t know him yet
10. John Thune-(1) Don’t know him yet
11. Jim Demint (1) Too far right
12. Chris Christie (1) Says he’s not running. I would consider him.

You can find Red State Advocate's review of the FoxNews 12 GOP candidates.

Where to now? 2

Some good advice for Obama from the YA Democrat Evan Bayh.

Where to now?

So if you accept, as I do, that the Keynesian requirements will not allow a tax increase immediately, then what can this divided government we have given ourselves do in the next two years that will contribute to fiscal responsibility.

Well they could work on some of the long term problems which would give we the people and the money people confidence in our long term seriousness.

Here are two examples that would be major contributions to solving the long term problem and involve very little immediate pain.

Make Medicare benefits taxable with the income from it devoted to Medicare payments. Those of us who have medium to high incomes would pay a medium to high tax on that. Our poor mothers living on SS would still not owe any tax. Phase it in if you have to to sell it.

Use the higher of the wage inflation index and consumer price index for SS increases for lower income people and the reverse for higher income people.
(The reason that you cannot just eliminate SS for the wealthy is that it would "make it into a welfare program" and reduce support for it.)

Another long term thing that would cost very little is to get serious about immigration. See Immigration 2 on 7/6/2010 for more on that.

The next steps would be harder. They would require some maturity in Congress so it is less likely. Have the Ds recognize that you cannot greatly increase government programs (like healthcare) without raising taxes and quit kidding us. Have the Rs realize that you cannot restore fiscal sanity without some tax increases and quit kidding us.

Once the recession is over, then you can construct a tax structure that
raises enough revenue to pay for whatever level of spending that you have chosen.