My Vote Doesn’t Count and If You’re a Democrat in Indiana Yours Probably Won’t Either

It’s Election Day 2020 and many of us will be sitting on the edge of our chairs tonight and probably for several days to come to find out the results. You will hear lots of talk about how important it is that “every vote counts” and “every vote be counted”. While counting the votes is indeed important, if you’re a Democrat in Indiana, most years your vote for president doesn’t mean Jack shit.

I’m not talking about voter fraud or the fact that I submitted a mail in absentee ballot because my disability. I’m talking about people who go to the polls today, placed their ballot for Biden/Harris, it gets counted and added to the Indiana total. But it doesn’t affect the outcome of the election.

The reason is that Indiana is primarily a Republican state. While Indianapolis, Gary, and some other urban areas are heavily Democrat, overall there are enough rural votes that are strongly conservative and Republican that unless we have an especially strong Democrat candidate, all 11 of Indiana’s electoral votes are going to go to the Republican. I couldn’t find registration numbers for the general election but in the June primary there were approximately 4.5 million registered voters in Indiana. For the sake of argument let’s assume that 2,250,001 people voted Republican and 2,249,999 voted Democrat. The result would be that all 11 Indiana electoral votes would go to the Republican. Now of course if I was one of one or two lazy Democrats that didn’t vote then I would’ve made a difference.

However according to Wikipedia in 2016 Trump got 1,557,286 and Clinton got 1,033,126 a difference of 524,160. So unless we had over half a million lazy Democrats who didn’t vote in 2016, the Indiana outcome would’ve been the same. And as we know Clinton won the popular vote but because of this winner-take-all electoral college system Trump won the electoral college and became president.

Some people have said that a way to reform the electoral college without abolishing it completely is to get rid of the winner-take-all and allocate the electoral votes based on congressional district outcome. Electoral votes are determined by the total number of members of Congress. We have nine house members and two senators giving 11 electoral votes. Let’s suppose we put two of those votes on the statewide total in the other nine votes based on who won the district. In 2016 Clinton won the 1st and 7th congressional districts (Indianapolis and Gary area) and Trump won everything else. In that case since I live in Indianapolis in the 7th district my vote would’ve at least contributed to 1 electoral vote. In fact 2 states Maine and Nebraska do it that way.

Even though that would be somewhat more equitable, it would still allow for the possibility that a candidate could win the popular vote and not win the electoral vote. How did we get to the system of the electoral college? Why is it in the Constitution? I’m no history expert but I know a little about it. First of all we need to talk about how states are allocated number of representatives.

Originally the Constitution separable representatives at 65 from 1787 until the census of 1790. The apportionment based on the 1790 census resulted in 105 members. From 1800 through 1840 the number of representatives was determined by the ratio of the number of persons each was to represent. However the way to handle fractional reminders evolved over those years. The methods involved and the numbers grew. In 1911 the house size was fixed at 433 with provision for one additional seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states giving a total of 435. There was a temporary increase to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii became states but since then it has stayed at 435. See this linked document from the U.S. Census for details.

In 1788 the first Congress based on the new Constitution as mentioned before had 65 seats in the House of Representatives plus 26 senators (2 each for the 13 states) giving 78 electoral votes. The distribution among the 13 states ranged from just one representative and two senators for Rhode Island and Delaware giving them three electoral votes each up to 10 representatives and two senators for Virginia. The system was set up to narrow the gap between the small states like Rhode Island and large states like Virginia. Had they only counted representatives, which were based on population, the ratio between these two states would have been 1/10 = 0.10 ratio. However by giving every state the same number of senators and 2 electoral votes to go with them the ratio was 3/13=0.23 ratio more than double what it would’ve been otherwise.

Compare that instead to the current situation where in California has 53 members of the house plus 2 senators for a total of 55 electoral votes and 7 states have only one representative and 2 senators. That gives us a ratio of 3/55= 0.0545 including senators and 1/53=0.0189 without senators. While the inclusion of 2 senators have a much bigger impact for smaller states then it did in the early days, the giant gap in representation between large states and small states is far beyond what it was in the days of the original 13.

This system of assigning representatives, senators, and electoral votes was designed to give smaller states a bigger influence. But with a large disparity between large states and small states this system of allocation makes things worse for small states. While one can argue that large states deserve a bigger congressional presence than small ones, when it comes to choosing a president it means that large states that have a nearly equal proportion of voters in the two parties become hugely influential. These are the so-called “swing states”.

For the same reason that it is not fair to Democrats who live in Indiana that their state is going to go mostly Republican in most presidential elections, it similarly not fair to Republicans in New York or California that typically go Democrat. If you’re in the minority party in a particular state, your vote essentially contributes nothing to the outcome of the Presidential election.

During the contested election of 2000 in which everything came down to recounts in Florida I listened carefully to the audio from the arguments in the Supreme Court. TV cameras are not allowed but they did allow live audio. During the questioning one of the justices (I’m sorry I forget who) pointed out that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that my vote for president has to be counted! That’s absolutely true. Nothing in the Constitution says that we get to vote for president. It is up to the individuals states to decide how they will choose electors to the electoral college.

It is only by state laws that we get any say in it at all. Did you read your ballot when you voted in Indiana? The following language appears above the names for president. “A ballot cast for the name candidates for President and Vice President of the United States is considered a ballot cast for the slate of presidential electors and alternate presidential electors nominated by that political party or independent candidate”. Here is a sample Indiana ballot.

But that’s only because that’s how Indiana (and all the other states) choose to do it. They could just as easily say that the state legislature would pick the electors for the electoral college. They could even say that members of the House and Senate for that state would be the electors. And as we mentioned before, not every state has the winner take all policy.

Suppose you had a Republican state with a Republican state legislature, congressional delegation, and governor. Suppose they didn’t like the fact that the Democrat got the most votes in the state. They can hastily pass a law voiding the election, inserting their own slate of Republican electors and send them to the electoral college. That’s highly unlikely but the Constitution would not have a problem with it. It’s up to the states to pick their electors however they choose.

One of the reasons that we have the electoral college apart from the way it’s allocated to benefit smaller states, is because the founders didn’t trust the people with such an important decision. The original idea was that educated knowledgeable people (people meaning rich white guys) would come together representing the best interests of their state and do what was right for the country by picking the right person. In some ways the electoral college was designed protect to the country from a candidate like Trump. They speculated what if a populist who could sway the mind of uneducated voters were to get a majority of votes but was otherwise unqualified to hold such an important position? It would then be up to these wise men who were entrusted with the fate of our nation to do the right thing and elect someone who is qualified.

There were a large number of Republicans who were uncomfortable with Trump as their candidate. Listen to some of the nasty things people like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell had to say about Trump during the Republican primaries leading up to 2016. It was entirely within the power of the Republican Party to decide that Trump wasn’t fit and to replace him with a different candidate or even possibly vote for Clinton although that was highly unlikely. Instead, knowing that they would hold great power by having an alleged Republican in the Oval Office who held to alleged conservative principles and most of all who would appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court that they “did the right thing” by listening to the people who gave Trump the electoral majority even know he didn’t when the popular vote.

There’s another way that your vote for president might not count. That is if there is a tie in the electoral college. In that case the US House of Representatives picks the president. If you’re a Democrat you say “That’s cool! Democrats lead in the house 232-197 with 5 vacancies.” But that’s not how it works. When the House decides a tied electoral vote, each state gets 1 vote! By my rough count with the possibility of some vacancies I didn’t account for Republicans have the majority of House members on a state-by-state basis with 26 states having Republican majorities. Theoretically a Democrat could when the popular vote, have a tie in the electoral college, have it go to the House of Representatives where the Democrats hold the majority, but because it’s one vote per state we could still have a Republican president. Here is the current composition of the House of Representatives.

During the 2016 election Trump constantly said “The system is rigged” and he was convinced he was losing. He was half right. The system is rigged and because it was rigged he won. George W. Bush won in 2000 because of the same rigged system.

Biden, Harris, and other Democrats are saying that the future of democracy is at stake. They say that Trump represents an existential threat to a democratic way of life. Time will tell if that is hyperbole or not. But the real threat to a fair and equitable system of choosing a president clearly is this antiquated, states-rights-driven, electoral college system and its bizarre arcane backup of throwing the election into the House of Representatives. Not to mention the bizarre precedent of the 2000 election in which the Supreme Court issued what progressives and conservatives alike claim was one of the worst decision in the history of the court essentially decided the election. Many constitutional scholars have argued that the Supreme Court had no standing in Bush v Gore. And as we’ve stated, how the states choose their electors is not a federal issue. It is clearly a state issue.

In the early days of our country, actually up until the end of the Civil War, most people identified their citizenship with the particular state in which they lived. They didn’t consider themselves to be a citizen of the United States. They were citizen of Virginia and Pennsylvania or whatever state. It wasn’t just a situation of our history long debate over large central government versus a loose collection of affiliated states. Our very identities were tied to the states themselves and so anything that promoted state’s rights was important early in the country.

But this isn’t the late 1700s or early 1800s. It’s 2020. I’m a citizen of the United States of America who just happens to live in Indiana. And while we can engage in serious dialogue about big government versus small government and other such federal power issues, it is absolutely ludicrous that the only office that affects ALL Americans, the President of the United States, is chosen by such an arcane, unfair, contrary to its original purpose, system of electoral votes.

As a brief aside, our primary system is highly flawed as well. Because Indiana holds its primary late in the season, by the time they get to us, the race is already over. In June Biden had already locked up the nomination. But that’s a separate topic of why your Indiana vote doesn’t count.

Whatever happens over the next few days in regards to the winner of this office, if you REALLY care about the future of this country, the future of democracy, and a fair and equitable system choosing the most important office in our country and the free world then you will take all that energy, anger, angst, motivation that you displayed when you stood in line for hours risking your life to a pandemic just to cast a vote that in many places didn’t mean squat and channel that into abolishing the electoral college and amending the Constitution for direct vote for president.

My EXTREMELY RARE defense of a Trump official against an unfair attack by liberal media.

Take notice because it is an EXTREMELY RARE occasion where I would defend the Trump administration and am critical of the liberal media.

This week on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Chuck Todd, who I generally like, I thought was being unusually manipulative of the narrative. The complete episode is the links below on YouTube. The interviewing question is about the six minute mark. He was interviewing White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about the violence, rioting and vandalism especially and Portland Oregon and Kenosha Wisconsin. He cited Trump’s campaign claim that people would be safe from day one and he was going to solve all problems of violence. Okay I don’t mind calling him out for such a ridiculous claim. In fact I wrote a blog in 2016 saying that the “I’m the only one that can make you safe” rhetoric was especially scary to me. It was a fear that was fulfilled when unidentifiable federal law enforcement rounded up people in Portland a few weeks ago.

Todd went on to ask why can’t Trump do something about all of this violence if he had promised to keep everyone safe. Meadows replied that Trump had offered on multiple occasions to send federal law enforcement to help but the mayors and governors (Democrat variety) had all refused.

For once I thought a Trump official had a legitimate response to what was clearly designed as a “gotcha” question.

Todd went on to suggest “Are you saying that Trump isn’t president of all America? Has he abandoned the Democrat run cities?” I thought that was ridiculous and manipulative.

Liberal media (which I usually adore) can’t have it both ways. They complained when Trump said in federal storm troopers and were quick to say that local officials should have the right to refuse such federal interference. Now they were complaining that Trump wasn’t doing anything when in fact he was trying to do more but couldn’t because the locals technically were supposed to invite him in.

Of course this is all prompted by Trump’s RNC claims that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for chaos in the streets. I don’t mind them saying “We have chaos in the streets now with Trump as president so why can you say that rioting is a Biden issue.” As much as I dislike Trump as much as his rhetoric is entirely counterproductive rather than being a unifying force, in this case I think the liberal media went too far.

Cherish this moment my conservative friends. You won’t see me do it often.

Joe Biden is the Lightweight Candidate We Need

In a normal year Joe Biden wouldn’t stand a chance against a decent candidate for president. I’ve watched pretty much every minute of the virtual Democratic National Convention the past 4 days. I have concluded there is nothing that the Republicans can do to produce 4 days of message that can in any way compete with what the Democrats have produced. But if I pull back and try to get some perspective on what I’ve seen, I’ve concluded the Biden is a lightweight when it comes to solid policy.

Basically the message of the Democratic Party is that we’re not going to be the kind of total fuck ups that Trump and his cronies have imposed upon us these past 4 years. There entire message is basically the following:

  • We won’t sit by idly while hundreds of thousands of people die in the pandemic.
  • We believe in science, medicine, and common sense.
  • We won’t lock children in cages.
  • We don’t like Nazis.
  • We understand suffering and loss and we empathize with you.

Ask yourself would that kind of platform have won a presidential election in any other year? Trump has set the bar so incredibly low that any decent human being can jump over it. And basically that’s all Joe Biden has going for him. He is a very kind, empathetic, decent human being.

At least during the Democratic primary season we had lively debates over the type of universal healthcare we would have. The policy details mattered. Do we completely eliminate private insurance? Do we have a public option but keep private insurance as a possibility? What do we do in concrete terms about racism, police brutality, gun violence. The Democrats still care about health insurance, racism, sexism, reasonable gun reform. But set your “way back machine” to 1984 when Walter Mondale famously said to Gary Hart “Where’s the beef?” quoting a famous Wendy’s hamburger commercial. Where are the details? How are we going to do any of these things?

The only person still talking substance such as $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and other issues that were at the forefront of the early Democratic debates is Bernie Sanders. He promises us that Biden will work for all of these things. But his belief is based upon the fact that his people and Biden’s people had task force meetings in which they sat down and worked out compromises on these issues that both candidates could endorse. If not for Sanders pushing Biden to sign on to these policies we have to wonder what substance would exist in the Biden campaign at all?

In any other year, against any other candidate, the lack of policy specifics that we’ve seen over the last 4 days would be unsustainable against a solid Republican with a well thought out set of policies. Fortunately for the Democrats, the opposition is even more disorganized, even emptier of specifics, and even more incapable of defending itself against any sort of reasoned criticism.

Don’t get me wrong… the differences between the candidates could not be greater. The consequences of this election could not be greater. Obama’s warning that the future of our democracy is clearly at stake is absolutely terrifyingly true.

But the primary voters clearly made the right choice. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Wang all had bold revolutionary ideas about how to fix what is wrong with the country. But America can’t stand a revolution when it’s on the brink of collapse to begin with. Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Kamala Harris were not so radical but were also unproven and in that respect a little scary. We need stability. We need safety. We need nothing more than a kind, decent, empathetic human being who feels our pain and is not an egotistical, vain, narcissist who values appearance over substance and thinks of no one but himself.

In some ways the pandemic was the best thing that could’ve happened to the Democratic Party. The average person doesn’t really care if Trump solicited foreign interference to help his campaign. The average guy is so cynical about politics that they don’t care that if Obama told people the sun rises in the east and sets in the west that Trump would call it fake news. The average guy doesn’t care that Trump is racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, and immoral. But the average guy cares that the country is being ripped apart by a pandemic and Trump is acting like it’s no big deal.

Furthermore the pandemic forced this new virtual format onto the convention and it could not have been a bigger blessing. I think it’s pretty clear that the party convention as we have known it for decades is now a thing of the past. This format gives the party unfiltered access to the airwaves. In a traditional convention when some speakers are speaking or some prepared video is showing, the news channels don’t follow it second by second. They always have floor reporters interviewing people from various delegations. They have their pundits setting up the major speakers and analyzing what they think is going to happen.

Over these past four days with very few exceptions the cable networks (and I’ve only watched MSNBC and CNN) have basically turned over 2+ hours of their programming to the DNC to put up whatever they want. The intimacy of the speakers sitting in a room looking in to the camera as if they are speaking directly to you is so much more powerful than having someone stand at a podium full of raucous drunk delegates wearing funny hats that I don’t think we will ever see a traditional convention again. Even the cross-country tour of America during the roll call vote was so much more compelling than the traditional roll call that if we do return to a convention hall, I think will still take a video tour of the country.

I can’t imagine how on earth the Republicans can produce anything as remotely compelling as what we’ve seen over the past 4 days. Trump, his wife, Pence, nor any other Republican leaders can put forth a narrative the likes of which we’ve seen from the Democrats. This time Republicans can’t hide behind the energy and hoopla of a live convention. The only way the virtual format works is if you can make a personal connection to the voters. Of course there is a base who will follow Trump blindly into hell and of course they will appeal to that. But anything that is remotely a swing voter is in no way going to be able to be swayed by anything they put on the screen next week. If the swing voters have seen anything of the DNC this week it’s going to be impossible to demonize the Democrats for anyone other than the blind followers whom they already have in their camp and cannot be persuaded otherwise.

It will be interesting to see what happens next week but my guess is that the Republican political operatives are all changing their underwear and wondering what the hell they’re going to do.

Their only hope at this point is to do what Obama warned us against. Their only hope is to sow distrust in the electoral process itself. To try to invalidate the election. To destroy Democracy. We can only hope that our democratic (small “d”) institutions survive this assault.

The Republicans are a wounded animal backed into a corner. It remains to be seen if they will indeed destroy our democracy to remain in power. The danger is real. All we can do is hope that the nice guy can prevail.

I Unfriended a Trumper Against My Own Policies

I had promised myself that I would never unfriend someone on Facebook over their political views but I violated my own policy today. I had promised myself that I would only unfriend someone who was blatantly racist, homophobic, or blatantly attacked someone’s religious beliefs such as anti-Semitism or anti-Islamic posts. I guess it’s because I had too much faith in people to be able to engage in rational discussion. I always hope that even if I can’t change someone’s mind, I can convince them to seek the truth and to respect my own beliefs. But a guy that I went to school with who I barely knew posted a message on Facebook today that just pushed me over the edge and I had to unfriend him.

I try so hard to show respect to people with opposite views. I’ll attack their views but I don’t get personal. But in this circumstance unfortunately the behavior of this acquaintance (never really was a friend) pushed me to the limit and behaved in a way that confirms the worst stereotypes about Trump supporters.

Those who know me know that I’m unapologetically liberal, progressive, Democrat etc. and that I enjoy a good political debate. While some people refuse to engage people with opposite political views, I like a good argument. Rather than routinely unfriend people with whom I disagree, I challenge them to defend their position. They don’t necessarily need to agree with my positions. Just provide the evidence for yours.

The typical response I get is a big case of “What-About-ism”. Whatever I accuse Trump or the Republicans who support him of doing the counterargument is invariably What about Biden-Hillary-emails-Benghazi etc. etc. which I always say if they did anything really wrong then call a grand jury and try to get them indicted and tried. After all Atty. Gen. Barr has proven himself to be pretty much in Trump’s pocket. But that still doesn’t excuse the things Trump did.

He posted the following meme on his Facebook timeline which I follow as a “friend”.

Of course the idea that somehow being a good Christian means that you have to be against Obama and in favor of Trump is patently ridiculous to me for a number of reasons. One of the things I like about candidate Pete Buttigieg is his position that one political party can’t claim a monopoly on Christianity especially when so many of their policies seem contrary to the gospel values of caring for the poor and the weakest among us. But anyway… rather than just go off the deep end and start ranting about the ridiculousness of the whole premise of the meme, I decided to challenge the poster to defend their position. What specifically has Obama done that is contrary to Christian teaching and compare that to Trump. I should have also asked what specifically has Trump done to reverse that situation? How has he brought back Christianity to the horrific policies of the previous investigation but I didn’t think to ask that. Here is an exact quote of what I replied.

“Make a list of the anti-Christian policies of Trump versus anti-Christian policies of Obama and guess which one is longer. Certainly not Obama. What anti-Christian thing did Obama ever do? Enlighten me. On Trump side…

Rollback environmental regulations. Made friends with brutal dictators (not in a good way). Put children in cages under deplorable conditions. Filed suit to have Obama care overturned which would have put millions of people without health care. Has lied more than 16,000 times since he’s taken office (as of January this year). At a recent prayer breakfast when the minister gave a sermon about “love your enemies”, Trump’s response was “I’m sorry Rev., I don’t think I can do that.” And then trashed Nancy Pelosi for saying that she prays for him. And trashed Mitt Romney for following his conscience after swearing an oath to God. Trump budgets have proposed cuts to all sorts of social safety net programs that affect the poor. Despite the gospel call to welcome strangers he routinely trashes immigrants falsely claiming that they are all murderers and rapists. Even those who are legitimately fleeing persecution in their home countries he is refusing to treat them any humane way.

Obama told one major lie “If you like your healthcare you can keep it” an extremely small percentage of people had to change health care plans after Obama care. He used some indiscriminate drone strikes against terrorists that probably killed some innocent people with collateral damage. That’s the only negative things I can think about Obama and his entire eight years.

Enlighten me.”

I used a tactic that I often do in political debates in that I make brief arguments against my own people. In this case I thought of a pretty big lie that Obama told. By the way when I talk about politicians lying, I separate out broken promises from outright lies. For example Obama said he would close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. He didn’t do it because Congress wouldn’t let him. Failure to deliver on a promise I see as different from a lie. On the other side Trump said that Mexico would pay for the wall. I don’t look at that as a lie. I never believed it would happen as did anybody else who can think rationally. But it’s a broken promise and not a lie. Stretching for something else to accuse Obama of I wasn’t particularly fond of his indiscriminate use of drones to kill terrorists. So I may have someone exaggerated my dislike of that policy because it was the only other thing I can think of that remotely was contrary to my Christian beliefs.

I always take the opportunity to criticize my side or perhaps partially agree with criticisms of my side because I want to distinguish myself as different from those who blindly follow EVERYTHING that their political heroes proposed.

My final challenge was “Enlighten me.” Basically okay dude… drive up. Show me your cards. Show me your winning hand. Make your case.

I expected more What-About-isms such as Bill Clinton’s infidelity, accusations that Hillary and/or the Clinton Foundation were corrupt, perhaps what about Hunter Biden etc. Those are the kinds of arguments I usually get in return from my Trump supporting acquaintances. Of course those are all deflections from the real point we were discussing but I’m used to it. It just gives me another opportunity to come back at them and say get back on topic and don’t do What-About-isms. But that’s not what I got. Here’s the exact quote of his reply.

“For being a so called intelligent person you an idiot and I’m not the only one that thinks so according to other people you share Facebook with”

REALLY? That’s the best can do is call me an idiot? It is so hard to not personally attack someone who behaves in such an (pardon me) idiotic manner. How do you take the high road? How do you respect the person you are debating when the best they can do is call you an idiot? How do you try not to stereotype Trump supporters when you get a response like that? He makes reference to other Facebook friends who also think I’m an idiot. I think I know who he is referring to. That guy frequently gets in political debates with me but we manage to keep it civil and reasonably rational. He often tries to rise to my challenges to prove his point. And while we vehemently disagree with each other I don’t think he has ever called me an idiot. I think the only thing he has ever accused me of is being seriously uninformed. That doesn’t mean either of us is going to change the other ones mind but at the end of the day I can respect him for at least trying to discuss the issues.

I really didn’t know what to do. I thought I would give him one more chance so I replied…

I challenge you to come up with a rational argument to support the position you posted. I post what I believe to be a rational argument against your post. And your only response is to call me an idiot. How do you expect me to take you seriously if that’s the most intelligent thing that you can come up with in response. I repeat what I said before. Enlighten me. Explain to me why the premise of your post is true. You don’t have to buy my counterarguments but I challenge you to defend your own position with specific examples of how Obama’s policies were contrary to Christian teaching. And try to do so without personally attacking me or any other Democrats or liberals. Defend your position. Don’t just call people names. I didn’t attack you personally.

He replied less than a minute later…

I have better things to do. Trump 2020

To which I replied…

So do I

So I captured the image, copied the comments, and unfriended him. It really pissed me off that I had to do it. I want so much to believe in people. I refuse to think he represents all Trump supporters but then I guess I’m idealistic.