Vote counting irony

After watching this year's election fiasco I've been reading a description of the Bush v Gore mess in 2000 for comparison. The book is Courting Justice by David Boies. He was one of Gore's lawyers during that fiasco. The last three chapters are about Bush v Gore.

Much of the Bush v Gore argument ended up being the Gore camp wanting more votes to be counted (though they really only cared about 4 left leaning counties). The Bush camp wanted the results accepted as is (understandable, they were ahead). A consistent theme throughout the book is that the more votes that are counted the more Gore will gain over Bush. In this case the extra votes being counted were questionable ballots -- those not properly filled out but where the "intent of the voter" can be discerned, something Florida law allowed to be counted. Mr. Boies even seems to argue that the more votes counted in Republican counties, the better for Gore.

This leaves me wondering why this is the case. Could it be that on average Democrats don't know how to fill out a ballot, don't know how to follow directions filling out a ballot, or are afraid to ask for help? How does this compare to common stereotypes today of stupid Trump supporters?

I've read arguments by scholars that we should have some sort of minimal test for voting. The arguments tend by those of the left against "deplorables" (to stereotype broadly) and are in terms of trying to prevent the return of old, regressive policies as opposed to newly enacted progressive policies. This dovetails with arguments that conservatives are more likely to not have a college degree, etc. which I've seen since the 1980 election when I was first involved with major party politics.

Yet election vote counting shows an interesting contrast. Apparently it's Democrats who are more likely to be unable to fill out a ballot correctly. Should we perhaps ask whether those who can't vote properly are intelligent enough to choose a candidate properly?

[NOTE: I do NOT advocate establishing some sort of eligibility test for voting. It's far, far too easy to turn any requirement for voting into a partisan test (e.g. literacy "tests" in the Jim Crow south).

Social Security confusion

 One of the things I've learned over the years is that one of the most confusing areas of personal finance is retirement, Social Security, etc. Having a technical degree and having filed individual income tax schedules not related to farming, I've been completely stymied when it comes to retirement. I first dealt with retirement income, taxes, etc. for my father in law. How to take benefits (monthly payments, lump sum, etc) for some types of pension is bad enough. He had a civil service pension and the 1099 form looked nothing like the examples in tax books (different numbers, etc). Figuring out the taxable amount of the pension is a disaster. No wonder tax preparation is a lucrative career.

Now I've seen another possible confusion. My wife passed away recently. Social Security was notified and I'm wondering how the final payments work. Social Security rules say you must return any payment "for the month of death" along with later months. Since her November payment was in the bank before she died I'm wondering if I need to return it. Add to this online complaints of "Social Security yanked the last payment out of the bank and caused everything else to bounce" and I wasn't sure what to expect.

Well, it turns out there's no problem. The Social Security payment "for a month" is paid the next month. Luckily there was no bank deposit the next month. Still, it took me a couple times reading the rules to figure out that "for a month" didn't mean the payment made "in a month", which is a reasonable assumption. I wonder how many people are confused by this. I wonder how many people return the payment for the month of death thinking this what is required.

In the days of the web this is made more difficult because searches related to Social Security and death turn up more responses about the SS death benefit or survivor benefits than how the last payment is treated.

So we have the irony that once somebody has finished their working life and is ready to relax in retirement it suddenly seems an advanced degree is needed to sort out the financial and tax issues.

Joe Biden and Coronavirus

 Joe Biden is emphasizing dealing with COVID-19 and assures us that he will use the vast powers of the federal government to change the course of the disease. As with most political statements time will tell what this really means.

It's been quite clear that Mr. Biden is in an ideal position going into the presidency. If COVID-19 cases decline and we can return to some semblance of normalcy in the months after his inauguration then he can claim the credit. On the other hand, if the virus remains out of control or gets worse then he can claim that Trump mismanaged it so badly that nobody could have fixed it.

The next few months will be interesting. Mr. Biden seems to think he can command the government and people to do something and they will do it. After almost 50 years in politics he should realize it doesn't work that way.

Is Supreme Court packing unconstitutional?

 Newsweek has published an opinion piece arguing that Court Packing is unconstitutional. I wondered about this since at first glance the Constitution doesn't specify the size of the Supreme Court so how could it prohibit additional justices?

Reading the article the argument is basically that it's wrong to add justices to change the ideological makeup of the Court. Thus court packing is unconstitutional because it's being done for the wrong reason. This argument may seem absurd yet numerous courts have struck down Trump administration actions (e.g. immigration restrictions) in this way. The court argues that President Trump's reasons for some new action make it illegal even if the law appears to allow the action.

This argument also follows the reasoning of other court rulings. There is no mention of abortion or same sex marriage in the constitution yet the Supreme Court has found them to be protected by the Constitution. Using a similar argument to prohibit court packing shows the nature of one school of constitutional interpretation which can find any desired result in the Constitution given enough looking.

Is this interpretation correct? That's less clear. In a way the argument against court packing boils down to the Constitution protecting "tradition". The this sense it's the opposite of the ruling in favor of same sex marriage (which is not traditional). Yes arguing court packing is unconstitutional would be quite ironic. Rulings which extract some hidden meaning from the Constitution (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc) tend to be favored by the political left while more literal readings and originalism are of the political right. Yet this argument, though in the nature of the "left wing" court arguments, would have the effect of favoring the right.

Is Trump's criticism really so unprecedented?

 The latest anti-Trump headline is "Trump launches unprecedented attack on military leadership he appointed." President Trump criticized military leadership,saying:

I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy,

This is termed an "unprecedented attack". Yet reading this statement it sounds a lot like statements from "doves" in Congress who want shrink the military. So it doesn't look like this is an unprecedented attack, unless it's the fact it's an "attack" by a President who has increased the military budget.

Notice the pattern -- the Trump administration has supported the military overall but the headlines are all "Trump hates the military" because something could be taken negatively.

Media bias in the era of Trump

The media again shows how anything from Donald Trump is taken in the worst possible light.

One of the big stories this morning is that Donald Trump suggested delaying the 2020 election. A CNN headline is typical:  "Trump floats delaying election despite lack of authority to do so."

So what is the basis of this outrage? Turns out Donald Trump did a single tweet:

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

From this the media emphasizes:

1. The standard talking point that there is no election fraud in the United States and an all mail ballot is no different than absentee balloting so there's no problem switching to an all mail ballot system.
2. Donald Trump doesn't have the authority to do this. Maybe he's going to defy the law and constitution?

As far as I can tell all Donald Trump did is make a suggestion. The suggestion wasn't even in any sort of official setting. But to the media any suggestion made by Donald Trump is considered to be a fait accompli, official policy, and something he is driving to implement.

Yet Donald Trump didn't say going to do this unilaterally. Presidents make proposals all the time which they know perfectly well they can't implement unilaterally. The State of the Union address is largely a list of legislative proposals from the President. Nobody screams that the President is going to steamroll over Congress. But in this case he will?

This story is part and parcel of the media narrative that Trump is an authoritarian and/or dictator (odd he hasn't shut them down if he were) and that he doesn't intend to leave office if he loses the election, instead proclaiming himself dictator. And what is the evidence of this? Essentially zero. Trump did mention a third term at one of his rallies a year or so ago. This is after a few bloggers had suggested that there needs to be a way to punish (Democrats in) Congress for refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of his election. This was similarly a throwaway line at a rally, not a serious proposal.

So here we again see the media creating a controversy. Donald Trump never said he would unilaterally postpone the election but the media chose to interpret his statement that way because it shows him in the worse light.

Has Trump lost the election

The media is telling us how far behind Donald Trump is in the polls. There are regular articles about how Trump's presidency is melting down and in panic.

It might be informative to consider the situation four years ago. In 2016 after Trump clinched the nomination and before the convention he trailed Hillary Clinton in the polls by about the same percentage as today. Four years ago Hillary Clinton was a candidate without a strong, excited base. She was unable to get much of the Obama vote, in particular in the swing states which mattered.

So today? Trump trails in the polls. He has an opponent who hasn't generated a lot of excitement. For many on the left Joe Biden's chief appeal is that he isn't Donald Trump. People have publicly stated they are voting for Biden as a vote against Trump, especially to to get around some of the unpalatable things in Biden's past.

We shall see how the election progresses.

Expect increased racial disparities?

Recent protests have been all about reducing racism yet what will be the practical result? It seems likely that "racism", defined as avoiding hiring or associating with some racial groups, might increase.

First, after the riots over the death of George Floyd, inner cities are going to see a recession. Jobs have been lost at local businesses which have been damaged or destroyed. Many businesses will leave the area rather than re-open in the same location. And businesses will think twice before locating within the city.

Why? We are starting to see violent protest after every new viral event (e.g. Atlanta this last weekend). There is also an election in November and if Donald Trump is reelected there is a good chance of a new round of violent protest. There were protests and some violence after Trump's initial election, it will be much worse if he's reelected.

There is also an emphasis on unintentional racist statements. These can be as simple as asking somebody "how was your weekend". If this is racist I can argue ANY general conversation or small talk might be considered racist by somebody. Will people want to hire minorities if there's a chance employees will be called racist for statements they consider normal conversation?

We also see a number of colleges and schools grading minorities on a more lenient scale. There is already a problem (due to affirmative action and quotas) that a minority hire for a job may be less qualified. Add the fact their GPA might be inflated relative to non-minorities and companies are left wondering if the candidate is really qualified. Better to hire the non-minority you know did the work.

Unfortunately this will result in another round of people being told all whites are racist.

To "defund the police" it might be best to vote for Trump

The death of George Floyd has brought demands for police reform. Suddenly politicians, largely Democrats, are demanding police reform. Which is ironic since Democrats have controlled most large cities in the US for decades.

Now the question is how much change will actually happen. Will the police be reformed or will the issue die out after a few token gestures?

It occurs to me if Joe Biden wins the presidency in November the "defund" the police movement is liable to die down. This is because part of the push for police reform is being framed as anti-Donald Trump. All of today's ills can be blamed on Trump and the Republicans (whether guilty or not) but as soon as Democrats are in control there's no reason to complain.

If, on the other hand, Donald Trump wins re-election then the Democrats need things to complain about. Defund the police can remain as a hot reform issue.