A Geographic Election

Following the election and throughout the transition, many conservative and Republican voters, still basking in the victorious  GOP sweep, were patting themselves on the back and complimenting the Founding Fathers. After all, it was their "Genius" to create a system that prevented the dense population centers from "dictating" government policy to the rural regions. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats were, once again, bemoaning the "obsolete" electoral college that, once again, allowed a Republican to win the White House without the popular vote (twice in the last 5 Presidential elections). Either way you look at it, you cannot deny that Donald Trump won the Presidency not by winning the most votes, but by a geographic anomaly.

United States Constitutional Convention - 1787

I do not disagree that the Founding Fathers were brilliant in the creation of this new nation and the revised Federal government in 1787. The original Federal Government, based on the Articles of Confederation, was ineffective. However, do not extend their genius to imply that they ever imagined their small republic would grow to 50 states. Nor could the Founding Fathers have ever imagined the financial strength and dominance of our current 2 political parties. Actually, the greatest measure of their genius can be found in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This Article describes the process to amend the Constitution.

It would require a Constitution Amendment or another Constitutional Convention to eliminate the Electoral College. Short of that, there are several measures we can do as a nation to ensure that ALL elections are fair and ensure that each person's vote is counted equally. Most have been discussed in the news and social media, and many have one or more organizations dedicated to fighting and soliciting for (or against) these issues. These issues include:

• eliminate gerrymandering;
• reinstate election financial reform;
• mandate Congressional term limits;
• eliminate the winner-take-all approach to awarding State delegates;
• mandate a minimum number of voting precincts in densely populated areas;
• eliminate intrusive voter ID laws to address non-existent voter fraud; and 
• make Election Day a Federal holiday.

In most cases I concur with making these changes, in others I am a bit more skeptical. Term limits would not be required if people would just vote and if some of these other measures became law. Furthermore, term limits would result in a revolving door of lobbyists and legislators. You would need to use a score card to tell current legislators from the former ones who would lobby for a living. I have even heard of proposing mandatory voting (which should not be required in a "free" society). However, nobody has mentioned one way to make our elections more fair: overturning of the Apportionment Act of 1911.

Apportionment Act of 1911

The number of each state's electoral college delegates is established by combining the number of the state's U.S. Representatives and adding 2 (for each Senator) as established in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2). While it is clear that each state has 2 U.S. Senators, the number of elected Representatives was first established in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which reads as follows:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

It is clear from this clause that much of it is no longer valid. For example, the famous "three fifths compromise" was included to increase the representation of the southern states by counting each slave as 3/5 of a free white. However, it is clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have representation based on population.

Obviously, we cannot maintain representation near the "number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" requirement, which would require over 10,000 U.S. representatives. However we continue to maintain the 1 representative minimum for each state requirement.

The number of Representatives continued to grow until the Apportionment Act of 1911 was passed. This act limited the number of Representatives in the House to 435, when it was amended in 1912. This number has been maintained since the 63rd Congress, with one exception*. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 provided the method to reallocate the number of seats as population changes occurred and the Apportionment Act of 1941 made this process self-executing after each census.

* - There were 437 representatives in the 1950's when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the union. The number was reduced back to 435 following the 1960 census and the 1962 election.

Although I am not a fan of increasing the size of Congress, this maximum number poses two issues associated with congressional representation as well as the Electoral College.. First, the population in 1910 was over 92 million. By the 2010 census the US had grown to over 300 million. Second, each state is still required to have a minimum of one U.S. representatives (or 3 Electoral College delegates).

As the graphic indicates, residents from rural states have greater congressional representation in the House than do residence in states with greater populations. By dividing the population of California (the most populous state) by that of Wyoming (the least), California should have 66 Representatives and 68 electoral delegates (rather than 53 and 55, respectively) to match the amount of representation Wyoming has in the House and Electoral College. Based on this approach, Ohio should have 20 Representatives, rather than 16.

Obviously, the hallowed halls of the House would swell if each state's representation were based on the ratio of its population with the least populated state's. So what? Can you honestly say that Federal gridlock would worsen?

Conclusion

So how can we prevent another geographic Presidential election? There are many ways to balance representation in the House and improve our Presidential election process. Some of these ideas (eliminating the Electoral College or the minimum 1 Representative per state requirement) would require a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning or passing a new Apportionment Act would not require a Constitutional Amendment, but given our current Republican dominated government, it is unlikely to be introduced, let alone discussed.

Of course this is all moot when you consider that over 40 percent of eligible voters did not cast a vote during the past election. Off year and midterm elections consistently show even worse voter participation.

I have often heard it said that Americans deserve a better government. Based on that percentage of non-participation, I disagree. Americans have the government they deserve. we will only deserve a better system when more Americans start taking part in our government and actually voting.

-- Food for Thought

Moving Forward

I tweeted the following observation recently:

I made this tweet, in part, to get people to start thinking. I am not sure what I expected. I did received a few comments concerning the lingering fears from 9/11, even though the country where 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists originated is not among the countries listed in the executive order. However, one comment in particular made a very important point:

“…I think both sides need to at least try to understand the perspective of the other. We have to do something to re-unite ourselves. Otherwise the terrorists will have succeeded in dividing us and their ultimate goal of us destroying ourselves will be accomplished.”

I am not sure just the terrorists want to see us divided. I have read discussions that alleged the wealthiest “1 percent” of the US population want to keep the “working class” members divided, because if the 99 percent stay divided, the uber-wealthy can continue to fleece the country.

Whether it is the oligarchs, overseas terrorists or some other force that has our country divided, one thing is certain: we cannot continue down this path if our nation is to survive.

Here are my thoughts on some of the hurdles we must overcome to start the "reunification" or our divided nation. I realize that my thoughts are at best, reasonable, and at worst, just the rants of a liberal, straight, white, privileged, Midwestern male. I have no special training that lead me to these conclusions, but in my humble opinion, our current dilemma boils down to several major points. Granted this is oversimplification but here goes:

Blame Game

People love to blame other people for their troubles... that way they do not have to admit fault and/or take responsibility. I can acknowledge the fear/paranoia associated with 9/11 and other incidents. One such incident affected me directly, though minimally.

Since 9/11 Muslims have been a convenient group to blame for almost all terror based problems in our country. It is easy to blame one group for current and even imagined problems. Donald Trump plays the blame game constantly. Although I hate the comparison, Hitler also played the blame game masterfully during his reign.

Anybody who reads and understands the history of the Middle East must acknowledge the many mistakes we in the west have made and continue to make in this region. “Western” aggression has been present in the Middle East since ancient Rome and the Crusades. More recently, the Ottoman Empire had their claims on the Middle East until World War I, and the U.S. and others in the west have installed various puppet dictators – some of which lead to the rise of Islamic republics, such as Iran. Finally, the current troubles and destruction associated with the recent wars help create ISIS.

We are also playing the blame game against immigrants. Immigration records have shown that there is no great influx of Mexican or other Latin American people into the US. Yet we are building a wall to keep out the “hoard” of immigrants that simply do not exist… or arrive by plane.

Perhaps it is time to eliminate the blame game and begin addressing our mutual problems in a constructive manner.

Admitting Mistakes

People do not want to acknowledge their own mistakes, no matter if they were honest mistakes or ones based on false perception. Rather than acknowledge errors, many people "stick to their guns" or "double down" when confronted with facts that are contrary to their own beliefs. For this reason, there will always be people who will support the President they voted for, regardless of his or her actions or consequences.

One of the challenges to admitting mistakes concerns the variety of news sources available. It seems there is always a media outlet that will support a mistaken premise, no matter how misguided or destructive that premise might be.

Unfortunately, people generally prefer media that share their own prejudices or bias, hence the popularity of Fox, Breitbart and similar news outlets.  There are equally bias news sources on the left as well. How much better would we be if we all selected news from sources considered mainstream, or at least less bias, as the following chart indicates:

My primary sources for national and international news are all within the “Mainstream” on this chart, including the New York Times, Washington Post, (both of which use Reuters and AP), BBC and NPR. I also occasionally read the Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. Unfortunately, there are dozens of similar charts, all of which draw the line between bias and partisan news in a different position. I guess we cannot even agree on bias.

To make matters worse, our President and his cabinet began their term developing conspiracies, discrediting the media, and trying to inject “alternate facts” into our national dialog. Apparently, to be a “true” American (in Trump’s mind) you should only get your news from his administration. Many of his followers seem willing to do just that. The left leaning and most of the mainstream media have fought against Trump’s war against the media. Even the conservative Fox News has begun to question Trump and his spokespeople more thoroughly. I never knew facts could be partisan.

It is going to be a monumental challenge to hold constructive and healing conversations between members of our divided nation when we have become so divided that we cannot even agree on facts, credible sources of information, and reality.

Short Attention Span

Many people have short attention spans. Whether this is because of our technological revolution, differing education levels, or just the ever-growing chaos of life, who can say? Trump won many votes by keeping his message simple. Liberals should not assume that providing more detailed information and encouraging people to "go to our website" will have much influence, let alone win elections. 

U.S. Coal Mining Production
Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency

Lies are simple and apparently easy for some. Telling the unemployed coal miners "I will reopen the mines" is an example of a lie that Trump used to win votes. It is also one lie that can be addressed. Coal production has not declined as much as politicians have implied. Furthermore, regulations had little to do with the loss of jobs, except in cases of safety violations. Often mine owners use regulations as an excuse. Miners lost more jobs to automation, mines that closed for safety reasons, or mines being closed because they were unproductive. Finally, other sources of energy replaced coal, primarily Liquid Natural Gas, which burns cleaner and at one time was less expensive.

These lies can and should be addressed. However, the miner and others who are unemployed must be willing to change professions.

Resistance to Change

In the discussion above, I cited an example of how one political lie turned economic decisions and mineral depletion into a promise to “go back” to better times. In spite of what was promised, we have to reach out and help mining families move forward. Just this week, Republicans kicked off their drive to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations by repealing a "Stream Protection Rule" meant to keep coal mines from dumping waste into streams. Allowing coal mining companies to contaminate water resources will not reopen unsafe mines, nor will it increase mining employment within mines that have been automated. It will simply save mine owners money by allowing them to discharge their waste rather than treat it.

Change is enviable. It can also be frightening, especially to the families who have seen their prospects for employment diminish, in coal mining and other industries.  This is similar to the manufacturing history of my home: During the late 19th century, the City of Columbus, Ohio had a comparatively large manufacturing sector. The city became known as the "Buggy Capital of the World," thanks to the two dozen buggy factories—notably the Columbus Buggy Company, founded in 1875 by C.D. Firestone. However, during the early 20th century, technology offered a new mode of transportation and eventually, Columbus’ buggy production collapsed. Workers were forced to change their profession as the buggy market dried up. Perhaps many of the buggy workers did not want to change jobs and leave the buggy manufacturing profession. But changes in technology and the market often doesn’t not allow that choice.

Miners, in this example, have to understand that we are in an energy situation that is not sustainable. Fossil fuels are not renewable and Americans need to conserve these and other resources as well as continue to develop new, sustainable sources of power. Unfortunately, that leads me to my final point. 

Simple, Easy Solutions

People want simple solutions. No matter how complex the problems, many people want an easy out. Climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels are examples of complex problems. Unfortunately, many politicians are all too willing to offer their constituents simple solutions (that are often ineffective) or dismiss entire problem as a "liberal hoax," in the case of climate change. Those of you who know me know my opinion of that.

However, if we are ever going to reunite our nation, we must also understand that many people believe they cannot afford to think and plan beyond our next paycheck. How are we going to get those on the far right to take climate change and energy consumption issues seriously? Humans cannot directly feel or experience climate change on a day-to-day basis. Many news sources and politicians still deny what most of the world has already acknowledged.

Perhaps we need to take a very different approach. Simplify the message. In the case of climate change, perhaps, if we can agree that fossil fuels are a limited source of energy, maybe we can get people to acknowledge that we need to begin finding new sources. That does not mean a complete shutdown of the fossil fuel industry. As these figures show, the three largest sources of energy both in the U.S. (and in the world) are fossil fuels. There is no way we can simply mothball all fossil energy sources immediately, 

Current and Historic Energy Utilization in the United States by source.

Conclusion

So does any of this ring true? Did I hit the mark; miss it entirely; or at least come close? I will let the readers decide for themselves. Can we come together and reunite our country? Can we find common ground upon which to build a new constructive American dialog to replace our current situation of verbal snipes and social media jousting? Who can say? It will take open minds and a great deal of compromise, two things that seem to be in short supply these days.

All I know is that, we cannot continue as we have in the past. We can not approach our mutual problems thinking that we have all the answers and the other side is just wrong. Maybe folks much more prominent and important than me should plan to listen more and try to understand opposing points of view before trying to solve the situation.

Obviously, this list is hardly all-inclusive. It certainly does not address the problems with our election system. Perhaps that is a topic for another blog post.

-- Food for Thought