Fallacy of One Person – One Vote

“The right to vote is a consequence, not a cause, of a free social system. Its value depends
on strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is tyranny.” (Ayn Rand) 
Fallacy of One Person – One Vote

By: George Noga – March 1, 2020

        Our February 2, 2020 post about the Electoral College generated one of the highest open rates on record and left readers asking for more. We are happy to oblige. This post further probes: (1) the wisdom of the Electoral College; (2) problems innate in popular vote elections; (3) perceived inequalities in our federalist system; and (4) inherent problems of a one person, one vote system. Visit our website: www.mllg.us to read our 2/2/20 post in case you missed it the first time.

         Progressives consternate about what they view as egregious inequalities in the US federalist electoral system – particularly in the Senate and the Electoral College. They are particularly fond of pointing out that California (population 40 million) and Wyoming (580,000 people) each have 2 senators. They call this undemocratic. They are ignorant that under the Constitution senators represent states, not people.

         We need to go back to first principles. What is the purpose of government? Is it to actualize the will of the majority at any and every moment? If instant actualization is what you want, a popular vote system will deliver it – as in the French Revolution. Or instead, is the measure of good government whether it is effective at creating long-term justice, freedom, security and stability – like in the US for the past 233 years?

       Of 195 countries in the world today, only a few, mostly in Central and South America, use popular vote; how has that worked out? Canada’s Senate has members, appointed by the Governor General, who represent regions and are not based on population. In Switzerland each canton, regardless of size, has two members. The Senate in Australia has 12 members for each state – independent of population. Most nations use a variant of the parliamentary system, wherein majorities are rare.

          Majorities usually tyrannize minorities. Consider Switzerland’s solution. In a one person, one vote system, Italian or French-speaking Catholics feared tyranny by German-speaking Protestants and vice versa. To allay such concerns, the Swiss adopted a double majority system in which important matters require a majority of the popular vote and also a majority vote in a majority of cantons. The Swiss system has endured for 729 years and counting. Note: When rural Swiss go to vote today, they carry rifles and swords as symbols of how their freedom was attained and preserved.

        Consider Iraq with its Shia, Sunni, and Kurd factions or Afghanistan with its many feuding tribes. Particularly relevant is the former Yugoslavia; when the Serb majority demanded one person, one vote the country disintegrated into chaos resulting in genocide and the deaths of 140,000 people. How did that work out?

       When drafting the Constitution, America’s founders considered the history of majority tyranny and, on multiple occasions, rejected a popular vote. The states had stark differences. Slave states and free states were in conflict. Small states were concerned about domination by large states. Agricultural states were at odds with industrial states. Inland states worried about maritime states. Pietists in New England, Catholics in Maryland and Lutherans in Pennsylvania worried about each other.

       Those demanding a national popular vote and restructure of the Senate believe things are different today. Although differences between states may have moderated since our founding, many significant chasms remain. More to the point, human nature has not changed since 1787 and tyranny of the majority remains of great concern. A present-day poster child for this is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Imagine what horrors would be loosed on America if she and her squad ever acquired unchecked power.

       The Constitution of the United States of America has served us well for 233 years, including the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate. Those advocating for fundamental change are ignorant both of history and of human nature.


Next on March 8th, we blog about UBI – Universal Basic Income.  
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

Our Choice: Depravity or Fecklessness

Whatever the outcome, the election will not slow our march toward Gomorrah.
Our Choice: Depravity or Fecklessness
By: George Noga – November 4, 2018

       Many readers have asked for my take on the election, probably because my 2016 pre-election posting proved incredibly prescient; you can read it at: www.mllg.us. My take on the 2018 election is likely to prove far less satisfying because the data are conflicting and do not lead to any logical conclusions. Following is what I know.

      The party in power usually loses seats in midterm elections; this is a powerful historical force not to be minimized. The economy is booming; every economic metric is the best in generations; normally, this would provide a strong tailwind for the party in power. Although Trump remains hugely popular with his base, he is much less so among independents. The fallout from the Kavanaugh brouhaha is unclear and could significantly advantage either party. Polls are unreliable; they undercount Trump’s support and cannot capture late swings among voters nor anticipate turnout.

       For the aforementioned reasons, I have no special insight to offer. It will come down to who is more motivated to vote and any possible late swings in sentiment, which often are powerful enough to change the outcome of many races. Although we all tend to get caught up in the moment, the outcome of the election will not slow our inexorable march toward Gomorrah nor delay the onset of the spending crisis.

        You can tell how disconnected from reality we have become by the issues in this election and comparing them to the issues we ought to be debating. Following are the top fake election issues versus the top real issues critical to America’s future.

Fake Election Issues 

1. Russia: There is not one scintilla of evidence supporting Trump/Russia collusion. In fact, it is more likely those making the allegations will be the ones implicated.

2. Abortion: There is no credible basis to believe there will be any new laws or court rulings significantly impacting abortion or any women’s issue. It is a scare tactic.

3. Victim/Identity Politics: These are strictly talking points and scare tactics. Whatever the election outcome, there will be no adverse impact on any victim or identity group.

4. Climate Change and Gun Control: These are dog whistles for progressives. Climate change ranks dead last out of 20 issues of voter concern. The ugly truth about gun control is that there is no real difference between the parties on gun issues and no proposed action would make any difference in preventing mass casualty attacks.

Real Election Issues Not Being Discussed

 

1. Protection of electric grid: A cyber or EMP attack tomorrow on our grid could kill millions of Americans; it easily could be prevented and/or the harm minimized.

2. Prevent the Spending Crisis: The worst economic crisis in our history is approaching and we totally ignore it because we refuse to face difficult and painful choices.

3. Maximize economic growth: The proper role of politics is to create conditions that grow the economic pie as big as possible and then decide, via the political process, how to slice the pie. The worst possible situation is to shrink the pie due to class warfare. Maximizing the pie also solves other issues like defense and infrastructure.

4. Iran/North Korea: How far are we prepared to go to stop their nuclear ambitions?

       In any sane, rational universe we would be debating the real issues affecting our future and our children’s future. However, politicians appeal to the electorate’s lowest common denominator because we allow it to work. Our true choice is one between depravity and fecklessness; I will hold my nose and vote for fecklessness.


We next return to the spending crisis with a discussion of financial repression.

Why the Left is Unhinged

This special MLLG posting explains why the left is so apoplectic after the election.
With a government so powerful it could incarcerate Mother Theresa, no one is safe.
Why the Left is Unhinged
By: George Noga – January 17, 2016
     Many of our fellow citizens on the left have become unhinged in the election’s aftermath. The main reason, thanks largely to Obama, is that presidents have become more like kings, wielding enormous power unthinkable to the founders. If presidents and all elected and appointed officials honored the Constitution, it would matter little who occupied the oval office, Congress or the judiciary. We are supposed to have a national government of few, limited and enumerated powers within a federalist system. Who is mayor or governor should be more important than who is president. However, kings affect our lives infinitely more than presidents acting within the Constitution.
     For those on the latte-left, government has supplanted religion. There was a time when we Americans saved most of our passion for religion. No more. The progressive herd not only has abandoned religion but now mocks and condemns it. They have transferred all their passion to politics, explaining much of their post-election angst.
     They not only lost an election but now see a veritable Lucifer wielding the same unchecked power Obama usurped. The progressive religion explains why libs have a messianic fervor about climate, guns, environment, identity, etc. They regard honest differences over policy as apostasy. If you have a different view about immigration, you are a racist, Islamaphobe and xenophobe – no discussion permitted. Moreover, they want to criminalize expressing your views as hate speech and to throw you in jail.
     Thirdly, everything is now political, including many things never before considered political such as science, religion, news, media and education. Science has been corrupted due to the vast quantities of federal money doled out in grants. The federal government spends $3,000 to every $1 spent by others for climate research. You get what you pay for. The media are now advocates; honest reporting has disappeared and fake news proliferates. Even fact checkers are corrupted. Facebook employs liberal censors and uses tainted, ideological fact checkers to control content.
    Finally, there is SCOTUS with one seat open and the federal judiciary with 100 open seats. There was a time when seasoned (older) largely apolitical judges were chosen on merit, served for a limited time (10-15 years), retired and soon moved on to the great court in the sky. Today, young judges are appointed because they don’t have a record that can be used against them and more importantly because, with today’s longer life expectancy, they can serve forever. As a result, the stakes for SCOTUS are sky high.
     I close with a favorite anecdote to illustrate the frightening power of the federal government. During the 1980s when Rudy Giuliani was US attorney for New York, he and his staff had a favorite game. They would select well known people from all walks of life and determine for how many federal crimes they could be indicted. Everyone, no matter how good his/her character, could be sent to prison. Included in this group was Mother Theresa. And that was 30 years ago; today it is worse – infinitely worse.

Next on January 20th is our special MLLG Inauguration Day posting.

Election Analysis and Afterthoughts

Hillary had a world class marketing team trying to sell box wine to oenophiles, more baggage than a carousel at LAX, a paranoid streak rivaling Nixon and a limitless sense of entitlement.
Election Analysis and Afterthoughts
By: George Noga – January 15, 2017
     We got it right all year! My January 17th post cited 3 principles: (1) no permanent majorities; (2) the longer a party is in power, the more likely it is to lose; and (3) economics trumps all else. I also cited 3 keys: (1) polling is dead; (2) Obamacare is wildly unpopular; and (3) demographics, i.e. for Republicans to make gains among Hispanics, Asians, women and millennials would be easier than for Democrats to make gains among whites. All 6 of these principles and keys proved to be correct.
 
     My September 20th special posting began “I don’t purport to know who will win the election, but I know how it will be decided. . . . It will be decided by les deplorables, good-hearted, hard-working Americans branded as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic and revulsed by the latte-left’s perversion of America and outraged about being lied to.” Those words proved to be prophetic.
 
     Our final preelecton post on November 6th stated the race was tightening and Trump would win if all or most of the following happened: (1) polling was flawed; (2) there were late shifts in voter sentiment; (3) Obamacare repudiation was robust; (4) government failure drove voters as in the Brexit vote; and (5) blacks and millennials stayed home while evangelicals turned out in force. BINGO! All five happened. 
 
     Clinton and the Democrats lost because a good, decent and just society is based on a voluntary social and economic compact between citizens and government. That compact was violated, desecrated and trampled upon by Obama, Clinton and liberal elites who would be our masters. Voters demanded change from failed hyper-progressive social and economic policies. It had nothing to do with Comey or Putin; it had everything to do with deeply flawed governance and candidates.

Post-Election Reflections

  •     Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and had a better organization but, in the final analysis, the best sales and marketing are limited by the product being sold. As one pundit nailed it, they had world class marketers trying to sell box wine to oenophiles.
  •     After every defeat, Democrats delude themselves into believing that their problem lay in not getting their message out. Their problem was that they did get their message across and it was soundly rejected by the voters. They never learn.
  •     Liberals exposed their churlish souls after the election: rioting, contesting the results, tampering with the electoral college and planning to disrupt the inauguration.
  •    Voters repudiated Obama’s policies and his method of governance, although he remains personally popular. Both Hillary and Obama immeasurably aided Trump.
  •     Demonization of opponents is dead. The Democrats won in 2012 by turning a good and decent man (Romney) into an unrecognizable monster. It did not work against Trump even though he was a target rich candidate. It may never work again.
  •     Democrats obsess with branding their opponents as racists. That abomination also may never work again. Disagreement about immigration is not racism. Over 200 counties that voted for Obama in 2012 changed to Trump; were they all racists? 
  •     Steve Bannon as a Trump advisor outraged liberals who were a-okay with Al Sharpton advising Obama. Bannon has degrees from Georgetown and Harvard, served 7 years as a navy officer and had successful stints at Goldman Sachs and Breitbart News. Sharpton attended Brooklyn College for two years before dropping out, never served in the military, owes $4.5 million in unpaid taxes and is known mainly for his role in the sordid Tawana Brawley affair that a jury ruled was a giant hoax.
 
    The fierce, frothing-at-the-mouth animus and virulence liberals are showing for Trump is not out of concern for America or because progressives are afraid he will fail. Au contraire; it is entirely because they are  terror-stricken that he will succeed!

 Coming January 20th – an Inauguration Day retrospective of the Obama presidency

Voter Ignorance – A Startling Perspective

Most voters are ignorant of the issues and even about basic political facts.
What are the implications of massive voter ignorance for our republic?  
Voter Ignorance – A Startling Perspective
By: George Noga – November 13, 2016
    The election is history; whoever won was elected by voters ignorant of the issues and about our government. Most voters don’t even know our form of government, incorrectly believing it is a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Voters are ignorant of the identity of the vice president, who controls Congress, the branches of government, taxation and spending. Candidates shamelessly exploit this ignorance.
 
     The founders didn’t see voter ignorance as a problem because government had little power over peoples’ lives; politics was mostly local; and voting was limited to a small cohort of educated white male landowners. With federalism, states appointed senators. All this has changed with universal suffrage and vastly more complexity. Just how big a problem is voter ignorance? Does it doom democracy or, at least, argue for changes? Is it a serious concern voters spend more time planning a vacation than on the issues? 
 
    The answers may surprise you. Voters may be ignorant but they’re not stupid. Should a surgeon spend countless hours learning about foreign trade, immigration and tax policy? The ignorant voter, who spends many hours comparison shopping for a new television rather than learning the issues and the candidates, actually behaves rationally because his decision on the TV makes an immediate and significant difference in his life, whereas the chance his vote will make any difference is infinitesimal. 
 
     Just because voters are grossly underinformed and/or misinformed does not mean they always fail to act rationally. There are four ways voters evince erudite behavior.
 
1. Voters recognize and act on serious problems: When the nation is in the midst of social upheaval, beset with security issues and/or the economy is in a prolonged tailspin, voters invariably will vote out those perceived responsible. Even ignorant voters punish incumbents when there is clear-cut government failure. 
 
2. Prolonged one party rule is rejected: Even low information voters viscerally grasp that incumbency leads to complacency and corruption. Prior to 2016 only Reagan/Bush (since FDR) won 3 consecutive elections. No party won 4 straight (excluding only the civil war era and FDR) since 1801, beginning with Jefferson.
 
3. Peace and prosperity are rewarded: Just as voters react to serious problems by voting out the perps, they also reward success – particularly in achieving peace and prosperity – at least for a time but not for 3 or 4 presidential terms.
 
4. People vote with their feet. Under our federal system, people can and do vote with their feet, moving from one jurisdiction to another. Just as with the TV example, people analyze, rationally and non politically, where to live because it has a large, immediate and direct impact on their lives. That explains why there is a shortage of moving vans in California and a corresponding glut in Texas. 
 
   Surprisingly, perhaps startlingly, massive voter ignorance is not an uber-serious problem. Democracy (including constitutional republics) is not perfect, but what system is better? Even ignorant voters can and do trump demographics, money and special interests. And being ignorant does not always equate to being irrational.
 
   Ignorant voters almost certainly will vote for change in 2020 if the economy is torpid with no prospect of improvement and if America is beset with chronic and serious problems, not the least of which is Obamacare. They will vote for change if we are in the midst of prolonged one party rule and if we have neither peace nor prosperity.
Note to readers: I have been besieged with requests to write an election postmortem. During January 2017 I will provide same. Also as Obama leaves office, I will publish a retrospective on the Obama presidency – that is one post not to be missed and I hope one of the best ever.

The next post on November 20 is our special Thanksgiving edition.