AuthorTopic: Election Errata  (Read 128872 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39360
    • View Profile
🗳️ Moments that mattered from 5th Democratic debate
« Reply #1155 on: November 21, 2019, 05:24:53 AM »
Does any of it "matter" to Trumpovetsky voters?  Nope.

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wS8gVelsxo4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/wS8gVelsxo4</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39360
    • View Profile
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/democratic-candidates-supreme-court-trump-judiciary.html

Democratic Candidates Are Utterly Delusional About the Looming Judicial Crisis
Even their more moderate policy proposals will struggle to get the approval of a right-wing Supreme Court.

By Mark Joseph Stern
Nov 21, 20193:10 PM


Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders wave goodbye to their policy agendas at the hands of the courts.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

More on 2020 Campaign

    Likability Is Whatever a Woman Candidate Doesn’t Have
    Trump’s Pressure Campaign Was No Secret
    The Best Part of the Debate Was When MSNBC Asked Simple Questions About Regular-People Problems
    The First Debate Without a Front-Runner

The Supreme Court will probably overrule decades of progressive precedents and strike down the next Democratic president’s reforms. You would not know this from watching the 2020 Democratic presidential debates. Wednesday’s showdown in Atlanta, the fifth so far, did not include a single question about the courts. Earlier debates allowed for brief discussions of the Supreme Court, but every candidate dramatically underestimated the threat it poses to the Democratic Party. Both the candidates and the moderators appear to be astonishingly naïve about the judiciary’s lurch to the right under Donald Trump. And it is pointless to discuss the Democrats’ ambitious proposals without explaining how they are going to survive at SCOTUS.

It’s not just the debates—Democratic politicians rarely talk about the courts at all. There is an enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the judiciary: GOP voters are more likely to be motivated by the opportunity to fill judicial vacancies, which is why Trump ran on a promise of appointing archconservative judges. Democratic voters focus more on individual political issues, and their party has never prioritized judges—or campaigned on the fact that every political dispute is ultimately resolved as a judicial question. This complacency will prove catastrophic for progressives now that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, shoring up a conservative majority that will obstruct liberal policies for a generation.

Consider a topic that the candidates discussed extensively on Wednesday night: abortion. If Roe v. Wade “gets overturned,” Rachel Maddow asked Amy Klobuchar, “would you intervene as president to try to bring that access back?” Klobuchar responded that, indeed, she would “codify Roe v. Wade into law,” to loud applause. Every major candidate has also pledged to “codify” the 1973 ruling establishing a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. They take different approaches that all lead to the same place: a crushing loss in court.

Some candidates, like Kamala Harris, have proposed legislation prohibiting states from unduly restricting abortion access. Harris’ bill would recognize a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment and bar states from infringing upon that right without federal approval. But a Supreme Court that does not uphold Roe will not let Congress enforce abortion rights in the states. SCOTUS has already ruled that Congress cannot protect a constitutional right that, according to the court, does not exist. So if Roe goes, Congress couldn’t use its authority under the 14th Amendment to stop states from outlawing abortion.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
The judiciary is now packed with Trump nominees who operate under the principle that Democrats can’t do bupkis.

Cognizant of this problem, Elizabeth Warren has proposed a statute that would regulate abortion on the federal level, preempting states from doing so themselves. Her idea has merit, as Congress does have the power to supersede state laws that stand in the way of its aims.

But the Supreme Court held in 2018 that Congress cannot rely on preemption when it regulates states rather than “the conduct of private actors.” The court explained that the federal government may not “commandeer” states by forbidding them from passing legislation. But Warren’s plan—which asks Congress to “prohibit states from interfering” with “abortion services”—appears to do just that. The conservative justices may thus rule that Warren’s bill unlawfully commandeers state governments. They could also go further, ruling that Congress does not even have authority to regulate abortion in the first place because it is not sufficiently connected to interstate commerce. Either route would kill the Warren plan.

Not to pick on Warren, but her other big structural changes would also be imperiled by the courts. Her wealth tax would compel the ultrarich to pay annual taxes on property, real and personal, as well as financial assets. But conservatives are already developing an argument that this plan violates the constitutional rule that any “direct tax” be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Her health care plan, meanwhile, is funded in part by forcing states to redirect money from existing programs into “Medicare for All.” But in the first Obamacare case, the Supreme Court curbed Congress’ power to tell states how they must spend federal revenue. The courts could decide that Warren’s scheme amounts to illicit “economic dragooning” and deprive her program of $6 trillion.

It isn’t just progressives like Warren who have reason to fear SCOTUS. Self-styled moderates like Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg should also be gravely worried. On Wednesday, both candidates endorsed H.R. 1, a sweeping elections bill passed by the House of Representatives. Buttigieg singled out the measure’s requirement that each state adopt an independent redistricting commission to draw congressional lines. Even if Democrats made H.R. 1 the law, however, this anti-gerrymandering provision may well fall. The Supreme Court seems primed to find that Congress’ authority to regulate federal elections does not permit it to mandate the creation of 50 state redistricting commissions. Having already refused to police partisan gerrymandering, the conservative justices could soon bar Congress from stepping in and protecting voters from this scourge of democracy.

The list of suspect proposals goes on. Warren’s Green New Deal would decarbonize the economy by dramatically tightening federal pollution standards, which courts could find to exceed Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Joe Biden’s more modest plan relies partly on “new executive orders” to repurpose existing law as a tool in the fight against emissions. But President Barack Obama already tried that tack and got crushed at the Supreme Court. As a lower court judge, Brett Kavanaugh was a leading critic of the Obama administration’s efforts to expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over carbon. Now he can provide the fifth vote to block any Democratic presidents’ efforts to curtail emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads

It’s not that Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, and the gang don’t understand that the Supreme Court is a problem. It’s that they appear utterly delusional about the extent of the court’s threat to Democratic policy, and short on solutions to the peril they face. Harris and Warren have said they are “open” to adding justices to the Supreme Court to restore a liberal majority. (Whether it’s wise, court packing is undoubtedly constitutional.) Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders have floated a scheme to expand the court to 15 seats, rotating five appellate judges on and off the bench. (This scheme is almost certainly unconstitutional.) Biden seems uninterested in any kind of court reform.

These half-baked, scattershot responses suggest that the 2020 candidates have not seriously grappled with a looming crisis. The judiciary is now packed with Trump nominees who operate under the principle that Republicans can do anything they want and Democrats can’t do bupkis. These judges are poised to invalidate the next Democratic president’s signature policies. The Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been since the days when it tore down the New Deal. At future debates, every time a candidate touts some proposal, the moderators should ask what they’ll do when the courts strike it down. If the candidate has no answer, it’s safe to assume that plan will be dead on arrival.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9469
    • View Profile
Los Angeles County to Intoduce VSAP E-Voting System: NOT Hand-Marked, NOT Paper,
« Reply #1157 on: December 04, 2019, 09:28:52 AM »

Posted on November 29, 2019 by Lambert Strether

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

No doubt Los Angeles County’s VSAP (“Voting Solutions for All People”) rollout will not be covered as a debacle. The real question is: If there were a debacle — like, say, a case of election fraud — would we even know? Doubtful. Just what we want in a voting system! In this post, I’ll give a brief overview of issues with electronic voting. Then I’ll look at VSAP as an institution. Next, I’ll show why the VSAP system is not only insecure, but likely to make money-in-politics even worse than it already is.

We’ve covered electronic voting before — see here, here, and here — and if you want to understand why hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public (HMPBCP) is the world standard, you can read them, especially the first. In this overview, I’ll make a few high-level observations about electronic voting in general.

Digital systems can never be shown not to have bugs. As Computer Science Elder God Edgers Dijkstra wrote: “Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!” Many bugs in many important programs persist for years before they are discovered. A list would include Flash in IE6 (persisted 12 years), OpenSSL (15 years), LZO data compression (18 years), and bash (25 years). None of these examples are outlier programs or trivial; they are all used by millions, essential to enterprises, networks, etc. Each of these bug is an insecurity waiting to happen. And that’s before we get to Trojan Horses, which are bugs introduced deliberately by a developer for purposes of their own. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that any voting system decision maker who advocates electronic voting is doing so for reasons other than security, given that HMPBCP is available, which amounts to saying that such a decision maker regards a certain amount of exploited bugs — election fraud — as acceptable.

Now, of course we all use programs all the time: We have programs to turn on our lightbulbs, call cabs, download pr0n, etc. I’m using a program now to write this post! However, if we put voting machine software on the same plane as commercial software, we’re arguing that a central-to-mission function of democracy — the vote — is on the same plane as the very convenient ability to check the contents of our refrigerator from our cellphone. Lest I be thought curmudgeonly in this, recall the example of Bolivia, where one reason the vote was challenged was the use of an unauthorized server for data transmission of the count. Contrast that with the recent vote in Hong Kong, where there were many images of people marking paper ballots, and of people counting them, in public (in fact, of people demanding to be let in to observe). Imagine if electronic systems had been used: First, the Mainland would have had every incentive to have compromised the software, and might well have done so successfully; second, electronic systems, because they are always buggy, are always open to challenge. The fallout could have been extremely ugly at the geopolitical level. Nor would the people’s will have been respected.

With that, lets turn to Los Angeles County and VSAP. As with any software project, we need to understand the requirements. Here is what I can find on the extremely spiffy and well-budgeted VSAP site: “The Design Concepts“:

    The final concept created for VSAP incorporates features driven by the project principles as well as focus group feedback, input and in-person testing.

    The concept system features touch-screen technology with a simple user interface, both audio and visual output and a built-in scanner, printer and ballot box. The new voting system will provide voters with options to scan in QR coded ballots from their phone, enter their ballot choices in-person at the polling location or vote-by-mail with printed ballots.

(Note that the concept very explicitly does not say that hand-marked paper ballots will be available at polling locations; only vote by mail.) I note with alarm that the concept document includes no mention of security, or even that the voters vote be accurately recorded and tabulated. Let’s look elsewhere for that. From the aforementioned “Principles“:

    TRUST The voting system must instill public trust and have the ability to produce a physical and tangible record of a voter’s ballot to verify the ballot was marked as intended before it is cast and to ensure auditability of the system. It must demonstrate to voters, candidates, and the general public that all votes are counted as cast.

(A little too much focus on PR for my taste: “instill,” “demonstrate.”) Note the fundamental equivocation, which I have underlined: The paper is not the ballot; the paper is only a record of the ballot, which is digital. More:

    INTEGRITY The system must have integrity, be accountable to voters, and follow existing regulations. System features must protect against fraud and tampering. It should also be easy to audit and produce



https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/11/los-angeles-county-to-intoduce-vsap-e-voting-system-not-hand-marked-not-paper-not-hand-counted-in-public.html
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9469
    • View Profile
Five Common Misconceptions About the Electoral College
« Reply #1158 on: December 04, 2019, 01:14:19 PM »


Defenders of the Electoral College argue that it was created to combat majority tyranny and support federalism, and that it continues to serve those purposes. This stance depends on a profound misunderstanding of the history of the institution.
November 29, 2019
G. Alan Tarr
Board of Governors Professor at Rutgers University-Camden


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/five-common-misconceptions-about-electoral-college/602596/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Errata

Started by Guest The Kitchen Sink

0 Replies
658 Views
Last post October 13, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
1438 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
by monsta666
24 Replies
4534 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 06:54:54 AM
by RE