Morning Coffee (115)

Greetings. In the interest of keeping this edition the MORNING Coffee, I’ll get right to it.

People Suspect Vote Worthless; People Right All Along:

A little boy named Florida wanted to hold his Halloween party earlier than the rest of his class, as did a little girl named Michigan. The rest of the class said that if they could not, and if they defied the class, well, then all the candy they got would be taken away and none of it would count in the Big Candy Challenge after the party date. Florida and Michigan went ahead and held their party earlier, but some attendees were disappointed in the selection of activities; what one would normally expect at a Halloween party wasn’t there. At Michigan’s party, there was only one activity to choose from because the organizers, in cahoots with the rest of the class, wouldn’t allow any other activities from which to choose. Nevertheless, the party went off fairly well, and the kids got their candy. But remember…the candy can’t count.

Sounds absurd doesn’t it? Well it is; it’s a parody of a very real situation. And this situation provides a wonderful example of why the whole primary/caucus system is broken. Worse, it’s stupid. Because the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida wanted to hold their primaries earlier than Iowa, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) told them that their delegates would not count. Thus, peoples’ votes in those two states do not count. If party leaders are miffed, they can make your vote meaningless.

But now, the nomination for the Democratic candidate is a close race. So some people want the Michigan/Florida contests to count. There’s talk of a redo. Or a mail-in vote. Who knows. But some people still don’t want the delegates from those states to count, because they feel slighted that the party officials from those states would dare defy the mighty DNC.

Surely I needn’t point out to you why this whole situation is obscene. Americans are being denied the right to voice their opinions in the electoral cycle because of the hurt feelings of a bunch of party hacks. Imagine, Democrats, the people who “look out” for the little guy, the common man, the downtrodden, messing with your vote because they’re offended. Look at it this way, they’re just relieving you of the burden. How the hypocrites can sleep at night, I’ve no idea. But it’s worse than something as simple as hypocrisy. Because the votes from Michigan and Florida would largely benefit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party is divided as to whether or not those votes should count. Obama supporters would rather they not, but they can’t just come out and say it. Hillary supporters want them to count, but they can’t come out and say why since she agreed to not campaign in those states along with Obama. So…the DNC goes back on its word, looks weak and inept, AND ends up giving support to Hillary...all in the spirit of Democracy.

Don’t get me wrong…the problem isn’t just one for Democrats…

A major problem I have with our present system of nominating candidates is that those states who vote later in the election cycle risk having their citizens’ votes count far less than those states who vote early. For example, Pennsylvania doesn’t hold their primary for another six weeks. The Republican nomination has already been sorted out, so Republicans in PA have no voice in selecting the Republican candidate. It’s surely possible that Clinton could withdraw by then (though highly unlikely in my opinion), thus Democrats in PA have no voice in selecting their candidate. How is this fair? The vote of citizens in Iowa and New Hampshire count far more than do the votes of citizens in Pennsylvania. Are people okay with this? I really do not care if Iowa is a microcosm of Middle America. That doesn’t mean anything to me. I want your vote to count as much as mine, and mine as much as a guy in Des Moines. It sounds like our political parties, of which there are only two viable ones, are saying to us, the citizenry, “all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.” How Orwellian.

Ethics for Dummies:

Yesterday (Tuesday for the unemployed who lose track of such things) the House of Representatives voted to create an outside ethics office, which is part of Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) focus on ethics, etc, etc. This office, which will be called the Office of Congressional Ethics, will have the power to investigate ethical misconduct by Congressmen and women. It will not have the authority to do so in the Senate, however.

I’m actually torn over this; not in principle, but in practice. In principle, our Representatives and other government officials need some sort of sound ethical oversight, which in and of itself is extremely unfortunate. More on that later. But in practice, I’m afraid that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is right when he says, “It simply adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already broken system.” I’m not certain more bureaucracy, and thus more government, is the right solution. And are they telling us that this new system, in which the Speaker appoints three members and the Minority Leader appoints three members, cannot be corrupted? I’m not convinced.

The creation of this office gives me yet another opportunity to discuss term limits. As I mentioned, it is indeed unfortunate that our elected officials are in need of such stern ethical oversight. One would hope (naively) that these people, with whom we entrust great power, would exercise some restraint. But this isn’t the case. As the Elliot Spitzer controversy is once again illustrating, powerful people are frequently hypocrites and frequently believe that they are above the law. I suspect that the longer one serves in a position of power the greater the likelihood that they “cut corners” here and there. This behavior eventually snowballs into bigger ethical failings. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive study done on this, which compares corruption and unethical behavior in junior representatives with that of senior representatives. An objective study would likely be impossible for a number of reasons, but were it possible I think that it would prove my theory. If it did, then all the more reasons to have term limits. In fact, from my perspective, the only reason not to have term limits is because of a general refusal to relinquish power. Indeed, their reasons would be that they have such a desire to serve that they will do so as long as they are elected. However, the old fashioned check on elected officials, the voter in the official’s district, is no longer that effective. One could, as I do, argue that it is distinctly ineffective. In 1998, 401 of 435 Congressmen of the House sought reelection and all but six were reelected. That is a 98% incumbent success rate for you math geeks. The linked article goes into detail about the “perks” of office for those seeking reelection. Fascinating stuff, really. And all the more reason to have term limits. Constituencies feel that they’re getting the best product, but the system is heavily skewed to favor products already on the market. There’s little chance for fresh ideas and proper turn over to permeate the system. Instead, we’re stuck with stagnation because the incumbent has ample opportunity to control the pace of the fight. Remember, the above figures are for the whole nation, not just a few districts. The incumbent-centric problem is endemic.

The linked article, in its last few paragraphs, argues that the incumbent problem isn’t such a big deal because there is a steady turn over which takes place over the course of several election cycles. I do not find this sufficient reason to allow unlimited terms. Turnover thus takes place at a glacial pace and does nothing to limit those who could be classified as “political animals”, those being supremely efficient at manipulating pubic opinion (and thus being reelected) and dodging ethical constraints.

There is no better argument for term limits other than the simple fact that term limits has such little support among elected officials. Do we not find that slightly curious; perhaps a little self-serving and at odds with the interests of the electorate?

Word of the Day: Coprophilia (noun): An obsessive interest in feces. Editor’s Note: We should amend this definition to include “political news.” Today’s WoD sponsored by a loyal reader. For only 25 euro, you too can sponsor a WoD entry.

On This Day in History: Coca-Cola is sold in bottles for the first time (1894). Moscow becomes the capital of Russia again (1918). St. Petersburg held that status for the previous 215 years. FDR first addresses the nation as President, which became his first Fireside Chat (1933). Scores of people born; a number died.

“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.” – Marcus Aurelius.