Every Election Ever and Beer

08/01/2022

As we put together this next endeavor with our friend Eddie Zipperer please comment your questions and show ideas related to the US Constitution.

03/08/2021

Check out a new show 👇👇👇 if you’re going to lose 20 minutes of your life, you might as well laugh.

19/07/2021

Surely Not The News: Pilot Episode - Scott and Matt are back to discuss hilarious and likely overlooked stories from all those “trusted” news outlets you know and love.

Scott and Matt are back to discuss hilarious and likely overlooked stories from all those “trusted” news outlets you know and love. 

10/11/2020

SPECIAL EPISODE: Matt and Scott from Politicked are back to talk winners and losers and what happens now.

Matt and Scott are back to talk winners and losers and what happens now.

03/11/2020

Election Day Hilarious Fact: Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first husband and wife to both win the most popular votes in a Presidential race, with only one actually BEING President.

03/11/2020

Election Day Fun Myths: Tuesday was chosen as Election Day because everyone knew that Monday night was for football.

03/11/2020

On this day in 1924, Calvin Coolidge addresses a topic of the utmost importance today: elections. He was giving a radio address from the White House at the time.

"If the time comes when our citizens fail to respond to their right and duty, individually and collectively, intelligently and effectively at the ballot box on election day, I do not know what form of government will be substituted for that which we at present have the opportunity to enjoy, but I do know it will no longer be a rule of the people, it will no longer be self-government. The people of our country are sovereign. If they do not vote they abdicate that sovereignty . . . . "

Seems like a good day to take his advice? Happy Election Day, all!

03/11/2020

SERIES FINALE: Eddie, Matt and Scott finish off the Every Election Ever and Beer series with their thoughts and predictions for Election Day 2020.

Eddie, Matt and Scott finish off the Every Election Ever and Beer series with their thoughts and predictions for Election Day 2020.

03/11/2020

It. Is. Finished. See you tomorrow on the Election Day finale.

31/10/2020

At about this time in 1876, the presidential election of 1876 was supposed to be decided. Except it wasn’t. Instead, disputes over the election outcome would continue all the way through March.

It must have been ugly—but it could have been even worse.

The Electoral College helped the country that year in an unexpected way: It isolated election disputes to only four states. Without the Electoral College, every vote in every state could have been contested. Would things have spun completely out of control?

They truly could have. In those post-Civil War years, the nation was starkly divided between North and South. Many Southerners were still chafing under the restrictions of Reconstruction. Fraud and dishonesty were too pervasive. Black voters were sometimes denied access to the polls. At least one study has concluded that a “fair and free election” would have turned out differently in 1876.

In other words, the scene was set for a hotly contested political contest.

Republicans had nominated Rutherford B. Hayes, the Governor of Ohio. Meanwhile, Democrats had nominated Samuel J. Tilden, the Governor of New York.

The results on Election Day couldn’t have made anyone happy. Hayes appeared to have about 250,000 fewer popular votes, nationwide, than Tilden; however, the all-important electoral vote was still up for grabs. Twenty electors were disputed in four states. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, state officials couldn’t agree on who had won. Thus, multiple slates of electors were submitted from each of those states. One electoral vote in Oregon was also disputed. Hayes needed all 20 of these electors to win. Tilden needed just one.

Can you imagine what CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC would do with such a situation today?!?

Americans in 1876 didn’t have the benefits of such modern technology, of course. Instead, they waited for weeks to see which candidate would be declared the victor.

The situation prompted plenty of political grandstanding!

The Senate was then controlled by Republicans, while the House was controlled by Democrats. No one knew what to do about the conflicting sets of election returns, but Congress finally created a (constitutionally questionable) Electoral Commission. That committee was supposed to be evenly divided, with seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent Supreme Court Justice. It didn’t turn out that way. Instead, Independent Justice David Davis was unexpectedly elected to the Senate by the Illinois state legislature. His spot on the commission was taken by Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican appointee.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican-controlled Commission soon decided all 20 disputed electoral votes in favor of Hayes, throwing the election to him.

Naturally, Democrats were upset, and a filibuster nearly sidetracked congressional acceptance of the Commission’s findings. Eventually, though, Congress brokered a compromise: Republicans indicated that they would be willing to bring Reconstruction to an end. In return, southern congressmen began withdrawing their objections.

Hayes was finally declared the winner of the election at about 4:00 a.m. on March 2. Of course, action came about mostly because Congress had its back up against a wall: Only two days then remained in President Ulysses S. Grant’s term.

After all the turmoil, Rutherford B. Hayes was finally sworn in as the country’s 19th President on March 4, 1877.

---------------------------
If you enjoy these history posts, please see my note below. :)

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2020 by Tara Ross. I appreciate it when you use the shar e feature instead of cutting/pasting.

29/10/2020

Friend Dwight Fettig with the explanation.

All about the curious electoral process, with Dwight Fettig.

27/10/2020

Eddie, Matt and Scott discuss all of the recent elections that most of us remember: Clinton's second term, Bush v. Gore, the Obama elections and the improbable election of President Trump.

27/10/2020

NEW EPISODE: Eddie, Matt and Scott discuss all of the recent elections that most of us remember: Clinton's second term, Bush v. Gore, the Obama elections and the improbable election of President Trump.

Eddie, Matt and Scott discuss all of the recent elections that most of us remember: Clinton's second term, Bush v. Gore, the Obama elections and the improbable election of President Trump.

23/10/2020

Welcome to my series of myths/facts about our unique presidential system. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 There are many common misconceptions about our Electoral College. One such myth has to do with equality. Does the Electoral College disenfranchise voters in some states?

MYTH:
Most voters don’t count in presidential elections. The winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes in the states ensures that some voters are disenfranchised, left on the sidelines to watch, as voters in swing states determine the outcome of the election. Why bother to cast a Democratic vote in Texas or a Republican one in California? These are wasted votes.

FACT:
To “disenfranchise” is to take away a person’s right to vote. No one in this country is losing his right to cast a ballot. This is a strong (and baseless) allegation that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Electoral College system works today.

America’s presidential election process occurs in two phases: The first phase is a series of state-level elections that occurs on Election Day. We conduct 51 of these elections: one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. The purpose of these 51 elections is to determine who will represent each state in the second phase of the election: an election among the states. This second phase of the election occurs in December and typically gets less media attention.

Each of the 51 elections conducted on Election Day is a purely democratic election; every voter in every state retains his right to cast a ballot. Of course, as in any other election, there will be winners and there will be losers. The losers are not disenfranchised. They simply cast a ballot on the losing side of an election.

Let’s say it another way: If you were a Republican casting your ballot in California in 2016, you were on the losing side of the state-level election in California. Hillary Clinton carried California and was awarded its 55 electors. However, California Republicans are most emphatically not being disenfranchised. They are simply losing the election, just as they lost the last gubernatorial election. Their problem is not with the Electoral College. Their problem is a general one about how the Republican Party’s message is being received around California.

By the way, this can change. As recently as 1988, California was voting safely RED, not BLUE. The identity of safe and swing states changes over time.

Finally, remember that the winner-take-all system is not mandated by the Constitution. If a state wants to change to a different system of electoral allocation, it is welcome to do so. In fact, Maine and Nebraska have already made such a change. Their votes are allocated based upon congressional district.

To be fair, it should be noted that the state legislature does retain the right to select the electors on its own, without reference to a popular vote. Historically, this has occurred only in special circumstances. For instance, the Colorado legislature directly selected electors in 1876, shortly after it became a state. It had just held elections for its statewide offices in August, and it did not want to go to the expense of another election so soon. Similarly, in 2000, the Florida state legislature was prepared to appoint electors directly if disputes over its state’s ballots could not be resolved.

As a general matter, however, those few instances have been the exception, not the rule. Allegations that voters are being “disenfranchised” by the Electoral College are mere melodrama. America conducts 51 purely democratic elections each and every presidential election year; every voter in these elections retains his right to participate fully. What Electoral College opponents really mean by their claims of “disenfranchisement” and “waste” is that they feel emotionally better about one national, democratic election than 51 state-level, democratic elections.

For a discussion of the reasons that our Founders combined state action with democracy, please see Electoral College Myth #3 at the link below.

20/10/2020

NEW EPISODE: Scott is back with Matt and Professor Eddie to discuss Bill Clinton's rise onto the national scene and the third party run of Ross Perot that helped to take down incumbent George Bush.

Scott is back with Matt and Professor Eddie to discuss Bill Clinton's rise onto the national scene and the third party run of Ross Perot that helped to take down incumbent George Bush.

18/10/2020

Welcome to my series of myths/facts about our unique presidential system. There are many common misconceptions about our Electoral College. One such myth has to do with equality. Does the Electoral College make voters more or less equal?

Myth: A national popular vote would ensure that every vote cast has the same weight. Every voter will matter only if every vote is equal.

Fact: Every voter in this nation is already equal with every other voter in his same election pool. The question is whether the relevant election pool should be one national election pool or 51 state (plus D.C.) election pools. Also consider the important difference between giving votes the same legal weight and making voters equal in practice.

Perhaps it helps to remember how our system operates today. Americans don’t hold one single, national election for President. Instead, we have an election that operates in two phases. In the first phase of the election, Americans participate in 51 completely separate elections—one in each state and one in D.C. The purpose of these purely democratic, state-level elections is to determine which individuals (electors) will represent your state in a second phase of the election. In these state-level elections, your vote carries the exact same weight as every other voter in your election pool.

In other words, every vote cast in Kentucky has the same legal weight. Likewise, every voter in Florida is equal with every other voter in Florida.

The second phase of the election occurs in December. This latter election is an election among the states’ 538 electors, which were elected on Election Day. A majority of them (270) can elect a President.

Electoral College opponents correctly note that eliminating the Electoral College would change our two-phase process into a single, national election. Thus, instead of votes that have the same legal weight at the state level, we’d have votes that have the same legal weight at the national level. But there is an important difference between making voters legally equal and making them equal in practice. If we conduct one single national election, we will have the former, but not the latter. If we keep our current system, we ultimately do better with both.

Presidential candidates have limited time and resources; they must strategize and prioritize. They won’t run out to a remote city like Worland, Wyoming, simply because the 5,000 potential votes there have the same legal weight as 5,000 votes cast anywhere else in the country. As a strategic matter, candidates are immensely more productive if they head to a large urban area to get those 5,000 votes. It’s simple math. In a big city like Los Angeles, they will obtain not only 5,000 votes but probably millions more.

In a world without the Electoral College, rural areas and small states will never again matter in the presidential election. It won’t matter that their votes have the same legal weight as voters in big cities. Practically speaking, candidates have little incentive to care how they vote.

The Electoral College, by contrast, forces presidential candidates to broaden their appeal as much as possible. If a candidate has already won California, then the 5,000 extra votes in Wyoming or another small state really might be what he needs. He doesn’t need any more votes in L.A. His campaign strategy must take into account the fact that his support must cross state and regional boundaries if he is to win a majority of states’ electoral votes.

Electoral College opponents sound irrefutable when they argue that the Electoral College should be eliminated because “every vote should be equal.” They forget—or choose to ignore—that the Founders incorporated state action into our presidential election system for very important reasons. And it turns out that giving votes equal legal weight within state boundaries (instead of national boundaries) ensures that voters are not only legally equal, but also much more equal as a pragmatic matter.

15/10/2020

👇👇👇

On this day in 1936, a presidential race between incumbent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republican challenger Alf Landon enters its final weeks. FDR would use momentum from his re-election to push for his so-called “court-packing” plan.

The phrase has been in the news lately, of course. Perhaps it is worth asking what “court-packing” meant, at least as a historical matter? In 1937, the phrase was a reference to FDR's proposal to change the size of the Supreme Court.

FDR's proposal was made mere weeks after his 1937 inauguration. He proposed the idea to Congress, claiming that he wanted to ease the burden on federal judges.

Let’s just say that not everyone believed him.

At the time, FDR was faced with a Supreme Court that was repeatedly striking down his New Deal measures. The court-packing proposal would have allowed FDR to appoint up to six new Supreme Court Justices.

Coincidence? Or an attempt to influence the Court’s rulings?

The issues before the Court were important ones with ramifications that continue to reverberate today: One important issue that repeatedly cropped up concerned application of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That Clause allows Congress to regulate INTERstate commerce. (i.e. commerce that crosses state boundaries) It does *not* give Congress authority to regulate INTRAstate commerce. (i.e. commerce that remains within the boundaries of a state)

In other words, our federal government does not have unlimited power to act for the general good of the people. It can act only where power has specifically been granted to it. Thus, without an explicit delegation of authority, Congress is powerless to regulate the internal matters of a state.

Initial Supreme Court decisions recognized the limits of congressional power and struck down many of FDR’s New Deal measures, holding that the Commerce Clause did not authorize the federal government to act.

Unfortunately, FDR was not so easily thwarted. Following his landslide victory in 1936, he decided to push for his court-packing plan. But he made at least one strategic mistake: He failed to tell his Vice President and other Democratic leaders about the proposal until he was already prepared to send it to Congress. Vice President Garner was influential in the Senate, and he refused to help the measure along. He let it be known that he disapproved of the measure.

Apparently, he even held his nose and gave a “thumbs-down” sign when the bill was introduced on the Senate floor.

In the end, the court-packing plan became unnecessary. Justice Owen Roberts switched his vote in a case that upheld the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation. He began to consistently side with FDR’s programs in future cases.

To be fair, Roberts’s motives are disputed. But whatever the cause, his change of heart became known as the “switch in time that saved nine” because FDR dropped his (by then faltering) court-packing plan soon thereafter.

No President since FDR has made any serious attempt to change the size of the Supreme Court, but we are still living with the ramifications of these politics in 1937: The Commerce Clause has never been restored to its original boundaries.

---------------------------
If you enjoy these history posts, please see my note below. :)

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2020 by Tara Ross. I appreciate it when you use the shar e feature instead of cutting/pasting.

13/10/2020

NEW EPISODE: Scott is still out, but Matt and Professor Eddie get back together to discuss George H. W. Bush's win as the "third term" of Reagan over Michael Dukakis.

Scott is still out, but Matt and Professor Eddie get back together to discuss George H. W. Bush's win as the "third term" of Reagan over Michael Dukakis.

12/10/2020

This is one of Taras most important points. It stops election cheating at the state line.

Welcome to my series of myths/facts about our unique presidential system. There are many common misconceptions about our Electoral College. One such myth has to do with fraud. Does the Electoral College make it easier or harder to steal elections?

Myth: In 2000, a few hundred stolen votes in Florida could have changed the outcome of the presidential election. Such examples show that the Electoral College makes it too easy to steal elections.

Fact: The Electoral College makes elections much harder to steal.

In order to steal an election today, you need a few things going your way: First, at the national level, the election needs to be close enough so that only one or two altered state outcomes will change the final results. Second, at the state level, the margins in these contested states must also be very close.

As a matter of history, such elections are fairly rare. The election of 2000 was one such election: Florida was a close race that could have changed the outcome. The election of 1960 was another: Texas and Illinois had narrow margins and could have flipped the election to Nixon. Most elections are won by wider margins.

Assuming the election is this close, however, you must meet one final criterion: You must predict, in advance, the identity of the state(s) in which stolen votes will influence the final results. This is hard to do. In 2000, no one knew in advance that a few hundred stolen votes in Florida could change the election outcome. In fact, if the media had not called the state for Gore too early—before polls closed in the Republican-leaning panhandle—such a narrowly decided result might never have come about. However, imagine that you can make such a prediction. If you can do it, then probably many people from both parties have come to the same conclusion. Think Ohio in 2004: Many people were worried that the state’s results would determine the identity of the President. As a result, poll watchers and lawyers from all over the country descended upon the state. It was probably not impossible to steal votes in Ohio that year (because it is never impossible), but it was as difficult as possible.

Now consider a world without the Electoral College. Suddenly, the situation is reversed. Any vote stolen in any part of the country can change the outcome of an election. Even votes that are easy to steal suddenly become critical to the national outcome. Imagine how easy it must be to steal votes in the bluest of California or reddest of Texas precincts. These easily stolen votes are now able to change the national outcome. There is no need to predict which swing state could change the outcome of the election. Any vote stolen in any part of the country—no matter how easy it was to steal—makes a difference. This is a dangerous situation and the opposite of what we have now.

An interesting dynamic in our current system is that it is usually easy to steal votes where it does not matter to the national outcome (e.g., safe states dominated by one political party) and hard to steal votes where it might matter (e.g., swing states, which are usually well-watched with poll watchers, etc.).

It is probably naive to believe that fraud can ever be completely eliminated (although that would certainly be nice). But the Electoral College at least makes it as difficult as possible.

09/10/2020

During this week in 1919, an “improbable American hero” is born. Doris “Dorie” Miller was the grandson of slaves and the son of poor Texas sharecroppers. His boyhood friends would remember him as a “real sweet person, not rowdy like the other boys.” He was a “nice fellow” whom they called “Power” because he was so big: 6 feet, 3 inches tall.

The boy called “Power” enlisted in the Navy in 1939 as a Mess Attendant, third class. Back then, his race prevented him from serving in any other capacity. Of this situation, Miller merely remarked that “it beats sitting around Waco working as a busboy, going nowhere.”

Miller was stationed aboard USS West Virginia just a few years later, when the J*panese attacked Pearl Harbor. It was early in the morning, and Miller was collecting laundry. “All of a sudden there was a noise overhead,” one of Miller’s friends recalled. “We began to realize that these were not drills; they were the real McCoy.”

Miller’s battle station had been destroyed, so he moved to a more central location aboard ship. Remember, at this juncture, everything would have been complete mayhem. The J*panese were flying overhead, dropping bombs. Fires and explosions were tearing through ships. The Navy had been abruptly thrust into war. Sailors had mere seconds to make the mental adjustment.

Miller began pulling wounded sailors to safety. The Captain of the ship had been hit, and he had a huge, gaping wound in his abdomen. Miller pulled the Captain to a place of greater safety, too. Another officer saw Miller and ordered him to supply ammunition to two inactive machine guns on deck. But Miller started firing those guns! He’d never fired such a weapon before, nor had he been trained in using them (again) because of his race.

“It wasn’t hard,” Miller said later. “I just pulled the trigger and she worked fine. . . . I guess I fired her for about fifteen minutes. I think I got one of those J*p planes. They were diving pretty close to us.”

Accounts vary on how many planes Miller hit. The Navy credits him with one, but he may have hit as many as six.

It soon became clear that West Virginia could not stay afloat. Miller evacuated with the crew, but he rescued even more men as he went.

Word got out about the heroic mess attendant—except no one knew his identity! Civil rights groups began to wonder why the Navy could so quickly identify white heroes, but could not seem to identify its black ones. Finally, in March 1942, the Navy named Miller as the hero, and a letter of commendation was issued.

“[W]e would like to know why it required so long to identify Mr. Miller,” a Pittsburgh Courier article demanded, “and why to date he has received no reward for his heroism.”

The bad news? Yes, our Navy used to be segregated and injustices occurred. The good news? We Americans are always learning, always bettering ourselves, and always working toward more freedom and equality.

Thus, the Navy did the right thing: In May 1942, Admiral Chester Nimitz himself awarded the Navy Cross to Miller. “This marks the first time in the present conflict,” Nimitz said, “that such high tribute has been made in the Pacific Fleet to a member of his race, and I am sure that the future will see others similarly honored.”

Sadly, Miller would not live to see the end of the war—or the desegregation of the Navy, which he has been credited with prompting. Instead, Miller was killed in late 1943 when his ship, USS Liscome Bay, was sunk by a J*panese submarine.

---------------------------
If you enjoy these history posts, please see my note below. :)

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2020 by Tara Ross. I appreciate it when you use the shar e feature instead of cutting/pasting.

06/10/2020

06/10/2020

NEW EPISODE: Professor Eddie, Matt and guest host Troy discuss Reagan's landslide reelection over Walter Mondale.

Professor Eddie, Matt and guest host Troy discuss Reagan's landslide reelection over Walter Mondale.

04/10/2020

On this day in 1822, a future President of the United States is born. Rutherford B. Hayes’s election would be one for the record books! Would you believe that the 1876 election wasn’t decided until two days before Inauguration Day?

It makes the contentious 2000 election look like a picnic.

The election had started uneventfully enough. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden seemed certain to win. Some newspapers even reported a Tilden victory the morning after Election Day. But at least one man thought the race wasn’t over yet.

What would have happened without Civil War hero General Daniel E. Sickles? He was on his way home from a dinner that night when he decided to swing by Republican headquarters and check out election returns. He thought that Democrats were celebrating too early. Hayes could still win by a single electoral vote if he could just hang on to the closely contested states of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana.

Sickles sent telegraphs to officials in each of those states: “WITH YOUR STATE SURE FOR HAYES, HE IS ELECTED. HOLD YOUR STATE.”

And so, you could say, the politicking began.

To his credit, Hayes seemed uncomfortable with at least some of it. “[W]e are not to allow our friends to defeat one outrage and fraud by another,” he said. “There must be nothing crooked on our part.” He’d just received a report that his vote tallies in Louisiana should be higher: Black men had been kept from the polls there.

The election was contested in four states. In South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, state officials submitted multiple slates of electors. Should Congress count the votes of the Republican electors or should it count the votes of the Democratic electors? The identity of a single elector in Oregon was also in doubt.

In total, twenty electoral votes were disputed. Hayes needed all of them if he was to win the presidency. Tilden needed only one.

Unsurprisingly, no one knew what to do about the conflicting sets of election returns. The Senate was then controlled by Republicans, while the House was controlled by Democrats. Congress finally created an Electoral Commission composed of 15 Senators, Congressmen, and Supreme Court Justices.

The intent had been to create an evenly divided commission: seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, the Illinois state legislature accidentally got in the way by selecting Justice David Davis to the United States Senate, just as he was about to serve on the Commission. He’d been an acknowledged independent, but now there was no other similar Justice to take his place. Instead, he was replaced by Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican appointee.

Did such early incidents in our nation’s history affect the perception of some that the Court should intervene for political purposes on occasion? Would confirmation battles be less fierce today if our ancestors had more steadfastly avoided such a mixture of politics and the Court?

Either way, the Republican-controlled Commission predictably decided all 20 disputed electoral votes in favor of Hayes. Southern congressmen objected at first, but withdrew those objections in return for an agreement to bring Reconstruction to an end.

Hayes was finally declared the winner of the presidential election at about 4:00 in the morning on March 2, 1877. Just two days later, he was inaugurated 19th President of the United States.

---------------------------
If you enjoy these history posts, please see my note below. :)

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2020 by Tara Ross. I appreciate it when you use the shar e feature instead of cutting/pasting.