Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

The Anti-Democratic Electoral College

Dear Group,

I was ten years old when my father introduced me to the mathematical mysteries of the Electoral College. He was a high school graduate, but a man who read widely and a man with sixty years experience at the time of the introduction. I remember him explaining how, in our “democratic” country it was possible a majority of Americans could vote for President and yet the other candidate, with fewer votes, could win the election. I understand now, more than half a century later, my father was echoing controversy that followed two elections engraved in the memory of his parents and grandparents. In 1876* and 1888 the Electoral College voted in a President against the will of the voters. My dad was still marveling at the irony of those elections in this “democratic” country.

For context, remember the last two Republican Presidents were once elected by the Electoral College with a minority of popular vote, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. Criticism of the Electoral College is not just an academic exercise. The Electoral College system produces massive downstream effects.

So how is it that the Electoral College has produced these anti-democratic results on four occasions in our history. Here’s the math: Each state is awarded “electors” to be sent to the Electoral College equal to that states number of Representative and Senators added together. The number of Representatives from each state is determined by population measured in the census every ten years. The number of Senators is, of course, fixed a two for each state.

What does that mean in terms of representation? Wyoming, with one Representative (the minimum) and two Senators (therefore already wildly overrepresented in Congress, too) gets three electors, one for every 192,579 people. At the other extreme, California with 20 House seats and two Senators, gets 22 electors, one for every 1,539,620 people.That gives the people of Wyoming eight times the voting power in the Electoral College than Californians. In a country that calls itself a democracy or even a “representative democracy” or a republic, that is a crazy imbalance.

One might be tempted to think of the Electoral College as a venerable, quasi-sacred institution, a pillar of American greatness, a bit of genius set forth by divinely guided “Founders.” If that viewpoint is even remotely tempting, spend a few minutes reading about the U.S. Electoral College as ir was originally written in the Constitution, the breakdown of the system, and the 12th Amendment (1803) that patched up parts of the original plan. Then read of the 14th Amendment, Section 2 (1866) prescribing a penalty for denying the right to vote for electors.

In 1961, with ratification of the 23rd Amendment, the country further acknowledged the anti-democratic bent of the Electoral College by authorizing one elector to the citizens of the District of Columbia, citizens recently numbering 672,228. These citizens were previously denied any say whatsoever in electing the President, a President who holds court in their district. People of Wyoming.are, even after the 23rd Amendment, three times better represented than people of Washington, D.C., in electing the President. (It is worth noting these citizens of Washington, D.C. still have no voting voice in Congress, no Senator or voting Representative. How is that for “representational democracy?”)

The Electoral College still denies the approximately 4 million U.S. Citizens resident in U.S. Territories(Puerto Rico is the largest) any voice at all in the general election for President. Puertoriqueños, full citizens of the United States, only have a vote if they have and maintain residency in one of the States(or D.C.) And we have the gall to call ourselves a “democracy?”

The Electoral College system is a complex, anachronistic tool leveraged to achieve electoral domination by a minority of voters. It is not sacred. It is all about power.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

P.S. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes “won” the election in the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184, while losing the popular vote 4,034,311 to 4,288,546. The story of that election, now faded in the country’s memory, is as complicated as the recent elections of minority Presidents. (Teaser: the resolution of that election, made necessary by the Electoral College, ended Reconstruction. That produced multiple grievous downstream effects. Most of us don’t learn these stories in school…)

Posted on

The Weekly Sift, Snow Day

Dear Group,

I really am taking a day off this time. I encourage you to click and read this Monday’s blog post by Doug Muder from his blog, The Weekly Sift. This week’s entry is entitled “Fictions.”

I look forward every Monday to reading Mr. Muder’s column. I find he does exemplary service in summarizing the week’s nationally noted events and offering a calm, factual perspective. If you are not already signed up to receive his Monday email, I encourage you to do. [You can sign up in the left hand column of the webpage you see at that link above.]

Back tomorrow.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Posted on

Local Governmental Geography


Census data from American FactFinder of the U.S. Census Bureau

Dear Group,

Government: the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.

Ever wonder how the small population centers in Spokane County (or anywhere) are organized and governed? The answer is pretty interesting, and, it turns out, accessible to anyone with the time, the interest, and an internet connection. I’m going to present selected information I’ve researched for Spokane County. I recommend this as a useful exercise for anyone anywhere who is interested in how we as humans organize ourselves. All politics is local (as is governance) and fear many of us (including me) have been sadly un-informed, distracted a we are by the national news.

A good place to start is Wikipedia. I looked up Spokane County, WA. There I found the list of Cities and Towns in Spokane County displayed above. So what about Four Lakes, Chattaroy, Tyler, or even Fairchild Air Force Base? They’re all “unincorporated.” The roughly 150,000 folks living in these areas with place names familiar to all of us are represented in local government only by Spokane County, not by any municipal (city or town) government. (I’ll come back to that pointedly in a later post.)

My tendency has always been to think of local government structure as pretty much unchanging. Of course, we elect local officials, the names change, the jostling goes on, but that’s just “politics,” isn’t it? And “politics” is just something other people do, right? People with some sort of axe to grind. We elect them in the hope they’ll do the right thing, but we’re always suspicious of their motivation and actions. That is true only if we allow it. It turns out at a local level government changes in a time frame and under rules we can understand and appreciate if we dig a little.

Within Spokane County there are just thirteen “incorporated” municipal governments, the ones listed above as Cities and Towns. [The rest of this post comes from two sources: List of cities and towns in Washington in Wikipedia and the Municipal Research and Services Center‘s webpage Washington City and Town Profiles. I encourage my readers to visit and bookmark these pages. If you live anywhere in Washington State these are great resources with which to orient yourselves. I expect similar resources are available in other states.]

These thirteen incorporated municipalities in Spokane County come in a number of different governmental flavors, each specified in one way or another by Washington State law. The flavors are First-Class, Town, and Code. (There are a couple other categories found in some other WA State counties, but not here in Spokane County.)

The only one of the thirteen municipalities in Spokane County that is a “First Class” city is the City of Spokane. (There are only ten such “First Class” cities in the Sate of Washington.) A “First Class” cities each had a population over 10,000 at the time of reorganization and each operates under a “home rule charter.” Hence, the City of Spokane is distinguished in part from other municipalities in Spokane County by having its own City Charter, its own “constitution.”

First-class City: “A first-class city is a city with a population of ten thousand or more at the time of its organization or reorganization that has a charter adopted under Article XI, section 10, of the state Constitution.”

On the other end of the classification of municipalities are Towns. In Spokane County they are Fairfield, Latah, Rockford, and Waverly. They do not have charters.They are organized under the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 35.27, specifically, RCW 35.27.070 with a mayor, five council members, and a treasurer, all elected. Considering the current populations of the five towns it might be a bit of a challenge to find seven eligible adults willing to serve…and the presumption must be that everyone knows everyone, a far cry from most of the cities (with the exception of the City of Spangle, estimated population 307), Consider this: In the town of Fairfield, pop. around 610, each council member represents only 122 people (including both adults and children)!

Town: “A town has a population of less than fifteen hundred at the time of its organization and does not operate under Title 35A RCW.” [Title 35A, the “Optional Municipal Code” is the part of the Revised Code of Washington, i.e. the state laws of Washington State, that describes “Code City” municipal governance, see below.]

Here’s where it gets interesting and a bit complicated. “Code Cities” came into being by Washington State law passed in 1967. All the eight “cities” in the table above, including the City of Spokane Valley, (but with exception of the City of Spokane) are “Code Cities.” They may organize under there own charter or they may simply follow “Optional Municipal Code” of Title 45A of the RCW. [I was unable to easily determine if any the eight code cities actually went to the trouble of establishing their own charter.]

Six of the eight Code Cities in Spokane County have a Mayor-Council form of government.(Chapter 35A.12 RCW), with an elected executive mayor and an elected City Council. The two other Spokane County cities, the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Airway Heights, operate until the Council-Manager form of government (Chapter 35A.13 RCW).

Hold on to your seat! Guess what? The Council-Manager form still has a position called “Mayor,” but the Mayor in the Council-Manager form is elected by the City Council from among the Council Members. This “mayor” is part of the legislative branch, unlike the executive mayor in the Mayor-Council form. Hence Rod Higgins, the “Mayor” of the City of Spokane Valley is a member of that city’s City Council. He  votes on the City Council (at least as a tie breaker). Council-Manager cities, as the name implies, have a Manager, answerable to the Council, who performs the executive functions that are assigned to the Mayor in the other form of municipal government, Mayor-Council form. 

So what are the take-homes from all this?

1) In the State of Washington the rules by which counties and municipalities govern are mostly prescribed by the Revised Code of Washington, the compendium of law enacted by the legislature. Some municipalities have a charter with some rule variations (like the City of Spokane), but most local government forms itself and governs by the RCW.

2) There are only thirteen incorporated municipalities in Spokane County, and two of them, the Cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley, contain 3/5 of the population (around 300K) of the county. 50K reside in much smaller municipalities, and 150K only vote in and are governed by Spokane County. 

3) You need to look at the specific rules of governance for the municipality in which you live to determine how it functions, Each has its nuances, Council-Manager, Mayor-Council, Town, First Class City and Code City, and within the latter, charter v. non-charter, 

May your eyes not have glazed over. Before they do reflex for a moment on which, if any of the municipalities you live. Visit the sources noted above. If you have any doubt about how to place yourself, go to MyVote.wa.gov.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Posted on

A Union for the Wealthy?

Dear Group,

Union: “a club, society, or association formed by people with a common interest or purpose”

Many of us upon hearing the word “union” think of labor unions. Labor unions  formed after the Civil War in response to the industrial revolution and the income disparities of the Gilded Age. Labor unions are associations of workers with a common interest in securing “wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership, and on representing their members in disputes with management over violations of contract provisions.” Labor unions exist in response to appalling working conditions and wages prevalent at the time unions arose. No single laborer could possibly wield the clout necessary to assure proper treatment from a rapacious employer interested only in maximizing profit for himself and his shareholders. [The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, published in 1906, a book I read in high school in the 1960s, is formative to my understanding of the need for labor unions.]

Demonization and suppression of labor unions has been a goal of conservatives throughout the history of unionization. The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, more commonly known as “Taft-Hartley,” was a major step in limiting the power of unions, one you would do well to review. President Truman called it “dangerous intrusion on free speech,” Labor leaders of the time called it the “slave-labor bill.” Truman vetoed the bill but was quickly overridden by Congress. Remember this was an time rife with worry about communism, a worry that soon blossomed in the infamous “Red Scare” of the Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) era, 

By the late 1960s conservatives were worried not only about unions but about the American consumer movement led by Ralph Nader. The seminal document of conservative worry many would argue is Lewis Powell’s Powell Memorandum of 1971, written just before Powell accepted Nixon’s nomination of him to the Supreme Court. “The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding society’s thinking about business, government, politics and law in the US.”

“The Powell Memorandum thus became the blueprint for the rise of the American conservative movement and the formation of a network of influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as well as inspiring the US Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.”

All of that brings me back to the title of this post, “A Union for the Wealthy”. The network of non-profit think tanks so richly detailed by Jane Mayer in “Dark Money” [see below] and represented in Spokane by the Washington Policy Center has worked relentlessly to demonize labor unions. Concurrently they propound that all taxes are suspect and likely to be poorly spent. Progressive taxation (e.g. graduated income tax) is a special target. The echo of this is found in Stacey Cowles’ citation in a recent Editorial  of Washington Policy Center data implying that police and firemen are overpaid (presumably as a result of union clout). Right on cue he argues no increase in the property tax levy should be passed prior to squeezing more money out of police and fire. [Cast your “Yes” vote before tomorrow] Take note the Washington Policy Center (McMorris Rodgers’ go-to policy source), endlessly touted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a huge feature of which was a reduction of the rate of taxation for corporations and for people in the highest income brackets. They were waving a flag displaying their true colors…

When I take a step back and squint I see the conservative think tanks and the congress people who take their cues from groups like the WPC as nothing more than a union of the wealthy, “an association formed by people with a common interest or purpose,” that purpose being to maintain their wealth while pitting those of lesser means against each other. Thus property tax payers who work at jobs paying less than policing or fire-fighting are encouraged to be suspicious of any tax for expansion of those departments and suspicious of the integrity, intelligence and due diligence of the people we have elected to address these issues.

Powell set in motion a union of the wealthy. It is long since time for the counter swing.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Posted on

WPC and The Spokesman

I have one addendum to yesterday’s post “Have You Voted Yet?” concerning the City of Spokane Levy and the Spokesman’s “Editorial Board” opposition to it. Stacey Cowles, the only remaining member of said Editorial Board referenced data from the Washington Policy Center to suggest we pay our police and firefighters too much, supposedly more than comparable communities. To Mr. Cowles it followed that the City Council ought to do more homework and cut costs, not propose an increase in property tax. Mr. Cowles offered no cost saving measure (other than the implied suggestion of cutting salaries) nor did he offer any substantive critique of the programs and positions to be funded with levy money.

But there is more: 

The Washington Policy Center is the Koch-donor group supported non-profit “think tank” in Washington state. In 2017 the WPC threw a fancy fundraising dinner at the Davenport Grand with Nigel Farage, “Mr. Brexit,” as the featured guest speaker and most of the Spokane GOP in attendance. You can read more about that here. The WPC is also a major provider of McMorris Rodgers’ policy positions, something I learned firsthand during her attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Read Constituent Biopsy by the Washington Policy Center fob CMR. 

If you visit the Washington Policy Center’s website you will note thirty-five names on their Board of Directors, most of them from the west side of the state. There are two from Spokane, Heidi Stanley of Empire Bolt and Screw and Anne Cowles, Stacey Cowles’ wife. Ms. Stanley and Ms. Cowles also sit on the “Eastern Washington Advisory Council” of the Washington Policy Center. No other Spokane residents are both on the Board and the Council.

One of my readers reminded me of this connection, writing: “What he [Stacey Cowles] doesn’t say is that his wife, Anne Cowles, is on the Washington Policy Center board.  For an S-R reporter, it would be a huge conflict of interest to cite a source where a relative has a powerful position.  How does he get away with not disclosing this?”

Mr. Cowles disparagement of the levy deserves to be ignored. Vote yes.

Back next week.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Posted on

Who is Speaking, Physician or Drug Company?

Dear Group,

Yesterday I posed this question:

Question: A paid opinion piece appeared in the Spokesman with McMorris Rodger’s name on it some time in the month of January, likely two to three weeks ago. The substance was a critique of a recently offered bill in the U.S. House that would regulate pharmaceutical pricing. The author insisted the bill was needless meddling in the operations of the free market. Can anyone put their finger on that piece and send me a link? 

Just one reader, Jim Wavada, emailed me with the ad that appears above. That tells me that most readers did not notice it or find it memorable (a good thing in my estimation). By word of mouth I had the impression the ad was BY McMorris Rodgers, not a plea to call her about an issue, So much for the accuracy of verbal impressions. This is an ad from a special interest group paying good money to raise fear and worry among Seniors over an unspecified “Risky HHS Medicare Plan.” 

So what is interesting about this ad? The “Alliance for Patient Access” claims it is “a national network of physicians dedicated to ensuring patient access to approved therapies and appropriate clinical care.” However, at the very bottom of the “About” page in fine print is this: Financial support of AfPA and IfPA is acknowledged here, Click that link and one finds an impressive list of pharmaceutical companies, the real money behind what is clearly a political/lobbying endeavor on behalf of drug companies, NOT independent physicians advocating for the benefit of patients. 

The Alliance for Patient Access Home Page shows twenty-six for official looking logos of organizations I, as a physician, have never heard of. The impression is one of physicians working together in a valiant effort to make sure the government doesn’t tamper with patients’ access to innovative medications. Only in the fine print do you find the logos represent “web pages.”

This ad, appearing in our local newspaper, likely cost something in the ballpark of $1500 to place. Even multiplied by tens or hundreds of other newspapers that money is still a pittance for drug companies to stir up angst among elderly readers and encourage them to call their Congresspeople. The Alliance for Patient Access is a cleverly disguised effort to push back against early efforts to rein in drug prices by promoting fear in the electorate.

In my estimation the Alliance for Patient Access fits right in with dark money non-profits like the Washington Policy Center and American Legislative Exchange Council, thinly disguised efforts to promote Republican/Libertarian policies.

Ads like these attempt to shape public opinion to suit the agenda of special interests. It behooves us to pay attention to the financial backing. They don’t make it easy.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Other readers pointed me to “Liberals dare Trump to back their bills lowering drug prices“, an interesting article I had also missed. Thank you to those who brought my attention to it.

Posted on

MLK Day

Dear Group,

I urge you to click on the wikipedia entry, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and read. If you imagine establishing a holiday to celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday was a slam-dunk (as I had rather naively imagined), the article is a must read. President Reagan signed the bill to make MLK Day a federal holiday in 1983, after a petition in favor of the holiday was submitted to Congress with six million signatures. The petition was identified by the magazine The Nation as “the largest petition in favor of an issue in U.S. history.” There were several prominent naysayers, including Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and John Porter East (R-NC). Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate literally stomped on the 300 page document Helms submitted, calling it “a packet of filth.”

There is a lesson here about what it takes to get legislation passed…

Get out and honor the day. (See the box above for details.)

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry