We the People ...: Democracy is the right to be part of the decisions for a society

     The word democracy has its origin within two Greek words. These words are demos and kratos. Together, they mean power (or rule) of the people. As in the subtitle, this means that we the people have a right to be part of the decisions that direct our society. That is the foundational idea but the process of democracy was probably used prior to any written history of humanity. A group of people getting together, discussing something, and jointly making a decision is an example of “democracy” at work.

     The formal version of democracy, where people vote on issues (or people), is recognized to have started in Athens (508 BC) with Cleisthenes who made the idea of general participation as part of the decision-making process part of a series of reforms.

Direct versus Representative

      A democracy can be set up as a direct democracy or a representative democracy. Direct democracies work best with small groups of people. When the U.S. democracy was initiated, transportation was not easy. The roads and infrastructure presented barriers to make a gathering of people for a direct democracy difficult, so it was created as a representative democracy. A substantial number of the writers of the U.S. Constitution were in favor of a direct vote limited to the “elite”. The final language was the result of compromises that left eligibility to vote vague and primarily in the hands of the states’ governments.

Qualifications and expansion of the electorate

     Although left vague in the Constitution, voting was initially limited to “white”, “educated”, male property owners. New Jersey allowed women to vote (if they had property and were white) for a while but backed away from it in 1807. During the 1800s, the states slowly retreated from the requirement of owning property (this did not require an Amendment as voting privileges were state controlled).

     At the time of the adoption of the post-war 15th Amendment, voting had largely eliminated the requirement of ownership of property. Note that Amendments to the Constitution are required for national coordination of rights and commerce to be consistent among the states. When each state can do as they wish, no Amendment was, or is, necessary.

     The 15th Amendment officially ended the requirement for voters to be “white” males (note that “educated” had also fallen away as a requirement). Alas, if people want to get around a law, they will find ways (similar to the recent attempted “SAVE” Act within the US) to limit indirectly. Poll taxes were established to have an income requirement. Literacy tests were set up to require certain levels of education (and then it was made very difficult for the poor and non-whites to obtain education). Many of these restrictions were deemed illegal in the courts but each of them had to be fought and, even when the courts agreed that the practices were illegal, states sometimes would not enforce them (and it still happens).

     The 19th Amendment expanded the right to vote (suffrage) to women in 1920 and the people of the First Nations were allowed citizenship, and voting rights, in 1924 but, since it was not done via an Amendment, it has not been universally accepted, or enforced, by all of the states.

     In each of these expansions, a new set of voters was only allowed after EXISTING eligible voters agreed to the expansion (via state changes in laws or via Amendments for national changes). These expansions occurred, indicating a majority of existing voters approved of the expansion. The minority could, and did, make things very difficult for the new voters. This is still true in present days.

     In 1965, the Voting Rights Act (NOT an Amendment) was enacted to strive to enforce the voting rights of those who had been granted such rights since the original Constitution. This was primarily to assist in the voting of non-white people but the Act was designed to help ALL eligible people to be able to vote. Alas, since it was an Act of Congress, once the elite, propertied, wealthy gained control of the US Supreme Court, they have been able to effectively nullify the Voting Rights Act.

     The last Amendment associated with national voting qualifications has been the reduction of the federal voting age to 18 in 1971 via the 26th Amendment. This was during the last years of US involvement in Vietnam when tens of thousands of 18-year-olds were deployed, and killed, every year. That probably had something to do with passage of the Amendment.

Criticisms

     As mentioned above, the “Founding Fathers” (FF) were not in agreement so they created relatively vague specifications, with states having control, to be cleaned up later. It is possible that some things (such as the War Between the States) might have been avoided had they been able to reach consensus at the time. We’ll never know.

     Most of the FF were in agreement that full access to information and a well developed education were needed for successful participation in democracy and to make it thrive. Ben Franklin was in favor of making sure that the general populace qualified by having good, free, education. Others were more of the mind that wealth, allowing for extensive personal education, was needed to qualify a person to vote.

     Even today, there is not a full consensus about the qualifications needed to vote. There are still issues of sexism, racism, elitism and other special qualities that people feel should disqualify people or should support them. Of course, the person doing the criticism usually feels that THEY meet those criteria.

     Robert A. Heinlein felt that the right to vote, and participate in democracy, should be earned. One of his major criteria for earning the right to vote was to have served in the armed services (which, of course, he had). Personally, I don’t think that earning the right to vote is a bad one. The problem is setting up the criteria such that EVERYONE has an equal ability to earn that right.

Registration

     How does one demonstrate, in a speedy and efficient fashion, that they are permitted to vote? In the United States, this process is done during registration. When applying to register to vote, documents indicating eligibility are submitted. Eligibility includes age (or birthdate), citizenship, and where they live. Characteristics which are Constitutionally mandated cannot be used as criteria for denial or removal.

     Individual states still have control of purging of voter rolls. This ends up with over-purging (enthusiastic removal of voters that may, or may not, still be eligible) and under-purging (leaving non-eligible voters on the rolls which, theoretically, would allow someone to use the voting privilege of a no-longer-eligible voter).

Identification

     Since identification is done at the time of registration, it speeds up the time needed to make sure the person is qualified to vote when it is time to do such. The people helping with the voting check the person’s name and address against the copy of the voting roll that they have. This is also the process that happens via mail-in ballots or other not-in-person voting. While it is conceivable that someone else might vote in place of a legally registered, and eligible voter, the process of registration makes it very difficult for an eligible voter to vote more than once.

     So, what is to prevent someone else (not the eligible voter) from taking the place of the eligible voter? The process of identification varies from state to state. There have been various Congressional Acts that theoretically give more security about this. All of them continue to be described as ways to prevent voter fraud. This is very misleading. Voter fraud is almost non-existent in the U.S. because of registration and voter rolls. Extra identification possibly could help to prevent people substituting for others but that is not pertinent to the concept of voter fraud. Such Acts are primarily methods of suppression and election fraud.

Referendums

     Referendums are special votes on specific issues. In concept, this is applying direct democracy to specific subsets of government issues. There are binding referendums where the legislators are supposed to have no choice but to follow the wishes of the electorate. There are also non-binding referendums which act as formal statements of preference. Unfortunately, the states have varying records of following through on referendums. Sometimes the state legislators will follow through with the voters’ wishes, sometimes not. Often, the courts are needed to enforce the results of referendums.

Suppression

     Suppression and gerrymandering are the two most prevalent means of election fraud. Election fraud occurs when groups of eligible, qualified, voters are prevented from voting or prevented from having their vote have appropriate weight within elections. This is often done making use of income, race, sex, or political affiliation. In the United States, it is attempted on a regular basis to be able to get more votes than the opposition. The recent SAVE Act is an attempt at voter suppression and election fraud.

Conclusion

     The United States representative democracy was designed originally to have a base definition of the electorate with specificity left to the various states. Various Amendments have mandated specific national inclusions but anything other than an Amendment can be overridden by state legislatures, with approval by the court system. Even Amendments can effectively be overridden by legislatures and/or court systems that have lost balance and objectivity. While voter fraud (individuals voting without eligibility) is very rare in the United States, voter suppression (election fraud) is an attractive method of bypassing democracy and controlling society by various individuals and groups.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber on substack. All new posts will continue ot be freed but consider having a paid subscription to help me to allocate time for research and writing. Thank you.

The math of gerrymandering -- how, why, and where

     Lots of news articles on the topic of gerrymandering of late -- mostly about political bias and court decisions. But just what is gerrymandering and how does it work? The word was created as a merging of the name of Governor Gerry of Massachusetts and the word salamander -- due to an artist's perception of the way the electoral districts were created (from Wikipedia).

     Gerrymandering is the process of creating boundaries such that one group has the advantage over another group. It is particularly used if the process gives a minority group control over the majority group.
     Districting occurs to divide up larger areas into smaller areas. For federal government in the U.S., it is a result of the Constitution and the periodic census. For the House of Representatives, the number of representatives per state shifts depending on population as reflected by the census. Within that state, districts are created that have approximately the same number of people within each district so that each person can have an "equal representation" compared to others in the state. For state and local districting, the rules can vary from that although the principle of "equal representation" is a common ground rule.
     Note that the representation of the Senate in the U.S. does not follow this general formula. With a fixed number of Senators per state, less populous states have greater representation per person. This was done deliberately to make sure that states had equal say in certain legislation. It carries over into the Electoral College of the U.S., with less populous states having a greater proportional say than the more populous states (although the total numbers are still greater for the more populous states).
     How does it work? Let's say that we have a state divided into 100 districts (I think of it as a 10 by 10 grid). Each box/district has 100 people in it. Thus, there are a total of 10,000 people in the state (10 x 10 x 100).
     Assume that group A makes up 65% (6,500 people) within the state. Group B makes up 35% (3,500 people, there may well be more than two groups but let's keep it simple).
     One method of districting would put 65 people from group A and 35 people from group B in each district. If this is done then, within each district, group A has democratic control (assuming equal voting by each group -- not often the case in real life). Group B has very little direct control.
     Another method would put 100 people from group A in each of 65 districts and 100 people from group B in each of the remaining 35 districts. This allows for proportional representation within the state or federal level but, locally, each group would have a monopoly within its district.
     However, if we put 100 people of group A in each of 35 districts (3,500 people -- leaving 3,000 people) and distribute the rest of group A equally among the remaining 65 districts, we would have approximately (not quite exactly) 46 (3000 / 65) people from group A in each of those 65 districts. Group B would have about 54% of the population in each of those 65 districts. Thus, group A would control 35 districts (35% of the state/federal vote) and group B would control 65 districts (65% of the state/federal vote). The power of the minority is flipped with that of the majority. This is the situation that is often the focus of the term gerrymandering.
     Sometimes, as in the case of Maryland, the term gerrymander is used in shifting of the voters -- according to percentage of registered voters, Party B should have 3 out of 10 representatives; it has 1.
     There is a limit beyond which gerrymandering is not possible. For example, if 90% of the state were in group A, it would still be possible to keep the 90% representation by putting all of group A in 90 districts but it would be impossible to distribute them such that group B would take over control.
     Often, the controlling group determines how the districts are divided. Thus, once gerrymandering has occurred, it is easy to maintain control by the controlling group (even if they are the minority group) unless the total percentage of group A grows enough to preclude gerrymandering by group B (they can try, but it won't work). This is the situation that has been, and probably will continue to be, presented before the higher courts.
     It is fairly easy to determine if the minority is overriding the majority but fair districting is difficult to do to allow proportional state/federal representation and still have local (within the district) non-monopolies of the dominant group in that district.
     One solution would be to dissolve artificial grouping (George Washington hated the concept of political parties) but that is not very likely to happen.
     Although it is usually not called gerrymandering, the same process occurs in the division of a metropolitan area into school districts. The school districts COULD be created such that each district has the same tax revenue base -- ensuring that the schools within each district have the same amount of money to spend per student as in other districts. That is not often the case and the result is school districts with a higher amount per student and other districts with a lower amount per student. This could be avoided by spreading the revenue distribution over the entire metropolitan area rather than per district -- but that is often considered "unfair" by those in wealthier districts.

GIGO: Garbage In and Garbage Out

     In the world of computer science, where a lot of acronyms were created (and still are), there was a term GIGO. GIGO is an acronym for "Garbage In, Garbage Out". This is a shortened version of saying that if what goes into a system (a computer, as one example) is not legitimate then it cannot be processed into an appropriate output. For example, a cruise control system takes into account current gear ratio, axle speed, tachometer reading, and so forth. If the cruise control believes that the car is moving at 100 miles per hour (60 kph) then it will do inappropriate things to the brakes and accelerator if, in reality, the wheels are spinning freely on a patch of ice and the car is not making any forward progress.
     If a data entry person (who are almost always touch typists -- not looking at the keys) had their hands at the wrong point on the keyboard as they entered data into a system, then things are not going to go well. You may get a $1,000 refund or you may get a bill for $10,000. In the first example, there is an assumption -- that the speed of the axles is a reliable indication of the speed of the car. In the second example, there is a lack of verification that the correct data are being entered.
     Data can also be wrong if the input instrument fails. If your thermostat breaks, then it cannot give proper information back to the processor that controls the oven temperature. You find out when the turkey comes out raw from the oven or the bread starts burning and catching on fire.
     Unfortunately, we are not always able to know, or immediately be able to be certain, that a problem has occurred. We may come up with a result that is completely false -- but we do not know that. This is why it is so important to have secondary, or backup, systems and studies to make sure that results are consistent. In the case of scientific studies, one study may be interesting and have results that may entice OTHER researchers to try to duplicate the study or try a different approach, but the results of the one study cannot, and should not, be relied upon on their own.
    In the past decade, the term GIGO has expanded a bit. It now is sometimes used for a situation where any type of inappropriate incoming conditions results in bad outgoing conditions. Eating "junk foods" is an example of this in the area of nutrition. If you eat foods that do not supply the appropriate "building blocks" (see my earlier blogs on nutrition) then it is difficult to build, and maintain, a healthy body. Another situation might be a building that is created with bad materials (inferior steel, poorly mixed concrete, lack of specified reinforcements, ...) and it collapses when a problem (perhaps an earthquake for which it was SUPPOSED to have been adequate) occurs.
     Another situation is more human-directed. That is falsification of data. In other words, people can (and do) sometimes lie. This may be for many different reasons -- they want different results to be true or they think that other results will bring them more attention (and funding) or they trust that no one will bother to cross-check the results.Two instances (I'm sure there have been more) of this have happened in the past decade -- one dealing with autism and vaccines and the other having to do with climate change. While it is difficult to be certain of the motivations, the results were considerable -- a loss of trust in vaccinations (and a rise in preventable illnesses and deaths) and possible delays in addressing environmental problems.
      In the area of politics, of course, this happens all of the time. A politician will say something and reactions and decisions are made based on what they say. If what they say is truthful, then those reactions and decisions have a better chance to be good ones. If what they say is not truthful, then it is unlikely the results will be good ones. Unfortunately, the rules of scientific studies are rarely followed in politics -- the facts may be researched but the results of those fact-verifications are either not seen, ignored, or misbelieved based on what the recipients want to have happen.
     A situation that lies between the two is the matter of data gathering for political purposes. Polls are used to reflect, and to influence, people's attitudes. However, a poll may gather data that is not representative and, thus, the results are not accurate. For example, if a poll only calls people on "landline" phones then the people who have only cell (mobile) phones will be excluded. It turns out that certain groups of people are more likely to have only cell phones -- thus the poll will be skewed away from the cell phone group and not be accurate. Or the poll could call people only in the evening hours -- and certain groups not present during the evening hours will not be represented. Or some people will filter out calls based on incoming numbers and so only those who do NOT filter their calls are represented in the poll results. It is more difficult than ever to get an appropriate poll base.
     Finally, a situation that combines computer science, politics, polling data, and cross-checking -- voting. There are two types of fraud that can exist in elections. One is voting fraud -- where someone who is not entitled to vote (or who is entitled to vote once but votes more than once) is able to vote. This situation sounds scary but actually does not happen a lot. The other is election fraud. This is where people who should be able to vote are prevented from voting, or their vote is changed such that the person/cause for which they are voting does not get credit (possibly giving it to the opposing situation). This happens much more often than voter fraud and appears to be increasing in volume. Both voter fraud and election fraud are instances of GIGO in the political arena. They are addressed in the same ways -- simplification (fewer systems or people between the voter and the recording of the vote) and cross-checking (paper trails for electronic voting systems, receipts for voting records, duplication of systems and verifying that both results are the same, ...). Unfortunately, people often decide to make things "easy" and "fast" which tends to increase the opportunities for election fraud.
     In what areas of life do you see the principle of GIGO operating? How do you, or would you, make sure that the information, on which you make your decisions, is correct?