Restore the Holiday of George Washington’s Birthday and Cherish Representative Government

           The 285^th Anniversary of George Washington’s birthday is the occasion for my annual post either on this day or on the federal and state holiday commonly known as “Presidents’ Day” in which I recall Washington’s greatness and call for the restoration of “Washington’s Birthday” as the name of the holiday to honor him and reflect on his legacy of American independence, liberty and representative government under the Constitution of the United States. 

With the focus of the “Presidents’ Day” holiday on the presidency and all of the Presidents, the second Branch of government is elevated above the other two Branches, for which there are no holidays.  Perhaps Constitution Day should be celebrated more, unless Washington’s Birthday is restored.  This emphasis on all the Presidents, in addition to minimizing the greatness of Washington by elevating others as equally accomplished, recalls their mistakes, which overly politicizes the holiday and increases controversy.  Although it is generally worthwhile to debate the merits of past Presidents, a holiday should be a unifying occasion, not a divisive one.  Furthermore, Washington is an example of virtue and patriotism, in contrast particularly to some of his more recent presidential successors, who are not worthy of being equally honored with a “Presidents’ Day” holiday.  Restoring Washington’s Birthday would return the focus of the holiday not only to his presidency, but to his entire life, especially his contribution to the American Revolution and as a Founding Father, as well as to the Constitutional Convention, which he chaired.    

I have observed the last two years how Washington’s leadership offers a timely example.  I was referring to the contrasting weak leadership of his successor as president at the time.  I was specifically referring not to President Barack Obama’s penchant for exceeding executive authority in domestic matters when he was unable to gain support for his proposals from the Legislative Branch, but to his relatively weak defense and foreign policy, despite his continuation of the War on Terrorism and other reasonable policies. 

As an overreaction to this perception of weakness, a plurality of Americans have admired, by contrast, certain foreign tyrants or have even sought such an excessive kind of leadership, that of the authoritarian strongman, for the U.S.  Washington, who deferred to Continental Congress as commanding general of the Continental Army, did not seize power after the war, exercised no authoritarian powers as the first U.S. President and retired after two terms, offers a counter-example of strong leadership without autocratic excess.  Indeed, even though Washington could have obtained dictatorial powers, he rejected authoritarianism, exemplified the rule of law over the rule of man and championed representative government as a safeguard of liberty against tyranny, as he respected the will of the people, as expressed through their chosen representatives.   He nonetheless accomplished extraordinary goals as the First President, but his greatness was in his example, not only of faithfulness to duty to the point of personal sacrifice, but of humility.

May Americans recall Washington especially today and find increased inspiration to cherish liberty, the Constitution of the United States and representative government.  May God bless America.  

Rest in Peace, Norma McCorvey, Michael Novak and Robert Michel

           Three leaders of the cause of liberty or conservatism died last week, Norma McCorvey, Michael Novak and Robert Michel.

Norma McCorvey

Norma McCorvey, who died in Texas at age 69, was the “Jane Roe” of the 1973 Roe v. Wade United States Supreme Court ruling that overturned state anti-abortion laws and required States to legalize abortion.  In later years, however, she converted to Christianity and to the pro-life side. 

Born Norma Nelson in Louisiana in 1947, the family moved to Texas.  There, she married Woody McCorvey at age 16, but left him.  She became pregnant for the third time (her first two children having been given up for adoption) in 1969, at the age of 21.  After being unsuccessful at obtaining a legal or illegal abortion, she was used as a “pawn,” as she later asserted, by attorneys seeking plaintiffs to challenge Texas’ abortion prohibition.  By the time the case, in which she was a plaintiff, but for which she did not attend any of the hearings, was heard by the Supreme Court, McCorvey had given birth and the child was given up for adoption.

In 1994, McCorvy wrote her autobiography, I am Roe, in which she expressed her remorse for participating in the case that legalized abortion.  She converted to Christianity after being befriended by a leading pro-life activist Christian.  The following year, after seeing a poster at the abortion clinic at which she worked about the development of humans from embryos to fetuses, McCorvey realized the immorality of abortion and resigned.  She was baptized and then worked for pro-life organizations and participated in pro-life demonstrations.  That year, she wrote of her conversion to pro-life in her second book, Won by Love.

McCorvey’s conversion meant that all three of the major participants in the legalization and federalization of abortion, had converted to the pro-life cause.  The “Jane Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, the Roe v. Wade companion case, in which the Court defined the permissible reasons for abortion so liberally as to establish abortion on demand as a right, and Bernard Nathanson, the Doctor who had championed legalizing abortion, like McCorvey, also became pro-life advocates.

Michael Novak

Michael Novak was an influential Catholic philosopher and theologian.  The author of over 40 books, who died in Washington, D.C. at the age of 83, was committed to liberty and was best known for his Christian defense of the free market.  Novak was also a journalist and served as a diplomat.

Born in Pennsylvania in 1933, Novak received a philosophy degree from Stonehill College in 1956, a theology degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome two years later and a Master’s Degree in history and the philosophy of religion from Harvard University in 1966.  He was a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter during the Second Vatican Council, during which time he wrote the first of his books.

Novak’s books focused on philosophy, religion, culture, the free market and the politics of democratization.  His most famous work was The Spirit of Capitalism, which was published in 1982.  Among the works he published were novels.  Novak won the Templeton Prize in 1994 for progress in religion.  He taught as a professor at several universities over the decades and was a founding board member of Ave Maria University.  Novak was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent contributor to First Things and National Review.

In the meantime, Novak’s views shifted from liberal to conservative.  The lifelong Democrat, who supported Republican candidates, was appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, in 1981.  Novak served until the following year and was appointed in 1986 by Reagan to lead the U.S. Delegation to the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  He served on the board of directors of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which sought to return the Democratic Party to its anti-Communist and pro-human rights platform from its Leftist one.  Novak was a founding board member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  

Novak’s philosophy and theology has been highly influential.

Robert Michel

Robert “Bob” Michel was the longest-serving Republican Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.  The GOP Minority Leader from 1981-1995, who died in Virginia at the age of 93, was known for his leadership style, characterized by his ability to negotiate compromises through his friendships with majority Democratic members.

Born in 1923 in Illinois, Michel served in the Army from 1943-1946 and was wounded in the Second World War and decorated for valor.  First elected to the House in 1956, Michel served as a U.S. Representative for 38 years, from 1957-1995, a time which coincided with the Republicans’ minority status in the lower chamber of Congress.  As Minority Leader, he successfully supported President Ronald Reagan’s proposed legislation, such as his tax and domestic spending cuts and military buildup.  In Michel’s last two years, together with Republican Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, he was successful in maintaining GOP opposition to President William Jefferson Clinton’s liberal excesses.  Even though he was known for his bipartisanship, Michel compiled a conservative voting record. 

Among Michel’s many awards and honors were the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994.  

May the legacy of McCorvey, Novak and Michel be respect for the right to life, liberty, the free market, representative government and conservative principles of smaller government, federalism, virtue and a strong defense.

Three Recent Blog Visit Milestones

           One post has now been visited over 500 times, another post has become the fourth-most visited post to my blog, while a third has now become the tenth post to my blog ever to be visited at least 100 times, as tracked by StatCounter.

My post, Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center, from July of 2010, was recently visited for the 500^th time, the second-most of all 858 posts, second only to The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, from April of 2009, which has been visited over 1,600 times.  A post from November of 2011, The Rev. Monsignor Felix A. Losito, Rest in Peace, has been visited over 180 times, the fourth-most number of times a post has been visited.  A post from March of that year, Useless Cabinet Departments, has been visited 100 times.  These figures do not include visits to the homepage or archive of my blog, which means that additional visitors tracked by StatCounter may have read these posts.

Although posts over the last few years have been visited less often than some of the earlier posts, at least until now, there has been a dramatic increase in visits to the blog homepage.

The blog host, Blogger, tracks significantly more pageviews to my blog than StatCounter, but the latter’s greater specificity allows for better analysis.  

Thank you for visiting.

Timely Reflections on Ronald Reagan’s Birthday

           Today is the 106^th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, who was President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. 

Reagan, who had been the leader of the conservative movement before his election as the 40^th President, is credited especially with boosting the economy by cutting taxes, restoring confidence and patriotism, rebuilding the military, and helping to defeat the Soviet Union and ending Communism in Eastern Europe.  The Republican believed in liberty and representative government, revered the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and was a strong believer in American exceptionalism.  Reagan, who favored free markets, had great confidence in the American people.  He championed faith and morals.

It is timely to note Reagan’s opposition to authoritarianism, protectionism, nativism, bigotry and isolationism.  

May Americans, especially, conservatives and Republicans, reflect on Reagan and be inspired again by Reaganism to continue the American experiment and to defend liberty and representative republican government.   May God bless America!

Foreign Digest: Gambia, Italy, United Kingdom, Turkey

Update: The Defeated Gambian President Has Left Power

            After being defeated in the recent Gambian presidential elections, Gambia’s longtime President, who had refused to accept the results of the election, has left power.  He made the decision after much international pressure was applied, including a military invasion by neighboring Senegal and the forces of the West African regional organization.  The election winner has returned from exile to take power.  It is hoped that Gambia will remain peaceful and will return to representative government and enjoy liberty.

Italy: Upholding Family Values; the Supreme Court Affirms the Election Law

            The European Court of Human Rights ruled Italy did not violate the rights of a couple who claimed parental rights over a child with whom they had no biological ties who was born of a surrogate mother.  The ruling also prevented the recording of the couples’ names as the parents on the child’s birth certificate.  The Court ruled that children have a right to biological parents. 

            The Constitutional Court upheld the parliamentary voting law, except for the runoff provision, maintaining the large bonus of seats in Parliament for any party bloc that received at least 40% of the votes, giving that party a majority, enabling it to form a government.  The law maintains differences between how members of the upper and lower chambers are elected.  Parliament may decide to amend the law before elections are held, which the populist party, who leads in the polls, prefer to be held now, as the law could enable them to attain a parliamentary majority without having to from any coalition government with any other party.  Other major parties prefer to vote in a few months, only after amending the law to reduce the bonus of parliamentary seats for the leading party to necessitate the formation of a coalition government, instead of one led by a party with only a plurality of popular support.

United Kingdom: Updates on the European Union Exit

            The British economy has returned to the level of economic growth the United Kingdom had been enjoying before the referendum in June of last year was approved to leave the European Union, which is contrary to the predictions of supporters of remaining in the EU that the UK’s economy would suffer if the referendum passed.

The British Supreme Court ruled that a parliamentary vote was required to require the withdrawal.  The conservative British Prime Minister has announced plans to negotiate the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. 

Turkey: Updates on the Turkish Government’s Crackdown

            The Supreme Court of Greece has ruled in favor of the asylum requests of eight Turkish servicemen who defected after the failed military coup in Turkey.  The authoritarian Islamist Turkish Government had requested their extradition.  

           An international group of Nobel Prize for Literature winners has written a letter sharply criticizing the Turkish Government for detaining over 100 writers and journalists as political prisoners as part of its post-coup crackdown on all dissent.  Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru is the most famous of the group.

The 44th Annual March for Life

           The 44^th Annual March for Life was held in Washington, D.C. on Friday, as it has every year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade United States Supreme Court decision legalized abortion throughout the States.  The march was attended by hundreds of thousands. 

In addition, there were pro-life demonstrations in other American cities, as usual. 

            The theme of this year’s March for Life was “the Power of One,” which emphasized how even one person can change the course of history, such as toward the promotion of the right to life.

            There was some optimism among pro-life activists because of the increase in pro-life majorities in Congress and in most of the States, which reflect public support for greater restrictions on abortion, such as have been enacted by the federal and state governments.  There is hope especially of an overturning of Roe v. Wade.  

However, there is uncertainty as to the pro-life commitment of Donald Trump.  The march was attended by Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican, the first time a Vice President has attended, but media reports that he was the highest-ranking officer of the Administration were misleading, as a vice president is, as President of the Senate, not a member of the Administration.  His appearance was thus only as an unofficial representative of the President.  Past Republican Presidents have addressed the March for Life by audio message, as did Pope Francis.

            Trump’s recent, partial conversion to the pro-life cause is suspect, like that of his other policy position changes, because he lacks credibility, having repeatedly cheated his spouses, business investors and contractors.  Furthermore, he supports crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as the targeted slaughter by Syria and Russia of civilians, including even the deliberate bombing of hospitals—positions that are not consistent with a pro-life ideology.  Even though the March for Life coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day, Trump issued an anti-life executive order the same night to exclude selectively refugees, including permanent residents reentering American territory, from certain predominately-Muslim countries from which immigrants and refugees are not relatively a significant threat for terrorism.  President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, had excluded refugees attempting to flee the Nazi German Holocaust who were subsequently massacred.  Therefore, the pro-life cause, risks being set back by being associated with Trump’s misogyny instead of support for women, with hate, instead of love, and with fascism instead of the most basic liberty of the right to life and the dignity of all human beings, no matter how small.  

           The defense of the right to life has made progress over the decades, but risks disaster with victory in sight.  Supporters of the right to life will have to advance the pro-life cause by emphasizing love and freedom even more than before, instead of being too closely tied to or dependent upon any politician or political party.  

The “Never Trump” Conservative Movement Must Transition to “Resist Trump”

           Although the “Never Trump” movement was not successful in preventing Donald J. Trump from being inaugurated President of the United States of America, it was successful in some respects and remains at the vanguard of liberty and representative government.  Already having been vindicated before Trump is even sworn into office, it is now well-positioned to lead the resistance to authoritarianism and to promote good government.

            The Never Trump efforts afforded an opportunity for principled constitutional conservatives to preserve their honor and integrity by taking a public stand against Trump and to force those who favored him to make a public stand in support of him, as well as to allow many on the center-right who opposed Trump to vote for a principled conservative without having to violate their consciences.  Moreover, the Never Trump movement accomplished two more significant political goals. 

            The first goal the Never Trump movement was successful in achieving was in drawing a clear distinction between Trumpism (i.e. populism, protectionism, nativism/white nationalism, isolationism, authoritarianism) and conservatism.  Related to making this ideological distinction was maintaining consistency between conservative beliefs and practices through adherence to the conservative belief that public servants must be of good character by opposing a candidate who was morally unfit.

            The second political achievement of the Never Trump efforts was to deny Trump a popular mandate.  Most Republicans in the GOP primaries and caucuses did not vote for him, there were an unusually-high number of votes from Convention Delegates for other candidates, a large majority of votes in the General Election were not for the Republican and Trump-Pence Electors and even some of those Electors who were elected either resigned to avoid voting for him or did not vote for him.  This lack of popular support continues to be observable in public opinion polls.  Although poll responses are not nearly as significant as votes, they are important to Trump, a narcissist who craves public adulation, as well as to Republican members of Congress, as Trump’s unpopularity may encourage them to check and balance the Chief Executive to resist autocracy and harmful policies.

            The efforts of Never Trump conservatives did not undermine the legitimacy of the presidential election, which does not require majority support.  It was instead the deception, intimidation and foreign interference that made Trump’s election illegitimate.  The efforts of those on the center-right and others to oppose Trump were partly a reaction against Trump’s personal and political fraud, but would have been justifiable even his election had been legitimate.  The illegitimacy of his presidency only provides validation for the resistance to him, in addition to his lack of qualifications and heterodox policies.

            It is prudent to pray for Trump, to encourage him to make good decisions, to discourage him from making bad ones and to oppose harmful policies.  However, it is necessary to avoid normalizing or legitimizing his illegitimate presidency or his aberrant behaviors and undemocratic policies.  The arguments being made by some conservative and Republicans that everyone should “give him the benefit of the doubt,” “wait and see,” and “give him a chance” sound like the arguments of liberal Democrats who were defending Bill Clinton, but the risks to the Republic are too great.  It is always prudent to oppose bad government and to be vigilant for liberty and representative government, but it is especially necessary under Trump to be vigilant against authoritarianism and its evil daughter, kleptocracy, because the warning signs for both have been abundant.  Furthermore, it is vital to thwart the Russian-fostered coup d’etat that has resulted in the election and inauguration as President of the United States of the Communist Russian Federation’s preferred candidate by denying the Russians the fruit of this unprecedented interference in the election.  It is better to be too vigilant than not to be vigilant enough.  If the Republic is saved, it will have been through deterrence by the resistance to Trump.

            Conservatives should not let down their guard because they may favor some of Trump’s policies.  Indeed, it is easy to overlook authoritarianism while one agrees with the policies of the authoritarian.  It would be wise for conservatives to consider that demagogues do popular things, or at least things that are popular among the targeted audience of their demagogy, and to remember that even tyrants do some good things like making the trains run on time.  Demagogues and tyrants must do these things to maintain popular support, but these things cannot legitimize their autocracy.  Even liberal Democratic Presidents do some good things, either because of sharing universal principles, agreeing with conservatives on particular issues or especially because of being forced to compromise with a conservative Republican-led Legislative Branch. 

Conservatives should also consider that whatever good Trump does could have been accomplished by nominating one of the other leading Republican presidential candidates, who would likely have defeated the liberal Democratic nominee—without having to rely upon deception, intimidation and foreign interference to be elected President.  And conservative policies could have been implemented without authoritarianism.  There is a risk that whatever conservative things an authoritarian Trump does, even if achieved democratically, would later be associated with fascism by the Left and be undone by liberals if they return to power immediately after him.  Therefore, only principled support for any conservative policy from the center-right opposition to him could spare such policies from being thrown out by liberals, along with his usurpations.  Such support from the conservative opposition to Trump would likely be essential for those particular proposals to be approved by Congress. 

As Trump and his supporters dismiss the arguments of the Left, only the principled center-right opposition to Trump can effectively lead the American resistance to authoritarianism.  Support for or opposition to Republican members of Congress from the conservative opposition to Trump would be more effective in encouraging the Legislative Branch, in which they are the majority, to check and balance him, than would opposition from liberal Democrats alone.  It is also imperative that the center-right not concede the resistance to Trump to the Left, lest conservatives be left out of any post-authoritarian governance. 

Conservatives can and must save the Republic by defending liberty and representative government through resistance to Trump’s authoritarian proclivities and by defending American independence through opposition to pro-Russian Federation policies.  In an upcoming post, I shall advise how effectively to resist authoritarianism and kleptocracy.    

Conservatives Should Not Trust in Safeguards against Authoritarianism If They Are Unwilling to Use Them

           Some conservatives who are focused on those issues with which they believe Donald J. Trump agrees with them are ignoring the warning signs of authoritarianism by rationalizing that he would be held in check by various safeguards after he is sworn into office as the President of the United States.  Such safeguards against authoritarianism are necessary for the protection of liberty, but the political will necessary for their effectiveness has been lacking, even among many conservatives and Republicans.

These conservatives’ trust in moral, ethical, political and even constitutional safeguards is misplaced, not only because Trump respects none of these, but because these safeguards are only effective if those with the authority to hold the Chief Executive accountable are courageous enough to make use of these safeguards.  However, these same conservatives heretofore have opposed every safeguard out of ignorance, expedience, or cowardice.  Now, as I detailed in my last post, there is only one constitutional safeguard remaining before Inauguration Day on January 20, that of Congressional objection on January 6 to the counting of the electoral votes for Trump because of their fraudulent election through deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign influence.

Many conservatives and Republicans who supported Trump, or at least acquiesced to him, opposed a contested Republican Convention or freeing the Convention Delegates to exercise their judgment and to vote their consciences.  They opposed the imposition of requirements such as the disclosure by candidates to release their federal tax returns or to pledge to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest by divesting themselves adequately in order to be nominated for President.  The proposal to allow the Delegates to choose the vice presidential nominee themselves was similarly rejected.  After the Convention, these same conservatives and Republicans opposed replacing the presidential nominee and the independent Republican presidential candidacy.  After the General Election for the presidential and vice presidential Electors, they opposed freeing the Electoral College to fulfill its constitutional duty to exercise its best judgment in good conscience. 

Each of these safeguards were dismissed by these conservatives and Republicans who supported Trump, oftentimes as if these safeguards were novel or radical even though several were common practices or at least have been used when necessary.  These protections against populism and demagoguery were opposed on the grounds that they would be anti-democratic, despite the opposition of the Founding Fathers of the Republic and of the Republican Party to democracy precisely because of their fear of populism and demagoguery, the safeguards against which are necessarily anti-democratic.  These safeguards also exist to prevent someone not in agreement with the party from being nominated, someone unfit from being nominated or elected, and from foreign interference from being elected.  They exist also to prevent kind of demagoguery and authoritarianism evident in Trump.  Those of us conservatives and Republicans who courageously spoke out in favor of using these safeguards were insulted or threatened—in a Trump-inspired style of authoritarianism—as illegitimate excuses were made in every case as to why an unfit demagogue with authoritarian proclivities supported by a hostile foreign state should be nominated and elected.

The opposition by conservatives and Republicans to using any of these safeguards—on the grounds they are unnecessary because, once in power, Trump will be held in check by safeguards is unconvincing rationalization and seems contradictory and foolish, for if a presidential candidate cannot be checked, it will be even harder once he has all the powers of the presidency.  Because of partisanship or too much focus on defeating the liberals while allowing the Communist Russian Federation to achieve its goals at the expense of American interests by effectively carrying out a coup d’etat, these conservatives and Republicans will use the same illegitimate excuses then, that holding Trump in check is contrary to the will people who voted for him or advantageous to the Left, etc.—excuses they would rightly reject as contrary to liberty if the liberal Democrats were in office and similarly abusing their power.  Authoritarians and hostile foreign intelligence services use such beliefs and divisions to their advantage in order to advance toward their goals. 

Whatever conservative policies Trump might implement are secondary to the loss of representative government and liberty and that these policies, which could have been implemented by someone else or without authoritarian methods, would afterward be tainted as “fascist” in any post-authoritarian restoration of liberty.

With the warning signs abundant and obvious that Trump intends to govern as an authoritarian and as an asset of the Russian intelligence services, it is vital that conservatives and Republicans avail themselves of every legitimate means of resistance to authoritarianism, including the fail-safe of Congressional objection tomorrow to the counting of Trump’s Electors.  Conservatives and Republicans should unite, not only with other conservatives and Republicans, but all those who recognize the danger, against Russian interference and authoritarianism to avoid regretting their failure to defend the United States and liberty and to avoid ceding the resistance to the Left and, therefore, being left out of sharing in the post-authoritarian governance. 

  

There are many of us conservatives and Republicans who have held fast to our principles and our numbers are growing as the danger becomes clearer.  Let us make our stand for independence, representative government and liberty for the United States of America, “the last best hope of earth.”

The United States Congress Should Object to the Votes of Trump-Pence Electors

           The United States Congress should object to the certification of the election of the Republican and Trump-Pence Electors on January 6 when it convenes to count the votes of the Electoral College.

            The Twelfth Amendment grants power to Congress to count the votes, which effectively means the certification of the election of the Electors.  Congress has an implied power, which it has used many times, to object to the election of the Electors.   

There are ample grounds to object to the election of the Republican Electors for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence for President and Vice President, respectively, such as deception, intimidation and ballot access denial that rendered fraudulent the results of the General Election for Electors on November 8, but the most significant was foreign interference.  In addition, there was bribery and intimidation of the Electors by the Republican Party and the Trump campaign.  Each of these measures alone may have altered the outcome of the election, but collectively have swayed it undoubtedly.

As I have posted previously, the deception came in many forms, such as Trump’s false portrayal of himself as a successful businessman, to his myriad lies, half-truths and false statements.  His campaign and supporters also widely spread fabrications and other false statements favorable to his candidacy and unfavorable to opponents and critics.  In addition to Russian disinformation, which Trump and his supporters eagerly disseminated, there was a massive dissemination of fake news and generated by Trump supporters to his benefit. 

Like the deception, the intimidation also took various forms and was aimed at many targets.  Continuing to the present, those who criticize Trump typically face the threat of lawsuits, public ridicule and professional disadvantage Death threats have become normalized.  The notorious con man is known to employ private investigators, the fear of which the selective Russian hacking and leaking on his behalf only reinforced.  There was not only an unusual degree of physical violence at his rallies, but some critics were even attacked with seizure-inducing means via the Internet.  Many of Trump’s business and sexual assault victims were afraid to speak out or to sue him for fear of legal retaliation and a public backlash.  Reporters were afraid to lose access or, like other commentators, to lose ratings for reporting or expressing the truth.  Other candidates for the Republican nomination were afraid to criticize him or to withhold their endorsements of him after he was nominated.  Many who considered seeking election as independents were similarly intimidated.  GOP Convention Delegates were threatened by Republican officials with political retribution and worse for supporting the Delegates’ freedom to vote their consciences.  Republican members of Congress were afraid to speak out against Trump, let alone withhold their endorsements of him.  The climate of fear created by Trump and his supporters, typical for the rise of an authoritarian, was extraordinary in the history of American presidential elections and carried over to the vote of the Electoral College.

The ballot access denial to independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin, who received nearly 706,000 votes across the Union, despite his name appearing on the ballot in only 11 States, was most noticeable in Florida, where he was nominated by the State’s largest third party, the Florida Independent Party, but removed from the ballot illegally by the office of Florida’s Trump-supporting Governor.  The 29 Trump-Pence Electors won the State by only around 2% of the vote.  As I noted in my last post, nearly 8 million Americans voted for other candidates, while another 2 million skipped the top of the ballot.  These unusually-high numbers suggest many votes would have been cast for other preferred candidates besides the Democratic and Republican nominees in Florida, as elsewhere.  Although the denial of ballot access tainted the election in many States and overall, the best grounds for Congress to object to the election of Electors would be to those of Florida.

The foreign interference in the election is still being investigated fully by the Administration, while Congress is about to being its own investigations.  Because the degree of foreign interference is not fully understood, Congress should conduct its own investigation, as it has in past presidential elections and routinely does for contests for congressional seats, until it is fully informed and can determine either that the interference did sway the outcome of the election, and pursue the appropriate remedy of objecting to the election of Electors who were not duly elected, or that the election results were not swayed, which would restore confidence in the result.  From what is known from various sources, the Russian Federation, led by a hostile, tyrannical Communist KGB agent, not only hacked and leaked information, but engaged in a massive propaganda and disinformation campaign to help elect Trump.  Their hacking of Democratic e-mails and leaking of such information, some of which could have been forged, which is a typical Russian spycraft, was designed particularly to discourage supporters of Bernie Sanders from voting for the Democratic nominee, as well as to embarrass her and her party, but the “active measures,” as the Soviet/Russian KGB calls their technique, of propaganda and disinformation was probably even more significant.  These ranged from overt propaganda from Russian state media to the dissemination of propaganda and lies through anonymous Russian social media account-holders posing as Americans opposed to the Democratic nominee or supporting Trump.  These accounts, the number of which also made Trump seem much more popular than he was, helped spread quickly any information favorable to Trump and unfavorable to his opponents and critics, whether true or not.  Although it is unlikely the Russians, who did hack several state election offices, were successful in hacking voting machines, an audit of the paper records of those machines that produce paper records should prove or disprove this theory.  Regardless, the Russians effectively will have pulled off a coup d’etat against the U.S. by helping to elect their preferred candidate, unless Congress exercises its constitutional authority.

Despite the deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign interference, Trump barely succeeded in electing a majority of Electors.  If the Electoral College were to have fulfilled its constitutional duty to exercise its best judgment in good conscience to avoid the election of someone unfit, demagogic and under foreign interference, Trump would not have received a majority of the votes of that body.  The Republican Party felt compelled to bribe some of the Electors with dinners while the GOP and the Trump campaign intimidated the others with threats of political retribution, while Trump supporters threatened violence against the one Republican Elector who courageously announced beforehand his intention not to vote for Trump.  Two other GOP Electors who could not vote for Trump in good conscience were pressured to resign. 

If Congress objects to the election of Trump’s electoral votes until it can conduct a full investigation, at least from the closest States, where the outcome was surely swayed by deception, intimidation, ballot access denial and foreign interference, no candidate would have a majority of the electoral votes.  Then, the House of Representatives, voting by state delegation, may choose from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.  As a compromise, they may elect Colin Powell, as he received the third most electoral votes.  If there is still no majority for any candidate by January 20, (Inauguration Day), then the current Vice President shall act as President until a majority is attained.  

Congressional objection to Trump’s electoral votes would be the last constitutional safeguard before Inauguration Day against an authoritarian foreign agent taking office as the President of the United States of America.  

Conservative Analysis of the 2016 United States Electoral College Vote

           The results of the vote of the United States Electoral College were even more historic than usual because of the relatively high number of votes for candidates other than the Republican or Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees, including the effort by Democratic Electors to vote for a compromise Republican candidate.

            As a result of the poor character, lack of experience and knowledge and authoritarian tendencies of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, as well as the foreign interference on behalf of his candidacy, and bolstered by a bipartisan campaign to persuade the Electors to vote for a compromise Republican candidate other than Trump, two Republican Electors had resigned to avoid voting against their best judgment and consciences for the GOP nominee and two or three other Electors voted for other Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates. 

The Trump campaign and the Republican Party took seriously the efforts to persuade the Electors to vote their consciences, whipping the Electors, even bribing them with dinners in some States and threatening them with political repercussions if they did not vote for Trump.  This effort mirrored the bribing and intimidation Trump relied upon during the primary, Republican Convention and general election campaign.  After the success of this considerable effort, the Trump campaign and Republican Party then dismissed the campaign to persuade the Electors to vote their consciences as insignificant.  Nonetheless, the anti-Trump votes were noteworthy, as was a Democratic effort to vote for a Republican compromise candidate—the first such effort since one made by a Republican Elector in 1960.  As with the votes against Trump during the GOP primaries, the Convention and the general election, the Electoral votes against him further demonstrate the separation between Trumpism and conservatism. 

            Two Republican electoral votes were cast for John Kasich and Ron Paul instead of for Trump.  These electoral votes were the first for Republicans other than the GOP nominee since 1976, when a Republican Elector voted not for President Gerald R. Ford, but for Ronald Reagan, who went on to become the Party’s presidential nominee four years later.  There was also one vote cast for a candidate in 2016 other than the Republican nominee for Vice President, Mike Pence, which was cast instead for Carly Fiorina, the first by a Republican Elector against his party’s nominee since 1960. 

The two electoral votes against Trump were the most by Republican Electors against any Republican presidential nominee ever and the most electoral votes against Electors’ party’s presidential nominee since 1960.  They were the most “pledged” (as opposed to Electors who are elected expressly unpledged to vote for their party’s nominee) electoral votes against any living presidential nominee since 1832, when two National Republican Electors did not vote for their party’s nominee; both times were the most since 1808, when six Democratic-Republican Electors did not vote for their party’s nominee.  It was also the most “pledged” electoral votes against any winning living presidential nominee since 1808.  Note: there were 63 abstentions or votes for others in 1872, after the death of the Democratic nominee. 

The two votes against the Republican nominee for President, or the three against the GOP ticket, are the most against any nominee, for President or Vice President, since 1896, when 27 Democratic Electors voted for the Populist Party nominee over the Democratic Party nominee; the two parties had nominated William Jennings Bryan for President.  There were 8 votes cast in 1912 against Republican nominee James Sherman, who had died before the vote of the Electoral College.  As in the case of the death of the Democratic presidential nominee in 1872, the other major party received a majority of electoral votes.  The record for the most votes by any “pledged” Electors against any living candidate for either President or Vice President was set in 1836, when 23 Democratic Electors abstained instead of voting for Richard M. Johnson, which denied him a majority and forced a contingency election by the Senate for President of the Senate for the only time in American history.  The Senate elected Johnson Vice President.  The 8 combined total Electoral votes for candidates other than their parties’ living nominees for President and Vice President were the most since 1896, and the most total against the major parties’ living presidential nominees ever.

The results of the Electoral College votes in 1960 are particularly comparable with those of 2016.  Then, there were 15 votes cast by Electors for a Democratic candidate, Harry Byrd, who was not the nominee of the American Democracy, John F. Kennedy.  All but one (from a Republican Elector) of the 15 were cast by Democrats directly elected as “unpledged” (they were elected to exercise their best judgment and vote their consciences, as the Framers had intended).  The Republican Elector, “pledged” to Richard M. Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, tried to persuade his fellow GOP Electors to vote for Democrat Harry Byrd and Barry Goldwater over John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as a compromise, as Nixon and Lodge would not have won majorities, to force contingency elections by the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively.  Until 1960, the vote by the Republican Elector had been the only one cast by an Elector for a member of the other major party for either President or Vice President.  This year, in addition to two other votes by Democratic Electors for candidates other than their party’s presidential nominee, there were 3 votes by Democratic Electors for a Republican, Colin Powell, as a compromise candidate to thwart the election of Trump.  

As retired General and former Secretary of State Powell received the third highest total of electoral votes, he therefore could be elected President by the House of Representatives if the Congress objects to Trump’s electoral votes when it certifies the election on January 6, thus denying any candidate the majority, as the House may chose only from the three candidates who received the most votes for President.  The ample grounds by which the Congress may object, in addition to the intimidation of the Republican Electors, will be the subject of an upcoming post.  Because of the Republican effort to persuade the Electors not to vote for Trump, the Democrats may have facilitated the election of a Republican as the next President, as the GOP effectively acquiesced to the Democrats instead of seeking a compromise candidate of its own choosing, as the two Republican Electors who were faithful to the Constitution by exercising their best judgment in good conscience did by voting for Republicans other than their party’s nominee.

Additional Thoughts on the 2016 General Election Results in Pennsylvania and across the Union

           Now that the results for the 2016 General Election have been certified in all 50 American States and the District of Columbia, I can provide additional analysis.

            There were 7.8 million votes for Electors for presidential candidates other than the Democratic or Republican nominees.  There were about two thirds of a million votes for the Electors for conservative presidential candidate Evan McMullin.  The Trump-Pence ticket’s and Republican Electors received 2.9 million fewer votes than the plurality winner, and was 10.6 million short of a majority, having earned only 46% of the vote.  Approximately two million additional voters skipped the office at the top of the ticket, but cast ballots for downballot offices.  Only about 76,000 votes across three States (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, which ranged from 44,000 to 9,000 votes, in descending order), were enough to elect the Trump-Pence Electors as the majority of the Electoral College.  These updated figures contrast even more from the higher vote totals for Republican Congressional candidates I posted about last week. 

            There was a partial recount effort in the three close States, based on concern that the Russians might have hacked the voting machines, as the Russian Federation had hacked not only the Democratic presidential campaign and party organizations, but had also hacked state election offices and attempted to hack others, in an effort to elect their preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump, or at least to undermine confidence in the result, and thereby deligitamize the President and undermine confidence in American elections.  This concern was shared by both the left and the right.  The challenge from the Green Party presidential candidate and another third-party candidate was based on the possibility that certain voting machines, although not connected to the Internet while in use, could be hacked because their cartridges, which are removed and placed into county election office computers that are connected to the Internet, could be vulnerable.  The Green Party’s technical expert thought the chance unlikely, but that it would be prudent to audit the machine record by cross-checking it with paper records, when available, as they are in Wisconsin and Michigan particularly and less available in Pennsylvania, in order to discover if the Russians had been successful in hacking the election or to restore confidence in the vote, a practice that should be standard protocol.  Because the attempts to audit the vote were denied by state or federal courts, which demanded proof before the auditing could establish if there were any proof, or at least to rule out hacking, there remains uncertainty as to the legitimacy of the outcome of the election, as the concern about Russian hacking cannot be disproved and the Russians were, at least, successful in undermining confidence in the result. 

Congress may yet investigate possible Russian hacking of the voting machines, as it plans to investigate the known Russian hacking generally.  When it certifies the result of the vote of the Electoral College on January 6, if at least one member each of the House of Representatives and Senate objects to the election of the Electors from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and perhaps other States, it could investigate Russian hacking of the presidential election particularly and require the machine vote for Electors in those States be audited. 

There would be additional grounds for congressional objection to the election of the Trump-Pence Electors, such as Russian interference, namely its propaganda and disinformation against the Democratic nominee and in favor of Trump, or intimidation of the Electors by the Trump-Pence campaign and the Republican Party.  The deception and intimidation by Trump and his supporters generally, combined with these, were more than enough fraud to change the outcome of both the Republican nomination and the election of the Trump-Pence Electors and the vote of the Electoral College.

The vote of the Electoral College is the subject of an upcoming post.          

            Locally, the Trump-Pence ticket of Electors lost all 44 precincts in Reading.  None were close, even in the less Democratic ones where Republican candidates for office sometimes win.  What is particularly noteworthy is that Trump-Pence, while doing well in the rural areas of Berks County, lost the wealthy Republican suburb of Wyomissing.

            There were over 400 write-in votes for President in Berks for other Republican candidates, including nearly 200 for McMullin, who was the only one registered as a write-in candidate in Pennsylvania, with a slate of Electors nominated by him, which suggests he earned several thousand votes in the Keystone State.  The rest of the write-in votes were for unregistered candidates, led by Pennsylvania native and Ohio Governor John Kasich with over 70, with many others ranging from the 20s down to 1 vote each, including some who are only locally-known.  These totals suggest several thousand votes across Pennsylvania for other Republicans.  

            In conclusion, I observe the election was more a rejection of the liberal Democratic nominee, despite the higher vote totals for the Democratic Electors and leaving aside the fraud that benefited the Trump-Pence ticket, than an affirmative vote for the non-conservative Republican nominee.  

Christmas 2016 Message

           Merry Christmas!  I wish all of you a blessed Feast of the Nativity of the Prince of Peace.  It is especially appropriate this Christmas, as authoritarianism threatens the world and appears to be rising even in the United States of America, to cherish liberty and to remember that God is freedom, and amidst darkness to remember that Christ is the Light of the World.  With trust in God, let us prepare to be increasingly vigilant in defending liberty and representative government.  

           May God bless you and may God bless America!

The Electoral College Should Vote for a Fit Conservative Republican, not Donald Trump

           The Electoral College should vote tomorrow for a conservative Republican who is fit, who is not a demagogue or who is not the beneficiary of foreign interference on behalf of his candidacy, instead of voting for Donald J. Trump for President of the United States, who is does not meet any of these standards intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

            As I have explained in earlier posts, because the Framers created a representative republic, not a democracy, the Electoral College was created as a representative body, as the presidential election was not conceived as a popular exercise.  Like any representatives, the presidential and vice presidential Electors are supposed to exercise their best judgment in good conscience in representing the people and the States.  See my posts from last month, The Presidential Electors Are Supposed to Be Representative of the States and the People, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2016/11/presidential-electors-are-supposed-to.html and Cinfici’s Latest Piece at the Federalist Re: the Representative Role of the Electoral College, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2016/11/cinficis-latest-piece-at-federalist-re.html, and my article at The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/08/dont-actually-vote-president-curious-facts-electoral-college/.  In these posts, I explain briefly the origin, purpose and early history of the Electoral College and note how the popular vote is for the Electors, not the President and Vice President. 

            As more Republican Electors were elected, assuming their elections were not the result of foreign interference, then the Electoral College should be expected to elect a Republican or possibly an independent conservative, not the liberal Democratic nominee, even though her Electors received more votes collectively.  Electors are not bound, despite some state laws to the contrary, to vote for their party’s nominees, against their conscience.  There are grounds for which they should vote their conscience and vote for someone other than Trump, according to the intent of the Framers, as explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68.  The Framers, who created the presidency around George Washington, who was fit, selfless, prudent and patriotic, established the Electoral College as a check to prevent someone unfit, demagogic or advanced by foreign interference from being elected President.  All three concerns are raised in regard to Trump.

            A lengthy post could be written on Trump’s unfitness, but I shall summarize briefly the concerns about how morally and intellectually unfit he is.  He is vulgar, narcissistic, insulting, bigoted, misogynistic, dishonest and credulous in conspiracy theories.  Trump has cheated his wives, business partners and contractors, and has violated the law in numerous ways.  The supposedly “pro-life” Republican nominee has stated his desire to commit war crimes and has repeatedly praised dictators for war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights abuses.  Accordingly, Trump’s campaign was based upon deception and intimidation, as he misrepresented himself as a successful businessman and spread false information and caused, directly himself or indirectly through his supporters, every opponent or critic to be afraid of him.  In addition, he had failed to disclose all of his business interests sufficiently to eliminate the appearance of any conflict of interests.  Although it is known that he would be receiving an emolument from the United States, which would violate the Constitution if Congress does not grant him permission, Trump’s emoluments from foreign states are of most concern, while his non-disclosure of federal personal income tax returns and business interests mean he could be bribed and the American people would never know by whom or by how much.  One’s character is an indication of how one might serve in office.  Having served in public life, I can confidently declare that character is of foremost importance to public service.  And the highest standard is necessary with the greatest responsibility of the highest office. 

In addition to his moral unfitness, Trump is extraordinarily ignorant of the Constitution and its principles and of the scope of the presidency.  He seldom mentions liberty or freedom or expresses any reverence for the Founding Fathers and does not believe in American exceptionalism.  Instead, he admires authoritarians and has demonstrated authoritarian tendencies himself, such as in regard to the Separation of Powers and independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the press.    

            Trump’s demagoguery was exemplified by his protectionism and nativism, which, if not the product of his own bigotry, were recognized as such by his enthusiastic “white nationalist” fascist supporters, as they call themselves, including Ku Klux Klansmen and Nazi sympathizers.  His populist anti-establishment political revolution was based in part on the misleading belief that the Republican-led Congress had acquiesced to the policies of liberal Democratic President Barack Obama and that no experienced politician could be trusted, only Trump, who alone could solve problems.  His demagoguery, like the way he has conducted his campaign, are typical of the many democratically-elected leaders who became authoritarians.

            The level of foreign interference in the American presidential election, particularly from a hostile power, although the full extent of it is not yet completely known, can already be recognized as unprecedented.  Trump benefited not only from hacking and leaking of American political parties and candidates by the Communist Russian Federation, but by its propaganda and disinformation in support of his candidacy, which augmented his own deception and that of his supporters.  He welcomed and encouraged the interference by the Russians, whose authoritarian leader Trump has praised.  I note among the business interests Trump is believed to have are some with Russians. 

            Trump’s deception and intimidation, as well as the foreign interference on his behalf, have tainted both his Republican nomination and the election of the Republican Trump-Pence Electors, which means that Congress may object to the votes of the Electors on the grounds they were not duly elected when it certifies the election on January 6.  A compromise vote for a fit Republican by the Electoral College would be a reasonable solution to avert any potential constitutional crisis.  

           There have been other times when the Electoral College should have been a check on the people and was not, but never have there been as abundant reasons for the Electors to vote their consciences to fulfill their duties under the Constitution they will swear an oath to defend by not voting for their party’s presidential nominee.  The Republican Electors must not vote for Trump, but instead for a fit Republican who is not a demagogue or foreign intelligence asset.  Conservatives and Republicans should urge the Electors patriotically to fulfill the purpose the Framers intended the Electoral College to be.

Conservative Analysis of the 2016 General Election across the Union

           The 2016 General Election across the Union was a triumph for Republicans, but not necessarily for conservatism, as their ticket was led by a non-conservative candidate and there were more liberal victories in referenda than conservative ones among several of the States, although many conservative Republicans were elected to federal and state offices.

            At the top of the ballot was the office of United States presidential Electors (members of the Electoral College), as the election was for them, even though voters cast ballots under the names of presidential and vice presidential nominees.  Electors are chosen by parties or candidates.  The Republican Electors, in the name of Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence as their party’s nominees for President and Vice President, respectively, appear to have won 306 of the 538 seats in the Electoral College, pending the certification of the election of the Electors by the House and Senate, respectively.  They collectively did not win a majority or even a plurality, with only 46% of the votes, nearly 2.9 million less than the Democratic Electors. 

The former liberal Democrat Trump appeared to adopt some conservative positions, but held some views to the left of even the liberal Democratic nominee and was generally a big-government populist, protectionist, nativist and isolationist.  He relied on deception, both about his record as a businessman, and by the spread of false or misleading information, as well as through fear and intimidation among any who would criticize him.  Trump also benefited from an unprecedented foreign interference in the American election, namely hacking, leaking and propaganda and disinformation from the Communist Russian Federation on his behalf.

As a result of the nomination of a non-conservative by the Republican Party, there were seven million votes cast for the Electors for non-major party candidates, including many for conservatives and Republicans, both on the ballot or as registered write-in candidates, or as symbolic write-in votes for non-registered candidates.  Well over 600,000 votes were cast for the Electors for conservative Evan McMullin the former Central Intelligence Agency anti-terrorism agent and House Republican Policy Director who was unknown when he announced his candidacy only 90 days before the election.  In Utah, with over 20% of the vote, he became the closet to getting his Electors elected in any state since Ross Perot in 1992.  There was also an unusually large undervote (the skipping of a particular office on the ballot by voters who vote for other offices) of perhaps two million votes for the Electors.  In fact, in several other States, conservative Republican Senate candidates, including some who opposed Trump, received more votes than those of the Trump-Pence Electors and there were five million more votes for Republican House candidates across the Union collectively than for the Trump-Pence Electors.

Even though the conservative effort to oppose Trump was not successful in denying a majority for the Republican Electors, the movement was successful in allowing conservatives to vote their consciences, in demonstrating the separation between conservatism and the Republican Party’s platform and denying Trump a popular mandate.  The anti-Trump movement’s efforts continue to persuade Electors to vote for a fit conservative Republican who is not a demagogue or asset of the Russians when the Electoral College conducts the presidential election tomorrow, which will be the subject of my next post.

In the Congressional elections, Republicans won by retaining their majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, despite losing seats in both chambers, as there were no Trump coattails.  As with the Senate, there were numerous GOP House candidates who did not support Trump.  The Republican Congressional majority will have to defend the Separation of Powers by being a check on the President, resisting the expansion of executive power at the expense of that of the Legislative Branch, advance any conservative policies while rejecting non-conservative ones, confirm conservative appointments and reject non-conservative ones.

For state offices, Republicans gained a net of one Governor, thereby adding to their large majority, while picking up additional state legislative chambers, including the Kentucky House of Representatives, the last Democratic-held one in the South (not including Maryland and Delaware as Southern).  The results for federal and state offices in Pennsylvania were the focus of an earlier post this month, as the results there, as elsewhere, were only recently certified.

Although there were many referenda among the States that were approved by the voters that were contrary to conservatism, especially in regard to legalizing marijuana, there were several that were not.  Voters in Arizona rejected a measure to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.  Maine’s voters rejected a referendum requiring background checks for certain gun sales.  Nebraskans approved a referendum to reinstate the death penalty, while the voters of Oklahoma vote affirmatively for a question guaranteeing the state’s authority to impose capital punishment, while Californians rejected a referendum that would have repealed the death penalty.  

The results of the 2016 General Election, although generally a rejection of liberal Democratic candidates, if not necessarily of liberal ideas, have created some opportunities and dangers for conservatives and Republicans.  They must be wise in advancing the cause of liberty and good government.

The Election Results Process and Media Errors in Reporting Them, Especially for Presidential Elections

           As has increasingly been my practice over the years, I usually wait until election results have been certified, or at least are clearly beyond dispute, to analyze them.  I even sometimes wait for a concession by the losing candidate in foreign elections to report on those results.

In this post, I explain the election process, especially the unique one for President of the United States, and the reasons why I prefer to wait for the votes to be counted and any election disputes to be resolved.  Having been a candidate and having been involved in an election dispute, which I won, and having observed the outcome of elections be opposite what the media had originally reported, I explain also why the media is often misleading and even erroneous in its coverage of election results.

There are several reasons why it is prudent to wait for the certification of an election to report who is elected.  There can be various vote-tabulation errors or omissions.  Even without anyone contesting an election, the process of certifying election results takes over three weeks in Pennsylvania, for example, and even longer when there is a recount or contest.  Concessions by losing candidates, or at least who believe they have lost, are neither legally required nor determinative of the election outcome, as other voters may request recounts or contest the election.  The media should not assume that because it is unaware of any challenges to election results that they do not exist or ignore such challenges because it regards them as unlikely to succeed, as it should let the process transpire and report on it accordingly.

A major reason the media should not report election results immediately as certain is because of absentee and provisional ballots.  In Pennsylvania, for example, only the machine votes are announced by the county election offices on election night, after the Judges of Elections bring the cartridges from the voting machines from their precincts to their county courthouses, where they are loaded into the county’s computers and tabulated.  The Judges also bring in the paper absentee and provisional ballots, but the absentee ballots are not counted until a week after Election Day, while the Board of Elections considers the provisional ballots, which also takes several days.  Across the American Union, military absentee ballots also may arrive postmarked by Election Day for several days afterward.  Therefore, it is erroneous for the media to report election results as “complete” once all precincts in an election district have turned in their results, as these are only the machine votes, not the paper votes in those jurisdictions that do not count them simultaneously, such as where all votes are cast by mail.  The media should report these results as “complete” only for machine votes and then report the certified election results. 

In addition to the tabulation of these paper ballots I also note the machine results in Pennsylvania, for example, only show a total number of write-in votes, but not any tabulation of those votes.  There is also a process for a candidate to accumulate any write-in votes that are of similar spelling to his name.  Write-in votes are typically not tabulated election night in other States, either.  Even though candidates are often nominated in primary elections or elected in the general election by write-in votes, the media often ignores even the possibility, which is part of its misleading practice of referring to candidates as “unopposed” if there are no other candidates on the ballot for that office, or to the office as “uncontested.”  As long as voters may write in votes, as all elections were in the early years of the Republic, there is no such thing as an “unopposed” candidate or “uncontested” office. 

Because of errors and omissions, and the tabulations of paper ballots and write-ins, the media should refrain from “calling” elections and commentators should refrain from referring to elections as “called,” as if there is some legal authority to these media declarations.  The only legal calling of an election is the certification of the election results by election offices.  Even then, there are legal provisions to challenge those results.  Election results have been overturned through the use of these provisions.  Similarly, the media should refrain from referring to someone as “Elect,” such as “Governor-Elect” or “School Director-Elect” until the person is legally elected.  Premature media declarations of election results actually effect the election process by discouraging election challenges because they make the election of the candidate the media has called the “winner” seem legitimate and any challenge the result of being a “sore loser.” 

Note also that a candidate for nomination or election may be nominated or elected and even be sworn into office, but later be discovered to be ineligible and the election effectively overturned, despite the “will of the people” and a special election held to fill the vacancy on the ballot or in the office. 

For federal offices, there are additional steps in the election certification process.  The Constitution grants the power of the United States House of Representatives and Senate each to determine the election results for seats in their respective chambers.  

The House and Senate also certify the election results for President and Vice President, respectively.  The particular difference for these offices is how they are elected, which is by the Electoral College, not popularly.  Even though the Electors are elected by ballots cast in the name of their party’s presidential nominee, the election of the Electors is not the presidential election.  Therefore, there is no such thing as a “President-Elect,” at least until the Electoral College conducts the presidential election, and, for the same reasons as for other offices, not even until the Congress certifies the result.  In fact, constitutionally, there are not even any presidential candidates until the Electors cast their ballots.  As the Electoral College was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a representative body, the media also errs by referring to those Electors who exercise their best judgment in good conscience as “faithless” or “rogue” because they vote for some other member of their political party than the one their parties expect.  Because the presidential election is not a popular exercise, but an example of how the Framers established a representative republic instead of a democracy, Electors cannot “overturn” the presidential election, as their voting is the presidential election, as the media erroneous reports.  

Conservative Analysis of the 2016 Pennsylvania General Election

The results of the 2016 Pennsylvania General Election were certified by the Commonwealth earlier this week, although one contest for a seat in the House of Representatives remains unsettled.  The Republicans and conservative candidates generally performed well in both the federal and state elections on the ballot, except for a sweep of the three state row offices by the Democrats.

Republicans won each of the federal offices of presidential and vice presidential Electors (members of the Electoral College), United States Senate and U.S. Representative.  Republican Electors won a plurality by a slim margin, with non-conservative Donald J. Trump as the Republican nominee.  Presidents are not popularly elected, only the Electors, even though presidential nominees’ names appear on the ballot.  I shall analyze the election for Electors across the Union in more detail in an upcoming post.

            U.S. Senator Republican Pat Toomey, a conservative who did not announce he would cast his ballot for Trump (i.e. the Trump-Pence Electors), until an hour before the polls closed, was reelected in the only U.S. Senate seat up for election in Pennsylvania in what was the most expensive Senate contest in America, as Democrats and liberals targeted him for defeat.  He earned nearly as many votes as the GOP Electors, but with a significantly different set of voters. 

Usually there is more undervote (the skipping of the vote for an office by voters casting ballots for other offices) below president on the ballot, as there usually there is below whatever office is at the top of the ballot.  Generally, the further down the ballot, the more undervote there is.  A presidential election usually draws the highest turnout of any election and, despite the undervote, the larger number of voters casting ballots for a winning ticket usually boosts the vote totals at least to some degree for downballot candidates of the same party.  The unusually small undervote this year suggests there were no coattails for Trump in Pennsylvania, as across the Union.   

For the House of Representatives, there will be the same 12-6 Republican majority in Pennsylvania’s delegation, as Republicans held two open seats, including the one in which I reside.  The GOP candidates ranged from moderately conservative to conservative.  Some of them were in favor of their party’s presidential nominee, while others were not.

            For state offices, the results were mixed.  Democrats swept the three state row offices of Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor General for the second straight election, the only times one party has won all three of the offices since the office of Attorney General became elective in 1980, even though two of the three elected the last time resigned in disgrace and were convicted of crimes they committed while in office. 

However, Republicans added to their General Assembly majorities in both the state Senate and House.  In the Senate, the Republican majority for the first time will be more than the two-thirds necessary to override a gubernatorial veto with the GOP holding 34 out of 50 seats.  The voters appear to approve the conservative Republican legislators because they blocked liberal Democratic Governor Tom Wolfe’s tax increases.  The Republican-led legislature can now work for spending cuts, pension reform, alcohol privatization and the elimination of local real estate taxes.  

The statewide constitutional referendum to increase the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 was approved by the voters.

Cinfici Has Been Reappointed to the Reading Planning Commission

           I was reappointed Monday to the Reading Planning Commission, as the Reading City Council approved my reappointment by the Mayor by a 7-0 vote:

http://www.readingpa.gov/content/regular-council-meeting-minutes-121216.  I had been appointed in October of 2014 to fill an unexpired term.  My new term lasts until April 2020.  

           It is an honor and privilege to serve the City of Reading.  I thank the Mayor and Council and look forward to continued service on the Reading Planning Commission.

Update: A New Italian Government under Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni

           Paolo Gentiloni was sworn in as Prime Minister of the Italian Republic Monday, along with his coalition government, in record short time between effective governments.  The center-left premier succeeds Matteo Renzi as President of the Council of State and is keeping most of his predecessor’s coalition executive which their party leads, with a few ministers changing positions.

            Gentiloni yesterday and today won the required parliamentary vote of confidence for his coalition government from lower and upper chambers of Parliament, respectively.  President Sergio Mattarella had asked Gentiloni to invite all parties to join a government of national responsibility, but only the small center-right and most of the small centrist parties of the previous government did, which were sufficient for a parliamentary majority, with the opposition parties voting no or not voting.

The most significant change in Gentiloni’s executive from Renzi’s is the promotion to the Foreign Ministry from that of the Interior of the pro-American center-right leader of the junior coalition partner to replace the new premier.  Italy will join the United Nations Security Council next year and host the Group of Seven economic powers in Taormina, Messina, Sicily.  Italy has been a staunch ally of the United States, particularly against terrorism.  The ministers of the Government are being confirmed by Parliament. 

Gentiloni has listed employment, fixing the electoral law, the bank crisis, and earthquake relief as priorities.