Dem
51
GOP
49
We did not mean, with yesterday's announcement, to suggest that anything is wrong with the Votemaster. He's just traveling right now, and since the reason is literally all over the Internet, (Z) thinks it's OK to provide a link that explains why, if you are interested. He will receive a major award at a formal awards banquet in San Francisco this evening, along with three other awardees who have done something that has had a major impact on some area of the computing profession or industry.
And here's a second hint for this week's headline theme: Homes. Wait, that's not quite right. HOMES. That's better.
The question of the week answers require more time to compile, and this is already late, so we'll have them next week. Sorry about that.
S.M. in Pratt, KS, asks: In your item about the debates, you noted that there would be no consultation with the staffs and no notes taken to the podiums. Will anything be done to screen for electronic devices? It is widely accepted that George W. Bush was wired up and provided answers during one of the 2004 debates. Given how inherently lazy and ill-prepared Donald Trump is, what is being done to make sure Stephen Miller is not sending him answers?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by acknowledging that there is certainly a conspiracy theory that Bush was getting electronic help. However, despite the fact that we were actually one of the first sites to notice the bulge and to comment on it, we would not agree that it's "widely accepted" that Bush was getting help.
It is extremely unlikely that the candidates will be scanned or screened for electronic devices, as that would be rather insulting. For much the same reason, they will not be asked to give urine samples so that a drug test might be performed.
It is also extremely unlikely that Trump would attempt to pull something like this. First, it is very, very hard to hear something in one's ear and instantly convert that to natural conversation. Sports- and newscasters do it, but there's a learning curve, and we don't think that Trump is capable of mastering the skill, particularly on this kind of timeline.
Second, even if you accept the Bush conspiracy, that was 20 years ago. These days, everyone has a high-definition TV. For Trump to be fed answers, he would not only need a receiver but also an earpiece. Both things would be perfectly visible on HDTV. And if he were to be caught cheating like this, it would be humiliating.
As an aside, if you click on the "first sites" link above, you will see that on Oct. 8, 2004, John Kerry was slightly ahead but that 12 states had white centers on the map, that is, were statistical ties (i.e., toss-ups). Bush went on to barely win the election. The message here is that even as late as October, if a large number of states are basically tied, anyhing can happen.
V.G.D. in Perrysburg, OH, asks: In your discussion of the presidential debate details, you passed along a take on the debate rules from reader J.B. in Bend. J.B. seemed to believe that by potentially preventing Trump from doing something that hurt him in past debates (namely, interrupting Biden during the debate) this rule [muting Trump's mic while Biden is speaking] may actually make Trump look more in control and "presidential."
I am concerned that Trump might benefit from that rule, but for a very different reason. Trump likely would (since he cannot help it), or could (since he believes in this strategy), continue speaking and interrupting Biden out of turn, as he did in the past debates. I am afraid that muting the mic prevents him from being heard by the remote audiences, but Biden would still hear him (assuming they are within each other's earshot) and get constantly interrupted—only without any explanation from the perspective of the audience! And I have heard and read some others expressing a similar concern.
Of course, such a situation, which is rather disadvantageous to Biden, can be prevented if either the debaters are situated out of each other's earshot, or they only hear each other and the moderators via earphones that they are expected to wear, or some such. Do we know whether this issue has been thought of and somehow addressed? Thank you.(V) & (Z) answer: Since both candidates have to be in the same mid-range camera shot, it is not plausible to put them out of earshot of one another.
We think you underestimate how foolish Trump would look ranting into a dead microphone. He knows a few things about stagecraft, and we suspect he will be conscious of avoiding that visual.
In addition, you don't do as much public speaking as Biden has without being able to deal with distractions. It is also entirely possible that Biden will have a pre-packaged response ready if Trump DOES try to talk when it's not his turn. For example, "Geez, Donald, what is this malarkey? Can't you tell your microphone is off?" Or, channelling Ronald Reagan during 1980's debates: "[Sigh] There you go again. [Rueful shaking of head]."
R.B. in Orland Park, IL, asks: Have you considered going live with commentary during the debate?
(V) & (Z) answer: We haven't, largely because we're not really set up for live commentary. All we could do is consistently update the page, and readers would have to reload/refresh.
It would also be difficult to do both a live commentary AND a debate write-up, because they would be somewhat redundant. That said, if readers have a preference, one way or the other, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com.
D.B. in Santa Barbara, CA, asks: You've noted a couple of times that you think the Biden Administration's interpretation of Title IX to cover trans people is dubious. But given that in Bostock v. Clayton County the Supreme Court held that the nearly identical language in Title VII protects trans people, is it really that far-fetched?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not think it is dubious. Although people in 1972 were much less precise about the use of the words "gender" and "sex," the clear intent of the legislation was to stop any sort of discrimination along those particular lines, just as the Civil Rights Act was meant to stop any sort of discrimination along racial lines. Bostock supports this line of thinking.
Our only point was that it's not a slam dunk, and so it's not entirely unreasonable if a court says they want to take a longer look at this question.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: The thing I don't get about the SCOTUS ruling on bump stocks is that a bump stock isn't a weapon or a gun or anything that would fall under the definition of "arms." It is an accessory. The Second Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear arms and accessorize them. As such, I can't understand why this was a Second Amendment issue. Is there any other example of accessories being banned?
(V) & (Z) answer: We are not aware of any gun accessories that are banned at the federal level anymore, although the federal government DOES create some pretty serious hurdles for acquiring certain kinds of accessories, like stabilizing braces. There are state-level laws that ban various accessories and ammunition, including things like silencers, high-capacity magazines, multiburst trigger activators, armor-piercing bullets, teflon-coated bullets, etc. Obviously, these state laws have thus far stood up to court scrutiny or they would not still be on the books.
J.A. in Woodstock, VA, asks: As the night follows the day, a crystal ball is not needed to know that Judge Aileen Cannon will dismiss all charges against Donald Trump once a jury is seated. This has clearly been the goal, as recently confirmed by a taped conversation with Roger Stone. Based upon this premise, does Special Counsel Jack Smith have the authority to drop the charges filed in Florida and refile them in Washington, DC—the scene of the originating crime, with subsequent obstruction crimes occurring in other jurisdictions?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, Smith probably didn't have a choice but to file in Florida. Lots of people, including Joe Biden and Mike Pence, took documents out of Washington that they were not supposed to take. Trump's behavior only really became criminal (allegedly) when he refused to give the documents back. That behavior took place in Florida. A case can absolutely get kicked for being filed in the wrong venue; we'll have an item on Monday about that very thing happening in Nevada yesterday.
But even if D.C. was a legally justifiable venue, the die was cast once Smith filed in Florida. At this point, he cannot dismiss and refile. The reasoning is obvious: Allowing that maneuver would afford a federal prosecutor two bites at the apple anytime there was a crime that took place in multiple venues, and they felt that prosecution v1.0 was not going well.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: What do you think of the idea of Hillary Clinton leading a "Lock Him Up" chant at the Democratic National Convention this summer? Some people might say it is poor taste or unnecessarily incendiary. However, Republicans have been calling for Clinton's imprisonment for years. She has never even been charged for any crimes, much less convicted.
I think the Fox talking heads would explode, but it would certainly generate excitement and attention for Biden's campaign.(V) & (Z) answer: We think that would be a very bad idea. It would be a turn-off to many potential Biden voters, and would run contrary to the argument that the Democrats are the grown-up party that actually cares about governance. You can't criticize the other party for getting down in the gutter if you get down there with them.
On the other hand, if Hillary were to issue forth with a brief bit of carefully crafted snark? Something that would be shared on social media and referenced on the late-night talk shows? That could work. We're thinking something like this: "Before I start, I'd like to extend my congratulations to Donald Trump on his persistence. When he couldn't get me locked up in 2016, he just shifted his efforts to the candidate who got the SECOND-most votes. If at first you don't succeed!"
M.W. in Northbrook, IL, asks: If Republican senators could go back in time to the first impeachment vote in early 2020, do you think they would vote differently? Yes, the Party would have suffered in 2020 (didn't they anyway?) and potentially in 2022, but wouldn't they be in a much better place today AND able to look at themselves in the mirror?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think so. First, most politicians have no problem looking themselves in the mirror, regardless of how sleazy or dishonest or feckless they might be. On the whole, it's a self-selected group of people that are unusual in their near-total lack of shame. There's a whole body of literature out there, including this book and this essay, arguing that presidents in particular, and politicians in general, are disproportionately likely to qualify for a diagnosis of psychopathy.
So the real question is whether the short-term pain of getting rid of Trump would be deemed worth the long-term gain by some meaningful number of Republican senators. And we doubt that 17 or so Republican senators would reach that conclusion. First, the votes would have been public, and some number of the Republican senators would have been at risk of losing their jobs thanks to voters angry at their having betrayed Trump. Second, some of them quite like what Trump has done as president, either because they want someone who will sign off on tax cuts and anti-immigrant policies and other hard-right goals, or because they prefer the government be dysfunctional, and they know Trump is the king of dysfunction. Heck, he's the supreme commander, grand marshal, and arch-emperor of dysfunction.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: Last week you answered my question, and we learned that the Republicans got locked in as the "Red" team, and the Democrats "Blue," in the aftermath of the 2000 election. This seems about the time things really went to hell with regard to hyperpartisanship. Could it be that assigning team colors triggered some sort of tribal switch in the minds of many voters, resulting in a hardening of party lines?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think you have the cause and effect out of order. If you want to point to a starting point for today's hyperpartisanship, the single-best candidate is Newt Gingrich's election as Speaker of the House. He could see that the Republicans were becoming a minority party, and concluded that the best course of action was to maximize Republican turnout by playing to Republican voters' baser instincts. That meant blocking the Democrats at every turn, and villainizing them as much as possible.
We are not saying that it's all Gingrich, nor are we claiming that the seeds weren't planted before he came along (by Richard Nixon, in particular). However, if you want the key inflection point, we think that's it, though we would also hear arguments that it's the start of Rush Limbaugh's career as a national radio voice, or Roger Ailes' founding of Fox. In any case, the machinations of these various right-wingers, particularly the Bill Clinton impeachment, laid the groundwork for what happened in the election of 2000. And the election of 2000, as we noted last week, is what fixed red for Republicans and blue for Democrats.
If all that was needed to flip the switch, and for people to start treating political parties like they are sports teams, was the existence of some symbol or totem... well, the Democrats have been symbolized by a donkey and the Republicans by an elephant since the 1860s.
M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA, asks: I can't begin to tell you how many things worry me about Trump v2.0, but I've been thinking a lot about Project 2025 lately. If we dodge the bullet of Trump v2.0, is it a given that the GOP will plan for Project 2029, 2033, etc.?
Trump may be one-of-a-kind in gaining a cult-like following, but the early favorites for 2029 that I can think of—Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—are all people who would love to have an unchecked executive branch. Another way of putting my point is that one day we'll have another GOP president (whether it's in 4 years or 12 years), so is it a given that Project 20__ is inevitable? I would really appreciate your thoughts.(V) & (Z) answer: Will the GOP—or, at least the Heritage Foundation—keep planning? Sure they will.
But will that planning do them any good? That's where we start to run into some serious obstacles. First, you can't know what 4 more (or 8 more, or 12 more) years of Democratic rule might bring. In particular, if a Democrat holds the White House until 2032, that may be enough to flip the Supreme Court to liberal control, as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would likely age out, and John Roberts might do so as well. It only takes two of the three.
Second, part of the reason that the Heritage Foundation is drooling over Trump is that he's pliant and relatively easy to manipulate. Some other Republican might not be so amendable to being someone else's pawn.
Third, and finally, we're not persuaded that a Trumpy candidate, other than Trump himself, can get elected. He has the near-fanatical devotion of his base, and even then, he barely won one election and he lost the other. We will see what happens this year, but Trump's base minus, say, ten percent is not close to enough votes to win presidential elections. And we don't think that a non-Trump Trumpy candidate is likely to make that up by reclaiming centrist voters who have abandoned Trump.
We don't mean to say your concern is entirely unwarranted. But we are saying that if Project 2025 doesn't happen, Project 2029 or Project 2033 are a lot more tricky.
J.F. in Carrollton, TX, asks: The electoral vote projection in the top left of the site is stressing me out! Where was it at this point in the election in 2020? Right now Trump is winning the projection in a landslide 301 to 224.
L.L. in Shelton, CT, asks: I want to look back at the national page in November 2016. What's the fastest way to get there?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, there are links to this day in 2020, 2016 and 2012 at the top right, just underneath the list that begins with "Strongly Dem." So, if you want to see June 22, 2020, then just click on 2020 in that list.
Alternatively, the URL for today's post, to use it as an example, is this:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Jun22.htmlThe only portion that changes each day, as you might imagine, is that part at the end, which is always a three letter month followed by a two-digit day. So, for example, if you wanted to see the first posting of this year, you can just edit the URL like this:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Jan01.htmlThe only portions that change on a not-daily basis are the year and the part where it says "Pres." Starting with the year, if you wanted to see what we wrote in November 2016, you would just need to change the year to 2016 and the date to Nov01 (or whatever date in November you want), like this:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Nov01.htmlAnd finally, at some point after the presidential election, we change the map at top to focus on the Senate. At that point "Pres" becomes "Senate." Obviously, we switch back at some point after the Senate elections are over. So, if you wanted to see what we wrote in November of 2018, you would need to edit the URL to look like this:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2018/Senate/Maps/Nov01.htmlIn short, there are only three variables: the year, the current date, and Senate/Pres. It's Pres much more often than it's Senate, so it's usually easiest to start with Pres. If you get the crystal ball, edit the URL to have Senate instead. And remember that capitalization matters.
Finally, there is one other option. If you go to the data galore page on the menu to the left of the map and scroll down to where it says "Archves of this site ..." you can navigate to any quarter going back to 2004 and work from there.
Going back to the first question, jumping back to 2020 reveals that we had the electoral tally at 368 for Joe Biden, and 132 for Donald Trump with 38 EVs tied on June 22, 2020. Biden actually got 306 EVs.
You can interpret this in two ways. You could say that this is evidence that Biden is in a much weaker position than he was at this point in 2020, and you would be right. You could also say this is a reminder that it's entirely plausible for 62 EVs (or more) to shift columns between June and November, and you would be right again. If 62 EVs shifted in Biden's favor from today's numbers, he would be at 271, which would make him a winner.
T.C. in New York City, NY, asks: If Donald Trump wins, will it be because Joe Biden lost too many Biden 2020 voters (to apathy, death, or a vote for Trump) or because Trump gained too many new voters?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think it would be because Biden lost too many voters to apathy, death, or voting for a third party.
Trump's share of the vote, along with his approval rating, have consistently had a very clear ceiling. And we're now almost 10 years into his political career, so we're not talking a small sample size. We've seen nothing that would explain how he suddenly found a way to increase his vote share, when he hasn't been able to do it in the past.
S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Like me, you're both university professors. Do you really believe the polls showing Trump suddenly winning young voters? I don't for a second. There's something systematically and systemically wrong with those polls, although granted I have no idea what. I won't believe it unless it proves true on Election Day. Trump's positions on almost everything are literally anathema to everything I see with my own eyes regarding Gen Z. They may dislike Biden, but every one of them that I know dislikes him from the left. They're not going to vote for Trump.
(V) & (Z) answer: One of us is retired and, besides, only deals with European students. And the other only deals with students from liberal California. So, we don't want to over-rely on what we are hearing in the classroom. That said, we, and in particular (Z), agree with you that these "young voters are almost evenly divided" pieces from the last couple of weeks don't pass the smell test. We, and in particular (Z), are similarly skeptical that Trump is suddenly poised to win a greater share of the Black vote than any Republican in the last half century. We actually have a piece in the works on that subject, the only reason we didn't get to it yet is that there was so much time-sensitive news last week.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: In response to a California poll, with Biden leading 55-31, you wrote, tongue in cheek, "Surprise, Joe Biden is going to win California." But in 2020 he won 64-34. Yes, yes, too early in the season to tell anything from polls at this point, but suppose this were mid-September. Would this be raising a serious warning for you regarding Biden's chances nationally? Even with 61% in California, Clinton lost the national election. What I'm asking is to what extent can we gain insight by looking at point spread in solid-blue/solid-red states?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would not be particularly comfortable drawing any conclusions, even if it was mid-September right now. When states are not close, voters often feel much freer to vote their conscience, since they know there's no risk of handing the election to their least favorite candidate. So, the support for someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could well be overstated in a not-close state. For this reason, you would not want to use California numbers to project what, say, Michigan voters will do.
On top of that, presidential election after presidential election shows that the support for third-party candidates is nearly always overstated by pollsters, because some people say they are going to cast a protest vote, then get to the point of actually voting, and just can't bear to waste their vote. So, the support for someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could well be overstated EVERYWHERE. If the final poll of, say, Pennsylvania declares that Kennedy will get 5% of the vote, we would bet big money on the under.
And speaking of betting, the numbers from that poll say that 86% of Californians are backing one of the two major-party candidates, which leaves 14% who are not. If you asked us to wager on what will happen in California once all the votes are cast, we would place our money on Biden getting about half of those votes, Trump getting about a quarter, and a quarter sticking with third-party/independent votes. If so, that would mean Biden 62%, Trump 34.5% and independent/third-party 3.5%. In 2020, California was Biden 63.5%, Trump 34.5%, independent/third-party 2%. In short, it is our best guess at this moment that Biden does not significantly underperform his 2020 numbers in California, and we might even generalize that to all the states.
P.J. in Bangalore, India, asks: I hear a lot from colleagues about how there are rumors about Joe Biden being replaced at the DNC. When asked for proof, they usually resort to "this is what we are hearing from everybody."
I am not legally well-versed enough to know if this is even possible. Could you please write about replacing a nominee at the convention, what the legal hurdles are and if there has been precedent?(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by noting that anyone who is indulging in such rumors is engaging in wishful thinking, either because they do not like Biden, or because they are scared witless of a Trump victory and think some other candidate is more likely to prevent that. Barring a scandal of epic proportions, or a debilitating health problem, Biden will be the Democratic nominee in 2024. Full stop.
If Biden WERE to announce that he was not available to run for one of these reasons, then it would be a brokered convention. Those were standard before 1970 or so. A number of candidates would be discussed by the conventioneers, some names would be put into nomination, and then the conventioneers would vote. They might be able to agree on someone pretty quickly, say on the first few ballots, or it might take them a fair bit of time. The 1924 Democratic convention, to take the most notorious example, went to 103 ballots before a candidate was chosen.
If Biden does not stand down, then it is theoretically possible he could be denied the nomination, but it's not at all plausible. Many states have laws that require delegates to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged for some number of rounds. Consequently, more than half the delegates would have to decide to vote for someone other than Biden on the first ballot, and some of those people would be breaking the law and risking either prosecution or disqualification as a delegate. That kind of mass rebellion is unheard of, especially among convention delegates, who are literally chosen because of their loyalty to the party. If the roughly 4,000 delegates were chosen at random from, say, the student body at Berkeley, then maybe you might see a rebellion against Biden. But not from 4,000 long-time Democratic loyalists, most of them in Biden's general age demographic.
K.D. in Alkmaar, The Netherlands, asks: There's a lot of buzz here surrounding the imminent appointment of our prime minister Mark Rutte as secretary general of NATO. Whenever this comes up, it's mentioned that he "can stand up to Donald Trump" (he said "no" to the president once on camera...) and that Trump might pull the U.S. out of NATO. Can he do that, and what would happen if he tried? NATO must be one of the foundations of the U.S. as a superpower. Surely a lot of very powerful Americans would respond rather strongly to the slightest move to disband NATO?
(V) & (Z) answer: Keep in mind, first of all, that Trump is big on words, but tends to be small on actions. He's been talking about pulling out of NATO for years, but he never came close to trying it while president.
If he did want to try, he would run into three legal issues that would have to be addressed. The first is that the NATO charter contains provisions for leaving the group. It says, in short, that a country has to provide notice that it's leaving, and then it can do so one year later. However, that notice must be given to... the United States. So, can the U.S. tell itself that it's leaving NATO? This is not entirely clear.
The second legal problem is that while the Constitution says that the Senate has to ratify treaties, it's silent on what the rules are for breaking treaties. In the past, presidents have withdrawn from treaties and gotten away with it because nobody wanted to challenge them. But the NATO treaty? The lawsuits would start flying instantly.
The third legal problem, related to the second, is that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 prohibits the president from leaving NATO without a two-thirds approval of the Senate or a formal act of Congress. It is not clear if Congress can tie a president'a hands like that, but it's also not clear they can't.
So, if Trump tried it, he'd end up with a bushel of lawsuits. Further, since NATO is very popular (roughly 75% of Americans support continued membership), he'd get massive blowback. And these things would remain true for a year, at bare minimum, because that's the quickest a withdrawal could possibly happen.
J.E. in Boone, NC, asks: The question from D.H. in Peoria, along with your answer, made me wonder about requiring young people, say from age 18-20, to give 2 years of military, Peace Corps, Americorps, or other type of national service. I'm sure it would be a very heavy lift to actually get into law, but what are your thoughts on such a requirement?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think there's a fair bit of merit to this. It would give many high school graduates exposure to things outside their personal bubble, would potentially teach some useful skills, and would mean they would begin their college careers with more maturity and a better sense of perspective.
A.M.S. from Silverdale, WA, asks: I am one of those people who loves to be polled and take online quizzes (sue me, I'm a dork and I like science, too). However, I never do and I will tell you why: Every time I succumb to the temptation to participate, the algorithm tries to get my e-mail or other personal information. To me. that sets off the alarm bells for: (1) scam and they want my money, or (2) it's legit, but it will put me on a political and demographic mailing list and I will be spammed forever for political donations and be marked forever (i.e., they want my money). I still hear about a small (first and only) donation I made to the Wesley Clark campaign decades ago and I refuse to let myself be put on the hook again.
So my question is this: What do you think would be the best way to allow people to participate in polls while maintaining their anonymity? Could we do a poll followed by a short demographic survey (like usual) and have the response tied to IP addresses to eliminate multiple entries? I just don't want to have to deal with the hassle of being spammed non-stop for life for taking a simple poll, but I would love to have my voice heard. Do you have ideas to overcome this issue?(V) & (Z) answer: Forgive us if we're missing something, but why not just create a burner e-mail account? Each of us has at least one account (Yahoo for V; Gmail for Z) that we use solely for things where we know a wave of spam is going to be unleashed once we give our e-mail address.
S.D. in St Paul, MN, asks: I had not known that the upside-down American flag was a symbol used by election-deniers until the Alitos' home decor decisions became public knowledge. However, the election-deniers are not the first to invert and repurpose the flag. Living in the Twin Cities, I know that many American Indian Movement (AIM) activists used an upside-down flag in the 1960s and 70s. And earlier than that, my partner informed me that upside-down flags were used by the U.S. military (and other seafarers) to indicate a vessel in distress. Can you give us an historical primer on the various uses of the upside-down U.S. flag?
(V) & (Z) answer: You've already got most of it. Upside-down flags, American or no, were used for hundreds of years (back to the 16th century) to indicate a ship in distress.
The convention was adopted, almost exclusively by left-wing groups, starting in the 1850s, and continuing off and on for 150 years thereafter. Most famously, abolitionists often displayed upside-down flags, as did anti-Vietnam War protesters and members of the American Indian Movement.
Starting in roughly 2020, right-wing groups appropriated the gesture, and began using an upside-down flag as a symbol of protest against the Biden administration, the deep state, the 2020 election, etc.
D.B. in New York City, NY, asks: Thank you for your Top 10 list, of the most important constitutional amendments. Are there any you would like to see cut? Or a bottom three?
(V) & (Z) answer: If we could go back in time, we'd like to erase the Second Amendment, thus giving Congress more room to maneuver. But at this point, with 900 million guns out there, it wouldn't do much good.
Beyond that one, as well as the amendment that was so bad it was repealed (the Prohibition amendment), it's hard to find too many others to object to. We might like to re-word the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, finding some way to put the momentous decision of whether a president should be removed in the hands of people who are not beholden to the holder of that office. And we suppose we're not so sure the Twenty-Second Amendment was a great idea. Most president who have served two terms since then would not have been able to run for a third, either due to ill health (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan) or to unpopularity (George W. Bush). So, the only effect that the Twenty-Second has had is to bar Bill Clinton and Barack Obama from serving again. Maybe the American people should have been allowed to give them another 4 years, if that is what the American people wanted to do?
B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: You wrote: "[T]he fellows who wrote the Constitution did not want 'tyranny of the majority.' But they also did not want 'tyranny of the minority' either..."
Can you provide citations? I'm very interested in reading more about that from the original sources.(V) & (Z) answer: That assertion is based almost entirely on one source, but it's a very good one. This question is addressed in Federalist No. 10. Note that the phrases "tyranny of the majority" and "tyranny of the minority" were coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s; the phrases that Publius (James Madison) uses are "minority factions" and "majority factions."
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: I had never heard the game of rock-paper-scissors called Rochambeau. Wikipedia does note the alternate name, but offers no explanation. Apparently Count Rochambeau was a French General who fought in the American Revolutionary war. Can you tell us the story of how his name came to be attached to this game?
(V) & (Z) answer: As with many word origins, there's no ironclad, 100% certain, no-question-about-it answer. However, there is a pretty good theory. The game was developed in Asia, and was known in Japan for centuries before it made its way to the U.S. The name for the most common Japanese variant was kitsune-ken, in which there is a fox, a hunter and a character vaguely akin to a town mayor. This variant requires two hands. There was also jan-ken, which uses rock, paper and scissors and only requires one hand.
The first documentation of these games in the United States appears in a 1936 book called Handbook for Recreation Leaders, compiled by Ella Gardner. She worked for the Children's Bureau in Washington, DC, and it was her job to come up with wholesome games for children, ideally that did not require much money. It was, after all, the Great Depression.
Gardner was clearly aware of the Japanese games. If you click on that link, and jump to page 50, you will see instructions for kitsune-ken, under the name "Hunter, Fox and Gun" and for jan-ken, under the name "Rochambeau." The instructions for Rochambeau even point out that the games are so similar, it is better if a recreation leader picks one or the other, and does not try both.
It's not too hard to guess why Gardner would have chosen non-Japanese names for the games. First, the country was pretty anti-Asian back then. Further, even if that was not the case, Asian languages are not easy to pronounce. She went with a pretty much straight translation for "Hunter, Fox and Gun," except swapping a gun in for the mayor. Why didn't she go with a straight translation for rock-paper-scissors? That's unknowable. Maybe two names in the form X-Y-Z were deemed to create confusion. Where did she come up with "Rochambeau"? Here, there's a pretty plausible guess. Gardner's office was around the corner from the Rochambeau Apartments (home to numerous Supreme Court justices, incidentally), and the Rochambeau Apartments had an impressive statue of Count Rochambeau in front of them. The apartments are long gone, but the statue is still in existence.
So, the game probably IS named after Count Rochambeau, but in a roundabout way. Certainly, he never played it.
M.V. in San Francisco, CA, asks: I previously inquired about the use of quotes around "George Santos" in your articles. I understand that this may be a stylistic choice to indicate skepticism about his claims. However, I wanted to confirm if this is purely an editorial decision or if it also hints at ongoing investigations regarding his actual identity.
Could you please clarify whether the quotes are intended solely to denote skepticism about his numerous false claims, or if there's more to it?A.N.P. in Holland, MI, asks: You wrote, "These results agree with the fact that Biden is doing better in the 'northern route' states than in the 'southern route' states. Pennsylvania is the 10th oldest state or territory (median age is 40.9), Michigan is 14th at 40.1, and Wisconsin is 16th at 40.0. In contrast, Nevada and Arizona are tied for 34th (38.5), and Georgia is 42nd at 37.3. In other words, the 'Rust Belt' states have proportionally more older voters and they like Biden (and like voting)."
Democrats care about winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but why are people who presumably would like to see Biden carry these states still are willing to use a term ("Rust Belt") that is clearly pejorative?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, the use of quotes in these contexts is, in effect, shorthand for the phrase "so-called." In George Santos' case, it's because the truth about him and his background has not yet been sorted out. In the case of the Pennsylvania-Michigan-Wisconsin trio, it's because that is how they are often known and referred to.
We heard from quite a few readers in those states, a few years back, about how they don't like the term "Rust Belt." So, we generally avoid it. And when we do use it, we put it in quotes to efficiently indicate that is the area's so-called name, not the one we prefer. Beyond us, the reasons the term remains in use are: (1) some people don't know that it's bothersome, (2) some people don't care that it's bothersome, and (3) some people in those states don't mind the term, and even encourage its use. For example, Anne Trubek is a native of Wisconsin, and has published two books using "Rust Belt" in the title, most notably Voices from the Rust Belt.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: One of the things I enjoy about the questions and comments posts are all the places readers hail from. Have you compiled any stats about correspondents' locations? Where does the preponderance of comments and questions come from, or is there an even distribution? Besides the U.S., what's the next country with the most letter writers? Any other observations about origins of correspondents?
(V) & (Z) answer: We have not compiled this data, although we can tell you the most common countries outside of the U.S. are Canada, the U.K. and The Netherlands, in that order. In short, a bunch of subversives and pinkos.
Maybe we'll do this someday. Or maybe it would be an interesting project for a reader who is also a programmer.
R.G. in Seattle, WA, asks: This quote comes from a question about unethical behavior (or perhaps illegal behavior) and I've always wanted to ask (V) and (Z) if they've ever actually been offered a bribe (or a thinly veiled gift) in their teaching careers. Like the old academic joke goes, a student is told by the professor that they are failing the class on ethics, and the student pushes a $20 bill across the table and says, "Oh? How about now?"
(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry to give a not-so-scandalous answer, but we have not been offered bribes.
We tend to suspect that any professor who takes (or, at very least, is offered) a bribe gives off some sort of signal that they are open to that sort of thing. We do not think we give off those signals.
What we know for sure is that anyone who offers a bribe is not going to jump straight to the finish line, and is going to use some sort of encoded language so as to give themselves deniability. Maybe a question like: "Is there ANYTHING I can do to pass this class?" But if we got that question, we would answer: "Well, if you do very well on the final, it's possible..." We do not need the money or other resources that might be offered, and we have no interest in any student who might try to use... nature's credit card, for lack of a better term. So, a bribe attempt would be useless with us.