Saturday Q&A

We're going to go heavy on the fun, non-political questions next week. We've already got a bunch of those to answer, but we can always use more at questions@electoral-vote.com.

This week's headline theme is gettable, because many readers got it, but it's also tougher than the last 2 weeks. So, we'll add this hint: There are either eight or nine words or phrases, in total, that we could have used (the existence of the ninth is a matter of debate). The three or four we did NOT use were "I Don't Know," "Because," "I Don't Care," and (maybe) "Nobody." We wrote that the "answer key" to the headlines yesterday is 1B2BLFPC. If we used the same code for these additional three or four possibilities, it would work out to be 3BCFSS or 3BCFSSRF, depending on whether the maybe is included.

We think this week"s "Reader Question" section will be very well liked.

Current Events

R.Z. in Van Nuys, CA, asks: To me, the absurd test of "Whiskeyleaks" will be: Can Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stay off the sauce after his "calm leadership" during this debacle... or did we just witness the beginning of his relapse in real time? Do you have any thoughts about the possibility of him being removed and replaced with a grown-up?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have no idea how this disaster will interact with his substance abuse issues, and the odds are we'll never know.

However, Hegseth now has two problems. The first is that he's embarrassed the Trump administration, and will probably embarrass the administration again. The second is that the people who need to work with Hegseth don't trust him and don't respect him. We think that, one of these days, these two problems will be enough to bring him down.

In the end, Trump likes having lackeys everywhere. But it's most important to him to have lackeys running the law enforcement apparatus, for obvious reasons. He's surely more willing to give up on a lackey who is running some other part of the government.

---

D.R. Massapequa Park, NY, asks: This might seem extremely farfetched, but with Donald Trump, you never know. Do you think, in a effort to make Signalgate go away, Trump will just pardon everyone involved to "stop the witch hunt"?

(V) & (Z) answer: No, we don't.

First, that would be tantamount to admitting that there was a (big) screw-up, and Trump does not want to do that.

Second, any crimes that might have happened would have to be prosecuted by AG Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice. That's never going to happen. So, the pardons would serve no real purpose. What Trump has here is a political and PR problem, and pardons can't solve that.

---

F.D.M. in Woodstock, GA, asks: In your item "This Isn't Your Parents' Media Establishment, Part II: All Media Will Be Forced to Choose," you linked to Techdirt explaining "Why Techdirt Is Now A Democracy Blog (Whether We Like It Or Not)." Since then I have been reading Techdirt.

This week, the site had a piece headlined "Even If Those Weren't War Plans In Hegseth's Signal Chat, They Were War Crimes" The author displayed the actual texts from the Signal chat, and then explained:

Let that sink in: they authorized bombing a civilian apartment building because a target's girlfriend lived there. This isn't just reckless—it's a likely violation of international humanitarian law, which explicitly prohibits attacks directed at civilian objects. The fact that these officials casually discussed targeting civilian infrastructure in an unsecured chat group—while including a journalist by mistake—demonstrates a shocking combination of moral bankruptcy and operational incompetence.

Meanwhile, in "Video Killed the Reality Star," you wrote: "the Geneva Conventions forbid the use of prisoners of war as props for political messaging." This was in reference to Kristi Noem being filmed inside the El Salvador prison with the deported, and now imprisoned, Venezuelans in the background.

Both of these sound like war crimes to me. (And I'm saddened that I see no one else talking about bombing civilian targets.)

Do you think the International Criminal Court (ICC) will ever begin investigating the TCF and his cabinet for war crimes? I know the Trumplicans would go apesh** over this, and likely threaten to revoke whichever agreement allows the U.N. to remain in New York.

(V) & (Z) answer: Nope. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and so Americans are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

---

S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, asks: What do you think of the theory that Mike Waltz intended to put Jonah Goldberg, former editor of the National Review, on the group chat and instead put on Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic? That would, of course, still be wildly illegal, but at least makes some sense. Jonah Goldberg would have played along, leaking only stuff that makes the Administration look good.

(V) & (Z) answer: We understand why that theory has circulated, but we don't think too much of it. Yes, both Jeffrey and Jonah are Goldbergs and magazine editors. However, the contact that Waltz allegedly chose was "JG" and not something like "J. Goldberg" or "Goldberg, J."

So, it could very well have been anyone with the initials J.G. (for example, American trade representative Jamieson Greer). Or, Waltz might have accidentally chosen JG when he meant the contact immediately above or below that one in the list. So it could be someone whose first or last name starts with H, I, J, K, or maybe L. Also, it might have been an undeleted, inaccurate attempt to add "J.D." to the list (i.e., J.D. Vance).

---

D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Is it possible that Donald Trump's obsession with Greenland and even Canada is because he is used to looking at a Mercator map? Maybe he should try looking at his hands that way.

(V) & (Z) answer: If a Donald Trump body part is going to get the Mercator treatment, his hands are not going to be priority #1.

In any event, many people, including us, have suggested that this is a possibility. That said, Canada and Greenland are also both pretty big even on non-Mercator maps. So, who really knows?

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: If J.D. Vance senses that he will never get on Donald Trump's good side, and if he knows his VP role is safe (it is), might he organize a so-called coup among the Cabinet members to get Trump removed from office? Would he be successful?

(V) & (Z) answer: Very doubtful. First, the Cabinet is stacked with people who are loyal to Trump, not Vance. Second, assuming Trump remains conscious, he can challenge the removal, with Congress making the final decision. And Congress is also stacked with people who are loyal to Trump, not Vance.

---

D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, asks: You wrote that Donald Trump absolutely cannot fire J.D. Vance. But I could see Trump getting rid of Vance because of Vance's role in Whiskeyleaks. The people who participated in this Signal chat weren't just showing bad judgment; there's a case to be made that they violated federal law by doing it. So Trump could tell Vance that he should resign for the good of the nation, and if he doesn't, he will ask the House of Representatives to impeach him and the Senate to convict him.

Impeachment only requires a simple majority of the House. Since the vast majority of Republicans in Congress will do whatever Trump wants, and the vast majority of Democrats would delight in getting rid of Vance, I'd think an impeachment resolution would pass overwhelmingly if Trump asked for it. The Senate would probably go through the motions of careful deliberation, but would ultimately vote to convict by well over the two-thirds majority required.

I suspect Vance is smart enough to realize all that, so he'd probably resign if Trump made this threat.

Do you think Trump, or someone in his inner circle, realizes it's possible to get rid of Vance this way? And if Vance does leave office by whatever means, who do you think Trump would be likely to pick to fill the vacancy?

(V) & (Z) answer: The odds are that this would backfire spectacularly.

First, if Vance was targeted by Trump, while Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz were allowed to skate, it would be obvious what Trump was doing, and everyone would be asking: "How is Vance MORE guilty than those two?" Republican members of the Senate would be leery to play along, and Democratic members might very well support Vance, using the situation as a messaging opportunity: "We're the party that does NOT use impeachment as a political weapon." Also, trying to dump Vance for any reason had better be done before Jan. 3, 2027, when the Democrats might control the House and refuse to confirm any new vice president not on their approved list of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Mitt Romney, something Trump would never do. That would make Hakeem Jeffries first in line if Trump ate his last Big Mac.

---

B.M. in Fort Collins, CO, asks: Among the many illegal Trump actions of the last 2 months, his efforts to impose sanctions on law firms that have somehow offended him stand out. This is so obviously illegal that I wonder whether any lawyer who files the paperwork is putting their legal career in jeopardy. Might participation in such filings lead to disbarment?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think that is a very real risk, and that these people are gambling with their careers.

We've suggested this before, and had a few folks write in to say things along the lines of "They're lawyers and you're not, and so maybe they know better where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable behavior." We do not think that is a very good argument. First, the line is not too hard to discern, even for amateurs. Second, there were multiple lawyers during Trump v1.0 who took similar risks, should have known better, and ended up losing their licenses (e.g., Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman). Clearly, drinking the Trump Kool-Aid causes some people to throw all their professional inhibitions to the wind.

---

G.A. in Pomona, CA, asks: I am one of (Z)'s former undergrads, and am a current grad student in the same program as I was in as an undergrad. I am terrified to protest against the ongoing genocide in Palestine because of the current administration. The CSU system is also cracking down on its students. What can I do to still fight for the Palestinian people?

(V) & (Z) answer: You are entirely right that both the government and university administrations are coming down hard on protesters, and that participating in such demonstrations carries the risk of suspension, expulsion and possibly arrest.

Normally, our first suggestion would be the written word. Try to write op-eds, start a blog, etc. to get your message out there. But even that isn't safe right now, as it very much appears that an op-ed is what set the Trump administration attack dogs on Rumeysa Ozturk.

That means, as much as we don't like it, we only have two suggestions. The first is to use any money you have available to support the cause(s) you care about—say, donating to Doctors without Borders, who are sending aid and medical assistance to Gaza. Or to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which is obviously more focused on protest.

Beyond that, our suggestion is to bide your time. We believe that eventually, the dam will burst, and there will be so much resistance the Trump administration cannot plausibly target it all (or even a small percentage of it).

Note that all of his holds double, or maybe triple, for someone who is Muslim and/or brown-skinned. Those are the people the Trump administration likes to target because those are the people that his base hates.

---

C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I think provisions (4) and (5) of Donald Trump's election integrity XO are the most worrisome. I can see Trump's lackeys "investigating" the 2026 elections and finding that in most places Republicans actually "won" because of "election fraud." If Congress goes along with it, they will only seat the people Trump's regime says won. It feels like we are very much on the verge of a true dictatorship where nobody has to vote anymore, as Trump promised the Christians. Am I missing something? If the special elections in Florida go for the Democrats, do you think he might use this XO to practice how to seat the "real" winners?

(V) & (Z) answer: Certifying the winners of state-level elections is entirely the privilege of the states, and the feds have nothing to do with it. Once Florida, or any other state, says that [CANDIDATE X] has been elected to Congress, then it's up to the chamber to which that person has been elected to review and accept their credentials.

Any attempts to derail that process for the Florida elections would run into two huge problems. First, if Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), or Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), or anyone else refuses to play the role they're supposed to play, they would be openly subverting a democratic election. We doubt that Americans would stand for that. Even Trump's base might look askance, since the shenanigans would not be coming directly from Trump, nor would they be for his direct benefit.

The second problem is that there would be lawsuits, and the defendant in those lawsuits would lose. DeSantis does not have the power to cancel election outcomes just 'cause. And Congress can only reject someone's credentials if that person does not meet the constitutional requirements to serve (e.g., they are not the minimum required age).

All of this also applies to any future elections; just swap out DeSantis' name for that of the governor of whatever state the election is taking place in.

Politics

J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: In your opinion, what is the tipping point where Trumpusk has so violated the Constitution that it is now in abrogation, and it is time for a peaceful revolution, à la Filipino People Power?

(V) & (Z) answer: That point arrives once you believe the Constitution is so broken, the system can no longer self-correct. Thus far, the American system has weathered many crises, and managed to bounce back every time. But every government falls eventually, and if a person believes that the U.S. government has effectively fallen (as, say, the German government did in 1934-35), then that's when it's time to talk revolution.

---

M.H. in Melbourne, VIC, Australia, asks: If I were living in the U.S. at the moment, and I was in a reliably blue state such as California, and if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen, I would want to leave the U.S. and become a separate nation with a rational and decent government.

I understand that secession is considered completely beyond the pale in the US for both pragmatic and cultural reasons and that constitutionally it's next to unachievable. However, we live in an era where the previously inconceivable is in our newsfeeds every day and in the Trump era, the law and the Constitution seem to be transforming into whatever one wants them to be. At what point, if any, might the exit of one or more states from the republic become an option for serious discussion?

(V) & (Z) answer: Our answer here is pretty much the same as for the previous question. As Abraham Lincoln recognized well, a democracy cannot survive if people cannot or will not accept the outcomes of elections in which their side was the loser. If a big chunk of the country can leave because one election did not go their way, then eventually, probably pretty soon thereafter, another chunk will leave, and then another, and then another. If California was to leave on the basis that it could no longe abide being governed by the Trump administration, then eventually the non-coastal parts of California (which are quite red) will demand to secede because they can no longer abide being governed by Gavin Newsom (or whatever Democrat succeeds him).

So, the time for succession is when the Constitution has failed, and the republic cannot survive under its current system. At that point, multiple new countries with new governing documents will likely need to be formed.

Civics

B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: Suppose Russia decided to invade the United States the old-fashioned way—soldiers, tanks, airplanes, etc.—with the goal of taking control of the country and making Trump and Musk the puppet governors.

Could Trump, as commander-in-chief, order the U.S. military to stand down and allow it?

(V) & (Z) answer: What you are asking, in the end, is: "Can the president order the U.S. armed forces to surrender?" And the answer, of course, is that yes, he can do so.

That said, if the armed forces deem the surrender, and the resulting puppet government, to be illegitimate, many of them might choose not to honor it (and, necessarily, not to take any further orders from Trump). This is exactly what happened with the French armed forces in 1940, after their national government fell to the Nazis.

---

J.M. in Portland, OR, asks: Can you give us some perspective on executive orders, their use, and their history? How long have they been around? How did they become a thing? It's clear that Trump is abusing them like no one before him, but can you give us a numerical comparison?

(V) & (Z) answer: An executive order is just instructions to the executive bureaucracy as to how the president wants them to do their jobs. Every president needs to give such instructions, and so every president has issued executive orders. That said, when the government was much smaller and much less complex, and when it was largely possible for the president to speak to most officials face-to-face, there were many fewer executive orders. For example, George Washington only averaged one per year while he was in office.

The system got a little more formal, with orders being given distinct numbers, under Abraham Lincoln. Executive Order No. 1 had to do with arresting political dissidents (and, by extension, suspending the writ of habeas corpus).

The real "revolution" in XOs, if we might call it that, started with Franklin D. Roosevelt, who got creative about what might be accomplished in the process of telling executive employees how to do their jobs. For example, the interment of the Japanese during World War II was done via executive order (specifically, Executive Order 9066). Since that time, both Republican and Democratic presidents have explored the outer boundaries of XO power (albeit some have pushed the limits a lot more than others).

On the whole, the number of XOs is not generally instructive, it's the content. For example, in his first term, Donald Trump issued 100 fewer XOs than Jimmy Carter did during his 4 years in office (220 to 320), but Trump's were far more radical. That said, Trump has been issuing XOs at a blistering pace during his current term (107 so far). If he keeps that up, he'll leave every president but FDR (3,721 XOs) and maybe Woodrow Wilson (1,803 XOs) in the dust. However, since the output of XOs tends to be frontloaded, especially these days, Trump probably won't keep up this pace.

---

C.H. in West Linn, OR, asks: With all the talk of Social Security and the options to deal with it, we never hear about eliminating the earnings cap, currently at $176,100. If we eliminated the earnings cap, we could probably reduce the tax percentage a majority of people pay and collect the same or possibly more money. Seems like a win-win. Why is this never presented as an option?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not sure what sites you're reading, but we see discussions of lifting the earnings cap all the time. The plan that is most commonly put forth is to keep the current cap, along with the usual annual increases, but to ALSO tax income over $400,000. That $400,000 would stay the same in future years, while the earnings cap would keep going up, until the two numbers eventually met. This would be a way of keeping people who are high-but-not-THAT-high earners from taking too big a hit all at once.

It is estimated by the CBO that if the above plan were to be implemented, it would add an additional $1 trillion to the Social Security trust fund over the first 10 years. However, the people who dislike the idea of the upper-middle class and the wealthy paying more into the system have enough influence that Congress has never come especially close to acting on this idea.

---

D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: If wages had kept pace with inflation, then presumably the amount of money flowing into Social Security would also have increased. Would that alone have been sufficient to keep the program going for a lot longer? This feels like a way to rally majority support for a higher minimum wage.

(V) & (Z) answer: This would not have balanced the books, at least, not by itself. The main problem is that the program was set up based on an assumption of population growth at a consistent rate. However, shortly after it kicked in, there was a really big generation followed by two smaller ones. So, the pyramid is now misshapen, and too few people are paying in relative to how many people are getting payments out.

Also, there's already majority support for a higher minimum wage. The problem is that the minority that opposes it has undue power and, in particular, undue influence over the members of Congress (not all of them, but many).

---

J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: I've often heard that requiring proof of citizenship or ID to vote would disenfranchise minority voters. The thing I've never been able to understand is: How? Every job I've ever worked since I was 15 (including minimum-wage jobs) required me to provide two forms of ID (one of which has a photo). How does requiring a single photo ID disenfranchise people?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, there are plenty of ways to be employed without photo ID. A person could be employed under the table, or they could be self-employed as a contractor or a business owner.

Second, even if a person had ID, or a birth certificate, or a social security card, or whatever was required at time of employment, it doesn't mean they have those things at hand right now. Paperwork that a person only needs once every few years, or maybe once every decade, tends to get misplaced.

These things being the case, many of the voting laws require many people to get birth certificates or other documents they don't currently have. It generally takes time and/or money to get those documents, and it gets harder if a person lives in a poor part of town (fewer DMV offices, less access to halls of records), or if they live in a different state/country than the one in which they were born. While some minority voters can certainly fulfill the demands imposed by Republicans' voting laws, and while some white voters cannot, in the aggregate, these policies place the largest burden on people who are poor, immigrant, and/or minority. Those groups, of course, skew Democratic.

There are also additional requirements that are designed to fine-tune the voter suppression. For example, some states require people to have ID that matches the name on their voter registration. This is going to weigh most heavily on women (who are far more likely than men to change their names when marrying) and trans people (who generally change their names after coming out). Both of those groups skew Democratic. There are also states that do not accept, or are about to stop accepting, student ID as a valid form of ID. Students also skew Democratic.

---

D.D. in Carversville, PA, asks: My belief is that the two things that have created the intense polarization that has led us to this moment are gerrymandering and the primary system. The fight against gerrymandering is ongoing, state-by-state. Regarding primaries, we've seen that ranked choice elections produce (hopefully) better candidates and results. One of the parties has no interest in implementing ranked choice voting. However, is it possible for Democrats to implement ranked choice voting solely in their primaries? Does it depend on state election laws or the state Democratic party? Do you think it might provide more electable candidates for the general, especially if the other party doesn't adopt ranked choice voting in its primaries?

(V) & (Z) answer: In some states, and some elections, the Democrats (and the Republicans) run their own primaries. In other states, and other elections, the Democrats (and the Republicans) let the state or municipal government do the job. In the latter case, the Democrats (and the Republicans) have no say in what style of voting is used. In the former case, the Democrats (and the Republicans) can do whatever they damn well please. Indeed, caucuses are a version of ranked choice voting because if no candidate has a majority on round 1, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his or her voters have to find a new home. This is repeated until someone has a majority.

---

D.M.C. in Seoul, South Korea, asks: Last week, you wrote: "If you load up the blog one day and learn that (Z) was unable to complete that day's work by virtue of being in jail, it will almost certainly because he punched an ICE agent who illegally entered his classroom. Or, possibly, a snitch." In case any of us ever need to know, could you explain the laws surrounding classroom entry, and specifically how this would be illegal?

(V) & (Z) answer: Professors' offices are private spaces. So too are classrooms as soon as the lecture/class meeting has begun. And so, ICE can only enter a professor's office, or a class that is in session, with permission from the professor/university or with a valid warrant.

History

S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: I was invited to a meeting of the South Bay Progressive Alliance last week to give a presentation on ranked choice voting (RCV). One of the audience members asked me how the election of 1860 would have turned out had RCV been used. I said that would depend on how supporters of each candidate would have ranked the other candidates and we don't have that data. We might be able to guess based on how the the positions of the candidates aligned with each other, but it would take a historian to do that. I told them that I'm not a historian, but I happen to know one, and as this period is his specialty, I'll ask him.

All I know about that election is what I read in Wikipedia. That article says things like "unionist popular votes were scattered among Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, and John Bell," so presumably their respective voters would have ranked the other two before John C. Breckenridge, but I don't know in what order.

For example, according to the Wikipedia article, in California, Abraham Lincoln got 32.31% of the vote, Douglas 31.72%, Breckinridge 28.34%, and Bell 7.62%. If the Bell voters all preferred Douglas over Lincoln, then in the second round we'd have Douglas with 39.34% of the vote, Lincoln 32.31%, and Breckinridge 28.34%. I don't know if the Breckinridge voters would have bothered ranking a second choice, or if they would have decided that, between Douglas and Lincoln, Douglas was the lesser "evil." Either way, Douglas would have won California.

I have to do similar analyses for Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia, where the person with the most votes did not have a majority. I'm not sure what to do about New Jersey, where voters voted for individual electors and the top 7 vote-getters (who happened to support different candidates) won.

Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

(V) & (Z) answer: Abraham Lincoln, the Republican, was the candidate of a variety of people, including those who felt the South had gone too far and needed to be reined in, those who wanted to see slavery outlawed immediately, farmers who wanted free land and businesses who wanted a transcontinental railroad. He did not appear on the ballot in most Southern states.

Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat, ran on the basic platform that the needs of the industrial North and the slaveholding South could still be balanced, and that war was not necessary.

John C. Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat, ran on a very similar platform to Douglas', but was known to be rather less interested in accommodating the needs of the North, and rather more open to the idea that a civil war might have to happen.

John Bell, the candidate of the one-election-only Constitutional Union Party, was someting of a head-in-the-sand candidate. His platform was just 212 words long, and boiled down to "I'll keep the union together." He did not explain how he intended to do that, however. Probably he kept his peace plan in the same drawer that holds Donald Trump's plan to replace Obamacare. And Trump's peace plan for Israel. And Trump's peace plan for Ukraine. And Trump's plan to reduce the cost of eggs.

You might be tempted to assume that, in a ranked-choice election, the Douglas voters would rank Breckinridge pretty high on their ballots, and the Breckinridge voters would rank Douglas pretty high on THEIR ballots, because of the similar platforms. That is almost certainly not true, however, as there was a huge blow-up at the (original) Democratic convention in 1860, leading to each faction storming out and holding its own convention. In other words, the dispute became personal. If any Douglas/Breckinridge voters had ranked more than one candidate, they mostly would have put Bell #2 and would have been done with it. Similarly, Bell is likely the only person who would have appeared on Lincoln ballots.

As to the states where Bell lost, well, it's likely that his voters would have split about evenly between Lincoln in second place, Douglas in second place, and nobody in second place.

All of this said, the question is not so tricky as it might seem. Lincoln won an outright majority in all but three states where he earned electoral votes—California, Oregon, and New Jersey. Surely, he would have kept the EVs of all the states where he took a majority, even in an RCV election. If so, you can take away all of the EVs he got from states where he did NOT claim a majority (again, California, Oregon, and New Jersey), and he still ends up with 170 EVs in an election where it took 152 to win the presidency.

In short, even with RCV, Lincoln would have won the Election of 1860 by a comfortable margin. Douglas would probably have poached California from Lincoln, Breckinridge would probably have poached Oregon from him, and Bell would probably have taken Missouri from Douglas. Those are really the only plausible flips, outside of a little movement among New Jersey's EVs.

---

F.L. in Allen, TX, asks: Some time ago, I wrote to ask about taxes. Specifically, how did the U.S. Treasury raise revenue without income tax, which came about in 1913 with the Sixteenth Amendment. If memory serves, you said the government was run almost entirely on tariffs and excise taxes.

Considering current events, one must wonder: How did we manage to build a great nation with just those sources of revenue?

(V) & (Z) answer: The three biggest outlays of the federal government today, by far, are defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The latter two expenses did not exist before the Sixteenth Amendment, while the military establishment was usually tiny, as compared to today. When the Civil War began, there were fewer than 10,000 professional soldiers in the U.S., and no expensive foreign bases, supersonic jets, nuclear silos, communications satellites, etc. to maintain.

On those occasions where the financial needs of the government dramatically expanded, it would add additional sources of revenue. For example, to pay the bills during the Civil War, the government borrowed money, printed paper money, and imposed an income tax. The paper money and the income tax largely went away, at least for a while, once the war was over.

Today, the U.S. could certainly try to get by on the same sort of shoestring budget as in the past. As late as 1940, the entire federal budget was just $3 billion (about $70 billion, adjusted for inflation). However, that would mean abandoning virtually all functions that involve trying to take care of the American people, and saying "You're on your own." It would mean little or no border enforcement. It would mean few federal courts. It would mean virtually no defense establishment, which would be the end of the U.S. as a world power, and would also be an invitation to China to take Taiwan or whatever else they want in Asia, and Russia to take the Balkans or whatever else they want in Europe.

---

M.J. in Birmingham, AL, asks: Given that Donald Trump's long-promised-but-repeatedly-delayed tariffs and trade war look like they might actually, for real this time, come to be next week, I've spent much of the past few days reading up on how America's taxation and trade policies have evolved over the years. In the process, I noted something that genuinely surprised and fascinated me: That of all the states to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, my home State of Alabama was the very first to do so. Not only that, but Alabama was evidently so excited to ratify it that it beat the second state to do so to the punch by nearly 6 months. I know that the past is a different country, but it's still hard for me to imagine my home state ever being excited to see a (not inherently regressive) tax implemented.

I'd be thrilled to hear if you have any insight into why my home state would be so especially eager to see a national income tax implemented? Also, if I may sneak a second question into one submission, could you recommend any books on the history of how the Sixteenth Amendment came to be, and who its major pre-ratification proponents and detractors were? Getting surprised by my own state's stance on the Amendment has left me even more curious about the politics and history behind how it came to be.

(V) & (Z) answer: As you allude to, the platforms of the two major parties 100+ years ago do not align with the modern platforms. Not only did the two basically switch polarities (with the Democrats going from being the more conservative to the more liberal party, and the Republicans going the other way), but the individual issues did not line up the same way they do today. For example, the pro-immigrant party and the pro-Black people party were not the same party back then, the way they are today. On top of that, there were issues that mattered a lot back then that are not important today, and there are issues that matter a lot today that were unheard of back then.

All of this is to say: Don't assume that Alabamians were fiscally conservative back then, because they were not. What many voters in that state were (and still are) is populist. As Southerners, they preferred an income tax to tariffs because they believed that tariffs weighed more heavily on agricultural states than on industrial states, and also that they affected poor people more than wealthier people. The graduated income tax was seen as a solution to both problems.

While you are right that Alabama moved first, and well before any other state, this is at least partly an illusion. Congress approved the Sixteenth Amendment on July 12, 1909. Many state legislatures back then, particularly in the South, met for only a few weeks a year. Some of them still use that approach. So, the Alabama legislature happened to be in session when the Amendment passed; many other legislatures were not, and would not be again until after the harvest season (fall) and the bad-weather-hard-to-travel season (winter).

And there aren't too many good books about this subject, largely because the market has been flooded with anti-tax screeds from conservative/libertarian fanatics. But there is one recommendation we can make: The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson--The Fierce Battles over Money and Power That Transformed the Nation (2002), by Steven R. Weisman. He's a former NYT writer and current think tanker, and he knows his stuff.

---

R.H. in San Antonio, TX, asks: I once asked you for your best guess on whether Donald Trump will be mentioned in U.S. History 101 college classes in 200 years (assuming there will be U.S. History 101 classes in 200 years).

As I recall, you answered that it seems unlikely, unless he does manage to overthrow American Democracy.

Has your opinion on that changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: The reason it was unlikely is that real estate, for lack of a better term, is very precious in a U.S. survey course. It's too much to try to cover every twist and turn in the road.

At this point, however, it's clear that Trump isn't just a twist in the road. Trumpism has gripped the U.S., to a greater or lesser extent, for 10 years now. And it's also an expression of a global phenomenon, as well. So, yes, he will be covered in future survey courses.

Fun Stuff

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Fun questions? OK, what games are you playing?

(V) & (Z) answer: (V) is not much of a gamer, so (Z) is going to have to handle this one. Presumably, you mean video games. If so, the game at the top of (Z)'s playlist right now is actually close to 10 years old, though it's sold 41 million copies and is still going strong. At a glance, you might think it was a glorified version of Farmville, but it's really more like a throwback to the original Zelda games, except with an open world and non-linear storyline. It's called Stardew Valley.

(Z) is also a big fan of the Civilization games, and so has bought and downloaded the newest title in the series, which came out roughly a month ago. But he's only played for 30 or so minutes, for three reasons: (1) It usually takes a while to really warm up to a new Civ release; (2) They've really mixed things up in this one in some hard-to-adapt-to ways; and (3) Firaxis rushed the game, such that it's buggy and crashes a lot. So, (Z) will wait until the summer, by which time there should be several patches.

If you meant board games, the board game (Z) is playing most right now is Codenames, thanks to the very good app that CGE put together.

---

S.S. in Carmel, IN, asks: Do either of you listen to classical music? If so who are your favorite composers?

(V) answers: I don't listen to a lot of classical music, but my favorite piece is "The Four Seasons" by Antonio Vivaldi. Runner up is "Night on Bald Mountain" by Modest Mussorgsky.

(Z) answers: I don't have a lot of interest in anything produced after George Gershwin died and, in particular, found a Philip Glass concert to be a very unpleasant experience. However, anything from the medieval era to 1935 or so is generally agreeable (with a few exceptions, like Richard Wagner), and I regularly do the blog while listening to one of the dozens of classical mixes available on YouTube. My very favorite is Edvard Grieg.

Gallimaufry

G.A. in Frankfurt, Germany, asks: I have a technical question regarding your site. Both my father and I are longtime readers of Electoral-Vote.com. I've noticed that when I go to visit him and am logged in on the home wifi, www.electoral-vote.com sometimes cannot be found, even though the Internet is working as expected for all other sites. If I then switch to mobile data, electoral-vote.com loads fine, and I also have not had the issue on any other networks. This same phenomenon occurs regardless of browser or device, but only on that one home network. Is there a router setting I can change to fix this, or do you have any other ideas to investigate?

(V) & (Z) answer: Without being able to investigate, it's hard for us to be too specific. However, the problem here is clearly a name server that either doesn't have our DNS record, or is blocking it for some reason. You can override the default name server at both the level of the computer and of the router, but the procedure for doing so depends on what computer/OS you have, or what kind of router you have.

---

J.M in Goshen, IN, asks: When the Democratic primary candidates series ends, will there be one for the Republicans as well?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. Whether it will follow immediately, however, we do not know. We're not sure we have quite as clear a sense of what the Republican bench looks like.

Reader Question of the Week: I'm a Doctor, Not a President

Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:

C.C. in St Paul, MN, asks: Which Star Trek character would have your vote for U.S. president and why (ignoring the fact they wouldn't meet the constitutional requirements)?

And here some of the answers we got in response, along with our answer, because several readers asked us to provide it:

(V) & (Z): Commander Deanna Troi. Not only is she a skilled diplomat and someone who is very level-headed in a time of crisis (see the occasion where she unexpectedly awakened as a Romulan), she can literally read other people's minds. Is there any greater advantage for a political leader to have than that one? Although we must admit we do not understand how she EVER lost at poker.

Plus, Will Riker would make an excellent First Gentleman.

---

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA: I would vote for a ticket of The Doctor and Miles O'Brien.

The Doctor arguably had the most personal growth on his arc—from an emergency computer program to a full-fledged member of the crew and personality. Some humility is sorely needed; having someone who does not view the presidency as the pinnacle of their career but rather an opportunity to grow himself. Additionally, an experienced medical doctor could repair any damage being done to our healthcare by the current administration. He also has experience being the President of Earth. Drawback: Being hacked by Russia, DOGE boys, etc.

Chief O'Brien, the most important man in Starfleet, would balance the ticket (getting those white, working class voters). A family man, war veteran, able to interact with high-up officers and regular crew, and a true problem solver. Any infrastructure funding passed would likely end up with him showing up at the worksite doing repairs himself. Drawback: Wife being hacked by aliens.

---

D.P. in Sunnyvale, CA: I think the obvious choice is Pavel Chekov. He eventually becomes President of the Federation, and therefore is the only main character that has previous experience as a head of state.

---

M.E. in Greenbelt, MD: A fascinating question! For me, the logical answer is Spock. He is accomplished in science and technology, leadership, military matters and diplomacy. He literally plays 3-D chess. Spock lives and "dies" by the maxim that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Emotions are not part of his decision making. What more could you ask for?

One might be tempted to choose Data. However, how could anyone be certain Data is the president and not Lore?

---

F.H. in Ithaca, NY: Spock. It's eminently logical.

---

P.N. in Austin, TX: I'll vote for Harry Kim... He deserves the promotion.

---

S.J.M. in Austin, TX: Being a hard core Trekker, it took some time to come up with a final selection. The Christopher Pike from Strange New Worlds would be my choice. He knows what the future has in store for him but chose not to change it to protect others.

---

M.R. in Cranford, NJ: Scotty gets my vote. Undoing all the damage this administration is doing will take a miracle worker!

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA: I've been considering Jonathan Archer and Benjamin Sisko. Both dealt with sticky diplomatic situations, but I'm going with Archer for the following reasons.

• He had the foresight to include a Vulcan (T'Pol) as his first officer on the maiden voyage of the first Earth ship to go into (what was then) deep space. He recognized that the future of space travel would be pluralistic and that an all-human crew (other than Denobulan Doctor Phlox) wasn't going to cut it. (Does that make T'Pol a DEI hire?)
  
  
• He successfully brokered a peace between the aggressive Andorians and the emotionally-unstable-but-logical Vulcans.
  
  
• He also learned how to work with the boorish (and boarish) Tellarites.
  
  
• He is credited with being a founder of the Federation, bringing together Humans, Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites to create the greatest amalgamation of species in galactic history.

Enterprise has been the forgotten stepchild of the Star Trek universe. It's about time Captain Archer gets his due!

---

D.E. in Atlanta, GA : If you want an American, I would go with Commander Chakotay. I know that's out of left field, but anyone that can engage in diplomacy with sentient dinosaurs can probably handle the presidency.

---

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: I would eagerly vote for Captain Kathryn Janeway. Captain of the Starfleet starship USS Voyager. She has all the skills necessary to be an excellent president. Able to lead a diverse group, often in difficult situations and under intense pressure. And just as capable at navigating domestic politics and foreign negotiations. She has shown her wisdom, determination, and patience many times over the years. I didn't pick her because she's a woman, but that is certainly a bonus. I'd like to show the world that Americans aren't stuck in the 1950s and would overwhelmingly support such an exceptionally qualified candidate. Hopefully, long before the 2370s! Even if her opponent is the leader of the cult-like Borg with their pro-authoritarian slogan "Make America Great"... er, "Resistance is Futile."

---

M.M.W. in Kensington, MD: Kira Nerys, because she's seen the damage that can be done to a society by corrupt and power-hungry leaders like Kai Winn and by ineffectual squabbling bureaucrats in the post-occupation provisional government, and she knows exactly what to do with collaborators...

---

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: The hands down answer would have to be James Tiberius Kirk. He was born in Riverside, IA, so I think he would be constitutionally eligible to be elected as a citizen of the United States of America, Planet Earth, Federation of Planets.

Kirk has been variously described as "a hard-driving leader who pushes himself and his crew beyond human limits," "cunning, courageous and confident," someone who has a "tendency to ignore Starfleet regulations when he feels the end justifies the means," and "the quintessential officer, a man among men and a hero for the ages."

Democratic voters would love him and vote for him because of the traits described in the preceding paragraph, but Republicans would vote for him, too, because of his reputation as a womanizer, and the fact than when push came to shove whenever he was "confronted with a choice between a woman and the Enterprise, 'his ship always won.'"

He would, no doubt, solidify his winning percentage somewhere in the 90s by marrying Nyota Uhura.

---

J.N. in Summit, NJ: Quark, to show what an actual successful businessman looks like. He is somewhat honesty-challenged of course, but at least he has a soul and SOME morality.

---

M.S.L. in Wichita Falls, TX: Rom would be my choice for U.S. president (assuming that constitutional qualifications would be eliminated, as he is, of course, a Ferengi). He was generally featured as Quark's younger brother, but he eventually became the Grand Nagus of the Ferengi Alliance.

Rom was a single parent and had a good relationship with his son Nog, and even encouraged Nog's entrance into Starfleet. He also had a full range of employment experience. He was a failure as a businessman, but was a mechanical and engineering genius (inventor of the self-replicating mines that prevented the Dominion from overrunning the Federation), and also worked at a number of menial jobs on Deep Space 9 for low pay before his engineering genius became evident. He was also a union organizer, starting the Guild of Restaurant and Casino Employees in response to working conditions in his brother's bar/casino.

As Grand Nagus of the Ferengi, Rom signed the original contract to start the process for the Ferengi to join the Federation, showing his diplomatic chops. He was also known as a kinder, gentler Ferengi, banning the sale of weapons and placing a greater emphasis on equality and hospitality, feeling that they would be more profitable in the long run.

---

D.R. in Chicago, IL: The headline suggests that our nominees for President should be a doctor. With that in mind, I suggest two: Dr. Beverly Crusher and Dr. Phlox.

Dr. Crusher eventually became a captain in her own right, and her character was well adapted to making executive decisions in a crisis.

Dr. Phlox is a Denobulan who is on the Enterprise as part of an interplanetary exchange program. While both doctors are tasked with addressing complex interspecies diseases, Dr. Phlox exhibits a very creative "outside the box" approach to problems which would be well adapted to the challenges of the presidency.

A bonus footnote: In one Next Generation episode, Will Riker mentions having grown up in Alaska and refers to climbing Mt. McKinley. That saddens me, because it suggests that TCF's renaming of Denali continued well into the future.

---

C.S. in Waynesboro, PA: This is the kind of question my friends and I waste too much time on. So, I'm fully prepared to answer.

Every time this comes up, I go with Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

I know, kind of an obvious, easy to give answer, but it's the correct one in my opinion.

He's calm (unless dealing with the Borg), thoughtful, intelligent and diplomatic. He's also not afraid to fight, when necessary. And he's open to listening to opinions and options before taking action, when there's time to do so. This shows he'd probably work well getting things through a contentious Congress.

I mean, come on, anyone who's taken on Q, the Borg AND Lwaxana Troi, and all of them multiple times, is certainly someone deserving of working in the Oval Office!

---

T.B. in Durham, NC: Let me be the first to nominate Abraham Lincoln to be U.S. President number 48. In his time on Star Trek, he had the benefit of encountering alien and future perspectives with Vulcans like Sarek and Spock, and other aliens. He saw that humans can continue to be corrupt and dangerous in the centuries leading up to the 23rd century, and would have those memories to energize him knocking heads together here in the 21st century. Yes, he was killed with a bullet to the head in that theater, and also by a spear in the back in the 23rd century, but I'm sure some staff writer can conjure up some Dr. McCoy miracle to make him into the living, charismatic leader he has been on Earth and on Star Trek.

---

K.C in McKinleyville, CA: [Hailing frequencies open...]

After some consideration, I think Captain Hikaru Sulu would make a good President of the United States. He has good leadership and patience. For the right, he's a gun collector. For the left, he's a botanist.

And, yes, he does meet the constitutional standard: He was born in San Francisco.

---

J.W. in West Chester, PA: It has to be Elim Garak! His political wit is unmatched in the Star Trek universe. He has diplomatic connections across the galaxy (Romulan, Klingon, Bajoran, Ferengi, Trill, Terran). He certainly obscures facts and fiction like the best politicians! A self-made businessman, he ran a tailor shop in the midst of people who hated him yet he succeeded and was arguably one of the most influential people in beating the Dominion. He isn't afraid to roll up his sleeves and get the job done, even if it is messy. He would enjoy the position. It's not even close, Elim would win in an electoral landslide and may even pitch a shutout.

---

M.S. in Hamden, CT: So many options. I assume most votes will go to the captains and other powerful folks. But that's dangerous since we don't know their politics. We've already had at least two cowboy presidents (Reagan, Bush II); Why go for a third (Kirk)? Then there are the rational technocrats (Spock, Data), who would certainly be fine, but let's save them for the cabinet. So, I'll go with Nyota Uhura. She has the most heart and was constantly underrated, good traits to bet on.

Although it wasn't asked, I'd say the current administration is a cross between the Borg (trying to assimilate Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal) and Quark (always looking for the profit).

---

C.B. in Hamden, CT: This one's obvious: Benjamin Sisko. You don't want a military type person-of-action or a scientist/engineer, you want someone whose skills and experience are political. And if he happens to be an Emissary from the gods, so much the better.

---

D.S. in Bath, ME: Q.

Who would not want a god as President? All-powerful and all-knowing, not bound by any laws, including those of space and time. Q could truly MUGA (Make the Universe Great Again). And doesn't Elon look and act like someone from the Q Continuum?

---

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK: My pick for Star Trek character to become President would be Guinan. She's empathic, compassionate, and very good at listening, but not afraid to use her power when needed (e.g., her standing up to the mercurial and unpredictable Q—does he remind you of anyone at that point in his storyline?). She understands loss, she's been a refugee and is thankful for sanctuary, she's totally capable of prompting other people to make good decisions, and she can keep secrets where necessary (no documents stored in the sonic shower!). And, undeniably, she's also bad-ass.

It also helps that I adore Whoopi Goldberg as well: She's not always correct but she's capable of recognizing her mistakes and growing from them and could make a decent president in her own right—even without political experience, she's Warp Factor 9 to TCF's (knee-jerk) impulse speed.

---

P.C. in Vero Beach, FL: The obvious answer is Harcourt Fenton Mudd, because he is already our president!

Here is the question for next week:

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: There have been significant, jarring political events throughout history that were infamous enough to earn derogatory names that make for excellent multiple choice questions on pop quizzes in history classes across the nation.

The Night of the Long Knives. The Saturday Night Massacre. The Admiral's Revolt. The Teapot Dome Scandal. Pizzagate. (Some of those are far more infamous than others, of course.)

What do you think this period of destroying the world order that has kept relative peace for 80 years and the systematic scrapping of the social safety net programs of the New Deal and the Great Society should be called?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Idiocracy"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger