Frank’s Case Book

Given they rapidly evolving and seemingly unpredictable recall election in California, it would not be surprising if the election results are close. Ever eager to yank sympathetic courts into the election process, Democrats are already raising funds for a potential legal challenge in California. Perhaps now, before the heat of the post-election recriminations, is a good time to examine the issue of election procedures in general. There are at least three features one would expect from voting procedures. In order of priority they are: auditability, user friendliness, and rapid availability of results.

It should always be possible to recount individual original ballots. The most common way to do this, of course, is to use hand-marked paper ballots that are hand counted. While it may be possible to make such ballots easy to fill out, there will always remain the issue of ballot interpretation. On a hand-completed ballot, some people will invariably select two candidates for the same office and save for the most rabid of Florida Democrats there is no fair way to intuit which candidate the person really intended to vote for. Others will select a single candidate, but make their marks (whether by checking a box or punching a hole in a card) so lightly that frail and sometimes biased human judgment will be required to interpret the ballot.

Some jurisdictions use mechanical voting machines or touch screen computers for balloting. However, most of these systems do not provide individual vote accountability. With voting machines, votes can only be tracked down to the voting machine level. It is difficult to determine if there is tampering and if there is, all the votes for a machine must be discarded. As for touch screen computers, Salon magazine has recently suggested that it is far too easy to hack into such systems and make untraceable changes to vote totals. Even if safeguards are improved, there is no individual vote traceability to confirm a result if a question of machine security arises. One popular system uses Microsoft Access as its database and Microsoft products have never been renowned for their airtight computer security.

On the other hand, mechanical voting machines and computer touch screens can be made very user friendly. The letters can be very large and voters can be warned against and stopped from voting for more than one candidate. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in any particular vote.

Americans are an impatient people and we want are election results now. Of course, a network of touch screen computer system offers the prospect of the most rapid election returns. If security could be guaranteed, networked touch screen computer systems could provide results almost instantaneously.

The following voting system would meet all three requirements we have imposed. First, use touch screen computer systems for their user friendliness and rapid reporting ability. Second, establish a non-partisan computer security authority that would certify the general security of such systems and their networking. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, have each voting machine produce a paper version of each ballot. The paper version would have a time-tagged human readable listing of an individual’s results so that it could be verify by the voter. In addition, this paper ballot would also include a computer readable (perhaps a bar code) listing of a voter’s selections so that votes could be unambiguously recounted in a timely manner. There should never be a need for a recount, but should a recount be ordered, each iteration should produce precisely the same count each time.

Bfore there was the Democratic Leadership Council trying to steer the Democratic Party to the center after twelve years of Republican presidents, it was an era dominated by Democratic Liberals like E. J. Dionne, Jr. This sort of Democrat was at once deeply patriotic and convinced the businesses were too self interested to care much about their workers. Labor unions were a key institution protecting workers. These Liberals came from an era when it was common for a hard working middle class father with a high school education to earn enough money in a union manufacturing job to raise a family.

This era traces itself back to President Franklin Roosevelt and the ordeal of the Great Depression. For Democratic polemists, the era was a comfortable one. They knew who the good guys and bad guys were. The titans of industry and the rich in general needed to be tamed by a powerful labor movement and a federal government properly populated by popular progressives. The comfort of familiar and long-held ideas sometimes is too alluring even after they have long since lost their saliency.

This week, out of respect to Labor Day, Dionne asks, “Do not jobs matter any more?” Dionne is convinced that the ascendancy of supply-side economics has reduced concern over unemployment. After all, Dionne writes sarcastically, “Productivity is growing, which means we’re more efficient.” From a political standpoint, Dionne need not worry. The unemployment rate remains a potent political statistic. Dionne can be certain that political operatives at the White House would very much like to drive that number down as far as possible.

Unfortunately, Dionne writes with a passion and poignancy best reserved for periods of economically crushing unemployment. Of course, for everyone who cannot find a job, the lack of labor demand can mean economic hardship and be acutely disheartening. However, the current rate of 6.3% is modest by historical standards. The mean unemployment rate since the statistic was first computed in 1948 is 5.6% with a standard deviation of 1.6%. This means that about 60% of the time the unemployment rate varies somewhere between 5.0% and 7.2%. The current rate is clearly well within the norm. Moreover, the rate seems to be retreating down from a high of 6.5% during the downturn we are recovering from. Typically, economic downturns find unemployment rates reaching 8% or even higher. The recession of 2000 and its aftermath, mark the shallowest downturn since the 1950s. If 6.5% is as bad as the unemployment rate gets, the economy is doing pretty well. Looking over the pass two decades, even with occasional oscillations associated with the business cycle, there has been a steady decline in unemployment. If unemployment seems to be less of a concern, perhaps it is because it is truly becoming less of a problem.

Dionne is worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs, and implies that supply-siders do not care about such losses. After all, “worrying about manufacturing is so Old Economy.” In a global economy, low skill manufacturing jobs will migrate to low wage countries. If trade barriers are erected to dam this flow, some manufacturing jobs will be saved, though jobs in other parts of the American economy will be lost. In addition, American consumers will suffer and many third-world countries will sink further into poverty. Americans simply cannot maintain their standard of living if the economy is supported primarily by low-skill manufacturing jobs any more than Americans at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution could have rapidly increased their standard of living if the economy remained agrarian.

Dionne represents an example of the new reactionaries, wistfully longing for the economic and political era that has past, much as city workers in the industrial era might have once romanticized about bucolic rural life. If we try to return to such a lost world, future Labor Days would likely find fewer people working. We would become another Europe, suffering from double-digit unemployment, yet secure in our progressive credentials. Nonetheless, it is hard to be angry with Dionne. It is hard to begrudge Dionne’s labor illusions on Labor Day. After Labor Day, he may awake from his stupor.

In the movie The Patriot, Mel Gibson plays a veteran of the French and Indian Wars, Benjamin Martin. The movie begins in the first years of the American Revolution. The South Carolina assembly is debating whether to join the war for independence. Wearied by his war experiences, Martin pleads with the assembly to attempt reconciliation with England yet again. When reminded of King George’s transgressions, Martin snaps back, “Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Actually, a similar remark has been attributed to Byles Mather, an 18th century Loyalist from Boston, but Gibson probably delivered the line better. What is interesting is how strange to a modern American’s ears the phrase rings. How can one enjoy a democracy and suffer a tyranny at the same time?

The United States and most Western democracies have managed to sustain liberal democracies, democracies that not only permit the populace to control the government, but also restrain democratic governments from limiting personal freedoms. It is sometimes hard to imagine that it is also possible to have illiberal democracies where the people are sovereign, but the people choose to use that sovereignty to limit personal freedoms. The idea that personal liberty and democracy can be in tension with one another is the theme of Fareed Zakaria’s new book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. Americans rightly seek to promote democracies and as a John Kennedy promised “will bear any burden … to assure the survival and success of liberty.” It is incumbent upon us, especially now that we are reluctantly engaged in nation building in Iraq, to consider the consequences of the balance between democracy and freedom.

Zakaria begins by citing a question posed by American Diplomat Richard Holbrooke, “Suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists… That is the dilemma.” The question is not just theoretical. It is very likely that in some parts of the Middle East, if given a free choice, the people might very well elect to form a theocratic regime, not only hostile to American interests but eager to ignore freedoms of religion, speech, and association to enforce compliance with a certain vision of an Islamic society.

Zakaria traces the history of the notion of individual freedom to Constantine deciding in 324 to move the capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople, so the empire would be centered nearer the growing centers of trade and wealth. The pope, however, remained in Rome. The move underscored separation of religious and political authority. The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the rise of capitalism all helped expand the personal zone of privacy and autonomy at the root of personal liberty.

Zakaria makes the important observation that though democracy and liberty may be compatible and ultimately necessary compliments to one another, democracy may not always prove to be the optimum route to a liberal democracy. A number of democracies that emerged after at the end of colonization, particularly in Africa have regressed into tyrannies that respect neither the sovereignty of the people nor individual liberties. On the other hand a number of formally autocratic regimes Greece, Spain, Portugal, South Korea and have evolved to more democratic and free countries. The question is why.

Zakaria argues, as have others, that wealth is a key component to successful liberal democracies. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi followed the history of every country from 1950 to 1990. They found that per capita income is highly correlated to the longevity of democracies. In countries with a per capita income of $1500 (in current dollars) or less, a democratic government lasts only eight years. Longevity increases with per capita income. The values between $3000 and $6000 appear to define a transition range. The chances of democracy in such a country devolving to tyranny at higher levels of income are small.

The reason that some, though certainly not all, authoritarian countries have succeeded in becoming liberal democracies is that their leadership has allowed the creation of an economic infrastructure of individual autonomy, contracts and independent courts important to wealth creation and free societies. These, in turn, helped to create a middle class, jealous of their personal liberty. A virtuous cycle is created. The wealthier a country is, the less able authoritarian regimes are able to make arbitrary decisions without negative political, and perhaps more importantly, economic impact.

The one important exception to the correlation between wealth and the creation of liberal democracies occurs when the source of the wealth is dominantly a single resource commodity like oil. A country rich in oil can achieve high levels of wealthy without the necessity of creating those institutions that create a middle class and encourage liberty. “Easy money means little economic or political modernization. The unearned income relieves the government of the need to tax its people — and in return provide something to them in the form of accountability, transparency, and even representation.” Saudi Arabia is an important example of this exception.

Zakaria, however, neglects to apply his thesis to Iraq. How wealthy is Iraq? Is there a sufficiently large and educated middle class? What fraction of Iraqi income is tied to oil? A quick check with the CIA World Factbook shows a per capita income of $2400. This is at the low end for successful democracies, but is reflective of the effect of economic sanctions that have since been lifted. Surprisingly, 81% of Iraq’s GDP comes from services. This suggests the presence of a significant middle class. It is disappointing that Zakaria did not investigate the prospects for a successful Iraqi democracy more thoroughly.

Zakaria ends with some important self criticism of the United States that has become prophetic. Arguing that there is such a thing a too much democracy, he points out as an important example the proliferation of referenda and ballot initiatives in California. These initiatives have effectively hamstrung the legislature by both limiting taxes and mandating services making California less governable. The “paradox” is that initiatives and referenda were implemented to reduce the influence of big money over government. However, to pass or defeat a referendum requires money for advertising returning power and influence to those institutions that can afford to economically support initiatives and referenda. Direct democracy increases rather than decreases the influence of money in politics. Zakaria concludes that to maintain both manageable government and insure freedom, what “we need in politics today is not more democracy but less.”

Conservatives are supposed to maintain steady hands on the tiller of the ship of state, maintaining a constant bearing despite the rapidly shifting winds of public sentiment. However, they too sometimes find it easy and temporarily rewarding to float easily along on popular breezes. Rather than being so unseemly excited by the opportunity offered by the potential recall of the unpopular California Governor Gray Davis, they should be soberly assessing the long term damage such recalls can inflict.

The whole idea under girding representative democracy is the assertion that the best governance arises from the deliberation of elected representatives. Proper governance often requires the acquisition of information and the weighing of choices that require more time and effort than most people can devote. People are rightly concerned with their own occupations and caring for the needs of their families. Assent of the governed comes in periodic elections allowing the polity to pass judgment on the effectiveness of their legislators and executives.

Progressives at the beginning of the last century found their agenda stymied by the political machines that often served mostly to enrich those in power. They believed if only there was more direct democracy, their agenda could be implemented. Progressives were responsible for the amending of many state constitutions allowing for referenda so that the people could, in effect, vote for legislation directly. The referendum movement really did not have much of an impact as the political machines began to atrophy.

After 1978, much of this changed. Up until then, referenda in California were not particularly successful. At the end of the 1970s, property values in California were rapidly increasing resulting in a windfall of state revenues. Rather than decreasing rates to offset this infusion of funds, California politicians preferred to increase spending. This increased tax burden walloped homeowners whose incomes did not increase as rapidly as the value of their homes. Elderly homeowners on fixed incomes were particularly hard hit. In this environment the public was angry and, to the surprise of conventional politicians Proposition 13 to limit taxes easily passed.

Despite the salutary effect of that proposition, there was one important unintended consequence: the embrace of ballot initiatives and referenda across the country and particularly in California. Californians have now been asked to legislate on hundreds of issues. The result is the implementation of so many mandates, that the California legislature is hamstrung. According to Fareed Sakaria, 85% of the California spending has been mandated and cannot be controlled by the legislative process. The occasional referendum or ballot initiatives may serve to instill healthy constraints on political leaders, but their routine use undermines the effectiveness of representative government. In what engineers call a “positive feedback loop,” the less effective government is the more appealing simple solutions in the form of referenda appear. The ugly irony is that it would take a referendum to undue the constraints previous referenda have imposed.

Both Conservatives and Liberals have been loath to constrain the use of referenda and initiatives in California. Besides that fact that is easy to caricaturize such a position as anti-democratic, the process allows both Conservatives and Liberals to win occasional victories that would be difficult to achieve within the checks and balances of the legislative process.

Now California promises to give another such gift to the country: recall elections. There seems to be a strong consensus that Governor Davis is doing a dreadful job. Davis can only manage a miserable approval rating of 24%, according to the California Field Poll. In 2006, they will be able to select a new governor that they can hope will be more successful. They should wait until then.

There have been charges that Davis essentially sells state political positions in exchange for campaign contributions. If that can be proved, then he should be impeached. Aside from impeachable activities or some clear severe medical or emotional incapacity, waiting for the normal election cycle remains an important public discipline. The length of a normal campaign allows for a fuller vetting of potential candidates. In California, the recall system is structured such that a candidate that garners only a small plurality can become governor. Can it really be said to serve democracy for a new governor to win with possibly a vote percentage even smaller than Governor Davis’s pathetically low approval rating?

Despite the prospect of a political victory over Davis, Conservatives and Republicans ought to be less than sanguine about disrupting the normal political process and yielding to populist impulses.

This week we have a couple of issues to consider: First, we find another example of Reuters News Service treating the news as an opportunity to editorialize. Second, we learn how poorly and embarrassingly incompetent a peer-reviewed journal paper can be written and yet still be published.

It must have been exciting for Deanna Wrenn. Wren is a statehouse reporter for the Charleston Daily Mail. The Charleston Daily Mail is important in Charleston, West Virginia, but it does not enjoy the prestige of the New York Times or the Washington Post . Wrenn was reporting on the return of former POW Jessica Lynch to her home town in West Virginia after her release from Iraqi captivity and recovery in a military hospital. Wrenn was undoubtedly pleased when her story was picked up by the Reuters News Service and spread quickly around the Reuters global news network.

Wrenn originally wrote: “In this small county seat with just 995 residents, the girl everyone calls Jessi is a true heroine — even if reports vary about Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her ordeal in Iraq.” Certainly, this represents a positive view of the Jessica Lynch story, but probably accurately reports the sentiment of Lynch’s friends and neighbors in her home town.

After Reuters edited the story the words and the tone radically changed. According to Reuters: “Jessica Lynch, the wounded Army private whose ordeal in Iraq was hyped into a media fiction of US heroism, was set for an emotional homecoming on Tuesday … Media critics say the TV cameras will not show the return of an injured soldier so much as a reality-TV drama co-produced by US government propaganda and credulous reporters.” This represents such a negative spin on the story that Reuters should have run this statement as an editorial rather than as straight news.

News services edit stories all the time. For good or for ill, that is their right. What Reuters did that was particularly egregious was to keep Wrenn’s byline on the story. Wrenn’s story did not bear any significant resemblance to the story Reuters published. Wrenn was so embarrassed by the tone of the story that she asked “Reuters to remove my byline. They didn’t.”

A year ago, Reuters made it a formal policy to refrain from referring to any person as a “terrorist,” using the specious reasoning that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, as if there is no meaningful difference between a George Washington and an Osama Bin Laden. Presumably, Reuters did not believe its judgment is sufficiently discriminating to discern whether people are deliberately targeting civilians in actions that have no significant military value. If we extrapolate from Reuters actions with respect to the Wrenn story on Jessica Lynch, perhaps Reuters was correct in not trusting its own judgment

While Reuters was busy creatively editing news stories from West Virginia, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley decided to spread a little confusion as well. A study conducted by Professors Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley, John Jost of Stanford University, and Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park concluded that political conservative generally shared some common character traits. These traits include “aggression,” “intolerance,” “uncertainty avoidance,” and the “need for cognitive closure.”

To reach these conclusions, the learned professors studied conservatives from Mussolini, Hitler, to Stalin, Khruschev and Castro. There is a reasoned case made by Frederick Hayek that Nazism and Fascism fall closer in the political spectrum to statist philosophies as opposed to those in favor of more limited government. However, classifying Mussolini and Hitler as conservatives conforms to conventional, if inaccurate usage. Inexplicably, the authors also include Castro and Nikita Kruschev as conservatives. This inclusion should certainly come as a surprise to a century of Leftists who have made careers as apologists for these Communist dictators. It does certainly seem that the authors were trying to contrive their assumptions to drive their conclusions in a certain direction.

However, even allowing for all these improbable assumptions, the authors are only able to demonstrate an incredibly low correlation between persons who are political conservatives and the traits they cite. Almost none of the natural human variability in personalities can be accounted for by the conservatism of the person. For most scientists, models with such low correlation would not be considered explanatory and would be categorically dismissed. But what do they know? These professors unlike conservatives and most scientists are “tolerant of ambiguity” and not unduly constrained by the week-minded need for “cognitive closure.”