Legal, Observations, Prediction

What to expect for the 2020 election?

On July 30, President Donald Trump recommended delaying the national presidential election due to the COVID-19 pandemic until citizens would be able to vote “properly, securely, and safely.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly confirmed that the election will occur on November 3 and that the power to delay elections is a legislative power.

Given the current pollical climate and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, November 3, 2020 will not proceed as smoothly as it did in 2016 or 2012. What follows is my analysis of the challenges, threats, and opportunities of the 2020 presidential election.

What would happen if Congress delays the election?

If Congress were to delay the election far enough that the results could not be certified by January 6, the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will still end on January 20. This date cannot be changed, as it would require a Constitutional amendment. If the election has not been certified by the 6th, a few others may be eligible to step in as interim (including Nancy Pelosi).

If the election were delayed a few days, but all necessary parties are able to certify the results by January 6, then a delay may become feasible. Provided, that the United States has a president ready to take over on January 20, any election delay will not disrupt the political system.

What about a universal mail-in ballot option?

34 states already allow absentee voting without providing a reason and there is bipartisan support for an expansion of absentee voting nationwide due to COVID. Practically, absentee voting without excuse (or using COVID as an excuse) is the same as a universal option for mail-in voting. Some states plan to go farther by proactively sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters.

Critics contend that voting-by-mail is more susceptible to voting fraud. There is little reason to believe mail-in votes are more likely to be fraudulent. By example, the Heritage Foundation found only 14 cases of attempted mail fraud out of roughly 15.5 million ballots cast in Oregon since that state started conducting elections by mail in 1998.

Why not conduct voting online?

This is not a good idea. I cannot stress this enough. Unlike voting by mail, online voting loses the physical record and is rife with cybersecurity concerns. Because I don’t have credibility on the software development process, I’ll leave this one to the experts:

Via XKCD
Tom Scott explains the concerns well. Highly recommend his channel.

Is normal, in-person voting possible?

Absolutely. Many Americans will vote in person this November. However, voting “normally” might not be as easy as it has been in past elections. In April, the state of Wisconsin ran state elections during the COVID pandemic. Milwaukee, which normally hosts 180 polling locations, had only five open during the election. Polling locations were limited due to a limited number of available workers and locations suited to social distancing. As a result, voter turnout depressed.

So what do I think should happen?

The President’s term will end January 20. That date will not, and should not, change. Congress must certify the results of the election on January 6, I would not change that date either to account for any legal or procedural challenges to the results. Congress should extend the voting window past November 3 for remote voting with a law that supersedes state election laws. States should be given the mandate to keep voting booths open from 8am-8pm minimum, and not close until all who arrived had the chance to vote in a socially-distanced atmosphere (even if that requires keeping polling locations open into the 4th). Additionally, polling locations should reserve a portion of booths for appointment-only voting for those who are in high-risk populations for COVID-19. Those that make it to a pooling location but are unable to vote at the time due to COVID fears or a need to leave before a location is ready, should be given a ballot that can be sent by mail until the 5th.

All states should be required to provide a universal mail-in ballot option. If absentee voting receives bi-partisan support, voting by mail should as well. I doubt that 2020 will set a record for high voter turnout as a percentage of the available population; federal and state governments must making voting as easy and safe as possible.

The key to this approach is to retain as much of the physical voting record as possible. The obvious risk to allowing a longer window for mail-in and in-person voting is that polling stations will receive duplicate ballots. The Federal Government should allocate the funds and resources necessary to allow states to identify and process duplicate ballots correctly. This would be a wise use of funding. States should not be allowed to disclose any results until a pre-determined date when all ballots have been submitted.

Legal, Observations

What Firemen and the Military Get Right

A building is burning; inside an elderly couple is struggling to survive. A group of firefighters arrive on scene. Seeing the fire, they decide the elderly couple are likely to die and drive away.

The United States is on the precipice of war, the military is on alert and readies all troops, aircraft, and ships. Before the enemy can attack, the entire US military evacuates to allied nations. The US is bombed and US citizens pay the price.

Both scenarios are unbelievable. The military and firemen understand that they exist to protect the citizenry. I expect that both groups would be willing to face a greater chance of dying at a chance save a US citizen. Firemen and members of the US military take place in a social contract where their lives are valued less than the lives of other US citizens. For that reason, we celebrate these civil servants; they value their lives less than they value the lives of an average citizen.

Are police civil servants? Did they sign the same contract? Obviously not, although I’m not sure how the police ended up in a different position in the societal priority stack. In contrast to the military or firemen, we value police lives higher than the lives of other US citizens. As evidence of this claim, we need only to look at rates of police deaths vs deaths caused by police in the US. In 2018, 106 police officers died on duty (an increase over the year before). In contrast, in the same year, police killed 582 people--in California alone… Nationally the police killed over 900 people. I could never point to a statistic where US firefighters killed 8 citizens with fire per one citizen saved. It’s evident that society values police lives at over an 8:1 ratio in favor of police lives.

Is that because police arrest criminals and firefighters save innocents? I hope not. If that were the case than the US should abolish the innocent until proven guilty standard. It should not be up to the court of public opinion to determine the position of a police officer compared to the life of an alleged criminal.

Is it possible that the police have only killed alleged criminals that pose an imminent existential threat to numerous, non-police citizens? Sure it is possible that it is sometimes the case, but it wouldn’t explain the death of George Floyd (see Protests for more info).

What am I advocating? I’d like to see the US reprioritize where police fit in the societal priority stack. Disarming traffic cops is not a radical proposition when compared to the expectations of firemen and our military. I am not advocating for the total removal of police or creating a government that is unable to protect its citizens. In fact, I am advocating the opposite, a police force that kills more than is killed is incapable of protecting us.