Jill Stein and Gary Johnson Are Trying to Make Donald Trump President

Ok... the title is click bait... but it is pretty close to accurate.

Here's the deal, in order to win the presidency, a candidate must get 51% of the electoral votes, i.e. 270 electoral votes.  The presidency does not go to the candidate with the most electoral votes if none get to that threshold.  The House of Representatives chooses the next president.  Let me say that one more time... in caps... so that everyone gets it. IF NO CANDIDATE GETS 270 ELECTORAL VOTES THE HOUSE DECIDES THE NEXT PRESIDENT.  They have to choose from among the top three of electoral college vote receivers but they make the decision with each state delegation getting one vote.  This has happened twice in the history of the US - 1800 & 1824.  AND FWIW, no 3rd party candidate has ever won the presidency.

Now, if you believe that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein can get 270 electoral votes... then... don't bother reading this because there is no way to get through your bubble.

If you believe that voting your conscience regardless of any possible outcomes is morally superior, again don't bother reading this because one can't reason with fundamentalists (and that simply is what you are).

Let's play out some scenarios... Here's a ridiculous one but say Gary Johnson unbelievably gets 49% of the electoral votes, Hillary gets 20%, Trump gets 25% and Jill Stein gets the last 6%... Trump likely wins.  The House won't give the presidency to a Democrat and that means they'll need to come together.  They'd never get all of their states to vote for a libertarian or a Green which leaves Trump.  Oh, and by the way, if they can't make a decision, the current Vice President acts as President... giving the office to a Democrat.

Second scenario... Hillary gets 49%, Trump gets 45% and Johnson & Stein split the additional 6... Trump wins for the above reasons.   2/3's of Stein's 3% would have given the election to HRC.  It only takes a very small percentage for the third party candidates to be spoilers while at the same time, it is virtually impossible for them to actually win.

You might say, "But the Democrats will get a majority in the House and it is safe then even if the election goes to the House." Well... maybe.  Maybe not.  Remember, it isn't the membership of the House that votes, it is the delegations and each state gets one vote.  So... if the majority of states send a Republican delegation, regardless of the overall balance of the House members, Trump wins.  There is no way that a Republican House will elect anyone from another party as president and they have shown they have neither the ability or the patience to thoughtfully compromise.  Add that while they're deliberating, Joe Biden is acting president and they will want to put Trump in as quickly as possible.

Just a fun side piece... the Senate chooses the Vice President... so they don't even have to be from the same party.

You might also say, "I live in a safe state so I can vote my conscience without worrying."  Again... maybe... maybe not.  This is a crazy election.  NPR recently had a show where they interviewed a bunch of blue collar Democrats from Monessen, PA who said they were voting for Trump even though they didn't expect he can do any of the things he is promising.  Frankly, I don't know what to expect.  Hillary could win in a landslide... or Trump might beat her outright.  Or the 3rd party spoilers might do just that and the election goes to the House and Donald Trump becomes president.  I don't know what will happen and no state feels safe to me at this point.   Voting for a third party candidate anywhere just seems too risky to me.

So here's the question... if no third party candidate has a snowball's chance in Phoenix of winning what in the world are Gary Johnson and Jill Stein doing?  They have zero influence in the two major parties regardless of how many votes they get. (The people who will have influence in the parties are the ones who do the hard work of organizing within the parties.  That is why the Tea Party was so effective in the Republican Party.)  They cannot win.  They'll never get 270 electoral votes and would never be chosen by the House as it is or will be in 2017.  In Jill Stein's case, is she just trying to punish the Democrats for not being pure enough?   Is this just some narcissistic game where they can demonstrate their purity and encourage others to do the same, damn the consequences?  Or do they really not understand how the process works?  Or are they really just plants working for Donald Trump to make him president?  Regardless of their intent, if they get enough votes, that is exactly the result of their campaigns.

And of course, this is all just the electoral college stuff... there is the closer to the bone results like Florida in 2000 where if just 30% of those who voted for Ralph Nader had voted for Gore, there would have been no questions regarding who won the state, the SCOTUS mess would never have happened and W would not have been president.  You play out the results of that.  It is more likely that a third party candidate will simply influence who wins a given state.  Remember, every state but two is winner take all in the electoral college so Johnson or Stein could receive 30% of the popular vote and get no electoral votes... but they would influence who wins the various states as per Nader in 2000.

So what does all of this add up to?  A vote for anyone other than Hillary is a vote for Trump.  He doesn't need to get a majority of the popular vote or even a majority of the electoral college to be the next president.  All he needs is to keep Hillary from getting 270 electoral votes... and Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and all those who vote for either are trying to help him accomplish just that.

What Republicans Believe

I wouldn't dare speak for conservatives so I'll refer to an article written by Jennifer Rubin in her column in the Washington Post - Right Turn.  The piece is Ten Things Republicans Believe.  I found it a very interesting read and agreed with much of it... even though the implimentation of some of the ideas would likely be very different.  For example, she says that Republicans are Pro-Israel.  I would argue that being Pro-Israel is not the same as supporting Israeli abuse of Palestinians.  Even less so, is support of Israel the same as supporting the expansion of settlements in occupied land.  Indeed, I would argue that is precisely the worst thing possible that can happen to Israel as each settlement makes a 2 state solution more difficult and a 1 state solution means either apartheid or a nation wherein the Jewish population are overwhelmed by the Palestinians.

Two differences really jumped out for me.

The first is not as explicit as it could be.  Rubin says that there is a distrust of centralized power when she really means to say that Republicans do not trust government.  The implication is that they do trust centralized industrial and economic power.  Limited regulations inevitably lead to the centralization of those two types of power and the unwritten theme is that that is just the natural course of things.  In effect, she says they do not trust government, but they do trust multinationals and big banks.  They trust institutions that have as their primary purpose in existence, a profit motive for a limited number of people and which have no basic commitment to the welfare of this nation vs. institutions that have the public good of US citizens as their primary motivation.  Frankly, that bit just makes no sense to me at all.  I understand about the failings of human nature and that they play themselves out in government agencies.  Yes, government bureaucracies screw up sometimes.  The same is true in the business world... only in businesses, without government regulations, there is no recourse and the power is unchecked. 

A second important difference is what she refers to as an "originalist theory of interpretation of the constitution."  She says that those with a different theory of interpretation "grant judges free rein to think up new rights and powers."  Again... this makes no sense to me.  One must understand the Constitution as having been written in an historical and cultural context that is not the same as the one in which we live today.  She mentions the 2nd amendment in another place.  Let's agree for argument sake that it gives the right to bear arms to all citizens (which I would not agree with under normal circumstances).  If we think of the context when "arms" = muskets, do we take it to mean today that individuals can own muskets?  That was the literal original intent if we agree to the first premise.  Or do we take it to mean than individual citizens can carry any arms that the US Army uses (which at the time was pretty much a musket)?  If the latter, then should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads?  If not, why not?  How do we translate that into today's world?  Or do we take the sentence literally and agree that it referred to State Militias, used primarily in the south as a means of suppressing slave revolts and was included as a way of reassuring Southern states that the federal government would not take away their slave based economies and so has literally zero meaning in 2013?

The piece of the article that was encouraging to me was that there are some places where we agree even if implementations differ.  At least then, there is room to talk.  Here's to hoping that we all can do just that.

presidential religion & article 6

The other day Michele Bachman was questioned by Byron York of the Washington Examiner regarding what it meant for her to submit to her husband. The audience booed and since then lots of talking heads have said that her faith is a private matter and is out of bounds for questions. She answered, “Thank you for that question, Byron. What submission means to me—if that’s what your question is—it means respect.”

Then there was a blog on the Washington Post written by Richard Dawkins attacking Rick Perry on some of his faith stances, particularly his dismissal of evolution.

All of this makes me want to write about the 6th article of the constitution again. Article 6, paragraph 3 of the constitution says, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The argument that has come from some quarters, both liberal and conservative, is basically that you cannot vote against someone on religious grounds. As I said in the previous post, that is just plain stupid.

The article is referring to a legal test. Nobody can be excluded from running for president on the grounds of his or her religion or lack thereof. The article says nothing abut an individual's right to vote for whomever they want for any reason that is important to them. If I want to vote for someone just because they practice one religious tradition or against someone because they practice another, that is my right.

I want to know and everyone needs to know what Michele Bahman means when she says she is submissive to her husband. If she is thinking about bombing Palestine, decides against it, and then her husband tells her it is the right thing to do, they discuss it and still disagree... I want to know whether that means she will just acquiesce. If I vote for her for president, I want to know what role her spouse will play. Will he be an important advisor, as I would expect virtually all presidential spouses have been, or would he be the final say, after all, she said that she submits to her husband. And frankly, if she really means that means that she respects him... then she is lying to everyone about her theology and that tells me even more.

I want to know if she truly believes that the earthquake and the hurricane were messages from God to control spending? And how does she know they weren't messages from God to cut back on greenhouse gasses or to provide medical care for the poor? And are all disasters to be read as messages from God?

I want to ask Rick Perry what he thinks about education when he writes off commonly accepted scientific conclusions, about which, I'd bet he has very little real information? Does he really believe that a majority climate scientists are fudging their data to further their careers? And if he thinks that, what does his understand about the way that scientific research works? I want to know why, when disasters hit places other than Texas, it is the judgment of God while when a terrible drought hits Texas, it is a call to prayer rather than an indictment of the present administration's sin? And the cynic in me wants to know why he thinks God did not answer their prayers?

Hey, it isn't about conservatives only. I was thrilled to see that Obama was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church and likely has/had a good understanding of liberation theology. As I've said before he was not my first choice but that piece of knowledge would have made it much easier for me to vote for him as I think liberation theology is a positive theology and reflects a good general understanding of the scriptures. I was saddened when he left that church and that told me something about the role of faith in his life.

All of this is to say that religion or lack thereof is an important facet of what makes a person and must be fair game when we're trying to figure out who to vote for. The same is true about their education, I'd like to know what they studied and where... it does tell us a good bit about their formation. I even want to know about their career paths. A lawyer is trained to think like a lawyer. A physician is trained to look at the world through a very specific set of lenses. A business owner or a career military person likewise seems things in a specific way. And I want to know where they grew up. Did they spend their childhood years in a wealthy white suburb or a mixed race middle class neighborhood in a large city or did they grow up on a farm in the heartland? Clearly, none of these characteristics are necessarily definitive, but they are all part of the puzzle and they all deserve consideration and tell us something about the candidate.

So Mrs. Bachman, was does it mean when you say you submit to your husband and how will that play out if you are elected? Mr. Perry, how is it that you write off a scientific theory that has virtually unanimous support in the scientific community and how does that impact how you understand education and how you understand the judgement of experts in any given field? Mr Obama, how do you understand the theme of liberation in the Bible and the prophetic tradition that stood against those with power and for those on the margins and how would that impact a second term if you receive one?

a religious test for president

Last week, Politico had an article that missed the point of the constitution. It begins with the statistic that 1 in 5 voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. They then ask, "Doesn’t the Constitution say, in Article VI, 'No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States?'"

They miss the point. The article is referring to a legal test. Nobody can be excluded from running for president on the grounds of his or her religion or lack thereof. The article says nothing abut an individual's right to vote for whomever they want for any reason that is important to them. If I want to vote for someone just because they practice one religious tradition or against someone because they practice another, that is my right.

They also misunderstand religion. If an individual truly believes a given religion, we can expect that it will impact the way that individual would see and experience the world which must impact the way they govern. If I knew that someone running for president was a young earth, 6 day creationist Christian, I wouldn't need to know anything else to vote against them. That would tell me a great deal about the way they would approach education policies, scientific research, and likely even foreign policy. A religious system, if truly embraced, must impact the way a person sees and acts in the world. Therefore, it is fair game for an individual voter to consider. Likewise, it tells me something if an individual claims to hold a faith but also says it will not impact the decisions they make. Then I wonder what does inform that person's decision making.

Of course, in the United States the question of religion is always more complicated. Some years back, Martin Marty referred to the "baptistification of America" - the idea that each individual can construct his or her own faith system and that no outside authority can impose itself on the individual (or local congregation). That means that one can no longer assume that a Catholic agrees with what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church says even though that system clearly expects individual believers to follow the teachings of the Church. In the US, just because an individual is a Mormon does not necessarily mean that they abide by the directives of the Mormon church. While this trend cannot be ignored, we still can expect that any given religious system will have an impact on the particular paradigms in which a person lives.

The bottom line though is that one can vote for a candidate for any reason the individual feels is important - the color of their hair, their educational background, where they grew up, or their religion.

Prop 8 yet again...

First the obvious disclaimer. I was against Prop 8. I think it reflects poor law, poor sociology, and poor theology. I think it should not have passed and it should have been overturned. Still, I think my understanding of theology (or anyone else's) is irrelevant to the question. I shouldn't have a say in the issue.

31 states have had popular votes regarding same sex marriage and in all 31 cases, same sex marriage was outlawed. In the case of my state, I have often heard, "The people have spoken. They passed Prop 8. The courts should not be involved. Don't we live in a democracy?" That argument is specious. Rights are not legislated by popular vote. Indeed, the majority has often worked to repress the rights of the minority, often violently. US history is ripe with examples of that taking place. It was so visible a problem that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifically addresses it: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Indeed, it is the proper role of the courts to step in and stand against popular opinion or states' rights when the majority abridges the rights of any minority.

The lawyers working to overturn Prop 8 sought to show three things:
1. that marriage is a fundamental right
2. that depriving gay and lesbian citizens to that right harms them and harms their children
3. and that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry does not help heterosexual marriages at all.
The judge ruled that all three propositions were right and that even the witnesses for keeping Prop 8 as law had admitted all three propositions in testimony.

As for the folk who are afraid that this ruling will force them to act in ways contrary to their beliefs... again, the argument is silly. As a pastor, I am not forced to perform a wedding for anyone or to recognize any particular couple as married. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize a second marriage as a marriage and will not perform one. Still, as a civil matter we allow legally divorced people to marry. Some churches will not recognize marriages between people of different races or different religions. Such couples are free to find a clergy person or a justice of the peace who will preside over their ceremony. It is irrelevant whether or not a religious group recognizes or doesn't recognize the union, it is legal. On the other side of the coin, I have presided over weddings of gay or lesbian folk in states where such marriages were not legally recognized. It didn't matter what I did or said, the union was not legally recognized. The religious act and the legal reality were separate issues. The bottom line is that a religious group can remain true to its beliefs regardless of what the law says regarding same sex marriage. The legal issue is a separate one and in this case, if marriage is a right, the Constitution is clear that gay and lesbian folk cannot be denied that right.

I'm sure this ruling will be appealed and will make its way to the supreme court. I am hopeful that they will see their way clear and stand for the rights of the minority and for the Constitution, ruling that all people are free to marry and enjoy the legal protections and obligations of marriage in all states.