The Path Ahead

Today is January 20th of a year divisible by four, and that means it is inauguration day. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have now taken office and this is a great day for America.

America just threw off a fascist at the  ballot box. Only Chile has done that on record.

First of all, I was disappointed by Biden’s speech. When he calls for unity, is he talking about unity with Republicans in power who we clearly rejected or building an America so strong which Americans will come together as one people. I hope he is talking about the latter, but it is possible he is talking about the former. He could have been more clear on that.

Beyond the speech he has already signed executive orders which will make America a better country. The Keystone XL pipeline has been cancelled, we have rejoined the Paris Climate Accords, and the Muslim ban has been revoked.

In other words, his actions are showing  that despite many platitudes calling for political moderation, he is already doing what he can to make America better.

There are many challenges President Biden faces. We need to pass Coronavirus Aid through congress as fast as possible. This will provide immediate relief to all Americans, empower Democrats as the party which gets important work done and help alleviate this epidemic. On top of direct cash payments I hope President Biden will succeed on providing aid with the goal of getting 100 million Americans vaccinated from coronavirus over the next 100 days.

The next question will be what other bills will be done over this congressional session which will not just make America stronger, but strengthen the Democratic majority in Congress so that the legislation he passes will last long into the future. This will do two things, it will make America a better place in the immediate future, but also mobilize voters across this country so we can have Democratic Trifectas for a long time to come. The key to winning elections is who can mobilize their base the most, and if President Biden can deliver on policies which benefit all Americans over the next year, the Democratic Party will dominate government for the next decade, forcing the Republican Party to abandon its fascist leanings, and America will have a bright future indeed.

Which side are you on?

Today we will know for sure where every politician stands compared to values. The easiest way for me to explain this is from the perspective of Germany in 1933, where the 4 main parties had very different policies
SPD
The SPD had strong actions backing their values. They always opposed the forces of evil no matter what, and continue to exist to this day. SPD formed almost all of the major parties
Die Zentrum
Die Zentrum was always trying to find a compromise which ends up helping evil. Not every member of Die Zentrum was a bootlicker, but the leadership of the party gave Hitler the chancellorship.
The Communists
The Communists talked a big talk but in the end helping the forces of evil start the biggest war in history.
The Nazis, DNVP,
The Nazis of course came to power with the help of die Zentrum, ended democracy for over a decade, then starting a massive genocide, followed by starting a war with the Communists. Their rule started with the ReichstagFeuer, and were obviously a hypernationalist party which used violence to intimidate everyone who wasn’t on their side.
There are modern counterparts to all of these parties. The Republicans are made of both Nazis and die Zentrum. The Democrats are composed of counterparts of the SPD (the progressive wing, the traditional branch of the party) and members who are essentially die Zentrum, they’ll talk a good talk, but are likely to oppose progressive policies which more vengeance than they will stand up to the Nazis. We don’t have many communists in this country.
Just like in the Weimar Republic, America has seen the growth of a large ultra nationalist far right movement in recent years. The question remains whether we will let the Nazis win again. Every single American has a choice, do you support the Nazis or do you not. If you support the Nazis, you can vote for them directly, or vote for people who will compromise with them. These are the Republicans who choose to appoint all of the Nazi appointees to our court system and the Democrats who are refusing to call today’s event a coup and are talking about how we should not prosecute them for their crimes against democracy in a futile search for unity. Nazis are never going to come to the table of democracy. In order for democracy to work, there needs to be an underlying belief that democracy works, and a willingness to accept the results of a democratic election even if it means you lose. There appears to be a very strong current in the Republican Party today which has this attribute.
Then of course there are the SPD who always opposed the Nazis from the very beginning, they never compromised with them, and they always upheld the values of democracy. This is the side I choose to be on.
I’m too emotionally tired from today’s events to continue writing this essay, so I’m just going to end with one question.
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

The 2008 election is still relevant

On 8 November 1960 Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy defeated Vice President Richard Nixon for the Presidency of the United States. Future President Kennedy won 49.72% of the vote, and went on to be a deeply remembered President for the 3 years until he was shot on 22 November 1963. He didn’t get much legislation passed during his short Presidency, but he laid the ground work for President Johnson to continue his mission by enacting the Great Society package of programs. The 1964 election was the last time a Democrat went on to win over 60% of the vote, and in the 1966 elections for Congress the Democrats increased their majority in the House. Democrats ran on a strong platform of racial equality and fighting economic inequality and had 8 years of government.

In 1968 of course, a lot of Democratic leaning voters chose not to vote for the Democratic nominee, Nixon used the Southern Strategy to win 43.4% of the popular vote, and the Presidency.

The 1972 Presidential featured a candidate who blamed the inflation of the 1970s on the Great Society.  He failed to secure even 100 electoral college votes.

After the details of the Watergate scandal came out, and President Nixon became the only President to resign in American history, President Carter ran a fairly moderate campaign, won 50.1% of the vote, and 297 electoral college votes. He is the last President to start his term with over 60% of the Senate being shared with his party. He didn’t pass much significant legislation during his time as President besides the formation of the NSA, but he did benefit from a Democratic trifecta for both of his terms. Rampant inflation and the Iran Hostage Crisis led to President Carter being the last Democrat to fail to win even 100 electoral college votes in his reelection bid.

President Reagan’s first term was a time of hyper inflation, high unemployment, and a stagnant GDP. In 1984 Democrats ran a candidate who ran on the Equal Rights Amendment, nuclear freeze, and more. The economy was improving by 1984 and Reagan rode that wave to win his reelection.

The 1988 election was the biggest underperformance by Democrats in American history. After news of the Iran Contra Scandal and Iran hostage crisis broke, the Democrats failed to hold George H.W. Bush accountable for his being involved in these illegal activities. After shooting at Dukakis as an elitist “Massachusetts liberal” the Democrats should have responded by pointing out that both John F. Kennedy and John Quincy Adams were both “elitist Massachusetts liberals” and did phenomenal jobs as President. In fact, I cannot name a single bad President from Massachusetts. With weak messaging, the Democrats were resoundingly defeated with Dukakis winning only 111 electoral college votes.

The 1992 election saw Bill Clinton win a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote after running a very moderate campaign. Ross Perot stole a lot of votes from George H.W. Bush which gave Clinton the Presidency. Democrats lost seats in the House and picked up one seat in the Senate.

The 1996 election saw Clinton win a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote yet again. Republicans kept both houses of Congress.

The 2000 election was the fourth time in American history where a President won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote since direct elections began. It was the first Republican trifecta since 1953. Republicans won fewer seats in the House than in the 1998 elections. This followed massive bills signed into law by President Clinton which included Wall Street Deregulation with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Defense of Marriage Act. Signing into law bills which fall in line with Republican social and economic policies led to Republicans winning a trifecta in 2002. Clinton’s strategy clearly did not work.

The 2004 election saw George W. Bush win a majority of the popular vote for President against decorated War Hero, founding member of the New Democrat Caucus, and US Senator John Kerry. The strategy of Democrats in that election clearly did not work.

The 2008 election was a very historic election. It was the only time in the last 50 years a Democrat has won the Presidency with over 300 seats in the House. It is the second time in the last 50 years a Democrat has won over 50% of the vote, and was the largest majority received by a Democrat since President Johnson’s landslide in 1964. The Democrats gained 8 seats in the Senate that year, the largest gain for the Democrats since the Democrats picked up 15 seats in a single year in 1958 when Lyndon Baines Johnson was Senate Majority Leader. Obama’s strategy focused on health care, infrastructure investment, and human rights. He followed up by proposing bills on all of these issues as soon as he reached office, and passed the largest health care reform bill in over 50 years. The Affordable Care Act was  greatly whittled down by the House of Representatives, and the rest of his proposals were dead in the water. This showed the massive schisms in the Democratic Party, how some Democrats will be happy to campaign on popular progressive proposals but as soon as they get into office they stall. With that being said, the 111th United States Congress was the most important legislative session under Democratic control in over 50 years. Obama ran his campaign outside of the Democratic National Committee, and focused on what politicos like to call “grassroots organizing” and the “50 state strategy” which is basically a focus on talking to actual voters, which involves aggressive phone banking and door knocking in every state. I like to call it “effective politics” and “the winning strategy”. Not only that, but the Republicans nominated John McCain, a seasoned Senator who earned a purple heart in the Vietnam War. Even nominating a candidate like McCain was not enough for the Republicans to win. It was the largest gain in the house for the Democratic Party while picking up the Presidency since 1932. It was also the first year where the Democrats picked up the Presidency, gained seats in the House, and gained seats in the Senate since 1932. President Obama had grown a reputation for not being as progressive as Sheldon Whitehouse or Russ Feingold, but also not as conservative as Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. He is pretty much at the dead center of the Democratic Party, and he moved America to the left on many issues, such as gay marriage. He did all of this as Fox News kept calling him a socialist, claiming he wasn’t an American citizen, and the rest of the conspiracy theories just get more crazy from there.

2008 is where the Democrats received the biggest majority of the popular vote for President since 1964, the largest electoral college majority without a spoiler taking Republican voters since 1964, the largest Democratic gain in the Senate since 1958, and the largest Democratic majority in the House of Representatives since Gingrich’s Contract with America. Democrats also dominated state governments following Obama’s wave. The strategy of Congressional Progressive Caucus member Howard Dean’s leadership of the DNC and Barack Obama clearly worked.  What is even more amazing is that Democrats won this large majority of 257 seats on the same map which had given Republicans their largest majority in 2004 which was the largest number of Republicans elected to the House since 1946, a 58 year high. While gerrymandering is important, looking back now gerrymandering was clearly not the main cause of Democrats or Republicans doing well but instead the ability of the Obama Coalition to give Americans something to vote FOR instead of simply voting against the Republican platform. We need to replicate this strategy.

In 2010 the Democrats lost significant amounts of seats. While Obama campaigned on a strong platform which was to the left of Clinton but not solidly in the progressive wing, the Democrats in Congress failed to pass most of Obama’s proposals, giving Democrat voters little reason to turn out and vote. We saw a massive decline in Democratic turnout as a consequence and the Republicans picked up 64 seats in the House of Representatives. This was the worst showing for a midterm in a Democratic presidency since 1938.

In 2012 Obama announced his support of gay marriage and free community college, and he became the first Democrat to win reelection with a majority of popular vote since 1944. He broke a 68 year streak of Democrats failing to pick up a majority of the vote upon their reelection campaign. While Obama failed to pick up Congress in his reelection following Republican gerrymandering, the fact that he became the first Democrat to win reelection with a majority of the popular vote since 1944 is extremely important. If this wasn’t amazing enough, Republicans nominated Mitt Romney who was one of the most moderate Republicans they could nominate and the Democrats destroyed him. Obama built a cabinet which brought together people from all sides of the party, and in sum it translated to him being reelected as a much more moderate bloc of Democrats in Congress once again failed to win the election. It is Obama’s success at being the first Democrat to be elected to reelection since 1944 which makes it clear to me that the reason Democrats saw a drop in turnout was not because of President Obama but because of the lack of spines in the Democratic Congressional Leadership which made it so Republicans won the 2010 midterms.

The 2016 election saw a reversal of fortunes. The Hillary Clinton campaign failed to properly reach out to all wings of the Democratic Party, her grassroots organizing game was not strong compared to what Obama had done only 4 years earlier, she did not have the advantage her husband had with a spoiler peeling voters away from the Republican candidate, and she lost to the most unqualified candidate in the history of the United States. Her campaign chose to ignore states which she thought she would win handily and we have paid dearly for that over the last 4 years. That election created the first Republican trifecta since 2005. Clinton faced the same number of absolutely absurd and crazy conspiracy theories which Obama faced in 2008. She faced a far less qualified candidate who did not command a majority in the primary election, and her strategy did not work.

The 2018 election demonstrated that even with the gerrymandering which I myself thought was the main culprit to the Democrats losing congressional elections in most of the 2010s was not actually the main culprit. Democrats made a strong case for why they needed to be elected, the Congressional Progressive Caucus surged in urban, suburban, and rural districts, and we gave people something to vote FOR. I admit I was mostly wrong that gerrymandering was the main cause for Democrats consistently losing elections through most of the 2010s but instead it was from not giving people a reason to stand in line in freezing weather. I do believe the gerrymandering contributed, but it wasn’t enough by itself to create a Republican majority. Once Democrats campaigned on policies Americans agreed with, just like in 2008, Trump lost more seats in his midterm than any other Republican midterm since 1974.

The 2020 election was the first time a Democrat had defeated an incumbent since 1992. It is the first time a party won the Presidency while losing seats in the House since 1992, and unless if the Democrats win both elections to the Senate it will be the first time where a Democrat has won the Presidency without also carrying the Senate since 1884. Joe Biden is the first New Democrat to ever win a majority of the popular vote for President. While Democrats lost seats in the House in 2020, the Congressional Progressive Caucus kept every seat they had won in 2018. If the Democrats fail to win both seats in Georgia then we are in waters which are almost completely uncharted.

The Republican campaign strategy was so disorganized that Rudy Giuliani reserved a landscaping company thinking it was a 5 star hotel. Joe Biden faced the same amount of opposition and batshit crazy conspiracy theories from Fox as Obama did in 2008 against a far less qualified candidate, and with the massive advantage of an ongoing epidemic and recession which the incumbent Republican President did almost nothing to stop. The American people agree with the Democrats on every issue according to exit polls on individual issues. Even with all of these advantages the campaign strategy of the Democratic Party failed to increase their margin in the House, lost several key Senate races they should have won in Iowa and Maine, and are at risk of not having the Senate for the first year of a Democratic Presidency for the first time since 1884 . At the exact same time, several progressives picked up several seats in the Washington State legislature. I cannot find any evidence that the main cause of an underwhelming election is because the Republicans are any better organized than they were in 2008, though there is loads of evidence that the Democratic campaign strategy has fundamentally changed. We are not using the 50 state strategy, Biden chose not to campaign in Ohio, and the Democratic Party continuously fails to provide sufficient support to legislative and congressional races which consistently leads to poor performance year after year.

Conclusion

This is a long article, but the main conclusion of this article is that the 50 state strategy produced the biggest landslide majority for the Democratic Party in the last century. We saw a similar type of strategy here in Washington State this year, where Democrats picked up seats in formerly Republican districts after a very successful legislative session with a lot of legislation passed on many issues which people care about.

The 2022 and  2024 elections are going to be more challenging than the 2020 election. We won’t be running against Donald Trump or a literal epidemic. It would be highly unlikely for there to be a recession during President Biden’s term, but the main focus for the next two years for the Democratic Party needs to be to give voters a reason to give the Democrats a trifecta in 2022. We need to give voters something to vote FOR, and this means that President Biden, Vice President Harris, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Schumer need to ensure that they build very strong bridges which unify the party on issues like health care, education, economic mobility, and social justice not just with a President championing these issues but also with a party unified among policies and values which have been on the official party platform since 1932.

We did this in 2008 with historic results, and I fully believe that if Democrats use the 50 state strategy to rebuild the Obama coalition we can give President Biden a large trifecta which he can work with if he chooses to in 2023, and then keep the coalition strong well until the Republican Party is forced to abandon the failed policies of Richard Nixon. The 2008 election started the longest streak of Democrats winning the popular vote for the Presidency ever. If the Clinton campaign in 2016 had used the 50 state strategy and worked harder on building bridges with progressives and turning out young voters like Obama did then I am certain she would have won the election. A strong strategy in the Presidential race increases turnout and victories in congressional, state, and local races.

We need to not replicate the mistakes of the 111th congress where Democratic leadership in Congress refused to use all available tools at their disposal to pass Obama’s extremely popular agenda which ended in a massive drop in voter turnout. If Democrats are lucky enough to pick up enough seats in the Senate and House to have a strong majority in 2023 then we will need to make sure that the Democratic Party gives American voters a really good reason to vote for the Democrats, just like we did in 1964 and 1936.

This is about more than just health care, education, the environment, economic mobility, but about Democracy itself. Republicans have shown that they will go to any length to fulfill their goals, they will openly discriminate against African American voters, praise foreign dictatorships, send money to terrorist groups like the Contras and Mujahideen, undermine ongoing peace negotiations, and undermine our basic civil liberties. The Republican Party has not cared about democracy for as long as my parents have been alive, and they demonstrate it every single year. Every time Republicans have gained power their opposition to basic Democratic norms becomes ever more apparent, starting with undermining the Vietnam peace treaty which effectively killed American soldiers in 1968, to engineering the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1980, undermining our civil liberties with the PATRIOT ACT in 2001, receiving help from foreign dictatorships in the 2016 election, and fighting against the medical advice of experts during the COVID epidemic of 2020. The Republican Party clearly does not care for the Rule of Law, democracy, fair elections, civil liberties, or the lives of American citizens. The only way for America to fully overturn their apathy towards liberty is to ensure that not only do we provide a strong Democratic majority in 2022 but for the rest of the decade for the Presidency, House, Senate, Governorships, State Legislatures, county governments, and city governments. We need to completely demonstrate that fascism has no place in the United States anymore, defend our constitution, and show that being liberal means that we are strong.

This is why I believe that we need to elect many more strong progressive democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, Ayanna Pressley, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse to congress and state legislatures across this country. These are people who have shown not only that their values are strong but they understand how to use the mechanisms of power to make  real lasting change. If we fill the benches of congress and the state legislature with people like them who respect the constitution, believe strongly in Liberal American values, and are willing to fight for what we believe in then I believe the 2020s can be a decade like the 1960s or 1930s where Democrats are able to against make lasting change. I believe we can choose to make 2026 replicate the elections of 1966, 1962, 1942, 1938, and 1934.

Or we can go back to the policies of the Clinton Administration which were contrary to the stated values on the Democratic platform or the infighting of Pelosi’s first term as Speaker of the House which led to the Republicans winning midterms in 2010 and 1994.

The choice is ours.

Preparing for a trifecta

The 2020 elections saw the Democrats pick up the Presidency, lose seats in the House, and have less than a 25% chance of a trifecta if they manage to win both seats in Georgia according to PaddyPower.

In this most likely scenario, with a Democratic President and House along a Republican Senate, how should Democrats govern?

Well, if you look at the last two years we have of course had a Republican President and Senate along with a Democratic House. The House did not pass bills to the Senate, preferring to negotiate with them behind close doors before passing them in their own chamber, and as a result only one stimulus was passed at the beginning of the epidemic and there has been endless deadlock.

Even worse, the Democrats lost 10 seats in the House this year, and with 222 seats have only 4 more than the 218 required for a majority. If they lose 5 more seats to Republicans, the Republicans will have control of the House of Representatives.

On top of that, several vulnerable Republicans kept their seats, putting the Democratic Trifecta in jeopardy.

All of  this after a year of deadlock, epidemic, and recession. Even though Joe Biden won a majority of the vote, he will most likely have to work with Republicans for at least the first half of his term.

Putting this into perspective, Washington State this year has had a Democratic Trifecta for only 3 years. In 2018 we saw a massive Democratic landslide and we saw very important bills be passed regarding health care and environmental protection, most notably making Washington the first state to have a public option. After this, the Democrats further increased their margin in the Washington State legislature after a very productive time in the legislature. This is the same state where the Republicans controlled the state legislature for most of the 2010s and the 2004 gubernatorial election was determined by only 133 votes.

The moral of the story is, when Democrats fight, Democrats win.

Lessons for 2024 from the Primary

The 2020 primary election continues to be discussed on social media, and I personally believe this is a good thing. Joe Biden and the rest of his caucus seriously under performed in November, and we cannot afford to under perform again in 2024. We need to understand what really happened, and what needs to change in order to make certain that the Democratic nominee in 2024 will win the general election.

Lessons from the Primary

The Primary election was extremely crowded. Not only were there a lot of candidates, but many of them also had strong experience which made them viable. With one former Vice President, 3 sitting senators, and a former mayor of New York running at the same time, it is no surprise that no candidate was going to get a majority of the votes in such a crowded field.

First thing, the progressive vote was definitely split. Warren had the lead in the polls before the Iowa caucus, but after Iowa when Bernie outperformed her I believe a lot of would-be Warren voters voted for Bernie instead. This is a symptom of first past the post, and it means it is impossible to get an accurate measure of what people actually want from the polls. The best we can do are the ranked voting polls which FairVote did which in September and February. These two polls make it very clear that a lot of voters moved from Warren to Sanders after Sanders outperformed Warren in a couple of small states. The strategic move then is to move from the 3rd place candidate to the second place candidate. We need to sovle this problem by having all elections on a single day and have the vote be done with ranked choice voting.

Second thing, Bernie Sanders dropped out early. Warren dropped out on March 5th and Sanders dropped out on April 8th.

Results before Warren Dropped out
blue = progressive
red = Biden
light = plurality
dark = majority

Most of the country had not voted yet. No major swing states had voted yet, namely Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania the only state with a significant number of votes which Bwhich the nominee absolutely had to win in order to become President. No Democrat has won the Presidency without Michigan since 1940, Pennsylvania since 1948, or Wisconsin since 1968.

If we look again at the map after Warren dropped out, Bernie’s chances did not improve.

There were three crucial swing states which voted after Warren dropped out and before Bernie dropped out. Biden won all three of them. Bernie Sanders had won both Wisconsin and Michigan in the 2016 primary, and with Biden cleaning Bernie out of the upper Midwest with a clear majority, Bernie Sanders did not have a realistic path to victory, and this is when it was a two horse race.

Because of this fact that even without a spoiler Bernie Sanders was failing to get voters to vote for him, and his campaign was unable to convince Warren voters in Washington State to switch over to Bernie Sanders even after she dropped out, it was very clear to the Sanders campaign that the election was over. Washington was the only significant state which Biden did not win. No offense North Dakota, but you just don’t have enough votes to make a meaningful difference.

So, to all the people who say that Bernie Sanders would have won if Elizabeth Warren had only stayed in the kitchen, they are not just sexist, but completely incorrect. Bernie Sanders underperformed his 2016 performance even after Warren had dropped out. He failed to get a clear lead at any point  in the primary, and was in third place in the polls before Iowa. Instead of just sowing more division he decided to drop out, and endorsed Biden one month after Warren dropped. This was before New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio even voted.

That has nothing to do with Senator Warren.

There are still deep divisions within the Democratic Party. There are still big questions regarding whether a ranked voting system and a single day for the election would have given Biden a victory. It is very clear from the available data that Biden would not have won in a landslide, and that makes it too close to call.

The Democratic Party needs to reform the primary system before 2024 to ensure that it can get an accurate measure of what Americans want. This is the only way to guarantee that they can get a popular candidate who not only will win the general election but also carry their success down ballot. The consequence of not doing this will at best be the lack of a trifecta in 2025, or at worst a repeat of 2016.

Let’s not repeat 2016.

Let’s have an election which is accurate.

After the clear lessons of the 2016 and 2020 elections, the Democratic Party needs to endorse FairVote and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This will make a fair election.

The 2020 election in perspective

Short post for today, but the point is pretty simple.

The year started with a 33% drop in GDP.

An epidemic has killed over 300,000 Americans.

The President blocked medicine from coming into this country to reduce the severity of the epidemic.

The Senate blocked stimulus bills for Americans who had lost their jobs.

Unemployment (U-3) spiked at 14.7%, the highest level it has been since records begin in 1948.

Senate Republicans refused to cooperate with the House on providing much needed aid to American families.

The genius Republican campaign strategy culminated in their reservation of a small landscaping company in an industrial section of Philadelphia for Trump’s concession speech because they thought it was a 5 star hotel.

All of this happened and the Democrats still lost seats in the House and were unable to unseat Susan Collins.

Given economic Armageddon and the biggest global epidemic in over a century, the fact that the Democrats STILL failed to convince Americans to vote for them means there is something very, very wrong in their approach to politics and their strategy is not working.

Great Democratic Quotes

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

“My own sympathy has always been with the little fellow, the man without advantages.”

“Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to asure the survival and the success of liberty.”

“Very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. The cause may lie deeper — in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.”

“Whether the borders that divide us are picket fences or national  boundaries, we are all neighbors in a global community.”

“We all do better when we work together. Our differences do matter, but our common humanity mattes more.”

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

“Nothing will fundamentally change.”

One of these is not like the others.

Build an Apache Server on Ubuntu

We are going to host two different websites on an Apache Server running Ubuntu.

Step 1, install packages

sudo apt-get install apache2

Step 2, create your conf files

Create two conf files in /etc/apache2/sites-available

Call them site1.conf and site2.conf

Create links using ln-s to both of those conf files in /etc/apache2/sites-enabled

sudo ln -s /etc/apache2/sites-available/site1.conf /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/.

sudo ln -s /etc/apache2/sites-available/site2.conf /etc/apache2/sites-enabled

Paste the following into site1.conf

<VirtualHost *:80>
DocumentRoot /var/www/html/site1.conf
ServerName site1.example.net
ServerAlias site1
ServerAdmin your_email@example.net
</VirtualHost *:80

And paste the following into site2.conf

<VirtualHost *:80>
DocumentRoot /var/www/html/site2.conf
ServerName site2.example.net
ServerAlias site2
ServerAdmin your_email@example.net
</VirtualHost *:80

Step 3, create your landing pages

Create two folders in your home directory. Call them site1 and site2

Inside each of them create a file called index.php

Paste the following into each of  those files:
<html>
<head>
<title>Site</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>This is a site</h1>
</body>
</html>

Change these in any way you want.

Create a symbolic link to each of those folders in /var/www/html

Step 4, modify your hosts file

Add the following lines to the end of  your /etc/hosts file:
127.0.1.1 site1
127.0.2.1 site2

Step 5, enable your websites

Type the following command into your terminal:

sudo a2ensite site1.conf site2.conf

Eras of European History

This is meant to be a brief overview to help people fully understand the importance of our current political situation. I am focusing on all of Europe in this overview of history, from the Ural mountains to the ocean. The era before the Minoans is prehistory for Europe because there are no written records.

Early origins of European civilization (3500 BC – 800 BC)

The first civilization in Europe were the Minoans, who started to flourish around 3500 BC. They are probably the ancestors to the Greeks. The Phoenicians grew up in the Levant and colonized significant portions of the Mediterranean. The Mycenaean people appeared in 1600 BC. They are related but their relationship has not been established. The Greeks expanded until about 1100 BC when the Mycenaen empire fell for unknown reasons.

Expansion of Greek civilization (800 BC – 343 BC)

The Etruscans were the second city states to be established in what is now Europe around 900 BC in modern day Italy. Carthage (which was a descendant of Phoenicia) became a major power in the Mediterranean, controlling the south coast of the Mediterranean from modern day Benghazi to the Atlantic Ocean. The Etruscan civilization dominated northern Italy, and the Persians dominated modern day Turkey.

Expansion of Rome (343 BC – 27 BC)

This era is where the expansion of empires in Europe expands significantly. The beginning is the era of Alexander the Great, with his empire which made many innovations which the Romans would use at the end of this time period. Rome expanded across the Italian peninsula, with their first Spanish possessions in 218 BC. The Romans expanded first across the entire southern coast of the European peninsula (because Europe really is just a peninsula of Asia). By 146 BC Rome had conquered Carthage and had significant territory on the North Coast of Africa. The Gauls were conquered in 51 BC. In 32 BC Rome conquered Mauritania (modern day Algeria) and in 30 BC Egypt became conquered by Rome. By 29 BC the Mediterranean Sea was a Roman lake. In 27 BC Augustus established the Roman Empire.

Roman Empire (27 BC – 395 AD)

Rome expanded across Western Europe. In 18 BC they conquered the last Celtic holdout in Hispania, and were one of the three large empires during the period, along with the Parthians, and of course the Han dynasty. In 43 AD the Roman Invasion of Britain began. In 47 AD Rome conquered Thrace and the Mediterranean was a Roman Lake. Politically Rome maintained its size for 348 years until it was divided in 395 AD as a result of corruption, invasions by Germans, and other factors.

Divided Roman Empire (395 AD – 476 AD)

Rome was divided for 81 years, as subjugated peoples fought for independence. Britain was lost in 410, and in 476 the Western Roman Empire fell permanently.

Eastern Roman Empire, Germanic Kingdoms (476 AD – 711)

The Franks grew to become the dominant ethnic group in the West under the Franks. Celtic Kingdoms emerged in Britain. The Visigoths dominated Hispania. The Roman Empire maintained power over parts of the Italian peninsula, but Rome was not as powerful as it used to be.

There were many minor conflicts across the Frankish area during this time in the form of rebellions, and fighting between different Frankish kingdoms.

Islamic Hispania, Frankish North, divided England , Viking raids (711 – 928 AD)

Major Wars:

  • Reconquista (711-1492)

Islamic Hispania, England united, East Francia (928 AD – 963 AD)

In 928 AD England was united under Egbert. England would of course grow to be a global power. Reconquista continues

Caliphate of Cordoba, Holy Roman Empire formed (963 – 1066)

Hugh Capet became the King of France. His descendants would rule until 1793. Spain became fractured. In 1066 the Viking William of Normandy conquered England which significantly changed European politics.

Poland is formed.

Reconquista continues.

England as a major power (1066-1238)

England had significant holdings in Europe from 1066 until 1837. Spain continued to be a hotbed of Islamic expansion. Catholic Kingdoms helped the Catholic Hispanic kingdoms fight the various Islamic Caliphates which came to power during this time period. England and France were often at war starting in 1213 during this period.

Major Wars:

  • Reconquista (711-1492)
  • Crusades (1095-1291)
  • Anglo-French War (1213-1214)

Mongols in the East to the Fall of Rome (1238-1460)

This period is marked by the Golden Horde dominating Eastern Europe. This is frequently called the High Middle Ages, a period of relative geopolitical stability in European history.

The 1200s saw the decline of the Byzantine Empire and the arrival of the Ottomans. The Mongols swept through Eastern Europe

By 1329 all of Europe was finally the possession of a state. The last area to be conquered was part of modern-day Lithuania by the Teutonic Knights and Lithuania.

The Black Death killed between 30% and 60% of Europe’s population from 1346-1353.

The Hundred Years War was the longest period of war during this time from 1337-1453 between the House of Plantagenet and House of Valois. As a consequence, England lost Aquitaine and abandoned their claims to the French throne.

In 1453 Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans and in 1460 Mehmed II invaded Morea marking the end of the Roman Empire.

Major Wars:

  • Reconquista (711-1492)
  • Crusades (1095-1291)
  • Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453)

Reconquista ends and end of the Roman Empire to the discovery of the New World (1460-1492)

1492 marked the end of the Reconquista where Muslims were expelled from Hispania and Christopher Columbus landing in the Caribbean. This era is clearly distinct from the eras before and after it because the Roman Empire was over, but Colonization had not begun yet.

Colonization of the Americas (1492-1783)

The Golden Horde were defeated in 1502.

The 16th century saw multiple Italian Wars involving England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. Aside from Spanish Netherlands coming and going, there were not very many significant changes to the map of Western Europe during this time period. In the Holy Roman Empire several large states increased in importance. Russia expanded across Siberia in this time period. The United Kingdom was formed in 1701 by the Acts of Union. Russia expanded in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe was dominated by the Ottomans, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire. Austria started to become more significant near the end of this period due to their unification with Hungary.

The Thirty Years War lead to an increase in Protestantism in Northern Europe.

The Independence of the United States heralded the beginning of revolutions which would rock Europe over the next 130 years. Austria expanded its power into Hungary and parts of modern Yugoslavia.

There were many wars in this era between  great houses vying for dominance over the peninsula.

Major Wars

  • First Italian War (1424-1498)
  • War of the league of Cambrai (1508-1516)
  • Italian War (1521-1526)
  • War of the league of Cognac (1528-1529)
  • Italian War (1542-1546)
  • Italian War (1551-1559)
  • Thirty Years’ War
  • Second Anglo-Dutch War
  • Nine Years’ War
  • The War of the Spanish Succession
  • War of the Quadruple Alliance
  • War of the Spanish Succession
  • Seven Years’ War
  • American Revolutionary War

End of Monarchy, Age of Nationalism (1783-1919)

The French monarch was the first to fall during the French Revolution. Napoleon ruled from 1799 to 1815. Poland was conquered by Russia. The United Kingdom lost its last continental holdings in Calais in 1837. Italy was unified in 1861. Germany was formed in 1871 as a Constitutional Monarchy. From 1871 to 1919 Eastern Europe was dominated by just 4 empires, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.

Major Wars

  • War of the French Revolution
  • Napoleonic Wars
  • World War I

Interwar era, rise of Communism, and World War II (1919-1945)

Most monarchies in Europe had been abolished at this time. The Soviet Union expanded in the East. Hitler had a goal of ruling the entire world and committed the Holocaust. World War II was the last war to be fought in Western Europe.

Major Wars

  • World War II

Cold War, rise of the European Community, Pax Europa (1945-1991)

This was the beginning of the longest era with no wars being fought between Western Europe in history. The European Community was formed in 1993.

Pax Europa, European Union (1991-Present)

The European Union was formed in 1993. The United Kingdom left the European Union in 2020. There has not been a war in Western Europe since the end of World War II.

This leads us to the current European map showing the interplay of the European Council, European Union, Schengen Treaty, and the Euro.

 

Red = European Council

Blue = European Council, European Union, Schengen Treaty, Eurozone

Teal = European Council, European Union, Schengen Treaty

Purple = European Council, European Union, Eurozone

Yellow = European Council, European Union

Green = European Council, Schengen Treaty

 

Conclusions

When looking at this chronology of historical events, a few things stand out to me personally:

  1. The current period of peace in Western Europe is without precedent. Every inch of territory in Europe is fully claimed by a sovereign state, as has been true for only the last 700 years. What is unique is this is the longest period of peace in European history. The anniversary of 75 years since the end of World War II is a very big deal. Never before has there been peace in Western Europe for as long as this current ongoing period of history. This is the longest period of peace for France since the Roman Empire.
  2. It is really easy to take a simplistic view of history. Seeing history in three main periods, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern simplifies history to a point which is barely useful. It also globalizes European History in a way which is not accurate for the rest of the world. 2000 BC is more different from 1 AD than today is. I like these categories of history for Western Europe because I believe it provides a deeper understanding of what was actually happening socially and culturally in that part of the world.
  3. The map of Europe in 500 AD has almost nothing in common with today’s borders.
  4. It is really easy to understate the importance of the Holy Roman Empire in the way we generally view  European history. Same goes for the Byzantine Empire.

Hopefully this overview of European history will help the reader have a greater understanding of the magnitude of the current Pax Romana. The era of European history we live in is incredibly special, so hopefully with this understanding we can preserve the peace and see other parts of the world build the institutions and economic realities which allow people to prosper. Moving forward we can hopefully fight bigotry and hatred, and not go back to the mistakes of our ancestors, but learn from their successes.

I believe that understanding history give us the ability to gain that understanding to learn how to preserve what is special, notice which institutions, economic realities, and cultural norms are creating more prosperity, freedom, and peace. Once we understand where we once were we can then focus on what has and has not worked in the past and hopefully not make the same mistakes of the past.

Two types of election systems

There are only two types of elections systems currently in use:

  1. Party insiders decide
  2. Voters have the final say

Every election system can be categorized as one of the three.

Here is the proof:

Based off of Wikipedia’s list, there are 14 types of election systems they list as currently being used, with one being missed:

  • Plurality (in order to win, you don’t need a majority, just more valid votes than anyone else)
    • First past the post
    • Delegate
    • Appointment
    • Two-round system
    • Multiple non-transferable vote
    • Single non-transferable vote
    • Cumulative Voting
    • Party-list proportional representation
    • Majority bonus system
    • Mixed-Member Proportional
    • Parallel Voting
    • Borda Count
  • Majoritarian (You must have a majority of all valid votes, or in multiple member systems, at least 1/n of all votes where n is the number of valid votes)
    • Instant runoff voting
    • Single Transferable Vote

How do all of these election systems fit in to our two categories? Well, it’s quite simple really. Almost every system fits into the first bin. In order to have voters feel comfortable voting for you you need to have the endorsement of the party you are allied with, which is the signal voters need in most systems to know that the candidate has a chance of winning. Every non-majoritarian election system becomes a two party system given time with very few counter-examples which generally ends up with an old party becoming usurped by a new one. Most voters understand the spoiler effect enough that they know if they and enough people in their district vote for a minor party that they will likely get the candidate they like least. It doesn’t really matter if you are looking at a system where you look at voting by party or voting directly for the individual, you either are in the early stage, like Israel or Germany are right now, where there are a lot of parties creating and ending, but over time the number of parties will reduce and power will coalesce between two main parties. It took the United States over 100 years to reach the state we are in now, but I expect that someday a lot of minor parties which continue to not get sufficient representation in the Knesset in Israel or Bundestag in Germany will someday stop existing, and Israel and Germany will have two party systems unless if they change. Both Israel and Germany have seen the Prime Minister/Chancellor position always dominated by either their center-left or center-right parties over the last 60 years with only one exception each, Olmert who served for 3 years in Israel, and Walter Scheel who served for a total of 9 days in Germany. Despite being forced to form coalitions, their party list systems have not given true party diversity to their head of government. The United Kingdom saw Labour take over the left from the Liberal Party in the early 20th century, and in the latter half of the 20th century the Liberals became almost obsolete. After Tony Blair the Liberal Democrats became more prominent, but unless if Britain changes their election system again we will almost certainly see a two party system develop once again in the United Kingdom once Labour goes back to its platform from before Tony Blair.

Because of this whoever determines the leadership of the parties which have a chance of forming a government choose what happens in the next election cycle. The rules vary country to country and party to party, but ultimately, whoever determines party leadership of the two main parties in these countries will determine who become head of government in parliamentary systems.  If you are not in the process of nominating the leader of one of the two major parties, you have very limited input into who actually becomes your head of government.

When we move to a top two primary on the outside it looks like this opens up elections so that insiders are not the major ones pulling the strings and forming governments. In reality however it can quickly end up with one candidate on each side getting the financial support of a major party, and being able to out canvass, outspend, and outperform any third party candidate. Because of the spoiler effect people must vote strategically and it ends up reinforcing the two party system.

Ranked voting however breaks this mold which other election systems use. It allows third parties which can actually form a government grow up to be very powerful, like in Ireland, because people can vote their conscience without worrying about who  their neighbor is voting for. There are unfortunately very few places which use this voting system, but hopefully it will spread around the United States and that will allow candidates who don’t have the support of the party establishment but have popular support to have a chance of success. It also will prevent extremists like Trump (who did not win a majority of the vote in the 2016 primary) from getting elected since it blocks their benefit of a spoiler effect. This means that voters can safely vote for third party candidates without risking that their least favorite candidate can win, unlike any other voting system.

Please join FairVote and support ranked choice voting.