Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

US elections – "estimated votes reported"

What exactly does the term "estimated votes reported" used by the media refer to? (For instance, why did it say 99 % of "estimated votes reported" in Georgia for several days, although tens of thousands of newly incoming votes were continusously counted? Why did the missing portion stay 1 % all the time?) I couldn't find a decent explanation cosidering that term anywhere. (Sorry if this may seem a silly question but I'm just an interested foreigner.)--Hildeoc (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

TV newscasters were talking about that a little bit on election night. Normally you'd see something about a percent of precincts reporting, because the number of precincts is known. But the large number of absentee ballots this year has rendered that usage semi-obsolete. And it's an estimate because they don't know exactly how many absentee ballots there are until they're all accounted for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, they know how many precincts are still outstanding, but can only guess how many people in those precincts actually voted. 2606:A000:1126:28D:B0F1:F157:B83A:B185 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Thanks a lot. So "estimated votes" means quasi "percentage of votes expected to be cast – based on what" …? (And not "percentage of already cast votes that have been counted"?)--Hildeoc (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The numerator is "votes already accounted for" and the denominator would be "the sum of votes cast in person and votes submitted via mail-in/absentee ballot" --Jayron32 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Sorry, but in this case I still don't quite get it. If it's only an estimate, how exactly can there be a "sum of votes cast in person and votes submitted via mail-in/absentee ballot" used as a fixed "denominator" then – particularly with unknown numbers of mail-in ballots yet to come? Why didn't the percentage change in Georgia, for instance, over several days, although the "sum of votes cast in person and votes submitted via mail-in/absentee ballot" actually changed, especially through new incoming mail-in & absentee ballots?--Hildeoc (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The denominator can change as more ballots are counted. That's the thing with this election. In previous election cycles, the number of absentee and provisional ballots, while still uncertain until they were all accounted for, were a miniscule amount; usually not enough to move the needle on these calculations. In this election, because many states expanded ballot access for mail-in/absentee ballots, there were a LOT more of such ballots, in some states as much as half or more of the ballots were submitted this way. --Jayron32 12:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Either a Georgia guy or a Pennsylvania guy was mentioning that while they didn't know how many postal ballots were still to come in, they did know the number of postal ballot requests that had been made, thus providing a cap on the number of ballots that could arrive. And this was being factored into calculations about whether the current winner [OP edit: 'leader' would be a better word] could lose. Another headache for those of us who updated spreadsheets was not knowing the small number of votes received by people whose first name was not Donald, Joe, or Jo. Hayttom (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much why my state (NC) hasn't been called yet. The difference between the two presidential candidates's current totals (~75K) is smaller than the number of requested mail ballots not yet returned (~90K). Not to mention the number of provisional ballots yet to be checked (~40K). Plenty of room for reversal there. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't Justice Blackmun join Justice Stevens's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick?

Why didn't Justice Blackmun join Justice Stevens's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick? Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The article indicates that their respective reasoning for dissenting were different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still interesting that Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall joined both dissents--as did Justice Stevens--but that Justice Blackmun did not. Futurist110 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Justices Brennan and Marshall agreed with the reasoning in both dissents. Justice Blackmun could’ve joined Justice Stevens’ dissent, and it is possible he didn’t concur with the other’s reasoning. I haven’t read the opinions myself. It’s possible they discuss one another. I would suggest reading the opinions. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. Their dissents don't appear to reference each other. Futurist110 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been interesting trying to find an answer to this. Stevens's dissent seems the more cited of the two. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The major difference that I read between the two dissents is that only Blackmun's details the purely procedural argument against the majority opinion. Blackmun argues that the lower court opinion under consideration is flawed regardless of whether the majority is otherwise correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Stevens also based his dissent on Equal Protection whereas Blackmun based his dissent on Due Process, I believe. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disraeli - "That hellish Jew"

Our article Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party says "Disraeli was described by one Conservative as 'that hellish Jew'", but does not say which Conservative. I believe it to have been Sir Rainald Knightley, but lack a source. Can anyone help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrase is attributed to Knightley in this article by the 'Official Historian of the Conservative Party'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But he gives no source. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it's Keightley. Here (p. 94) it's sourced to a letter from him to the Marquess of Bath dated 7th March 1867, cited from the original manuscript at Longleat. --Antiquary (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Antiquary: Many thanks. (My Trollope ancestors were tenants of, and worked for, the Thynnes. Josiah was the 5th Marquess's head-gardener, and his son Leopold, who made the great leap into the lower middle-classes by becoming a teacher, was born in the 4th Marquess's tenure) DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Why have human electors at all?

The United States presidential elections are handled by an electoral college instead of a direct popular vote. The popular vote is there to decide what the electors should vote for. Electors are either required by law, or morally obligated, to vote how the popular vote dictates. So why should the electors be actual human beings at all if all they do is cast their vote according to an already decided mandate? Why not simply state that each state has so-and-so many "electoral votes", without requiring anyone to actually physically cast these votes? JIP | Talk 16:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

JIP, good question. I haven't like the electoral college for years and think that we should go on popular vote. Heart ^(talk) 16:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the "actual human beings" is that the U.S. Constitution says so and no one has thought it worthwhile to amend it to jettison the meatsacks. Deor (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides Deor's point which is the ultimate reason, I'd note that for the states who don't "required by law", "morally obligated" is as often the case, going to depend on the situation. As with constitutional conventions, one advantage with allowing humans to make the decision is it allows the flexibility when people feel it's needed. For example, how to handle the situation where no one has a majority. Yes the constitution provides for contingent elections but that procedure has different people elected in different ways and under different proportions etc. If two different candidates come to arrangement e.g. for one of them to be president and the other to be vice-president and together they have enough electors for a majority, they could also their electors to vote in this way, and their electors could consider whether their "morally obligat"ion obliges them to vote for the candidates according to the popular vote in their states (or whatever), follow this arrangement, or do something else completely. While you could account for such arrangements when you decide how to award your votes, it doesn't mean everyone has and ultimately it will mean just following the law. Someone mentioned a candidate dying recently which is something else you can be flexible on. Likewise if after the election but before the electoral college votes, conclusive evidence is uncovered of some major crime e.g. electoral fraud, the electors can decide what they are "morally obligated" to do be it to vote for the person with electoral fraud and let them be dealt with by impeachment if necessary, or something else. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The US Constitution does not prescribe the procedure by which individual states appoint their electors, but leave this to the states. In theory, the Alaska Legislature could decide that henceforth the Governor of the State of Alaska shall appoint the electors for Alaska, thereby avoiding the cost of holding elections at all.  --Lambiam 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So first of all there's a big misconception about electors having a moral or legal obligation to vote "as the popular vote dictates". If electors have any such obligation, it's to vote as they're pledged to vote, which is typically for the candidate of the party that put them on its "slate". As far as I know there is no such thing as an elector who would be expected to vote for Trump if Trump won that elector's state, or Biden if Biden won. Rather, if Trump won the state, an elector pledged to vote for Trump would be appointed, and contrarily if Biden won. These electors are different people. No elector is expected to follow the popular vote per se.

(Somewhat oddly, the parties typically name their electors before they have actually held their convention to determine who their candidate will be. So for example in 2016, the Democratic Party of the state of Washington named Robert Satiacum, Jr one of its electors, before the national party picked Hillary Clinton as its candidate. Satiacum then refused to vote for her when she won his state. It seems this would have been less likely to happen if the party had chosen electors after the convention, who would be pledged to the particular candidate personally rather than to a candidate to be named later.)

As to the more general question, there is one view that the Founders expected that most electors would be "unpledged", and would exercise actual judgment in deciding for whom to vote. See Federalist No. 68. I think in some states it is possible to vote for an unpledged slate of electors, though I don't think any have been competitive for quite some time. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite simply, the Constitution specifies the use of electors. The reason why electors were originally specified is a matter of historical record and somewhat of tradition. Anything beyond that is a value judgment which is inappropriate for this board. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This might also bear relation to why the first nine Presidents of Finland from Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg to Mauno Koivisto were elected by electoral college, but the ones after that (Martti Ahtisaari, Tarja Halonen and Sauli Niinistö) were elected by direct popular vote. Finland is a much smaller country than the United States of America, but I think the major difference is that Finland has never been a federative nation but always a unitary state under a single government. JIP | Talk 23:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

US order of precedence

Can anybody help out on this issue? (If yes, please post there. Thanks in advance!)--Hildeoc (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)