WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? - LESSONS FROM WEIMAR

Sex, lies and videotapes appear to dominate the dialogue this election cycle. Our electorate seems to be more focused on character traits than on policy proposals. Chances are that eligible voters will select their choice for President based on leaks and innuendo, rather than on what they believe their collective votes will mean for the future of our country. Unfortunately, many are unable to see the forest for the trees. They are unable to understand, or unwilling to consider, the consequences of their selection, because they are concentrating on all the surface noise. Buyer beware!

George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, has been quoted saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The recent influx of populist movements across the globe, and their influence on the political discourse at home and abroad, has reminded some of us of the populist uprising that took place in Germany immediately following World War One. It could be beneficial to look at how our current political environment resembles relevant influences that were dominant in Weimar Germany.

While trying to recover from the effects of losing the war, German leaders attempted to create a modern liberal democracy. In a country that had up to then only known militarism and authoritarian monarchy, this proved to be difficult. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, required Germany to take full responsibility for the loss and damage during the war, forced it to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay $31.4 billion in reparations (equal to $442 billion in 2016 money). The Weimar Republic confronted obstacles at every turn. The terms of the Treaty were impossible to comply with. Simultaneously, and legislatively, the Russian revolutions of 1917, and the consequent influence of the Communist International, effectively prevented cooperation among the strongest political parties represented in the Reichstag. When the world descended into the "Great Depression" the end was in sight. By the election of 1933 "Weimar" was effectively done.

With "war guilt" hanging over everyone's head, an economy in shambles, unemployment rampant, and the national parliament unable to agree on even the simple things, a populist belief in the power of regular people, and in their right rather than that of a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite, to control their government, took hold. Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) co-opted the national mood, and translated its sentiment into a political platform that contained: opposition to "Versailles," cultural superiority of the Aryan race, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-immigrant, Germany first, and economic isolationism. With support of the disenfranchised middle class and an autocratic elite, Hitler parasitized the movement, and shifted it to the ideological right. Six days before the 1933 elections, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a campaign of violence against the Communist Party, trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party, and the center-right Catholic Party. Even so, Hitler only received 43.9% of the vote, and needed to coalesce with the German National People's Party to give the NSDAP a tiny majority in the Reichstag. With their help he was elected Chancellor. Within two weeks he acquired dictatorial powers, and within months all other parties were banned. We know the rest.

So, what do we learn from this? What was once considered an anomaly, has become a trend. Nationalist and populist politicians have begun to assume power in many countries. The end is nowhere in sight. Ant-Semitism, in many places accompanied by Islamophobia, is cropping up all over. The migrant crisis in Europe revived a strong sense of populism. In country after country, anti-immigrant attitudes are blended with a nativist sentiment, focused on effecting cultural purification. Racial profiling, anti-trade, anti-globalization, and economic protectionism arguments feed into discussions similar to those prevalent during the troubled Weimar experiment. Messianic and pathological narcissists have taken center-stage in a growing number of countries. Russia has Vladimir Putin. Hungary elected Viktor Orban and his far-right Fidesz party on the premise of keeping migrants out, and keeping Hungary's national identity pure. In Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party are converting its constitution and judicial system to more closely reflect an authoritarian past. The National Front, France's third largest party, is lead by politicians who once proposed to use the Ebola virus to take care of France's "immigration problem." On December 4, Austria will most likely elect Norbert Hofer its first Neo-Nazi President since World War Two.
And the Philippines just elected a new President, Rodrigo Duterte, who has already been accused of having his hand in the death of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders, while joking about the Holocaust. In this country our populist contender for the presidency, while subscribing to all the elements feeding into these pathological political positions, has suggested that, if successful, he would jail his opponent. If he loses, he appears disinclined to accept the outcome. Some of his supporters are already on record promising to start an insurrection.

While considering these worrying trends, I could not help but remember a poem by the anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
My mother warned me in the late 1940's that "next time they will come for the Catholics." In 1942 they did come for my grandfather, a butcher, who was accused of feeding the Jews in our community. He was convicted and sent to the gallows in the Nazi re-education camp in Lahde, Germany.

I am far from predicting another holocaust. However, I am suggesting that when pathological narcissists assume power, nothing is off the table.
"What do you have to lose?" is not a rhetorical question.

WE NEED TO RAISE THE BAR - SO, WHY ARE WE WATCHING A LIMBO CONTEST?

In a New York Times column published March 2 of this year Thomas Friedman observed that: "The three largest forces on the planet - technology, globalization and climate change - are in simultaneous nonlinear acceleration. Climate change is intensifying. Technology is making everything faster and amplifying every voice. And globalization is making the world more interdependent than ever."

To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.

Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.

We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."

Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE - THE PROPAGANDA IGNORES THE EVIDENCE

The cover of The Economist of September 10 of this year promotes the issue's feature article: "Art of the Lie." In it the magazine claims that many populist politicians rely on assertions that "feel true," but have no basis in fact. It editorializes that "politicians have always lied," and it wonders if it really matters if they leave the truth behind entirely. The author concludes that the manner in which some politicians now lie, and the havoc they wreak by doing so, is extremely worrying.

Nothing illustrates the crux of this article better than the populist pre-occupation with all facets of immigration, especially when it concerns illegal aliens. Critics of immigration policy make their points by grossly exaggerating undesirable effects of a perceived influx of undocumented immigrants. The propaganda developed to make their points focuses primarily on welfare costs related to assisting illegal aliens. Jim Hoft, an ultra right-wing blogger and owner of "Gateway Pundit," managed to arouse his following by headlining: "We're $16 trillion in debt and giving welfare to illegal immigrants. It is confirmed: Majority of Illegal Immigrants Receive Government Welfare." (March 26, 2013). The Federation for American Immigration Reform published an article in June of 2010 suggesting that "Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Taxpayers More Than $100 Billion Annually." And Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, during an event in May of 2013, when asked how many illegal immigrants were on welfare, answered: "11 million!"

These proclamations are generally unsupported by statistical evidence, but they have the intended effect of causing level-headed citizens to doubt their own conclusions. Even those sympathetic to the plight of undocumented workers may profess to be uncomfortable with the thought that illegal immigrants have access to government entitlements. While recognizing that some available data could be interpreted differently by folks on opposite sides of the issue, and that inclusion or exclusion of some components could skew the argument, we do well to familiarize ourselves with substantiated facts if we want to engage in intelligent discourse.

* Contrary to populist opinion, illegal immigrants do not "swarm into the country" (Mizanor Rahman, January 25, 2008). Over 40% overstay their visas. They don't all come from Mexico. In 2014 5.4 million came from Asia and Central America. None are eligible to receive public benefits - ever.

* Welfare for illegal immigrants is mostly associated with children. Under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, U.S.-born children of immigrants are natural-born United States citizens, and they are eligible for programs like Medicaid and the state's Children's Health Insurance Program.

There are an estimated 3.4 million households headed by illegal immigrants (Center for Immigration Studies, 2015). Illegal immigrant households without children accessing welfare programs comprise only 14% of all illegal households receiving welfare benefits.

* Less than 1% of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5% of households headed by native-born citizens.

* An estimated 50% of undocumented workers are paid legally. They end up paying Social Security and other payroll taxes. Since many have fake or stolen documents (especially Social Security numbers) they cannot benefit from taxes withheld. Undocumented workers pay an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security. (In 2010 they also paid $10.6 billion in state and local taxes.) (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). The magnitude of this is evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "Earnings Suspense File," which holds taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and Social Security numbers. These deposits are significant. In 2003 alone $7.2 billion was credited to this fund. As of 2014 there were about 340 million unclaimed tax forms recorded in the file, compared to 270 million a decade ago.A good portion of these forms were filed by employers on behalf of undocumented immigrants. (SSA report of September, 2015, and The Atlantic of September, 2016).

Government agencies like the Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Health and Human Services produce ample statistics that counter the trumped up propaganda spewed by populist anti immigrant groups. However, many potential critics are lazy, and allow exaggerated claims to feed their ignorance. Such is the political climate we live in. While none of this excuses illegal immigration or undocumented workers, this information ought to contribute to the discussion and provide some perspective.

ELECTIONS - WHEN WE HOLD THEM, WILL THEY COME?

With the election less than two months away, one of the questions already cropping up is what percentage of eligible voters will actually participate in the process. Given the relative disenchantment with our major parties' candidates, and the anxiety among many about the state of the world and our place in it, voter participation could be a major factor in the outcome on November 8. Presidential elections traditionally tend to draw more voters than mid-term elections. In 2012 roughly 55% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, while in 2014 only 37% exercised their right to cast a ballot. The US has traditionally had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free world." Of 39 countries listing average participation percentages during lower house elections between 1960 and 1995 we end up dead last, averaging only 48%. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Participation," 2001).

Political scientists are often pre-occupied with voter turnout as a measure of system legitimacy. A high turnout is generally considered desirable. However, the issue tends to be more complex. Dictators have fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections to reflect their "legitimacy," while some low participation rates may result from opposition parties boycotting elections they see as unfair or illegitimate. Consequently, there are political scientists who question the view that high turnout is implicit endorsement of the system. One of these, Mark Franklin, contends, for instance, that in the European Union elections opponents of the EU are just as likely to vote as its opponents. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Engineering," British Journal of Political Science, 1999).

Esoteric discourse aside, political operatives regularly confront the practical question: "How do we increase participation by Americans eligible to vote?" Strategies designed to elevate participation rates include: Making voting compulsory, as is the norm in 22 other countries, including 12 Latin American countries (something President Obama suggested while addressing a civic group in Cleveland in 2015), automatic voter registration, designating election day a federal holiday, and moving election day to a weekend. None of these promises to be a panacea, but they do deserve consideration.

A study completed for the In Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that participation in compulsory voting countries averaged around 85%, compared to 65% in countries featuring voluntary voting rules. Some legal experts believe that making voting mandatory may be unconstitutional since "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to vote. opponents and proponents of such a law line up either supporting civil rights or asserting civic duty (as in the case of jury duty). Since some experts believe that compulsory voting would actually benefit the Democratic Party, such a change would more than likely die in Congress. However, the facts speak for themselves. In countries where voting is mandatory and enforced participation rates are significant. Australia, which has had a compulsory system since 1920, has turnout rates in excess of 93%. Countries like Venezuela and The Netherlands, where compulsory voting has been rescinded, have seen substantial decreases in turnout.

Proponents of automatic voter registration argue that adopting such a system will add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, increase accuracy, improve the security of our elections, and substantially enhance participation rates. (New York Unversity School of Law, September 22, 2015). This system has been provided to eligible citizens in 15 states, but there appears to be opposition to rolling it out nationally. In November of 2015 Governor Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed New Jersey to join this group.

A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was submitted and rejected by Congress in 2005. The suggestion was reintroduced in 2014, but has not yet been enacted. Proponents argue that it would increase election participation by allowing people to vote without interfering with their jobs, while underscoring the importance of elections in a democracy. Thus far eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico have declared Election Day a civic holiday. Turnout in Puerto Rico's quadrennial elections has been 50% higher than it was for presidential elections in the fifty states. However, the other members of this group have seen little real effect.

Another question that keeps coming up is: "Why do we vote on Tuesday? Saturday or Sunday would make much more sense." The reasoning goes back to 1845. That year Congress instituted a uniform date. The US was a largely agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicle to the County seat to vote. Tuesdays did not interfere with the biblical Sabbath or with market day, which in many towns was on Wednesday. Now Tuesday is a work day, which decreases turnout. Outside the U.S. Strong election participation in countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany and India are often attributed in part to holding elections on a weekend or on designated holidays.

No matter how many of us will ultimately cast our ballots this November, the question about participation rates will continue to be raised and potential solutions will continue to be controversial. The issue is not new. Greek philosopher Plato already admonished us centuries ago that "one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." So, go out and do your civic duty. Every election is determined by the people who show up.

COULD UN-SKILLED LABOR GO THE WAY THE HORSES WENT?

In July employers added 255,000 jobs, keeping the jobless rate steady at 4.9%. Whenever the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes these numbers, politicians of all stripes grab onto them to either exploit positive trends or to question their veracity. While most of us may not focus on more than that calculation, arrived at by dividing the number of people out of work and actively seeking employment by all individuals currently in the labor force, this simplistic expression of a national trend is insufficient to help craft policy responses. When we search for ways to combat unemployment it is essential that we understand why people are out of work. Economists basically identify three types of unemployment: frictional, cyclical and structural, while some also add seasonal as a distinct category. "Frictional unemployment" occurs because of normal turnover in the labor market, and the time it takes for workers to find new jobs. "Cyclical unemployment" refers to the ups and downs experienced by the economy, and is essentially the relative result of a bad economy. It increases during periods of slow economic growth. "Seasonal" identifies employment fluctuations that occur when jobs are only available during certain times of the year - like in agriculture and construction. The most complicated, and most difficult to fix, type of unemployment is "structural." This results when there are mismatches between the skills employers want and the skills that workers have.

Between 2008 and 2010 the economy lost roughly 8.7 million jobs, unemployment rates exceeded 10%. While the economy is recovering, and while overall unemployment is down, many workers have left the labor force, and are no longer included in that computation. For them the  recession is not over. Between 2000 and 2010 structural unemployment in the manufacturing sector alone shed 5.67 million lower-income, blue-collar workers. Significantly, much of this happened before the onset of the recession in December 2007. Populist candidates on the left and the right have been quick to collar this receptive segment of a potential, angry and discouraged voter segment. Nobody disagrees that this is a legitimate target. However, their approach of largely blaming globalization and international trade agreements has been well off-base. In reality only 13% of overall job losses resulted from trade. (Douglas Irwin, The Truth About Trade, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016). The main culprit is technology. "Automation and other technologies have enabled vast productivity and efficiency improvements, but they have also made many blue-collar jobs obsolete." Research at Ball State University found that improvement in productivity accounted for more than 85% of job losses between 2000 and 2010.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that 25% of current unemployment is structural. This equates to more than 3 million jobs. Structural unemployment is caused by fundamental shifts in the economy, exacerbated by factors such as technology, competition and government policy. A prime example of technology affecting the job market was what happened after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. For many decades, horse labor appeared impervious to technological change. Between 1840 and 1900 the equine population in this country increased to 21 million horses and mules. After the introduction of the automobile the trend quickly reversed. By 1960, the United States counted just 3 million horses, a decline of 88% in half a century. Many occupations linked to horse labor became obsolete.

While it took half a century to transition from an equine-based labor force, technological change today occurs much more rapidly, making it difficult for re-training programs to keep pace. Financial difficulties prompted many high schools to deemphasize vocational training, and community colleges are not always well connected to local job markets. Ultimately, however, we need to come to grips with the reality that simplistic cures based on attacking international trade agreements by political candidates affected by some form of Tourette's syndrome are unproductive. Structural unemployment can't easily be remedied by simple demand-side stimulus. Education is the key. Unemployment for college-educated workers is 2.4%. It is more than 7.4% for those without a high school diploma. This may be easier said than done. Our government may need to incent corporations to develop re-training programs for workers in endangered positions. But, as some have pointed out, it is unclear what kind of training will transform a 55 year old assembly-line worker into a computer programmers or a web designer. Another initiative, designed to bring blue-collar workers back into the labor force, is a massive campaign to rebuild our infrastructure. However, the proposals that are currently circulating appear grossly under-capitalized. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that it would take $3.6 trillion to adequately upgrade the country's infrastructure by 2020. To make this idea a reality we would need to change the political will in Washington. After all, much of this comes back to politics. Regrettably, politicians shun complicated solutions - they are more difficult to sell. Our de-activated workforce deserves better. 

DECISION 2016 - WILL OUR BIASES DEFINE US?

Many of us will go into the voting booth this November to register our selection for President and various members of Congress. While this exercise should be the culmination of a rational decision making process, a significant number of voters will use shortcuts and vote a straight party ticket. Until the 1960s and 1970s this remained a common occurrence. However, this method used to decide preferences has been in decline as the number of voters registering as "Independent" significantly increased. Nevertheless, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Utah still accommodate strong partisans by providing a ballot option allowing them to select "vote straight-ticket Democrat" and "vote straight-ticket Republican" to eliminate the need to vote for each race separately. When asked, many of us won't admit that party preference dominates the process we use to select our preferred candidates. We may proclaim that we, without articulating the details, use an intuitive or a rational process to reach our decisions. The intuitive method involves the belief that we have a grasp on the issues, and that we are therefore able to choose without the necessity to reason. The rational process requires greater intellectual involvement. It means systematically selecting among possible choices based on reason and facts. Even though many of us like to think that we listen to all sides of an issue, we don't often recognize the biases and emotions that influence our decisions. The study of ways in which emotional influences help voters make decisions is the subject of inquiry of an interdisciplinary academic field called "Political Psychology."

Some of the emotions recognized in academic studies publicized by researchers in this field include anger, fear and anxiety, emotions observers also idenitify as being prevalent in this year's election cycle. "Anger" is said to increase the use of generalized knowledge and reliance on stereotypes. Voters displaying this emotion tend to be less likely to research a candidate's policy positions. Studies in psychology have shown that voters experiencing "fear," on the other hand, rely more on detailed processing when arriving at choices. "Anxiety" emotes increases in political attentiveness, while decreasing reliance on party affiliation. These voters are more likely to vote for candidates whose policies they prefer, and they are twice as likely to defect and vote for the opposition candidate. In addition, during every election cycle some writers will report that irrelevant events, like football games or the weather, have some influence on voters' choices in the voting booth. While this influence might be minimal, empirical studies have concluded that a win by a local football team during the final ten days of an election cycle on average causes the incumbent party to benefit by an additional 1.6% of the vote. Feeling good benefits the status quo.

Aside from emotions and their basing effect on voting outcomes, other biases producing an inclination toward a particular belief or perspective, often ill-supported by reason of evidence, include conditions we often are not even aware of. The most prevalent one of these is what we refer to as the "confirmation bias." People displaying this bias, and many of us do, have a tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. An example would be a reporter writing  an article on an important issue, but only interviewing experts that support her or his views on the subject, or several people on opposite sides of an issue can listen to the exact same story, and walk away with a vastly different interpretation. This bias prevents us from looking at candidates and ideas objectively. We search for information that put our candidates in a positive light, while only reading opinions about the opposing candidate that cast him or her in a negative light. We only listen to and hear what we want to hear.

Among other general biases psychologists identify, a few are also applicable to the voting process. Some voters have a "bias blind spot" - a tendency to think they are less biased than others - the thought that you somehow are above them, smarter, etc. The "halo effect" is another one, and one campaign managers frequently take advantage of. The idea here is that some  people believe that if someone is good at one particular trait, they are also trustworthy in something else that is totally unrelated. This often describes what happens when celebrities become part of a campaign. And then there is the "more exposure effect" - a tendency to like things merely because we are familliar with them, or the belief that since everyone you know believes the way you do, most everybody else does.

Finally, it is a fact that 70% of Americans believe that there is a great deal, or at least a fair amount, of media bias in news coverage. Most of what citizens know about politics comes from what they learn via the media. However, this perception tends to fit comfortably into the "confirmation bias." It is not so much the news media we follow we have a problem with, it is what the "other" media project. We select what channels we tune into. Right-wing voters may tune into FOX NEWS, while left-wing voters turn to MSNBC. Studies tend to show that the left-right bias balances each other out.

So, whether you tend to stick with party preference, as many of us tend to do, or whether you let your emotions determine the outcome of your selection process, be aware of what to be aware of. As long as you plan to vote with your head, follow the steps involved in making this election meaningful.

ELECTION 2016 - LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

With the long-awaited political conventions finally behind us, and the competing slates of presidential and vice presidential candidates in place, the political world is shifting its focus to the final 100 or so days of a contest that sometimes seemed to have no end.The race to the finish on November 8 is on. Early polling has the candidates of the dominant parties running neck-and-neck, separating them by about 4% - well within the margin of error. While this may be of some consequence and comfort to both, these polls, reflecting the national popular sentiment of voters, are ultimately irrelevant. In 1824 John Quincy Adams was elected President (by the House of Representatives) even though he amassed no majority of either electoral or popular votes; Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election

By one electoral vote, but lost the popular vote by 90,000; and George W. Bush surpassed Al Gore's electoral tally 271-266, but missed the popular vote by a whopping 540,000 votes. Popular vote tallies may provide bragging rights, they don't count in the outcome of the contest.

When we vote for a President, we are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. These electors elect our chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state's Senate and House of Representative delegation. The number of electors by state ranges from 3 to 54, for a total of 538. The magic number for the winner is 270. The vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress on Januray 6 of the year following the election. If no candidate receives a majority, the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President by the Senate. This happened when President John Quincy Adams was elected. The method of electing a President was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The convention considered a number of different methods, including selection by Congress, by state legislatures and by direct popular election. The current system, which was adopted with the intent to reconcile differing state and federal interests. It also was thought to provide a degree of popular participation in the process, to give the less populous states some additional leverage by providing "senatorial" electors, and to preserve the presidency as independent from Congress. Today all presidential electors are chosen by popular vote.During the early republic more than half the states chose their electors in their legislatures, eliminating direct involvement by the voting public.

The upshot of all of this is that political junkies intent on keeping an eye on their favorite candidate's progress need to tune into polling in so-called battleground states. Traditionally, Democrats are counting West Coast and East Coast states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York and others as "safe." Republicans  "control" a large segment of the center and south of the country, including states like Utah, Idaho, Arizona, all the way to Georgia and South Carolina. The most intense battles will be fought in 8 to 10 states that have swung one way or another in previous elections. Perennial swing states include Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia, while minority voters, and the perceived relative qualities and characters of the dominant candidates, more states than usual may be up for grabs. Most nonpartisan political analysts currently see the electoral map tilting in the Democrats' favor. Merging the ratings from four major handicappers reveal a lopsided outlook if the election was held today, with 216 electoral votes considered safe for likely leaning Democrat. (Wall Street Journal, Jul;y 22). However, a lot can happen during the next 100 days.

Potential influences on the outcome in November include a series of debates, scheduled for September 26, and October 9 and 19. The VP debate will take place October 4. Aside from these debates, the relative strength of Gary Johnson, presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, could have an out-sized impact on the performance of the dominant candidates. Mr. Johnson is already polling at 13%. He only needs to bump this up to 15% to be included in the debates, which would give him more exposure, and could potentially affect the outcome of the election. Finally, let's not forget the crucial "down-ballot" races that help determine which party controls Congress next year. The Republicans are defending 7 states which President Obama won twice. Republicans currently have a 54-44 advantage in the Senate. "Down ballot" races are frequently decided by who wins the White House. This year might be different. Either way, Democrats smell an opportunity.

All in all, there is a lot at stake during this election. Next January our Electoral College will, in a very real sense, cast ballots that could determine the direction of the country for some time to come. Our option is not to sit this one out. Become familliar with the important issues, listen to the debates, make educated decisions, and plan to vote with your head, not your heart. These races are too important.