Where’s the Outrage? One would think that somewhere in this interminable election season that one of the news networks or cable news outlets would spend the time it takes to produce (and the public to consume) one tiny article or editorial on the “Swing State Phenomenon”. But no one has. Perhaps because there is no chance of it being changed in the short term and apparently little evidence that the parties who could change it show any inclination to do so long term. The impacts of the status quo are obvious and given. The major party candidates campaign only in six or eight states where the competition is extremely close. They virtually ignore (except for money raising efforts) the 40+ states that are thought to be safely in one party’s column. The parity that those 40+ states produce is interesting. Two of the three largest states historically favor the Democratic Party & its candidates. When California with its 55 votes and New York with 29 votes are combined they represent over 31% of the total number of votes needed for a candidate to reach the 270 total for election by the Electoral College. This is balanced, of course, by Texas’ 38 votes that have recently been safely Republican. Several dozen small (votewise) states join Texas in being solidly “Red”. This all makes the contest come down to the more competitive, closer races in the “swing” states of Florida and Ohio plus five to seven other states that Obama and Romney both think they could win if everything falls right for them by election day. Most news readers and pundits and most of the country believe that the way it is must be “Constitutionally mandated”. And parts of it are. The Electoral College formally electing the president is, indeed, constitutional. What is not required, however, is that states cast all their Electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in that state, even if that winning total is only a mere plurality. (Those years where the Green Party or Libertarians or other third parties garner a few votes, some states end up being “won” by a major party candidate who falls short of a majority total.) But the “unit rule” that is employed by 48 states is not required by the constitution. States could decide to cast their Electoral votes proportionally, reflecting a closer approximation to the popular vote their state produced. In a “proportional” world rather than one controlled by the unit rule, California in 2008 might have awarded 40 votes to Obama and 15 to McCain. Conversely, instead of winning all 34 Texas Electoral votes, McCain might have earned 20 to Obama’s 14. When tallied individually by states, the result would still have been an Obama win, but not, perhaps, the “landslide” it appeared to be. Were the “unit rule” to be mothballed one result would be a nationwide presidential election campaign instead of one limited to the swing states. As a voter who has not lived in a swing state perhaps ever, I for one would love to see the candidates attending rallies and campaign events in my state. I would drive two or three hours to see a candidate in person at a stadium rally. But alas, the only candidate I’ve ever seen live was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. (Oh, I did see Obama live in Feb. 2008 prior to his losing the TX primary to Hillary Clinton.) But this year, since the 2012 nominating conventions I don’t believe voters in any of the nation’s eight or ten largest cities have seen either candidate live and in person. Their VP mates or surrogates may have campaigned at fund raising events, but no presidential candidates. Why? No real need. But if a candidate stood to win as many Electoral Votes in a losing effort in Texas as he can in Iowa or Colorado, he well might reallocate his resources more evenly across the country. I understand why states and the major parties prefer the “winner take all” effect of the status quo. A true nationwide campaign would become infinitely more challenging. But it would be infinitely more democratic and fair. And I assume this one change would produce a huge jump in voter turnout nationwide. Of course, this is one reason Republicans likely will never give it a reasonable chance. By the way, were you aware that Maine and Nebraska do not use the unit rule. They allocate Electoral College votes by House Congressional Districts (with the popular vote winner statewide also getting the two votes representing the Senators in their state). Nebraska has used this for only one presidential election, and Maine several more. It has resulted in Maine still allocating all its Electoral votes to the popular vote winner. In 2008 Nebraska cast one vote for Obama and the rest for McCain. Maybe in 2016 I’ll attend a presidential candidate rally. Bet I’ll need to plan to visit a distant cousin in Ohio, though.

Big Bird

I am disappointed, though not surprised at the amount of media attention and Twitter activity devoted to Romney’s declaration that he would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since we essentially borrow that money from China. What annoys me is that Romney could and did get away with making so much political hay out of such a straw man. The CPB “subsidy” isn’t big enough to be called a drop in the bucket. It’s more like a drop in a swimming pool.

Little League Baseball

I’ve been watching young boys try to learn how to bat a baseball for the last 5 or 6 years. It started with my eldest grandson who was about 8 when he began. He is now 14, and his younger brother is 11. Down here in south Texas, the little league kids get to play at least two seasons a year, "Fall Ball” and Spring or Summer ball. Sometimes the summer season gets extended by “AllStars”. So the boys have had a number of different adult coaches and teachers offering advice, admonishments and coaching on all aspects of the game. Often, maybe even usually, the various coaches support and reinforce each other, even over time. Coaches from Fall Ball generally do not offer totally different insights into skill attainment than the Summer Coaches do. (And in fact, several coaches are involved in both Fall and Spring ball, anyway.) And even when different coaches suggest somewhat different strategies, these still tend to mesh well into the development of overall skills for the boys. And, of course, the two lads compare notes and evaluate what they are told, discarding what doesn’t work for them unless specific coaches are adamant about certain points. And then I personally end up analyzing all I see and hear through the lens of memory. I was a decent little league player myself. And I compare what I hear to what I recall working for me and what we were told several decades ago. This essay is addressed not at all aspects of hitting, getting on base, and contributing to a team’s offense. It will be limited to one narrow aspect. Both my grandsons have developed a preference for “taking” the first pitch. This is not a 100% tendency, but probably does surpass 67%. That is to say, most of the time, they go to the plate intending to watch the first pitch without swinging at it. They have indicated that even if the first pitch is a called strike that their confidence grows after seeing the first pitch. What I find puzzling is that this approach is apparently the preferred method offered by most of their coaches. On those occasions where I’ve discussed it with the boys one of the answers to “Why do you do that?” has been that that was the sign they got from the coach. They were told at times to “take” certain pitches. And often it is the first pitch. They, therefore, develop little desire to defy the coach. What if after getting a “take” sign they swung at the first pitch and missed it or dribble the ball back to the pitcher? I do not recall ever as a player years ago getting a “take” sign on the first pitch. But it’s been enough years, I could easily be mistaken. Nevertheless, my generally memory is that I was usually empowered to decide on the first pitch on my own. Not to be misinterpreted, I am not offering these thoughts from any position of disappointment in the play of my grandsons. They have both developed into quality members of their teams, good players who get good hits and play the game well and hard. Both have been selected to All Stars, which ranks them in the upper echelon of players in their programs. But to be clear and honest, I now think that the average young ballplayer and my grandsons in particular would be well advised to abandon the mindset or intention to take the first pitch. Most little league players should go to the plate thinking they hope the first pitch is hittable so they can smack it. Coaches should reserve any “take” signs for those games and occasions where they are reasonably certain a pitcher needs to be forced to prove he can throw strikes before we help him out. My reasons are as follows: 1. Most young pitchers intend to make the first pitch a strike. They do not possess the confidence in their abilities sufficient that they will purposefully offer up the first pitch outside the strike zone. That obviously doesn’t mean they will successfully throw a strike. But it probably increases the odds slightly. Not only do they try to throw a strike, they will probably make it their fast ball. Knowing this, a batter can plan on the pitcher being successful. 2. The mathematics of the issue comes into play. Batters are given three strikes. If one deliberately gives away the first strike, that reduces the odds of hitting the ball from three shots to just two. And after having passed on a first strike, the pressure then rises on the next two. Should a batter miss or foul off the second strike, giving him two, both the pitcher and the batter are then in a position of enlarging the strike zone for the last strike. The batter has to swing at anything reachable. And the pitcher, knowing that, can offer pitches that are anything but reachable. So, my belief is that most young little leaguers would be well advised to go to the plate looking for the “First Ball, Fast Ball”. This obviously still allows for batters to exercise their instant judgment and lay off of balls that are not hittable or of the speed they were expecting. But it removes those occasions where the batter withholds a swing on a pitch down the center of the plate simply because coach told him to or he had no intention of swinging regardless. Let me close with this declaration that those men and parents who devote their spare time to coaching these lads are, indeed, saints. Thank you! Thank you!

LONDON 2012 (Part III)

It appears to me that Americans just didn't quite have 17 days of interest in the Olympics. The first 10 days we hung on every new event, heat, round. By this past weekend we had moved on to the PGA tournament, "Big Brother", and who knows what. I'm guessing the TV ratings on the closing ceremonies will pale in comparison to the opening ceremonies, in spite of the Spice Girls. Much of what we "learned" from this episode of the Olympics is that political & social correctness has progressed so much and is so rampant as to be almost stifling. Don't tell us that Olympic athletes are randy in the village. And don't be allowing silly athletes to Tweet prior to their message being checked by an agent/guardian/spokesman. But now that the games are over, let the wars resume!

Auroro Shooting: National Tragedy (Part III)

"Multiple deaths similar to the Aurora movie house massacre are the price we pay as a society to underwrite the Second Amendment “rights” for “lawful gun owners.” I normally abhor redundancy. But this is posted immediately following news reports of the multiple killings in Wisconsin in the Sikh house of worship. I intend to repeat this declaration following every senseless criminal action that is exacerbated by our toothless laws addressing automatic weapons and ease of obtaining ammunition. Wake up, DEMOCRATS! Ditto, REPUBLICANS! Gun control is not the slippery slope the NRA would have you believe.

Texas politics

Republicans want Ted Cruz. Really?? What quality "growth" would the Club for Growth desire for us?

London 2012 (Part II)

The media would have us believe that the Olympics are a microcosm of the human experience, that people of different nations and cultures share much more in common than in differences. I think I reject that notion. The "common man" does not adopt a four-year schedule pointing toward important life-events. We do not ignore 90% of what is happening around us in favor of focusing on our "training" and minute improvements in high-level skills. We don't subvert our supporting family members and friends to a lesser status as they show deference to our heightened needs for attention and accommodation. And we do not attempt to parlay celebrity status emanating from our peculiar skill to general overall expertise in world affairs or the human condition.