Well, we have some unfinished business that is about to be finished, we have new business to consider and we want to start the New Year off right, so … let’s enjoy good company and good conversation at the first Politics and a Pint of 2009!
Unfinished business … all is well that ends well. In 2000, candidate George Bush was elected by the narrowest of margins. Although his victory was confirmed in the 2004 election, many of the opposition spent the entire eight years of his tenure complaining bitterly about how the election was stolen by the Supreme Court and other methods. At the time, I argued that the losers wanted to change the rules while the winners wanted to follow the rules. I argued that following the rules and confirming that we were a nation of laws was more important than the actual outcome, though I confess at the time I supported the outcome. For the last eight years we have been treated to a never-ending series of subtle and not-so-subtle passive aggressive actions, epitomized by the bumper sticker that claims “He’s not MY president“.
Now we are reaching the end of a similar situation in Minnesota, as we find ourselves about to declare Franken the winner of the 2008 election even though a good analysis of the votes would conclude that Coleman probably won. Why probably? A statistical argument would note that Coleman’s 200+ vote lead in the original mathine count, with its lower error rate, was a better predictor of the true wishes of the people. A political argument would be that the state is almost perfectly divided between Democrats and Republicans and that the best representation would be to have one Senator from each party (ha, as if politicians care about fairness). But the answer we must live with, just as in 2000, is that the process, which calls for a mandatory recount, a mandatory recount with its higher error rate which is therefore more likely to pick the wrong winner, that mandatory recount must rule the day by rule of law. Fetch me my “He’s not MY senator” bumper sticker!
The fact that we have a flawed method for identifying and settling elections (the law states that in the event of a tie, choice will be made by choosing lots (i.e., randomly)) does not permit us to throw away the laws just because we do not agree with the outcome. We should instead work to change the laws. But what are the chances we could agree on a statistically correct answer? Given the sad (but improving) state of public education I think we are doomed to a future that lives in the past, and we will just have to hope we do not see this again. In a political environment that is more about “beauty contests” than ideas we will continue to see the parties attempting to divide the middle without alienating their extremes. A perfect recipe for close elections. Fasten your seat belts, we are in for a rock ride.
Local new business. Sibley School needs to be expanded. Government’s all over the country have seen the writing on the wall … and it says the trough of public funding is about to be filled with easy money (federal script) to fund infrastructure projects. Local governments are scrambling to get their favorite projects “shovel-ready” so when the opening bell rings they are in line to get theirs. Northfield is going to joint the rush by having planning in the works for an expansion to Sibley school. Is such a plan justifiable when we believe
- big-box schools are contributing more to the problem than they are delivering by economies of scale?
- the downturn in the economy may lead to laying off some teachers, which will mean empty classrooms in the building we already have.
Or do we just want to “get ours” at the expense of needier locations?
Feisty but polite, we’ll talk about these and other topics at the next Politics and a Pint!
Details:
What: Politics and a Pint
Where: Contented Cow in Northfield
Date: 4 Jan 2009
Time: 6-7:30PM
