Breaching Gerrymandering’s Defenses: An Attack Strategy

 

There have been many assessments on the dangers and damage that Partisan Gerrymandering does to a Democracy. In the US the principal front of the attack against Gerrymandering is centered on its diminution of one voter group’s rights (political influence) to the enhancement of another voter group’s control/influence over governmental officials and institutions. Most Americans disapprove of the corruptive and abusive consequences that Partisan Gerrymandering produces. Yet, Partisan Gerrymandering has proven to be extremely resistant to being reigned in or eliminated. Partly, this is due to its long history and court rulings that no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed, or that there is insufficient proof that provides a basis upon which the court, including the Supreme Court, could rule.

From a general assessment of the gerrymandering issue, it seems the bulk of efforts fall into grassroots efforts. There are the occasional lawsuit-based attempts to challenge the Redistricting maps which are created under the Constitutional requirement to fulfill the equal representation. On the political side, the grassroot efforts are educational, organizational and influence building oriented at getting the public to support and elect politicians that will implement anti-partisan gerrymandering or rely upon independent Redistricting processes or agencies. There are also research efforts that study and assess the degree to which Partisan Gerrymandering is being used by many states. This research has been used in support of some of the Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuits, but there has been a reluctance in the courts to accepting these assessments as “proof” of any law or right being violated. Justices have even indicated that the analysis and assessments are based of very complex and difficult to understand methodologies.

Partisan Gerrymandering is still present and deemed beyond SCOTUS’ ability to intervene due to several deficiencies in the Justices not having “Any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims” that provide a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” Given this 2019 decision, Partisan Gerrymandering will remain viable and in all likelihood will be dominant in the 2020 Census Redistricting efforts taking place.

These reasons may have been true at that moment of the Justices’ decision in 2019 but are no longer accurate today. What changed? Well, the Majority Opinion that Chief Justice Roberts wrote. He provided, perhaps inadvertently, a roadmap for prosecuting a case against Partisan Gerrymandering that only lacks the effort to assemble, file and prosecute. Fortunately for the Court, the Roberts’ roadmap provides them with the entire basis for over-ruling their 2019 decision insofar as the Majority Opinion provided the reasoning that the Justices needed to have ruled otherwise. The Court would merely only be following and respecting their own logic and legal interpretations.

Thus the next steps includes that some decisions must be made. The many groups and organizations that are engaged in the local grassroots efforts will need to decide how they will proceed. Those national entities that support those state-level efforts will also have to decide how they will support any attempts to eliminate Partisan Gerrymandering and preserve and protect our citizens’ right to “equal treatment under the law.”

Should a decision be made to pursue a new Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuit, or lawsuits, some initial steps that need to be taken would include:

·         Assemble the basis for the case, which requires a group of citizens in a state(s) that will claim their rights and interests have been violated and infringed by the Gerrymandering in their respective state.

·         Obtain the relevant data and information that will be necessary to use Chief Justice Roberts’ roadmap to overturn the 2019 decision.

·         Formulate a messaging & communications framework that provides:

o   an engaging case for the public (why it matters beyond our American principles & values),

o   the “standard(s)” that SCOTUS needs to resolve claims,

o   the “limited and precise rationale”,

o   a “clear, manageable” means to resolve the rights violations/infringements,

o   a resolution which is “political neutral”,

o   and a coordinated effort to enable the grassroots groups to energize their communities.

·         Define the legal approaches to be incorporated in each or individual cases.

The alternative to pursuing new Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuits is to continue with the grassroots work until those efforts can garner sufficient public support to affect a legislative change. I have no way to accurately judge the timeline for such grassroot efforts, but I would put any realistic estimate in terms of years. This would have almost no chance to have much if any impact on any state’s elections for the near term. The chance of new lawsuits progressing to the Supreme Court is more likely to have some potential for a 2024 election cycle, but I have no view of any prospects for the 2022 Mid-Terms.

This is a step-up moment for those seeking to correct the abuses of Partisan Gerrymandering.

Internet Integrity: Fixing Section 230

 

To: NPR's The Indicator - April 22, 2021's "The 26 Words That Made The Internet What It Is"

Hosts:  Bobby Allyn, Shannon Bond,

This review of the Section 230 exemption of the internet from responsibility for mostly everything has been a recurring theme not just of late but for a couple of years now. What seems to be missing from any reviews and analyses of the Section 230 issues and problems is a perspective that the issues and problems are easy to solve. They have always been easy to solve. For the last 25 years, there have been solutions. Oh, and these solutions do not place the burden upon the companies that argued that there isn’t anything that they can practically do or should be expected to do; which they say because it is to difficult and impractical. Also, internet companies explain that they don’t want be placed in the awkward and inappropriate position of having to engage in “censorship”. These companies fail to mention that there is no requirement or necessity whatsoever that they engage in any form of censorship.

There may be many legitimate reasons for why the internet companies and their leadership hasn’t known that there are solutions, or for why they could not find these solutions. Just because there are solutions to a problem does not mean that everyone who is aware of the problem knows there is a solution. It could just be that they do not know. Now, not knowing is understandable but it is not a good look for corporate leaders. Even if they do not know themselves, they should know how to find out. It could be just a simple as asking, or in directing staff to find a solution.

Another insight into why the corporate leader couldn’t solve the problems could be that they may have been trapped in a preconceived or assumed approach for solving the problem. Given that perspective going in that restricted or distorted their ability to conceive of or recognize the simple and available solutions to the problem. This would just be a simple failure to have followed the well established STEM-oriented methodologies for solving problems. If there are twenty paths that might lead to a solution but you only look at two or three the solutions that you are looking for may not be found via those paths.

The corporate leaders and their technical organizations are not alone in failing to find the simple solutions. Congress and congressional committees have failed just a badly. Congress’s failure is much more understandable and to be expected. Members of Congress are not exactly proficient or experienced problem-solvers, despite there being a Problem-Solving Caucus in Congress.

At this point the news media should be asked: Why don’t you know about the easy solutions to the Section 230 related issues and problems? Has no one that the media has interviewed provided the easy solutions? Did the “The Indicator” ask?

What is solving the Section 230 problems worth to the nation, to the public, the government, and to the internet companies? Consider what the benefits are to resolving all problems and consequences that flow from the current state of affairs. Seems like just another terribly wasted opportunity.

As Congress, regulating entities, the internet companies, and various interest groups work to address all the ills that Section 230 has enabled through the normal process of unintended consequences, it is highly unlikely that the simple solutions will be derived. The answers that are available today will remain out of sight and out of mind. This is the real shame and problem of Section 230 and the harm it has enabled and promoted.

The Guinea Pig Conundrum - A COVID Parable

 

Once upon a time, there was a country that was inundated by a plague. The plague was like any plague, it overwhelmed the population and disrupted everything about their lives, except one thing. The people of that country were perpetually at odds with each other over every issue or choice. So, it is not surprising that when the plague swept in, its citizens found a way to divide over the plague itself. The plague did not care, it spread on.

It is unclear why it made any sense to choose sides about the plague, but that is what they did. Perhaps it was simply the fact that they were so divided over everything else that they could not accept the fact that a plague wasn’t a choice, or political viewpoint, or that the plague was not going to care about even one of them let alone whichever side they chose. Nonetheless, the people chose their side and fought over that choice with each other. The plague did not care, it spread on.

When the physicians of the country developed a way to protect the citizens from the plague, even that became an issue over which the population divided. One side chose to follow the physicians by getting the vaccine that protected you; while the other side proffered a variety of reasons why that was not necessary or safe to do. The scientific community of the country mostly sided with the physicians advocating for people to get the vaccine, but there were some physicians (though a minority) and some in the scientific community, again a minority, which supported those opposing the vaccine choice. The plague did not care, it spread on.

The civil leaders went to the experts, scholars and what constituted reputable leaders (so, not politicians) to ask them what the country could do to bring the people together and work to bring the plague to an end. The consensus view was to diligently promote the reasons and benefits that getting the vaccine provides everyone and make the country safe and able to return to “normal.” This messaging was endorsed and promoted, but still the division persisted and there was a counter-messaging from those who opposed the vaccination messaging. The country continued to fight over the public policies. The plague did not care, it spread on.

As the two sides fought over their positions and their choices, the politicians also fought over the plague. The plague did not care, it spread on. The “experts” on this or that aspect of the plague continued to fight over every issue that arose as the country’s medical systems addressed and cared for those impacted by the plague as best as they could. The plague did not care, it spread on.

The news media and social-media provided information that supported the views that reflected the information, interviews, and reports that each side promoted on its views. Even religious entities became entangled with this division. Some chose one side; some chose the other. When those on the side that did not want to be vaccinated were asked why not, they gave their various reasons. One of the reasons given was: “I am not going to be a Guinea pig for the vaccine. You can be a Guinea pig if you want.”  The plague did not care, it spread on.

The country even held an election for its leaders during the plague; and of course, the election just like everything else pitted those on one side against those on the other regarding the plague. New leaders were elected. The Plague did not care, it spread on.

As those who supported the physicians’ guidance to get vaccinated got vaccinated the divide persisted. But as the number of citizens vaccinated increased the plague still did not care; but it did spread less rapidly, almost as if it cared. But soon the divide reasserted its impacts on the population. Those deciding not to get vaccinated began to represent most of those left in the country unvaccinated. This enabled the plague to continue to find available hosts to infect and while the plague did not know this, it did not care and it spread on, just more slowly.

The conflict persisted. One day a group of friends were discussing the dilemma over the plague and discussing the difficulty in addressing all the points of dispute and contention about being on the vaccinated or the unvaccinated side of the plague issue. One of the friends stated that it appeared that there did not seem to be any solution to the problem; and that the country would just have to suffer through the plague until the population reached the end. That is, reached the critical point where the plague either burned itself out or became a low-level background problem that could be accepted by the country. It was at this point where one of the friends noted, that does not mean that the country will not also obtain some benefits from the plague. The conversation came to a sudden and complete stop. Everyone turned and looked at the speaker. The plague did not care, it spread on.

“How can you think that?” exclaimed the group. “That is a horrible thing to say! People are suffering and dying.” The plague did not care, it spread on.

“Yes, replied the speaker. The situation is horrible, and we should have compassion and regard for those victims of the plague who suffered, died and those affected by those outcomes. But much of that was a consequence of our choices and of the divide over something that did not and does not care about which side anyone picked.

Consider those who claim that people who choose are just being Guinea pig for the vaccine. They are looking at that choice as if they are not also Guinea pigs. For any good experiment, which is what we have here between those on the vaccinate side and those on the do not vaccinate side, there needs to be two test groups. Two sets of Guinea pigs. Each of us has chosen to be either a Test Guinea pig or a Control Guinea pig. As the experiment runs (the plague continues) we learn the results of this grand experiment. Some of what we will learn will be very specific to which choice provided the better overall outcomes for one group over the other. These learnings can be beneficial to our collective future no matter which side you chose to be on. These lessons do not change the suffering or deaths incurred but it does not diminish the value in the knowledge gained.

Then there are other implications of the choice each group has made. How these different outcomes are viewed and assessed is just another level of how those different outcomes produce changes in areas that no one thinks of when they make their individual choice on which side they are going to be on. Who thinks about how the aggregate choices in a community will impact the community? Do communities that are mostly vaccinated have different outcomes and consequences from their choices than communities that are mostly unvaccinated? If two communities were virtually identical before the plague, but went down different paths; would they be affected identically once the plague passes?

When we look at the entire country and how conditions, situations, and outcomes; what might have changed that was unexpected, or unintended, or not desired but which produces some advantageous new realities. The terrible costs that those advantages may have levied is not worth the benefits but then those costs were incurred because of choices made. Choices that were not made with any knowledge of, insight into, or intention to gain some eventual benefits because of what happened.”

The group of friends were shocked that someone could talk about “benefits” that would come from the plague; and they expressed their horror that their friend to even say such things. The plague did not care, it spread on. The speaker however showed no signs of regret, remorse, or shame. He turned to his friends and asked, “What would you do to stop those outcomes given we have done far too little to deal with the plague and its affects?” No one in the group had an answer. The plague did not care, it spread on.

A friend finally asked, “What could possibly be such a benefit from all this harm?”

The speaker paused, took a breath, and then replied: “Even though you will likely think me callous and unfeeling, I am thinking about what happens after all that the plague will do has occurred. So, I am not advocating that it ought to occur but that we, our country, has chosen to do only what it has done and we will have paid the price for those choices. Given all that, go think about what will have happened to the following:

• What will have changed regarding Social Security? There are several things that will have changed. Does no one benefit?
• What will have changed about the country’s political parties? Are there no changes that impact the influence or control of one in comparison to the other? What if you just counted members?
• What might employees learn about their actual power relationship with employers be regarding their value to businesses?

If you can not think of one or two other things than that might explain why they have not been considered or recognized as impacts of the plague. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they are not understood; yet!” The plague did not care, it spread on.

At this point the speaker stood up and left his friends to contemplate his disturbing views. They began to fight over what he had said and chose sides over who was right and who was not.

The plague did not care, it spread on.

Facebook Oversight Board - Missing the Big Panoramic View

 

To: Molly Wood – MarketPlace Tech

From you May 7^th episode on Facebook and their Oversight Board, it seems you and your guest missed several of the problems that the Oversight Board is ill-equipped to deal with, and all of the rather obvious solutions to the plethora of problems plaguing the social-media environs. One can be forgiven for the latter. After all, Facebook seems unable to recognize the many solutions to various problems and missed opportunities; and even where governments have attempted to provide a regulatory structure like the European Union which has taken the old and ill-suited path that a legislative/regulatory approach provides. Even the “Real-Oversight Board” you referenced doesn’t appear to see how to resolve the various virulent strains of social-media abuses and risks.

Now, Facebook’s Oversight Board is a fine entity to have available to provide some ‘independent’ guidance and judgement over some high-profile or significant issues or cases that will arise absent the implementation of some competent features, capabilities, and policies by social-media platforms like Facebook. But realistically, how many instances of various abuses, misinformation campaigns, threats, risks, and even criminal activities can the Oversight Board contend with compared to how many there are actually occurring every day? Even if you cherry-picked the most notable instances the Board would be swamped in cases.

The argument proposed that good polices, rules, or regulations are needed to provide a fair and open democratic environment which protects people’s free speech and other rights, while also controlling or eliminating the problems sound like a perfect solution except it is a bit of ‘wishful thinking’. The central proposition is fine, but it is completely and absolutely dependent upon the understanding, foresight, and competence of the policies’, the rules’, and the regulations’ specific design, implementation, and execution. A good policy poorly conceived and designed can be worse and do more damage than not having a policy at all. Ineffective or easily avoided rules do not eliminate the harm or risks that they are to prevent. Regulations which do not hold anyone even partially accountable for might as well not exist. We can wish that we have created the proper policies, the smart rules, and the good regulations; but wishing is no more a good strategy than ‘hope’ is in really solving problems.

Based on this episode’s content and similar discussions in previous podcasts on MarketPlace Tech, MarketPlace, and many other entities discussing the same issues and problems with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the many other social-media environment you would think that these are especially difficult if not intractable problems to solve; especially, if one expects that users’ democratic social rights and norms would be protected. Testimony by major social-media and Big-Tech companies have even testified several times before Congressional committees on the difficult of the various problems. The CEOs that have testified have stated that their companies are investing significant resources and energies into addressing the problems that confront and concern the public, the government, and purportedly the industry itself. Several companies has indicated that they are investing in research and development of Artificial Intelligent approaches which are still some years away.

However, not one CEO indicated that many if not all of these problems are readily solvable. Of course, that may simply be because they do not know that there are good, effective solutions to their platforms’ issues. Knowing and admitting that you have a problem may be the first step; but it does not guarantee that you will or can see all the solution and certainly nothing requires you being able to recognize some of the easier and even best solutions. No one from Facebook apparently sees how to fix some of the very prevalent problems that they have had for years, that have been quite important of late, and that are chief concern regarding the nation’s future crises that social-media may unleash.

The Oversight Board demonstrated some of the shortcomings that Facebook’s current policies and rules have. But the Board did not provide any of the obvious solutions that would significantly reduce or eliminate the underling causes and vulnerabilities which not just allowed but enabled various abuses of the platform. There is no reason that the Oversight Board should have done this, since it is not obvious that they possess the requisite skill sets, knowledge, or perspectives that would even make them consider solving the underlying problems. Nothing prohibits them from having done so, but they did not.

How about the “Real” Oversight Board group you referred to? Did they provide any general solutions which ‘fix’ the problems? I did not recognize one if it was mentioned, so that could explain it. I am not sure I care if ‘they’ are a ‘better’ Oversight body, if they cannot provide solutions to the real problems not just to the after-effect problems.

I hope I do not have to explain why we should not or cannot rely upon politicians. I think politicians would rightly deserve that motto one finds above the entrance to Hell in Dante’s Divine Comedy. Logically this applies to Congress to a greater extent due to the compounding effect and their propensity to create more problems than they solve.

What appears to be missing is not a particular group or type of individuals, though there are competencies that persons involved in resolving these problems would need to possess, but rather a sound and reasoned approach for problem-solving used throughout the scientific world, the technologies world, the engineering world, and the mathematics world: Problem-Solving methodologies.

Social-media platforms’ and services’ problems need to be understood properly. This includes an appreciation of the constraints and requirements that must be met; and it includes a well-defined set of goals and objectives that are being sought. Even if the social-media companies undertook to do the proper problem-solving effort, they may still need so innovative, critical thinking, or entrepreneurial individuals who see solutions options and paths that just do not follow the pre-supposed solution approaches. The trick may be to ask the right questions, or to expand the space that the problem is thought to reside in or the space that the solutions are assumed to be found.

Imagine if solving “fake-news” were something that could be done almost overnight with next to no research, a tad of development, and the ability to enhance the social-media platform’s image and its value. What would that be worth to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, … or the users or shareholders of those enterprises? It is after all, quite simple to do.

Facebook v. Trump-ban: Easier to Solve Then They Know

Today I saw yet another example of how badly different sides of an issue are at solving problems. This regrettable display of non-Yankee ingenuity revolved around the Facebook v. Trump-ban issue. The failures over addressing this issue competently abound in numerous areas. Oddly the decision to ban Trump wasn't in and of itself a mistake, but it was all the other errors, missteps, and fumbles that proceeded it, were salient in how it came to happen, and in what has transpired since. Based upon past performance (unlike the financial world) future performance is highly likely to follow the same trajectory of abysmal incompetence by perhaps every constituency involved.

Facebook (and other social media platforms) hold their own share of ownership in the failures that have occurred because of their own inability or disinterest in solving the very visible and long acknowledge problems that they and their platforms have not just allowed but enable. The greatest portion of their guilt comes from not solving their many system problems with solutions that are actually remarkably easy to achieve. The Trump problem is a particularly good example of where the problem(s) that warranted his being banned also offered access to what should have been obvious solutions. Solutions not just for Trump's abuses but for the damage he did to their business and the risks he promoted to America's democracy.

Facebook needs to step up and either solve these trivial problems, or seek help from competent critical thinkers, systems analysts, and problem-solvers who show them the many paths to effective solutions.

Facebook isn't alone of course, and I don't mean the other social-media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, ....; but entities/groups that are also responsible. There is Congress, which is a double-edged tool, that neither acted up until now nor will likely act intelligently going forward. They created Section 230 which was a contributing factor to enabling most of the problems that have contaminated so much of social-media. Not everything in Section 230 is bad or problematic, but it is both incomplete and has never been adapted to deal with reality.

Now, don't look to Congress to fix these problems. Congress is much more likely to screw things up even more just due their not knowing how to competently understand the problems that need to be solved and being motivated to seek solutions which serve their agendas rather than providing the framework of requirements which would allow social-media companies to operate as private businesses while not violating our American values and principles. Again, not a difficult task to accomplish except for the fact that they are not well-suited for the task. They are merely politicians after all; and thus lack most of the requisite skills needed to do a moderately acceptable job.

We should not leave out the news media. They also contribute to the problems that we have. The media presents the Trump issue in a very narrow context which oversimplifies the issue. When they deal with the ills that the current state of social-media systems have enabled and sponsored, the news media seems unable to provide any perspective of the problems that don't just reflect what the companies what to present, or what the politicians are using to air their views, or what 'experts' will explain as the reasons for these problems existing without noting that there are good and readily achievable solutions.

There are other groups and entities that contribute to the growing cancer of abuses that are spread through the social-media vector. But all these groups including those above provide the very information which makes solving the problems so simple. With all this information the failure must be that no one is paying attention to the most critical task required. You have to do the problem-solving work to seek and find the solutions that will provide the answer to this Gordian Knot of fake-news, misinformation, threats & hate attacks, disinformation campaign, election interference by foreign & domestic interests, fraud, and of course terrorism by foreign & domestic entities.

So, why not just solve the Trump issue and most of the others by simply providing some simple enhancements to the technology and services that Facebook, Twitter, and all the other platforms could do? Why not do what would be better for the nation, the globe, the public, the shareholders, the companies themselves, and the industry? Why not? Is it that embarrassing reality that somehow they can't solve the riddle? They can't cut the knot?

Before Experts & Politicians Get Inflation Wrong

 

America is seeing the economic recovery light brighten as the COVID pandemic is more and more contained with vaccinations in the nation. This will be just one of the long-haul patients shedding the effects that have been inflicted by the disease. There are and will be lots of prognostications about how the Economy will recover. But a significant issue that is emerging as a concern and also as a bone of contention is Inflation. Part of the reason for concern is that there is a need for some economic stimulus to help boost the economy from the hits it has taken from the pandemic. The federal government provided funding during the pandemic to help keep businesses, industries, and workers financially viable. It has been recognized from past crises that not reacting or under-reacting causes the economic problems from recessionary factors to take longer to recover or more often than not to make the recession worse and more damaging to the nation. Along with this governmental funding is a concern that the government will over-heat the economy and produce inflation. That concern has a valid basis but is also one of the reasons that the Federal Reserve is responsible to act to contain and mitigate inflation from getting out of control and harming the economy.

But there is another aspect to Inflation which makes it a national issue. Inflation is a political issue that is used to support or resist various legislative or funding decisions by the government. Inflation is not a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats will use the specter of Inflation to support their political positions and ideological views. Politicians’ respective views will swing like a pendulum as the side that they support or resist works to advantage their political campaigns.

None of this will take into account that there are Inflation impacts already and it illustrates how out of touch and uninformed our politicians are in understand one of their own most important issues.

Now Inflation is a true financial issue. It has impacts on the economy. Inflation is not good or bad, it is just a produce of “cause and effect” processes in the economy. To much inflation is bad, just as to little inflation is not necessarily good.

A current forecast by one side is that proposed government spending will cause some increase in Inflation for a period of time but the boost to the Economy will be more beneficial and that Inflation will be a blip. Another side is projecting a catastrophic increase in Inflation which will do more harm and ultimately retard the recovery. Of course, neither side is required to be right or even know what they are forecasting based on how evets transpire. Regardless, we can expect the politicians to claim that they were right no matter what happens.

What is it that politicians would seem to be unaware of and don’t seem to be able to capture in their ideological stances on Inflation? Well, it is that there is Inflation now and it isn’t due to too much or too little governmental spending. Costs are rising now, before any Infrastructure legislation has been passed and before any other government spending legislation has been agreed to. Inflation is occurring now due to other factors. Costs are rising because there have been disruptions in the supply-chain for many businesses. Costs are rising because inventories are low as industries ramp back up to full-scape production capacity. Costs are rising because there is demand increasing more rapidly than supply can be produced. Costs are rising because there have been other natural events that have distorted the markets, such as weather damage to industrial production facilities. Costs are rising because the corona virus has introduced additional expenses into what the pre-pandemic cost structure was.

So, will boosting the growth of the Economy be a force that helps address some of the factors that have produced Inflation Now? Or, will it increase the pressure on Inflation causing it to rise more? If you pick your answer based upon your political alignment, then you are not approaching the question or the problem properly. It is almost always a mistake to know the answer before you know why it is the answer.

Beware of politicians! “Here Be Dragons!” And these are not intelligent dragons.