Pun Salad

David R. Henderson has worthwhile thoughts on a relevant topic: War and the Constitution. From a talk he gave on September 17, 2007, the 220th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

My heartfelt advice to youngsters: put not your trust in government officials, or those aspiring to be government officials.

Also of note:

• Justice in Washington caught peeking out from under her blindfold. David Keating notes a small problem with campaign finance laws: Campaign Finance Laws Institutionalize Corruption.

  There's new evidence in Washington state that enforcement of campaign finance laws often isn't about better government—it's about punishing political opponents.

  Consider four recent cases there that reveal the system's nature.

  The Service Employees International Union Healthcare 1199NW—a union of more than 30,000 healthcare workers across Washington, created by employees to advocate for common interests—failed to report $430,000 in political contributions until after the 2024 election, including $200,000 each to the Kennedy Fund, an arm of the Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus, and the Harry Truman fund, a PAC connected to the House Democratic Caucus.

  For such a huge omission, the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission issued a $6,000 fine, with only $3,000 required to be paid—less than one percent of the concealed amount.

  Compare that to tax-cut activist Tim Eyman, who was hit with over $8 million in fines, fees, and interest for campaign finance violations. The court acknowledged that the punishment left him "impoverished and almost destitute." His alleged violation was the late filing of campaign disclosures and using campaign funds for personal expenses.

  David's other examples are also telling.

  And for additional reading, check out Rich Lowry's This Is What They Wanted to Do to Trump, a look at (apparently successful) "lawfare" waged against Marine Le Pen in France. ("Elections are so much easier if your opponent can’t run.")

• L’Chaim. Martin Gurri has a moving essay on the Meaning Of It All: The Mortalist.

  The human condition is inescapably tragic. We suffer a thousand varieties of pain; then, without sense or explanation, the flame of life flickers out forever. There are no happy endings.

  The Buddhists console us with the thought that misery is illusion. Christianity promises a realm beyond the reach of pain. But most religions converge in the belief that this world—this narrow valley darkened by the shadow of death—is a place of tears and tribulations.

  So what’s the point of living?

  No one who has ever bounced a kid or a grandkid on a knee would ever ask that question. No one who has shared a life with a loving spouse would ask it. No one who has exchanged a secret laugh with a best friend, or enjoyed a brilliant conversation or felt a bond to someone or something that enlarged or even transcended the limited self—none would ask it.

  This isn’t logical or rational, because the tumultuous “gale of life” precedes logic and reason. We find ourselves here, alive, aware, deeply in love with as many things as cause us to suffer. That’s the starting position. We can’t back away. We can’t be unborn. No doubt there are evolutionary and biological drivers attaching us to the world—selfish genes, electrochemical impulses, etc.—but this doesn’t matter; only the abiding feeling of love and attachment does.

  As the Electric Light Orchestra didn't say: "Don't bring me down … Bruce!"

• 

  Betteridge's Law of Headlines Confirmed. Jack Santucci asks the question: Is Ranked-Choice Voting Working for New York?

  Just six years after adopting ranked-choice voting for primaries and special elections, New York City may be headed for another round of electoral reform—this time sparked by a tumultuous mayoral race.

  The fragmented Democratic primary means tomorrow’s winner will likely be determined by how voters rank candidates. If the result fractures the party, the general election could be similarly splintered—this time under a single-vote system. That outcome could prompt another push for reform, timed to coincide with the forthcoming revision of the city’s charter.

  In November 2019, New York City voters adopted RCV for closed party primaries. The goal was to select the nominee who best unifies a party’s primary electorate. Democratic voters first used the system in 2021 to choose Eric Adams, who went on to win the general election.

  Two major research findings suggest that ranked-choice voting does not live up to advocates’ promises. First, RCV often fails to produce a winner who earned a majority of all votes cast. Two political scientists warned of this possibility in a 2014 scholarly article on “ballot exhaustion.” This occurs when voters truncate their rankings—leaving some choices blank—or rank a frontrunner below a candidate eliminated early in the count. When enough ballots are exhausted in this way, the eventual winner may secure a majority of remaining ballots, but not a majority of total ballots cast. The most comprehensive study to date finds that 97 of 185 U.S. RCV elections from 2004 to 2022 suffered from this kind of “majoritarian failure.”

  As Bryan Caplan convincingly demonstrated in his The Myth of the Rational Voter, even Plain Old Single-Choice Voting is rife with irrationality and ignorance. Ranked-choice voting manages to add to that incorrect assumption, that voters will apply some sort of 4-dimensional chess game theory to filling in their ballots. "Good luck with that."