Humanities desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 19

Is this real

[1] It says The 2020 presidential election is projected to have record voter turnout, and the once-safe Republican state of Texas is shaping up to be a competitive battleground. But I am not sure how true as Texas had a few counties with over 90 percent for Trump in 2016 71.254.10.112 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It basically depends on whether Hispanics will vote at a higher rate in 2020 than they have done in the past. AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And those counties that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 tend to be in sparsely populated rural areas; in a statewide vote, they have little weight. --Xuxl (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They could, indirectly, have a great influence. That is, if a state senate is elected in a manner similar to the national senate, with the same number of senators elected from each county, this could result in rural counties having power disproportionately more than their populations. This would then allow them to gerrymander the voting districts to the advantage of the Republican Party (although if the State House also has a role, that more democratically elected body would provide a check). SinisterLefty (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This indeed used to be the case in many states, but the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed disproportionate representation in state legislatures in Reynolds v Sims. Note also that some states (though not Texas) have nonpartisan/independent redistricting. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic that they found this unconstitutional at the state level, while the same disproportionate representation favoring rural states is enshrined in the Constitution at the federal level for the Senate and electoral college/Presidential elections. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution is an agreement among the states, and part of that agreement is that the US Senate has equal representation for each state. Mess with that, and the Union falls apart. States are sovereign entities. Counties within the states are not sovereign entities, they are merely arbitrary portions of acreage in the states. That was Warren's point in the ruling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some counties of Texas have populations in the three digits. Texas has the most counties of any U.S. state. Similarly, both California and New York have counties that went 65+% Trump in 2016, which didn't stop the states from going for Clinton by 62% and 59%, because those counties have small populations. For more on recent elections in Texas see 2016 United States presidential election in Texas and 2018 United States elections. Texas going Democratic for President in 2020 is probably still not going to happen, but it's been moving slowly in that direction for a while, and has been a topic of much discussion in U.S. political media. And of course (though some seem to forget) there are offices other than President; Democrats picking up House seats and possibly even a Senate seat, as well as state offices, might happen sooner. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that Texas has not always been monolithically red. In living memory for most people, it had a feminist Democratic governor. --Jayron 32 12:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And going back further, Texas was part of the "Solid South". So, the current state of politics is in no way an indication that it must be permanently so. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the red and blue scheme only became established with the 2000 election. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. are a few years older than that. --Jayron 32 12:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, my point was the term "red state" was not in use before the 2000s to denote a state dominated by the Republican Party. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, during the Cold War the main meaning of "red" was communist. Ironically, Trump seems to be pushing the Republican Party into Putin's arms, so "red" may be closer to the old meaning than we would like. Or we could pick the third color from the US flag and call the Republican Party the "white party", which would also go along with Trump seeking support from white nationalists. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"For more on recent elections in Texas" We already have an article on United States presidential elections in Texas, covering elections since 1848. In summary by political party:

Democratic Party victory (1848-1856).
Southern Democratic Party victory (1860).
Liberal Republican Party victory (1872).
Democratic Party victory (1876-1924).
Republican Party victory (1928).
Democratic Party victory (1932-1948).
Republican Party victory (1952-1956).
Democratic Party victory (1960-1968).
Republican Party victory (1972).
Democratic Party victory (1976).
Republican Party victory (1980-2016). Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing historic newspapers

Hi - I normally write about historic buildings, using sources I find myself online or books that I own, but I'm venturing into a new subject area (a historical biography), and access to historic newspaper archives would be extremely useful. Does anyone know of any online resources I would be able to access that might allow me to view the following newspapers?

Aberdeen Weekly Journal from 1877
Belfast Newsletter from 1859
Dundee Courier 1859
Aberdeen Journal 1860
The Leeds Mercury 1863

I am working from a 2014 source, which references all these (and more) - I guess I could cite everything to the modern source, but going back to the originals would be helpful as they may contain more detail about the events in the subject's life. Any advice that anyone could offer would be most helpful. (Please ping me in any response, my watchlist has grown so large as to be almost useless for keeping track of conversations). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digitized archive of 1079 UK newspapers from the 1700s forward. I'll note I did not check everything you listed, but "Aberdeen Weekly Journal" did not go by that name in 1877, so you may get the false impression they don't have it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: The Wikipedia Library grants active editors access to newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com which both have digitized UK newspapers from back then. Not sure if those newspapers specifically are included but you might want to check it out nevertheless. Regards So Why 06:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, that's very helpful - I'll investigate the Wikipedia Library and see about getting access to them. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have access through Wikimedia and can email you any you need in the mean time if you shoot me an email first. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question re Farm Bill

Can any one who reads this direct me to a source for a breakdown of the recently-passed Farm Bill, total dollar amount $956 billion, showing the total amount going to each State/ Thank you. Martin Harris Jonesborough, TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C100:18D8:8D8F:A7DA:6C9A:63DF (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The total amount going to each state likely wouldn't be stated directly, as it depends on how many farmers apply for which loans, grants, etc., and that will in turn depend on the prices of various crops, the weather, etc. So, at best you could get expert estimates. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the money is earmarked for food stamps. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue then, it would depend on how many people in each state apply, unless there's a fixed amount each state is given to distribute (and even then, what happens to unspent funds ?). Also, matching state funds are often required to access all the money, and whether those are provided depends on actions of the state. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You can find government reports on the number of farms enrolled in Farm Bill programs by county, and the number of people receiving food stamps by county. But darned if I can't actually find outlays by county, which could fail to match since enrollees in these programs do not receive a fixed amount of money. I'm sure this data exists somewhere, since you can find summaries by state for all spending. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government by chance

Is there a word for a government that makes decisions based on chance. A democracy is a country that governs based on the people, a monarchy governs based on the King/Queen, etc. So, what would be the equivalent name for a country that governed by a coin toss? As a side question, would such a government actually leave us better off? The coin would be right, in that it made the decision that benefits society the most, 50% of the time, which might actually be better odds than Congress. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC) + minor edit[reply]

stochocracy is the word. It was /would be / actually still is (to select jurors) used by a democracy: electing people is literally aristocratic (government by the best, as assessed by the people), NOT democratic.

Gem fr (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the best word that actually exists, but it isn't perfect. I'm thinking of a system where decisions are made by chance, rather than by people picked by chance. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Trumpian". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that’s what I get for trying to have a serious discussion on the internet. *sigh* --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's not serious, you're not following Trump closely enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It bears saying here: Just because you can think something doesn't mean a word already exists for it. There may very well be no single word to express the idea you have here.--Jayron 32 01:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s entirely possible. I was just curious to see if such a word does happen to exist. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky parts: 1, selecting the set among which option will be randomly chosen is already a decision. How would you make it? 2: the governed body could very well choose randomly to NOT follow the orders. 3: most people would simply not consider it a "government" at all. Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I think this should actually be implemented, but if it was, I imagine a system that considers bills in a similar manner that Congress does. The bills will be sponsored by a Congressperson and then must be approved by the various relevant committees until it is voted on. Only, instead of voting, a coin will be tossed to determine if the bill is sent to the President. Worst case scenario, if the bill is tyrannical, it will die in committee. Even if it doesn't, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court, and lastly, you can always make another law to override it. Try passing the new law enough times, and eventually the coin will land on heads. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to make point 1 myself. For example, authoritarian nations often only give the people a choice of candidates for office who are "party members in good standing". In other words, no reformers allowed. So, the real power would be in deciding which bills get considered, as any that go up for the coin flip enough times will eventually pass. Also, how would you decide on a range, like the income tax rates ? A whole bunch of coin flips, each representing +1% or -1% ? SinisterLefty (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; aristocracy is certainly not about electing "the best as assessed by the people". Government by people elected by the public is representative democracy. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not "the best as assessed by the people". "the best" (as assessed by the people; People will have different ways to decide who are the best). aristos is literately the word for them, in Greek. Election by votes is THE aristocratic principle, as opposed to birth-right or any other mean to design people (exams, for instance: cooptation). Constitution writers did not used the word democracy for reasons: democracy was considered an awful, degenerate, regime back in the day (recent political events are no short of reasons why they would think so), and they tried their best to make a Republic, not a democracy. The correct designation is actually elective oligarchy (So said my teachers, and you can check it by yourself just by reading the definitions: oligarchy obviously apply, democracy do not unless you engage in lengthy twisting of meaning) Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem, see etymological fallacy. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nothing etymological here. Just history and definitions. Now you can claim than uni teachers are teaching crap based on false history and etymological fallacy, despite it being perfectly in line with known facts and definitions... Gem fr (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology, not definitions. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question. I doubt there is a word other than the already mentioned stochocracy, as this is more a theoretical construct than something that happens in the real world. But do read the short story "The Lottery in Babylon" by Jorge Luis Borges for something akin to this. --Xuxl (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually inspired by The Machine That Won the War which is an excellent short story. Although, the very nature of this discussion has probably spoiled the ending if you haven't already read it. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side point: Why do none of these articles have sources? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1971 novel The Dice Man (plus sequels) by Luke Rhinehart describes a man who applies a similar approach to his own life. As suggested above by Gem, Puzzledvegetable and SinisterLefty, problems (to put it mildly) arise from the choice of decisions to which the random process is applied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Barks' 1952 story "Flip Decision" suggests the term flipocracy, based on the ideology of flipism. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While governing based on heads or tails is a flippin' bad idea, choosing representatives that way may be better than elections. This would eliminate all the deceptive ads, lies, slander, secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering, recounts, etc., associated with elections. The lack of experience of those who win this "lottery" could be compensated for by assigning them staffs of experts, who would know how to write laws that can withstand legal challenges, etc. And unlike the mostly rich, white, male lawyers that get elected, the law of averages should make those randomly chosen actually representative of the population at large. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this point, and others, are made in the stochocracy article. Gem fr (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sortition is the "selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates". Not confined to ancient Athens; "A dead heat between two parties in one ward in Bradford during local elections in the UK led to the winning candidate being chosen by drawing lots" (May 2019). [2] Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually done by the short straw method. Whoever draws the short straw loses. 2A00:23C7:990A:A601:1CBE:EE16:B1A8:B628 (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]