Special board meeting tomorrow

     The district has posted notice of a "special" board meeting tomorrow (Thursday, March 31, at the usual place) to discuss a "proposed settlement" of Westphal v. Wagner (the prayer lawsuit).
     The meeting is at 5:00 p.m. and will include an opportunity for public remarks prior to the trustees' closed session.

Doom, de doom doom

California schools move closer to doomsday (Kathryn Baron; TOP-ed)

     On Tuesday Gov. Jerry Brown called off negotiations with Republican lawmakers that were aimed at putting the tax extension up for a statewide vote in June. This move pretty much crushes any chances of sparing public schools from even deeper cuts for the next school year.
     “Each and every Republican legislator I’ve spoken to believes that voters should not have this right to vote unless I agree to an ever changing list of collateral demands,” Brown said in a statement posted on his website….
. . .
     “Much is at stake, and in the coming weeks I will focus my efforts on speaking directly to Californians and coming up with honest and real solutions to our budget crisis,” said Brown in his statement. His communications staff wouldn’t elaborate on what that means; however, one idea under discussion is gathering signatures to put the tax extension on the November ballot. But that may be too late to help schools that will have already laid off teachers and implemented their “Plan B” austerity measures. It also poses a thorny political dilemma. The current tax increases expire at midnight on June 30. Any vote after that is no longer an extension of the current taxes; it becomes a new tax increase, and that’s a much harder sell to voters.

     In late January, we excerpted from an article by (CCLC’s) Scott Lay in which Lay proclaimed:

     As if Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to slash $400 million from community colleges' budget was not bad enough, it looks like it could get worse. ¶ "If its an all-cuts budget with no revenues, we estimate it will be $900 million cut from colleges," said Scott Lay, a president and chief executive officer of the Community College League of California.
. . .
     Brown's spending plan, which assumes voters approve a $12 billion extension of existing temporary taxes in a June election, would eliminate funding for 67,856 full-time students across California…. ¶ If the tax revenues are taken off the table, community colleges would need to cut an additional $500 million in each of the next five years, according to the league….

SEE ALSO State budget talks collapse, no June ballot measure (Total Buzz)

     Among the Republican leaders who have brought us to this difficult situation is SOCCCD's own "Dandy" Don Wagner, who, these days, is squawking and peeving and poking at the State Capitol. Like so many Republicans, Don seems to have essentially one message: we hate taxes.

The latest on Orlando Boy: tyin’ up loose ends

Team Fuentes: Dave Lang, John Williams, Tom Fuentes -- aka "the Beelzebublians"

     Former Trustee John Williams isn't gone yet. A few minutes ago, the OC Reg’s Kimberly Edds posted the following:

Quisling Dave

$15k more requested to look into Public Guardian (Total Buzz)

The county’s chief executive wants to spend another $15,000 to wrap up its investigation into allegations of mismanagement by Public Administrator/Public Guardian John S. Williams. The investigation, which remains confidential under attorney-client privilege, has already resulted in demands Williams resign, the splitting of the two departments, and the removal of Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian [and OC DA fiance] Peggi Buff.
. . .

Orlando bound!

The law firm of Colantuono & Levin was hired by the county for $40,000 in November to look into a series of accusations against the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. Now the county wants to throw in some more money – $15,000 to be exact – to tie up a few loose ends and fund any necessary follow-up services, according to a staff report. Williams is both the elected public administrator and the appointed public guardian. The county spent weeks trying to negotiate Williams’ early exit from office, but calls for his immediate resignation went unheeded. He remains the county’s elected public administrator, a position the board cannot take from him and one he says he will hold until he retires Jan. 23, 2012….

     Loose ends, eh? Pretty tantalizing, if you ask me.
     The County surely ought to have a clear picture of just what Williams has been up to. If it’ll take another $15k, then it’s money well spent.
     And then surely the public should be able to see the facts for themselves. All of 'em.

To hell in a handbasket

Can run; can't hide

More Professors Face Records Requests for E-Mails (Inside Higher Ed)

     A think tank in Michigan has filed state open records requests seeking e-mail messages to and from labor studies scholars at three universities, related to the skirmishing over public employee unions in Wisconsin, according to the blog Talking Points Memo. In the wake of the controversial filing of similar request for the e-mail records of a leading scholar at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the Mackinac Center For Public Policy submitted requests under the state Freedom of Information Act to policy centers at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University. The requests seek e-mails since early January that include the words "Scott Walker" (Wisconsin's governor), "Wisconsin," "Madison" and "Maddow" (for the MSNBC commentator Rachel).

Good grief.

Florida Bill to End Tenure at Community Colleges Advances (Inside Higher Ed)

     Just days after being introduced, a bill that would bar community and state colleges in Florida from awarding tenure to faculty members was approved, 8 to 4, by a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday. Faculty groups and several college presidents have come out against the bill, but a representative of the Associated Industries of Florida, a business lobby, endorsed the legislation. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Representative Erik Fresen, a Republican who chairs the K-20 Competitiveness Subcommittee, said that tenure makes it difficult for colleges to adjust to meet student demand in certain fields. "Oftentimes, the colleges cannot respond in time because of these 'handcuff' situations," he said.

Good news; bad news

Defenders of the Humanities Look for New Ways to Explain Their Value (Chronicle of Higher Education)

     A crowd of nearly 200 people gathered here [in Washington] on Monday to listen to a series of academic luminaries speak passionately about the importance of the humanities.
     Though billed as a "Symposium on the Future of the Humanities," the talks were less about new directions than about the value of traditional humanities in an era of gutted budgets, and against the insistence, even by many in academe, on measurable "outcomes" in higher education.
     "We have come to rely on the explanatory power of quantification in a way that far exceeds its usefulness," said S. Georgia Nugent, president of Kenyon College. "The nation has succumbed to the myth that everything can be measured, and that, moreover, the measurements that count are those of the market economy."....

New York Times

The March meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees: Merlin the Magician?

In the Reagan meeting room.

     6:30 I've set this post to appear at exactly 6:30 p.m., the scheduled start time of tonight's meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees. Naturally, the meeting won't start then, but I'll likely be in the room, staring at the walls, feeling like Buster Keaton (with the rock 'n' string).
     Did you know that the district feeds the trustees during these monthly meetings? You betcha. Meat and cheese and such. On skewers maybe. With tiny flame-throwers and pseudo-napalm made of lard.
     6:31 - "The lawyers" just left the closed session. Couldn't read 'em. Grim, I think. But with lawyers, you never know.
     The room is slowly filling up. It's still light outside--I'm feelin' summer comin' on! A festive orange-and-blue gift basket (or some such thing) awaits each trustee. Don't know what that's about. Right about now, trustees are lappin' up milk 'n' cookies 'n' luncheon meat.
     6:42 - I checked those "gift baskets." Turns out they're just an IVC mug with an IVC T-shirt and chocolate stuffed into it, sittin' on a delightful bed of fake, orange confetti-substitute. Plus a blue ribbon. Wrapped in cellophane, natch.
     6:52 - Still got nothin'. I'm feeling that my life is ticking away. The outdoors calls to me....
     Yeah, it's great outside; nice California sundown. Kids are out there talkin' about surfing, of all things. I spotted Dante, the whizzbang financial guy, wearing a nice (albeit rumpled) suit. He's talkin' finance or business with Brandye and some other suit. It's 7:00 and nothing's happening. The room stopped filling up. It's still pretty much a skeleton crew.

Heaven forfend!

     7:11 - THE MEETING BEGINS. The trustees are emerging. I see Meldau, Fuentes, Prendergast, Jay, Padberg. Don't see Milchiker or Lang (yet). Ah, yes, Lang has appeared. Still no Milchiker. Padberg and Poertner have disappeared. Some trustees have examined their Cellophane Giftage. They seem unimpressed.
     7:18 - Still no Milchiker. Nancy is grabbin' her gift crap. She filed it below immediately.
She knows crap when she sees it. Poertner is more polite, pretending to admire the T-shirt and mug within.

     7:19 - Marcia Milchiker just arrived. They are starting the meeting!
     Milchiker reading out actions:

(1) An announcement re some litigation. I don't know what that is.
(2) 7-0 approved unpaid benfits for somebody taking leave.
Those are the only actions in closed session that she can "read out," Milchiker says.

     Bill Jay: moment of silence for Japanese victimsd of tsunami. 5.9, 6.3 pulled

Room of magic

SHOOTOUT AT THE ATEP CORRAL:

2.4 SOCCCD: Facilities Corporation 2011 of the South Orange County Community College District, Initial Organizational Meeting (I believe this concerns ATEP and the financial scheme discussed at recent meetings)
     Fuentes speaks: mentions effort to end redevelopment agencies in Cal. "And here we are" going along with redevelopment! Continuing to grow government and to spend. I believe this is wrong. At this time, we should be moving on a "pay as we go" basis. This is unwise, ill-timed. Will be projected to the people--why are we doing this when we are asking the people of CA to pull in their belts? Why do we have this approach of privilege? I don't think that ATEP should be approached except if we can afford to do it, on our basis, our time frame, not motivated by "outside forces"; not being told the speed in which we need to do it. Should have the taxpayer in mind. It is my intent to be with the times, and to vote "no."
     They vote: all yes, with Fuentes "no." Fuentes continues to vote "no" on particulars. All others vote "yes."

Reconvening the board meeting (ending facilities corporation meeting).

No public comments or resolutions.

J'accuse!

Board reports:

Bill Jay: no report
Frank Meldau: no report
Marcia Milchiker: blah, blah, blah. Attended workshop for new trustees with Meldau and Prendergast. Up at the capital, they met with Assemblyman Don Wagner and others on higher ed committee. Lobbied for CC's.
TJ Prendergast: thanks IVC for "our basket." Holds it in the air.
Nancy Padberg: no report.
Tom Fuentes: no report.
Dave Lang: no report.
Student trustee Shieh: no report

FOUR REPORTS:
Chancellor Gary Poertner's report: We're about to begin discussions that are important. Brandye D'Lena will present. We all saw the bond program problems in LA. Will we have the same problems? Asked Brandye to go over that matter. Another topic: 20-20 Vision/Student Success. Have to do something to improve # of graduates/certif holders we produce. We have a goal of 1 million more by 2020, and that's a big order. Bramucci will present about that. With regard to ATEP, will hear from David Bugay about New Market Tax Credits. Answering questions raised by Trustee Tom Fuentes: how will this look when we're done? Are we in debt? Not? Randy Peebles will report on a number of issues that require decisions soon (about ATEP). Describing where we've been; where we are now; where we could go. In April or May, the colleges will present their visions of what they'd like to do at ATEP. We need to set priorities. What will we offer at ATEP? The proposed programs involve 300,00 s.f. Must prioritize, since we'll have much less space in the short term at least. We've been talking about "ground leases" to generate funds. Partnering with other agencies? Should we go beyond public universities? Private? For-profit? Religiously affiliated? Need guidance about this. Finally: what kinds of corporate partners we might entertain for ground leases.

1. Discussion item: Brandye D: "Protective Measures Relative to Construction Complexities": LACCD scandals re construction program. "All construction is fraught with danger." The LACCD projects far exceed the scope of our projects.

     Program management assigned to consultants -- frivolous spending ($6 billion). This was put into the hands of only two employees. Compare that with SDCCD project ($64 million), much smaller, with ten employees. Our project smaller still, four employees ($30 million). Very hands on. LACCD moral: Joked about the goodness of micromanagement.
     In general, Brandye seemed to have lots of reassuring things to say. I won't bore you with the details. Lots of gremlins in her slide presentation, but she seemed unflustered.
     From now on, if there is an atypical situation, you'll be informed (special consultants), says Brandye.
     Poor planning at LACCD resulted in waste. Presidents had freedom to change things, stopped projects. But SOCCCD has stayed the course. We're developing our master plan now.
     At SOCCCD, we pay as we go. Not as vulnerable to future costs. Discussed shoddy construction. The case of the science building: problems with plumbing in LA. Our recently built science building at IVC also had air-flow issues. But our project was much smaller. Science projects coming up at Saddleback. Some of the same people are working on these new projects and understand our construction issues, etc.
     Lots of measures in place; very hands-on. Construction projects are "infinitesimally" opportunities for problems. Can't avoid that. But we're prepared.
     Brandye made a strong statement about "ethics" in construction. No funny business going on here.
     We've improved transparency and accountability. "Plan your work, work your plan." You trustees keep us accountable, as do Presidents.

Fuentes: asserts that he is reassured by all this. Says there is a "great tradition" of communities that we serve--Irvine, Mission Viejo, San Juan C, etc.--ranches, agriculture, adobe and red tile architecture, mission. These things reflect who we are in a tangible way. Are those things considered in all this construction? These buildings all seem so "modern" or "post-modern."

     Brandye wanted to let Fuentes know that people have access to meetings. But Fuentes pressed the point: elements in our community, historical organizations--we should get these "experts" involved with their artistic, cultural knowledge.
     Brandye said she is unfamiliar with these organizations, but she will research them. Agreed that it was a good idea.

The eternally incipient ATEP

Meldau: compares San Diego (ten employees) and us (two). Brandye: we're very hands-on. We go to all meetings. If we were to expand our projects, we would indeed need help, but we seem to be doing fine right now. Meldau notes that, in LA, there wasn't sufficient oversight. Brandye had already agreed (in back-and-forth with Marcia) that there will be many updates. Brandye was very reassuring. Poertner: addresses and corrects some concerns.

2. Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP) Planning and Development

     VC Randy Peebles: some history. Showed slides. Briefly describes activities re ATEP since 2004. We've been very active in last 9 months. Describes phases, including demolition, which has much improved the property. Career Technical Education is the focus at ATEP. Discusses Career Technical Education (CTE). Pretty rambling, dry, unexciting.
     Describes "progress" since 2007. Blah, blah, blah.... What we'll need to do to become a "center."
     Discusses "building 1." 30K s.f. One college? Two? Mix of programs? All CTE?
     Future partners: the possibility of "ground leases." Similar to what we're doing with apartment complex at Saddleback. Discusses a draft of "desirable criteria." Need direction from the board.
     Building at ATEP brought to halt a year ago by lack of agreement on programs. This continues (?).
   Key questions: Who will be at ATEP? IVC? Saddleback? Combo? Other key questions.
   Etc.

3. SOCCCD:  2020 Vision Report

     VC Bob Bramucci: brief introduction to national and state effort that will be a regular companion for the next 9 years. Blah, blah, blah. America's position re other nations is in decline with regard to education. Falling behind. Current generation may well be less educated than parents. Only 12% of initial group of 3rd grade students get college degrees, etc.
     Grim statistics. On the other hand, all entities are pulling together in same direction. 20-20, etc.
     Compares CA to Texas, New York, Fl, etc. We will be a huge part of the effort.
     CA's goal by 2020. A million more graduates.
     Bramucci is a good speaker. But his message was spooky. Hard to see how we'll accomplish in the state what we "need" to accomplish. Discussed diversity issues.

Fuentes to Dante: "Merlin"

4. SOCCCD:  New Market Tax Credit Report (Merlin the Magician)

     Last report: by VC David Bugay: positive murmurings. Has fun with the word "alocatees."
     Will there be debt? "Yes and no." District will loan money to corporation. Blah, blah, blah. A complex transaction. Five entities involved. Bugay does pretty well explaining the stuff, considering. Fees. Loans. Leverage. Buckets of money.
     I am now lapsing into a coma. Such pretty colors....
     ....Um, I can see Fuentes' face. He's concentrating. Grimacing. Lang yawns the biggest yawn ever yawned....
     Fuentes: 5.5 million in transaction costs: could you define? Dante comes up to explain. Conservative estimate of cost. Fuentes stares. Did you know that Dante is an opera singer? I see colorful lights....
     Endless murmurings about consultants and "alocatees"....
     Fuentes: transparent you say? How transparent? What we're used to?
     Dante: more murmurings... Fuentes grimaces, but that means nothing (beyond the room bathed in ugliness).
     Fuentes: I see you as Merlin. I learned long ago that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Nobody up here understands the magician's act you are selling us. Dante: I'm not selling you anything. Fuentes: you have been from the beginning....
     Blah, blah, blah .... Bugay describes attorney involvement, review. Lang: will there be a separate legal opinion in connection with this transaction? Dante: yes. Murmur, murmur.... Complicated scenario of opining by lawyers....
     Fuentes: might we turn to the Chancellor? I continue to have concerns. A redevelopment agency. A move afoot to do away with them in the state. Gary, can we obtain an opinion for us if we have anything to be concerned about. Gary: be pleased to do that.
     Fuentes: 64 days. Clock starts ticking. Full disclosure of participants. Find out who the investors are. Due diligence necessary. Bugay: we will be transparent. All parties will be identified. Will see who the participants are. You will be able to investigate. The board "owns this transaction."

PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
(5.9 was pulled earlier.) Consent calendar. 5.13 separate, Milchiker. Lang: 5.6 and 5.8. They vote. Unanimous.

5.6. Award of bid, grant. Lang had questions about sustainability of program. Blah, blah, blah.

5.8. Community education at the colleges this summer. Lang: Honoraria set hourly fee, bonus. Blah, blah, blah. Burnett: no course goes forward unless it is economically feasible.

Once were cats

6.1. bam.
. . .
     It's now 9:04 and the board is powering through most of the rest of the agenda. Some confusion about something that was passed (6.4?) but should have been pulled. Tedium and annoyance fill the room. Everybody wants out of here by 9:30. They have to withdraw a vote. (I don't think I've ever seen that.) Now they're talking about "lease back services." Fuentes: thought this was being pulled, so did not speak to it. But I have serious problems with this, he says. Discusses an incident years ago in the County. Fears that this proposal "has some of that in it." Could we hold this matter for a month? Get some questions answered about "fair competition."
      Padberg tries to head of Fuentes at the pass. Fuentes: contractors participating in government projects. Opportunity of employment. Unions. That was the issue; you must not have read the paper. Prendergast suggests there's no problem...  Fuentes: pointedly: we're setting policy; let's not railroad this through. Padberg: we've discussed this before. You need to make a motion to table. Fuentes does so. Lang seconds. They vote.  Prendargast and Padberg do not prevail; it is tabled.

6.5. CCT board of directors, election. Blah, blah, blah. Poertner is asked to clarify. Something about nominating someone. Always a bit confusing, says Gary. He seems bemused. Prendergast seems annoyed or lost. Fuentes: the tradition has been to send an OC voice to the board. I dunno. Prendergast is glad to get clarification. The matter passes.

6.6. Wanna nominate a trustee for OCSBA board of directors? Lang: anyone interested in serving? Milchiker: served on this for 20 years. Hopes someone else takes the opportunity. Prendergast utters a loud "no." Laughter. Everyone passes on this "opportunity."

6.7. Board policy revisions. Lang asks about if we had a "UCI type of event" in our district. How would we respond? What are our regulations. (A reference to BP 5401-Student Conduct.) Gwen P comes up to discuss this. The policy is very thorough, she says. We haven't had exactly that kind of situation at IVC. (Referring to Muslim hecklers issue?) Gwen points out that the first thing listed on the policy is "disruptive behavior," then "willful misconduct." Then "disorderly conduct." All mentioned in policy. Lang seems reassured. Blah, blah, blah.

They vote to continue the meeting until 10:00

Lang: re student trustee board policy. Suggested modifications. Catches a glaring error. Easily corrected. It gets pulled. Everything else is approved.

6.8. Calendar: accepted for review and study.

6.9 same.

6.10. Lang asks about new dean position. Burnett explains. Blah, blah, blah.... Everything passed except b1 and b2, which will be discussed separately.

Gwen P: with this position, two things happen. Service to students is pulled together in way more expedient, available. Also a savings of $20k. Pretty dry. She's pretty passionate about it, though.

--My battery's nearly dead. Don't think anything else will occur tonight. I'm outa here.

     See also Tere's Board Meeting Highlights

Krugman v. Cro-Magnon

"Hey, what are you thinking?"

American Thought Police (Paul Krugman, New York Times)

     Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state’s political turmoil. He started a blog, “Scholar as Citizen,” devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin’s Republican governor has turned his back on the state’s long tradition of “neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.”
     So what was the G.O.P.’s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon’s university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word “Republican” and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
     If this action strikes you as no big deal, you’re missing the point. The hard right — which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party — has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.
. . .
     What’s at stake here … is whether we’re going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It’s up to the rest of us to see that they don’t succeed.

This is your brain on drugs

     OK, I don't usually do this sort of thing, but, today, I'm gonna mention some paradoxes. Some philosophers love paradoxes. I merely like them.
     Here's one that, like it or not, I think about all the time, owing to how I make my living:

The Surprise Quiz Paradox:

[Y]our teacher tells you (i) she's going to give the class a surprise exam next week, and (ii) you won't be able to work out beforehand on which day it will be. Using this information, you work out that it can't be on Friday (the last day), or else you'd be able to know this as soon as class ended the day before, contrary to the second condition. With Friday excluded from consideration, Thursday is now the last possible day, so we can exclude it by the same reasoning. Similarly for Wednesday, Tuesday, and finally Monday. So you conclude that there cannot be any such exam. This chain of reasoning guarantees that when the teacher finally gives the exam (say, on Wednesday), you're all surprised, just like she said you'd be. (The Surprise Examination Paradox)

     As a teacher, hearing about this paradox is a little like receiving a notification from your insurance company that your policy is cancelled now that you're dead. You're pretty sure you're not dead. But then there's this notice. Cool.
     Here’s a paradox (or a set of paradoxes) that I often refer to in my lectures:

Puzzles (paradoxes) attributed to Eubulides of Miletus:

The Heap: Would you describe a single grain of wheat as a heap? No. Would you describe two grains of wheat as a heap? No. ... You must admit the presence of a heap sooner or later, so where do you draw the line?*
The Bald Man: Would you describe a man with one hair on his head as bald? Yes. Would you describe a man with two hairs on his head as bald? Yes. ... You must refrain from describing a man with ten thousand hairs on his head as bald, so where do you draw the line? (Sorites Paradox)

     Students imagine that every word can be defined with a precise definition.
     Nope. Imagine a series of slight modifications (removal of small amounts) of a chair. When does it cease to be a chair? Any answer will be unacceptable because it is arbitrary.

     VOTING. More than one thing is referred to as the “paradox of voting.” The particular “paradox” I have in mind (roughly) is discussed in the encyclopedia entry below:

The paradox of voting … is that for a rational, self-interested voter the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote (i.e. in case of a tied election) is tiny compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs. The fact that people do vote is a problem for public choice theory, first observed by Anthony Downs. (Paradox of Voting)

     Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe in voting. I vote (most of the time). I think that I have good reasons to vote.
     But, in my view, one reason that I do NOT have for voting is the one we most often hear, namely, that “one’s vote counts!”**

     Unless one will countenance the fallacy of equivocation, one cannot really defend the notion that one’s vote “counts,” for, to say (in the relevant contexts) that one’s vote “counts” is to suggest that it will make, or it quite possibly will make, a difference to the election’s outcome (winning/losing). (I'm not particularly interested in the issue of self-interest; I'm interested in a point about efficacy.)
     Here’s where the so-called paradox*** of voting comes in. Obviously, for typical government elections (I’m not referring to elections involving small numbers of people—department elections and the like), the chances that one’s vote will make a difference to the outcome are extremely small.
     Consider the recent election for the “board of trustees” seat now held by TJ Prendergast, which was unusually close. The final tally was the following:

115,304 Prendergast
111,197 Muldoon

     As it was, Prendergast received 4107 more votes than Muldoon did. Suppose that Smith voted for Prendergast. Had Smith not voted, the outcome would have been only very slightly different: Prendergast’s total would have been 115,303, not 115,304.
     So, in fact, Smith’s vote, if it “counted,” it did not “count” in the sense that it made a difference (of any consequence) to the outcome. To be sure, his vote was “counted.” Nevertheless, it did not “count.” (Remember: equivocation is verboten.)
     It is true, of course, that it could have counted, though, in fact, it did not count. But, clearly, the odds of one’s vote “counting” are infinitesimal. Very likely, all of you who read this (hundreds!) will go through your entire lives voting and, in the end, there will not have been even one election in which any of your votes “counted” or even came close to counting in any meaningful sense.
     Some will respond to this by noting that, in recorded history, there have been elections in which a single person’s vote “counted” in the way I have in mind. (For an illustration, see Examples of Why Your Vote Counts.)
     Of course this occurs. Given the great number of elections that occur, this goes without saying, I think.
     But the occurrence of these events does not respond to the point at hand, namely, that, though it is possible that one’s vote will “count,” it is extremely unlikely that it will count. Given that one could live a great many lifetimes before encountering even one election in which one’s vote “counted,” in what sense is one being told anything true and motivating**** when one is told that one’s vote “counts”?
     In my view, when we seek to persuade people to vote on the grounds that their “vote counts,” we are either confused (i.e., we think we have a valid point when we do not) or we are lying/manipulating (we know that we have no valid point, but we offer it anyway perhaps because [we think] our end is good).
     My guess is that confusion more than lying is afoot.
     On the other hand, there are so many instances in which our “teachings” are manifestly (or nearly manifestly) invalid, we should consider the possibility that, yes, we offer this false point not “knowing” that it is false—but, still, it must be said that we have good reasons to suspect that, often, what we “teach” is logically hinky at best, and so, quite possibly, this is logically hinky too.
     Organic muffins, anyone?

Footnotery:

   *So what's paradoxical about this? Well, you start with a heap of sand. Plainly, after removing grains of sand for a sufficient period of time, you end with a non-heap (one grain). And yet there is no "line" that you cross to get from "heap" to "non-heap." You cross a line, but there is no line to cross.

   **To act to influence large numbers of voters—something sometimes available to leaders—means the difference between a significant number of people voting for X or not. Here, whether or not “Smith’s vote counts,” the leader’s urgings might count a great deal. It will remain true, however, that not one of those votes counted.
   “Yes, but what if everyone thought that way.” It is of course true that what (say) 50,000 voters in state X do during a particular election can make all the difference. And that is why those who care about the outcomes of elections rightly concern themselves with persons and events that influence large numbers of voters. But all of that can be acknowledged without falsely supposing that each voter’s vote “counts.” That the collective vote of 50,000 voters “counts” does not imply that each of those votes “counted.”

   ***What is “paradoxical” here? It is, I suppose, that, though it matters a great deal how everyone votes, in fact it matters not at all how any given voter votes. That Americans in general voted for candidate X matters to the outcome of the election. That any given voter voted for candidate X does not matter to the outcome of the election. To endorse both statements might seem to be the endorsement of a contradiction, but it is not.

   ****Obviously, one is not being told anything of significance if one is being told merely that one's vote could mean something like the difference between Prendergast's receiving 115,304 and 115,303 votes. Why would anyone care about that difference?







Good Eating Habits