For Those Expecting an "Electoral College Miracle," You've been Well Played

"It's a Christmas miracle!"  If you're familiar with American TV, you've no doubt heard this phrase numerous times in your life. Typically in the plots around Christmas time, something has got the protagonist down. Maybe it is a loss of faith or hope. But by the end of the show, something unexpected and improbable happens that lifts everyone's spirits, and restores hope to the protagonist. 

Judging from my social media feeds, many of my liberal friends expected the Electoral College to deliver such a Christmas miracle. 

It started with the so-called "Hamilton Electors."  Several news articles proclaimed that there were Electors ready to cast a ballot for some reasonable candidate other than Donald Trump. I remember at least one of my friends on Facebook expressing excitement in November that this rumor was an actual thing, as an article reached the mainstream press. 

Then there was the call for intelligence briefings for Electors in the wake of accusations of hacking by the Russians from the CIA.  Electors have a right to know if a foreign power influenced our electoral system, was the rallying cry. Again, many of my liberal friends in social media expressed real hope that the Electoral College would "do the right thing."

And then December 19th, the day appointed for the Electors to meet in their respective state capitals, came and Trump received enough votes to be elected President of the United States. Indeed, while those wishing for an "Electoral College miracle" needed more than thirty Electors pledged to Trump to defect, only two actually did. 

And thus, many of my liberal friends took to social media and expressed disappointment; some using the harshest of profanity over the result. 

The fact is that they, along with anyone else who expected a more dramatic result, were played. They were played by a propaganda gambit from their very own party, the Democrats, assisted by willing accomplices in the press. 

The fact is that stories of possible Electoral College defectors were drummed up by Democratic political operatives. The press then reported the stories in a way that hid the political leanings of the perpetrators as well their true intentions. 

Let's first consider the so-called "Hamilton Electors."  These were Electors supposedly ready to vote for any reasonable candidate other than Trump. News stories trumpeted the fact that there had been "faithless Electors" in the past; Electors who voted for someone other than the candidate who vote the popular vote in their particular state. There were some news stories that announced that numerous Electors were taking advantage of legal advice offered for free from a certain law firm concerning the legal consequences of breaking a pledge to vote for the winner of their state's popular vote. Surely these were all indications of a potential Electoral College revolt. 

The problem was that the press failed to report that these potential faithless Electors were all Democrats pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton. 

In the end, there were a total of seven faithless Electors; the most of any presidential election. They voted for candidates like Collin Powell, John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and even Faith Spotted Eagle, an American Indian tribal leader opposed to the Dakota Pipeline. But only two of these Electors were Republicans pledged to vote for Trump. Five were Democrats pledged to vote for Clinton.  This means that the so-called "Hamilton Electors" of  which the press trumpeted were very likely Democrats pledged to vote for Clinton all along. There never was any pending revolt of Republican Electors ready to "dump Trump."

Concerning the demand for an intelligence briefing over the alleged Russian hacking, media reporting was misleading in several respects. First, the press did its best to bury the fact that the push came from Democratic Electors, not Republicans. It would take a savvy reader some effort to discover that the originator of this demand was Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. Indeed, of the fifty five Electors demanding the briefing, only one was a Republican.  Hiding the affiliation of the Electors demanding the briefing gave the impression that Electors were ready to bolt from voting Trump. In reality, there was never really any danger in that happening. 

Second, the press willingly reported the so-called Russian hacking scandal in such a way as to exaggerate what the factual allegations were. The press used descriptions such as "hacking," a "foreign power" attempting to "influence the election," and the "integrity" of the "electoral system."

In fact, there has never been any allegation that the Russians ever attempted to hack into any of the state electoral boards and alter any vote count. But, by using such vague but inflammatory descriptors, the press was more than willing to have the general public conclude that the alleged hacking put the vote count in jeopardy. 

What has been alleged is that the Russians hacked into the email systems of both the Democratic and Republican National Committees to steal emails. It is alleged that the Russians leaked embarrassing emails about Clinton and her staff through Wikileaks. 

Thus the so-called influence was nothing more than an attempt to have an effect on the opinion of voters. Given the myriad of factors involved in the presidential campaign, it is highly doubtful that the release of embarrassing email communications had much of an effect on changing voters' minds. Quite frankly, the news emanating from the Wikileaks releases during the campaign was that there was nothing really ground-breaking from the emails. In the end, the email leaks were more hype than substance. 

Surely the news of the hacking should result in an effort to bring those responsible to justice for violating criminal laws. But, it is hardly a reason to overturn a presidential election. 

In fact, the news of how easily the Russians hacked into both the DNC and RNC email systems should emphasize why it was such a scandal that a sitting Secretary of State used an unsecured private server to communicate classified information. It placed such information at a high risk of being intercepted by foreign governments. 

So what was the purpose of these stories which dominated the news prior to the Electoral College vote?  First, there was a hope that more than thirty Republican Electors would be influenced to switch their votes and deny Trump an Electoral College victory. But that hope was misplaced. The parties choose the slate of Electors. They are chosen because of their strong loyalty to the political party. They are not chosen because they tend to be independent thinkers. 

Even if the campaign to influence the Electors succeeded, the race would simply be thrown to the House of Representatives, voting by state delegations, to decide. With Republicans in control of the House, the end result would likely have still been a Trump victory. 

The more important reason for the campaign to influence the Electoral College was to create a sense of illegitimacy of a Trump presidency. Trump didn't win the popular vote. He only won because of the disproportionate power given to small states by the Electoral College. Now the Electoral College failed to receive intelligence briefings of Russian interference and influence. And a record number of Electors were faithless Electors. Therefore, the stage is set to rationalize aggressive residence by the Democrats of the Trump agenda. 

What is comes down to is the fact that the public was played. They were played by the Democrats eager to paint the Trump presidency as illegitimate. They were played by a press, already biased against Trump, and willing to carry the torch for the Democratic Party. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

The Perilous Plight of Pistachio Girl

Yesterday, ARAMark, the food service provider for the Philadelphia Phillies, announced that it had parted ways with Emily Youcis, affectionately known as Pistachio Girl. As the nickname implies, Youcis was one of the colorful vendors who sold pistachios at Citizen Bank Park (CBP).  As a Phillies fan in exile in Northern Virginia, I get to see one, maybe two if I'm lucky, games at CBP each year. So I cannot say I have ever had the pleasure of meeting Pistachio Girl. But judging from my Twitter feed (@PhilBaseBallHis), which includes a number of Phillies fans and Philadelphia sports reporters, there is a degree of sadness over this news, as Pistachio Girl seems to have had an outgoing personality. 

So why was Pistachio Girl fired?  It seems that Pistachio Girl has some peculiar points of view, particularly when it comes to race relations. You see, she supports White Nationalism and is not afraid to express it on her social media accounts. ARAMark, wanting to protect its brand, fired her. 

The story intrigues me because there are a number of conflicting principles involved. There is the right to free speech, the right of a business to protect its image and the blurring of the lines of what is public and private caused by social media. 

Let's start by talking about free speech. To be clear, I abhor racism.  Judging people based on the color of their skin is just plain ignorant. But one of the founding principles of this country is the right to free expression. The right free expression is so strong, it protects even offensive speech. I personally may not like flag burning, for instance. But flag burning is protected speech, and as such I have to tolerate it. 

Indeed, under the guise of the First Amendment, US society has to tolerate many types of expression that some may find offensive, obscene and immoral. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it. You are also free to express opposition to views you don't like. But the fact remains, people with racist points of view are free to express their beliefs. 

This is the reason, for example, that not only do I oppose banning the Confederate battle flag, but I feel pride that this is probably the one country in the world where you can display such a symbol of treason and yet face no legal repercussions. 

So even though I strongly disagree with Pistachio Girl's views on White Nationalism, she has a right to have them and express them. In this regard, I strongly oppose political correctness and those who feel the need to impose on others the right way to think and talk.

Take the Hall of Fame candidacy of Curt Schilling, for example. I find it the height of obnoxiousness that there are a sizable number of Baseball Writers Association of America voters who refuse to vote for Schilling over his outspoken political views, when he has more career strikeouts and wins than Hall of Famer John Smoltz. Political correctness is, quite frankly, a way to punish people who dare to express more right wing political ideals. That has no basis in a free society. 

But even the right to free speech is not entirely free. One thing to keep in mind is that this is a right the people hold with respect to their government. It is not a right the people hold with respect to each other or businesses. A private person may need to be tolerant of opposing views. But that private person is under no obligation to provide a forum for expression that that person finds offensive. The same is true for businesses. 

Specifically, a business has the right to attempt to shape its image among potential consumers. If a business finds that its likely customers are offended by racist views, then that business has the right to protect its image from being tarnished by the outspoken racist views of its employees. 

In some ways, I wish sports teams understood this concept better. Sports is a form of entertainment. For many, it is a way to escape from the pressures of life by enjoying the competition among talented athletes. Cheering for your team can be a way to blow off steam and stress from daily conflicts. 

This is why many of us fans don't want things like politics mixed with their sports. I may disagree with the views of an athlete or a sportswriter, and when I am cheering for my favorite team, I don't want those views shoved in my face. 

Some have speculated that this is one cause of the ratings decline that professional football is experiencing. If Colin Kaepernick wants to believe that the United States is oppressive in its race relations, he has the right to hold that view and express it. But fans also have the right to be offended when he refuses to honor the National Anthem during a football game. In the same vein, when I watch Sunday Night Football, I would like to avoid being lectured on global warming by the likes of Bob Costas. And the National Football League has the right to control its image by prohibiting players, coaches and broadcasters from expressing controversial views while on NFL time. 

Turning back to Pistachio Girl, as I said, I have never had the pleasure to meet her, and I have no idea if she espoused her racist views while selling pistachios at Phillies games. If that was the case, then I have no problem with ARAMark taking action to protect its brand. 

The question becomes, to what degree does a business have the right to dictate how its employees express themselves while on social media and have the right to punish employees for expressing offensive views?

This is where the line between what is private and what is public has been blurred by social media. Perhaps it is inexperience and a lack of wisdom. But I have found something of a disturbing trend among millennials of not knowing when something is to be shared publicly and when something is to be kept private. I have been aghast at just how much private information millennials are willing to share in open fora such as Facebook and Twitter. This can range from simple offensive and stupid speech to the display of unabashed promiscuity. It is almost as if millennials do not understand that by posting things in social media, they are adding to a public image which can be embarrassing and indelible. 

This is why, I maintain very separate online personas. I have different Twitter accounts for my law practice (@WilliamJKovatch), my baseball hobby (@PhilBaseBallHis) and my penchant for sarcastic and irreverent humor (@wjkovatch).  I don't want my law firm brand or my baseball hobby tainted by politics.  Indeed, some clients may be shocked to learn that their immigration lawyer is a Libertarian leaning Republican. Likewise, I believe that my wisecracks about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump don't belong in my discussions about baseball. 

And it is when you peruse Pistachio Girl's Twitter account, you see that she not only proudly refers to herself as "Pistachio Girl," but has also posted pictures of herself in her ballpark uniform alongside some pretty inflammatory statements about race. Mixing her employment with her views online certainly gave ARAMark concern that its image was being tarnished. In this regard, ARAMark had every right to regain control of its image, even if it infringed on the free speech of its employees. 

Perhaps the situation would have been different if Pistachio Girl had kept her online personas separate. If she had not referred to her work in any way in her tweets, I would have a greater problem with her firing. This is not to say Pistachio Girl does not have the right to express her views. But expressing such views, in a way that can reflect on an employer, can have consequences. If nothing else, the plight of Pistachio Girl can serve as a lesson that speech may be free, but free speech can have consequences. And those consequences are intensified by the far reach of social media. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.