Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

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.

November 9

Is it possible to be many sexual orientations at once?

Is it possible to mainly be heterosexual, but also a bit asexual, pansexual, and bisexual at the same time? I'm mainly a heterosexual woman, but I have a little bit of queerness in me. I find transgendered woman attractive which makes me a bit pansexual, I find sometimes other cisgender woman attractive so I'm a bit bi, and I'm also afraid of having sex with any guy go I guess I'm a bit asexual and anti romantic. Is what I'm feeling considered "normal"? Swancat (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone answer a question like that? What is "normal"? And how could a Wikipedia Humanities reference desk be considered a valid or authoritative response? Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? (Seriously, this has not been an issue for me since I was 14.) μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you conclude whether Swancat and banned user Neptunekh are one and the same?--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Holmes: Is it probable, then? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Holmes and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Your allegations of some admin issue about this user based on a small, sensible question that many people might have asked seems inappropriate to me in any case, but doing so on the Refdesk is both off-topic and may look, whether or not you intend it to, like an effort to intimidate people who ask questions about GLBT issues. I'm hatting this section - please reconsider where and if you make such ad hominem allegations. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC) (Correction: F.I.M. told me he was asking Phil Holmes to justify his suggestion, not 'conspiring' about it, but this stuff still doesn't belong here)[reply]

Is there some reason to think this is solely because of one post? Swancat has recently revealed they come from BC, and also has a bit of a history of adding categories to articles with underscores. And frankly nearly all their questions sound a lot like Neptunekh. While I'm not sure if any of there recent behaviour is in itself problematic, they were banned from doing stuff related to categories for a reason and if this is Neptunekh, the fact that they are not only socking, but continuing to violate their topic ban is a bad sign. The fact that certain characteristics helped identify the editor doesn't mean we're saying there's something wrong with showing these, simply that these are part of what contributes to identifying the editor as a likely sock. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's far more offensive to suggest there's something wrong with calling out a sock when you notice them partly because of their questions about sexual identity but it's somehow okay to call out a sock when they ask about god and some random other stuff. And whether you like it or not, long established practice is this is okay. Edit: In fact, this first came up during the self identification as being from BC and was brought up before this question [1] [2], so making it about this question seems doubly wrong. Although again, this doesn't mean there was something wrong with bringing it up here, any more than it was wrong to bring it up with the BC question which was actually a far more reasonable question anyway. (Not because there's something wrong with asking about sexual orientation or identity relates questions on the RD, but simply because it should be obvious to nearly anyone that the main question is "yes" and the normal bit, as But stop has said is "define normal" Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unhatted this as the editor concerned was blocked as a sock, as I think pretty much anyone with experience with Neptunekh expected. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out down-low (sexual slang). StuRat (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "I don't like pidgeon-holing people". But looking up the actual wikipedia article, perhaps the Pigeonhole principle might in fact apply here about people having more than one clear sexuality. You need not give your sexuality a label, or any combination of labels. Eliyohub (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading some pre-gay rights work of literature that drew a distinction between gays or even bisexuals and "fairies" with a more diffuse sexuality that the author regarded as less serious. I don't remember what the book was, unfortunately - I always wondered if someone had continued and expounded on this classification. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have. Have a look at http://myumbrella.org.uk/ and be prepared to be educated on this! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straightness/gayness is often considered to be a continuum, measured by the Kinsey scale. Of course expressing it as a single number might still oversimplify things. It might be multi-dimensional, or even a tensor field affected by a lot of parameters that vary over time, etc. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal description of yourself does not resemble any Asexuality whatsoever. Fear of sex does not equal asexuality. There are people who very much want to have sex but are scared. Nor does not feeling horny 24/7. You clearly have a sex drive of sorts, which breaks the general definition of asexuality Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP/question asker was blocked as a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neptunekh/Archive#10 November 2016 Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AUS v USA

Hi all. A basic question about the US election for you. As an Australian, the concept of having all your minor elections on the same day as the presidential election is quite "different". Is a "governor" the same as a "premier" in Australia, and if so, how do their roles differ? — Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Governor is the "president" of the state. He's the chief executive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very quick-and-dirty way of putting it would be that the American president combines the roles of the Australian GG and prime minister, except without the legislative functions of the latter. Similarly, the governor of an American state combines the functions of an Australian premier and, what do you call it, lieutenant governor? That's the name in Canada. But without the legislative role of the premier. --Trovatore (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian states have governors. They're appointed vice-regal positions. The premiers have the real executive power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack. Interesting that it's "governor" in Australia but "lieutenant governor" in Canada. But Australia has "states" rather than "provinces" — are they more autonomous than Canadian provinces? I wonder if that makes a difference. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Trovatore: Well, the Canadian Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Australian Governors are appointed by the Queen of Australia on the advice of the relevant State Premier. Our governors have a direct relationship with the Crown, whereas Canadian LGs seem to have an indirect one. Maybe this is why when it came to implementing the Perth Agreement, it required the concurrence not only of the Australian Federal Parliament but of each of the State Parliaments as well, requiring not 1 but 7 laws to be passed amending the laws of succession. In the end, it was agreed that the Commonwealth Government could legislate for the Commonwealth and on behalf of all the States, but that still took each of the States to pass its own legislation to give that permission. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jack. So it does sound like the Australian states have at least more ceremonial independent standing than the Canadian provinces. Whether that translates to more real autonomy, I wouldn't know. --Trovatore (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there a Queen of Australia, but there was once a (somewhat misguided) attempt to have her proclaimed "Queen of Queensland" to reflect the relationship that state has with the Crown, which is separate from the Queen's relationship with Australia as a whole. No other state has ever gone down that path, but each of the states has an Agent-General in London. Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia sets out the matters for which the federal government is responsible, and leaves anything not specified to the states. To deal with threshold issues, the Commonwealth's laws prevail over State laws to the extent of any clash or overlap. That's still a lot of autonomous State power. I don't know how Canada's division of powers is organised. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled Governor (United States) which has some information you may find relevant to your question. --Jayron 32 13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the US also sometimes has small elections with no Presidential candidate on the ticket. There are midterm elections, and also special elections to replace people who resigned, died, or, better yet, have been imprisoned. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the magazines featured in Businessweek Year ahead issue?

Every year, Businessweek publishes something called 'Year Ahead issue'. Similarly, in october 2016, they published Year ahead 2017. In that they put a picture of newsstand in the cover and put design similar to many magazines. They put a design similar to The Economist and called it 'Global Economics'. Similarly 'Finance' referred to Financial Times; Tech referred to Wired magazine. But what magazine did they replicate while saying 1) Energy, 2) Figures and 3) Retail. Please help. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:8080:36C0:5007:4A82:B9C3:F8EF (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Energy they sampled a bodybuilding mag like Ironman (magazine), but styled the title in offstage mode. Retail also is a generic model of an undefinite, cheap fashion magazine. Figures might be distantly inspired by Fortune magazine but perhaps more accurately Forbes. --Askedonty (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time there was single-party control of the U.S. federal government?

On January 20, the U.S. will have a Republican president, a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and a Republican-controlled Senate. Soon after that, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court will have been appointed by a Republican president. When was the last time a single party controlled all three branches of the U.S. federal government, including both chambers of Congress? Red Act (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter says 1928. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, the parties don't "control" the Supreme Court justices whether they were appointed by a president from their party or not. And if you merely restrict to majority control of the presidency as well as both houses of Congress, it has happened several times since 1928. See "Divided government in the United States". Gabbe (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that, due to rules concerning the filibuster, a majority in the Senate is effectively 60, not 51. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It last happened from 2003-2007 when Bush jr. was President, Republicans controlled both chambers and had nominated 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the 1928 claim circulating on Twitter seems to have originated with Ann Coulter. Gabbe (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why trump won

What are some reasons for Donald trump being able to win the presidency and Republicans winning both houses?Uncle dan is home (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First up, nobody is entirely sure yet. A lot of polls were way off, but the margin is so large and across-the-board the conspiracy theory-type reasons (all down to the Comey letter/Wikileaks, Russian hackers, etc.) are off the table. It'll take a lot of time for people to compare demographics with the exit poll data (which, when I went to bed last night, looked OK for Trump but not great). And a lot of things people previously thought wouldn't swing it for Trump clearly did. But:

Argument made by Patrick Ruffini - it looks like character and image matter more than people previously thought. Clinton was not a terribly inspiring candidate (although, of course, she had a strong feminist base). Obama and Trump were celebrities. Bill Clinton was highly relatable despite having made it to the top of academia. Although this obviously doesn't apply to Trump or Hillary Clinton post-08, maybe it's notable that both Obama and Bill Clinton were burned by losing elections early in their political career.
I find David French's argument very convincing: Trump has for three decades developed an image as a successful businessman who is an inspiration to many hard-working people in business. Turns out it's hard to change that image overnight.
Republican voters are in the right places. Just like in 2000, Clinton will pile up votes in snazzy cities in NY, MA, VA, some parts of TX, CA...and lose by small and not-so-small margins in states that matter. This is called self-sorting; we need an article on the phrase. This is a problem for all institutions: the smart feminist high-school student who left small-town Pennsylvania, got a degree and took a job in New York doing [whatever, it doesn't even matter] is one vote less for Clinton in a swing state.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Trump got more votes in swing states, especially in the working-class. Again, this seems to be on a level of empathy and relatability, people who didn't like the sound of Mitt Romney did like the sound of Trump. Or people who did like the sound of Obama felt no reason to vote for Clinton. Romney didn't win his home state, Ryan didn't win his home state, Trump won both.
Arguably, poor surrogates. Democrats have not done well on a local level over the last eight years. Lacking strong respected local leaders backing Clinton may have been disastrous. (Down to weaker unions?)
Lack of trust in or awareness of the positions of elites. Not a single ex-president endorsed Trump. Not a single vice-president apart from Cheney. Nor did many local republicans in the primaries. Nor did most really big-time business leaders. Nor did a single major newspaper. Didn't matter. I think a good analogy here is with Brexit: it turns out people had made up their minds a very long ago despite leave having an iffy campaign with the defection of a major supporter in the last week. I also think that both President Bushes must be wondering what would have happened had they endorsed Hillary in the last week. Probably a lot of elected Republicans will wonder the same. It probably wouldn't have mattered. (A chilling flipside to this, of course, is that now Trump enters office with many of the best and brightest in his party as on-record-opposed to him. And they were right to be, but that will make his White House even more dominated by cranks and cronies.)
Possibly Democrats focusing on issues that their base cared about but seemed out-of-touch to a lot of people - see also, Wendy Davis. The obsession with those anti-transgender laws in North Carolina may have been counterproductive (although in retrospect maybe not, McRory lost, but I suppose maybe elsewhere). Trump identified a consistent message of things people didn't like about Clinton or thought they shouldn't trust Clinton on: trade, immigration, evasiveness.
And, I guess, novelty. Whatever you could say about what Trump promised (to the extent he promised anything or plans to actually fulfil it), you can't call it orthodox or doctrinaire. Very tough on immigration, but not very bothered about gay marriage. Pro tax-cuts, but also pro-parental leave and for a long time not explicitly opposed to minimum wage raises. Very aggressive on climate change denial, much harder than most Republicans.
Now to really annoy liberals: given her low popularity, Hillary's multi-demographic base was perhaps stretched too thin. For example, she couldn't support strongly anti-immigration policies or criticise anti-police black culture (not that I'm saying that these would be morally correct things to do, I mean if that was what she had to do to win white voters) because she had to appeal to too many demographics.
So for instance, say you see illegal immigration as a crime, why not build the wall to stop it? She had to use that clunky term "undocumented workers", Trump didn't. And in retrospect it was terrifyingly dangerous to assume that minority groups whose record of election turnout is flaky would unite for her: black people may be anti-immigration, Latino people pro-police and pro-death-penalty, both may be anti-gay, gay white people may be racist. (One thing I come back to is Nate Silver noting that A-A Democratic primary voters are often pretty conservative, even if they vote Democrat.) It turns out Trump did a better with black and Latino voters than Romney. A lot of Democrats who were slating Bill Clinton for being too far to the right on crime and the death penalty and welfare and immigration now look like they might have made a big mistake: in retrospect, the model for how Clinton lost looks like Wendy Davis. Then again, it's hard to imagine that she would not have disintegrated her coalition before she started had she run on keeping the death penalty.

Thoughts welcomed. Blythwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrggggghhhh! Lack of reason among about half of American voters? We now return you to your regularly scheduled surreality. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone more knowledgeable than me needs to elaborate more on those people who were expected by the pollsters to vote for Clinton but didn't turn up to the polls. In U.S. elections, getting your own potential supporters to actually turn up and vote is critical, and I'd like someone to say more about how Clinton fared on that score, and to the degree to which she failed, why? Eliyohub (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)·[reply]

The opposite is actually the prevailing opinion right now: That people who were likely to vote for Trump did not turn up in the polls for socio-economic reasons. This is comparable to the Dewey Defeats Truman moment from half a century ago. --Jayron 32 12:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more on that: this article notes "Geoff Garin, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, said many surveys had under-sampled non-college-educated whites, a group that Trump appealed to." This echos 1948, see here, which notes similar problems with proper sampling, and this article which is a bit less mathy and comes to the same conclusion. --Jayron 32 12:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Commission have concluded that the Leave campaign was electoral fraud - they said Turkey was going to join the EU, Britain did not have control of its borders and hundreds of millions would have to be paid into the National Health Service each year. All this was put out as fact when it was untrue. They did not criticise the Remain campaign as as being unfair. Was any of the Trump propaganda similarly flawed? 80.44.161.39 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of mid-2016 78% of Trump's statements were lies. By now he's made 63 mostly false statements, 117 full lies, 57 Pants on Fire (their term) lies and only 14 true ones according to nonpartisan fact checker Politifact. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as a lie if he doesn't know what "truth" means? I'm inclined to take Politifact with a grain of salt after hearing that they marked a statement (that there was no income tax before 1913, iirc) mostly false when Ron Paul(?) said it and true when some Democrat said it. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul's claim was rated "half true" not "false" and Jim Webb's claim was rated "mostly true" not "true". They were reviewed by two different people and "mostly true" and "half true" are adjacent so it could be random chance instead of bias. The guy who got Webb might've even been a splitter who tried hard to not give "half true" but the guy who got Paul might've seen the 3 "partial credit" ratings as ranges trisecting the "partial credit" zone so anything between 1/3rds and 2/3rds true would've been "half true".

The actual ratings are "pants on fire", "false", "mostly false", "half true", "mostly true", "true" they don't say "lie" so false honest beliefs would unarguably count. That makes sense, it's often too hard to guess whether it's ignorance and sharing enough false honest beliefs or one big enough could show a pol knows too little for the job (like if the "veep candidate thought Africa's a country" rumor is true). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} I'm fairly sure the Electoral Commission in the UK is by and large not allowed to rule on whether advertising is truthful, let alone conclude someone committed electoral fraud because they claim their advertising wasn't truthful. [3]. They may however limit how, when, etc someone can advertise, especially how much money can be spent [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the link says, "political advertising doesn't fall within the regulator's remit." It does, however, evaluate claims made in commercial advertising and if they are false can order them to be removed. It publishes regular reports on the outcome of complaints it receives. For the legal position regarding election statements (including case law) and the extent of the Leave campaign's turpitude see [5]. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what the source says. That's why I linked to it. Does that mean you are conceding your claim was incorrect? P.S. The second source is intended as an example, not specifically to demonstrate all of what I said with my second point. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced, but I know a few pro-Trumpers and have been following the news, and I think I can give as good a primary account as any other American. My feeling is that the Democrats committed early on to a model of immigration "amnesty" that was in fact not an amnesty in the usual sense but conferred a major reward (citizenship) only to people who broke the law (such as by paying coyotes who pay tribute to Mexican cartels to get over the border) and not to people who did not (who remain in Mexico). This led, predictably, to a surge of border crossings as the alleged control of Presidency and Senate by Democrats was widely promised in news reports. The Trump voters had suffered significant losses due, for example, to Mexican truck drivers entering the country freely under NAFTA, which happened at the same time as the demise of what remained of union trucking under the once-powerful Teamsters Union. They felt that Obama had tried to unilaterally decree a broken model of "amnesty" and had no concern for the effect on their jobs, and that they had no representation in the Democratic Party to stop it. Additionally, there has been a prevailing sense that the media is no longer free and collaborates to spin stories - for example, by trumpeting the race of a white defendant with a black victim while avoiding any reference, even a photograph, in the opposite situation - and later on, most signficantly, by hammering away incessantly at Trump with the same arguments day after day, which were not durable enough to stand up to such intense use. The promise that Hillary was so sure to win also kept Clinton supporters from getting motivated. It is mind-boggling, really, to consider that the Republicans, given their general position and effect on the middle/lower class, had such strong representation from them, but this is the effect such things had. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews I saw with Trump supporters often said something like: "He's a horrible human being, but I still plan to vote for him because...", and they then listed some policy reasons like this:

1) Trade policy. The feeling is that the US (establishment Republicans and Democrats) has made bad trade deals, and not enforced the provisions, so that the trade deficit has robbed the US of jobs, and we need to cancel many of those trade deals, renegotiate them, and then enforce the provisions. This message worked particularly well in the rust belt, where the job losses have been the most severe, and many traditionally blue states went red this time. Making anti-democratic nations like China rich, powerful, and now militarily aggressive is another downside to our current trade policy (although ironically refusal to sign the TPP may make China even more rich and powerful).

2) Immigration. The old policy (largely supported by traditional establishment Republicans) was to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, but then keep them illegal permanently, so as to ensure a supply of low-cost laborers with no legal rights. Trump claims he will stop this. (Democrats want to stop the illegal immigration but replace it by legal pathways to citizenship, while Trump omits that last part.) Fear of ISIS terrorists sneaking in with other legal or illegal immigrants and attacking the US as they did in France is another concern.

3) ISIS. The feeling is that the Democrats have been too slow to take on ISIS. Of course, there were good reasons for this, in that it would mean helping out Bashar Assad in Syria and a pro-Iranian, Shiite anti-Sunni government in Iraq. And it does look like ISIS is finally headed towards defeat, but it was still a major threat when people formed their opinions.

4) Dislike of Obamacare. The compromise system we ended up with doesn't seem to be working well, and rates are going up. Trump promises to replace it with something better, but more likely it will just be scrapped and we will go back to the prior system of poor people getting what little health care they can from emergency rooms only.

5) Distrust of women in power. The perception by some in the US is that they make weak leaders, hence the lack of female president so far, and a female candidate for President from a major party before now. Geraldine Ferraro was the closest we got, and that was a landslide defeat for the VP job.

6) Distrust of "The Washington Establishment". Between lobbyists, campaign contributions, special treatment for the rich (Trump was able to claim a loss and avoid paying taxes for years, let's see a poor person try that, say when his car is totaled), and regulatory agencies staffed by former and/or future members of the industry they are supposed to be regulating, respect for Congress is at an all-time low. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the European refugee crisis play some role?

User:StuRat already has mentioned a specific part of this in his point 2): Did the European refugee crisis possibly play a significant role, helping Trump to gfuel fear of immigrants? What importance would you attribute this aspect to Trump's victory, given a scale of 0-100%? Has the role of German Chancellor Angela Merkel been discussed? --KnightMove (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it "guel" = "fuel" ? StuRat (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Indeed, sorry. --KnightMove (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Trump's demographic (poor, rural, uneducated white men), the concern about immigration is more that the immigrants will take their jobs than be terrorists. After all, any terrorists are likely to attack in places they don't care about, like New York City or Washington, DC. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure. According to Pew, 90% of Trump voters consider terrorism a "very important" campaign issue, a fraction losing only to economic issues. Only 15% of Americans live in rural areas, so I guess it's possible that breaks down to be none of his rural voters and 100% of his suburban and urban voters, but it seems likely at least some rural voters care. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some NYT exit polls: a lot of traditionally Democratic voter groups tilted towards Trump this time, or stayed home instead of voting for Clinton. Thomas Frank had some interesting analysis here. He says people didn't like Clinton. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the answers already given, research suggests that the reaction of white voters to these demographic trends played a role. Gabbe (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. states' control over their own voting systems

1. If a U.S. state decided to scrap first-past-the post and implement Preferential voting for its state legislative elections instead, is there anything constitutionally or in federal law preventing this? Or would the Constitution and Congress view this as purely an internal state matter, entirely within the state's jurisdiction to do?

2. What about a state implementing Compulsory voting for State elections - does the constitution give a citizen the right not to vote? (Note that in many Compulsory voting systems, you need not actually vote - just submit a ballot paper. You can leave it blank if you wish. Would this change anything?)

3. We had an interesting case in Australia many decades ago regarding Compulsory voting. A potential voter challenged her personal obligation to vote on the basis that she was a socialist, and all the candidates in her particular electoral district were capitalists. (I think Australia did have a Socialist party, but they weren't running any candidates in her district). She lost her case, though one of the judges did express reservations about this, saying that the law's words on "reasonable excuse" for not voting "should not be interpreted in a niggardly spirit". (The judge's words, not mine! This was decades ago, when such language was far more common!). How would U.S law likely view such a question? Assuming the answer to question 2 is that there are no constitutional problems with compulsory voting, could a person conscientiously object to voting in the event that all the candidates held beliefs which deeply clashed with their own, such as the Australian woman's situation? Or could the court just tell them "you should have still submitted a blank ballot in that event". Eliyohub (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to part 1: they have no requirement to hold any election of any kind, although laws would not allow them to run an unfair one if they do. Blythwood (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is about state legislators, not presidential electors. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV section 4), implying that legislators must be elected. —Tamfang (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second answer to part 1: See Maine Question 5, 2016. --Jayron 32 12:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyohub:: The word 'niggardly' emphatically does not mean what you think it means :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated to learn that the judge was not a racist. But given that we have an entire article on this "controversy", you can see why I felt the need to avoid any misunderstanding, and state that I was just quoting the judge, lest either I or (less importantly) the judge be perceived as racist by editors ignorant of the Etymology of the term. I suspect a modern-day judge would avoid using the term, for fear of similar misunderstanding. Eliyohub (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

When the dust settles, it's clear the only relationship between 'niggardly' and the N-word is that they start off sounding the same. But lots of pairs of words have such apparent similarities, and the sky doesn't fall in very often. For ex, we have no problem with a very widespread use of the word 'country'. It's even the basis of various jokes. When people quail and quiver about 'niggardly', avoiding its use for fear of what ignorant others might think, it's clear that PC has got completely out of hand. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Does it make you feel better that even the rich and powerful can fall victim? I remember our Attorney General proposing renaming Solicitors something else, due to the use of the term in various criminal statutes e.g. "soliciting for prostitution". Thankfully for actual Solicitors, they tend to be a rich and influential bunch, and were not keen on losing their title, so the proposal died a pretty swift death. Eliyohub (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Reminds me of the old joke: Q. Is it better to solicit a prostitute, or prostitute a solicitor? A. It makes no difference. They're both c***s for hire. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Ok, so question 1 is answered:If the State Constitution allows or specifies it, a State can do preferential voting, as Maine is in fact proposing. Any answers to my questions on the constitutionality on compulsory voting? And if it is constitutional, would there be a protected right to conscientiously object? Eliyohub (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could always cast a vote that won't be counted-leave it blank,do an obscene doodle on it,write in 'I don't want any of this lot in'-you will have fulfilled the requirements to vote which may be compulsory-there is no compulsion to make a legitimate vote Lemon martini (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing someone to vote would violate that person's First Amendment rights. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is guessing so far. The issue of compulsory voting has not been tested yet because it has not come up. That is, 1) there is no law either preventing it directly or requiring it, as yet. However, the matter of judicial interpretation comes up; the Supreme Court may or may not find it Unconstitutional based on any number of principles in the U.S. constitution. It may also rule the matter a political question, and thus outside the purview of the courts entirely. The simple answer is there is no way to answer your question because it has never come up, and thus no one has ever had a legal test to the question. --Jayron 32 17:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that there's any serious attempt in the US to impose compulsory voting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by serious attempt. Obama has talked about it before in discussions, but it doesn't seem to be something they ever tried to push in office [6] [7]. Others have talked about ways it could be done or possible effects or why it should be implemented [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. But I don't see any evidence any legislature has ever really taken it up, or anyone has tried to get a ballot initiative or something like that (but I didn't look that hard). Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans would never go for it. There's no point in trying to suppress the vote if everyone is required to vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is true, the first source relating to proposals etc (this one [14]) points out it isn't so simple. Unless there is a constitutional issue stopping them, cities and other jurisdictions which aren't under Republican control could legislate for their elections to be compulsory and hold them at the same time and place as other elections for the state or federal govenment. While voting in these elections may still not be compulsory, the fact that people are going there anyway may mean they'll just vote for them all. If this succeeds in increasing turnout (and regardless of whether it will, the question seems to be assuming it at least will for those electionns where it's compulsory), this is an advantage to those who supported this in elections where people are voting for the same candidate in these other jurisdictions (say Republican) which refused. States could try and ban it with simple legislation rather than a constitutional change, but the source suggests it's unclear if this would be allowed (presuming the court doesn't rule the opposite namely compulsory voting is constitutional). Note that the electoral college and failure of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact combined with the fact that there is generally no other crossover between states means 100% turning out in California isn't going to directly affect Texas just because they only got 40% turnout. So states can't force other states to do it. But this doesn't matter unless there's really no jurisdiction able to introduce compulsory voting in at least one state. (Practically, I'm not convinced a small jurisdiction introducing compulsory voting is going to as have enough effect to force someone else who doesn't want to, to act. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious that compulsory voting would pass muster under the First Amendment. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that some US jurisdiction tried to implement something like single transferable vote, or approval voting, or maybe it was that scheme where you have n votes to elect n officials, but if you like you can use more than one of them on the same candidate, can't remember what that's called. Anyway it was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it violated the "one person, one vote" principle. Didn't make much sense to me but that was the outcome. Anyone remember the details? --Trovatore (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah, the phrase I was looking for was cumulative voting. I don't think that was the one that got struck down, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

They've had instant runoff voting in some local elections here in California for a few years now. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any solicitors in Perth while I was there, although prostitution was legal in Kalgoorlie. They call themselves "lawyers". 92.8.63.27 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a couple of decades there was preferential voting in New York City community school board elections, when those were held. The system was very fair in some democratic-theory sense, but almost incomprehensible to the voters, and it typically took about a month for all the results to be tallied (although modern computers would speed that up some). See here (near the end) for a description of the voting system that was used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service protection for EX Presidents and their families

I believe the old law said an ex-president was entitled to secret service protection for 10 years after leaving office. A law passed under Obama extended this to life.

My question is, is there any real need for secret service protection for an EX President and his family? I'm not talking about families like the Clintons and Bushes, who still have family members actively involved in Politics. Jeb Bush could still be a target, and by connection, his extended family (dubious, IMHO, that anyone would target George W because they hated Jeb). And Hillary Clinton, until today, was still in the running for the highest office in the land, so it follows that her family (including Bill) may well have a genuine need for protection.

But otherwise, has there EVER in American history been an attempt to harm an EX president AFTER they left office?

The only ex-leader of a country that I know of to have been assassinated after he left office was Rafic Hariri, but I can see NO parallel in America to the dynamics of his case (State-sponsored murder when he refused to continue his role as a stooge and resigned). There may be a few others around the world, but do any of these cases have even hypothetical American parallels?

My understanding is that threats to serving presidents come primarily from three sources: Islamist Terrorists, "Domestic Terrorists / extremists" (e.g. Timothy Mcveigh, or a white supremacist targeting Obama), and, the largest single group of all, the mentally ill. Abroad, you might get the occasional political opponent of the U.S.. Do any of these have a motive to target an ex president or their family?? Would even someone like Sirhan Sirhan have had any motivation to target Kennedy after Kennedy's political career was over?

In a nutshell, how much of a genuine threat to their lives do ex presidents and their families face? How much, if any, of the risk a serving president (or presidential candidate) and his family face persist after the president's term ends? Is there any real need for full Secret Service protection, or is it only a "perk" they're awarded? Eliyohub (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt was shot on October 14, 1912 when he was no longer president (he left office in 1909). --Jayron 32 17:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he was a candidate for the Presidency then, though, for the Bull Moose Party. 17:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

But he was also an Ex-president. The OP asked if any assassination attempts had been made on an ex-president. The answer is "Yes, on Theodore Roosevelt". --Jayron 32 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like a perk, in that it's downright inconvenient to be followed around by Secret Service agents all the time. With groups like ISIS out there, it does seem like brutally killing an ex-President would give them the type of publicity they love. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but they're a helluva softer target than the incumbent- and EVEN more than publicity, they want a successful (and preferaby easier) hit. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be kind of lame. "Hey, look, we killed a guy who isn't a threat to us anymore!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS loves to kill innocent civilians, so there's no reason they would avoid killing an ex-President and family. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the relevant article is Former Presidents Act. I remember reading an article in Parade around 1980 about one extremely bored Secret Service agent charged with protecting Bess Truman. By that time, she never left her old-age home as she was in her mid-90's but she was still entitled to protection. --Xuxl (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots: In 1993, Saddam Hussein attempted to have George. H. W. Bush assassinated in Kuwait after Bush was out-of-office. Clinton "cruise-missiled" Baghdad in retaliation. Rmhermen (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, I wasn't aware of that. So the example I gave of State-sponsored murder of an ex-leader in the case of Rafic Hariri is not entirely fanciful in the American context? Wow. But lobbing a cruise missile at Baghdad does not look like an effective deterrent to a Saddam Hussein - unless it was done in a manner designed to kill him personally, or make him fear for his own life or power. (the latter - making him fear for his grip on power - obviously cannot be achieved by a missile). Eliyohub (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it didn't do anything. And that's the real reason G.W. Bush invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. Or so goes the popular assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a stupid and pointless move on Clinton's part, some form of "symbolic retaliation". Hitting every single Directorate of General Security and Iraqi Intelligence Service (the ones who carried out the attempted hit) facility at the time of day when the maximum number of agents would be present would, IMHO, be far more effective at rattling Saddam, by attacking the very apparatus which assured his iron grip on power. It probably wouldn't topple him, but it would almost certainly rattle him, and make him think twice about the cost of messing with America. Or helping the Peshmerga with weapons provision and air support, to overrun Kirkuk and its' surrounding oilfields, thus decimating all of Saddam's brutal gains in the Al-Anfal campaign, and showing that Genocide does not pay. Turkey would probably protest any such moves, but America would have to either overrule them or bargain with them. Preferably all the steps I have suggested. And razing Saddam's favorite Presidential palace (a token move, mostly). THESE things (decimating Saddam's dreaded security services, and making him lose Kirkuk and its oilfields to his Kurdish arch-enemies) would inflict a REAL "ouch" on Saddam - not lobbing a random missile at Baghdad. What was Clinton thinking? Eliyohub (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was thinking about other types of rocketry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Just a note on the Roosevelt attempt. It seems clear that to the degree to which he had his sanity, John Flammang Schrank shot Roosevelt in Roosevelt's capacity as a candidate (running for a third term, against accepted convention, to Schrank's fury), not for anything he had done whilst in office. It's also likely that he was mentally ill, as many who target politicians are. It's notable that Secret Service protection for candidates only began in 1968. I would be interested, can anyone provide me to any sources analysing the practical necessity, or lack thereof, of the protection provided to ex-presidents under the Former Presidents Act? People here are speculating about a threat from ISIS, but what counts more is what the experts say about the likelihood of such an attempt. And as the global environment changes, the threat environment changes too. I would much prefer that protection be provided or not based on actual risk assessments and intelligence to allow efficient use of limited resources, not simply allowing the Secret Service to "balloon" unnecessarily. 90 year old Bess Truman probably did not need that bored guard. What prevents this? Eliyohub (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the general "cost-benefit" analysis which should be done when deciding who should get security details. It is a more general article, covering both political and high-profile businesspeople, but seems to meet your requirements for analysis of the situation. Here is a state department analysis and overview of the Secret Service, its missions, and costs there associated. Here is a House committee report which covers the budgeting for the Secret Service. I hope that helps you in your research. --Jayron 32 13:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That nobody has tried to harm an ex-President might be because of the protection that they have. See Lucas critique (examples section) for a similar observation regarding the argument that since nobody has ever robbed Fort Knox, it obviously doesn't need all that security protection. (The point is that if Ft. Knox's protection went away, robberies would become much more likely). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted above, somebody did try to assassinate ex-President Bush, senior. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but it's rare. OTOH, supposedly the sign in front of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport bearing the airport's name had to be guarded, or surrounded by a fence or something like that, because people kept peeing on it long after Reagan's death. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy security as deterrent theory seems to fail given how often people attempt to kill serving Presidents, who are equally if better protected. The Rafic Hariri case and the George H W Bush case are uncannily similar as both were state sponsored. Eliyohub (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you consider the risk versus reward. The perceived benefit of killing a sitting President would be higher, so they would be willing to take more risk. However, if there was little risk in killing an unprotected ex-President, that might tip the balance in favor there. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell if your WP account is on a watchlist ?

How to tell your WP account is on a watchlist...not the WP kind. TimothyJosephWood 17:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you can tell if somebody else is watching your user page, if that's what you mean. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some technique for figuring out how many are watching your page within Wikipedia. Hard to tell how to know if someone outside Wikipedia is watching. But there might be some tool for it. Some websites have ways of reporting who's been looking at your page - but again, that's limited to registered users of that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...this was not a question; it was a comment on StuRat's reply in the section above. I suppose thanks to whomever was trying to be helpful by adding the header, but the small text is often a symbol of sarcasm around these parts. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although, since apparently this isn't common knowledge, you can tell how many people are watching your user and user talk pages by going to either and then clicking page information on the left hand side. This however, is not effective for telling how many unpaid interns at the NSA are reading through your WP commenting history. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "not the WP kind" I assume you're asking whether mass surveillance machinery is monitoring your wikipedia activity and flagging it somehow. It's a safe bet that all wikipedia editing (the edit history of every page is public and you can download them all as a giant set of xml dumps) gets digested by data analytics operators of every stripe including government. As for whether your editing gets particular automated scrutiny, that's a matter of whatever other lists you might be on, and they won't tell you about those. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bernhardt

What language would Sarah Bernhardt appear during an acting tour in Britain, French or English? 2A02:2149:813C:F300:5CFA:7908:9755:719 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references cited in that article seems quite likely to help you in your research. See: Aston, Elaine (1989). Sarah Bernhardt: A French Actress on the English Stage. Oxford: Berg. p. 5. ISBN 0854960198. --Jayron 32 23:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Women's Archive - Sarah Bernhardt by Elana Shapira seems to suggest that she acted in French. "For the American tour Bernhardt chose plays that best showed her talents: Phèdre, Adrienne Lecouvreur, Hernani, Froufrou..." and perhaps more conclusively, "In 1891 Bernhardt embarked on a lucrative world tour. In June, 1892 she was in London rehearsing Oscar Wilde’s Salomé, written especially for her in French". Alansplodge (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]