19,605 to Nothing

In the aftermath of the Presidential Election, an uproar from the right side of the political aisle has erupted here in Philadelphia. The culprit is a news story, which appeared in the “Philadelphia Inquirer” http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-sasha-issenberg#.UKJI014h1fA.email Since its publication yesterday the local talk radio outlets, and a number of national ones too, have begun trumpeting the call for an investigation into how it is possible that in 59 voting divisions not one voter voted for Mitt Romney. Republicans in all strata of government are decrying the numerical improbability of such an event. The venerated Larry Sabato, political scientist from the University of Virginia, and go-to guy for all manner of election nuance is quoted in the article as saying,

"I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of precincts that didn't cast a vote for Romney". But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination. Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into”.

Well, far be it for me to differ with the august Mr. Sabato, but I’m at a loss as to why anyone is incredulous about these numbers. The problem is not Democrat Party chicanery, or malfeasance, or party politics. No. The problem is the Republican Party generally nationwide, but particularly in the feckless, counterproductive, ineffectual version that resides here in Philly.



The City of Philadelphia has 66 political wards, each ostensibly governed by a Ward Leader from each party. My understanding is that it is the Ward Leader’s job to turn out his or her ward’s registered voters for the party on Election Day. Each one of those wards has not less than 10, nor more than 50 divisions, according to the self styled watchdog group The Committee of Seventy. So, in the city’s 66 wards there are a total of 1,687 divisions. In 59 of those divisions not one vote was cast for Mitt Romney. The statistical implausibility of 19,605 to 0 is the rallying point for those who have had their ire raised by this seeming travesty. If my math is correct, that means in roughly 3% of the city’s divisions, the voters unanimously voted for President Obama. Out of the total 656,263 votes cast in Philly, President Obama received 559,180. If anything, I am surprised there weren’t 100 divisions that voted unanimously for the President’s re-election.



Various sources have the total number of voters in Philadelphia at about 1 million, with roughly 811,000 of them registered as Democrats, 129,000 as Republicans and 99,000 from all the other parties combined. Of the 656,263 votes cast and counted on Election Day, Obama received 559,180, Romney got 91,953 and Libertarian, Green Party and write-ins accounted for 5,130. Instead of concerning themselves with the 19,605 votes from the 59 divisions that went all in for President Obama, I would suggest the Republican Party concern itself with the 467,227 vote difference between the candidates and how to collect some of them. Or, even better, how about the 37,416 supposedly registered republicans who did NOT cast a vote for Romney, but either a) voted for Obama, b) didn’t vote at all, or c) don’t live and vote in the city anymore. Those numbers are much more important than the 19,605 votes, which works out to about 332 votes per each of the 59 divisions.



It is worth noting that according to the City of Philadelphia, minorities make up about 94% of the population in the disputed 59 divisions. Now I am personally acquainted with some minorities who voted for Mitt Romney, but none of them live in divisions that have that sort of ethnic make-up and that’s the actual crux of the problem, as far as I am concerned. As someone who is actively involved in a number of volunteer efforts including homeless veteran issues and women’s reproductive rights, I have witnessed the dumbfounded looks I receive when people first become aware that I am a lifelong, registered Republican. They are flummoxed that I even “have” a social conscience, because the media, entertainers and their own coterie of folks have told them forever that we are all evil, $1,500 suit wearing bastards with horns and tails that revel in dirty air and water and enjoy nothing more than stealing candy right from the mouths of children. There is no recollection of Rockefeller Republicans or knowledge of Teddy Roosevelt’s protection of the environment for future generations. Nope, we’re all Dick Cheney, have stock in Halliburton, and care not for anything except the bottom line. I don’t blame the uninformed masses, nor the Democrat party for those misnomers. Those characterizations are the fault of those of us in the Republican Party who allow them to define us as a whole.



In a decidedly unscientific, anecdotal means of buttressing my argument just consider your more liberal friend’s stories of voting. While standing in line last week to cast my vote, I overheard a woman explaining to a man standing with her that you just need to hit the “big button” and you’ll vote for all the Democrat Party candidates. In my experience, that’s the way the Dems vote most often. Whether or not they know anything about the person running for Auditor General they choose the one with the D behind his or her name. I have never personally hit the “big button” to elect all the R candidates on any given ticket, nor will I. I take my voting responsibilities seriously and make it my business to find out what I need to know about a candidate to make an informed decision. Two cases in point, I did not approve of Tom Smith’s self avowed positions on abortion and gay marriage, so I held my nose and voted for Bob Casey for Senate. With one R from Pennsylvania already embedded in the Senate I did not feel the need to make it a monolith. As I didn’t know enough about the candidates for Auditor General though, I defaulted to the Libertarian candidate. I cannot imagine any of the Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood doing likewise, especially when the toothless, Chinese grandmother four people ahead of me kept asking people their party affiliation and smiling her toothless grin ecstatically when she was assured that they were Democrats. My wife described a similar scene so I’m uncertain if the woman actually voted, voted twice or was just cheerleading for her brand, but there it is.



When I was called to testify in front of the US Civil Rights Commission after the last Presidential Election, I was asked by one blue blooded member of the panel why the Republican poll worker who first alerted us to the appearance of Black Panthers was not with us. Apparently this woman of, I am sure, impeccable breeding could not fathom the amount of ostracism or even outright threats of violence a black man would have to endure in his 94% black neighborhood had he done so. Just being registered as a republican in the lower socioeconomic strata of neighborhoods in most major cities would be enough to cause you a ton of grief with your neighbors. That’s because the Democrats have done a stellar job branding Republicans as the enemy of ALL people of color. Don’t think so? Why then would blacks, who in poll after poll disagree with gay marriage and abortion, continue to vote for the party that endorses those issues in their platform? I am not suggesting the Republican Party needs to endorse abortion and/or gay marriage in our platform. We don’t need two parties to do that, but we could certainly remove the stringent, religion based aspects of it and recognize that a not unsizeable number of registered Republicans are both Pro Choice and in favor of marriage being extended to homosexuals. It’s no secret that I’m one of those Republicans in favor of both, but still I pushed the button for Romney.



The Republican Party needs to realize that we have always been the Big Tent guys. We need to purge our vernacular of the RINO tag and remember the words of Ronald Reagan, “My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy”. We need to begin reaching out to minorities and women and show them with actions that we are not all Rick Santorum or evangelical Christians. In a day and age when everyone is suited up for elections in their best game day uniform, we have to realize that a party that caters to the view of an ever diminishing segment of society will itself one day disappear. That does not mean we should become the Democrat-Lite Party. We can still be the party of fiscal conservatism and pragmatic responses to national security without watering down the brand. We cannot, however, keep being seen as the party of old, rich, white men. As that demographic continues to shrink in all the major cities we risk turning Pennsylvania into a perennial blue state. It does no good to decry the facts that as goes Philadelphia, so goes Pennsylvania all too often. We have to instead convince more Philadelphians, and those in major cities elsewhere, that the policies of the Democrat party, which have been in effect in those cities for decades, have not only failed them, but have continued to foster a caste system.



Republicans are the party of school choice, wanting all kids to have an equal footing. We are the party of less government infringement, by which I can make cases that we should be the pro-Gay/Choice party, but for these purposes I mean the party that will least likely stop your forward progress. Recent studies have shown that minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to start their own businesses. Some of that is, no doubt, a response to the glass ceiling, perceived or otherwise that exists in corporate America, but so what? We need to make the effort to reach out to minorities and say we’re the party that will help you grow your business by limiting taxes, government intrusion and onerous workplace regulations. We further need to assure minorities that we fully intend to cut back the number of government officials who can interfere in their lives. A wary regard for the government has always been a part of the minority community, but they continue to vote for the party that increases both the number and the scope of bureaucratic intrusion. If we can promote the ideal, and then pay the dividend on it, that we fully intend to make life easier, we can win voters. Portability of health insurance, a reliance on entrepreneurial spirit, a simplified tax system and the reining in of government spending and regulation is the way to get new voters onboard with our ideas.



So, back to the 19,605 voters in the 59 divisions in Philadelphia. Maybe there was some fraud at play. I don’t honestly know, but my knowledge of the city and how things work in the neighborhoods forgotten by the power elites of both parties tells me one thing: if there was fraud the neighborhood was complicit in it because they believe, truly believe, that is the only way to get their piece of the pie. And you know what? They might be right. For too long we in the Republican Party have decried the way cities operate and have voiced a longing for the good old days, which weren’t all that good to begin with. A maxim of the Army has always been, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. That’s because the enemy gets a vote too and in 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia voters saw Romney as the threat, as opposed to the way out. If we don’t change that notion the number of divisions reporting likewise will only increase as the years go on and Republicans will become the Whigs of the 21st Century. I, for one, am more interested in being a vehicle for change, than an historical footnote, but I may be in the minority there. It seems that the current Republican Party leadership in Philadelphia has written off any chance of competitiveness here and is instead trying to stack as many slices of the pie as they can before the party itself ebbs away. No plan may survive first contact with the enemy, but first contact requires action and it has simply been too long since the Republicans in Philadelphia actually saw some.