Tag: analysis

Addendum to Reaction to John Broderick’s “Make no mistake. America is broken.”

This section provides supporting analysis for my reaction to John Broderick’s “Make no mistake. America is broken.” The first two paragraphs are covered in detail. I will likely parse this further into at least one more Appendix.

First paragraph

The first paragraph begins by stereotyping an undefined segment of the US population. Broderick states:

“The entire idea behind democratic rule is subverted every day by a minority of our population ,…”[1]

Who are this minority of our [US] population? While not explicitly stated, I believe that Broderick implies that citizens who voted for President Trump and Republican candidates in 2020 constitute “a minority of our population who distrust any government they don’t control. The reality is that President Biden won the 2020 election but it was a close race :

“Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast. That’s more votes than any other presidential candidate has ever won, with the exception of Biden ….
When you look at the smallest popular vote shift needed to give Trump a victory, the 2020 election was close. Indeed, it was even closer than 2016. If Trump picked up the right mix of 42,921 votes in Arizona (10,457), Georgia (11,779), and Wisconsin (20,682), the Electoral College would have been tied at 269 all. The House would have then decided the election. Republicans will hold the majority of state delegations in the new Congress, and they undoubtedly would have chosen Trump.[3]

Now, I struggle to understand how: “The entire idea behind democratic rule is subverted every day…” We are a union of people, we elect our representatives and President, however we aren’t a pure democracy ruled by the majority. We are a representative government. Because a majority of one political party is in power for a period of time doesn’t imply that the actions of the minority constitute daily subversion. After all: “The United States, under its Constitution, is a federal, representative, democratic republic, an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States.” [3]

The fact that a minority group of citizens may disagree with a majority is true. As Broderick states: “by a minority of our population distrust any government they don’t control,…” This has been true for most of the history of our Republic. In current terms: most Democrats don’t trust Republicans; most Republicans don’t trust Democrats. This distrust is a type of tautology in American politics. The first instance in American politics that I know was in the election of 1800 when Democratic- Republicans supporting Jefferson distrusted the Federalist under John Adams.

Broderick implies that this segment of our society lacks understanding of science. I vehemently disagree with the description of 74 million Americans who: “ignore science they don’t understand yet don’t like while callously putting others at risk…” [1] Broderick implies but leaves unstated that the science being ignored regards our current COVID pandemic.

“ignore science they don’t understand yet don’t like while callously putting others at risk…” [1]

A segment of our society questions COVID medical proclamations by experts that are to be accepted by all in the name of science. Dissenting opinions aren’t welcomed, in fact, they seem to be removed from most social media. What we need are scientific results that an average citizen can understand; that would reduce the doubt, uncertainty and fear. Here is how one of my most respected teachers, Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman, described science:

” …. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?”

It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at. ….

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television–words, books, and so on–are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”[5]

From what I can see, the science behind the vaccine mandates is questionable. What I don’t understand is how the risks outweigh the benefits for someone who is 20 years old? How about a child who is age 5? To echo Richard Feynman: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” I believe our citizens have a right to hear the latest evidence and judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

Does someone who is unvaccinated put others callously at risk? The important premise here is that vaccination reduces the rate of transmission. What is the evidence that substantiates that the rate of transmission is reduced in vaccinated people in December, 2021? I do see evidence that vaccination reduces the severity of COVID in older people with comorbidities. Thus, vaccination likely reduces the impact from COVID on the health care system and is prudent. Of course, not smoking tobacco (or marijuana) would also reduce the impact from lung cancer on the health care system and is prudent. Yet, smoking cessation is not mandated in the US.

“disparage and restrict voters of a color different than their own…” [1]

From what I see, there is some evidence that supports: “disparage and restrict voters of a color different than their own…” [1]

Unsaid is that white Republicans are the disparagers and restrictors. The issues regarding restriction of voters are complex and I should spend time understanding them better. As to the claim of disparagement – our society might strive to be courteous to all. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 enabled many of our citizens to gain the vote. A number of other acts have strengthened voting rights.States are responsible for the administration of elections.

“The administration of elections, including regulation of political parties, ballot access, and registration procedures, establishment of polling places, provision of election-day workers, counting and certification of the vote, and all costs associated with these activities, are the responsibility of the States. In performing these functions, the States are subject to the requirements of the Constitution and Federal law…” [3]

A state may pass a law that violates the requirements of the Constitution and/or Federal law. If this happens, then the judicial system can be used to overturn such a law. This can be a slow, painful process. Some cases may have to go to the Supreme Court.

“… and despise immigrants striving to be free.” [1]

Many Americans want immigation laws and processes enforced. What is the purpose of a law that isn’t enforced?

I do not see evidence that large numbers of Americans despise immigrants. My mom’s parents came to the US from Ireland with nothing. In modern terms, they were chain immigrants. When I was young, I learned the words of Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, …” I believe those words still represent an American ideal; I bet most other Americans do as well.

Let me next cover the middle passage of the first paragraph:

“Their view of our Constitution is most often fanciful, contradictory and uninformed and their idea of freedom is twisted and self-absorbed.”[1]

First, I bet most Americans haven’t read the Constitution in many years. It’s worth studying for all of us. There are many views that can be taken regarding the Constitution; each of our Supreme Court justices has a view – they don’t all agree. In this passage, I think Broderick is using an Ad Hominem argument to attack the views of a group of Americans who may have views that differ from his regarding the Constitution and role of government in our society.

“They live in a self-interested, imaginary world with no social compact and no reciprocal responsibilities.”[1]

It takes two to tango. There are some liberals who agree that some conservatives fulfill Broderick’s description. On the other hand, there are people on the left who believe they are entitled to others’ hard earned savings, that the government can keep distributing them money forever, that billionaires are all evil. My point is that there are people on the left that also: “live in a self-interested, imaginary world with no social compact and no reciprocal responsibilities.”

“They disgrace the service and sacrifice of so many Americans who unselfishly gave so much to protect rights they neither understand nor honor.”[1]

I’ll just say that I see no foundation for this statement. Again, I assume that Broderick’s undefined use of “They” represents Republicans who have voted for members of their party to represent them in Congress and President in 2020. In fact, Republicans are much more likely to elect to Congress Armed Forces veterans who did “ service and sacrifice.” Here’s some details:

Of the 535 voting members of Congress, there are 91 veterans (17%) in the 117th Congress. [6] The Republicans members of Congress represent 69% of the veterans in Congress. Why did I choose veterans? Because they all swear an oath that includes: “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;… “[7] There’s not an expiration date on the oath, thus, veterans are on the frontline of those: “who unselfishly gave so much to protect rights.” As of 2018, 7% of the adult Americans were veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces in 2018..[8] I’ll extrapolate from the data on members of Congress that a majority of veterans vote Republican. There is no evidence that a broad majority of Republicans (or Democrats) “disgrace the service and sacrifice” of other Americans.

Now, to the final section of the first paragraph:

“They support the Big Lie with zero proof; a Lie that any rational American would reject. Every federal judge found no evidence because there was none. It is the same Big Lie that even President Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General William Barr disowned.”[1]

The first sentence: “They support the Big Lie with zero proof; a Lie that any rational American would reject.” needs to be dissected. “Big Lie” is an emotionally charged term that refers to at least three separate efforts by President Trump and some supporters to dispute the 2020 election results. Two efforts were legal, although quite unpopular with Democrats. First, there was election litigation at the state and federal level. Next, there were objections in Congress to some state electoral college returns. In both these cases there wasn’t “zero proof’” The proof may have been flawed or weak proof. Finally, there was illegal rioting within the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 (which Broderick addresses in the more detailed second paragraph.)

A number of court cases were litigated at the federal and state level seeking to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results in battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia,and Wisconsin. “Every federal judge found no evidence because there was none.” [1] isn’t measurable; we can’t ascertain if the judges found no evidence. A more complete statement regards the voting of Federal judges in cases brought before them:

“Of the 44 votes (in 13 cases), only one vote favored Trump—and did so just barely. (Note: The 13 cases include the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of Texas’s original jurisdiction filing challenging other states’ election results, but not the several nine-vote certiorari denials.”[9].

Of the 44 votes, 30 of them (68%) were cast by Republican appointee judges. [9] At a state level, there were election cases with some votes cast in favor of the Trump litigation:

“Most pro-Trump votes came in dissents in the multi-judge appellate courts. These judicial disagreements might reflect the fact that appellate judges often dealt with less frequently litigated questions, such as those involving appellate courts’ original jurisdiction, and appellate judges, in any event, may regard themselves as less bound by precedent than first-instance judges.”[9]

Next up, the statement about former Attorney General Barr: It is the same Big Lie that even President Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General William Barr disowned.”[1] It is true that Barr didn’t support the election litigation by the legal Trump team. Here is a Barr quote:

“My attitude was: It was put-up or shut-up time,” Barr told me. “If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it. But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bullshit.”

“You know, you only have five weeks, Mr. President, after an election to make legal challenges,” Barr said. “This would have taken a crackerjack team with a really coherent and disciplined strategy. Instead, you have a clown show. No self-respecting lawyer is going anywhere near it. It’s just a joke. That’s why you are where you are.” [10]

Now, I will go along with Mr. Broderick that the decision of most judges taken with the statements by former Attorney General Barr indicate a low chance of Presidential election fraud in 2020. On the other hand, from the facts I can find, statements such as “zero proof”, “no evidence” and “Big Lie” are emotionally charged terms that don’t seem supported by the facts.

The last section of the paragraph covers recent polling of Americans regarding the 2020 election results:

“Incredibly, according to some recent polls, sixty percent of Republicans still believe that the election was stolen, too. They have zero proof as well. Do facts matter anymore? Is truth too inconvenient to be honored? For an increasing number of Americans, facts don’t exist or at least facts that don’t serve their ends.”[1]

A December, 2021 University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll provides data to help confirm or deny the “sixty percent of Republicans assertion”. The assertion is partially correct; a summary of the poll states: “The poll of 1,000 respondents found that only 58% of Americans believe that Biden’s electoral victory was legitimate,…” [11] Here’s a summary of one of the questions from the poll:

Table 1: Do you believe that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate or not legitimate?”December, 2021 data [12]

	Definitely legitimate	Probably legitimate	Probably not legitimate	Definitely not legitimate	I’m not sure
Republican	6%	15%	25%	46%	6%
Independent	37%	17%	6%	25%	15%
Democratic	83%	8%	2%	2%	6%

All	46%	12%	11%	22%	9%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 14-20 December, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.1%

If we look at the row of data for Republicans and assume that “election was stolen” means the same as “Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was definitely not legitimate” then at least 46% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. If we add the 25%of Republicans who believe ““Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was probably not legitimate” then 71% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. The UMass Amherst poll result supports Broderick’s case that there’s a strong polarization between Democrats and Republicans. Some Republicans are not definite in their opinion that President Biden won or lost; others are not sure.This is also true to a lesser extent for Independents and even a few Democrats.

So, I thought it would be useful to look at the same data using a different lens. I binned those who aren’t completely polarized separately. In Table 2, I used the data in Table 1 but I created a new category “In the Middle”

Table 2: Do you believe that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate or not legitimate? December, 2021 data [12] Added category “In the Middle” =

(Probably legitimate + Probably not legitimate + I’m not sure)

	Definitely legitimate	In the Middle	Definitely not legitimate
Republican	6%	46%	46%
Independent	37%	38%	25%
Democratic	83%	16%	2%

All	46%	32%	22%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 14-20 December, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.1%

Broderick asserts: “They have zero proof as well. Do facts matter anymore? Is truth too inconvenient to be honored? [1] Regarding the 2020 presidential election outcome; Table 2 indicates to me that 32% of Americans aren’t definite in their convictions.

The final sentence of the first paragraph states: “For an increasing number of Americans, facts don’t exist or at least facts that don’t serve their ends.”[1]

Table 3: Do you believe that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate or not legitimate?” April, 2021 data[ 16]

	Definitely legitimate	Probably legitimate	Probably not legitimate	Definitely not legitimate	I’m not sure
All	49%	10%	10%	24%	7%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 21-23 April, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.4%

Table 4: Do you believe that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate or not legitimate? Comparison of December, 2021[12] to April, 2021 data[16] Added category “In the Middle” = (Probably legitimate + Probably not legitimate + I’m not sure)

	Definitely legitimate	In the Middle	Definitely not legitimate
All – Apr, 2021	49%	27%	24%
All -Dec., 2021	46%	32%	22%
Dec, 21 – Apr, 21	-3%	5%	-2%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 21-23 April, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.4%

I compared the results from April, 2021 to December, 2021 in Table 4. Broderick’s hypothesis isn’t supported. Within the margin of error, the poll shows it’s likely that in the eight months from April to December, 2021, a decreasing (not increasing) number of Americans believed that Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was not legitimate. Also, the number of Americans who were not definite regarding the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory increased. [17]

Second paragraph

Now, on to the second paragraph which starts:

“Too many Americans live in a conspiracy-laden echo chamber of their own creation …” [1]

I must agree, however, these echo chambers exist for both Republican and Democratic Americans. There aren’t many places for an American citizen “in the middle” to find the truth. In fact, my own view of Broderick’s piece is that it has the rhetorical resonance of a reverse polarity echo chamber. [18]

“and embrace the American flag …. support the police 100 percent.”[1]

I have to agree with Broderick’s statement in that I was sickened to see the American flag paraded in criminal activity, much as I am disgusted to see those who burn our flag during the June, 2021 riots at the US Federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon. [19].

“Many of those people presented with clear and graphic proof that misguided Trump supporters attacked our government on January 6th have concocted the bizarre notion that the FBI or Antifa were behind the insurrection. They have zero proof of that as well yet they hold to it senselessly even as the Proud Boys and others are being prosecuted or plead guilty.”[1]

I wanted to look through both a Republican lens and a Democrats lens at the causes of the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Again, the December, 2021 University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll provides data to help understand how Republicans and Democrats assign responsibility for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

Table 5 summarizes the poll results using a Republican lens to rank responsibility. The poll listed eight possibilities for responsibility, as indicated in the first column. The next columns are the percent of Republicans or selecting an Individual(s) or Group as responsible. The responsibilities are ranked from the greatest to the least selected cause by Republicans.

This poll does partially support Broderick’s assertion given that 20% of Republicans believe that Antifa was responsible for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the third most supplied answer. In the ranking of responsibility by Republicans, the most common blame was placed on the Democratic party, followed by the Capitol police.

Table 5 January 6th Responsibility by Party, ranked from leading to least responsibility by Republicans [20]

Responsibility for Jan. 6 Capitol RiotsRepublican Lens	Republican
Democratic Party	30%
U.S. Capitol Police	24%
Antifia	20%
President Joe Biden	8%
Former President Donald Trump	7%
White Nationalists	7%
Republican Party	4%
Former Vice President Mike Pence	1%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 14-20 December, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.1%

Table 6 uses the same method as Table 5 except the responsibilities are ranked from the greatest to the least selected cause by Democrats. In this case, there is one primary responsibility: Former President Trump.

Table 6 January 6th Responsibility by Party, ranked from leading to least responsibility by Democrats [20]

Responsibility for Jan. 6 Capitol RiotsDemocratic Lens	Democratic
Former President Donald Trump	75%
White Nationalists	10%
Republican Party	8%
Democratic Party	4%
U.S. Capitol Police	1%
Antifia	1%
Former Vice President Mike Pence	1%
President Joe Biden	0%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 14-20 December, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.1%

How far have we fallen? How dangerous is our descent? How much destructive nonsense, ill-will and subversive conduct can we tolerate and still sustain democratic rule in America?[1]

A start to answering these questions might be: How polarized is our country? I decided to look at the poll results side by side and calculate a measure of polarization. For each of the eight responsibility choices, I calculated the absolute value of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. For example, 7% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats thought former President Trump was responsible. If we calculate the Republican minus the Democratic responses (7% – 75%) – we get -68%. The polarization may be thought of as a magnitude, so I used the Absolute value of -68% which is 68%. A large value indicates a high degree of polarization between people of both parties. Of course, one can say this just confirms what we all feel but I wanted to quantify the degree of polarization. The results are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 January 6th Responsibility by Party, ranked by polarization.

Responsibility for Jan. 6 Capitol RiotsPolarization Lens	Republican	Democratic	PolarizationABS (Rep. – Dem.)
Former President Donald Trump	7%	75%	68%
Democratic Party	30%	4%	26%
U.S. Capitol Police	24%	1%	23%
Antifia	20%	1%	19%
President Joe Biden	8%	0%	8%
Republican Party	4%	8%	4%
White Nationalists	7%	10%	3%
Former Vice President Mike Pence	1%	1%	0%

UMass Amherst Poll conducted online 14-20 December, 2021 by YouGov.[15]
Nationally representative sample of 1000 respondents. Margin of error 3.1%

Former President Trump being responsible is the most polarizing response in the survey with most Democrats holding him responsible. Yet, some Republicans also attribute responsibility to him. The next most polarized response is to attribute responsibility to the Democratic Party, an answer most favored by Republicans (and a few Democrats). The next two most polarized responsibilities (U.S. Capitol Police and Antifa) are held by Republicans and almost no Democrats.

Mr. Broderick asks three important questions. I struggle with how to quantify answers. Perhaps some smart academics can help figure this out. When I look at the degree of polarization, I see that we need to do a lot of work to understand the driving forces between such disconnects. It is very indicative of fracturing in our country, not a good state of affairs. Still, I believe there’s a possibility that dialog can once again occur from members of both parties.

“Free speech is protected and cherished under our Constitution but not efforts in plain sight to subvert or destroy our country. Actions speak louder than words.”[1]

More than 700 rioters have been arrested and 150 have pleaded guilty. 270 rioters face felony charges. [21]

Rioters are being prosecuted, convicted and sentenced are actions that do speak louder than words. Our judicial system is still working.

Appendix A: Word Count Analysis

Appendix B – Factionalism and Federalist Papers No. 10

Appendix C – Counting of electoral votes and confirmation of the 2020 Presidential election

Notes and Sources

Appendix A: Word Count Analysis

This appendix is a supporting page for Reaction to John Broderick’s “Make no mistake. America is broken.”

I did a word count analysis of each paragraph and sentence of Broderick: Make no mistake. America is broken. Table A1 shows the results. There are five paragraphs listed in the top row. The first column is an index of the sentence location in the paragraph. The word count for each sentence can then be looked up by using the paragraph and sentence. For example, paragraph 1 (P1), sentence 3 index (S3) contains 55 words. The total number of words in each paragraph are indicated in the bottom row. So, P1 has 215 words. Finally, the entire piece contains 581 words, as seen in the rightmost cell of the bottom row.

Table A1: Word Count Analysis by Paragraph and Sentence of Broderick: Make no mistake. America is broken.

Sentence Index	Paragraph 1	Paragraph 2	Paragraph 3	Paragraph 4	Paragraph 5
1	3	41	28	6	6
2	3	12	11	4
3	55	34	21	29
4	21	27	3	34
5	15	5	16	5
6	23	5	8	6
7	16	18	16
8	10	21	5
9	16	5
10	18
11	6
12	4
13	7
14	18
Word Count	215	168	108	84	6

Table A2 is a summary of the word count statistics for each paragraph. Looking at the second cell of the second row, P1 contains (215/581)*100% words, or 37% of the total words. I have labeled this as % of words in Table A2. The last row of the table is the cumulative number of words in the document. For example, by the time a reader has finished reading the second paragraph, they have read 37% (P1) and 29% (P2) for a cumulative of 66% of the words in the document.

Table A2: Word Count Statistics by Paragraph of Broderick: Make no mistake. America is broken

	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5
Word Count	215	168	108	84	6	581
% of words	37%	29%	19%	14%	1%	100%
Cumulative	37%	66%	85%	99%	100%

Table A3 is a summary of the sentence count statistics by paragraph. Looking at the second cell of the second row, P1 contains (14/38)*100% sentences, or 37% of the total sentences. I have labeled this as % of sentences in Table A3. The last row of the table is the cumulative number of sentences in the document. For example, by the time a reader has finished reading the second paragraph, they have read 37% (P1) and 24% (P2) for a cumulative of 61% of the sentences in the document.

Table A3 summary of the sentence count statistics by paragraph.

	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5
Sentence Count	14	9	8	6	1	38
% of Sentences	37%	24%	21%	16%	3%	100%
Cumulative	37%	61%	82%	97%	100%

Readability of Long Sentences

There are several long sentences in Broderick’s opinion piece. The longest sentence has 55 words (P1, S3). I evaluated the six longest sentences using the Flesch Reading Ease Score. [22]. The results are provided in Table A4.

The Flesch Reading Ease Score for the six longest sentences range from “Difficult to read” to ‘Extremely difficult to read”

Table A4 Flesch reading ease score and Interpretation for longest sentences

Paragraph	Sentence	Word Count	% all words	Characters	Syllables	Flesch reading ease score	Interpretation
1	3	55	9.5%	344	94	6.4	Extremely difficult to read
2	1	41	7.1%	240	71	18.7	Very difficult to read
2	3	34	5.9%	216	62	21.5	Very difficult to read
4	4	34	5.9%	198	57	30.5	Difficult to read
4	3	29	5.0%	187	59	10	Very difficult to read
3	1	28	4.8%	187	53	18.3	Very difficult to read

I also looked at the readability of each paragraph and the entire Broderick document. I relied on two methods. First, I used the Flesch reading ease score calculated by Character Calculator https://charactercalculator.com/flesch-reading-ease/ These scores are presented in the fourth row of the table A5. Next, I calculated my own version of the Flesch reading ease score using the formula:

206.835 – 1.015*(total words/total sentences) – 84.6* total sentences/total words)

My results were slightly different as seen by comparing the 8th row of the table (Calc. Flesch reading ease score) with the 4th row. One source of the discrepancy was that Character Calculator computed the term 6th as two words instead of one. These minor differences didn’t affect the Flesch reading ease score Interpretation for individual paragraphs or the entire document. In both cases, Broderick’s work was assessed as difficult to read.

Table A5 Flesch reading ease score and Interpretation for Broderick document [1]

	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	Total
Word Count	215	168	108	84	6	581
Sentences	14	9	8	6	1	38
Syllables	371	278	180	148	9	986
Flesch reading ease score	45.3	48.6	50.9	45.2	73.9	48.0
Flesch reading ease score Interpretation	Difficult to read.	Difficult to read.	Fairly difficult to read.	Difficult to read.	Fairly easy to read	Difficult to read.

Total Words per total sentences	15.4	18.7	13.5	14.0	6.0	15.3
Total syllables per total words	1.73	1.65	1.67	1.76	1.50	1.70
Calc. Flesch reading ease score	45.3	47.9	52.1	43.6	73.8	47.7
Calc. Flesch reading ease score Interpretation	Difficult to read.	Difficult to read.	Fairly difficult to read.	Difficult to read.	Fairly easy to read	Difficult to read.

[22] Flesch Reading Ease Score description:

“Most times, a readability score helps you know how easy it is to read content or passage. It helps you know the educational level that one has to be in to read a text without a hassle.

The Flesch reading ease score indicates the understandability of a passage with a number that ranges from 0 to 100. It shows how difficult it is to understand the content. The higher scores mean that the content is easy to read and understand.”

The formula for Flesch reading ease score is:

206.835 – 1.015 × (total words ÷ total sentences) – 84.6 × (total syllables ÷ total words)

Interpreted Flesch reading ease scores:

Score	Grade	Summary
90 – 100	5th grade	Very easy to read
80 – 90	6th grade	Easy to read
70 – 80	7th grade	Fairly easy to read
60 – 70	8th & 9th grade	Plain English
50 – 60	10th to 12th grade	Fairly difficult to read.
30 – 50	College	Difficult to read.
10 – 30	College graduate	Very difficult to read
0 – 10	Professional	Extremely difficult to read

Source: Flesch Reading Ease Score – Reading and Grade Level Calculator,

https://charactercalculator.com/flesch-reading-ease/ accessed 7 January 2022

Appendix B – Factionalism and Federalist Papers No. 10

This appendix is a supporting page for Reaction to John Broderick’s “Make no mistake. America is broken.”

I have parsed sections of James Madison’s discussion of factionalism from The Federalist Papers No. 10. Why study a document that’s 235 years old? Because the US circa 2022 is deeply impacted by factions. Madison and others had the foresight to see this problem. This is why the United States today is a republic; not a pure democracy.

Madison’s writing is worthy of close study. It is difficult to read. I calculated the Flesch Reading Ease Scores[22] for each passage I examined. These passages range from “fairly difficult to read” up to “extremely difficult to read” So, I made my own outline of key passages and will summarize them. Of course, I likely have errors in my thinking; this is just my best attempt to distill a complex paper into plain English.

Here’s a skeleton outline of Federalist 10:

What is a faction?
What methods can reduce the problems of faction?
Method 1: Removing the cause of faction doesn’t work
Method 2: Controlling the effect of a faction
Method 2a: Controlling the effect of a minority faction
The impact of a majority faction on a minority
How to control the effects of a majority faction?
Pure democracy won’t solve the problem of majority factions
Method 2b: Controlling the effect of a majority faction
What are the differences between a democracy and a republic?
How does delegation of the government reduce factionalism?
How does a large republic reduce majority factionalism?
The ability of a Republic to defeat the excesses of factions

I want to expand each of these bullets into my interpretation of what Madison wrote. His logic is wonderful. His writing is a bit challenging for me but well worth the effort. 10 January 2022

What is a faction?

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 5.6 (Extremely Difficult to Read)

What methods can reduce the problems of faction?

“There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 57.6 (Fairly Difficult to Read)

Method 1: Removing the cause of faction doesn’t work

“There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.

….

Method 2: Controlling the effect of a faction

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 53.3 (Fairly Difficult to Read)

Method 2a: Controlling the effect of a minority faction

“If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 32.8 (Difficult to Read)

The impact of a majority faction on a minority

“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 39.2 (Difficult to Read)

How to control the effects of a majority faction?

“By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 38.9 (Difficult to Read)

Pure democracy won’t solve the problem of majority factions

“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 20.6 (Very Difficult to Read)

Method 2b: Controlling the effect of a majority faction

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 51.1 (Fairly Difficult to Read)

What are the differences between a democracy and a republic?

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 19.0 (Very Difficult to Read)

How does delegation of the government reduce factionalism?

“The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 37.7 (Difficult to Read)

“In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

How does a large republic reduce majority factionalism?

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 7.7 (Extremely Difficult to Read)

….

“Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 35.4 (Difficult to Read)

The ability of a Republic to defeat the excesses of factions

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”[23]
Flesch Reading Ease Score 29,8 (Very Difficult to Read)

Sources and Notes

[23] Madison, James. The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, The Federalist Papers : No. 10. New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
Text from The Avalon Project, Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale University.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp accessed 8 January 2022

[22] Flesch Reading Ease Score description:

“Most times, a readability score helps you know how easy it is to read content or passage. It helps you know the educational level that one has to be in to read a text without a hassle.

The formula for Flesch reading ease score is:

206.835 – 1.015 × (total words ÷ total sentences) – 84.6 × (total syllables ÷ total words)

Interpreted Flesch reading ease scores:

Score	Grade	Summary
90 – 100	5th grade	Very easy to read
80 – 90	6th grade	Easy to read
70 – 80	7th grade	Fairly easy to read
60 – 70	8th & 9th grade	Plain English
50 – 60	10th to 12th grade	Fairly difficult to read.
30 – 50	College	Difficult to read.
10 – 30	College graduate	Very difficult to read
0 – 10	Professional	Extremely difficult to read

Source: Flesch Reading Ease Score – Reading and Grade Level Calculator,

https://charactercalculator.com/flesch-reading-ease/ accessed 7 January 2022

Appendix C – Counting of electoral votes and confirmation of the 2020 Presidential election

This appendix is a supporting page for Reaction to John Broderick’s “Make no mistake. America is broken.”

On 6 January 2021, a joint session of Congress met to count the 2020 electoral votes and confirm the winner. The electoral vote for each state was presented. During this process, a riot started and the Capitol was invaded by a mob of rioters. After several hours, the Capitol was secured and the work of Congress continued.

Objections could be raised to the electoral votes of each state; these needed to be presented by both a House Representative and a Senator. Six representatives presented objections. For two states, Arizona and Pennsylvania, senators supported the objection. Debate and a vote ensued. Neither objection was sustained. In this document, I analyzed the voting results of each objection by each party.

After the counting on the electoral votes, Vice President Pence, acting as president of the Senate, determined the candidate Biden had 306 electoral votes. Thus, Biden was certified winner of the 2020 Presidential Election.

Let’s look at the results for Arizona first, as presented in Tables C1 to C6.

Table C1 Summary of House vote on objection to Arizona’s electors, by party,
6 January 2021 [24]

House Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	83	121	5	209
Democrat	220	0	2	222
Total	303	121	7	431

Table C2 House Republican percentage vote on objection to Arizona’s electors,
6 January 2021 [24]

House Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	39.7%	57.9%	2.4%	100.0%

Table C3 Summary of Senate vote on objection to Arizona’s electors, by party,
6 January 2021 [24]

Senate Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	45	6	0	51
Democrat	46	0	0	46
Independent	2	0	0	2
Total	93	6	0	99

Table C4 Senate Republican percentage vote on objection to Arizona’s electors,
6 January 2021 [24]

Senate Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	88.2%	11.8%	0.0%	100.0%

Table C5 Summary of all votes on objection to Arizona’s electors, by party,
6 January 2021 [24]

Total Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	128	127	5	260
Democrat	266	0	2	268
Independent	2	0	0	2
Total	396	127	7	530

Table C6 Congressional Republican percentage vote on objection to Arizona’s electors,
6 January 2021 [24]

House Vote by Party (Arizona)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	49.2%	48.8%	1.9%	100.0%

Table C1 summarizes how all members of the House voted on the Arizona objection: 303 members voted No, that is to reject the objection. 121 members voted Yes, that is to sustain the objection. Finally, 7 members didn’t vote. Table C2 indicates that 39.7% of Republican House members voted No, while 59.7% voted Yes and 2.4% didn’t vote.

Table C3 summarizes how the Senate voted on the Arizona objection: 93 senators voted No and 6 senators voted Yes, Table C4 indicates that 88.2% of Republican senators voted No, while 11.8% voted Yes.

Table C5 summarizes how all of Congress voted on the Arizona objection: 396 voted No, that is to reject the objection. 127 members voted Yes and 7 didn’t vote. Table C6 indicates that 49.2% of Republicans voted No, while 48.8% voted Yes and 1.9% didn’t vote.

The results for Pennsylvania, as presented in Tables C7 to C12.

Table C7 Summary of House vote on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors, by party,
7 January 2021 [24]

House Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	64	138	7	209
Democrat	218	0	4	222
Total	282	138	11	431

Table C8 House Republican percentage vote on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors,
7 January 2021 [24]

House Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	30.6%	66.0%	3.3%	100.0%

Table C9 Summary of Senate vote on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors, by party,
7 January 2021 [24]

Senate Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	44	7	0	51
Democrat	46	0	0	46
Independent	2	0	0	2
Total	92	7	0	99

Table C10 Senate Republican percentage vote on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors,
6 January 2021 [24]

Senate Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	86.3%	13.7%	0.0%	100.0%

Table C11 Summary of all votes on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors, by party,
7 January 2021 [24]

Total Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republican	108	145	7	260
Democrat	264	0	4	268
Independent	2	0	0	2
Total	374	145	11	530

Table C12 Congressional Republican percentage vote on objection to Pennsylvania’s electors,
7 January 2021 [24]

Total Vote by Party (Pennsylvania)	Vote No to sustain objection	Vote Yes to sustain objection	Not Voting	Total
Republicans only	41.5%	55.8%	2.7%	100.0%

Table C7 summarizes how all members of the House voted on the Pennsylvania objection: 282 members voted No, that is to reject the objection. 138 members voted Yes, that is to sustain the objection. Finally, 11 members didn’t vote. Table C8 indicates that 30.6% of Republican House members voted No, while 66.0% voted Yes and 3.3% didn’t vote.

Table C9 summarizes how the Senate voted on the Pennsylvania objection: 92 senators voted No and 7 senators voted Yes, Table C10 indicates that 86.3% of Republican senators voted No, while 13.7% voted Yes.

Table C11 summarizes how all of Congress voted on the Pennsylvania objection: 374 voted No, that is to reject the objection. 145 members voted Yes and 11 didn’t vote. Table C12 indicates that 41.5% of Republicans voted No, while 55.8% voted Yes and 2.7% didn’t vote.

Notes

[24] All the summary tables were prepared by myself using data from: Counting of electoral votes (January 6-7, 2021). Ballotpedia, accessed 8 January 2022. https://ballotpedia.org/Counting_of_electoral_votes_(January_6-7,_2021)