Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 December 20

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.

December 20

Electoral College result in 2016 for USA elections

Re: Electoral College result in 2016 for USA elections. Are there "official results"? Or do these take several days to count/tally? I have read that Trump got the requisite 270 votes. But are there any final numbers? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The official tally is recorded by Congress January 6th, but CNN reports an unofficial count of 304 to 224, with Hawaii yet to vote. Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The final unofficial results from the electoral college (538 members) are: Trump 304; Clinton 227; Colin Powell 3; Faith Spotted Eagle 1; John Kasich 1; Bernie Sanders 1; Ron Paul 1. Neutrality^talk 04:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We often get a handful of outliers. The most recent was John Edwards getting an electoral vote in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not really true. The last election with more than one faithless elector was 1912, and most of the elections since then had no faithless electors, so I don't think "often" is an appropriate description. Also it is worth noting from Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 that 3 or 4 additional electors attempted to cast faithless votes but had their choices invalidated due to state laws that prohibited their chosen action. Dragons flight (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There were 5 rebels in the electoral college in the United States presidential election, 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No in 1960, there was 1 faithless elector and 14 unpledged electors. Unpledged electors, a category that no longer exists in modern elections, are electors who are explicitly appointed with the understanding that they are free to vote for anyone they choose include someone other than the winning party's candidate. In the election of 1960, the state Democratic Parties for four southern explicitly nominated unpledged electors as a protest against the Democratic candidates position on civil rights. Of those who were ultimately appointed to the Electoral College, all 14 ultimately voted for Harry Flood Byrd, a segregationist, even though he was not on the ballot. Such votes are not considered faithless, since the nominating party and the voters knew in advance that they were unpledged. I'm not sure where you are getting the "5 rebels", but perhaps you are thinking of the split vote in Alabama. Alabama nominated 5 pledged electors and 6 unpledged electors that year. All 5 pledged Alabama electors honored their pledge. Dragons flight (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Where did I call them "faithless"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You called them "rebels", and assuming your earlier statement was intended to apply to the same, you said "outliers". I'm not sure what you meant, but electors who are faithfully doing what they were intended to do aren't really rebels, and arguably not outliers either (since nearly all electors do what they were appointed to do). If you were simply referring to the fact that someone other than the main two parties got EC votes, then that wasn't really clear from context. Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rebels, outliers, voting against the party line, whatever you want to call it. They turn up from time to time, but they haven't caused any trouble in a very long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Dragons flight links to about faithless electors this time round is not clear on the matter. If an elector declares their intention to betray their pledge before the vote has begun, the State which appointed them can replace them. However, our article notes 'a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declared in a footnote that any attempt to remove electors "after voting has begun" would be "unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment"'. The electors could be still subsequently prosecuted if State laws allowed it, but at that point, they could not be removed, nor could they be compelled by any form of Prior restraint from voting however they liked, if they were willing to pay the price. Eliyohub (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also unclear whether the state laws you refer to are constitutional. Some who think they are constitutional point to Ray v. Blair, but that was a very different question. --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eliyohub and Trovatore: As you've probably noted, the actual outcome has been the invalidation of votes immediately after they were made. See Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016#Invalidated. As with most constitutional issues nowadays, it is always possible that in ten or a hundred and fifty years the courts will decide that nay, that was really the wrong thing to do, but what difference will it make? Wnt (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely clear whether the courts have jurisdiction, because the 12th amendment gives the counting authority to Congress. If it made a difference, you might see a challenge in Congress to the overridden votes. Or if the courts thought they did have jurisdiction, they might overrule them. But because it wouldn't make a difference, most likely neither body will bother (see also rule of real cases).

However, if a state tried to enforce the criminal sanctions against faithless electors, that I would expect to be challenged in court.

It might be worth saying a word or two about why Ray v Blair is not all that relevant. The Constitution gives a direct grant of authority to state legislatures to pick electors. Alabama gave parties the authority to choose slates of electors, and appointed the slate of the winning candidate's party (or I suppose independent candidates would submit their own slates; that's how it works in California anyway). The Democratic party chose its slate at its state convention.

Blair wanted to be presented to the Democratic delegates as a candidate for elector, without pledging to support the party's candidate. Essentially he was asking the courts to interfere in two decisional processes — the internal state process of how electors are chosen, and the internal Democratic Party process of how the party chooses its slate. That on its face was a very weak argument. Basically Blair was arguing that unpledged electors were the original vision, which was probably true, but that part of the vision simply was not in the text.

On the other hand, once electors are duly appointed and voting, to override their votes (or punish them for them) has no obvious basis in the Constitution. I suspect these laws are unconstitutional and would not survive a challenge, if a non-moot one ever arose. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There were three faithless electors who had their votes "invalidated". One was David Bright in Maine, but he wasn't invalidated per se, just ordered to change his vote, and he complied. As Trovatore says, had he not complied, and faced prosecution, constitutional issues might arise. As I note in the two cases directly below, replacing him at that point would also raise constitutional issues, but these would be much less likely to ever be brought to court.

The other two faithless electors who were invalidated (i.e. they were replaced with alternative electors), Muhammad Abdurrahman in Minnesota and Michael Baca of Colorado - constitutionally highly dubious, in light of the 10th circuit court of appeals view I referred to above, about replacing an elector after voting has begun vis-a-vis the Twelfth Amendment. If one of these two individuals were to have mounted a constitutional battle on their firing, it would have been interesting in terms of constitutional law, but pointless in terms of the election outcome. So they didn't bother.

My other area of intrigue is why states aren't more careful in choosing electors, so these issues do not arise. There are very few restrictions on who can be an elector - can't there be a better screening process? Eliyohub (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I had always thought that electors were chosen by the candidates' campaigns for their personal loyalty to the candidate. Apparently that is not true, or at least not among Washington Democrats. Robert Satiacum, Jr., and his fellows were apparently chosen at the state Democratic Party convention, before the national candidate had been chosen by the national convention. So his pledge was not to HRC personally, but to the candidate of the Democratic Party.

So the onus for the screening process was on the Democratic Party, not the State of Washington. But I don't know why it couldn't have been on the Clinton campaign specifically. Why not have all campaigns submit slates in each state and DC, specifically chosen by the campaign rather than the party, the way independent candidates do? --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was remarked another time this came up that the electors are often or always chosen before before the national convention and so before there even if an official candidate, and so aren't necessarily loyal to the winning candidate. In fact they may be loyal to one of the losing candidates. Edit: See here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 18#How did the members of the U.S. Electoral College, who actually choose the president, come to be the last apolitical office holders in America?. I think the lost comment there is also quite relevant, there's a tendency especially in the US not to do something about a possibly flawed system when most of the time it doesn't matter. I would personally add that it seems to me despite it being for a nation-wide candidate in a federal election, there appears to often be great reluctance in the US to centralise anything. So it tends to be up to each individual state* or state's party. (*=Since the US also has the weird system where the government is often intimately involved in what's ultimately an internal party matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Camp Dewey

Where is Camp Dewey mentioned here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The only Camp Dewey I can find reference to was in Uncasville, Connecticut – see [1]. That is probably what is being referred to here. It means that Edwin Hiku Akina worked there and lived in Brooklyn. It does not mean that Camp Dewey was in Brooklyn. --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There was also: Camp Dewey, Columbia, SC / Camp Dewey, South Framingham, MA / Camp Dewey, Philippine Islands / Camp George Dewey, Sioux Falls, SD. (from Spanish-American War Camps, 1898-99 period). There was also a Camp Dewey at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station near Chicago, but not constructed until 1917 according to this. I suspect they are all named after Admiral George Dewey. Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are so many philosophers childless

Looking at many of the great philosophers of the past,many of them I've noticed were childless. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Define "many". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This article, for instance, discusses this. And Socrates once said: "By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher". Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because philosophers think deeply about things, and don't necessarily follow society's conventions? See for example Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate (MIT 2012) by Christine Overall, who specialises in applied ethics. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Possibly the causal relationship is reversed. If you have children you have less time for philosophy. -Arch dude (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Possibly related: According to a book I read written by an anaesthetist, of the medical specialities, Urologists enjoy the highest rate of marital satisfaction, whilst on the opposite end of the scale Psychiatrists have the highest divorce rate of any medical speciality. His speculation is, they tend to be introspective, and view faults in their own lives somewhat too harshly. A phenomenon possibly of interest to the OP. I know a psychiatrist is not exactly a philosopher, though I suspect many a psychiatrist would say that philosophy features heavily in their work. My own psychiatrist is an expert of sorts in Socrates, and considers his (Socrates') work critical to the field, and we even have an article on Socratic questioning as a therapy technique. Eliyohub (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Prostitution before the introduction of currency

What we know about the non-ritual prostituion before the appearance of currency? Was it performed in exchange for goods/other services, on a barter basis and does it still exist in modern isolated societies that have no currency? Thanks. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Start with History of prostitution and History of money. As for current isolated societies, if they are so isolated that they have no currency, this reference desk is unlikely to be able to provide information on their sexual transactions. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not mentioned in our article is Shamhat, a character in the Epic of Gilgamesh who is a sacred prostitute. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been argued that the predecessor of money wasn't barter, but gifts and favours, and debts. (I think The_Origins_of_Virtue also discussed this earlier). In such an economy, would prostitution really be a thing? I'm not sure how it could be distinguished from people just sleeping around and expecting to get some benefit from it (and vice versa). Iapetus (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be the gift economy, in relationship to transactional sex. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Older than you think?. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The predecessor of currency was precious metals by weight e.g. talents of silver or gold.
Sleigh (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

So a prostitute would need to use her talents to earn her talents ? StuRat (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The earliest case of Prostitution in the Bible is Tamar (Genesis), who pretended to be a prostitute. According to our article, when Judah (biblical person) requested her services, she "struck a deal with Judah for a goat with a security deposit of his staff, seal, and cord". So the payment was to be a goat. I would assume this would be a possible indication of common practice in that era? Eliyohub (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just another note of possible relevance to the question: You don't necessarily need to look at "isolated societies" to get an answer. There are still modern-day countries which have a poorly-functioning to thoroughly dysfunctional monetary system. Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, and in not so distant history (85 or so years ago), Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic are perhaps drastic examples. And prostitution tends to boom somewhat in such countries as people begin to starve. But there are countries where, whilst things are not quite so terrible, the local currency is not deemed a reliable store of value. I only presume prostitutes would resort to the same methods of obtaining payment in whatever form as any other provider of goods or services would in the country in question. If the customer is a foreigner from a first-world country, I presume the prostitute would logically demand payment in foreign currency? For locals? Whatever the butcher, grocer, and doctor in the country do? Why would prostitution be any different in this regard? Eliyohub (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of religious identity in Islamic countries

I understand that law treats Muslims and non-Muslims differently in countries which operate under Sharia law or "semi-Sharia" law. But if a foreigner were to work in such country, how is she or he going to be classified? Do such people have to disclose their religious affiliation upon arrival? What about an irreligious person whose name indicates Muslim background? Can someone named (say) Muhammad ask to be treated as non-Muslim, claiming to have never been Muslim despite the name, or will he be branded an apostate? Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot give a complete answer to this question. But I have seen it discussed it discussed on Thorn tree forum, where people asked how they, as non-Muslims, could "sneak" their way into Mecca and Medina, where non-Muslims are banned from going. The question is, what process does Saudi Arabia use to verify one's status as a Muslim for this purpose? From what I recall, the answer is, you need a letter from the Imam or Sheikh at your local mosque testifying to your Muslim status. (Note, the Saudis have their fingers in MANY pies throughout the Muslim world, and may well know individual mosques in far-flung couuntries, particularly if they're wahabbi-oriented!) And I believe the religious police may indeed phone the mosque and ask to speak to the Imam or Sheikh as to whether they did in fact issue the letter, IF they suspect that it's fraudulent. (You'd probably just get deported, realistically, and possibly fined, but the few days in jail or detention awaiting deportation may be most unpleasant!). I think a "genuine" Muslim would likely very quickly and easily spot, or at least suspect, a "fake" Muslim. Intelligence agents from non-Muslim countries who penetrate Muslim countries pretending to be Muslim themselves (and Israel is probably the world leader in this regard) do extensive training on the nuances of blending in to the country, culture, and religion in question before they travel.

As to classifying religion for those who claim non-Muslim status, if they have no reason to doubt you, then they have no reason to doubt you, so why would they demand evidence of your "infidel" status? If your name is a Muslim one but you deny being Muslim... dunno, maybe others can answer this.

I realize that this is a poorly sourced or unsourced answer, so please attempt to either verify or refute.

Possibly unrelated but similar. When travelling to Israel as a tourist, there is no "religion" section on the immigration form, to my knowledge. BUT, if the intel staff in customs are suspicious of you in any way, they can and will grill you verbally, including on your religious and political beliefs and activities, your planned activities in the country, and many other questions - and you bet they will record the answers! Note, there is no ban on Muslims visiting Israel, but any Muslim will very likely be well-grilled upon arrival - but usually allowed entry, according to thorn tree. (Obviously, if you want to immigrate permanently under the Law of return, totally different story, you must prove that you are Jewish, or otherwise meet the criteria under the act). Eliyohub (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Obama's name is Hussein. Is he a Muslim? No. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Does healthcare have to funded by the government?

I watched a documentary called Living on One Dollar (2013). Two economics students and two filmmakers from the United States went to rural Guatamala. The people there were impoverished ethnic minorities and thus did not speak the majority's language, Spanish, so they could just be farm laborers. But they had their own ways of economizing resources. One way was to put money in a pot. As time went by, if anybody needs the money to pay for a high-priced item like a good stove or someone's wedding, then the money may cover it. But the people struggled with disease and malnutrition and poor healthcare nevertheless. One guy has to use medicine he brings from home to treat his parasitic infection. But the idea of creating a non-government, non-profit program that helps the poor seems inspiring. In the United States, some people don't have health insurance, and for the people that do have health insurance, health insurance may not cover everything. My question is, do health insurance and social service programs have to be funded by the government? Can the people form their own non-profit health insurance program that not only covers medical costs, but also prevents and raises awareness of medical conditions (nutrition education, fitness education, sexual education), and the healthcare program is for everyone? My question seems long-winded, so to put it briefly, does healthcare have to be controlled by the government in the United States, or can it be funded by small communities and wealthy philanthropists without any government funding or intervention? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You should read health insurance in the United States, risk pooling, and particularly health care sharing ministry. The Amish maintain an interesting hospital aid fund, see this Reuters article. Whether these kind of arrangements scale up is another matter altogether. Neutrality^talk 20:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Health insurance in the United States does not mention the friendly societies.[2] Disappointing! —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, we have an article on the film the OP mentioned, Living on One Dollar. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No matter how you arrange things, you inevitably come against hard decisions, like "should we drain our fund to pay for an expensive operation on someone which will only prolong their life by months ?". Also, capitalism really doesn't work in the medical field, as it depends on competition, and somebody facing immediate death will just go to whatever hospital is closest and pay whatever they charge, which leads to outrageous bills. So, some form of price control is required, whether that be from the government, government agencies like Medicare, or a few, powerful insurance companies. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If the nearest hospital charges through the nose for emergency services, you might go to the next-nearest, unless it doesn't exist because a regulator won't let it open its doors unless pre-existing hospitals nearby say "Yes, this market needs more hospitals." And because perverse tax incentives have shifted even routine or predictable matters (vaccinations, periodic exams, childbirth) from cash to insurance, price comparison is nearly impossible. So yeah, the invisible hand of the market really doesn't work in a field where legislation has systematically destroyed it. Meanwhile where's the clamor for regulation and/or subsidy of veterinary services? Won't someone think of the puppies? —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If the nearest hospital charges through the nose for emergency services, I might go to the next-nearest, unless I can't, because I'm at the ER for an emergency and kinda need to be fixed here, and because my life is at stake, I'll pay, or promise to pay, anything and everything I can to survive. Or, I can't, because I'm unconscious and will be billed whatever they like once they fix me. Health care is not a typical consumer good, the invisible hand has little sway there. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If only it were possible to make private arrangements in advance to mitigate such risks. — My guess is that courts would frown on letting an unconscious patient incur "unreasonable" charges. —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Who defines what is and is not "unreasonable" here, if not a government? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Does a civil jury count as "a government"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

So every patient has to file a lawsuit against their hospital to have a jury decide what part of the bill they received was reasonable or not? This sounds like a recipe to employ a ton of tort lawyers on both sides. On the hospital's side of the house, that seems like it would create a ton of expense and uncertainty in every single customer relationship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Every patient"? Don't be silly. Hospitals worry about malpractice suits because of a tiny minority of cases. Meanwhile the point at which I hinted, that medical charges are mostly determined in practice by pre-existing arrangements with insurers (and I have no problem with that practice in emergency contexts, even if its creep elsewhere is harmful), seems to have been too oblique. —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, a response to the unconscious patient one. Now what about the "I have to pay what this place wants or I die" scenario? --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Does the edge case of a clinic willing to risk extremely bad PR to squeeze blood from a stone justify political control of medicine in general? —Tamfang (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you suggest that this is an "edge case" rather than absolutely business as usual before EMTALA was enacted? There's a reason Congress had to step in and mandate that hospitals treat emergency patients or lose federal funding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There's always a reason Congress has to step in and do something: members of Congress need to be seen to be doing things that can be painted as necessary. Did EMTALA predate the legislated scarcity of suppliers of medical services? —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, generally problems that aren't going to be solved by everyone just happily agreeing on things require a legislative solution. Like, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Clean Air Act. White people did not volunteer to stop segregating public facilities in Southern states. Automobile manufacturers did not volunteer to build engines that would put out much fewer pollutants. Similarly, hospitals did not volunteer to stop telling poor people "sorry, but take your life-threatening gunshot wound somewhere else because you can't pay." So the people demanded that Congress take action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

What you're describing is, essentially, a health insurance cooperative. Such cooperatives are a type of mutual insurance. They were more common in the U.S. in the past, though some still exist (or persist) today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm told that it's difficult because only certain kinds of approved entities are allowed to provide such insurance. —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, insurance companies must obtain approval because various levels of government have imposed regulations to protect consumers who purchase insurance, including asset requirements, guidelines on underwriting, appeals processes for denied claims, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To cut the long story short, it is a political question, which demands a political answer (a political choice). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

See Treating the Amish and Addressing their Health Care Concerns: "Most Amish need to have church permission to go to a hospital because the church pays for such care."

—Wavelength (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)