The Vote To Preserve The Post Office

On August 22nd, the US House of Representatives voted to provide additional funding for the US Postal Service. The “Delivering for America Act” mandates that many of the changes enacted by the USPS since January 1, 2020, will be rolled back; these include any closing or reducing the hours of any post office or mail collection box, restricting overtime by postal workers, treating election mail as anything other than first-class mail, removing mail sorting machines, and any change to service which would delay the delivery of mail. The bill provides $25 billion in additional funding to the USPS in order to meet these requirements.

However, the bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate and has already been threatened with a presidential veto. Trump has claimed that widespread use of mail-in ballots would lead to fraud, and stated that he opposed additional funding to the USPS so that it could not process large numbers of mailed ballots: “Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots…if they don’t get those items that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting.”

While mailed ballots are not impervious to fraud, cases are very rare. Data from the 2016 and 2018 elections in states which already conducted full vote-by-mail elections (in this case, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) found only 372 possible fraud cases out of over 14.6 million ballots cast. If every adult in the United States—not just every voter, but every adult—voted by mail, this would suggest that there could be 8,362 possible cases with 209.1 million ballots cast, for a rate of 0.0025%, assuming these statistics hold for the likely-higher-turnout 2020 presidential election.

And mail-in ballots have safeguards. As the Pacific Standard details:

In Oregon, both the absentee envelope and ballot have a barcode unique to each voter, and in the larger counties, like Marion, a machine scans for any discrepancies between the two, or any duplicate barcodes. Then, a team of election workers trained in forensic handwriting analyzes the ballot signatures to verify the identification of the voter, who has two weeks to prove her identity should the signature be contested.

During this process, “everything that is happening is on camera at all times,” says Tayleranne Gillespie, the communications director for the Oregon Secretary of State. “No one’s ever by themselves counting ballots. It’s always done in bipartisan teams.”

That doesn’t mean that no fraud exists, of course. It’s often more common at local election levels, where races are closer and decided by fewer ballots; the East Chicago Democratic primary was re-run after the Indiana Supreme Court called it “a widespread and pervasive pattern … to cast unlawful and deceptive ballots.” Supporters of the Democratic incumbent, Robert Pastrick, had encouraged others to vote absentee and completed their ballots for the preferred candidate, and several city officials were charged with election fraud.

At the federal level, a US House election in North Carolina’s 9th district in 2018 had to be repeated after a consultant for the Republican candidate delivered absentee ballots in violation of federal law (third parties other than postal workers are not allowed to handle ballots or ballot applications), and admitted to filling out blank portions of the absentee ballots for Republican candidates.

But the race was never certified, and cases such as that are still a rarity—this was the first, and currently only, federal election ever where the race had to be repeated due to fraud, and the discrepancies were noticed within days of the election. Polling and population statistics allow any oddities—such as white voters’ absentee ballots being returned at twice the rate of Black voters’, or winning a county’s absentee vote at a much higher than expected margin—to be seen and investigated. And since mail-in and absentee ballots leave a verifiable paper trail, some government cybersecurity experts, such as Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, have said that vote-by-mail (VBM) elections will actually increase election integrity.

Nor do VBM elections favor one party over another. A recent BYU study found that VBM increased voter turnout by 2-3 percentage points in presidential and midterm races, but “has no effect on election outcomes at various levels of government”. And, in the wake of the pandemic, many states from across the political spectrum haveadopted some semblance of mailed ballots—Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts, among others, will mail every registered voter an application for a ballot.

These changes are perhaps what led to a notable amount of bipartisanship in the bill’s final passage. 26 Republicans broke ranks and voted to pass along with 231 of the chamber’s 232 Democratic members (the lone not-voting member of the Democratic caucus was Tulsi Gabbard, HI-02, currently fulfilling her two-week Army duty requirement with the Hawaii National Guard in Alaska). In doing so, many of those Republicans spoke of its benefits to their more rural constituents:

“The U.S. Postal Service plays a critical role in our nation’s commerce and economy, and in delivering mail to all Americans, especially to those living in rural communities.” -Don Bacon, NE-02.

“We all know the Postal Service is one of our greatest institutions, and has been ever since we developed the Constitution.” -Don Young, AK-AL.

“Tasked with delivering vital medicine to seniors and last mile service for rural counties, the post office is a critical service for the constituents of TX-10.” -Michael McCaul, TX-10.

“The United States Postal Service plays a vital role in the lives of my constituents, particularly those in rural communities, from ensuring their ballots are counted to paying their bills and receiving lifesaving medication.” -Steve Stivers, OH-15.

Especially in rural areas, many of which lack reliable broadband connection, the Postal Service remains a pillar of the community, a secure, cheap and effective link to the larger world. In rural locations, where commercial carriers like FedEx, UPS, and Amazon will inflate their prices or simply refuse to deliver because doing so is not cost-effective, it’s the USPS which delivers packages the “last mile” to their destination. A 2011 analysis noted that “Without such service, the businesses located in rural areas will be paying about $3.00 more per parcel and the people residing in such rural areas will be paying about $5.45 ($3.00 for Ext. DAS [Delivery Area Surcharges] and $2.45 for ground residential) more per parcel, or both businesses and consumers will be limited in ordering for direct delivery to their address.”

A table showing the cost of delivery for packages through UPS, FedEx, and USPS for rural areas.

But limiting that service has its own dangers—many seniors and residents of rural communities receive vital medications through the mail, and delays in the mail could mean that prescriptions run out before the next shipment arrives. Rob Larew, president of the National Farmers Union, writes “USPS is frequently the only affordable and convenient way to receive medication in rural areas — and…disruptions or delays could literally mean the difference between life or death.”

So why did so many rural Republicans vote against providing funding for the Postal Service?

The CityLab analysis of congressional district density found 70 districts which it classified as “purely rural”: “a mix of very rural areas and small cities with some suburban-style areas”. These are the districts which would be most affected by any changes to the USPS, and are overwhelmingly represented by Republicans, who hold 60 of those 70 districts. In many ways, these districts are the base of the GOP—they overwhelmingly voted for Trump over Clinton, 63-37, and have shifted ever more Republican over the past few years.

And yet of those 60 rural Republicans, only 5 voted to extend funding for the postal service.

Republicans Voting ‘Yes’ And How Their Districts Are Classified:

  • Don Bacon* (NE-02)—dense suburban
  • Peter King (NY-02)—dense suburban
  • Ann Wagner* (MO-02)—dense suburban

 

  • Troy Balderson (OH-12)—sparse suburban
  • Vern Buchanan (FL-16)—sparse suburban
  • Brian Fitzpatrick* (PA-01)—sparse suburban
  • David Joyce (OH-14)—sparse suburban
  • Chris Smith (NJ-04)—sparse suburban
  • Mike Turner (OH-10)—sparse suburban

 

  • Mike Bost (IL-12)—rural-suburban mix
  • Rodney Davis* (IL-13)—rural-suburban mix
  • Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)—rural-suburban mix
  • Sam Graves (MO-06)—rural-suburban mix
  • Jaime Herrera Beutler* (WA-03)—rural-suburban mix
  • Will Hurd (TX-23)—rural-suburban mix
  • John Katko* (NY-24)—rural-suburban mix
  • Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)—rural-suburban mix
  • Michael McCaul (TX-10)—rural-suburban mix
  • Steve Stivers (OH-15)—rural-suburban mix
  • Fred Upton* (MI-06)—rural-suburban mix
  • Jeff Van Drew* (NJ-02)—rural-suburban mix

 

  • Pete Stauber (MN-08)—pure rural
  • Elise Stefanik (NY-21)—pure rural
  • David McKinley (WV-01)—pure rural
  • Tom Reed (NY-23)—pure rural
  • Don Young* (AK-AL)—pure rural

Those marked with an asterisk are facing competitive re-election races in the 2020 general election.

Most likely, their votes are due to partisan polarization; these districts, as the base of a Republican Party which has aligned itself with Trump, are unfavorable to representatives who buck the president: in 2018, the rural NC-09 ousted its Republican incumbent, Robert Pittenger, in the primary over a perceived failure to support Trump’s immigration policies. Trump has vowed to veto the funding bill if it passes the Senate and called it a “HOAX by the Democrats to give 25 Billion unneeded dollars for political purposes”, meaning that congressional Republicans who wished to stay in their party’s good graces had a clear political incentive to vote against the bill.

But the political contrast remains striking. Rural districts cover wide swaths of the central and eastern United States, but a wide majority saw their representatives vote against funding for a service they rely upon:

A map showing how the representatives of the 70 rural districts in the US voted. (55 Republicans voted no, 5 voted yes, along with all 10 Democratic representatives)

Colored districts are the 70 districts classified as “pure rural” by the CityLab analysis, while the greyed-out districts are not.

Joe Biden: The ‘Most Progressive President’ Ever?

The Democratic primary was largely decided in March (Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out at the beginning of April), but those five months can make all the difference in the world. March marked a time before the US economy contracted by a third, before tens of millions faced housing eviction and protests over another police killing of a Black man rocked every state in the nation.

And during that time, presumptive nominee Joe Biden has seemed to change as well. During the primary, he was defined by incrementalism and the long shadow of his decades in the Senate—but now, his plans and his actions have brought Sanders to describe him as, if those plans are implemented, “the most progressive president since FDR.” Biden himself has stated that, if elected, he and his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation—we’ll transform it.”

But in many ways, Biden’s apparent change is less a radical departure from his positions of the past, and more an acceptance of his position as the standard-bearer of a party that has shifted around him.

Biden Is Historically In The Center (Of The Party)

Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1979, and over that time, many of his views have shifted significantly. In the 1990s, he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex marriages; in 2012, he was the first high-ranking Democrat to endorse it, even before the president. And some of the most contentious points in the primary came over his support for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, both of which he has said he regrets.

But his views have evolved with the party. The majority of Democratic senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (32 of 46), the Violent Crime Act (54 of 56) and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (49 of 54). In fact, tracking his voting records through Congress, Biden is dead center of the Democratic caucus:

A .gif showing Biden's votes in the Senate, falling largely in the center of the Democratic caucus.

(the left bloc generally represents Democratic senators, the right bloc Republican senators. Biden’s position among them is marked in blue. On average, Biden was more liberal than 51% of Democratic senators and more conservative than 49% of Democratic senators).

So the question of where Biden stands is, in its broadest sense, a question of where the Democratic Party stands—and there’s evidence to suggest that the party is further left than it’s ever been. Even if ideas like Medicare-for-all or the Green New Deal weren’t enough to win the primary, the discussions they sparked in public opinion and the ideas they proposed were the catalyst which carved out the space in which Biden’s plans now fall.

So What Are Biden’s Plans?

Biden’s campaign website features an extensive list of policy plans, many targeted at specific communities. After the primary ended, several of these plans were reworked or added to with input from activists, legislators, and prominent Democratic figures. A joint task force between the more establishment and progressive wings released guidelines on some major policy areas, and what Biden’s plans have become in response:

Education

Biden’s plans on education represent a drastic shift from the Obama-era policy, perhaps driven in response to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ championing of charter schools. In K-12 education, Biden pledges a massive investment in public schools (especially Title I schools in low-income areas; his plan calls for tripling funding for those schools) and teachers, though he has not yet adopted the recommendation of stricter federal oversight on charter schools.

Post-high-school, while Biden has adopted the progressive tenet of free public college for all at least to a degree: his plan says that colleges will be free for families earning under $125,000, and that community colleges will be free for everyone. Beyond that, Biden says that he will work to reform the student loan system to reduce administrative burden and—like many other of his plans—specifically invest in colleges and universities that serve communities of color.

Economy

The task force called for a comprehensive plan that specifically addressed communities of color, which Biden’s campaign has made the fourth pillar of his “Build Back Better” program. Though it does not include some of the policies championed by Sanders and Warren such as a “wealth tax”, it embraces the role of government in creating jobs (and assisting economic recovery in the wake of the pandemic) through the creation of a Public Works Job Corps.

His current economic plan, of which more details are expected to be released soon, is also interconnected with many other areas such as climate change, where Biden’s platform details that infrastructure development will also be designed to electrify and decarbonize much of the US’ existing infrastructure.

Immigration

On immigration, Biden’s plans (and even the task force recommendations) fall most in line with his primary campaign: the idea that, as president, Biden will work simply to undo much of what Trump has done. Much of Biden’s immigration plans amount to a dismantling of the restrictions implemented since 2016, such as the travel bans on Middle-Eastern countries and changes to the asylum system which forced immigrants to wait in Mexico or other Central American countries while their cases are processed.

While Sanders made waves in the primary for calling to abolish ICE and decriminalize illegal immigration (making it a civil penalty rather than a criminal one), Biden makes no such pledges. He calls for expanding the visa system to make more potential immigrants eligible, and creation of an oversight panel on ICE—another sign that, while pushed by the left, he is not the “Trojan horse” for their policies that many Republicans have attacked him as.

Climate

In a primary which saw broad, sweeping climate plans from candidates like Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and of course the Green New Deal championed by Senator Sanders, Biden was criticized by progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement for being less willing to take bold steps, especially on an issue that many young voters—a weak area for him—care heavily about.

Yet just a few months later, the presumptive nominee’s sweeping new climate plan has been largely hailed by those groups. For one thing, they had a hand in crafting it: Biden’s plan came about as a result of one of his unity task forces between the progressive and establishment wings of the party, including people like John Kerry and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and parts of it are drawn heavily from Inslee’s comprehensive, 200-page-plus path he laid out in the primary.

And it’s likely climate where Biden carves out his path to being the “most progressive president since FDR”. For one thing, it calls heavily for both government spending and investment in public-works programs, and has been supported by large groups of organized labor.

That said, Biden has also made efforts to continue his appeal as a more moderate candidate; in Midwestern states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, he has stated that he will not ban fracking—something that more progressive Democrats have called for and Republicans have attacked them over.

Criminal Justice

Criminal justice and police reform is another issue where the party (and public opinion) has shifted rapidly following the killing of George Floyd and nationwide protests. And once again, Biden has not moved as far left as some prominent Democratic figures: he doesn’t agree with completely “defunding the police”, and has stated that some funding should be “redirected” to less confrontational services such as social workers or mental health counselors, and says that police forces today are too heavily militarized.

His platform is also a repudiation of the bills of the 1980s and 1990s that adopted a “tough on crime” stance, calling for billions in investments to reduce incarceration and end mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes—an especially important step for a candidate long dogged by his votes for those bills, and as public perception shifts away from the ideals of “law and order” that President Trump has pushed in response to the protests.

Health Care

Joe Biden’s healthcare plan has shifted left as well: he proposes creating a public option for health insurance administered by Medicare. This is most similar to the option presented in the primary as “Medicare for all who want it”—a plan that would not abolish private insurance but allow another option, especially for low-income families or those who don’t receive employer-based healthcare.

Also among his healthcare plans, but less contentious among Democratic voters and activists, are plans meant to prevent pharmaceutical companies from overpricing the drugs and medication that many Americans need: Medicare would directly negotiate the prices for all purchasers,  as well as restrictions on launch prices and price increases.

Housing

The pandemic has exposed the cracks in the United States’ housing system, showing just how vulnerable millions of people are to losing their homes when uncertain times hit—it’s estimated that almost 40 million people are at risk of eviction as the federal moratoriums expire. In response, President Trump signed an executive order which instructs the relevant departments to ‘consider’ limiting evictions or providing more money in aid, but doesn’t necessarily force them to do so.

Biden’s plan is founded on the view that even stricter eviction bans are no more than a stopgap measure. It calls for an extension of the Section 8 housing voucher program, which provides vouchers to low-income families that landlords may redeem, that would make it fully universal rather than capped at whatever Congress allocates. Even under normal conditions, it’s estimated that three-quarters of eligible households don’t receive help because there isn’t enough money in the pool, and that isn’t accounting for a pandemic which puts millions more at risk. Making the program universal, like Medicare or SNAP, would mean that—in theory—everyone eligible for benefits would receive them.

Procedure

While not policy-specific, many of Biden’s proposals call for huge investments in government spending, and will face steep opposition in the Senate even if Democrats win a majority in the fall—and, perhaps spurred by the failure of many of Obama’s policies over budget concerns and the filibuster, many Democrats have signaled willingness to end the filibuster and allow deficits to rise, allowing major increases to the national debt.

In a way, Democrats are borrowing here from Republicans’ playbooks to change the rules of Congress when it benefits their party, such as the ending of ‘blue slips’ for judge confirmations and reducing the amount of debate each judicial nominee receives before the Senate must vote on their confirmation. And the same appears to be true of budget deficits and the national debt. Republicans have long held the mantle of the fiscally-responsible party, but the national debt has surged under Trump, and his former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney stated that the party’s position on deficits shifts based on who occupies the White House: “My party is very interested in deficits when there is a Democrat in the White House,” he said in an overseas speech. “Then Donald Trump became president, and we’re a lot less interested as a party.”

Facing such opposition, not to mention the unprecedented economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Biden and Congressional Democrats seem less inclined to rein in the budget as they have previously. Even the Blue Dog coalition, a group of moderate Democrats who promote fiscal responsibility, have called the unprecedented government spending “necessary”. And Biden’s plans, calling for trillions of dollars in spending, have only increased in scale—he himself has not mentioned the national debt, but House lawmakers have concurred that now is not the time for it: “We should be using our strong balance sheet to borrow to stimulate the economy. And that may involve more programs like climate and transportation going into the Biden administration,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), the vice chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.

Of course, Biden’s exact approach to procedure will be unknown unless he wins the White House in November. But progressive groups are hopeful that, especially on sweeping legislation such as climate, they won’t see the same failure as with Obama’s climate bill—without 60 votes in the Senate, it never even came to the floor.

The Most Progressive President?

Biden’s plans have been compared to FDR’s of the mid-20th century, both for their large investment in public-works projects and their creation in response to a sharp and unprecedented economic downturn that has left record numbers unemployed (though for very different reasons). But comparing the two on a single one-dimensional spectrum from liberal to conservative leaves out a very important difference between them—while perhaps similarly bold on economic issues, Biden’s plans and stances are consistently far more progressive than FDR’s on social issues (including healthcare, education, climate change, criminal justice, and housing).

The New Deal coalition that propelled Democrats to power from 1932 to the late 1960s was based largely on economic issues, uniting disparate groups such as white, socially conservative Southerners with ethnic and racial minorities under broad economic plans that benefitted almost all workers—but to do so, the coalition largely suppressed differences on social issues. In essence, it was an economically-liberal coalition which contained both socially liberal and conservative members. And when it fell apart, it did so due to backlash in the South to the civil rights movement and racial integration.

Biden, in contrast, explicitly addresses both economic and social issues in his platform—social issues on which his change over the years is especially evident. And it may be that which sets his particular progressivism apart from presidents of the past.