A perfect example of running government "like a business"

 

 I have a friend...

A friend who knows why the recent 2018 Arizona Primary election found 62 sites not ready to accept voters.

At least as he sees it...

The title kind of says it all.  

Somebody thought it was a good idea to treat a public trust, a sacred act and a cornerstone of democracy like some general contractor picking up day laborers in a Home Depot parking lot.

Treat this as an editorial even if it is grounded in truth.

I know, a rarity especially with all that "Fake News" out there...

The core problem, as reported by the media, revolves around a lack of necessary manpower to effectively get all of Maricopa County's election technology ready in time for Tuesday's primary vote.  

The county blames the contractor who in this case happens to be Insight who Tuesday upon being blamed for botching the setup of the voter ID "sitebooks" in a number of locations, pointed a finger squarely back in the direction of the county.  Insight remained firm in their stance that the "County wasn't ready" after claiming the county equipment wasn't functioning properly and contrary to the county's claims, Insight had provided "more technicians than required"

What you don't know and my friend does is that Insight, the primary contractor, subcontracted with another staffing firm to supplement it's own staff to do the work.

Not that it really mattered... 

I was told that training of subcontractors mirrored Insight's "regular" employee training consisting of watching a 15 minute video and a multi-page instruction sheet that was to be printed out.   In addition technicians were required to view another video on the use of Insight's  SmartPhone APP which was clearly identified as being in BETA.   In other words, not in final WORKING form.  This "APP" was to be the "preferred" means of communicating and managing assigned jobs.

At no point in this process was any other training provided to the subcontractors meaning technicians unfamiliar with both the equipment and Maricopa County election procedure were expected to somehow "magically" set up a site without ever having touched the equipment they were responsible for.  The backup plan, that same printed instructional document and vague references to a support hierarchy which as we now know was insufficient.

In addition my friend related that throughout the preceding week and weekend numerous procedural and  schedule changes were made some right up to an hour before the first work was to be performed creating an atmosphere of chaos with little to no resolution in sight.

The Chaos was further reinforced by a frequent lack of communication between Insight, the County and the secondary contractor.   Ultimately it lead to conflicting directives where my friend would receive multiple communications from multiple sources and no clear path as to which was to be followed.

The key takeaway here isn't who is to blame.  It really isn't folks.

The blame falls squarely on treating an election like just another IT contract.  Governments are NOT businesses.  I've said this before.  

Governments aren't organized to make a profit for shareholders.  That's what corporations are for and their loyalty is to profit not the public good.  

By the Way, I'm way ahead of you.  Don't fool yourself, you're NOT a shareholder any more than the employee of a corporation wields the boardroom power of  a Warren Buffet.

If you still contend that government should be treated like a business then you must also accept that in doing so you may as well tear up the Bill of Rights and surrender such inconsequential tenets of democracy like:

Freedom of Speech - Businesses don't have to allow you to speak your views.  Free speech stops at the street.

Equal rights - Sure you can try to sue if you're wronged but there's a reason most people don't.  It's an expensive, lengthy process in a David Vs. Goliath battle that few rarely win largely done on your dime.  That can be tough if you're out of a job.

A fair days work for a fair day's pay - OK, far too many are trapped making less than a "living wage" but at least we get paid in something we can spend where we choose.  In the 19th century, corporations would frequently engage in the "Company Store" model issuing payment in their own currency useless anywhere but a company owned business.

Perhaps we're too far removed from those days of corporate indentured servitude to recognize the flaw in the logic.

But we're not talking about politics here.  I could care less who you voted for but I do care when something like an election is treated as just another business deal.

What you get is corporate greed, minimal effort and abdication of responsibility with no recourse.

Public/Private partnerships are a great idea but only if the Public part is firmly in control of someone whose interests are to the people and not to a corporate bottom line. 

Especially if it has to do with something like an election.

Dismiss this and you reject the fundamental principles of what this country was founded upon.

Why the Conservative Media got it wrong

Article first published as Why the Conservative Media Got it Wrong on Technorati.

If there was any question as to whether there is such a thing as a conservative media it was settled in the run-up to  the Presidential election.  From Forbes to the WashingtonTimes,  right-leaning  media outlets predicted a close but decisive win for Mitt Romney.

Their assertions were based almost entirely on the Romney campaign platform which focused on perceived weaknesses in the Obama presidency. Let's take a look at a few of them...

The weak Economy...

"Obama and congressional Democrats are clearly to blame for the dismal economy." said Policymic.com...

The argument ignores basic economics if not the calendar. 

For one thing, Economists of any stripe agree that it's impossible to completely recover from a worldwide economic recession (near depression) in less than four years.  It also ignores Wall Street, a favorite economic indicator of the media.

Speaking of Wall Street...

Throughout the Romney campaign President Obama was accused of being "Bad for Business"

Obamaand the belligerent anti-business cartel running Congress have created anincreasingly hostile environment for businesses to operate in. from the Weekly Standard...

On January 20th 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 8279.63.  Election day 2012  found the close at 13245.68.

We all know that Wall Street isn't main street  but the media treats the securities markets as an economic barometer.  A 5000 point spread is hard to ignore.  A number conspicuously absent from the Republican campaigns.

Let's try another one...

Legislative gridlock that could only be resolved with a Romney presidency...

"Obamahas needlessly created political enemies among the electorate.", again from Policymic.com

This one is pure fabrication unless the mere existence of the man is reason enough to despise him.  Remember Republican Senator Mitch McConnell's quote?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

For the two years since the quote to the National Journal, McConnell has insisted he was taken out of context.  Considering the almost intractable ideologies we've seen in congress throughout the President's first term I'm not sure what other context would apply. 

Both parties were aware of the frustration of the electorate with approval ratings leading up to the election hovering at 17%, an historic low.  "My way or the highway" isn't compromise and even a casually informed voter knows that the President can only propose not write legislation.  After that he has to wait for something to come to his desk  to sign.  Misdirection and the fallacy of the straw man. 

Finally, the straw that was to break the back of any hope of  the President's reelection.

 Democratsare not as motivated as they were in 2008. thanks again Policymic.com...

This one was more wishful thinking than calculated advantage...

Even in the face of reduced voting hours and recent challenges to early voting laws Obama voters turned out in force.   In many cases standing hours in line to cast their ballot.  Chants of "Let Us Vote" still ringing in the electorate's ears from the weekend before the election.

Whether or not voter suppression was going on, the suggestion alone was enough of a motivation to engage the ambivalent.

So how could conservative media get it so wrong? 

"MittRomney will win big tonight.  His popular vote margin will be between 3 –5%.  He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to217,"  Steve Forbes, Nov 6, 2012

Three possible scenarios come to mind. 

·    The people writing this stuff are just pandering to their readers who are comprised largely of well heeled conservatives. 

·    They based their assumptions on campaign rhetoric without any fact checking.  The second Presidential debate should have discouraged that route.

·    They're just the media arm of the Republican party.

None are good options and all call into question the standards of the publication.  Popular media is no longer under any type of fairness doctrine, however,  short of libel.  That's allowed media outlets to safely engage in a political bias.    Nobody would confuse Fox News with Mother Jones for example. 

In the end I offer no cautionary admonition against such gaffs.  If anything this is simply an  example of media consumption (or creation) based on individual biases.  Most bias is usually based on at least some factual information even if it's of our own creation .

Politics as Product

Article first published as Politics as Product on Technorati.

Never has there been such a splendid example that we as a society are severely afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.  This flavor of ADD  is far from the inattentive child nervously fidgeting in his classroom, however.  

No, this is an affliction of the first world dominated by the churn of  consumerism.   It expresses itself in everything from fad to fashion and increasingly to critical thinking as well.

We in the first world have become so conditioned to reacting to a marketing message that we require no further information to make a decision.  We make the choice based on the promotion we most easily identify with.  No further deliberation is entertained. 

We've come to expect all of our information to be packaged in this way.  Politics enjoy no immunity.

Our impatience is reflected in the flood of campaign ads that have plagued our airwaves for the past year.  Probably the most obvious example is the current U.S. presidential race.  To date, both candidates for president have raised over 2 Billion dollars for their campaigns with approximately 1.5 billion of that spent thus far. 

Half truths, errors of omission and inflated context are the tools of political persuasion and they easily translate to the world of marketing.  Politics promotes the image by obscuring the product. 

FedEx Office Print Online Large order 20% Discount

We choose our leaders with less care than our favorite sports team.  That's by design and the reason why political positions are largely parroted from political propaganda.  Politicians know voters have a low tolerance for long-winded technical arguments.  Instead they choose a popular position with their base and relentlessly repeat the same message regardless of its veracity.

Remember the Go-Daddy commercials?  In 30 seconds we knew who they were but only because we were constantly exposed to scantily clad models that appealed to a core demographic.   How many of us tried them based on a subconscious reaction to those ads instead of their reputation?

It works just as well for politics as it does for web hosting.   Think about where you get your political news.  Is it C-Span or are you more interested in the packaged offerings of Fox News or MSNBC?

Let's look at a current hot button political issue as an example...

Is it really the fault of a sitting president that the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929 is still affecting the economy?

It is if you ignore the boring technical argument that it took a decade and a world war to bring the U.S. out of the great depression.   

Unfortunately, our short attention spans won't allow the retort.  We crave instant gratification and sway toward the product that promises it.  Ironically, If challenged we frequently justify our position based on that same marketing construct.  It's circular logic which dovetails nicely with our distaste for depth.

Perhaps it's time to examine how informed we really are.