Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 9[edit]

Just how many people does a large US county with half a million total votes have actually counting the ballots after a particular election?[edit]

Just how many people does a large US county with half a million total votes have actually counting the ballots after a particular election? Sort of a random question, but I was curious about this when I heard a claim that Miami-Dade County in Florida only had three people (for this entire county) counting almost half a million total ballots in 2000 and I was genuinely surprised and shocked by this information and wondered if this information is indeed accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina White, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections, has "a staff of 99 full-time employees, up to 1,500 temporary employees". It could be reduced to three if they were The Flash, Superman and Supergirl. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll show this person this information. Futurist110 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three people thing might have been a misremembering of the verification process, where three people had to verify each ballot.[1] Hack (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three people verifying each ballot leaves up to 1596 people (99 + 1500 − 3) for counting the verified ballots. --Lambiam 08:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the current number of people. I couldn't find a number for the 2000 election. Hack (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that all of the permanent staff were counters. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and this isn't guaranteed to actually be the case. Futurist110 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure that, for instance, a dimple is actually visible on the ballot, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my interest here is primarily in the manual recounts of ballots after a close election. Futurist110 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Biden[edit]

I saw a video made by a Republican supporter which spliced a video shot of Biden saying that he is against bussing and then cuts to a video of Harris responding that she was one of the first black girls to be bussed and that this helped her education. Firstly, is this montage correct or is this a twisting of the facts? Secondly, does this refer to what I think it does, being the end of the Civil Rights movement in the US and the bussing of other-raced children into previously whites only schools to help integration? Thirdly and most importantly, how has Harris publicly interdigitated her stance on this matter with then running and now serving along side Biden? Please assume good faith as I am not American and I am not racist, it just seems odd. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.89.50 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Republican propaganda. If you strung together a video of all of Trump's racist comments, you'd have a marathon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an issue about something Biden did back in the 70s, which Harris challenged him over while they were both competing in the Democratic primaries. Here [2] is a background article by bbc.com. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Joe Biden on Saturday apologized for recent comments about working with segregationist senators in his early days in the U.S. Senate, saying he understands now his remarks could have been offensive to some. “Was I wrong a few weeks ago?” Biden asked a mostly black audience of several hundred in Sumter during the first day of a weekend visit to South Carolina. “Yes, I was. I regret it, and I’m sorry for any of the pain of misconception that caused anybody”' (July 7, 2019). [3] Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Desegregation busing would also be of interest, as it explains the background of this exchange. Busing was a big political issue in the 1970s in the U.S. when Biden first served as a senator. Harris was a school child a that time, and as she explained, busing had a positive effect on her education. Xuxl (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue came up on night two of the first Democratic debates held on June 27, 2019. Here is a non-doctored video. (The accompanying text says this face-off between Biden and Harris took place during the second Democratic debate, but that is not how the Wikipedia article counts the debates.) --Lambiam 16:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential transitional powers[edit]

This article in The Guardian says:

"But non-cooperation by the Trump administration in the transition could slow the ability of some agencies to act on directives by Biden in essential areas such as pandemic response and the reinstatement of environmental regulations, protections for migrants and international accords."

Please educate me about these directives. I can understand the idea makes sense but how does it work? Are they simply announcements of intent that agencies would find it prudent to obey? Surely they don't have actual power. Hayttom (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles United States presidential transition and Presidential transition of Joe Biden may be of help. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no, they don't at all. They say nothing about the power, if any, of presidential-elect directives. Hayttom (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, in a normal presidential transition, the leaders of, and key underlings of, the executive departments for the incoming President are part of a Presidential Transition Team. These Transition Team members are introduced to their new offices, and begin to let the civil servants who will work under them know, the planned key operating policies of the department once they take over. While it is true that these positions still need Senate confirmation, that is mostly pro-forma, and usually the transition team starts implementing new department plans as soon as the Presidency changes hands. In order to be ready to do that, there needs to be time to acclimate the career employees to these changes and plans. Normally, this is done during the transition period. The new policies don't take effect until January 20, but the idea is that to be ready on January 20, there needs to be prep-work done. The is explained somewhat in the Wikipedia article titled United States presidential transition, and is formalized in law by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, along with several subsequent amending acts as noted in the Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 18:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the above responders I understand a bit better. Actually I think the problem with my comprehension was caused by the language in the Guardian article that mentioned "directives". I hope in practice that Biden's team will be able to "direct" proper COVID response before 20 January, but I also hoped that Trump wouldn't play so much golf.... Hayttom (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Playing golf is probably the best thing Trump has done his entire administration. Anything to keep him away from anything that might require him to make a decision. Or simply act like an adult. --Khajidha (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea is that Biden's team needs to be ready to direct the Covid response starting on January 20. In order to do so, he needs to have key people in place (basically shadowing their Trump counterparts) before then to start to 1) get information from the Trump team regarding what they are doing and 2) Begin to prepare the civil servants who work under both teams to begin to enact the policies on January 20. --Jayron 32 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rumpus when deputy prime minister John Prescott was spotted playing croquet when he was supposed to be running the country. 146.200.241.2 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the 'rumpus' was as much to do with a Labour Party politician playing what is widely perceived as an Upper-class pastime as with any supposed neglect of his duties: the only-occasionally filled role of UK Deputy Prime Minister is a rather optional extra with no clearly defined duties, and Prescott's appointment to it was supposedly intended to reassure the more Working-class and Trade-union members of his party, with whom he had more affinity than did its then more Middle-class leaders and influencers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.194 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 146.200.241.2 has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily note that on your advice, Bugs, but for future reference: how can one readily notice such? Is there a consultable list of socks one should search before responding to any post, however innocent-looking, from any IP, or from any User whose account name one does not recognize? (I see that there's a "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets", but this appears to run to more than 20,000 pages.) The Userpage for the IP in question (which I have just looked at) was not marked as blocked until 1h40m after my post above, so my checking it before I replied would not have alerted me to any irregularity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.194 (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have become quite adept at recognizing posts from this particular banned user, as he has a very distinctive posting style. --Viennese Waltz 09:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per VW, the banned user has a LOT of "tells" that make it easy for us to recognize her. She has been going for at least ten years. It should be noted that "this post didn't contain anything wrong" is a red herring here. The user was banned a long time ago, and has shown no effort to become unbanned. See WP:BMB. It's not that there's anything wrong with the post in question, it's that it is obviously them. --Jayron 32 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take my hat off to your powers of stylistic analysis. For me that 2-line post, besides being completely innocuous and relevant to the discourse, might have come from any literate anglophone, and betrays no stylistic peculiarities. (I actually quite admired the use of "rumpus", a rather journalistic term hinting that the furore might have been down more to newspapers' wish to stir up controversy rather than to any real public disapprobation.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.136.194 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was once threatened with a block for revealing that a couple of admins were refusing to block socks of a banned user on these desks. Those socks, however, were disruptive and their posts obviously those of the banned editor. I can't say the same for those here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope those admins have since been defrocked. In any case, banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious--is there any way for a banned Wikipedia user to become unbanned? Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by petitioning for it. But LTA's don't care about the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases where royal status was maintained for the longest number of generations after being descended from a king?[edit]

In which cases was royal status maintained for the longest number of generations after being descended from a king? I know of the case of Louis Antoine, Duke of Enghien, who was a French prince du sang in spite of him being a whopping 18 generations removed from French King Louis IX in the male line (indeed, he was born over half a millennium after Louis IX's death!). However, which additional such cases were there? Futurist110 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Japan's current emperor, Naruhito. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But he is the current Japanese Emperor and the son, grandson, great-grandson, et cetera of a Japanese Emperor. So, not very distant! Futurist110 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you asked about maintained status. Considering that Naruhito's ancestors have been royals for many centuries, that would seem to answer your question. Unless you are actually asking something different. --Khajidha (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might have phrased my question here incorrectly, but what I meant here was maintaining royal status while being as distantly descended from an actual king as possible. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]