investmentwatchblog--2020-07-13--Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed

Conservatives are generally quick to point out that America is a republic , not a democracy .
But what really is the difference , and are they even right ?
Voting in America has changed considerably since the days of our founding .
Back then , the government didn ’ t even print official ballots .
Instead , you got ballots from the candidate who wanted your support .
Sometimes voting took place in public , so everyone knew who you voted for .
And , of course , the franchise was largely restricted to white , male property owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can vote .
And the Democratic Party wants to increase ballot access by automatically registering anyone who gets a driver ’ s license .
Democrats even pushed for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election to make voting even easier – and more open to voter fraud .
But is any of this a good thing ?
Indeed , it is worth considering the transformation of the United States from a Constitutional Republic , ruled by law with the input of the people , to a total democracy , where the will of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brief History of the Franchise in America Open up your pocket Constitution and find the part where it says who can vote and who can ’ t .
You ’ ll come up short .
That ’ s because the Constitution delegates this right to the states .
And while there are some amendments that , for example , say states can ’ t restrict the franchise on the basis of race , gender or being over the age of 18 , otherwise there is broad leeway given in terms of who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before the United States existed , people were still voting and there were oftentimes even more restrictions in place .
Property qualifications were most common , but there was often also a religious test involved .
For example , Plymouth Colony required that voters be “ orthodox in the fundamentals of religion , ” which would have likely excluded even Catholics from voting .
Indeed , Catholics , Quakers and Baptists were frequently forbidden from voting in early colonial elections .
( Jews were forbidden from state office in Maryland until 1828 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of belief in an afterlife . )
One of the first laws drafted by the new nation was a process for people to become citizens and thus be able to vote in places where citizenship was a requirement to do so – and indeed , citizenship was not a requirement in many states or colonies in the early days of America .
While only “ natural born ” citizens can become president , naturalized citizens enjoy the full benefits of the franchise .
There is still much debate as to what qualifies as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s worth noting that several recent major party presidential candidates were not born in the United States – most recently Tulsi Gabbard ( who was born in American Samoa ) and Ted Cruz ( who was born in Canada ) .
The Republican nominee in 2008 , John McCain , was born in the Panama Canal Zone .
The last of these was the most problematic , as Downes v. Bidwell ruled that unincorporated territories were explicitly not the United States .
While it is easy to ascribe this to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually somewhat more profound : The colonists and the colonial governments that they formed considered it important to only allow the franchise to people who shared their values .
Thus , those with heterodox religious beliefs were not allowed to vote on the grounds that doing so would undermine both the values and the liberty of the colony .
Similarly , property holders were meant to be the main voters for the simple reason of having skin in the game .
The early colonists did not want , for example , the merchant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics because they were not tied to the land and thus not as subject to bad decisions .
A shopkeeper or importer can simply sell their stock and move on to the next colony .
A freeholder , working the land with his family , has far less flexibility and , the theory goes anyway , would be making more long-term decisions about what is best for the polity .
What this meant , also , is that , in places like New Jersey , women were allowed to vote until 1807 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement .
What changed in the early 19th century , under the expansion of the franchise under Jacksonian Democracy , was that race and gender were prized more than property rights .
But free blacks still had the right to vote in some Northern states until 1838 .
This too was not an arbitrary distinction .
Men who had been veterans of the War of 1812 , or at the very least , defended their community against Indian raids , believed that they were entitled to the franchise on the basis of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men were allowed to vote without meeting any property requirements , but five of the states still kept tax requirements ( frequently a poll tax ) in place .
Again , this makes sense : The force of government is largely about the spending of taxes and the use of the military .
By 1856 , all property requirements had been lifted , but tax requirements remained in place in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania , until the 20th century .
Rhode Island had what was basically a brief , low-level civil war over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Dorr War .
Indeed , anytime that post-Civil War disenfranchisement is discussed , it must include a discussion of the disenfranchisement of poor whites as well .
The Battle of Athens is a fascinating tale of World War II veterans returning from battle and refusing to be shafted at the ballot box anymore .
Of the 15 Constitutional Amendments passed since the Civil War , four involve the franchise .
The 15th Amendment bars states from restricting the franchise on the basis of race , the 19th from restrictions on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax requirements , and the 26th bars any age restrictions against those over the age of 18 .
Another Amendment , the 17th , allows for the direct election of senators , rather than having them elected by the respective state legislature – another expansion of pure democracy in America , though not an expansion of suffrage per se .
The previous method of electing senators , having them appointed by the respective state legislatures , was not an oversight on the part of the Founders .
Rather , this was to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government .
This was seen as an important safeguard against the overreach of federal power .
Among other things , the Senate was a check on a power-hungry federal government seeking to put its tentacles into anything it could .
It was a form of distributed power that was yet another attempt by the Founders to prevent consolidation and centralization of government .
It ’ s worth noting that Western states , starting with Wyoming in 1869 , were granting women the right to vote , largely as an enticement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was seriously devoid of women .
The concept of “ one man , one vote ” is the cornerstone of a more pure democracy .
There were three decisions of the Earl Warren Supreme Court that definitively transformed the landscape of America into a democracy : • Baker v. Carr found that federal courts had jurisdiction over state redistricting efforts .
• Wesberry v. Sanders found that U.S. House of Representatives districts – whose borders are determined by state governments – must be roughly equal in population .
• Reynolds v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be roughly equal in population , regardless of chamber .
This effectively means that states are not allowed to have institutions like the Senate – for example , a state government can not give each county two seats in the state legislature if the counties do not have roughly the same population size .
Residency requirements are mostly illegal in the United States , with one-year requirements struck down in Dunn v. Blumstein .
The longest residency requirement that states are allowed to have now is 50 days .
All of this raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , as opposed to a Constitutional Republic ?
It ’ s a cliche that democracy is the right of 51 percent of the population to take away the toothbrushes of the other 49 .
The Constitution provides protections against the tyranny of the majority and one of those protections is against pure democracy .
Indeed , the Senate and Electoral College , two of the last vestiges of the anti-democratic mood that penetrated the country during Revolutionary times , provide protections to rural states to this day .
Without either of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proportional representation body , as some have suggested , rural states are effectively political serfs for the larger urban centers .
The counter argument presented to this is that “ land doesn ’ t vote , ” which is fair enough , but again : America was not conceived as a pure democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything .
There are many layers to the onion , many tiers that prevent one group of the population from having too much say over the others .
The Electoral College and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a voice in how the country is run , rather than being totally ruled over by people in urban centers who don ’ t own guns , can ’ t grow food , and have never met their neighbors .
It ’ s not a coincidence that Electoral College abolition is a particular ax ground by the left .
The abolition of the Electoral College would allow for sweeping changes in American public policy championed by those currently on the leftward edge of the political spectrum .
Do you want to live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters of smaller states like Nevada , New Hampshire and Montana are drowned out by a handful of cities on the coasts ?
What of medium-sized states with a number of post-industrial cities with their own concerns , just as valid as those of rural America , but entirely separate from the centers of financial , cultural and academic power ?
There ’ s also the small matter of the role that the media plays in shaping public opinion , as well as the role that public works projects and other government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ostensibly “ undemocratic ” institutions act as brakes on the manipulation of public opinion .
Indeed , the Senate was specifically designed as a deliberative body that would “ cool the passions ” of the masses represented in the lower house , the House of Representatives .
The Primary System as a Laboratory of Democracy The primary process for nominating presidential candidates represents an excellent example of how pure democracy has produced poorer results than a more managed and directed one .
Most Americans , particularly younger ones , don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary contests didn ’ t mean much .
Rather , it was the state party conventions which held greater weight and these were largely managed by party bosses rather than directly influenced by voters .
It ’ s not that this system of backroom wheeling and dealing never produced a total dud or stifled genuine needs for reform – of course it did .
However , looking at the roster of candidates produced by this process ( i.e.
, two Roosevelts , a Coolidge , an Eisenhower and a Kennedy ) , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
What was entirely lacking was the current primary process that we have in the United States , which still boasts a very low overall turnout and lasts from approximately the fourth quarter of the year before the election sometimes all the way up until the convention .
All told , the Democratic Primary cycle of 2020 had 12 debates planned , with 11 completed and the 12th not happening simply because Joe Biden said he wasn ’ t going to show up .
The primaries are dominated by highly motivated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a number of highly polarizing figures have made it through the modern primary process , including Barry Goldwater ( 1964 , so a little early ) and George McGovern , but also a ton of people who the party in question loved but Americans just plain didn ’ t like ( examples of this being Walter Mondale , Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney ) .
This is because party bosses were much more concerned about someone who could win – and all the patronage that flowed from that – rather than someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eisenhower is perhaps the gold standard of a president annointed by party bosses .
Senator Robert Taft , the leading light of the ideologically conservative faction of the party , lost to the choice of the party bosses , General Dwight D. Eisenhower .
While historical counterfactuals are hard to tease out , there ’ s little reason to believe that Senator Taft could have won a general election against President Truman or eventual nominee Senator Adlai Stevenson .
This is because , while there was a big thirst to roll back the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardcore Republican base , there was virtually no taste for it in the American mainstream , which either liked the programs or had learned to live with them .
Indeed , it is largely believed that the delegates themselves might have preferred Taft to Eisenhower – but they preferred Eisenhower to losing .
It ’ s worth noting that in the last two Democratic primaries , party bosses have leaned heavily on the scale against insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of , respectively , Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden .
In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nomination in 2016 without any significant organized chicanery on the part of the party bosses .
But it ’ s not just political parties who lose when American presidential candidates are the result of a process catering to a very small niche of the electorate .
America loses also , because we are incapable of having substantive , issue-driven debates that address real problems of the American people .
Instead , we end up focusing much more on the personalities and cultural differences that divide the two parties – to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is dispute as to whether or not there is widespread election fraud in the United States .
However , there are three presidential elections that merit a brief discussion in our exploration of the franchise in America .
The election of 1876 was so controversial and potentially fraud-ridden that it was the subject of a Congressional Electoral Commission in response to a major Constitutional crisis .
There were 20 electoral votes outstanding , with the Democratic candidate one shy of winning , with the 20 outstanding electoral votes all coming from states with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was convened by the Democratic House and the Republican Senate , with five members from each body and five from the Supreme Court of the United States .
One of the tricks in question is actually an exploit of pure democracy : In those days , there were no official ballots .
Ballots or “ tickets ” were generally printed up by political parties or their partisans and distributed to the voters .
Southern Democrats used ballots with Abraham Lincoln on them in an attempt to fool illiterate voters into voting for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was a slogan at the time and Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden ’ s supporters declared that they had 100,000 men ready to march on the capital and install him as president if need be .
A party-line vote of the Electoral Commission gave all the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes , making him president .
However , as a concession , the South got the end of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of all remaining federal troops .
Democrats remained unsatisfied , with the House of Representatives going as far to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 made the state legislature the definitive arbiter of who counted as an elector , which was the subject of Bush v. Gore , another controversial election over 100 years later .
The 1960 election was disputed as well , but not formally and officially like in 1876 .
The claim is this : That the Democratic Party used friendly city machines in Dallas and Illinois to win states for John F. Kennedy that he otherwise would not have won – and that would have delivered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a marginal theory .
Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater have stated that they believe there was fraud in the election .
All told , Republicans in 11 states sought to have the vote overturned , including in Illinois and Texas .
A special prosecutor charged 650 people with voter fraud , but there were no convictions .
It is unknown to what degree Nixon felt he had been cheated , but he never seriously pursued it , believing it would divide the nation and tarnish the office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2000 election , where chicanery is alleged to have taken place not at the ballot box , but at the Supreme Court .
It was the Supreme Court who stopped the recount under the Equal Protection Clause because they did not approve of how the recount was being carried out .
Further , a new standard could not be agreed upon because of the time frame – electors had to be selected by December 12 .
This allowed a previous vote count certified by Secretary of State Katherine Harris ( a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here the question was not about whether or not someone was ballot-box stuffing .
No one has seriously or credibly proposed this .
What was in question is how the votes were counted .
This calls to mind an apocryphal quote often attributed to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin : Several have written that if a statewide recount were done , rather than a county-based one , that it was Vice President Al Gore who would have won .
But the question here is what was the best way to count the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties prefer the method resulting in their candidate winning .
Beyond the Theory : Why Pure Democracy Is Bad In Its Execution Once the notion of a universal franchise enters the public vernacular , there is then no limit on who should be included .
Andrew Yang became the first major party presidential candidate to endorse lowering the voting age to 16 , but others have endorsed removing age requirements for voting entirely .
Indeed , there is an entire current of thought that says that citizenship shouldn ’ t be a requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipal elections ) or even that the entire world should be allowed a say in who becomes the President of the United States .
While these might all sound like ridiculous proposals – and we agree that they are – they are the thin edge of the wedge , the tip of the spear that will eventually introduce this kind of discourse into the political mainstream and perhaps much sooner than anyone thinks .
If the only criteria for who gets to vote is that you are “ affected by government policy ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a say , why not let the entire populations of France and Bangladesh and China have a vote ?
There is a logic to universal suffrage that does not end with America ’ s adult population or even at its borders .
Consider the fight against voter ID laws in the United States .
When one accepts that voting is a universal right , it makes perfect sense that having or not having an ID shouldn ’ t be an impediment to exercising that right .
A lack of voter ID laws has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps more disturbing is the growing practice of ballot harvesting .
The Democratic Party likes ballot harvesting so much that they tried to insert it into the stimulus and relief bill targeted at people suffering from the effects of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak of 2020 .
Put simply , this is when paper ballots are collected by intermediaries between the state and the voter , then delivered en masse .
If this sounds like it ’ s a ripe place for voter fraud to happen , that ’ s because it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do-over of the 2019 North Carolina election , where Democrats were , perhaps for the first time ever , deeply concerned with the specter of voter fraud .
Orange County , California , was home to a whopping quarter million ballots delivered on Election Day alone .
In practice , ballot harvesters go around collecting ballots for people who vote for the candidate they want to win .
In the case of North Carolina , there were allegations that ballots had been discarded because people voted for the “ wrong ” candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak , there has been a push – mostly from Democrats – to offer mail-in ballots .
These are different from absentee ballots , which are sent out to specific voters on a by-request basis .
Compare this with the push for mass mail-in voting : This is just printing up a ton of ballots , sending them out and letting everyone mail them in .
There are few , if any , protections in place for preventing people from voting twice , preventing non-registered voters from voting , or preventing illegal aliens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes that shouldn ’ t , a legal voter has their vote cancelled out or nullified .
There ’ s not much of a way to verify and track this process to ensure that everyone who votes is having their vote counted .
But again , it is very much in keeping with the logic of “ one man , one vote.
” Those who espouse the ideology of a pure democracy are always looking for ways to make it easier for people to vote .
Perhaps , not coincidentally , making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the door to electoral fraud .
And this is really the crux of the matter when it comes down to pure democracy : The transition to a purer democracy has coincided with greater influence among unofficial kingmakers who control the process while also consolidating greater power in Washington , D.C .
In practice , this has meant favoring a bureaucratic elite who effectively act as unelected legislators .
Most of the regulations put in place by the alphabet soup of federal agencies aren ’ t there by statute , but are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the legislature who have abdicated their legislative authority .
What ’ s more , these unofficial kingmakers are often shadowy figures whose names ( to say nothing of their intentions ) are mostly unknown .
These are not the traditional party bosses who were , in a sense , beholden to their people in the form of having to provide patronage and pork and other tangible results .
Rather the new kingmakers of our pure democracy are the mass media , party activists and others with no skin in the game and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their angle is one entirely of self-interest and not to the broader body politic , to say nothing of future generations .

via Ammo.com
Conservatives are generally quick to point out that America is a republic, not a democracy. But what really is the difference, and are they even right?
Voting in America has changed considerably since the days of our founding. Back then, the government didn’t even print official ballots. Instead, you got ballots from the candidate who wanted your support. Sometimes voting took place in public, so everyone knew who you voted for. And, of course, the franchise was largely restricted to white, male property owners.
Now, anyone who turns 18 can vote. And the Democratic Party wants to increase ballot access by automatically registering anyone who gets a driver’s license. Democrats even pushed for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election to make voting even easier – and more open to voter fraud. But is any of this a good thing?
Indeed, it is worth considering the transformation of the United States from a Constitutional Republic, ruled by law with the input of the people, to a total democracy, where the will of the people dominates all other discussion.
A Brief History of the Franchise in America
Open up your pocket Constitution and find the part where it says who can vote and who can’t. You’ll come up short. That’s because the Constitution delegates this right to the states. And while there are some amendments that, for example, say states can’t restrict the franchise on the basis of race, gender or being over the age of 18, otherwise there is broad leeway given in terms of who can vote and who can’t.
Before the United States existed, people were still voting and there were oftentimes even more restrictions in place. Property qualifications were most common, but there was often also a religious test involved. For example, Plymouth Colony required that voters be “orthodox in the fundamentals of religion,” which would have likely excluded even Catholics from voting. Indeed, Catholics, Quakers and Baptists were frequently forbidden from voting in early colonial elections. (Jews were forbidden from state office in Maryland until 1828, because of a state law requiring affirmation of belief in an afterlife.)
One of the first laws drafted by the new nation was a process for people to become citizens and thus be able to vote in places where citizenship was a requirement to do so – and indeed, citizenship was not a requirement in many states or colonies in the early days of America. While only “natural born” citizens can become president, naturalized citizens enjoy the full benefits of the franchise. There is still much debate as to what qualifies as a “natural born” citizen, and it’s worth noting that several recent major party presidential candidates were not born in the United States – most recently Tulsi Gabbard (who was born in American Samoa) and Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada). The Republican nominee in 2008, John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The last of these was the most problematic, as Downes v. Bidwell ruled that unincorporated territories were explicitly not the United States.
While it is easy to ascribe this to petty religious bigotry, the reason is actually somewhat more profound: The colonists and the colonial governments that they formed considered it important to only allow the franchise to people who shared their values. Thus, those with heterodox religious beliefs were not allowed to vote on the grounds that doing so would undermine both the values and the liberty of the colony.
Similarly, property holders were meant to be the main voters for the simple reason of having skin in the game. The early colonists did not want, for example, the merchant class to have an outsized say in politics because they were not tied to the land and thus not as subject to bad decisions. A shopkeeper or importer can simply sell their stock and move on to the next colony. A freeholder, working the land with his family, has far less flexibility and, the theory goes anyway, would be making more long-term decisions about what is best for the polity.
What this meant, also, is that, in places like New Jersey, women were allowed to vote until 1807, provided that they could meet the property requirement. What changed in the early 19th century, under the expansion of the franchise under Jacksonian Democracy, was that race and gender were prized more than property rights. But free blacks still had the right to vote in some Northern states until 1838.
This too was not an arbitrary distinction. Men who had been veterans of the War of 1812, or at the very least, defended their community against Indian raids, believed that they were entitled to the franchise on the basis of that service. By 1856, free white men were allowed to vote without meeting any property requirements, but five of the states still kept tax requirements (frequently a poll tax) in place. Again, this makes sense: The force of government is largely about the spending of taxes and the use of the military.
By 1856, all property requirements had been lifted, but tax requirements remained in place in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, until the 20th century. Rhode Island had what was basically a brief, low-level civil war over the question of property requirements known as the Dorr War. Indeed, anytime that post-Civil War disenfranchisement is discussed, it must include a discussion of the disenfranchisement of poor whites as well. The Battle of Athens is a fascinating tale of World War II veterans returning from battle and refusing to be shafted at the ballot box anymore.
Of the 15 Constitutional Amendments passed since the Civil War, four involve the franchise. The 15th Amendment bars states from restricting the franchise on the basis of race, the 19th from restrictions on the basis of gender, the 24th bars any tax requirements, and the 26th bars any age restrictions against those over the age of 18. Another Amendment, the 17th, allows for the direct election of senators, rather than having them elected by the respective state legislature – another expansion of pure democracy in America, though not an expansion of suffrage per se.
The previous method of electing senators, having them appointed by the respective state legislatures, was not an oversight on the part of the Founders. Rather, this was to give a voice to the state governments in the federal government. This was seen as an important safeguard against the overreach of federal power. Among other things, the Senate was a check on a power-hungry federal government seeking to put its tentacles into anything it could. It was a form of distributed power that was yet another attempt by the Founders to prevent consolidation and centralization of government.
It’s worth noting that Western states, starting with Wyoming in 1869, were granting women the right to vote, largely as an enticement to get them to move to the region, which was seriously devoid of women.
The concept of “one man, one vote” is the cornerstone of a more pure democracy. There were three decisions of the Earl Warren Supreme Court that definitively transformed the landscape of America into a democracy:
Baker v. Carr found that federal courts had jurisdiction over state redistricting efforts.
Wesberry v. Sanders found that U.S. House of Representatives districts – whose borders are determined by state governments – must be roughly equal in population.
Reynolds v. Sims found that state legislature districts must be roughly equal in population, regardless of chamber. This effectively means that states are not allowed to have institutions like the Senate – for example, a state government cannot give each county two seats in the state legislature if the counties do not have roughly the same population size.
Residency requirements are mostly illegal in the United States, with one-year requirements struck down in Dunn v. Blumstein. The longest residency requirement that states are allowed to have now is 50 days.
What’s So Wrong With Democracy?
All of this raises the question of what is wrong with democracy, as opposed to a Constitutional Republic? It’s a cliche that democracy is the right of 51 percent of the population to take away the toothbrushes of the other 49. The Constitution provides protections against the tyranny of the majority and one of those protections is against pure democracy.
Indeed, the Senate and Electoral College, two of the last vestiges of the anti-democratic mood that penetrated the country during Revolutionary times, provide protections to rural states to this day. Without either of these, or with a Senate converted into a proportional representation body, as some have suggested, rural states are effectively political serfs for the larger urban centers.
The counter argument presented to this is that “land doesn’t vote,” which is fair enough, but again: America was not conceived as a pure democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything. There are many layers to the onion, many tiers that prevent one group of the population from having too much say over the others. The Electoral College and the Senate allow rural states to have a voice in how the country is run, rather than being totally ruled over by people in urban centers who don’t own guns, can’t grow food, and have never met their neighbors.
It’s not a coincidence that Electoral College abolition is a particular ax ground by the left. The abolition of the Electoral College would allow for sweeping changes in American public policy championed by those currently on the leftward edge of the political spectrum. Do you want to live in a country where, for example, the voters of smaller states like Nevada, New Hampshire and Montana are drowned out by a handful of cities on the coasts? What of medium-sized states with a number of post-industrial cities with their own concerns, just as valid as those of rural America, but entirely separate from the centers of financial, cultural and academic power?
There’s also the small matter of the role that the media plays in shaping public opinion, as well as the role that public works projects and other government spending play in essentially buying votes. Ostensibly “undemocratic” institutions act as brakes on the manipulation of public opinion. Indeed, the Senate was specifically designed as a deliberative body that would “cool the passions” of the masses represented in the lower house, the House of Representatives.
The Primary System as a Laboratory of Democracy
The primary process for nominating presidential candidates represents an excellent example of how pure democracy has produced poorer results than a more managed and directed one.
Most Americans, particularly younger ones, don’t know that prior to the 1970s, the primary contests didn’t mean much. Rather, it was the state party conventions which held greater weight and these were largely managed by party bosses rather than directly influenced by voters. It’s not that this system of backroom wheeling and dealing never produced a total dud or stifled genuine needs for reform – of course it did. However, looking at the roster of candidates produced by this process (i.e., two Roosevelts, a Coolidge, an Eisenhower and a Kennedy), it’s hard to argue with the results.
What was entirely lacking was the current primary process that we have in the United States, which still boasts a very low overall turnout and lasts from approximately the fourth quarter of the year before the election sometimes all the way up until the convention. All told, the Democratic Primary cycle of 2020 had 12 debates planned, with 11 completed and the 12th not happening simply because Joe Biden said he wasn’t going to show up.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The primaries are dominated by highly motivated and often highly ideological voters. This means that a number of highly polarizing figures have made it through the modern primary process, including Barry Goldwater (1964, so a little early) and George McGovern, but also a ton of people who the party in question loved but Americans just plain didn’t like (examples of this being Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney). This is because party bosses were much more concerned about someone who could win – and all the patronage that flowed from that – rather than someone who shared their ideological picadillos.
President Eisenhower is perhaps the gold standard of a president annointed by party bosses. Senator Robert Taft, the leading light of the ideologically conservative faction of the party, lost to the choice of the party bosses, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. While historical counterfactuals are hard to tease out, there’s little reason to believe that Senator Taft could have won a general election against President Truman or eventual nominee Senator Adlai Stevenson. This is because, while there was a big thirst to roll back the whole of the New Deal among the hardcore Republican base, there was virtually no taste for it in the American mainstream, which either liked the programs or had learned to live with them. Indeed, it is largely believed that the delegates themselves might have preferred Taft to Eisenhower – but they preferred Eisenhower to losing.
It’s worth noting that in the last two Democratic primaries, party bosses have leaned heavily on the scale against insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of, respectively, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In contrast, Donald Trump was able to coast to the nomination in 2016 without any significant organized chicanery on the part of the party bosses.
But it’s not just political parties who lose when American presidential candidates are the result of a process catering to a very small niche of the electorate. America loses also, because we are incapable of having substantive, issue-driven debates that address real problems of the American people. Instead, we end up focusing much more on the personalities and cultural differences that divide the two parties – to the detriment of the entire nation.
Election Fraud in the United States
There is dispute as to whether or not there is widespread election fraud in the United States. However, there are three presidential elections that merit a brief discussion in our exploration of the franchise in America.
The 1876 Election
The election of 1876 was so controversial and potentially fraud-ridden that it was the subject of a Congressional Electoral Commission in response to a major Constitutional crisis. There were 20 electoral votes outstanding, with the Democratic candidate one shy of winning, with the 20 outstanding electoral votes all coming from states with potentially massive voter fraud. The Commission was convened by the Democratic House and the Republican Senate, with five members from each body and five from the Supreme Court of the United States.
One of the tricks in question is actually an exploit of pure democracy: In those days, there were no official ballots. Ballots or “tickets” were generally printed up by political parties or their partisans and distributed to the voters. Southern Democrats used ballots with Abraham Lincoln on them in an attempt to fool illiterate voters into voting for their slate.
“Tilden or Blood!” was a slogan at the time and Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden’s supporters declared that they had 100,000 men ready to march on the capital and install him as president if need be. A party-line vote of the Electoral Commission gave all the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, making him president. However, as a concession, the South got the end of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of all remaining federal troops.
Democrats remained unsatisfied, with the House of Representatives going as far to pass a non-binding resolution declaring Tilden the winner. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 made the state legislature the definitive arbiter of who counted as an elector, which was the subject of Bush v. Gore, another controversial election over 100 years later.
The 1960 Election
The 1960 election was disputed as well, but not formally and officially like in 1876. The claim is this: That the Democratic Party used friendly city machines in Dallas and Illinois to win states for John F. Kennedy that he otherwise would not have won – and that would have delivered the presidency to Republican Richard Nixon.
This is not a marginal theory. Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater have stated that they believe there was fraud in the election. All told, Republicans in 11 states sought to have the vote overturned, including in Illinois and Texas. A special prosecutor charged 650 people with voter fraud, but there were no convictions.
It is unknown to what degree Nixon felt he had been cheated, but he never seriously pursued it, believing it would divide the nation and tarnish the office of the presidency.
The 2000 Election
Finally, there is the 2000 election, where chicanery is alleged to have taken place not at the ballot box, but at the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court who stopped the recount under the Equal Protection Clause because they did not approve of how the recount was being carried out. Further, a new standard could not be agreed upon because of the time frame – electors had to be selected by December 12.
This allowed a previous vote count certified by Secretary of State Katherine Harris (a Republican and Bush family ally) to stand.
Here the question was not about whether or not someone was ballot-box stuffing. No one has seriously or credibly proposed this. What was in question is how the votes were counted. This calls to mind an apocryphal quote often attributed to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin:
“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Several have written that if a statewide recount were done, rather than a county-based one, that it was Vice President Al Gore who would have won. But the question here is what was the best way to count the votes. And unsurprisingly, partisans of both parties prefer the method resulting in their candidate winning.
Beyond the Theory: Why Pure Democracy Is Bad In Its Execution
Once the notion of a universal franchise enters the public vernacular, there is then no limit on who should be included. Andrew Yang became the first major party presidential candidate to endorse lowering the voting age to 16, but others have endorsed removing age requirements for voting entirely. Indeed, there is an entire current of thought that says that citizenship shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t in some municipal elections) or even that the entire world should be allowed a say in who becomes the President of the United States.
While these might all sound like ridiculous proposals – and we agree that they are – they are the thin edge of the wedge, the tip of the spear that will eventually introduce this kind of discourse into the political mainstream and perhaps much sooner than anyone thinks. If the only criteria for who gets to vote is that you are “affected by government policy” or some such and thus entitled to a say, why not let the entire populations of France and Bangladesh and China have a vote? There is a logic to universal suffrage that does not end with America’s adult population or even at its borders.
Consider the fight against voter ID laws in the United States. When one accepts that voting is a universal right, it makes perfect sense that having or not having an ID shouldn’t be an impediment to exercising that right. A lack of voter ID laws has been tied to voter fraud. But perhaps more disturbing is the growing practice of ballot harvesting.
Ballot Harvesting
The Democratic Party likes ballot harvesting so much that they tried to insert it into the stimulus and relief bill targeted at people suffering from the effects of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak of 2020. Put simply, this is when paper ballots are collected by intermediaries between the state and the voter, then delivered en masse. If this sounds like it’s a ripe place for voter fraud to happen, that’s because it is. Ballot harvesting played a role in the do-over of the 2019 North Carolina election, where Democrats were, perhaps for the first time ever, deeply concerned with the specter of voter fraud.
Orange County, California, was home to a whopping quarter million ballots delivered on Election Day alone. In practice, ballot harvesters go around collecting ballots for people who vote for the candidate they want to win. In the case of North Carolina, there were allegations that ballots had been discarded because people voted for the “wrong” candidate.
In the wake of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak, there has been a push – mostly from Democrats – to offer mail-in ballots. These are different from absentee ballots, which are sent out to specific voters on a by-request basis. Compare this with the push for mass mail-in voting: This is just printing up a ton of ballots, sending them out and letting everyone mail them in. There are few, if any, protections in place for preventing people from voting twice, preventing non-registered voters from voting, or preventing illegal aliens from voting. For every person who votes that shouldn’t, a legal voter has their vote cancelled out or nullified.
There’s not much of a way to verify and track this process to ensure that everyone who votes is having their vote counted. But again, it is very much in keeping with the logic of “one man, one vote.” Those who espouse the ideology of a pure democracy are always looking for ways to make it easier for people to vote.
Perhaps, not coincidentally, making it easier for people to vote also opens up the door to electoral fraud.
And this is really the crux of the matter when it comes down to pure democracy: The transition to a purer democracy has coincided with greater influence among unofficial kingmakers who control the process while also consolidating greater power in Washington, D.C. In practice, this has meant favoring a bureaucratic elite who effectively act as unelected legislators. Most of the regulations put in place by the alphabet soup of federal agencies aren’t there by statute, but are in fact part of powers delegated to them by the legislature who have abdicated their legislative authority.
What’s more, these unofficial kingmakers are often shadowy figures whose names (to say nothing of their intentions) are mostly unknown. These are not the traditional party bosses who were, in a sense, beholden to their people in the form of having to provide patronage and pork and other tangible results. Rather the new kingmakers of our pure democracy are the mass media, party activists and others with no skin in the game and little in the way of public accountability. Their angle is one entirely of self-interest and not to the broader body politic, to say nothing of future generations.


investmentwatchblog--2020-07-14--Invest in the future of Tesla, without touching $TSLA

Tesla delivered 367,500 cars in 2019 .
Compare this figure with Toyota , who delivered 2,383,349 vehicles in 2019 .
Tesla spends approximately $ 16,000 on materials per Model 3 .
If Tesla matches Toyota numbers , they will be spending approximately $ 16,000 x 2,383,349 = $ 38,133,584,000 on materials per YEAR on each Model 3 .
The Model 3 is their smallest , ergo least material intensive vehicle in the Tesla fleet .
$ 38 Billion is the LOWER end of materials expenditure by Tesla once they reach mass market penetration .
Why does Tesla Material Cost Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tesla buys their Aluminum and Steel required to build the chassis from someone .
In the model S and X , the chassis is composed ( over 90 % ) , of Aluminum .
Meanwhile , the Model 3 uses a cheaper steel + aluminum chassis to lower costs .
Looking across several obscure sources , I have found that ALCOA [ NYSE : AA ] supplies Tesla with Aluminum .
Lets take a look at Alcoa ’ s Profile : Alcoa has been hammered as of late .
With a high of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago [ 2018 ] , the stock is now sitting at $ 11.50 at time of writing .
Let ’ s take a closer look at the play : Short term technicals show a strong uptrend , and buy signal .
The stock is up 50 % from $ 7 to $ 11 in 2 months .
Let ’ s take a look at options activity .
Through my screener , I found an interesting block of trades : Huge Bullish Option Activity on AA being above $ 11 by October Looking closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TON of $ AA calls expiring October , expecting $ AA to be above $ 11 by then .
Currently , $ AA is at $ 11.51 .
He has already made close to 200 % gains since this order was placed .
Short Term earnings play : AA $ 15C OCT 16 2020 , priced at 0.58c at time of writing .
By playing $ AA , you are playing $ TSLA .
How ?
Assume that 10 % of materials cost is Aluminum from Alcoa .
10 % of $ 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost DOUBLE Alcoa ’ s current market cap of $ 2.2 Billion : And due to the long-term Tesla growth , I propose : Long Term growth play : AA $ 25 JAN 21 2022 , priced at 0.80c at time of writing .
Alcoa [ AA ] Supplies Tesla with Aluminum , a key component in all their cars .
They have been hammered for the past few years , but are showing a promising uptrend in the past few months .
Short Term earnings play : AA $ 15C OCT 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of writing .
Long Term growth play : AA $ 25 JAN 21 2022 , priced at 0.80c at time of writing .
Disclaimer : This information is only for educational purposes .
Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article .
Do you own due diligence .

by iKalculated
Tesla delivered 367,500 cars in 2019. Compare this figure with Toyota, who delivered 2,383,349 vehicles in 2019.
Tesla spends approximately $16,000 on materials per Model 3. If Tesla matches Toyota numbers, they will be spending approximately $16,000 x 2,383,349 = $38,133,584,000 on materials per YEAR on each Model 3. The Model 3 is their smallest, ergo least material intensive vehicle in the Tesla fleet. $38 Billion is the LOWER end of materials expenditure by Tesla once they reach mass market penetration.
Why does Tesla Material Cost Matter, and how can I profit?
Tesla buys their Aluminum and Steel required to build the chassis from someone. In the model S and X, the chassis is composed (over 90%), of Aluminum. Meanwhile, the Model 3 uses a cheaper steel + aluminum chassis to lower costs. Looking across several obscure sources, I have found that ALCOA [NYSE: AA] supplies Tesla with Aluminum. Lets take a look at Alcoa’s Profile:
A snapshot of Alcoa stock.
Alcoa has been hammered as of late. With a high of almost $60 a share 2 years ago [2018], the stock is now sitting at $11.50 at time of writing. Let’s take a closer look at the play:
Short term technicals show a strong uptrend, and buy signal. The stock is up 50% from $7 to $11 in 2 months.
Let’s take a look at options activity. Through my screener, I found an interesting block of trades:
Huge Bullish Option Activity on AA being above $11 by October
Looking closely, the same guy picked up a TON of $AA calls expiring October, expecting $AA to be above $11 by then. Currently, $AA is at $11.51. He has already made close to 200% gains since this order was placed.
Following the month-to-month trend, I propose:
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Short Term earnings play: AA $15C OCT 16 2020, priced at 0.58c at time of writing.
By playing $AA, you are playing $TSLA. How? Assume that 10% of materials cost is Aluminum from Alcoa. 10% of $38 Billion sits at $3.8 Billion, almost DOUBLE Alcoa’s current market cap of $2.2 Billion:

$2.14 Billion Market Cap

And due to the long-term Tesla growth, I propose:
Long Term growth play: AA $25 JAN 21 2022, priced at 0.80c at time of writing.
TL,DR:
Alcoa [AA] Supplies Tesla with Aluminum, a key component in all their cars. They have been hammered for the past few years, but are showing a promising uptrend in the past few months.
Short Term earnings play: AA $15C OCT 16 2020, priced at 0.58c at time of writing.
Long Term growth play: AA $25 JAN 21 2022, priced at 0.80c at time of writing.
Disclaimer: This information is only for educational purposes. Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article. Do you own due diligence.


Activision Earnings Edition

Activision ( $ ATVI ) is releasing their quarterly earnings on August 4th ( 8/4 ) .
They ’ re up about 30 % from their pre-Covid highs , and are currently valued around 10x annual revenue .
They crushed their last earnings revenue by 15.30 % and EPS by 53.28 % which helped them on their run-up to their current levels .
I am now going to convince you why they will smash their earnings again despite their already-inflated revenue projections that price in a coronavirus boost and why you should bet big on them and not miss out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one of my friends from school ( who is very intelligent ) used to roast the shit out of people who buy cosmetic items in-game , like in Call of Duty , and talk about how dumb it is to pay for in-game clout .
But during the pandemic , like many people , he ’ s been so fucking bored that he ’ s been playing Call of Duty all day unlocking a bunch of gun camos .
The other day , he ( embarrassingly ) admitted to me that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( shamefully ) bought a $ 10 “ battle pass ” that would help him unlock more cosmetics .
Why not , he is getting paid unemployment + stimulus to sit home on his ass and play Call of Duty , so might as well put a little of that into the game because there ’ s nothing else to buy right now .
( Last time I had a moment like this ?
In early April when one of my much dumber friends asked me with help setting up a Shopify store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even be trying to set one up .
Since then Shopify is up more than 120 % ) Call of Duty Warzone and Call of Duty Modern Warfare are very popular , and just like all those nerds that played Fortnite and forked over tons for skins , there are a plethora of microtransactions that come with it and man do the people that play Warzone specifically everyday take it seriously .
This got me thinking .
How many people who never bought microtransactions before have now spent money on them , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my friend have now purchased them ?
What kind of assumptions can we make about how much bigger the microtransaction market got during the pandemic ?
The answer I believe is that because people are playing these games so frequently when they had never done so before , they start to assign more value to their in-game character and want to appear to have more “ clout ” and seem good at the game .
It is this value that somebody assigns to their in-game experience that when high enough drives the user @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend real dollars .
That coupled with the fact that they get free money from the government while doing nothing makes the target market for these games especially excited to start spending .
But it isn ’ t just that the existing users are spending more – the microtransaction market size is expanding , so much so that my friend who once considered himself way out of the microtransactions market and laughed about ever spending money on shit for a video game decided to spend money on it for the first time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing I ’ m noticing with a stupid friend , because he is in fact not stupid , rather it ’ s a psychological effect caused by having way too much time to play video games and stimulus money that Activision ’ s target market doesn ’ t want to spend elsewhere .
According to surveys , in Call of Duty 60 % of people purchase downloadable content .
In Overwatch , it ’ s 62 % .
In Hearthstone , it ’ s 71 % .
In StarCraft , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if in all these games , which are owned by Activision , that percent has risen substantially because so many people have been playing them so often during the pandemic and as a result of the effect I previously described that my friend was victim to ?
This survey was conducted using people that consider themselves to play video games regularly , meaning people that play pretty much daily .
So we have to keep in mind that the population of people that play daily is ALSO increasing because of the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will spend on microtransactions is also increasing .
Well what ’ s the big deal , it ’ s just a few in-game purchases right ?
In 2019 Activision pulled in $ 6.49 billion in revenue .
Of this $ 6.49 billion in revenue , a whopping 50.85 % or $ 3.3 billion came from in-game microtransactions .
$ 3.3 billion in a year for some pixels what the fuck right ?
And the kicker ?
There ’ s nearly a 100 % profit margin on these microtransactions , which is why last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contained what is a decent increase in microtransactions because people hadn ’ t been sitting on their ass for too long yet ) Activision reported a 28.24 % net margin , up 15.31 % YoY .
Last quarter they came in at $ 1.52 billion in revenue versus the $ 1.32 billion expected revenue .
This earnings report , the consensus revenue estimate is $ 1.68 billion ( representing a whopping 39 % YoY growth ) which is set nice and high – but I ’ m going to tell you why this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Q2 of last year , Activision reported $ 1.21 billion in revenue .
Ok , now we ’ re going to do some conservative math , estimate the lower bounds of the earnings , and show why this quarter ’ s earnings will be beat .
Let ’ s assume 0 % YoY growth , ignoring the addition to the revenue that games like CoD Warzone had , so they ’ ll be making $ 1.21 billion as a base like they did in Q2 of last year .
Last quarter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million of the $ 1.522 billion in revenue , equaling about 63 % , and that was just at the beginning of the pandemic when the I ’ m-staying-home-so-now-I-value-this-game-more effect that I am describing was just coming into fruition .
AND THAT WAS BEFORE STIMULUS CHECKS WERE RECEIVED .
Let ’ s be conserative and assume that of that baseline $ 1.21 billion that we will use to come up with earnings for this quarter , $ 726 million or about 60 % is from microtransactions , even though this % is most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter ’ s trend which had 63 % of revenue from microtransactions .
Now let ’ s try to estimate what the increase in volume of microtransactions is like if even my friend who was sworn against them played enough to care about cosmetics because he had played the game for long enough .
So , not only are we increasing the number of people that want cosmetics and other in-game purchasable items , but also accounting for the fact that the people who already spent a lot on them will now spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is inclusive of Call of Duty , World of Warcraft , and the Candy Crush Saga which are their big three microtransaction earners .
I ’ m convinced that the volume on these things has to at least have doubled YoY .
But for the sake of argument , we ’ ll say they have only increased 75 % .
Why is this a fair estimate ?
Last quarter , microtransactions for Modern Warfare were up 100 % compared to Black Ops 4 in the same quarter the previous year .
We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our hopes up , we want to make sure this very ballpark math that we are doing can beat revenue estimates even on a considerably lower bound , giving us a high % chance of being right about the actual figure .
To further justify this kind of growth in microtransactions , we ’ re going to look at a few things .
This report is for months April , May , and June , meaning last quarter ’ s results ended with March .
Here are the latest active player count statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are 60 million Warzone players – this is where there will be a large number of microtransactions which were barely included in the previous quarter because they had less than 40 million players by the end of March .
A large part of last quarter ’ s revenue came from CoD Modern Warfare ’ s ( not Warzone ) season 1 and 2 in-game purchasable content .
According to Google Trends , Season 4 , released in June , garnered more interest than any other season : trends.google.com/trends/explore ?
q=modern % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last quarter , interest in buying CoD points ( their currency ) has gone up tremendously : trends.google.com/trends/explore ?
geo=US & q=buy % 20cod % 20points So let ’ s take our baseline $ 1.21 billion assuming 0 % YoY growth , and increase the revenue generated by microtransactions by 75 % .
$ 1.21 billion + ( $ 726 million * 0.75 ) = $ 1.754 billion , beating the $ 1.68 billion consensus only by factoring in a growth in microtransactions and absolutely nothing else , when in reality up-front game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price ) , subscriptions , merchandise , and other revenue streams have also increased .
This way , even if we ’ ve over-estimated our microtransactions boost , there is more than enough room to still trounce earnings from the added revenue from other streams .
And if we were very accurate about the microtransactions boost , then that additional revenue will send us way over .
Activision already killed earnings last quarter with barely any money coming in from Warzone .
l would not be at all surprised if they reach $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 20 % beat of expectations .
At $ 2 billion per quarter and a 10x revenue valuation , Activision would be valued at $ 80 billion representing a 30 % move .
ACTIVISION IS GOING TO BEAT AN EARNINGS ESTIMATE THAT IS ALREADY HEAVILY ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR CORONA BUMP .
The options are cheap for Activision , so I am loaded up .
I think realistically it will have a pre-earnings run up as more people realize that they ’ re going to do very well on earnings and then go up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside risk on a stock like this is low considering it is a stay-at-home that has had its value increased REASONABLY by the pandemic and is not trading at a ridiculously high tech revenue multiple .
At peak rona season , the stock fell roughly 20 % and has since rebounded about 56 % .
TLDR : Microtransactions made up 63 % of Activision ’ s earnings last quarter when they beat revenue estimates by 15.30 % .
This quarter not only are microtransactions going to make up a larger percentage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much larger with help from the pandemic and the 60m+ new Call of Duty Warzone players .
I ’ ve also bolded the more important information if you don ’ t want to read through everything .
EDIT : Warzone , like Fortnite , is a free download .
A comparable game is Fortnite , which at its peak popularity had a revenue per user of a shocking $ 96 ( Source : fortniteintel.com/report-fortnite-is-earning-double-the-revenue-of-google-twitter-snap-and-facebook-per-user/9265/ ) .
If we assume that Warzone has just 1/20th of this revenue per user , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in revenue from Warzone alone .
Disclaimer : This information is only for educational purposes .
Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article .
Do you own due diligence .

by veryhighthinker
Activision ($ATVI) is releasing their quarterly earnings on August 4th (8/4). They’re up about 30% from their pre-Covid highs, and are currently valued around 10x annual revenue. They crushed their last earnings revenue by 15.30% and EPS by 53.28% which helped them on their run-up to their current levels.
I am now going to convince you why they will smash their earnings again despite their already-inflated revenue projections that price in a coronavirus boost and why you should bet big on them and not miss out on a potential huge play.
Me and one of my friends from school (who is very intelligent) used to roast the shit out of people who buy cosmetic items in-game, like in Call of Duty, and talk about how dumb it is to pay for in-game clout. But during the pandemic, like many people, he’s been so fucking bored that he’s been playing Call of Duty all day unlocking a bunch of gun camos. The other day, he (embarrassingly) admitted to me that in his pursuit of gun camo unlocking he (shamefully) bought a $10 “battle pass” that would help him unlock more cosmetics. Why not, he is getting paid unemployment + stimulus to sit home on his ass and play Call of Duty, so might as well put a little of that into the game because there’s nothing else to buy right now. (Last time I had a moment like this? In early April when one of my much dumber friends asked me with help setting up a Shopify store. I was dumbfounded that he would even be trying to set one up. Since then Shopify is up more than 120%)
Call of Duty Warzone and Call of Duty Modern Warfare are very popular, and just like all those nerds that played Fortnite and forked over tons for skins, there are a plethora of microtransactions that come with it and man do the people that play Warzone specifically everyday take it seriously.
This got me thinking. How many people who never bought microtransactions before have now spent money on them, especially when somebody as resilient to them as my friend have now purchased them? What kind of assumptions can we make about how much bigger the microtransaction market got during the pandemic?
The answer I believe is that because people are playing these games so frequently when they had never done so before, they start to assign more value to their in-game character and want to appear to have more “clout” and seem good at the game. It is this value that somebody assigns to their in-game experience that when high enough drives the user to purchase content for their character and spend real dollars. That coupled with the fact that they get free money from the government while doing nothing makes the target market for these games especially excited to start spending.
But it isn’t just that the existing users are spending more – the microtransaction market size is expanding, so much so that my friend who once considered himself way out of the microtransactions market and laughed about ever spending money on shit for a video game decided to spend money on it for the first time. This isn’t just a one-off thing I’m noticing with a stupid friend, because he is in fact not stupid, rather it’s a psychological effect caused by having way too much time to play video games and stimulus money that Activision’s target market doesn’t want to spend elsewhere.
According to surveys, in Call of Duty 60% of people purchase downloadable content. In Overwatch, it’s 62%. In Hearthstone, it’s 71%. In StarCraft, it’s 42%. Source: venturebeat.com/2019/11/19/arm-treasure-data-the-most-popular-games-arent-necessarily-using-lots-of-microtransactions/ What if in all these games, which are owned by Activision, that percent has risen substantially because so many people have been playing them so often during the pandemic and as a result of the effect I previously described that my friend was victim to? This survey was conducted using people that consider themselves to play video games regularly, meaning people that play pretty much daily. So we have to keep in mind that the population of people that play daily is ALSO increasing because of the pandemic, while the raw % of people that will spend on microtransactions is also increasing.
Well what’s the big deal, it’s just a few in-game purchases right?
Wrong.
In 2019 Activision pulled in $6.49 billion in revenue. Of this $6.49 billion in revenue, a whopping 50.85% or $3.3 billion came from in-game microtransactions. $3.3 billion in a year for some pixels what the fuck right? And the kicker? There’s nearly a 100% profit margin on these microtransactions, which is why last earnings (which ended March 31 and contained what is a decent increase in microtransactions because people hadn’t been sitting on their ass for too long yet) Activision reported a 28.24% net margin, up 15.31% YoY.
Last quarter they came in at $1.52 billion in revenue versus the $1.32 billion expected revenue. This earnings report, the consensus revenue estimate is $1.68 billion (representing a whopping 39% YoY growth) which is set nice and high – but I’m going to tell you why this is still going to be beat.
For Q2 of last year, Activision reported $1.21 billion in revenue. Ok, now we’re going to do some conservative math, estimate the lower bounds of the earnings, and show why this quarter’s earnings will be beat.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Let’s assume 0% YoY growth, ignoring the addition to the revenue that games like CoD Warzone had, so they’ll be making $1.21 billion as a base like they did in Q2 of last year. Last quarter, microtransactions made up an astounding $956 million of the $1.522 billion in revenue, equaling about 63%, and that was just at the beginning of the pandemic when the I’m-staying-home-so-now-I-value-this-game-more effect that I am describing was just coming into fruition. AND THAT WAS BEFORE STIMULUS CHECKS WERE RECEIVED. Let’s be conserative and assume that of that baseline $1.21 billion that we will use to come up with earnings for this quarter, $726 million or about 60% is from microtransactions, even though this % is most likely rising on track with the previous quarter’s trend which had 63% of revenue from microtransactions.
Now let’s try to estimate what the increase in volume of microtransactions is like if even my friend who was sworn against them played enough to care about cosmetics because he had played the game for long enough. So, not only are we increasing the number of people that want cosmetics and other in-game purchasable items, but also accounting for the fact that the people who already spent a lot on them will now spend more because they play more. This is inclusive of Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and the Candy Crush Saga which are their big three microtransaction earners. I’m convinced that the volume on these things has to at least have doubled YoY. But for the sake of argument, we’ll say they have only increased 75%. Why is this a fair estimate? Last quarter, microtransactions for Modern Warfare were up 100% compared to Black Ops 4 in the same quarter the previous year. We don’t want to over-estimate and get our hopes up, we want to make sure this very ballpark math that we are doing can beat revenue estimates even on a considerably lower bound, giving us a high % chance of being right about the actual figure.
To further justify this kind of growth in microtransactions, we’re going to look at a few things. This report is for months April, May, and June, meaning last quarter’s results ended with March. Here are the latest active player count statistics for Warzone: www.statista.com/statistics/1110000/call-of-duty-warzone-players/ As of May, there are 60 million Warzone players – this is where there will be a large number of microtransactions which were barely included in the previous quarter because they had less than 40 million players by the end of March. A large part of last quarter’s revenue came from CoD Modern Warfare’s (not Warzone) season 1 and 2 in-game purchasable content. According to Google Trends, Season 4, released in June, garnered more interest than any other season: trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=modern%20warfare%20season&geo=US Also since last quarter, interest in buying CoD points (their currency) has gone up tremendously: trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=buy%20cod%20points
So let’s take our baseline $1.21 billion assuming 0% YoY growth, and increase the revenue generated by microtransactions by 75%. $1.21 billion + ($726 million * 0.75) = $1.754 billion, beating the $1.68 billion consensus only by factoring in a growth in microtransactions and absolutely nothing else, when in reality up-front game sales (purchasing games online for full price), subscriptions, merchandise, and other revenue streams have also increased. This way, even if we’ve over-estimated our microtransactions boost, there is more than enough room to still trounce earnings from the added revenue from other streams. And if we were very accurate about the microtransactions boost, then that additional revenue will send us way over. Activision already killed earnings last quarter with barely any money coming in from Warzone. l would not be at all surprised if they reach $2 billion in earnings, representing almost a 20% beat of expectations. At $2 billion per quarter and a 10x revenue valuation, Activision would be valued at $80 billion representing a 30% move.
ACTIVISION IS GOING TO BEAT AN EARNINGS ESTIMATE THAT IS ALREADY HEAVILY ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR CORONA BUMP.
The options are cheap for Activision, so I am loaded up. I think realistically it will have a pre-earnings run up as more people realize that they’re going to do very well on earnings and then go up even more on beat earnings. The downside risk on a stock like this is low considering it is a stay-at-home that has had its value increased REASONABLY by the pandemic and is not trading at a ridiculously high tech revenue multiple. At peak rona season, the stock fell roughly 20% and has since rebounded about 56%.
Positions:
ATVI 8/21 90C
ATVI 8/21 100C
My positions:
imgur.com/a/CobyxYe
TLDR: Microtransactions made up 63% of Activision’s earnings last quarter when they beat revenue estimates by 15.30%. This quarter not only are microtransactions going to make up a larger percentage of the revenue, but the revenue will be much larger with help from the pandemic and the 60m+ new Call of Duty Warzone players. I’ve also bolded the more important information if you don’t want to read through everything.
EDIT: Warzone, like Fortnite, is a free download. A comparable game is Fortnite, which at its peak popularity had a revenue per user of a shocking $96 (Source: fortniteintel.com/report-fortnite-is-earning-double-the-revenue-of-google-twitter-snap-and-facebook-per-user/9265/ ). If we assume that Warzone has just 1/20th of this revenue per user, we’re already at an additional $288 million in revenue from Warzone alone.
Disclaimer: This information is only for educational purposes. Do not make any investment decisions based on the information in this article. Do you own due diligence.


investmentwatchblog--2020-07-14--JPMorgan reports its Q2 earnings

JPMorgan reports its Q2 earnings

Earnings : $ 1.38 a share , compared with the $ 1.04 per share estimate of analysts surveyed by Refinitiv @ @ @ @ @ profit of $ 4.7 billion , while setting aside another $ 8.9 billion for credit @ @

Earnings: $1.38 a share, compared with the $1.04 per share estimate of analysts surveyed by Refinitiv. Revenue: $33 billion, compared with the $30.3 billion estimate.
The bank posted a profit of $4.7 billion, while setting aside another $8.9 billion for credit losses.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/jpmorgan-chase-jpm-earnings-q2-2020.html


investmentwatchblog--2020-07-14--Herd immunity? Maybe not

Herd immunity? Maybe not

Excerpt : “ The reduction in IgG and neutralizing antibody levels in the early convalescent phase might have implications for @ @ @ @ @ ” That Spanish study : Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain ( ENE-COVID ) : a @ @ @ @ @ “ Interpretation : The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection , @ @ @ @ @ Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies , but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms @ @ @ @ @ have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were @ @ @ @ @ the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave.
” Gloomiest @ @ @ @ @ maybe herd immunity can not be achieved after all , vaccines are permanently useless , @ @ @ @ @

by ezlxq1949
Uni of Minnesota: Chinese study: Antibodies in COVID-19 patients fade quickly
Nature: Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections
Excerpt: “The reduction in IgG and neutralizing antibody levels in the early convalescent phase might have implications for immunity strategy and serological surveys.”
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
That Spanish study: Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study
“Interpretation: The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave.”
Gloomiest interpretation of the above: maybe herd immunity cannot be achieved after all, vaccines are permanently useless, Covid never goes away.


investmentwatchblog--2020-07-14--10,000 Day Traders An Hour Buying TSLA

10,000 Day Traders An Hour Buying TSLA

Ten Thousand Day Traders an Hour Are Buying Tesla Shares By Sarah Ponczek July 13 , 2020 , 12:20 PM @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 , 1:34 PM PDT Almost 40,000 Robinhood accounts added shares of the automaker @ @ @ @ @ on Monday , according to website Robintrack.net , which compiles data on the investing platform @ @ @ @ @ by day trading millennials .
The frenzy in interest means that as of the end @ @ @ @ @ session , there are now roughly 457,000 users on the Robinhood app that hold shares @ @ @ @ @ form .
That makes it the 10th-most popular stock on the platform , ahead of @ @ @ @ @ is held by 358,000 users .

Ten Thousand Day Traders an Hour Are Buying Tesla Shares
By Sarah Ponczek
July 13, 2020, 12:20 PM PDT Updated on July 13, 2020, 1:34 PM PDT
Almost 40,000 Robinhood accounts added shares of the automaker during a single four-hour span on Monday, according to website Robintrack.net, which compiles data on the investing platform that’s much beloved by day trading millennials.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
The frenzy in interest means that as of the end of Monday’s trading session, there are now roughly 457,000 users on the Robinhood app that hold shares of the company in some form. That makes it the 10th-most popular stock on the platform, ahead of even Amazon.com Inc., which is held by 358,000 users.


investmentwatchblog--2020-07-14--“Lockdown 2.0”: This New Wave Of Lockdowns Will Ensure The U.S. Remains In An Economic Depression Th

“Lockdown 2.0”: This New Wave Of Lockdowns Will Ensure The U.S. Remains In An Economic Depression Through The 2020 Election

Another wave of lockdowns has begun , and that is really bad news for the U.S. economy .
The first wave of lockdowns resulted in the permanent closing of more than 100,000 U.S. businesses , colossal lines at food banks around the nation , and the loss of tens of millions of jobs .
Needless to say , this new wave of lockdowns will make things even worse , and some are speculating that this is precisely what Democrats want .
If the U.S. economy continues to fall apart as we approach the election in November , the thinking is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad and will make it more likely that people will cast votes for Democrats .
But there is also the possibility that this could backfire in a huge way for the left .
If millions of Americans start to identify the Democrats as “ the party of the lockdowns ” , that could actually greatly help President Trump in November .
At this point , the battle lines are becoming quite clear .
President Trump and other top Republicans are strongly against more lockdowns , but Democratic politicians in many areas of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , we just learned that all schools in Los Angeles , San Diego , Atlanta and Nashville will be closed at the beginning of the new school year… Other major cities are expected to follow suit .
Of course considering the quality of the education in most of our public schools , most of those kids won ’ t exactly be missing too much .
Ultimately , closing the schools won ’ t have too much of an economic impact , but shutting down most of the businesses in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a comprehensive lockdown for 30 California counties which account for “ about 80 percent of California ’ s population ” … Newsom is a political opportunist , and I guarantee you that he wouldn ’ t be doing this unless he truly believed that it would help Democrats in November .
But I think that Newsom and other top Democrats have greatly underestimated how much the American people detest COVID-19 restrictions at this point .
We have been witnessing a huge backlash all over the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal than most other states , a backlash has been brewing there as well .
If the Democrats are not very careful , they are going to lose an election that they could have very easily won .
First of all , they should have never nominated Joe Biden .
It is obvious to everyone that he is physically and mentally declining at a very rapid pace , and videos of him “ acting creepy ” will be viewed millions upon millions of times over the coming months .
Democrats have known about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , but they decided to give the nomination to him anyway .
Secondly , most top Democrats have refused to strongly denounce the rioting , looting and violence that have happened around the nation , and this is going to push a whole lot of people toward the Republicans .
Thirdly , the backlash against these new lockdowns is going to be directed primarily toward Democrats .
If Democratic politicians push too far , this will be an issue that deeply hurts them in November .
But despite all of these mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could still come out on top , because Trump and the Republicans are making lots of political mistakes as well .
If Trump wants to make a comeback in the polls , he really needs to fully embrace an anti-lockdown message , because that would strongly resonate with tens of millions of voters .
The first wave of lockdowns certainly didn ’ t stop the spread of the virus , and more lockdowns will not stop it from spreading either .
And now three separate scientific studies have shown that COVID-19 antibodies disappear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that a vaccine is not going to end this crisis and we will never reach a point of “ herd immunity ” .
So we are going to have to find a way to function effectively as this virus circulates around the globe year after year , because it isn ’ t going to go away .
We simply can not shut down the economy every time the number of cases starts to surge again .
The damage that we have already done to the U.S. economy has been incalculable , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more damage .
But the WHO continues to insist that more restrictions are needed… What would the WHO have us do ?
Would they like us to all lock ourselves in our homes indefinitely ?
The WHO keeps touting a future vaccine , but if COVID-19 antibodies disappear after just a few months , there is no way that a vaccine is going to end this pandemic .
And many Americans will never , ever take any COVID-19 vaccine under any circumstances .
As I discussed in an article that I posted earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to have to accept the fact that COVID-19 is going to be around year after year .
It is easy for the “ experts ” to tell us that everyone should just stay home , but the price tag for the first wave of lockdowns was astronomical .
Thanks to all of the emergency measures that Congress passed , the U.S. government ran a budget deficit of 864 billion dollars in the month of June… To put that in perspective , it took from the founding of our nation until 1980 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 864 billion dollars of debt .
And now we have added that much to the national debt in just one month .
We simply can not keep doing this .
No matter what we do , COVID-19 is going to keep spreading , and we are going to have to learn how to deal with this virus for a very long time to come .
More lockdowns are definitely not the answer , but unfortunately many of our politicians are convinced otherwise .
So U.S. economic conditions will continue to deteriorate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year will continue through the end of 2020 and beyond .

by Michael Snyder
Another wave of lockdowns has begun, and that is really bad news for the U.S. economy. The first wave of lockdowns resulted in the permanent closing of more than 100,000 U.S. businesses, colossal lines at food banks around the nation, and the loss of tens of millions of jobs. Needless to say, this new wave of lockdowns will make things even worse, and some are speculating that this is precisely what Democrats want. If the U.S. economy continues to fall apart as we approach the election in November, the thinking is that this will make President Trump look bad and will make it more likely that people will cast votes for Democrats. But there is also the possibility that this could backfire in a huge way for the left. If millions of Americans start to identify the Democrats as “the party of the lockdowns”, that could actually greatly help President Trump in November.
At this point, the battle lines are becoming quite clear. President Trump and other top Republicans are strongly against more lockdowns, but Democratic politicians in many areas of the country are starting to institute them anyway. In fact, we just learned that all schools in Los Angeles, San Diego, Atlanta and Nashville will be closed at the beginning of the new school year…
Resisting pressure from President Donald Trump, three of the nation’s largest school districts said Monday that they will begin the new school year with all students learning from home. Schools in Los Angeles, San Diego and Atlanta will begin entirely online, officials said Monday. Schools in Nashville plan to do the same, at least through Labor Day.
Other major cities are expected to follow suit. Of course considering the quality of the education in most of our public schools, most of those kids won’t exactly be missing too much.
Ultimately, closing the schools won’t have too much of an economic impact, but shutting down most of the businesses in our largest state certainly will. On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a comprehensive lockdown for 30 California counties which account for “about 80 percent of California’s population”…
Newsom, a Democrat, announced during a press briefing that all bars across the state must close up shop and that restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, family entertainment centers, zoos, museums and card rooms must suspend indoor activities. The governor also announced that all gyms, places of worship, malls, personal care services, barbershops, salons, and non-critical offices in counties on the state’s “monitoring list” had to shut down under the new order. The order affects more than 30 counties which are home to about 80 percent of California’s population.
Newsom is a political opportunist, and I guarantee you that he wouldn’t be doing this unless he truly believed that it would help Democrats in November.
But I think that Newsom and other top Democrats have greatly underestimated how much the American people detest COVID-19 restrictions at this point. We have been witnessing a huge backlash all over the country, and even though California is far more liberal than most other states, a backlash has been brewing there as well.
If the Democrats are not very careful, they are going to lose an election that they could have very easily won.
First of all, they should have never nominated Joe Biden. It is obvious to everyone that he is physically and mentally declining at a very rapid pace, and videos of him “acting creepy” will be viewed millions upon millions of times over the coming months. Democrats have known about Biden’s creepy behavior for many years, but they decided to give the nomination to him anyway.
Secondly, most top Democrats have refused to strongly denounce the rioting, looting and violence that have happened around the nation, and this is going to push a whole lot of people toward the Republicans.
Thirdly, the backlash against these new lockdowns is going to be directed primarily toward Democrats. If Democratic politicians push too far, this will be an issue that deeply hurts them in November.
But despite all of these mistakes, it is possible that the Democrats could still come out on top, because Trump and the Republicans are making lots of political mistakes as well.
If Trump wants to make a comeback in the polls, he really needs to fully embrace an anti-lockdown message, because that would strongly resonate with tens of millions of voters.
The first wave of lockdowns certainly didn’t stop the spread of the virus, and more lockdowns will not stop it from spreading either. And now three separate scientific studies have shown that COVID-19 antibodies disappear very, very rapidly, and that means that a vaccine is not going to end this crisis and we will never reach a point of “herd immunity”. So we are going to have to find a way to function effectively as this virus circulates around the globe year after year, because it isn’t going to go away.
We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
We simply cannot shut down the economy every time the number of cases starts to surge again. The damage that we have already done to the U.S. economy has been incalculable, and now these new lockdowns will do even more damage.
But the WHO continues to insist that more restrictions are needed…
“Let me be blunt, too many countries are headed in the wrong direction, the virus remains public enemy number one,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual briefing from the U.N. agency’s headquarters in Geneva. “If basics are not followed, the only way this pandemic is going to go – it is going to get worse and worse and worse.”
What would the WHO have us do?
Would they like us to all lock ourselves in our homes indefinitely?
The WHO keeps touting a future vaccine, but if COVID-19 antibodies disappear after just a few months, there is no way that a vaccine is going to end this pandemic.
And many Americans will never, ever take any COVID-19 vaccine under any circumstances.
As I discussed in an article that I posted earlier, it looks like we are just going to have to accept the fact that COVID-19 is going to be around year after year.
It is easy for the “experts” to tell us that everyone should just stay home, but the price tag for the first wave of lockdowns was astronomical. Thanks to all of the emergency measures that Congress passed, the U.S. government ran a budget deficit of 864 billion dollars in the month of June…
The US budget deficit surged to a record-breaking $864 billion in June, the Treasury Department said on Monday. The increase is the product of the federal government’s efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout. The government collected about $240 billion in tax revenue in June, the Treasury said, and federal spending overall reached $1.1 trillion.
To put that in perspective, it took from the founding of our nation until 1980 for the U.S. government to accumulate a total of 864 billion dollars of debt.
And now we have added that much to the national debt in just one month.
We simply cannot keep doing this.
No matter what we do, COVID-19 is going to keep spreading, and we are going to have to learn how to deal with this virus for a very long time to come.
More lockdowns are definitely not the answer, but unfortunately many of our politicians are convinced otherwise.
So U.S. economic conditions will continue to deteriorate, and the economic depression that began earlier this year will continue through the end of 2020 and beyond.