The newest wrinkle in the Electoral College debate is an orchestrated move to circumvent it. Now refresh my memory. Was there a spontaneous move by literally thousands of “voters” to urge the electors to be faithless to their commitment in any previous election? The word, “orchestrated” is used because, even though the actual wording varies, the content and context of the calls are identical. Did these disenchanted patriots independently conceive of this strategy? Incidentally, how do they know how to contact the Electors? (See below)
Having failed at electing their chosen leader, someone, somewhere is mobilizing an army to try to circumvent not only the Electoral College, but the will of the people. Remember the Electoral College chooses the President, not the mass of voters. The voters elect the Electors. Consequently the calls to urge a “squirrel” vote, that is one off the track, are calls to repudiate the voters and the Constitution.
Now let’s not comment on their motivation, other than to “get their way” when they have lost the sanctioned contest. But these calls reveal something fundamental about the callers. They are assuming that the Electors share their character flaws.
The Electors are urged to abandon first their commitment. They committed to represent a particular candidate if they were chosen. They have been chosen. They are encouraged to violate the trust of the party who designated them, and the voters who selected them. And finally, the Electors are encouraged to substitute their “judgment” on the suitability for that of the caller. A caller, incidentally, whom they have never met nor interviewed nor evaluated. “Just do what I want.” The betrayal of integrity is massive here.
The pervasive attitude of narcissism and “I want what I want,” and most critically, lack of integrity in our current society, current, and prospective administration has been illustrated in these calls. They are losers, literally and figuratively, (not to be too harsh here) and evidently spoiled babies who invoke the worst of their character and project it on the objects of their interest.
What is next? Will there be calls to Secret Service to stop protecting President-elect Trump? After all, they are just doing their job. Now the protesters are calling on electors to not do their job. To use another metaphor, why not call the Cubs or Cavaliers and ask them to renounce their championship? After all, they just won it in a contest by conforming to the rules. “But I don’t like the outcome.”
I knew this would happen when we let the 10 year olds vote. Wait, we didn’t, did we?
Addendum: The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) makes the following declaration on its web page about the Electoral College.
“Please Note: NCSL does not have the names of the individual presidential electors in each state, nor does NCSL have their contact information. You must contact either your state's election officials or political parties for information.”
So unless thousands of disappointed individuals contacted the election officials in various states, we have ourselves a conspiracy. Or at best a concerted effort by third parties. How does it feel to be manipulated, callers? You are attempting to do the same to your Electors–if indeed you are contacting your own state’s Electors. If other states are involved, it is like complaining about the mayor of Nome, Alaska. (Unless you live there, and voted.) It ain’t none of yer business. But I digress.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
More Electoral College Part Two
More Electoral College (This is a continuation of the original post below. Electoral College)
Another criticism of the Electoral College is that some votes count more than others. A second, and possibly corollary is that it violates the “one man one vote” provision.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming each have three electoral votes. Based on their population they are entitled to one representative, but their electoral college impact is three times their population numbers. California, on the other hand has 55 votes, 53 based on population and two for the senators. So their electoral impact is less than 2% enhanced compared to the smaller states.
Again, we appeal to the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution. The states collectively elect the President. As it is, most of them use a “winner take all” formula for awarding their votes. An analysis of the present election shows that apportioning eledtoral votes based on popular vote would NOT have affected the outcome. https://ricochet.com/389543/the-unfairness-of-the-electoral-college-didnt-swing-the-2016-election/
The “unfair” or differential influence argument is handicapped by the facts. Anyway you count, Trump won. The second argument is likewise flawed.
First, just using the demographic analysis of the above article, it is possible to see the lack of impact rendered by the electoral college. But a simple analysis of the one man one vote principle also eliminates this objection. If it were to be applied as some wish to do for the electoral college, the entire concept of voting would be destroyed.
A single voter in Wyoming exerts a greater influence on statewide elections than a single voter in California. They elect a single governor, or senator and the disparity of population means that every California vote is worth “less” than one from Wyoming. But they are different states. A California vote does not count in Wyoming, nor vice versa. And the Representatives and Senators from these states have exactly the same vote value in Congress.
As defined by the Constitution, each state elects it own officials according to its own standards. A strict one man one vote standard would require that every elected office be conducted on a national basis. This is obviously unworkable and ludicrous. Each state is “independent” or separate from every other. They cooperate, via the Electoral College to select a president.
Those wishing to change the rules are not reacting in a manner designed to strengthen the Constitution and country. They are acting out of partisan political motives.
And along with the dash to enact direct election of the President, we find “experts” proposing the elimination of states all together. Huh? How would that work? Who would run the “sub-areas?” Eliminating states would also obviate the role of governors, attorneys general, treasurers, police departments, all commerce divisions, tax collection agencies, and House of Representative and Senate positions. Obviously that critic had not thought much past his hat, which was probably held over his face.
To effect such a sweeping alteration of the country would require that we scrap the entire Constitution, all state constitutions, and begin again. Has anyone checked the progress of “nation building” in Iraq lately? That is pretty much what they had to do. And with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, along with a Republican President, we would...well, maybe his bright idea is not so far fetched after all. Bet he would hate the result even more than the Electoral College. But I digress.
What alternatives are there? Electoral college critics cite Parliament as alternative or direct election. They claim that no other country uses the EC concept. But they are wrong. Several other countries use it. India, for example is a large, diverse country and it employs the concept.
In fact Parliament is a form of EC, only less democratic. Here is how Parliament works. Voters elect a local Member of Parliament and the MPs elect the leader of their party as leader of Parliament, Prime Minister–if they have a majority of the seats. This is 1) far less stable than current system. 2) It is less representative of the whole of the country as local voters only effect one choice, the local MP. 3) If no majority exists, several parties cooperate to form a coalition which is even less representative--see #2. 4) A vote of no confidence restarts whole project. This can happen at any time, any where, for any reason. Sounds loverly doesn’t it?
We discussed direct election before. The current election illustrates why a direct election is not a good idea. Hillary lost because the Electoral College worked as planned. It is not to elect a white, southern, good ol’ boy, but to have a President of the people. Take a look at the county by county map again. Hillary focused on metropolitan, liberal enclaves–and won them. But she lost the country.
Trump, on the other hand appealed to the country. He won 30 states while Clinton carried 20. The trap of California’s 55 votes caught her. With that “gigantic lead, she only focused on more of the same. But there was a bit more of the “other” in this election. California narcotizes liberal candidates. They “sleep walk” through the election, believing that since it (California) is so BIG, carrying it ensures that he/she cannot lose. And that is why they do.
Now the pundits are predicting that Trump will be a one term President. Seems like prognosticators said the same for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. The predicters’ track record then and in the recent contest makes me believe that they are probably exactly right. (Not)
(Continued on “Page 3.” Below)
Another criticism of the Electoral College is that some votes count more than others. A second, and possibly corollary is that it violates the “one man one vote” provision.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming each have three electoral votes. Based on their population they are entitled to one representative, but their electoral college impact is three times their population numbers. California, on the other hand has 55 votes, 53 based on population and two for the senators. So their electoral impact is less than 2% enhanced compared to the smaller states.
Again, we appeal to the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution. The states collectively elect the President. As it is, most of them use a “winner take all” formula for awarding their votes. An analysis of the present election shows that apportioning eledtoral votes based on popular vote would NOT have affected the outcome. https://ricochet.com/389543/the-unfairness-of-the-electoral-college-didnt-swing-the-2016-election/
The “unfair” or differential influence argument is handicapped by the facts. Anyway you count, Trump won. The second argument is likewise flawed.
First, just using the demographic analysis of the above article, it is possible to see the lack of impact rendered by the electoral college. But a simple analysis of the one man one vote principle also eliminates this objection. If it were to be applied as some wish to do for the electoral college, the entire concept of voting would be destroyed.
A single voter in Wyoming exerts a greater influence on statewide elections than a single voter in California. They elect a single governor, or senator and the disparity of population means that every California vote is worth “less” than one from Wyoming. But they are different states. A California vote does not count in Wyoming, nor vice versa. And the Representatives and Senators from these states have exactly the same vote value in Congress.
As defined by the Constitution, each state elects it own officials according to its own standards. A strict one man one vote standard would require that every elected office be conducted on a national basis. This is obviously unworkable and ludicrous. Each state is “independent” or separate from every other. They cooperate, via the Electoral College to select a president.
Those wishing to change the rules are not reacting in a manner designed to strengthen the Constitution and country. They are acting out of partisan political motives.
And along with the dash to enact direct election of the President, we find “experts” proposing the elimination of states all together. Huh? How would that work? Who would run the “sub-areas?” Eliminating states would also obviate the role of governors, attorneys general, treasurers, police departments, all commerce divisions, tax collection agencies, and House of Representative and Senate positions. Obviously that critic had not thought much past his hat, which was probably held over his face.
To effect such a sweeping alteration of the country would require that we scrap the entire Constitution, all state constitutions, and begin again. Has anyone checked the progress of “nation building” in Iraq lately? That is pretty much what they had to do. And with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, along with a Republican President, we would...well, maybe his bright idea is not so far fetched after all. Bet he would hate the result even more than the Electoral College. But I digress.
What alternatives are there? Electoral college critics cite Parliament as alternative or direct election. They claim that no other country uses the EC concept. But they are wrong. Several other countries use it. India, for example is a large, diverse country and it employs the concept.
In fact Parliament is a form of EC, only less democratic. Here is how Parliament works. Voters elect a local Member of Parliament and the MPs elect the leader of their party as leader of Parliament, Prime Minister–if they have a majority of the seats. This is 1) far less stable than current system. 2) It is less representative of the whole of the country as local voters only effect one choice, the local MP. 3) If no majority exists, several parties cooperate to form a coalition which is even less representative--see #2. 4) A vote of no confidence restarts whole project. This can happen at any time, any where, for any reason. Sounds loverly doesn’t it?
We discussed direct election before. The current election illustrates why a direct election is not a good idea. Hillary lost because the Electoral College worked as planned. It is not to elect a white, southern, good ol’ boy, but to have a President of the people. Take a look at the county by county map again. Hillary focused on metropolitan, liberal enclaves–and won them. But she lost the country.
Trump, on the other hand appealed to the country. He won 30 states while Clinton carried 20. The trap of California’s 55 votes caught her. With that “gigantic lead, she only focused on more of the same. But there was a bit more of the “other” in this election. California narcotizes liberal candidates. They “sleep walk” through the election, believing that since it (California) is so BIG, carrying it ensures that he/she cannot lose. And that is why they do.
Now the pundits are predicting that Trump will be a one term President. Seems like prognosticators said the same for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. The predicters’ track record then and in the recent contest makes me believe that they are probably exactly right. (Not)
(Continued on “Page 3.” Below)
Electoral College Part 3
Electoral College (Part 3)
Number 1 is below and 2 immediately preceeds.
To continue our analysis of alternatives, a direct election would lead to demagogic manipulation of the few largest population concentrations either ones that are geographically contiguous or those that are ideologically aligned. If a candidate can concentrate on a single issue, they can unite a majority almost every time.
Speaking of majority, does the direct election have to win a majority of the votes or only a plurality? Would successive runoffs be required to eliminate those who achieve lower numbers, but preclude a majority for any other candidate? The prospect of fielding multiple competing candidates to dilute the opposition vote could also be contemplated by campaign managers. Had Trump lost, a portion of the blame would have been directed to the 16 other original candidates for diluting the opposition to the ultimate losing candidate. A stronger one might have emerged from a smaller original field. But that is moot.
If this election is viewed as “flawed” a runoff scenario in the direct election contest could very well arise. And keep looking at the county map of the country. For the past eight years the majority of the country has felt alienated and ignored. That largely provided the impetus for the “switch” in this election. And if the “majority” as defined by direct election prevailed, the current situation would possibly be perpetuated indefinitely.
The Electoral College has lent a cache and authority to the selection of Presidents over the years by periodically switching from one party to the other. And speaking of parties, the Parliamentary model also lends itself to a multiplication of minority parties. This may ostensibly give a “voice to the minorities” as they can unite in a coalition and take control.
But that same multiplicity of interests often splinters once the shindig is over and things fall apart. This leads to no confidence votes and the reorganization of the government as we have seen happen often in Canada and Great Britain. On the other hand Russia uses a direct election. It usually only has one viable candidate, so that simplifies things. But I digress.
The Electoral College is not designed to be democratic. It is representative. And treating it otherwise, yields the same results as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated. Obama widened his appeal, marginally, and was able to prevail, twice.
If the viewer ignores parties and political preferences he would marvel at the genius of this system. It is very difficult to “game;” it preserves a representative construct; and it usually provides a “mandate” for the winner. A razor thin plurality or even a deficit of the popular vote translates to a significant advantage in the final accounting of the electoral votes. This mandate constitutes a foundation from the new President can confidently proceed.
Some old time advice from an old time advocate: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it is broke because you lost, maybe you are the one who is broke.
Number 1 is below and 2 immediately preceeds.
To continue our analysis of alternatives, a direct election would lead to demagogic manipulation of the few largest population concentrations either ones that are geographically contiguous or those that are ideologically aligned. If a candidate can concentrate on a single issue, they can unite a majority almost every time.
Speaking of majority, does the direct election have to win a majority of the votes or only a plurality? Would successive runoffs be required to eliminate those who achieve lower numbers, but preclude a majority for any other candidate? The prospect of fielding multiple competing candidates to dilute the opposition vote could also be contemplated by campaign managers. Had Trump lost, a portion of the blame would have been directed to the 16 other original candidates for diluting the opposition to the ultimate losing candidate. A stronger one might have emerged from a smaller original field. But that is moot.
If this election is viewed as “flawed” a runoff scenario in the direct election contest could very well arise. And keep looking at the county map of the country. For the past eight years the majority of the country has felt alienated and ignored. That largely provided the impetus for the “switch” in this election. And if the “majority” as defined by direct election prevailed, the current situation would possibly be perpetuated indefinitely.
The Electoral College has lent a cache and authority to the selection of Presidents over the years by periodically switching from one party to the other. And speaking of parties, the Parliamentary model also lends itself to a multiplication of minority parties. This may ostensibly give a “voice to the minorities” as they can unite in a coalition and take control.
But that same multiplicity of interests often splinters once the shindig is over and things fall apart. This leads to no confidence votes and the reorganization of the government as we have seen happen often in Canada and Great Britain. On the other hand Russia uses a direct election. It usually only has one viable candidate, so that simplifies things. But I digress.
The Electoral College is not designed to be democratic. It is representative. And treating it otherwise, yields the same results as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated. Obama widened his appeal, marginally, and was able to prevail, twice.
If the viewer ignores parties and political preferences he would marvel at the genius of this system. It is very difficult to “game;” it preserves a representative construct; and it usually provides a “mandate” for the winner. A razor thin plurality or even a deficit of the popular vote translates to a significant advantage in the final accounting of the electoral votes. This mandate constitutes a foundation from the new President can confidently proceed.
Some old time advice from an old time advocate: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it is broke because you lost, maybe you are the one who is broke.
Protests
“Not My President!” Hmmm. Let’s analyze that. Since Donald Trump has not yet been sworn into office, does that mean that these guys are anxiously anticipating the day when he is sworn in so that they can proudly announce, “My President?” (That reminds me of Hosea who named one of his kids, “Not My People.” Later on, the name was changed to “My People.” What a touching story. (Hosea 1:9, 10; 2:23)
Do our protesting friends mean that? Or something else? Well, a little analysis might turn up a little angst and anger. Are these guys proclaiming that when there is a President Trump in the United States that he will not be their President? Does that include a recision or denunciation of their citizenship? If so, this is pretty unusual.
Looking back a ways, I recall a certain LBJ who sparked wholesale protests. No citizenship renunciations that I recall. Then he was replaced by RM Nixon. Whew! The streets were crawling with protests. And stores were smashed and looted as well as cars. What a scene. No cancelled citizenships. Substitute Ford came along and all the protesters were either relieved or so worn out that they seemed to go into hibernation.
I do not recall any uproar over J. Carter. Everybody loved the bumbling peanut farmer from Georgia. They just did not want to elect him a second time. R. Reagan was loved by everyone who did not hate him. When the air traffic controllers announced that they did not want to work, President Ron graciously gave them time off. In fact their leave was indefinite. Whoa! The protest networks burst out of their caves.
First Bush had a pretty easy course, thanks to Saddam H. Bill Clinton “felt their pain” so not one protested that. The second Bush did not evoke too much negative emotion as the country was recovering from 911. I recall some initial complaints that the Supreme Court had “pronounced” him President, but what else could they do? He won the Florida vote in every way that it was counted, except the method he, himself initially proposed. SCOTUS used the rule of Law and then the several method of counting confirmed that they had not erred.
Seems like the protesters, looters, and crybabies are not as active during Democratic administrations as in the other one. There did seem to be some “One Percenters” objections, but again no revoking citizenship during the current administration. Most of the hoopla now is about a pipeline across the northern plains. The chances are good that it will not spread to the general population. We all burn gas and appreciate the lower costs compared with oil shortage days and $5 gas.
Now the protests have again begun all over the country. And groups of disillusioned and disappointed protesters have been marching all over. And have you seen the signs? “The Cubs are not MY World Series champion!”
Our protester friends are ignoring some basic facts. One, the protest must concern a specific incident that has precipitated a demonstrable harm. Second, the protest must encompass a specific, actionable remedy to the resultant condition. And finally, the specific action must not, itself, inflict a harmful result to innocent parties.
Our heritage in the South, of sit-ins fell within all of these constraints. The restaurant sit-ins were by specific individuals who had been denied service on account of skin color. The bus protests were initiated by a lady named Rosa who refused to yield her seat to a polite gentleman who demanded that she give him her seat. “There’s plenty in the back, Bub. Help yourself. I was here first.” Whatever happened to “ladies’ privilege?” But I digress.
At least our Cleveland protesters are not breaking rule number three. No one is hurt by their silly protests, unlike the seemingly orchestrated actions to protest the election results. They have not suffered any damage. Second, they have no remedy to propose other than to behave like spoiled children. And third, their escapades appear to be designed to inconvenience the maximum number of non-affected, and probably uninterested parties.
When I was a kid, we played all kinds of ball games. Every once in a while, the guy who owned the ball would be offended and behave like a spoiled rich kid. “I am taking my ball and going home.” The protesters are further handicapped by not owning the “ball.”
Our response to the ball-boy and to the protesters is pretty much, “So long. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the....” (Back) One proviso that was self-imposed was that he was no longer playing ball. The rest of us “made do” with whatever we had. But for him, the game was over.
Those who proclaim that “Trump is not my President,” have not thought through the ramifications of their declaration. Mr. Trump will become President, so if they are removing themselves from under that Constitutional overlay, they must repudiate their citizenship. Game over.
Consider the consequences of rash statements. That is a mark of maturity. Little kids can declare, “You are not my mommy.” But if pressed, they will repudiate that when Mommy walks away. They eventually learn to think before they speak.
When is the next protest? One about a hurricane or tornado? How about an earthquake? Do black lives matter? The majority of aborted babies are black. And why not protest the murder of innocent, often black, teens in many, if not all, of our major cities? Don’t their lives matter? Protest away.
There is a demonstrable harm. There is a viable solution. There is no “collateral damage” to bystanders in protesting such matters.
Protest away. Make it count. Don’t be like a spoiled rich kid. There is one other option. Instead of protesting, pray. Prayer changes things.
Do our protesting friends mean that? Or something else? Well, a little analysis might turn up a little angst and anger. Are these guys proclaiming that when there is a President Trump in the United States that he will not be their President? Does that include a recision or denunciation of their citizenship? If so, this is pretty unusual.
Looking back a ways, I recall a certain LBJ who sparked wholesale protests. No citizenship renunciations that I recall. Then he was replaced by RM Nixon. Whew! The streets were crawling with protests. And stores were smashed and looted as well as cars. What a scene. No cancelled citizenships. Substitute Ford came along and all the protesters were either relieved or so worn out that they seemed to go into hibernation.
I do not recall any uproar over J. Carter. Everybody loved the bumbling peanut farmer from Georgia. They just did not want to elect him a second time. R. Reagan was loved by everyone who did not hate him. When the air traffic controllers announced that they did not want to work, President Ron graciously gave them time off. In fact their leave was indefinite. Whoa! The protest networks burst out of their caves.
First Bush had a pretty easy course, thanks to Saddam H. Bill Clinton “felt their pain” so not one protested that. The second Bush did not evoke too much negative emotion as the country was recovering from 911. I recall some initial complaints that the Supreme Court had “pronounced” him President, but what else could they do? He won the Florida vote in every way that it was counted, except the method he, himself initially proposed. SCOTUS used the rule of Law and then the several method of counting confirmed that they had not erred.
Seems like the protesters, looters, and crybabies are not as active during Democratic administrations as in the other one. There did seem to be some “One Percenters” objections, but again no revoking citizenship during the current administration. Most of the hoopla now is about a pipeline across the northern plains. The chances are good that it will not spread to the general population. We all burn gas and appreciate the lower costs compared with oil shortage days and $5 gas.
Now the protests have again begun all over the country. And groups of disillusioned and disappointed protesters have been marching all over. And have you seen the signs? “The Cubs are not MY World Series champion!”
Our protester friends are ignoring some basic facts. One, the protest must concern a specific incident that has precipitated a demonstrable harm. Second, the protest must encompass a specific, actionable remedy to the resultant condition. And finally, the specific action must not, itself, inflict a harmful result to innocent parties.
Our heritage in the South, of sit-ins fell within all of these constraints. The restaurant sit-ins were by specific individuals who had been denied service on account of skin color. The bus protests were initiated by a lady named Rosa who refused to yield her seat to a polite gentleman who demanded that she give him her seat. “There’s plenty in the back, Bub. Help yourself. I was here first.” Whatever happened to “ladies’ privilege?” But I digress.
At least our Cleveland protesters are not breaking rule number three. No one is hurt by their silly protests, unlike the seemingly orchestrated actions to protest the election results. They have not suffered any damage. Second, they have no remedy to propose other than to behave like spoiled children. And third, their escapades appear to be designed to inconvenience the maximum number of non-affected, and probably uninterested parties.
When I was a kid, we played all kinds of ball games. Every once in a while, the guy who owned the ball would be offended and behave like a spoiled rich kid. “I am taking my ball and going home.” The protesters are further handicapped by not owning the “ball.”
Our response to the ball-boy and to the protesters is pretty much, “So long. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the....” (Back) One proviso that was self-imposed was that he was no longer playing ball. The rest of us “made do” with whatever we had. But for him, the game was over.
Those who proclaim that “Trump is not my President,” have not thought through the ramifications of their declaration. Mr. Trump will become President, so if they are removing themselves from under that Constitutional overlay, they must repudiate their citizenship. Game over.
Consider the consequences of rash statements. That is a mark of maturity. Little kids can declare, “You are not my mommy.” But if pressed, they will repudiate that when Mommy walks away. They eventually learn to think before they speak.
When is the next protest? One about a hurricane or tornado? How about an earthquake? Do black lives matter? The majority of aborted babies are black. And why not protest the murder of innocent, often black, teens in many, if not all, of our major cities? Don’t their lives matter? Protest away.
There is a demonstrable harm. There is a viable solution. There is no “collateral damage” to bystanders in protesting such matters.
Protest away. Make it count. Don’t be like a spoiled rich kid. There is one other option. Instead of protesting, pray. Prayer changes things.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Election Apologetic
The election is over. It is an appropriate time to examine the statement, “I could never vote for XXX because of their ethical and moral failings.”
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”
First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”
Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.
Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)
The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.
A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.
The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.
The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.
The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.
Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.
Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)
Electoral College Part One
The quadrennial hue and cry has begun already. “Change the electoral college!” May I be blunt here? That is like going to a cricket or rugby game and demanding that it be played like football or baseball. Each game has its own laws and they designate and control the conduct of the game.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
The typical, and expected complaints are lodged. “Unfair, archaic, chaotic, terrible, etc., are adjectives and not indictments. They are based, again, on the characterization above. The critics are 1) unaware of the true nature of the enterprise, 2) are driven by sectarian by motivation, and probably most important, 3) ignoring or discounting the historical context of the Electoral College.
Let’s begin at the beginning. The critics, like teenagers are declaring that they know more than their elders. And, like in “real life,” a semester or two of college sends them/us home with a new appreciation for how much Mom and Dad know and how little I knew back then and how far I have to go.
Another salient complaint is that the elector college is undemocratic. The founding fathers knew and understood history. Every democracy began with the idealistic goal of citizen rule. But once 50.1% of the voters discovered that they could vote to have the other 49.9% support them, the enterprise was doomed. The founding fathers opted, instead for a representative or federal republic. It incorporated the crucial concept of separation of powers. They subdivided the country, retroactively, into states and delegated the division of states into representative districts.
The representative districts elect the representative by popular vote in all of the states. (Their decision.) The senators are elected by a majority of the whole state. (Again determined by the individual states.) Then each state is allotted one electoral vote (elector) for each representative and senator. How the states apportion the electoral votes is up to each state.
So far, none of the “complaints” have not cited a specific fault in the process, except that their preferred candidate did not win. Counting popular votes is akin to going to a football game and counting the fans for each team to determine the winner of the game. The fans may inspire and tangentially affect the game, but they do not determine the winner. The electoral college is the states electing the President.
One other complaint is that the electoral college is designed to elect rich, southern white men. Check the 2000 election during which two rich, southern white men ran against each other. One had to win and the other lose. Then the 2008 and 2012 pitted two northern, and western rich white men against a supposedly poor, black man. The white men lost. 2016 pitted a rich northern woman against a rich northern man. The complaint, me thinks, is a moot point.
In conclusion, the electoral college works as it was designed for the country to elect the President. It was designed to avoid the dominance of massive population centers. Taking a look at the county by county results demonstrates the efficacy of this approach. The population centers dominate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by virtue of their overwhelming number of voters. If they likewise controlled the Executive branch, the separation of powers would be effectively circumvented as they would control two of the three branches of government. And consequently by appointment and confirmation, they could conceivably establish control of the third branch, the judiciary.
Them old boys were not ignorant, bigoted farmers. Their wisdom and governmental acumen survives and is validated in current events.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Politics
This is being written before the results are in on the 2016 election. It is a bipartisan critique of voters. Time after time, throughout the campaign people have declared that they could never vote for XXX because of some activity. For the Democrats, they abhor the cavalier way Donald Trump acted with regard to women. Republicans, on the other hand focused on Hillary Clinton’s lying and other ethical failures.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
This is not to depreciate the importance of morals and ethics, but the election is for the policy leader of this country and by default, the free world. None of the “never XXX’ers” ever mentioned any policy issue, whether social, financial, national, or international. Their focus was on the purported unscrupulous actions of one party while ignoring the failures of their choice.
If ever there was a case of speck in the eye of the examined and log in the eye of the examiner, this is it. And yes, these character flaws will have an effect on the ruling efforts of the victorious candidate. But looking back in history we see the Presidency rife with men who would be classified as unscrupulous (Johnson), womanizing (Kennedy), adulterous (Eisenhower), unrestrained (T. Roosevelt), and who knows how many other moral and ethical deficiencies.
But their national policy was the salient determinant of their place in history. Our voting efforts should be focused on ferreting out the candidate who will best pursue the overall interests of the country. The party platforms are the area from which this decision should arise.
It is too late to affect the outcome now, but one would hope that such “shallow” thinking will disappear into the past as this election fades. Whatever happens, the USA is “stuck” with the results of this exercise in representative governance.
We can only hope and pray that this will not be our last opportunity to participate. And even more that we get it right next time, regardless of how “lucky or unlucky” we are after we evaluate the present results.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Advertising and Articles
Do you have Asteroid Anxiety? Good news! Now the cumulative resources of mankind have been able to map the heavens and identify “near earth objects” which might, at some time threaten to crash into the earth and become devastating meteorites. (Meteors that penetrate the atmosphere to strike the ground or water.) Well, “we” have identified 90% of them, mainly the larger ones.
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
So imagine that an imminent impact is identified. The response is to get FEMA and other disaster agencies on alert to help mitigate the damage. I do not know about you, but that certainly relieves my asteroid anxiety. If and when the “big one” hits, our disaster agencies will be on high alert. As Speedy, the AlkaSeltzer boy used to warble, “Oh what a relief it is.”
A Medicare advertisement shows two attractive women roughly in their twenties or thirties smiling as they peruse the new Medicare Advantage offerings. Guess the advert guys have not been told that Medicare is for those over 65.
One particular auto advertisement that runs mainly on the “off channels” is one that says, “You pay your premiums for your car insurance faithfully and on time, and now that you have an accident, you have to pay more.” Obviously it is referring to the deductible that we choose when we pick insurance.
They act like it is such an affront to humanity and decency that they do that. It is possible that we can have a zero deductible (possibly what this company offers), but at a much higher premium. Obviously the company would prefer the higher premium as they get to keep all the money if you do not have an accident.
If you do file a claim, they will pay it, but you may rest assured that in the long run, they “get” more than they give. Now they are advertising to entice the potential client to pay even more into the kitty on the pretense of not being cheated by the greedy insurance guys. Is it any wonder that all of those tall buildings downtown are named for Insurance companies?
On the topic of advertisements, does anyone else get a little tired and even irritated at the advertisements that assume that their potential clients are dumber than a box of rocks? Listen to the implied statements, and try not to be so offended that you refuse to buy the product even if it is one that you prefer. Or on the other hand, why prefer one from such a doltish company?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)