Showing posts with label voters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voters. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2016
"The voters" decided for Clinton. The Electoral College decided for Trump
The above two lines are my comment to “Thoughts for the Horrified”, Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2016-11-11,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/thoughts-for-the-horrified.html?comments#permid=20443404:20445015.
Consider that an extra 50,000 votes total in just three states would have given Clinton the election.
See "For Reeling Democrats, Now What?", Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times, 2016-11-10,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-for-democrats-now-what-20161110-story.html
Were you one of these 50,000 non-voters? Did you steal the election? Did you help rig the election?
In the next election, remember that
The only way
You throw your vote away
Is to stay away
Also remember that if don’t vote, you will probably get the candidate you like the least.
However, there is hope for a run-around for the Electoral College. According to the U.S. Constitution, each state gets to decide how to choose its electors. In the beginning, it was the state legislatures.
Now there is a run-around to the Electoral College in that states will select their electors based on the national vote. See “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Do we really have a five-party “system”?
Many commentators write about the “two-party system” as if it were enshrined in the Constitution. Actually, the writers of the Constitution feared factionalism. They thought their document would bring about a system of considered deliberation and reasoned arguments.
Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly. John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government. They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.
The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization. Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.
Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times. The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People. But these were not fixed ideologies. The parties adjusted their ideas to the times. Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo. Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.
Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party. The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began. Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome. The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about. The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.
The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed. As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative. Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”? I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.
Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation. Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get. Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.
My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.
My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.
The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government. To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom. Taxes are just stealing money. Laws are for other people.
The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses. Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.
The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.
The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society. This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create. On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.
Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One). This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution. The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.
The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government. What if a libertarian had been defrauded. Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation? Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?
The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals. But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?
The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use. Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.
The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important. Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.
We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities. This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”. We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.
Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.
Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly. John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government. They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.
The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization. Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.
Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times. The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People. But these were not fixed ideologies. The parties adjusted their ideas to the times. Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo. Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.
Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party. The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began. Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome. The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about. The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.
The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed. As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative. Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”? I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.
Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation. Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get. Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.
My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.
My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.
The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government. To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom. Taxes are just stealing money. Laws are for other people.
The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses. Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.
The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.
The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society. This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create. On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.
Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One). This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution. The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.
The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government. What if a libertarian had been defrauded. Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation? Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?
The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals. But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?
The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use. Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.
The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important. Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.
We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities. This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”. We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.
Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.
Sunday, July 06, 2014
The Meaning of Meaningless Words and Phrases
As seen on TV
I think I saw this phrase about a week ago as I flung another of the countless flyers we get in the mail into the recycle box. So how does “As seen on TV” make any product better than any other product, whether seen on TV or not seen on TV. The actor John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt was paid to act out a script touting the features of the Okey Dokey Wonder Tool. Is the Okey Dokey company going to say anything about the faults of their Wonder Tool? Oh, they might have a small print disclaimer like “results may vary” or “not to be used by children under twelve.”
Did you, dear astute reader, catch my meaningless word - countless? I am going to weasel on that one and state that countless doesn’t mean without end; it means I am not counting them.
Almost endless
How are the uses of any product almost endless? Or infinite? No matter how many uses of a product you find, you will have found only a finite number of uses. If everybody in the world found found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. If all future generations found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. And when the sun explodes or burns out, the number of uses found will still be a finite number.
Seamless operation
I thought this expression had fallen out of use, but Apple CEO Tim Cook used it at the recent developer’s conference. He really should visit the online Apple User Community to find out how seamless Apple software is not. Especially how operations that were once simple and obvious have become complex and obtuse.
It seems to me that the more complicated software becomes, the more glitches and operational quirks there are. Sure, I can do a lot more with computers than I did even five years ago, but I have an even longer list of problems that I haven’t found a round tuit to resolve.
Perfect gift
This “omniscient” phrase appeared in dozens of ads for hundreds of products before Father’s Day. “Just what Dad wants.” First, how do these advertisers even know what each and very father wants? Second, this father really didn’t want any of the products advertised. Third, our family doesn’t give gifts on Father’s Day. Fourth, our family doesn’t celebrate Father’s day. Fifth, this curmudgeonly father doesn’t even care.
Business friendly
Many judge cities and states on how “business-friendly” they are. That is, are taxes low, are subsidies given for relocation, are environmental laws relaxed? Rarely are cities and states judged by the “business-friendly” crowd as to how well the police and fire departments operate, how good the roads and utilities are, and how willing people are to move for reasons other than being moved there by the new or expanding company.
“Business-friendly” often means “corporate-friendly”. Local businesses are often the losers when a corporation moves in. What happened to the local stationery store when Office Depot moved into downtown Duluth? How many other local businesses were disrupted? How long did Office Depot stay in downtown Duluth? More and more chain drug stores have been opened in Duluth. When was the last time you visited a locally-owned pharmacy?
The good news is that there are still several locally-owned businesses in Duluth. Be truly business-friendly and support them with your business.
Voters decided/Investors decided
I wish journalists would stop using these sweeping generalizations to describe the choices of a minority. I’ve written over and over how a minority of eligible or even registered voters chose the eventual winners of an election. When it comes to “investors decided”, the proportion of “deciders” is a tiny fraction of “investors”.
First, how often are the “investors” day-traders? Second, how often are the “day-traders” computers programmed to look for the tiniest advantage?
The real investors are those who buy and hold for years. They invested because they believed in the purpose of the company, because they perceived long-term growth, or because they wanted steady dividends. These investors are not deciding the daily gyrations of the stock markets.
Conservative and liberal
It seems these terms have devolved into if you are one of these then you are on the good side and the other is the bad side. Conservatives have devolved from those who deliberated carefully to those who believe in a long list of bullet points, even if some of these are contradictory, like abortion is bad and war is good. Liberals have devolved from those who were generous to those in real need to those who support a long list of groups who they see as disadvantaged.
The “conservatives” have managed to put the “liberals” on the defensive.
Maybe someday we will once again have more conservatives like Ross Douthat and David Brooks and liberals like Paul Krugman and Eugene Robinson. These and several others in government and journalism look at the “big picture” rather than narrow interests.
Mel would have visited three locally-owned businesses the day he wrote this, but he wimped out when the wind blew dust on his contact lenses.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2014-07-03 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/07/03/3656_the_meaning_of_meaningless_words_and_phrases
I think I saw this phrase about a week ago as I flung another of the countless flyers we get in the mail into the recycle box. So how does “As seen on TV” make any product better than any other product, whether seen on TV or not seen on TV. The actor John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt was paid to act out a script touting the features of the Okey Dokey Wonder Tool. Is the Okey Dokey company going to say anything about the faults of their Wonder Tool? Oh, they might have a small print disclaimer like “results may vary” or “not to be used by children under twelve.”
Did you, dear astute reader, catch my meaningless word - countless? I am going to weasel on that one and state that countless doesn’t mean without end; it means I am not counting them.
Almost endless
How are the uses of any product almost endless? Or infinite? No matter how many uses of a product you find, you will have found only a finite number of uses. If everybody in the world found found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. If all future generations found even more uses, they will still have found only a finite number of uses. And when the sun explodes or burns out, the number of uses found will still be a finite number.
Seamless operation
I thought this expression had fallen out of use, but Apple CEO Tim Cook used it at the recent developer’s conference. He really should visit the online Apple User Community to find out how seamless Apple software is not. Especially how operations that were once simple and obvious have become complex and obtuse.
It seems to me that the more complicated software becomes, the more glitches and operational quirks there are. Sure, I can do a lot more with computers than I did even five years ago, but I have an even longer list of problems that I haven’t found a round tuit to resolve.
Perfect gift
This “omniscient” phrase appeared in dozens of ads for hundreds of products before Father’s Day. “Just what Dad wants.” First, how do these advertisers even know what each and very father wants? Second, this father really didn’t want any of the products advertised. Third, our family doesn’t give gifts on Father’s Day. Fourth, our family doesn’t celebrate Father’s day. Fifth, this curmudgeonly father doesn’t even care.
Business friendly
Many judge cities and states on how “business-friendly” they are. That is, are taxes low, are subsidies given for relocation, are environmental laws relaxed? Rarely are cities and states judged by the “business-friendly” crowd as to how well the police and fire departments operate, how good the roads and utilities are, and how willing people are to move for reasons other than being moved there by the new or expanding company.
“Business-friendly” often means “corporate-friendly”. Local businesses are often the losers when a corporation moves in. What happened to the local stationery store when Office Depot moved into downtown Duluth? How many other local businesses were disrupted? How long did Office Depot stay in downtown Duluth? More and more chain drug stores have been opened in Duluth. When was the last time you visited a locally-owned pharmacy?
The good news is that there are still several locally-owned businesses in Duluth. Be truly business-friendly and support them with your business.
Voters decided/Investors decided
I wish journalists would stop using these sweeping generalizations to describe the choices of a minority. I’ve written over and over how a minority of eligible or even registered voters chose the eventual winners of an election. When it comes to “investors decided”, the proportion of “deciders” is a tiny fraction of “investors”.
First, how often are the “investors” day-traders? Second, how often are the “day-traders” computers programmed to look for the tiniest advantage?
The real investors are those who buy and hold for years. They invested because they believed in the purpose of the company, because they perceived long-term growth, or because they wanted steady dividends. These investors are not deciding the daily gyrations of the stock markets.
Conservative and liberal
It seems these terms have devolved into if you are one of these then you are on the good side and the other is the bad side. Conservatives have devolved from those who deliberated carefully to those who believe in a long list of bullet points, even if some of these are contradictory, like abortion is bad and war is good. Liberals have devolved from those who were generous to those in real need to those who support a long list of groups who they see as disadvantaged.
The “conservatives” have managed to put the “liberals” on the defensive.
Maybe someday we will once again have more conservatives like Ross Douthat and David Brooks and liberals like Paul Krugman and Eugene Robinson. These and several others in government and journalism look at the “big picture” rather than narrow interests.
Mel would have visited three locally-owned businesses the day he wrote this, but he wimped out when the wind blew dust on his contact lenses.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2014-07-03 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/07/03/3656_the_meaning_of_meaningless_words_and_phrases
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Must reading for those who believe in democracy
"The time for complaining is at an end. Action must be taken. Accountability must be demanded. Muscle must be flexed. Power must be exercised.
"Ballots must be cast."
–”Lions to the Ballot Box”, Charles Blow, NYT, 2014-04-24
My email to Blow:
"I hope your column on voter turnout is reprinted in every paper across the country. And I hope it is reprinted just before the 2014 elections.
"Big turnout trumps big money every time. Think Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.
"I have been cajoling people to vote in my little obscure blog and in my column in Duluth weekly for going on fifteen years.
"I hope your bigger platform has many orders of magnitude of influence than my little Don Quixote tilting at political windbags."
My favorite comment:
I have a bumper sticker : "If the 47% vote the 1% won't matter".
"Ballots must be cast."
–”Lions to the Ballot Box”, Charles Blow, NYT, 2014-04-24
My email to Blow:
"I hope your column on voter turnout is reprinted in every paper across the country. And I hope it is reprinted just before the 2014 elections.
"Big turnout trumps big money every time. Think Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.
"I have been cajoling people to vote in my little obscure blog and in my column in Duluth weekly for going on fifteen years.
"I hope your bigger platform has many orders of magnitude of influence than my little Don Quixote tilting at political windbags."
My favorite comment:
I have a bumper sticker : "If the 47% vote the 1% won't matter".
Monday, April 21, 2014
Proof of poor education system
From my note pile:
We must have a poor education system. Just look at the quality of the politicians and at the judgment of the voters who keep electing them again and again.
We must have a poor education system. Just look at the quality of the politicians and at the judgment of the voters who keep electing them again and again.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
So, you want term limits?
If you really want term limits, be sure to vote. And when you vote, be sure to vote against the incumbent. At least, vote against the incumbent if he or she has served what you consider a maximum number of terms.
Of course, if your favorite candidate serves more than this maximum, remember that according to some the people have decided. This means the people have decided against term limits.
I think that term limits is a canard of those who think their party is not getting enough seats. What will they do when the other party keeps getting more seats more often even with term limits?
Of course, if your favorite candidate serves more than this maximum, remember that according to some the people have decided. This means the people have decided against term limits.
I think that term limits is a canard of those who think their party is not getting enough seats. What will they do when the other party keeps getting more seats more often even with term limits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)