Vote! If you don't vote will you get even worse candidates?

 I'm still here.  But I don't get to see much about the traffic here.  I just haven't figured out just what I have to reset.

 We have settled into senior housing after selling our house.  We are in a location where we can walk to almost all the places that we need to go. 

We have cast our 2020 ballots at city hall.  We were surprised that we had to wait, not long, but it sure beats standing in line on November 3.

We are also happy that we live in a state that honors vote integrity.  We can see this by the way parties keep switching around.  I would like to vote Republican, but I haven't seen any real Republicans since Arne Carlson replaced a child molester on the ballot for Governor.

See also Dave Durenburger's book When Republicans Were Progressive.

As for the title of this article: Hilary Clinton may have won the popular vote, but would she gotten the Electoral College vote if 90% or more had shone up?  The less than 70% vote was not worthy of a democracy.

If you are an American be sure to vote.  Sorry, you don't get to vote twice this year for not voting in 2016.

Constitutional Amendments: Government Power Versus Personal Rights

Originally published in the
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004

I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.

I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results.  I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits.  However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them.  I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items.  From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.

Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)

Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous.  I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these.  You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.

I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it.  All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.

I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.

1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?

2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?

3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?

4. Will it really work?

If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has.  It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.

We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other.  They were especially wary of a king-like executive.  They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.

The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government.  Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.

Will an amendment really work?  History gives us mixed lessons on this.  The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced.  Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.

Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.

Marriage Protection Amendment

It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch.  It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.

The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida.  “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”

If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”

Will it work?  It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.

Constitutional Rights for Victims

This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support.  It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury.  It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”

It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.

As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.

Religious Freedom

This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments.  In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion.  The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…”  Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given?  Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers?  Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?

Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President

These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed.  My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences?  The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives.  The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan.  The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children.  Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.

Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.

Thanks to the Marchers Who Voted

I posted the following comment to “‘We’re Not Going Away’: Huge Crowds for Women’s March”, Anemona Harocollis, Yamiche Alcindor, and Niraj Chokshi, New York Times, 2017-01-21.

If you were a marcher and a voter, your country thanks you.

If you were a marcher and not a voter, your country hopes you make sure to vote next time.

Remember, Trump came in third to a de facto "none of the above".

The only way

You throw your vote away

Is to stay away!

Movement afoot to “unelect” Trump

See https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19-4a78160a-023c-4ff0-9069-53cee2a095a8

According to this article, in 14 of states where the voters that showed up favored Trump, the electors can vote for someone else without penalty.

I wonder if any of these petitions are limited to the people who actually showed up, or can those who didn’t bother to vote also sign the petitions?

Do I jest?  Not quite, the de facto winner of the 2016 election was “none of the above”.  Over 40% of eligible voters stayed home. See Voter Turnout Data - United States Elections Project.

231,556,622 voting eligible population (VEP)
137,297,086 ballots counted
59.3% turnout

94,259,536 didn’t cast a counted ballot
40.7% of VEP

65,476,535 votes (48.1%) Clinton
28.3% of VEP

62,821,935 votes (46.1%) Trump
27.1% of VEP

8,998,616 votes (6.6%) Others
3.9% of VEP

Over half of those who showed up voted for someone else than Donald Trump.  That certainly is not “the people” deciding for Trump.

But when you consider that over two-thirds of the eligible voters did not cast a vote for Trump, you would think Trump would have a bit more humility.  Don’t hold your breath.

If you were one of the no-shows, remember,

The only way
To throw your vote away
Is to stay away!

More on the Electoral College

For a different view than I gave in “Why we have our electoral mess”, see J. Craig Scherf,  "Electoral College maintains one of Constitution’s checks and balances" Duluth News Tribune, 2106-11-15.

Times have changed since the Constitution was written.  Then the voters were male property owners.  Their interests were in protecting their property, whether it was real estate or slaves.  They felt that they could best protect their property by state laws, not federal laws.

But the interests of the states as property protectors has diminished in several ways.

Many of us are not fixed or even interested in our states as defenders of all of our interests.

Those of us who are property owners might change property for a variety of reasons.  We might want a bigger or smaller residence.  We might want to move from a rural area to a city or vice versa.  Or we might move out of state, something that seems to happening more frequently as people change jobs within a company or get a job in a different company.

I have lived in three states and three foreign countries.

I grew up in Cleveland OH and in surrounding areas.  I have not lived in Ohio for 53 years.  When the Cleveland Indians were in the World Series, I could care less!

I have lived in Minnesota for 42 years.  Do I know what the state song is?  What the state flag looks like?  I probably know more U.S. and world history than I do Minnesota history.

Our state lives get even more complicated.  How many people live in one state but work in another?  Duluth-Superior?  New York City with commuters from three states: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut?  Philadelphia with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.  I myself commuted from an exurb west of Philadelphia, through Philadelphia, and on to Cherry Hill NJ.  Chicago also has commuters from three states: Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

And don’t forget that there are many reverse commuters who go from the central city to jobs outside the city, especially as more and more companies build facilities outside the central city.

Many of these commuters have no real property, they rent their living spaces.  So, where do their local loyalties lie: where they live or where they work.  They only get input into the laws that affect where they work is through federal law, not state laws.  The only way they have input into the affairs of the state in which they work is through personal contact with acquaintances who are residents of their work state or letters to the editor of the regional newspaper.

The electoral college could give our co-workers more or less clout in an election than we have.  The Delaware resident who works in Philadelphia had a greater weighted Electoral College vote than his or her colleagues who live in Pennsylvania!  It’s almost like saying that short people have more votes than tall people!

"Would we truly want large regional majorities from the two coasts to alone choose our president? The system of checks and balances left to us by the Founders is the surest guarantee of protecting minority rights that we have.” - J. Craig Scherf

But do we want small regional electoral majorities to take away the rights of the majority of the whole nation?

Why we have our electoral mess

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, supposedly in 1858.  See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:547?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

The electoral college was one of the Constitutional stratagems slave owners used to protect themselves from the North taking away their slaves.  Another was counting slaves as three-fifths persons. This increased the number of representatives they got far beyond the number of actual voters.  Also basing the Senate on states rather than population, these less-populated states further increased their furtive power grab.

By increasing their relative state power in presidential elections, they hoped they could keep the end of slavery at bay.

They unleashed a long bloody war to protect this despicable practice. Unfortunately, they forgot the Constitutional provision that Congress could call out the militia to suppress insurrections.  (In our own time, Congress seemed to forget this provision in dealing with the Bundys.)

So, the Electoral College differs from democracy and the five victories because of the Electoral College in our country's history have differed from democracy.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.  Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.

See also "More on the Electoral College".

"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.

Trump was right, the election was rigged

But the rigging was not done by his opponents.

Let’s assume there are three states, East Coast, West Coast, and Flyover.  East Coast and West Coast each have a population of a million people.  Flyover has a population of two million.  Each of the three states has two Senators.  East Coast and West Coast each have one Representative in Congress; Flyover has two Representatives.

Therefore, East Coast and West Coast each have three electoral votes and Flyover has four electoral votes.  That is, East Coast and West Coast together have six electoral votes for a combined half of the nation’s population.  Flyover has four electoral votes for the other half of the population.

Now assume we have three candidates, Marsy, Dosy, and Lammsy.  Marsy and Dosy have large followings and Dosy has a couple of thousand.  The eligible voters in each state are 80% of the population, but turnout is only 50%.  That means that eight hundred thousand vote in East Coast and West Coast combined and eight hundred thousand vote in Flyover.

In East Coast and West Coast, Marsy got 49 percent of the vote, Dosy got 48, and Lammsy got three percent.  In Flyover Marsy got 40 percent, Dosy got 52 percent, and Lammsy got eight percent.  In numbers of votes, in the East Coast and West Coast, Marsy got 392,000 votes, Dosy got 384,000, and Lammsy got 24,000.  In Flyover, Marsy got 320 thousand, Dosy got 416 thousand, and Lammsy got 64 thousand.

Clearly, Dosy is the winner with 800 thousand votes against Marsy’s 712 thousand and Lammsy’s 90 thousand.  Wrong!  Marsy is the winner with six electoral votes as opposed to Dosy’s four electoral votes.

This “rigging” wasn’t done by anybody involved in this hypothetical election.  It was done in the Eighteenth Century with the approval of the Constitution.

Ironically, this “rigging” benefited the candidate who complained throughout his campaign that the election was “rigged”.

See also “The election was stolen, really!”

The "two-party system" is broken and we let it happen

Here are some quotes from "The PARTY Is OVER: How the Republicans Went CRAZY, Democrats Became USELESS, and the Middle Class Got SHAFTED", Mike Lofgren, a former Republican Congressional staffer.

"Twenty to 25 percent is not a majority [right-wing authoritarian..will not change minds], but it is enough to swing an election, especially when you consider that the authoritarian follower is more easily organized and mobilized than the rest of the population." p. 185

If this doesn't scare the more pragmatic and flexible to vote, then nothing will.

Is there really a difference in the parties?

"In a deep and intractable recession one can never discount the possibility that a Republican could win the presidency against an incumbent Democrat.  But if the GOP nominates a candidate too deeply flawed or too right wing to be plausible, it won't really matter.  The main thrust of the establishment's policies will be implemented regardless of who wins.  That is the genius of our two-party system." p 199

How much pressure do each of us put on Democrat office-holders to put people before corporations?

"And charitable or otherwise nonprofit organizations should no longer be allowed to compensate their executives at almost Wall Street level.  Does it make sense that an organization should not pay taxes if it can funnel $5.1 million a year into the pocket of its CEO?" p 208

His footnote is:

"Slideshow: Who Are the Highest-Paid Nonprofit Executives?" Dallas Business Journal, September 16, 2011

Many nonprofits are scientific, charitable, or educational.  Some claim to be educational but they are political trying to educate others on their politics.  The IRS was right to double check on the non-taxable status of Tea Party organizations.  It was not that the Tea Party was singled out per se, but they were the worst offender of all the political abusers.  Let's say that drivers for Mucking Trucking were more likely to speed than any other drivers.  Shouldn't the State Highway Patrol check on Mucking Trucking drivers more often than other drivers?

"The people of this country must make an effort to clean out their cultural baggage of … fondly-held illusions: illusions that make it easier for ambitious and manipulative politicians to bamboozle them and build bureaucratic empires that only sap the country's true potential." p. 209

He cites the foremost illusion as the myth of American Exceptionalism.  It is a disease that has infected all previous great powers or empires.   He quotes J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power":

"The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations––to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image."

Or as I've said, who elected the President of the United States as "leader of the free world"?

Republicans may make Obama one-term president, but…

Many commentators have written that the Republicans are more interested in making President Obama look bad and far less interested in solving real problems.

Many Democrats feel that they didn't get the change that they voted for, and as we've seen in New York's Ninth Congressional District, many are inclined not to vote at all.

Many "independents" are dissatisfied with both parties. What happens if a third party candidate appears who has enough appeal to gain wide support among independents? What happens if this candidate manages to get a plurality in some key winner-take-all states? Given our Electoral College system, that third party candidate could gain sufficient electors to "win in a landslide" with way less than half the general election votes.

One always has to be careful what one asks for.