About Me

Name: Raven
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

An inconvenient document

This post was inspired by a comment in the replies to another essay.

(Thanks Virgina Daddy for reminding me of this.)

Originally written April 2007

I found the following story quite interesting on more than one level.


Sidestepping the Electoral College

I am always looking for how things are interconnected. It was pretty easy in this article.

"It's a stand on principle," said Democratic Sen. Jamie B. Raskin, the sponsor of the bill. "What we're saying is the person who won the national popular vote should be president."

And of course I am sure this same sentiment would have been expressed had Bush won the Popular vote and Gore won the Electoral vote in 2000 right?


The bill is part of a national discussion on whether the Electoral College should be changed or eliminated altogether because it can lead to presidential candidates spending much of their time and money in a small number of swing states.



Lets think about this using the rare thing called logic. If it was a purely popular vote that elected the President then the candidates would be spending time where? Where the most people were obviously. Think: CA,TX,NJ,FL,NY etc. You know, the states that now have the largest number of Electoral votes.  So instead of going to 'swing states' aka small populous states where their Electoral vote could possibly make a difference in election, the candidates would spend their time and money where the greatest congregation of voters were.

Quick side note: Had this been in place in 2004 Maryland's Electoral votes would have gone to Bush instead of Kerry. Wonder how Maryland would have dealt with that?

The change, supporters said, would also prevent a repeat of the 2000 election, brought up repeatedly during debate, in which Republican George W. Bush won enough key battleground states to win the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore.


Hmm it seems we have stumbled onto the crux of the matter. Once again the spectre of the 2000 Presidential Election rears its ugly head. Apparently some people cannot accept what has occurred in the past. I ask, if the results had been reversed, and there were Republicans whining about an election that had been 'stolen' (A word that has been used quite frequently by Democrats) I wonder how they would be received by Democrats or the media? A no-brainer really.

The election of 2000, and the subsequent whining, is an interesting thing to analyze.

First, it was not the first election that the President won the Electoral vote but not the popular vote. It also occurred in 1824, {Though this election was determined by the House of Representatives since no one had received the required number of Electoral votes. This is also the only Presidential Election in which the candidate receiving the most electoral votes did not become President (since a majority, not just a plurality, is required to win). It is also often said to be the first election in which the president did not win the popular vote, although the popular vote was not measured nationwide.} 1876 and 1888. But of course since that stuff happened over 100 years ago it doesn't really count right? *cue sarcasm*

Second, after brushing away all the rhetoric it is quite easy to see who was to 'blame' for what happened in 2000. Who is the one person who by accomplishing one simple thing, would have caused this whole 2000 debacle to never have happened. Al Gore of course.

How? Very simple really. By winning Tennessee, his home state. The same state he representing for almost 30 years.

One simple thing, that coincidently I really don't recall ever really being discussed by the 'experts', would have solved everything. Its simple math really. Tennessee has 11 Electoral votes.

Result of 2000

Bush: 271
Gore: 266

Had Al won his home state it would have looked like this.

Bush: 260
Gore: 277

 So all of this leads us back to the original topic, the sidestepping of the electoral college. There can be all these wonderful plans for 'change' but unless something drastic happens they are forgetting one thing. Its unconstitutional.

That darn inconvenient document.

, to me it is just the next (and largest) indication that there is a lot of people who would be ok with the idea of tossing aside the concept of 'states'. Why would we need those when

In looking at this from the big picture, as I like to do, it is my opinion this is just another in the latest occurrences that get me to thinking that maybe there are some people (maybe more than just some) that just as soon see us rid ourselves of this whole tiresome 'States' concepts and just be one big happy country that simply follows the Kingdom of D.C.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An open letter to Democrats

To: Democratic lawmakers in D.C.

Re: Iraq

A great deal has been said on both sides of the Iraq issue. It has gotten to the point where a concerned citizen like myself has a difficult time making sense of things. I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps clarify things a bit.

It is well established your opposition to the war in Iraq, (even though you gave the authorization for it to happen) so there is no need to clarify that. However there are a few points that do seem a bit vague to me.

Much has been made of your apparent desire for the war to be unsuccessful, or even being accused of appearing unpatriotic. To many this is a serious accusation. Perhaps a few simple questions will put these accusations to rest.

In a military operation there can be only three outcomes: Victory, Defeat or Stalemate. Though the third can be turned into one of the others.

You say that our efforts are doomed, they are a failure, and so my first question to you is quite simple.

What is the Democratic definition of a U. S. victory in Iraq? (Given the above premise of possible outcomes one can assume it is the first of these that is desired by Democrats.)

This should be a simple question to answer, at least without the usual rhetoric. I don’t mean the usual ‘troops out now’ things we usually hear. In your mind a situation must exist for the U.S. to be achieve victory in Iraq. I do not mean a political victory for the Democratic Party.

Regardless of your feelings as to why we are there the point is, like it or not, we are. Therefore it is incumbent upon the U.S. to do whatever it can to succeed. After all is that not what America has been known for? Why else would we be the first country looked to for help by other countries if they did not think we could do whatever is necessary to get something done?

So my question once more is, what is the Democratic definition of a U.S. victory in Iraq?

A follow up question would be what are you planning to do to assist the military in achieving this version of victory?

One can only assume with the amount of military expertise that resides in the halls of Congress that a well-formed plan is currently being formulated. It was quite apparent from the hearings with Gen. Petraeus that the members of Congress are just as knowledgeable in military matters as a Four-Star General.

I am sure that somehow the Congress and the Administration a plan can be formed to assure a U.S. victory in Iraq. After all we are all Americans so it stands to reason we all would want America to succeed right?

My final question is in regards to the perceived image of the U.S.

Talk has been made of how this war has damaged the reputation around the world. My question then is this.

What sort of image would be presented to the world if we simply left Iraq without any form of victory?


Would this not show the world that America is easily cowed by those opposed to it? What would the opinion of the U.S. be then if we left Iraq and all that we have been warned about occurring in just such an event in fact came true? (Extreme blood shed, Iran filling the void, etc)

I am sure there are honest answers to all these questions and I and my fellow Americans look forward to hearing them.

Signed,
A concerned citizen.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dark skys on the horizon

The feathered one has returned. ~listens to the crickets~

Its been a couple of months of highs and lows since my last ruffling. From having to help my 12 yo lab/husky get his fur-angel wings to learning I'm going to be a poppa for the first time this July it has been an .. interesting .. few months to say the least. Of course even with my attention elsewhere things have not slowed down in the 'real world', au contraire. 

Of course the biggest issue, at least to a lot of people, is the consternation felt with the apparent 'inevitability' of a John McCain nomination. {I am nominating the inevitable' concept as the over-used term of the last 12 months. After all I seem to recall the inevitability of a Hilary Clinton 'coronation' and a 19-0 Patriots season, but I digress.}

There has been a lot of talk of Conservatives staying home, a 3rd party vote or horror of horrors casting a vote for either head of the two-headed Socialist party.

We are bearing witness to a momentous event in history, and not a pretty one. We are witnessing a concerted effort, consciously or otherwise, to denigrate, suppress, belittle and in general try to relegate Conservative thought, principles and those who have them into irrelevancy. This assault is not a recent development; the signs have been there for some time. It's just been a matter of noticing them. It has been slowly building, just under the radar as it were. It is just now coming to a head. It is as if those seek such a thing are smelling blood in the water and see this as their opportunity to strike one final blow.

There have always been the expected attacks from the media and the Democrats, but it is this recent, and not so subtle, attempt by some to 're-brand' the GOP, to shift it 'towards the center' i.e. become Democrat-lite that I think is assisting in bringing this all to a head.

Living in Minnesota I have seen this first hand with our governor Pawlenty. He is on the front lines of those leading this shift. He along with Arnold and others seem intent on dragging the GOP leftward. Is it really a surprise that Pawlenty is so solidly in McCain's camp?

There are dark clouds on the horizon for those of us who consider ourselves Conservative. With the attacks from within now as well as from with out it leaves only one question. What is going to become of the Republican party?

As things are right now we soon wont have two parties anyway. We have the Demublicans and the Repocrats. They are getting to the point where they are interchangeable. Oh sure one candidate will say something to one group, but then they will say something to another group. Witness the recent John "Really I am a Conservative" McCain.  I have a term for such people, those who say what is needed but then do something completely different. Ideological transvestites. 

Ok so it is looking like we won't have a choice of Candidate that can be considered a Conservative. Now what? Do we hang our heads down, tuck our tails between our legs and stand in line like everyone else waiting for our next check from the Kingdom of D.C.? Or are we actually going to do something?

I myself vote for the latter. Once I get into the voting booth in November if I still am not comfortable voting for the Republican candidate then I won't. Plain and simple. I will however definitely vote for the rest of the ballot. As important as who becomes President so to is it just as important what the make up of Congress is. I stick by my initial reaction a few days after the election of 2006. The Dems do not retain control after 2008. One house? Maybe. Both? No. In a lot of ways the President is like a NFL quarterback. Too much blame when things go bad, and too much credit when things go good.

We get a 'socialist' in the White House? Fine. As long as we have a Republican Congress. We have McCain in there? Then a Republican Congress is also a must. Whereas neither of the Dems would 'ever' consider having a Conservative thought at least with McCain there is at least the chance of a stray Conservative thought.

Of course this would mean we would have to work towards getting Republicans in office who are not ideological cross-dressers, but one step at a time.

It will take a lot of work to survive the upcoming dark days for the GOP but it will be work well worth the effort. As for myself I am getting more involved at the local level. The level where everything begins and where change has to start. I went to my very first caucus, am now the Chairman of my Precinct, a Delegate to our upcoming nominating convention and am on the committee that will be questioning the candidates seeking the nomination of the party for state Representative from our House District. I think that is a good start.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »