Demolocke's Caveat

Caveat: Please make note that this article/post is my personal analysis of the subject and the information used was chosen or picked by me. It is not an analysis piece because it lacks complete and comprehensive research, it was not adequately and completely investigated and it is not balanced, i.e., it is my personal view without the views of others including subject experts, etc. Look at this as “Infotainment rather then expert research.” This is an opinion/editorial article/post meant to persuade the reader to think, decide and accept or reject my premise. It is an attempt to cause change or reinforce attitudes, beliefs and values as they apply in life. It is merely a commentary on the subject in the particular article presented.


This article is mine and mine alone. I the author of this article assure you, the reader, that any of the opinions expressed here are my own and are a result of the way in which my meandering mind interprets a particular situation and/or concept. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of other professionals or authors of source materials. It should be quite obvious that the sources I used herein have not approved, endorsed, embraced, friended, liked, tweeted or authorized this article. (Everything I think and write is true, within the limits of my knowledge and understanding. Oh, and just because I wrote it and just because it sounds reasonable and just because it makes sense, does not mean it is true.)


Finally, it is incumbent that the reader take any information they feel is relevant and useful and perform an in-depth analysis of it to work out its value to the reader. It is also stressed that the reader also present the information to qualified professionals/experts so that his or her expertise and experience can also analyze the information to validate and then synthesize said information into their ideas, theories or facts/information either as is or as synthesized into something new and creative.


Oh, it is pronounced "Dem-Locke."

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

The Electoral System

Demolocke’s Agenda Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)

The New York Times stated, “Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules, ‘the editorial said,’ but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy." This is pretty darn immature of them and just goes to show, if true -  do a fact find on this one as it was published by “The Hill,” that they don’t really know and understand the constitution and its associated Federal Papers written by the authors of the constitution. Both popular votes and the electoral system, if not bastardized by the very people we choose to elect, are meant to balance it out. 

For instance, would you want to elect Justin Bieber if the majority of voters decided they wanted him and he got the majority vote? It is possible because if he ran and his fan base got all emotionally involved that could happen. Ridding ourselves of the system that has and does work is not a good answer but fixing the electoral system and putting it into a fair and equitable form for our modern times is a better option. 

This article, if true, is agenda driven and imposes cognizant dissonance on those who read it just by saying the New York Time says when in truth fact finding may show the NY Times never said that or said more and that part was redacted. 



Now, although the NYT said some of the above as I indicated they did say more, i.e., “There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.”

In short, in my perception, it is not about ridding us of the electoral system but changing it, as I said, into something that aligns a bit more with the popular vote while keeping the original spirit of the constitution so that if Justin were given the popular vote those electoral votes, by state, could then do their function to make sure Justin doesn’t reach the white house. I am sure withe the intelligence this country has we can come up with a solution like this or similar to fix a perceive issue of popular vs. electoral. I can’t help but think that there is still something missing in all this stuff. 

Truthfully, I don’t think we should put any type of labels on the votes such as, “The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity.” I don’t believe putting either or a demographic or geographic twist on the electoral vote to the states achieves a goal that allows us a better system, it just takes away one bad way and puts another potentially ‘discriminatory and detrimental’ way on the system. 

If we understood the populations in relation to the states, assigned electoral votes accordingly and then aligned the popular vote with that state by state electoral so all citizens are balanced with electoral votes then this campaign by state process disappears because any number of states accordingly would then provide the electoral votes, etc. (100 people in a state get 100 votes and say the electoral system gives one electoral vote per 100 voters then the state gets one electoral vote so if you get the majority of electoral votes then regardless of state but if the popular vote is 1,000 vs. 100 the popular vote gives the candidate 100 electoral votes to the opponents 1 electoral vote. 


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)