Take Back What is Ours

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” is the most important introduction is the history of our fragile country. It sets a precedent for how this country is supposed to operate. We are a democracy, a rule of majority. The Electorate College threatens this ideal and destroys the basic fabric of it means to be a democracy. Make no mistake here; Democracy means that power rests with the citizens and some critics argue that we are a republic. A commonwealth or that power lies within groups (or in our case states). The original intention was a representative democracy to combat the large size of the country but through time we have moved to a republic. State’s rights versus individual rights. Sound familiar? It should, because it is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats (hence the names). A republic has no royal family that governs but it has power in groups, which to me sounds a bit like a dictatorship or an elitist rule. With the terrors of tyranny fresh in the most brilliant minds of colonial America we adopted a new way of life. So much of our “experimental” governmental philosophy is based on the writings of the great John Locke and ancient Greek democracy, like “the consent of the governed” and “a government of the people, by the people, for the people”. A representative democracy means the governed consent to a rule of representatives that govern as the people see fit. But if we aren’t the ones who choose the people to represent us, then whose government is it? Certainly not mine or yours, and since the majority of the people didn’t elect Governor George W. Bush in 2000 causing some to feel that we have been living a lie for the past 8 years. It’s a grave injustice to have a leader of the minority, and certainly a rule of the minority is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The Electoral College is one of the last loopholes that still keep the elite in power over the majority of the people. Locke also said that the governed have the right to rise against the injustices that plagued them if they are the fault of their government. Government is ultimately their creation, so they alone have the power to create and destroy their creation. So we need to act, justified by John Locke and the following logic lets abolish the Electoral College and take control of what is ours once again.
First of all, we must acknowledge the argument against our cause. The Constitution set up the Electoral College. Electors are elected by the state institutions and then they select a president. They are suppose to vote the way the people want but are not bound to their constituency. Some would argue that it would be foolish to desert the method of election created at our country’s foundation. However, this mindset is irrelevant. It was made 230 years ago with that timeframe in mind. We are given the Article V, so that the most important document in our history is not lost to time. The Constitution is given the ability to grow and evolve to fit the current time. Article V states the amendment process so that together the nation is able to enact new laws that fit the present. Certain parts of the Constitution would have to change throughout the course of time. Thomas E. Cornin, author of the foreword for Judith Best’s book Choice of the People?, points out that the Electoral College a temporary compromise, keyword being “temporary”, and later would be amended. The Continental Congress rejected a direct election twice because they feared who the masses might elect. Cronin notes that the delegates “thought it unlikely or impractical for the average citizen to know enough about the candidates from other states, and doubtless, too, most delegates questioned the ability of the people to cast responsible votes” (Cronin ix. The Framers were just hesitated of trusting their judgment, fearing that the public would be tricked by a future corrupt leader. But we based on government on so many of Locke’s ideals and he argues that the government is an institution of the people, and then the only sensible election method is a direct election. The Electoral College has a very meager representative percentage; in some states there are an elector representing 475,000 or more citizens. Even worse, is that the electors can choose to ignore those citizens and vote “the other way”. However, according to the CQ article; “Twenty nine states and the District of Columbia require presidential electors to vote for the candidate who carried the state. Michigan, North Carolina and Utah provide that a ‘faithless elector’-an elector who votes for some other candidate- is not counted and the remaining electors fill the vacancy. New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington provide criminal penalties or fines for violations. But no ‘faithless elector has ever been punished…” (Jost). Anyone who says that that ratio and those electors are a good representation of the people’s will and that ratio and the electoral college is a representation of the fact that the government is an instrument of the people is lying to you, and perhaps more importantly, to themselves. “The president should be a president of the people, not president of the states…” (Cronin Xiii). The people have the right to pick their leaders through a “fair” system that lets them voice their opinion. Even the people who vote (still have some faith in the system to still partake) agree that the system needs to be abolished. According to a Gallup poll in CQ Researcher article titled “Electoral College” two thirds of Americans agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.
Another reason besides the afore mentioned right to elect their leaders and burden the responsibility of choosing their leaders, is that the Electoral College deters democratic processes and shifts power lopsidedly. Stephen Wayne, professor of American Government at Georgetown, argues how the Electoral College affects the election. “The Electoral College stands in the way of a democratic presidential election. In a democracy, all votes are equal, but in the Electoral College all voters are not equally represented. In a democracy, the plurality rules; in the Electoral College it may not. In a democracy, the larger the turnout the greater the mandate, and the more likely elected officials will be responsive to a broader cross-section of their constituency. Not only does the Electoral College lack turnout incentives for the less competitive states, but it clouds the president's electoral constituency and makes its conversion into a governing coalition that much more difficult” (Wayne). Our system favors certain states and parties with unequally represented votes. How Democratic is that? This nation is suppose to have any qualified individual to run but “the Electoral College is likely responsible for the American two-party system, since it encourages broad-based, inclusive parties, and discourages ideological or regional third parties” (Oxford University Press). This is because of the winner-take-all system. In election districts, voters cast their votes for candidates. Who ever wins the state wins all the electoral votes. But the votes are not divided up proportionally according to the percentage, except in two states; Nebraska and Maine divide the electoral votes proportionally (which is a step in the right direction, but not enough). Third parties have to win the state to receive any of the electoral votes. “The process for selecting electors varies State by State. Generally, State political party leaders nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the State party's central committee. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have an affiliation with the presidential candidate” (Congressional Digest). These people are loyal party executives who have gotten to their present situation by the help of the party. They wouldn’t allow for a third party to dethrone their party and their power. So how many electors are there? Straight from the constitution itself: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector” (Congressional Digest). In modern day language that means 538 electors; 100 senators plus 435 representatives and 3 more for D.C. So where are these electors? They are based on population; once again the states have more power over the little states. We are back again to the problem of the Virginia Plan vs. the New Jersey Plan. Statistically, this means that California is 16 times more important than Washington D.C. (54 electors to 3 electors). The capital has less influence on the next president then the state of California. The Electoral College creates winners, highly populated states and the “big 2” parties; and losers, the smaller states (and D.C.) and third parties.
The Electoral College suppresses the very meaning of what it means to be a democracy. The Electoral College was formed only as a temporary compromise ultimately in fear of an ignorant public. It’s irrelevant to think with that mindset because of a public school system. The Electoral College elected 7 Presidents in total that were not chosen by the majority of their constituents and now with the majority of the nation behind our cause, let’s abolish the Electoral College. This way if another ‘dud’ comes through the system, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We should have the responsibility of electing our leaders. The real victims of the Electoral College are not only us but third parties and low populated states. They are discriminated against by the winner-take-all aspect. “The only valid principle of representation is one man, one equally weighted vote. Anything that infers with this is somehow immoral as well as ‘unconstitutional,’ for we are a democracy after all” (Best Pg. 31).
Works Cited
Best, Judith. “The Federal Principle and the Presidency.” The Choice of the People? 1996. Google Scholar Book Search. Oct. 22, 2008. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XlJmZl4RTBkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Abolishing+the+Electoral+College&ots=Uv8XF1YfHj&sig=168K0MZv1uPCGH3YewfSN78MxAY#PPR9,M1

Cronin, Thomas E. The Electoral College Controversy. The Choice of the People. Best, Judith. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1996. Vii-XXV. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XlJmZl4RTBkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Abolishing+the+Electoral+College&ots=Uv8XF1YfHj&sig=168K0MZv1uPCGH3YewfSN78MxAY#PPR9,M1

“If Not Perfect, At Least Excellent: The Electoral College”. OUP Blog. September 24, 2008. Oct. 22,2008. http://blog.oup.com/2008/09/electoral_college/

Jost, Kenneth and Greg Giroux. "Electoral College." CQ Researcher 10.42(2000): 977-1008. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Gardner- Harvey Library, Middletown, OH. 19 Oct. 2008 http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/cqresearcher/cqresrre2000120800

"The Electoral College System." Congressional Digest 87.8 (Oct. 2008): 227-256. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Gardner-Harvey], [Middletown], [OH]. 22 Oct. 2008 https://proxy.lib.muohio.edu/login?source=ebsco&url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34707231&site=ehost-live

Republicans are destroying Democracy

As i sat in a local coffee shop i began to research democracy and republic. I had heard of things words many times over but the real meaning of them was always just out of reach. I was curious and i so i discovered their true meaning. A republic is a rule of citizen groups. A democracy is a rule of individuals. Clearly the latter was the intention of the Founding Fathers. A representative Democracy though because the size of the country presents obvious problems. This definition of a "republic" is intriguing. Lets examine the progression of "democracy" in America over the years. In the very first election, electors were called into a room. They voiced aloud their vote and all were for George Washington. A straight simple Representative Democracy in action. On the polar opposite, today policy is influenced and shaped by interest groups. The larger the interest group the more influence on Congress it will have. There are competing groups all in competition for attention. Even in congressional districts we are put in groups and we are suppose to think, act, believe, and vote the same way as your neighbor. However, there are a lot of dissenting opinions. Its a rule of the majority, but how "fair" is a 51:49 vote. What if the majority honestly and truly does not know best. Republicans advocate for control in group while Democrats argue that power still rests in the hands of the individuals. Lockean liberalism vs. the commonwealth. Initially, this government was set up as a democracy and all interest groups, PACs, and anything that supports group politics is destroying Democracy. Although there is still a side of me that thinks how can a rule of majority work when i can't even trust the judgement of the driver next to me; let alone their judgement of how instruments of government are suppose to work. If they are so blind to religious institutions, how can they open their eyes to global problems? Global problems require global solutions free of bias. If they are convinced that letting corporations run deregulated is in their best interests, then how can i be sure that they know who's interests are being protected by war? Faith still rests with the people, but difference between a person and another one of the masses is intuition.

Campaign Finance

Alienation is defined as the distrust of one's governing body. In the last five decades alienation and distrust of the U.S governments has increased and reach an all-time high. We saw protests during the 60's, reformers of the 70’s, economic lows in the 80's, and apathy takes hold of Americans from then on. American citizens turn to a scapegoat to blame their problems on, which happens to be, the president nearly all the time. People voice their opinions through voting but yet change that we have been promised in the past 4 presidents never came. College students are beginning to enter the "real world" and they are the leaders for “tomorrow’s world”. They are often first, possibly second time voters. They need to be able to make informed decisions about their leaders. However, they end up always picking one of the big two, Republican or Democrat. Not seeing any change from their promised leaders leaves them discouraged, they grown out of the rebellious college student and into the typical American worker, many who don’t vote again.

So why don’t see anyone "new" come fall in an election year? The answer is simple... Money. The candidates who raise the most are usually the ones moving in to the White House come January. The term is called Fiscal Federalism. It mainly pertains to the control of the federal government over states through money and loans but money is the way and means by which the government runs. This year just the top two candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) have raised a combine total of over $560 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 4). In the previous election (2004) the top prospects raised nearly $700 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 1). This is compared to $528 million in the 2000, $425 million in the 1996 election and $331 million in 1992. In 2002, Sen. McCain and Feingold reached across party to accomplish an agreement which became known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It placed limits on donations to candidates and eliminated soft money, yet we still see an increase in spending. There is a general money fund for presidential candidates and once someone has accepted it, those totals become your limits on spending for the ENTIRE campaign. No candidate accepts the federal aid and with the high cost of ad space, the amount is just about inefficient. Buckley v. Valeo (1974) upheld The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which created the FEC, Federal Election Commission. A presidential candidate has to raise $25,000 in small checks of no more than $250 dollars each in 20 states in individual checks just to qualify. All of the money is reported to the FEC, who’s job it is to monitor the election. This process makes sure the presidential hopeful is well-known/respected and so a single state favorite doesn’t end up running. The stipulations set in place by the system offer a good defense against corruption however there is compelling evidence that campaigns are unjustly financed. So we pose the question, “Are presidential campaigns financed justly?” Justly being defined as according to the Constitution and the expectations of the law. The people are knowledgeable of the law and expect the government to comply with those laws, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. People are trusting of the Constitution and the system.

The Founding Fathers, when drafting the Constitution, were wary of a powerful central government so they instituted limits and guidelines to keep the government in check. In 1971 we expanded those restrictions by the creation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. It was the first time that something like this was drafted so naturally it was challenged in court. The Supreme Court upheld that it was not a restriction of free speech and therefore the bill was constitutional. The new law placed limits on donations to candidates for the first time and created the FEC to monitor elections. All money, soft and hard, was to be reported to the FEC to ensure a “fair” race. Soft money is defined as the money given to a PAC (political action committee) and then given to a candidate, whereas hard money is money given straight to a candidate. Hard money was monitored but the soft money wasn’t watched very closely so PACs used to sneak lots of money to candidates that promised to “return the favor”. Also to level the competition there exists a public money fund for candidates to take if they don’t have enough money to wage a decent campaign. Presidents enjoy a lot of free things such as frank mail and not to mention the fact that the media is willing to jump on any interview the candidates are willing to give. But the money general fund helps with things such as commercial ads and campaign managers, spin doctors and speech writers. Some people argue that to completely level the playing field all candidates should have to accept the fund. Why? John Samples is the director of the Center of Representative Government, the Cato Institute, argues that candidates shouldn’t be forced into taking money from the public fund because of the burden it would place on taxpayers and the fact that we don’t have third parties strong enough to run against the 2 major parties. He’s right in that we the people then would have to pay directly for the elections and we haven’t had a legitimate 3rd party candidate since Ross Perot in ’88 and ’92. Even then, he didn’t accept the fund and financed his campaign on his own means. Before him the last “real” third party was the Bull Moose Party in the early 1920’s with Teddy Roosevelt. Then in 2002 Arizona Senator John McCain and Russ Feingold from Wisconsin set aside party differences to create the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This bill furthered the limits placed by the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Also, with this new bill came the elimination of soft money. Even the process of elections is a deterrent for corruption.

There are always two sides to every story. The Founding Fathers did draft the blueprints of our government to evolve but the original framework was created in 1786 for 1786. Lets just examine the records for the past couple of elections. 1976, $171 million was spent, 1980 $161.9 million, 1984 $202 million, 1988 $324 million, 1992 $331 million, 1996 $425 million, 1998 $528.9 million, and 2004 $880.5 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 1). First of all why do we see an exponential increase in the late 80’s to the present? Spending $100 million in the late 70’s to early 80’s is very miniscule compared to spending an average of roughly $541 million for 1990’s to present? According to Samples in his negative view of the public fund, “…federal law has permitted taxpayers to earmark a portion of their taxes for the presidential election campaign fund. Only about 7 percent of Americans do so” (Samples 2). So if only 7% of Americans donate to the election campaign fund, then how do candidates raise $880.5 million dollars if they don’t accept the public fund? They don’t finance the race themselves and since only 7% of people are willing to donate money for able candidates, I can’t imagine they will be too willing to donate anything more. Most of the candidates refuse the fund because it becomes the limit once you accept that money. But the lesser known fact about the fund that most will neglect to tell you is the only way to be eligible for the fund is that you must have received 5% of the electoral votes in the previous election. With a winner take all system, anyone that doesn’t run under the label Democrat or Republican will lose. Even though the majority of Americans consider themselves as independents. Also the new “hot” thing to do to undermine the system is the creation of ‘527’s. These are new organizations just like PAC’s but don’t fall under the limits of PACs because they aren’t defined as PACs. Money makes everything better and easier. Just look at our recent presidents. What has qualified some of these people to become leaders of our nation? Current President Bush barely made it through college and has been labeled as a “draft dodger”. Even the scandal with former President Clinton, what kind of image does that convey not just his constituents but the rest of the world. President Reagan was an actor! Actors are actors, they perform for a living. They are not politicians who have experience or grown up as lawyers, political science scholars, or local leaders (such as mayors or governors). Even now we can see that you don’t need to be qualified as long as you can convince people as a great orator and you have the money to back it up. Half of that money comes from the government. Candidates receive money called matching funds that are separate from the public fund. For each individual contribution, candidates can petition the government to match the total of those contributions. And with no real spending limits candidates run rampaged. Distrust in the government is higher than ever before, and it’s easy to explain why. People may vote depending on what they see in a campaign. Once the president takes office and the honeymoon period is over we see their “true colors”. The voters become disappointed with their pick.

There are political arguments over the number of different eras our government has been through. 4 or 5? I say we have been through 5 different eras because the present begins our newest era, the era where the central government’s main focus is money. Fiscal Federalism. I don’t know if the lust for money has spilled over in the election process or if the system is enough to control and monitor it. The money being spent to put under qualified candidates into office is colossal but then again the 2 campaign reform bills and the FEC are formed just to regulate the elections. I don’t know which it could be or if it could ever be proven but all I know that government (on all levels) is about politics and the games they play.


Works Cited

Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates. Chart. Banking on Becoming President and 2004 Presidential Race. By The Center for Responsive Politics. Washington DC http://www.opensecrets.org/org/pres04/index.php?cycle=2004


Samples, John. “Electing the President? Should presidential campaigns be financed by public fund?
(Con)” CQ Researcher 17 (2007):

I Know the Pieces Fit

Knowledge is not key... But learning is. Knowledge is only a retroactive process, i believe that hinders you from reaching that so-called "next level" of intelligence. I believe that while in the process of learning the unthinkable is possible. Look at the current technology in contrast to the mindset of hundred of years ago. All inventions started in the process of learning how to materialize an application of an idea. The book "The Einstein Factor" written by Dr. Win Wenger, who has more than 25 yrs experience in the field of accelerated learning, notes that glial cells, axons and dendrites are the key components for the connections between neurons (brain cells) which have, according to an experiment by Marian Diamond showed to increase intelligence. We can also attribute a longer lifetime to this phenomena. We should never be satisfied with just what we know, but we should always strive to know more. There is enough mystery to the physical and metaphysical world to always keep wondering. I, myself, like to ponder music which is an artist's interpretation of the oneness. The oneness is the summation of everything but the biggest barrier to the oneness is the mind. Drugs, like LSD and cocaine stop the brain and allows the oneness energy to flow. Personally, the best band to listen to is Tool. As author Erhart Tolle explains to us in his books, the human society is a collective conscious rather than groups of individuals. If that is true, then we can recognize the oneness flowing through other channels (ie other people). Much as koans were used by zen masters, Tool using their music to silence the mind and listen to the flow of energy that connects us all. Learning and learning how to "turn off the mind" make us more intelligent people and bring us closer to 'god'.

Work

Let’s be honest here… I HATE WORK!!! Its no secret or joke, and millions of other people feel the same way. I was on my way to work one day and I was sitting outside eating lunch with my girlfriend. She posed the question almost rhetorically, “why do you have to work today?” It dawned on me that I was there by choice and on that day I didn’t want to make that choice. So, I quit. Best decision ever, I was instantly liberated. Ultimately if you dissolve yourself from a situation, and see it through a third-person view you observe that you make the choice everyday to work and do the things we don’t want to do. As we fall into a habit it becomes easier because we blame it on the habit and we think we have to do it. People have always told me to “suck it up”, “you’ll survive”. They are right we do adapt but as a species the “modern world” and its lifestyle has crept up on us too fast for us to adapt to a faster pace. So, then again it comes down to choice. It’s your happiness and mental wellbeing, not mine. I have already made up my mind, it’s your turn.

The TOE Theory

The TOE theory is the idea that the big toe contains the secret to… Just kidding!! The TOE theory has nothing to do with your toes, but in fact the letters T-O-E stand for Theory Of Everything. For scientists this is the pinnacle of their studies. It would be a theory that encompasses well… everything. It links everything together and it truly is the secret of the universe. Scientists do everything in their power to discover this final theory. They search high and low thinking they have meaning to their life if they find it. Well, I have found it. Simply, open your ears and listen to the people around. The ultimate truth is hidden between the lines of everyone’s words. For example, think about how many times you quote movies. Hollywood writers come up with some of the most profound truths. And secondly, if you practice an established religion, honestly ask yourself “why”? “Why did I choose this one?” “Why do I still practice?” You chose that particular practice because deep down in the pit of your essence you feel a bit of truth. You want to hold on it, so you become slaves to the institutions, the practice becomes more of a habit than a self-discovery or what happens you become more distant from what originally want. The Chinese believe that polar opposites are pairs of the same substance. Hot and cold, rich and poor, and other opposites have the same “roots” if you will. Heat and cold come from the transfer of heat and the rich and poor come from human greed. They also believe that to become something you must start at the opposite. To become strong, you must become weakened. To become wealthy, you must become poor. So in order to understand the nature of things, stop looking. Stop everything and just listen.

Zeitgeist

Watch the Zeitgeist movie at the link below.
1.) The Zeitgeist Movie
2.) Zeitgeist:Addendum
It is probably better and more helpful to watch the movies in chronologically order as shown above. That is a base to which you may spring yourself onto my level.

[As you watch, please be considerate of what they are saying. If you reject their notion before you hit the play button then you aren't even watching the movie. You will have just wasted 2 hrs and 7 mins of your time. And you will find that i hate waste.]