Paid My Dues

 .
One of the hotbed political issues for Republicans and Conservatives in 2011 (I list these groups separately because all Republicans are not Conservative and many Conservatives are not Republican) is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to join a union in order to participate in certain parts of the economy.  There is likewise a feeling that even such participation should not force one to pay dues to an organization that they either did not and would not join if they had an actual choice in the matter, and that they feel does not represent them in spite of the money that they are forced to contribute.  I could not agree with these sentiments.

How is it then that the greatest offenders on a national scale are many of those same politicians?  Oh, don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that there is a 'politicians union' operating in this country, in spite of the fact that they have much of the same negotiating philosophies with their bosses; and seem perfectly willing to let their job provider (us) go down the tubes as long as they are in a position to collect their healthy compensation & pension packages. There are in fact however, two national organizations that seem to follow many of the same practices as those that (at least on the right) they demonize. 

How else am I to view Democrats and Republicans?  Both of these national organizations, like Unions, normally require proper affiliation before they offer preferred treatment and seek to help you.  Even when membership requirements have been established, they provide only limited assistance when seeking a job (and less than that for Republicans in Lucas County, Ohio).  Both insist on demonstrations of loyalty before power and responsibility are granted within their ranks.  Both seem perfectly content to sacrifice one of their 'brethren' if such sacrifice in turn protects their own position. Both often cause a great deal of damage in the process of exercising their real or imagined power. Neither appears willing to allow secret ballot when voting; and neither appears to be above twisting the truth or using strong arm tactics to see their ends met.

There is a difference however.  Unions at least, only charge their members dues, and do not insist on all of us paying for their internal elections.

How else am I to view the coming 2012 primary season?  While we are told that this is simply the process of picking presidential election contenders, the truth of the matter is that it's no more or less than picking representatives of the two major political parties. As much as members would like us to believe that they are a part of the government, they aren't.  Therefore the picking of their representatives for a political contest is their own responsibility.  Yet over the years, voters in states across the country have become convinced that it is the responsibility of EVERY TAXPAYER to foot the bill for a part of internal party politics.

Argue if you will that the primary process is necessary, such arguments do not make the process of billing the taxpayer for it any less egregious and unfair.  How can it be unfair you say, when all allowed to vote?  Really?  Try voting in a Republican or Democratic primary in many of these contests if you are a registered Libertarian or Independent.  In spite of the fact that all of us are paying for this process, many of us (in what should be considered an obvious case of voter disenfranchisement) will not be allowed to participate, since we haven't joined one of the two big clubs.

Of course we are told that if such restrictions aren't imposed, that members of opposing parties will sabotage elections.  I'm sure that those attempting to enforce 'Jim Crow Laws' had similar defenses used in justification for their deplorable behavior in restricting the right of a citizen to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The possibility of misuse of the right to vote however, has never been seen as legal justification to restrict its exercise.  If the concern for abuse is so great, why not let each voter select a representative from each major political party and let such potential damage (and benefit) be shared equally?  This at the very least, might produce candidates that represent the views of the majority of those exercising the right to vote in such events, rather than the majority of those supporting the political party in question.

Ah, but while such a revision to the process might better serve the people footing the bill, it does not serve the greater goals of the parties themselves.  Apparently Republicans and Democrats do not want the opinions of every citizens (much as they need them in general elections), only those 'loyal to the party'. Well I'm sick of it; and I'm going to keep bringing this up until somebody starts paying some attention to what's going on.  Since it seems that the only way to get attention for an evil in this country (real or perceived) is to complain about it constantly until someone finally does something about it to shut you up, I am going to do so.

After all, it's not as if I haven't earned the right to do so.  If you counted up all of my taxes wasted in the name of Democratic and Republican primaries, you could certainly say that I've paid my dues ...


.

A Curious Celebration of Democracy

While many us have been focusing on the frenetic movement of the stock market, the dwindling value of our retirement portfolios, and the rising national debt; yet another movement has been afoot almost out of sight to subvert the intentions of the Founding Fathers. As reported by McClatchy Newspapers in the Kansas City Star, California Governor Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation that could potentially place Founders' view of the Electoral College in dire jeopardy. 

How can this be, you ask?  Isn't the Electoral College specified in the Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2?  (I know, you didn't have a clue how the Electoral College came about.  Fortunately for you, I carry a leather-covered pocket edition of this document with me at all times.)  In fact this bit of the Constitution does address how many Electors each state gets, and allows each state legislature to decide how they are chosen.  There are subsequent entries in the 12th and 23rd Amendment covering other aspects of the College.  How those Electors vote after a national election is held however, is something entirely different.

Electors are in fact free to vote for anyone eligible to be President.  Traditionally, Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote of their respective states or for the winner of their respective electoral district (at least on the first ballot).  The idea that the Founders proposed with the formation of the Electoral College was much in keeping with their thinking behind the bicameral legislature created in the same document.  By using the Electoral College as a buffer, they hoped to provide some form of balance between the more populous larger states and smaller ones.  Using the electoral system has allowed swing states like Ohio (20 electors) or Michigan (17 electors) to play at least as much a role as Florida (27 electors), Texas (34 electors), or California (55 electors).  (The fact that none of these states existed at the time that the Constitution was written speaks volumes as to the wisdom of their decision and the Founders ability to deal with future eventualities.) 

Of course the interstate compact now signed by Governor Brown we are told, "would take effect only if states controlling a majority of the nation's electoral votes agree."  I guess that this would make this the a 'pile on the winner' law allowing the votes of other states to influence the electoral vote of CA. Eight states and the District of Columbia have now signed on to this potential compact, an agreement which the article goes on to point out now encompasses "almost half of the electoral votes proponents need".  Certainly this legislation has the potential to create more direct ties to the popular vote ( which is a good thing if you're a state with a population the size of California's).

Now there have been calls to do away with the Electoral College before, most recently after the election of 2000, when George W Bush failed to gain a plurality of the popular vote.  Opponents of the Electoral College claimed that election results like that of 2000 subvert the democratic process and fail to provide a true popular mandate for an elected leader (though it must be admitted that they did at least provide us protection against a potential President Al Gore).  What they fail to point out or perhaps even recognize, is that while we do have the popular vote, the United States is not and never has been a Democracy, but a Representative Republic. The Electoral College was just another in a series of well-thought-out concepts to protect the minority rights in this country from being trampled the 'will of the mob'. (Something that this measure might be overlooking, if not actively subverting.)

California's interest in throwing its 55 vote weight around should be of no surprise to anyone, as they have long felt slighted by the national voting process.  Having their polls closing 3 hours after those of the East Coast and with election coverage by 24-hour news networks calling states while CA is still voting has sometimes caused this bastion of the progressive thinking to find itself extraneous to the decision-making process.  

It's interesting however that these so-called Defenders of Democracy see this as progress towards portraying the will of the people.  If this legislation is followed through on, it would in fact allow California to, "award the state's electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate California voters choose".  One might think it a rather curious contradiction that California and it co-signers would seek to extol the value and virtues of true democracy by potentially subverting the will of the popular vote in their states.