Electoral College- Editorial

We hear certain phrases all the time nowadays. Phrases like "red state" and "blue state" are thrown around casually by pundits and radio commentators all the time. Pretty much everyone knows the meaning of them, too; if your state is branded "red," it is leaning towards the Republicans, and if it's "blue," it's going to the Democrats. Even after all of the states have been categorized individually, the pundits start grouping entire regions together. Who that's reading this hasn't been lead to believe that the South is one single Republican voting entity?

So the question that many people eventually come to is reasonable. If my state or region is already pretty much decided, then why should I bother to vote anyways? People realize that because of the electoral college system in Presidential elections, no matter how many votes a candidate wins by in any particular state, they still win the same number of electoral votes.

Due to this system we use, people in "safe" states feel that their votes don't even matter. There are certain reasons that the electoral college was created in the first place. James Madison argued that the system kept in line with the Federalist nature of our country, giving some electoral power to the people and some to the states, while some at the Constitutional Convention feared elections would become too volatile if left completely to the states, with each delegation always voting for a "hometown" candidate. Both are legitimate arguments, but in my mind both seem outdated.

As we've seen numerous times, the Constitution is a living document. The reason people like Jefferson and Madison included ways to modify it serves as enough example that they knew it wasn't perfect. It was meant to change with the times, to a certain degree, while still retaining the same core principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There are plenty of arguments against an Electoral College, and many legislators are beginning to listen to the complaints of angry voters. The system we have now makes the national popular vote irrelevant. At face value that might not sound like a bad thing, since nearly ever single winner of the national popular vote has also become President. Yet in the elections of 1876, 1888, and most famously, 2000, the person with the most total votes was not elected.

The irrelevance of the national popular vote is bad, but not as bad as the different situations the electoral college creates amongst the states. If you're a candidate, and you already know that you're going to win a certain state, since it has always voted for people like you in the past, why would you campaign there? Why would you pay special attention to their interests? You would most likely pay the most attention to those "toss up" states that we hear so much about, giving those states much more influence in Presidential elections, thus betraying the federal nature of our constitution.

So if you ever hear your parents saying they aren't voting because "my vote doesn't matter," don't be so quick to assume they are apathetic to the election in general. It is quite possible that they are at least partially correct. The electoral college discourages voter turnout in states like Connecticut. The Supreme Court has held that each American is entitled to one vote, equal in value to any other American. It's a shame it doesn't always seem that way.

Sarah Palin's Experience?

As you all know, Sarah Palin has been chosen as McCain's running mate. As you also know, one of the main things that McCain is running on is his experience. He claims Obama is bad because he is inexperienced. I didn't know much about Palin until recently, while Biden is a seasoned member of Congress and very experienced. This is the experience that Palin has brought to the Republican ticket.

First off, Sarah Palin is currently the governor of Alaska, which the McCain campaign is quick to point out is "the biggest state in the country." Yes, but it only has a population of about 670,000. To compare, my home state of Connecticut has about 3,510,000. So yes, being a governor is a hard job, but Palin only had about 1/5 of the citizens that Jodi Rell is responsible for. Also, she has only been the governor for less than two years (20 months, to be exact). Before that, she was the "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" for a year, which I know little about, but it is definitely not executive experience. She was on the town council of Wasilla, a town with about 8,000 people in it, for 4 years. She then became its mayor, which she did for 6 years.

How do these things qualify her to be a vice president? She has no degree in anything to do with politics (she majored in journalism), has never been involved in national government, and has zero foreign policy experience (and no, FOXNEWS, being near Russia does not count as foreign policy experience). What is it that she is helping McCain to do? Is this just an attempt to consolidate the Hillary Clinton supporters who went over to the McCain camp after Obama won the nomination? McCain's reasoning is material for another blog.

And yes, it is important to question Palin's experience. Not because experience is important, but because it is what the McCain campaign has been preaching this entire election season. If they can't hold up to their own standards, whose standards will they follow?

PS thank you to Connor Mullen for providing a lot of the info.

A Real Unifying Move

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are claiming to be presidents who will reach across the aisle, nonpartisan, more loyal to their country than their party, or even "mavericks." They also both claim that Washington is broken, that they will get rid of partisan gridlock and get the nation moving again. It sounds like they both have the same goal, to keep Congress from being stuck in a non-productive rut.

And what is one of the major factors that keeps Congress from getting anything done? The presidential veto. The president can block a bill, agreed upon by Congress, from becoming a law with a simple signature (or maybe he draws a big X through it. I'm not sure about the actual technique of the veto). Congress is theoretically able to override vetoes with a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate. This requires more debate, time that could be spent on other issues. OVerrides are very hard to accompish, and only 4% of all of the vetoes in history have been overridden (source). Vetoes may not be the only thing keeping Congress from getting anything done, but they are definitely a factor.

This whole practice of partisan vetoes started with Andrew Jackson (correct me if I'm wrong). Before him, the veto was only used if a bill was deemed unconstitutional by the president. But Jackson vetoed anything he didn't agree with, starting the practice that continues to this day. George W. Bush has made a total of 12 vetoes, including 2 bills that would re-authorize an existing children's healthcare program, 2 that would allow more stem cell research, and 1 that would ban waterboarding.

To me, Congress represents the people much more than the president, and that the president shouldn't block bills that Congress has decided upon unless they are unconstitutional. The partisan veto has been a non-issue for far too long and it deserves to be talked about in the mass media. How about one of these "mavericks" changes the course of history and promises not to use their veto power for partisan agendas? That would really set them apart as willing unify the country and get it moving again.

Overkill in the Defense Budget

Alright everyone, I'd like to show you all a video I came across. Yes, it's a cartoon. Yes, it stars one of the guys from Ben&Jerry's ice cream. Yes, he uses Oreos in it to represent spending. I won't deny that it's quite simplified.

But simplification is what we need for the issue of the budget. It's so gigantic that he has to use one cookie to represent TEN BILLION DOLLARS. The Pentagon receives 40 cookies, or 400 BILLION DOLLARS per year. Just watch the video to see how much other things get.

And for all you people who believe that we shouldn't completely shut the Pentagon off of all federal funds, which I assume is most of us, you'll like his solution. He doesn't say to take all of the Pentagon's money, or half, or even a quarter. He proposes that we simply take 5 "cookies" (50 billion dollars, or 1/8 of the Pentagon's budget), to help schools, feed every hungry child ON THE PLANET, and even more. I don't see why the country has to spend so much on "defense" when we have more problems than that.

Check out the video and comment on what you think about it.

And just to tell everyone, I'm not basing all of my beliefs on this one video that I've stumbled upon. It's short, it's cute, and it's informative. But it definitely doesn't replace reading up on the subject, which I have done. Here's a great book I'm currently reading about American militarism and how ridiculously high Defense spending is:

http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805070044