On the Electoral College and Tenth Amendment

Your vote in every Presidential Election is meaningless. Wait, that is partly untrue. Your vote for a Presidential candidate actually selects a majority party with a bloc of pre-approved voters from that party who then are expected (not necessarily required) to vote for said majority party's candidate. In most states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, this is true. In actuality, most states simply look at who won the popular majority in their state and then all of the electoral votes from that state then go to that candidate (as described above).

From the Constitution and subsequent amendments (amendments 12 and 23), each state's total number of electors is equal to the sum of their congressional members (for the House of Representitives) and Senators (for the Senate). The minimum number of electors is 3 (two Senators and one Reprentitive), which is the case in Alaska, Montana and Vermont, and the maximum number of electors are currently in California (55), Texas (38) and New York (29). Add in the 23rd Amendment, which states the District of Columbia shall have a minimum number of electors as the least reprented state (in this case Alaska, Montana and Vermont to name a few), and now D.C. has three electoral votes.

I just threw a bunch of numbers and information your way, so let's take a breather and break that down. We know there are 538 total Electors. That comes from 435 (for equivalent House of Representitve members) plus 100 (for equivalent Senate members) plus 3 (for D.C.). We also know an absolute majority is required to win, which in this case, is 270 Electoral votes. In cases where no candidate wins the required majority, or 270 votes, other contingencies come into play and I will not go into them here.

The Electoral College was originally envisioned to keep the national government under control of a federalist system. Indeed, the Constitution has a number of built in controls whereby the national government is theoretically limited in its power. The foundation of this limitation is the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. Historically, since the 1880s and more so since The Great Depresion, the Supreme Court has favored the expansion of power of the Federal Government (both the Legislative and Executive branch) by ruling against both individual citizen and State challenges to the increased authority of the Federal Government. Congress usually uses the Commerce Clause or Necessary & Proper Clause to do what it thinks is for the well being of the nation. The Supreme Court, in these cases, usually goes with the "almost" principle (you know, "almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades ... and to cases pertaining to the Federal Government's powers where a sliver of written power is used to legislate behaviors beyond what the Constitution was intended for).

The Congress usually offers monetary compensation for States participation in proposed national standards. For a long time, 55 mph was the so-called National Speedlimit becaue the Federal Government would with-hold transportation monies (for interstate roads, aviation and rail projects) if said state did not adopt their own legislation making 55 mph the speed limit law in their boundries. Ditto with the 21 year old drinking age and .08 blood alcohol limit. Occasionally, and more often in recent history, the legislative and executive branches pass or enact national standards without significant or any monetary compensation such as immigration reform (the onus is on the states to provide welfare and health care monies to the illegal immigrant) or the national health care reform (there are no tax breaks for a majority of citizens who previously chose not to have health care because they do not have deductions exceeding the "standard" deduction already given).

Currently, it is my contention that the different branches of the Federal Government have thrown themselves out of sync with their partner branches and with the American people. In the proverbial and literal sense, one branch does not always know what the other branch is doing. Unfortunately, the average American also has blinders. With the self sustaining juggernaut the national government has become, the average American only cares about collecting their pay check, watching their TV and whipping out their credit card.

If the antiquated Electoral College is increasingly defended under Federalist principles and the Tenth Amendment is increasingly disregarded, then I propose a change to the Electoral College. In the first paragraph, I make note of Nebraska and Maine not assigning all their electoral votes to one candidate, but instead, dole them out based on the popular vote. Perhaps the voters of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego shouldn't carry California. Perhaps the voters of Chicago shouldn't carry all of Illinois. Perhaps all states should assign their Electoral College votes to the top three vote recipients in the their state.

It is apparent our state governments and federal representitives do not have the ability to hold back the growing bulk of the national government. Perhaps with this electoral change our Federalist system will represent the people.

Tales of Ice T and the Cheeseburger Monster

In case you missed it, Yahoo featured news articles about Ice T's presidential prediction and Paula Deen scarfing down a cheese burger.

Social media, politics and the internet all have one thing in common: they do very well reflecting the worst of humanity as a mirror would reflect all horror of a fat person in skinny clothes. Has our society really sunk so low that we'd be interested in what a washed up rapper has to say about politics? Or that some poor cooking personality with fat person diabetes is eating food that is bad for them?

Perhaps the issue is a little more complex. Perhaps we, as an online society, are known to be into some stupid shit so now internet purveyors of news and other social discourse are simply supplying us with more stupid shit.

I don't need to know that Deen was eating a cheese burger and had fries on her plate. I don't need to know that she is putting another nail in her coffin. The fact that she has a cooking show and that Anthony Bourdain considers her the worst and most irresponsible cooking personality on TV is of no importance to me. I do need to know why her food choices are relevant to me.

I don't need to know that Ice-T and his wife are making a movie. I don't need to know that Ice-T opines about Hillary Clinton being a G or that he's making his directing debut. It's mildly amusing to know that Ice-T hasn't had a gold or platinum record since 1993. I need to know why Ice-T is relevant today and, on a side note, why his wife thinks it's cool to be orange.

What you may have missed out on was there was a new study published about the correlation of low IQ, conservative beliefs being linked to prejudice. Studies, in my opinion, are a lot of guess work based on extensive observation with a preconceived notion (read that as "hypothesis"). Typically, this is called the scientific process, but in most cases, it is a sham depending on the motives of those involved. Henceforth in this post, low IQ will be called an idiocy.

There is a definite, non-scientific link between idiocy and prejudice. People who don't know better and are bigots, statistically speaking, will balance out the idiots who think everything and everyone is wonderful. Though I disagree with the underlying, implied results (Yahoo spins it one way while the researchers totally contradict Yahoo's spin), this kind of "news" is far more important than Paul's cheese burger or Ice T's directing debut (and orange wife).

In everything you read or hear, question the motives of the source. If you are not, you are contributing to stupidity.

A Primer to the Primer

I am not sure what I am looking to accomplish with this blog other than to have a personal venue in which to vent. That other people do or do not read this is mostly of no consequence to me. Typically, a post on this web page will fall into one or more of four categories: educational, you're wrong because ..., bullshit, or WTF. Before you give me any shit, this post is an exception to the category system.

From time to time, people other than me will post on this blog and, where applicable, it will be noted. I do not want this blog to be solely my own view point. Blogs, in my opinion, are a public, online diary that are supposed to show growth, not simply be a platform for someone's static view point. Besides reading blogs and interacting with a diverse population of humanity, the best way to grow is to challenge your beliefs.

I've been told that I am can be a negative person. While I do indeed fit that description sometimes, I prefer to think of myself as human. Everyone has multiple facets ... except for political radio and TV commentators. When choosing to respond to anything I write, please, respond in a constructive way. It is my understanding that I can be inflammatory. If you can over look how I am saying something and instead focus on what I am saying, then I will try to do the same for you.