Ready for a new “Old Glory”?

Puerto Rico approves statehood ballot measure

Passing almost unnoticed in the U.S. media, the citizens of Puerto Rico have taken a major step. For the first time, a majority of the residents of the self-governing U.S. commonwealth have approved a ballot measure that tells its government to go ahead and seek statehood status.

This could happen, I am not saying that it will or it won’t, but the possibilities are fascinating.

President Obama already has said (apparently) that he would look favorably upon such a request from the Puerto Ricans, but the real hurdle lies in Congress. Any statehood has to pass congressional muster before it can go into to effect. The last time it happened in the late 1950s when Congress approved the addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states, thus changing Old Glory’s constellation from 48 stars to 50 stars (with a brief interlude with 49 stars)

Should Puerto Rico become a state:

That would mean the number of Senators would rise to 102, to accommodate its two new members

But would it mean that the House would rise to 436 members? Good question. Or would the House have to be reapportioned to accommodate the new representative. (Of course, maybe Puerto Rico would qualify for more than one House member)

Then there would be the flag issue. How do you arrange 51 stars on the canton? Go figure.

People do so love their conspiracies

GOP is stealing elections

I do so love progressives and their belief that if they aren’t winning then it obviously is the result of a conspiracy.

According to the British, a retired American National Security Agency (NSA) analyst proves that the GOP has been stealing elections Arizona, since the state has gone computerized vote counting and machines.

The premise of this person’s argument is that the larger the precinct the more the vote count is skewed electronically toward a particular candidate (favored by the Republican Party elite, which apparently have corrupted the software). From what I gathered from the story, the assumption is that a candidate’s support should be a flat line, rather than one that gyrates wildly from precinct to precinct. Having covered a plethora of elections over four decades (most without the benefit of voting machines, which have been around for more than a century), I find his thesis a bit strange. If you plot precinct by precinct totals, your graph most likely is going to gyrate rather wildly, especially as larger precincts report in. This is not a conspiracy. This is reality.

My progressive friend out west who provided the above link, says to drive them crazy and vote anybody but Republican. But, if “they” control the software, then it shouldn’t matter who you vote for, the result is predetermined. So, what he is telling you doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Of course, there is the usual conspiracy nonsense about all the voting machine makers being in the hip pocket of the Republicans, but does that explain the documented reports of machine malfunctions in some Eastern states that were switching votes to the Democratic candidate.

Granted, paper ballots are – to a point – the most secure way of casting ballots. Of course, there is a long history of stuffed ballot boxes, lost boxes, found boxes, etc.

It would seem to me that it would take some really sophisticated programming to go without detection, at least at the levels I witnessed over the years.

I am not saying it is not possible. I am saying I am tired of progressives trying to discredit the election process before it even happens.

Assault on the Electoral College

Electoral votes not equal

How the Electoral “College” system works

It seems, of late, we go through this spasm – mainly by progressives – over the U.S. Constitution’s specifications for electing a president. You see, according to them, it is not “democratic” (it was never designed to be that way) and not everyone’s vote is equal (which is true).

You see, when you vote president in November, you really are not voting for one of the candidates but, in 48 states and the District of Columbia, you really are voting for a slate of “electors” who are pledged to vote for the candidate who gets the plurality of votes in your state. Two states apportion their electors by congressional district with two going to the candidate who receives the plurality of votes in the state.

Note: I said plurality and not majority. There is a major difference. A majority would be 50 percent of the votes cast plus 1, while a plurality merely means the candidate got more than any of the other candidates on the ballot (and remember you will see more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney among your presidential selection choices when you step into that voting booth. Not that you would know it from what you see and read in the most of the media. The other candidates have been deemed by said gatekeepers of the news to be “unwinnable” and hence not worthy of coverage. Ain’t that a hoot and a self-fulfilling prophecy? Also note that at least one candidate, Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states and possibly all 50, if the Libertarian Party’s court challenges keeping them off the ballot are successful).

Now, there is a movement afoot to have states agree to allocate all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, but then what would be the point of having states? Note that this is being pushed in states where the Democratic Party has control of the legislatures.

Now, why do we have an “Electoral College”? Surprise, it is a compromise. You see there were those who wanted the president to be elected by popular vote, but enough of the wise people who wrote the constitution were too wary of “the Mob” and the vagaries of popular emotions to go that route. Others wanted the president to be selected by Congress, but then that would leave the president beholden like a prime minister to the congressional faction that elected him, which most likely would be from the Big States to the detriment of the Small States. So, like the Congress, which represents both the states and the people (before popular election of Senators, but they still represent their states at-large), a compromise was struck that each state would get the number of representatives and senators it had in Congress. Since the minimum number is three (two senators and one house member) and the maximum number of House representatives is 435, then some votes carry more weight in terms of popular support than others. Consider that the District of Columbia, which is not a state, also gets three, you can see why the Small States like the current setup.

Now, it was left to the states to decide how to select their “electors” and most choose to do it by allocating all of them to the winner by a plurality in a statewide ballot of qualified voters. Unfortunately, when you do that, sometimes (as in 1876, 1888 and 2000) someone who didn’t win the nationwide popular vote ends up being president. Note that is not unusual for a president to be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, in fact, that really is the norm.

However, there has been one instance, where a president won the popular vote and led in the Electoral College (but did not have a majority and in the Electoral College vote you have to have a majority) but ended up not being president. That’s ok, he got his revenge and was elected four years later and basically revamped how the executive branch was run.

Now, if it was just left to the popular vote, candidates basically could write off most of the states and the nation and focus merely on a few big cities. Sweep those, and you got the popular vote in the bag. But that is not what this country is about. It is a federal republic and not a democracy … despite what academic political scientists and progressives will want you to believe.

So, while the current system, which will remain in effect for the current election, may not be the best way – my vote would be to allocate electors by congressional district with two at-large and staying with the plurality rather demanding a majority (unless you wanted to have runoffs a few weeks later between the top two candidates in those states where nobody got a majority – which would be such a big hassle it is not worth the bother).

What is bothersome about the current spate of complaints is that once again it seems designed to throw the results into question and rather than accept it as it is designed, it seems to want to promote the idea that your vote doesn’t count. It does count.

Each and every vote counts and rather than put the election up in question, let’s support our candidates and quit worrying about what goes on in other states. That is what it means to live in a federal republic and is why we have sovereign states. You don’t like that, then go live somewhere else.

Setting dangerous foundations

Reich warns Romney still can be elected
Robert Reich, the secretary of labor under President Clinton, is a prolific proponent of all things progressive and liberal … and he always has been.
Above, Mr. Reich appeals to his fellow followers not to get complacent about the re-election of President Barack Obama. That is good news. No one should be complacent about the election or re-election of any candidate. And everyone should be encouraged to participate in the elections scheduled for Nov. 6. (Although the old slogan “Vote early and vote often” is not such a good idea.)
What bothers me about that article is, whether he means it or not, he sets the foundation for claiming the election is a fraud. That disturbs me considerably.
It is his final point that bothers me so much:
“… the Republican Party will do whatever it can to win -- even if it means disenfranchising certain voters. To date, 11 states have enacted voter identification laws, all designed by Republican legislatures and governors to dampen Democratic turnout.
“The GOP is also encouraging what can only be termed "voter vigilante" groups to "monitor polling stations to prevent fraud" -- which means intimidating minorities who have every right to vote. We can't know at this point how successful these efforts may be but it's a dangerous wildcard. And what about those Diebold voting machines?”
Ok, folks, enough with the conspiracy theories. In the first paragraph, it seems to me that both parties have ample evidence (actually the Democratic Party has a lot more historical evidence, especially in the Southern states) of disenfranchising certain voters, as well as having ineligible voters (especially dead people) vote in elections in numbers of enough to swing elections. So, if one wants to be cynical enough, you could say that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, there are those cases where supporters of the Democratic Party have been videotaped intimidating voters at the polls in at least one city.
As for the issue of voter identification: I already am  on record as saying I see absolutely no problem with requiring people to show photo IDs when they vote. It seems that just about everywhere else you go you have to do it.
Now, if it is a problem for some people, that is where the party can and should intervene (it will make a supporter of the voter) to make sure that those people they want to vote have such photo IDs. They are not hard to get and as much as the party spends on advertising and registering voters, it seems to me a small price to pay to make sure that those supporters who can’t afford the pittance that is required, in most states (some are free), to get a state-issued photo ID.
Besides, it is not just “minorities” who would be affected by such a requirement, but that is a good job of putting in the race card.
Lastly, Mr. Reich takes a slam at computerized polling stations, particularly those made by the Diebold corporation. Granted, all computer driven vote counting systems are subject to possible tampering and manipulation, but, unless you have specific proof (not anecdotes or conjecture) that a specific manufacturer has illegally tampered with the vote totals with the machines that it makes, then Mr. Reich is on very dangerous ground. Not only is he libeling the corporation (yes, you can libel a corporation) but he also is attempting to call the validity of the election into question without justification.
There is a major problem with that and it stems partly back to the election of 2000 and the images of election board members examining punch-card ballots in a effort to verify the intent of the voter in each case (remember the issue of the “hanging chads” and the “indented chads”?). It is a Democratic Party mantra that the U.S. Supreme Court, by calling a halt to the Democrats charade, “stole” the election for George W. Bush.
However, what people tend to forget in the narrative of that election is two things:
1. It was the Gore Campaign that took the case to court trying to alter the count before it was even finished – contrary to the law. Court challenges are supposed to come after the count has been canvassed and not before. So, it was not the Bush campaign that was using the court system to overturn the Florida election result, but the Gore campaign.
2. There was a consortium of newspapers, news services and broadcast networks that was able to go back in in 2001 and examined all the ballots and interestingly enough in just about every case, by differing margins, President Bush actually won. That would seem to have vindicated the initial results that had him winning by something like 543 votes.
Granted, Gore won the “popular” nationwide vote, but that is not what counts in our REPUBLIC. You also have to win a majority of the “electoral” votes that are divided among the states by their representation in Congress.
So, what we have here, is Mr. Reich laying the groundwork for his party and its supporters to cry “foul” if their candidate loses a close race … which my dear wife (who is Canadian) predicts it will be, a veritable cliffhanger.
So, my advice to Mr. Reich: On your final point, shut up, because it serves no purpose but to invalidate the election, apparently in sour grapes if your guy loses again.

Yet another example
GOP uses voter ID laws to block college students

Initial reaction

I watched President Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention and I was impressed. He is a very good speaker and I should hope that he really believes in the things he said.
Having said that, I was left with my doubts. Why would I doubt? There was a dichotomy in his speech that left me wondering, “Does he really believe in what he saying?” because his rhetoric is not consistent, either within his speech or in his actions.
My question is this: Does he really believe in the law? Does he really believe in equality before the law? Does he really believe in contracts?
Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and his actions over the past few years lead me to question whether he really believes in the law, or that it be applied equally to all that come before it.
For example, if he really believed in equality before government, then all would pay the same rate of taxes to the government on the same kinds of income and wealth. That is not the case now. If you think it is, then you would be wrong.
No, we have decided to have a “progressive” system of taxation that increases the rate of your taxes as your income increases. We have decided to encourage certain behaviors by rewarding those who comply with our wishes with exemptions and deductions from their tax burden.
In addition, those who for whatever reason fail to achieve a certain income level, we have exempted them not only from paying federal income taxes, but we have agreed to give them other benefits and subsidies. That is not equality. That is discrimination, no matter how you describe it. Government is not in any way treating all citizens either fairly or equally.
Another example: I have no problem paying for education of young people or law enforcement or fire protection, but it is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
Another example: This country has a law, called the bankruptcy code, and it applies to private companies – no matter what industry, no matter what size – the same. The president ignored that law because he said he wanted to save jobs. What gave him that right to ignore that law?
You see, I opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit. I thought at the time it was beyond the powers of the federal government to do what it did. I still think that is the case. Granted, it would have been a very serious situation and possibly thousands or millions would have been hurt. Guess what, thousands and millions of people were hurt. But, we would have survived it, just like America did in the Great Depression.
Note, Franklin Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression; World War II ended it. FDR did do some things, most notably restoring the outlook of the American people. It was not what he did that was right, but his positive outlook that was right. You can do wrong things with the right outlook and you will be surprised that things actually turn out better than you expected.
I agree that we should often act as a team, because in synergy there often is greater strength, but it should be a coalition of the willing and not the coerced. If we punish those for doing better than others then we discourage them from doing better.
Then there are contracts. Yes, I think all parties should abide by the articles of their contracts. Yes, often times groups try to shave those articles to their own benefit. That not only is to be expected but will happen, every time, all the time, no matter who is involved.
Yes, I think greed is wrong, but what one person defines as greed others define as righteous reward. Who has the right to define greed because it has to be defined before it can be punished. I am not qualified, and I know no one alive who is qualified to say what greed, or need or enough is.
I understand the rationale that the law should not apply to some people, particularly if they were not responsible for the circumstances they are in, but that is not my decision to make. It is not the federal government’s decision to make. Its job is to apply the laws as equally and equitably as humanly possible. If it doesn’t, then the law no longer reigns and we become a nation of men, governed by men and not by the principles that made this nation what it is and can be.
I don’t know how I am going to vote in November. I really don’t. There is a lot that can happen in the next two months. I do know that the Democrats have not sold me on their view of the world … but then again, neither have the Republicans, for that matter.

Applying the law equally

Judge strikes down Ohio early voting law

Ok, I hope I got this correctly.

The legislature of State of Ohio standardized its early voting procedures. Before that the people wanting to vote early had to check with their local county board of elections (all 88 of them) which had different hours on different days. However, it seems, they could vote on the Saturday, Sunday and Monday prior to the election (even if hours on Saturday and Sunday were reduced in some counties but not in others). The new legislation cut off early voting on the Friday before election Tuesday so that local election boards would have time to prepare for Tuesday.

However, the legislation allowed an exemption for those serving in the military or coming back from overseas, to vote on Monday (it is unclear whether the local boards had to be open on Saturday and Sunday). The judge ruled that exemption was unconstitutional infringement on the privilege for those not covered by the exemption and that if early voting was extended to the serving military and/or people returning from overseas to vote on Monday, then everyone should have until Monday.

Ok, I can buy that or, an alternative interpretation could be that those who could have voted until Monday now have to vote by Friday. I admit, I am not a legal beagle but it would seem to me that with the exemption struck down, then early voting for the majority would be the time that stands. But then, what the heck, it is just a law right? We can ignore those we don’t like.

Anyway, it seems everybody gets until Monday to vote in Ohio … that is if they don’t want to vote on Tuesday, which is Election Day, but we want people not to have to inconvenience themselves on Tuesday. It might discourage participation in the election. They might have to stand in a line.

Anyway, my sympathies to the county election officials and I just hope they have their ducks in a row.