The United States Electoral College is a term used to describe the 538 Presidential electors who meet every four years to cast the "official" votes for President and Vice President of the United States. The Constitution gives each state legislature the plenary power to choose the electors who shall represent its state in the Electoral College. The Electors never meet as a national body. At 51 (Fifty states plus the District of Columbia) separate meetings, held on the same day, the electors cast the electoral votes. As such, the collective concept of the 51 groups is the technical definition of the college. It is because of this power structure that the popular vote was overturned in the 1824, 1876, 1888 and the more recent 2000 Presidential election. What scares me about this system is that it is elitist in nature and has a cloak of anonymity that render them (the Electors) unaccountable to the general masses. The Constitution does not require the Electors to vote as pledged, but many (not all) states have enacted laws that do require their Electors to vote as pledged. This system seems to be in place to assure certain citizens that under no circumstance will an "undesired" candidate be allowed to occupy the highest positions in the land. You may wonder why the forefathers choose to wrest the power from the voting public and give it to these 538 mysterious individuals (who are they?).
There are calls to reform this antiquated system. There are those who truly want to put the power in the hands of the people. The argument for an "Electoral College" is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people, the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states. The Electoral College ensures that candidates, particularly in recent elections, pay attention to key 'swing-states' (those states that are not firmly rooted in either the Republican or Democratic party). It equally assures that voters in states that are not believed to be competitive will be disregarded.
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equally weighted vote, regardless of what state he or she lives in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in states with small populations. Under the current system, the vote of an individual living in a state with three electoral votes is proportionally more influential than the vote of an individual living in a state with a large number of electoral votes.
The arguments for and against get bogged down with historic policy and precedence set throughout elections that are skewed by the history of the United States divisions among its political parties, voters and regions (in other words they filibuster the discussion).
Registered Voter,
Bycha Buxton
Should there be a boycott of China? Or should there be a boycott of the Olympic games in Beijing? Mario Vazquez Rana, the president the
Association of National Olympic Committees, and the International
Olympic Committee stated that "Any politician who is pushing for a boycott is
committing a serious error," Vazquez said, "For me a total
boycott, a partial boycott, is totally out of the question."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out the possibility he might boycott the opening ceremony if China continues its crackdown in Tibet. In a recent edition of Le Monde, one of his Cabinet ministers outlined changes needed for Sarkozy to take part in the Aug. 8 ceremony. President Bush has received calls to boycott the opening ceremonies, but has not addresses the matter publicly.
The Chinese have not been the model society of humanity nor have they been receptive to international criticism. Will the IOC (International Olympic Committee) give the Chinese the same kind of propaganda boost that the1936 games gave Berlin? A boycott was called for then but largely ignored.
They saw Jesse Owens embarrass Hitler and his team of experiments based on racial superiority. After a New York Times editorial (1933) inferred that Hitlers "race doctrine" had begun. Do we let history repeat itself? Unfortunately America's goodwill, leadership and economic interests are hampered by world events to singularly take on this posture without resounding support from the world community. The world community is too bitter to come together for "human rights" because of "business rights" and personality conflicts. The Games have taken on more than a celebration of cultures and national pride. They have become a symbol of international status for host countries and platforms to propel those countries into industrial powerhouses on the backs of talented athletes and the graves of second class citizens. Do we punish the athletes who only get this world stage once every four years and maybe only once in their lifetime? Is fame, the gold medal and national pride more important than the unalienable rights every "citizen of the world" should be entitled too? Let the tanks roll and the "games" begin the show must go on...and it will be the greatest "show" on earth (all pun's and sarcasm welcome).
A Sports fanatic of Human Rights,
Bycha Buxton
"In the United States, the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people ... to petition the Government for redress of grievances." Its roots within the colonies can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence,[4]. Historically, the right can be traced back further, to English documents such as the Magna Carta, which, by its acceptance by the monarchy, implicitly affirmed the right, and the later Bill of Rights 1689, which explicitly declared the "right of the subjects to petition the king"[5].Wikipedia
This right was intended for the peoples' voice not the peoples' money. Lobbyist have gotten out of control; with hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the legislators at their whim.' We the people' have very little influence as individuals.
|
"Remove the revolving door by doubling the amount of time members and
staff are prohibited from going from legislating to lobbying. Stop
legislators from negotiating legislation while also negotiating
employment contracts for themselves with those who benefit from the
legislation. And keep former members who are lobbyists off the floor of
Congress." Top Spenders, 2007
|
|
Do you really care that I am a registered republican, who voted for (Bill) Clinton twice?
Probably not.
My social politics are conservative.
I'm for a strong defense and the highest educated population in the world (more education spending).
I'm for the poor to have an opportunity (a hand up); not (always) a hand out.
I'm a fiscal moderate; some taxes are necessary (but I don't like pork barrel spending).
I willing to go green but not go broke.
I grew up saying "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."; and "in GOD we trust" that was part of who we (Americans) were.
I love this country and everything about it (but just because I love you doesn't mean I like you).
I guess you could call me ...
The "Republicrat",
Bycha Buxton
buxtonbycha@aol.com
The third century of the industrial revolution age is seeing the repackaging of socialism in various forms. The most dramatic is the plan of Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez (President Bush’s biggest fan) is to create a city from scratch in a national park. Here in the U.S. a more subtle approach is the national health care plan, proposed by Hillary Clinton. Our neighbors to the north (Canada) already have such a system to much applause by those who think this is a fresh new idea.
Moving pictures also came along once upon a time. Only to evolve into talking pictures, then Technicolor, inevitably sex came on the screen (no pun intended); now you need the FCC; they have to have a mortal enemy (Hollywood), and even they need somebody to take advantage of (The Screen Writers Guild). Socialism has always morphed into a living hell for those who can't escape its promises of equilibrium (i.e, Cuba). In its' purest form; an entry in Webster’s dictionary Socialism is beautiful. But in this century cooperation rather than competition to guide private industry will bring the big “C” if not carefully planned to remain an ever evolving entry in Wikipedia.
What is the big “C”? China’s
1 billion people? Castro’s dream of a ‘Communist’ victory, or ‘Coverage’ (health care);
managed by a government who can’t agree on how or how not to fund a war? Imagine
if your triple bypass was filibustered in a short session of congress just before
the holiday break. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Socialism historically leads
to a societal breakdown. Can we improve the quality of life socializing programs
and not society? These are questions for a democratic society. Isn't freedom beautiful! (Even thorns have roses.)
Be careful my liberal friends, who see a great utopia on the
horizon. I too see wonderful things; a world liberated from the oppression
of ideologues like Stalin, Mao Tse -Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Mussolini, Hitler, and Hussein.
Have we defeated these ideas only to incorporate them into our great republic? The
‘Gipper’ would be turning over in his grave along with JFK, MLK and the KKK.
Your American,
Bycha Buxton
buxtonbycha@aol.com
Recently there has been a request by U.S. Senator Grassly for the financial records of 6 Pastors of the so-called "Mega Church's" located primarily throughout the south. The underlying question is whether these individuals are using the exempt status afforded to faith based organizations for personal profitable gain. There have been Ministers and Churches who have throughout time used their power for gain other than the salvation of souls.
Our government has historically adopted the position of a separation between the State and matters of the Church. But this does not exclude priests who are pedophiles, zealots bent on destruction or pastors who profit from deception. We are afford by constitutional right, innocence before our peers; be it a jury of 12 or the public masses, so I reserve judgment until due time. I do however have the right to an opinion based on the actions of the accused.
In the Jewish temple (Herod's) the first cleansing took place (John 2:13-16) it tells how during The Passover, Jesus ran off " them that were selling dove, sheep and oxen: and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables." The money changers would profit by exchanging the Roman currency with graven images for plain coins to be an acceptable tithe offering for a fee. Jesus said, " Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."
Apostle Paul writes of the 'Christian Rights' (1Corinthians 9:13-14) "that those who work in the temple should get their food from the temple... in the same way, those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." But Paul chose to spread the gospel for no charge to the church as "...a servant unto all, that I might gain more" (1Corinthians 9:19) and instead labored for a living.
An introspective question to all who preach the gospel is why did Paul choose this way?
I will not begin to assess the hearts and minds of men/women and their reason. I can only look at the obvious, reference my understanding of good; evil and listen to my own conscience (The Holy Spirit) for guidance and I still am imperfect in every way but always willing to try and correct my wrongs; repent and ask forgiveness. I ask you brothers and sisters in Christ (the accused and the guilty) are you justified in all your actions concerning this matter? What will you do for your own salvation? You are held to a higher standard. The answer is not to me nor to the congregations that you lead, you love and bring to Christ Jesus; but to HIM who is, was and will always be. There is a reason Jesus said " It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, than a camel to go through the eye of a needle."
I AM,
Bycha Buxton
buxtonbycha@aol.com
