Tag: Debunk

Posted on

The Electoral College

You may have been exposed to a few people who are against the electoral college as a means of electing the United States President. “The popular vote is a better way to make sure everyone’s vote counts” you may have heard them proclaim. You may have also heard the horror stories about presidents who have not won the popular vote but were still elected. With the way the US is today, you may even see the reasoning behind this and agree with it. If that’s the case, I am here to educate you as to why things are the way they are.

To begin to set you on the right path you must understand a few things that help clear up why we have the electoral college system in the first place.

The First item to know is what the Constitution says about electing the president:

From Article 2 Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Constitution says nothing about popular vote of the people or even necessarily people of a state voting for president at all. It just so happens that all states have decided to use the vote of the people to choose electors for the office of president. One state could choose a different “manner” of choosing the electors if they thought it was a good idea and could get the state representatives to legislate it. The states elect the president, not the people directly. “Why in the world would you do that?” many will ask. For that answer we must simply think of the purpose of the Constitution and the type of governance it establishes. We should all be familiar with the famous “checks and balances” that are supposed to exist between the different branches of government. The branches of government are not the only competitors for power when it comes to checks and balances.

The Constitution mentions four different governing groups. One of these groups is foreign governments and therefore has no bearing here. The other three are within the United States and are groups listed as having powers either delegated to them or prohibited from them. These groups are federal government, state government and individual people. The checks and balances upon the first two of those groups were considered, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, just as important as the checks and balances between the branches of the federal government. It surprises many people in the modern United States to find that Senators from each state were originally elected by the state legislatures. The only federal position that the Constitution calls for election by the people to attain is in the House of Representatives. The seventeenth amendment removed that representation from the state and made it almost the same thing as the House of representatives in this regard. That takes powers away from the states and kills a big check and balance against the consolidation of power with the federal government. We today have always lived with it being that way and are accustomed to a much larger federal government role in our lives.

The original colonies could have remained separate sovereign states if they had wished. This would have made many small European-like countries in what is now the United States. Ultimately the colonies would have likely been either re-conquered or conquered by a foreign power, probably picked off one-by-one. The founders were well aware of such a threat in disunity, which is why we have things like the 3/5ths compromise or Benjamin Franklin’s “Join or Die” cartoon against the French. It was very important to them to be united sovereign states. At the same time though, the states wanted to maintain their more localized power and character (which was a bad thing in the case of South Carolina and Georgia, but that’s a different day’s topic). How could they do that with a massive federal government essentially taking their place? In order for them to agree to this federal government they needed to have their own state representation and powers.

With this desire for representation of the states’ interests in mind, I now call your attention to the fact that in 1790 the population of Delaware was around 59,000 while Virginia had near three-quarters of a million people. With such a disparity in populations a system that uses the popular vote to choose the president would completely annihilate any voice the state of Delaware may have had in the matter and Virginia would rule the roost very easily. Just as in the different houses of congress, the state governments and the individual people should count for something. Is there a way to acknowledge the fact that the state government of Delaware has made the choice to be united, thereby giving up some power and that the different state governments need to be represented as equals with the other sovereign states in the election of the president? Yes, yes there is. This system mirrors the numbers used to represent the state governments and the individuals in congress. Each state has 2 Senators regardless of their population. They are were represented as equals. The Representatives from a state are based upon the population of the people who are also counted as equals. The electoral college helps today’s sovereign state government of Wyoming, which has 0.18% of the US population, but is 2.0% of the states, have it’s state voice in the form of 2 more electoral votes for president to give it 3 instead of the 1 it would have if it were only based on population.

I will admit that in today’s United States, where state governments get no say as to who is in congress, it is easy to wonder why in the world the president isn’t selected by the popular vote of the people as well since we see no state representation anywhere else. The way we view states today makes them little more than very large counties within the sovereign state of the US. We should view them more as separate nation states united by the Constitution in order to better understand the electoral college.

Some people want the National Popular Vote plan, which a group called FairVote is pushing. This would be where a group of states agree they will give their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of who gets most votes in their state. The agreement would take effect only when the number participating can deliver 270 electoral votes (enough to win). As of 2010, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia liked the idea. This is perfectly Constitutional to do, since a state can decide how they choose electors, but it also takes that extra symbolic step away from the state representation that the 17th amendment helped weaken.

I would like to see things be localized again and preferably not even have to vote for the president, but just have my state representatives vote on it. Also repeal the 17th amendment to get my state government back in a seat at the table. Doing this would put more emphasis on local elections and maybe people would once again know the names and records of their local representatives. The same number of people who are supposed to write our laws are also supposed to choose our president and I am ok with that.

Posted on

Misattributed to Washington

One thing that really drives me up the wall quicker than other things is when people use false quotes and continue to pass them on. I will begin acquiring as many of these as I can and dispelling them here. My major problem with false quotes is that I very much enjoy the truth and obviously if it is a false quote it is a lie. I may hear a quote and be inclined to use it myself. A person propagating such quotes often makes a fool of themselves. Many times if one wishes to be responsible and check the verity of a quote and its source they will run into multiple examples of people misusing the quote and think they have verified it but really have just seen multiple versions of the lie. Quotes have been given a strange place in our culture and at times can seem to have been canonized by some users of them even if false. Most misquoted people are either founding fathers of the United States or are Albert Einstein.

The first quote I will do, has been attributed to George Washington and in fact he did not say this:

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

However, the fact that he did not say this does not mean it was not said. In fact, it appears that it is very much an actual historical statement from the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli (current Libya). Some of the Muslims in the area had concerns about a new crusade being launched, and the treaty informs them to not worry about holy war, since the government of the United States is not founded on any particular religion.

Many Christians might get upset that this was actually said and if they do then they are idiots. If the United States was founded on the Christian religion then why do we not have state run confessionals or baptisms? Jesus, the founder of Christianity, said that the first great commandment was to love God and the second was to love thy neighbor. These most important laws were somehow excluded from the constitution and are not required. Strange thing to exclude when basing the government on the Christian religion. We also have another problem when trying to base the government on the Christian religion; which flavor among all the different versions is it based on? Many Christians argue bitterly over their view of what is true Christianity. I am happy to keep that kind of contention out of the body that creates and enforces laws that I will abide by. Although contention finds its way in anyway.

Christians can take solace in the fact that this line from the treaty does not mean that the founders hated Christianity or religion in general. In fact I have documented, and will document in the future, statements quite to the contrary by founders that show the necessity for religious beliefs, morals, faith and the providence of God in maintaining a free society. But with regard to government, it is always best to not jump in with certain religions.

Posted on

In Defense of Cleon Skousen

I have come across a few articles recently which disparage and belittle the accomplishments of W. Cleon Skousen. The main criticisms people have are first, that he was fired from his position as the Chief of Police in Salt Lake City; second, that his church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, distanced itself from him and third, that he is a crackpot who believes that people want to form a one world government. Each of these charges are distortions and/or lies and when examined truthfully are extremely benign.

The first accusation is true. He was indeed fired from his position as the Chief of Police. Saying this alone makes it sound like he was incompetent or negligent in some sense. You only need to find the reason and timing of his dismissal to know that he was fired because he disagreed with the Mayor about enforcing laws. Mayor J. Bracken Lee fired him and then called him a liar to discredit anything he might say about Lee and his illegal activities. Mayor Lee later stated that it was his worst political decision to fire Skousen since crime jumped up 22% shortly after Skousen left. Any reference to his stint as police chief as a negative for Cleon is a twisting of the facts. I came across an old 1994 family reunion video I have and there is a good section about Skousen’s Police Chief experience. I will let him defend himself.

The second accusation is not true, but is a twisting of a separate announcement by the church. Skousen had formed an educational, political group called the “Freeman Institute” which would read about and discuss many political issues. Some members of the LDS faith had been using the church buildings to hold meetings. Any LDS member who has attended meetings during an election year has heard the standard announcement that the church does not support any particular candidate, nor does it allow it’s buildings to be used for political meetings. In 1979, since the buildings had been used by some in the Freeman Institute, the church sent an announcement to stop the use of buildings which stated, “This instruction is not intended to express any disapproval of the right of the Freemen Institute and its lecturers to conduct such meetings or of the contents of the lectures. The only purpose is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures.” That hardly sounds like the church distanced itself from Skousen, but rather that they had an interest in maintaining a tax exempt status.

The third criticism is based on his belief that people were conspiring to bring about a one world government. In today’s world of continental unions, talk of a one world currency and treaties that give away sovereignty of nations to a global power, a reasonable person would never say that this idea is for crackpots. People have even admitted to being part of a conspiring group to put the world under one government. Criticizing Skousen on this point could just demonstrate complete ignorance, complete complicity or both.

I find it to be very ironic that a major point that Skousen made about the people seeking to gain power was that they were changing history by omitting or twisting certain things when teaching it and now his legacy has fallen victim to the same distortions.

In Defense of Cleon Skousen

Posted on

Groundhog Day

Well Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his hole after a long night of rioting to celebrate a Steelers Victory in the Super Bowl and despite his blurred vision and killer headache, he saw his shadow, which means there will be six more weeks of winter.

When I was a kid I used to think they actually watched a groundhog come out of his hole and watched to see if he went back inside because he saw his shadow or if he stayed outside because he saw no shadow and the weather would be nice. My teachers at school led me to believe that there was some natural phenomenon that animals could sense future weather. When I watched the movie Groundhog Day it blew my whole reality apart. Some dufus pulls out the groundhog and talks to him. That hardly seems like the groundhog is actually predicting the weather. I did a little research and found out that, out of the last 110 or so years the groundhog has seen his shadow 97 times. A longer winter is good for many of the ski resorts in Pennsylvania and so of course the people there want to hear they are going to have a longer winter. I think the fix is in. I am going to get my own groundhog and every year on February 2nd I will set up a camera outside of the hole to see if it goes back inside. This will give me a better forecast for my local area and help avoid the corruption that is going on in Punxsutawney PA. It will also be great that I won’t have to watch the goofy weather people on all the local stations. After six weeks I will record if the prediction was correct.

P.S. Groundhog Day is one of the all time best movies.

Posted on

F

The F word. One must admit it is one of the ugliest words in the English language. It is used in all kinds of different situations and has multiple meanings. I must confess that in the most rare and perfectly timed instances I have found it’s use to be hilarious. Unfortunately a vast majority of it’s uses just come off as crude, uneducated and disrespectful. The origins of the word seem to fascinate many people and there are many differing versions.

I have heard a great many people tell the all too common little stories about how we got the F word into the English language. The first is that people would get permission from the king to have relations with each other and they would say that it was “Fornication Under Consent of the King”. The other popular one is that constables would arrest prostitutes and would book them using the acronym for “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”. Both of these stories are completely silly and are not true.

The word’s first recorded historical use was around the year 1500. Back then the word was also very controversial and no one would write it down to provide an explanation of where it came from. The best explanation I have heard is that the word comes from one of two words. The Dutch word fokken, which refers to breeding animals and the Swedish fokka which means pretty much just straight up “relations”. Don’t let anyone tell you one of those acronym stories and pass it off as the truth.