Monday, April 16, 2012

Residents of the Show Me State - Show me you have sense... Please!

Another underhanded attack on our Republican form of government is underway, and if you are a resident of Missouri you need to contact your State Representatives NOW and let them know that the 'National Popular Vote' is not popular in Missouri. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on this Tuesday, April 17th at 8:30 a.m., so there's no time to waste... and it wouldn't hurt a bit to tell them to Vote Hell No! on "HB1719 " - let them know, that you know, that you live in a Republic, not a Democracy, and that you know that the only way to keep hold of what remains of your rights, is to keep it that way.

From the Missouri Eagle Forum Action Alert::
"...HB1719 would require Missouri to join an interstate compact, as proposed by the National Popular Vote organization. This compact would require Missouri to give all its presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, instead of the winner of Missouri’s state vote. If enough states agree to the plan, the Electoral College will be effectively eliminated.

HB1719 must be stopped. It is important to make your voice heard before this dangerous bill becomes law...."
I don't have time to write a post right now, but since I've posted on this, and related issues, mucho many times before, I'll include a few blasts from the past....

From a couple years ago:
Athens and America: The Bog Of The Gaps
"...A democracy of ‘majority rules’, has no need whatsoever, for 49% of the population. A Hierarchy is a pyramid. A radical democracy is a pillar, and if you don’t support the top, you are flung from it. Ask Socrates.

Everything about our Republic is an affront to the democratic sensibilities of progressives. For instance, in our current electoral map, a candidate must please the views of far more than a majority of the states and their people… in a direct democracy, one would only have to please more people than their opponent – that would mean that a single issue which was for some reason appealing to city dwellers, could carry a Presidential election, the rest of the suburban and rural dwellers across the state or nation, be damned. In such a direct democracy, as progressives are still seeking (see their National Popular Vote initiative ), it is only necessary that a candidate get the nod from a simple majority, meaning that 49% can safely be dismissed from consideration and concern, which requires only a moderately able demagogue to stir up the passions of the target majority, to win the day – Reason need not apply.

But voting is only the top layer, a mere result of what is at the bottom of the matter.

From the beginning, voting has been elevated to a primary ideal by the left, and the Founders did all they could to reduce it’s influence, voices for direct democracy by such as Rousseau and even an otherwise respected patriot such as Thomas Paine, were refuted, denounced and distanced. In our original constitutional plan the only representatives that were directly elected by the people, were the Representatives in the House. They were included there so that the people would have a direct voice into the workings of government, but the nation was insulated from their heated passions becoming law, by the legislative structure of the House being the entry point at the bottom, with the Senate securely above them – modifying or discarding the efforts of the House, acting as “a saucer to cool it” which gives those interests which demonstrate an actual value to all States, an equal voice with all other states based not on population or popular passions, but the quality and value of the issues; it is this which makes it possible to reasonably take into account the competing rights and interests of all of the citizens of all of the states.
From July of last year:
Q: When is a democracy not a democracy? A: When it’s a Republic - If you want to ensure that 'Your Vote Counts', you'd better Act like you know the difference
"...For those thinking that “Your Vote Counts” is really about making your vote count... you might want to consider what the backers of this 'citizens initiative' actually want your vote to count towards. What is it that they want to accomplish? Is it simply what they say they want to accomplish, or might they have another agenda in mind? What if they have a separate agenda and it is at odds with what they've told you, in order to get you to vote their way? Wouldn't that essentially be swindling you out of your vote, in order to use it to pass what they know you'd never vote for?...

What do you think, is it possible that perhaps past performance is an indication of the future they are working towards? These particular groups think anything done by Man is bad, do you really think they count your vote any differently? This 'Your Vote Counts' act is exactly the sort of measure which all of these sorts of groups want to see passed... what do you think counts most to them, your vote?... or swindling you of your vote to further their agenda? Got your attention?

Ok then.

What the demagogues of "Power to the People!" want your vote to count towards, is not tied to what they're telling you your vote is for, but what advances their agenda.

Neither the puppies lives, nor your liberty and right to vote are of concern to those who say they want to make your vote count, what they want is their power to go unchecked, they want to have their ability to stir up the passions of We The People into passing their agenda, and then they want those decisions to go unchallenged; the clear intent of this act, is that those who want to stir the public up into approving rash measures, want to then ensure that cooler heads cannot prevail against the power they succeeded in grabbing ahold of.

In short, they want a Democracy.

And while it gets old having to say this, even more so than hearing it said, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We are a Republic at the federal level, as defined by our Constitution, and as per Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, we are Republics at the state level as well.

“Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence””
Despite the various attempts that have been made, and innovations introduced over the years, to try and change that, even in the face of something akin to a coup d'etat has been (is being) tried upon the entire population through the educational system in an attempt to change us into a democracy within our own heads, if not on paper; but even so, a Republic, we remain...."
And from two years ago:
No Representation Without Taxation!... Yea...(blink)... WTF?!
"...Did I leave a position out of who we directly vote for? The President? No, I didn't. Your vote isn't cast as a vote for the President, your vote is tallied and guides the vote of an Elector in the Electoral College, and the electors of your state then cast their votes for the President, and yes, it is a good thing that it is done that way.

The President is not elected directly by popular vote alone! Leaving out the issue of delegates, the popular vote determines who the states delegates will be awarded to, and it is not only very possible, but has happened several times, that the candidate elected President, is NOT the one with the most popular votes, but the most delegates via the states - or maybe more to your understanding, the President is elected via the popular vote within the states, and then (typically) by the majority of the total votes of the states - as determined by each State.

There is a purpose behind this, though every few years, some would-be demagogue makes another stab at eliminating the Electoral College (I believe Hillary made a few speeches to that effect). You ought to ask yourself why.

Their purpose is, that by making it possible to eliminate the necessity of getting votes from the interior flyover states like Missouri, Nebraska, Idaho, etc, you could elect a president through the most populous states like New York, California and a few of the urban areas of major cities (read: likely by fellow elites and easily swayed poor inhabitants), and the rest of the counties and suburban areas, and indeed entire states themselves, could safely be ignored.

If the president was elected by popular vote alone, there would no longer be any need to refer to him as the President of the United States of America, but as President of a few populations centers and the rest of the states be damned! One way you can identify would be tyrants in America, is by their eagerness to push for, and rely upon, the 'popular vote!' (btw, the 17th amendment was their last big victory).

Try as the Progressives have to eliminate the states influence in the federal government (we came perilously close to having the electoral process dumbed down to your level in 1970), they do still play a major part in our federal system.

The Point of the Vote
The important point to take away from this review, is not that Votes are used to elect people and pass or fail legislation, the Vote is used as a method for the transmittal of judgment, which, as on the part of the elected officials IS NOT to tell them what to do, but selects them as being who the voters judged to have the values, ideals and ability of judgment they think will enable them to vote and act in a way worthy and justifiable.

NOTICE: to my fellow Tea Partiers, even if everybody in a district told their Representative they want him to cast his vote a particular way, while that may influence his judgment, he is IN NO WAY obligated to vote as the vast majority of his constituents demand he does. Not even if a million plus show up on the mall in Washington D.C. shouting "Kill The BIll!" (as I did locally). Candidates aren't voted for so that they can behave as virtual vote-a-grams, delivering this or that vote as a majority of their constituents demands, but to use his own judgment to vote as he sees best - just as it is wrong for them to force us to buy their obamaocare, it would be wrong for us to force them to vote against what they saw fit - they are Representatives, not proxies. Now, it might be politically wise for him to consider his constituents views, especially when it came time to vote again come election time; if the constituency disapproves of their voting record, then they are free to exercise their vote for or against the person, and that is part of the due diligence each voter owes to his vote in each election.

The Vote doesn't guarantee that elections will go your way often or ever, it only guarantees you an opportunity to participate in the process of governance - how much you participate in the process, is up to you, but rest assured, punching the ballot card, or carrying a protest sign - or sitting it out - are the barest minimum of input open to you...."
And a couple others for good measure:
Liberty - It all hangs together, or we all hang separately

Thinking Through the Popular Vote Machine - Damned if they didn't, Damned if they did.
But don't just sit there reading, contact your Representatives and tell them No!, while you're still in a Republic, and can.


freespeak said...

So, they save these things in folders labeled with a specific date to attack at just the right time.
Just when you thought you were on the defensive in every area, there's the, "Oh yeah. I forgot about that one".
Thanks. I WILL mention this to my rep, if I can still figure out who that is...

freespeak said...

What are we on, defensive or offensive? It's all a blur.

Van Harvey said...

Patriotsoul said "What are we on, defensive or offensive? It's all a blur."

I hear ya. Playing defense will grind you to dust. As they say, the best defense is a good offense, and one you can run day in and day out is to continually learn about what our system should be and about the ideas which made it possible - and spread that argument - day in and day out.

Contacts for:
Committee members
Senate Legislator Look-up
House Legislator Look-up

toto said...

Missouri is no longer relevant in presidential elections.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGEl votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Van Harvey said...

You surely aren't in Kansas anymore Toto, and you've got those emerald glasses (Green for sure) snugged down so tightly over your eyes, it's no wonder things look as they do to you.

It is amazing what foolishness can be passed off as being sensible, if you don't bother to secure your words to their meaning. My reply is too long for a comment, I'll reply instead in a new post, hopefully this evening. But until then, I'll at least reply to this:

"Missouri is no longer relevant in presidential elections."

On behalf of Missouri, and every other state - bite me.

toto said...

This year, with the current state winner-take-all system, candidates will not address specific concerns of non-swing states like Missouri. We will get to experience what it's like for more than 3/4ths of the states that are ignored during the presidential elections.

Missouri is not included in list of 2012 swing states

Chris Cillizza wrote on 4/15:
"states including Indiana and Missouri [are] almost certain to go Republican."

". . .likely to be the swing states of 2012.

They are: Colorado (54 percent), Florida (51), Iowa (54), Indiana (50), Minnesota (54), New Hampshire (54), New Mexico (57), Nevada (55), North Carolina (50), Ohio (52) and Virginia (53)."

As of March 10th, some pundits think there will be only Six States That Will Likely Decide The 2012 Election
". . . if you’re looking for numbers to pay attention to over the coming eight months, these are the six states — Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida — to keep an eye on because they’re likely to decide the election."

Van Harvey said...

toto said “We will get to experience what it's like for more than 3/4ths of the states that are ignored during the presidential elections.”

What is it you equate voting with, getting your way? … getting to cast your vote with the in-crowd of voters? Do you consider your vote to be worth less, if its tallying doesn’t meet with some sort of optimal measure of significance?

Do you feel deprived if you don’t achieve some electoral equivalent of Ed McMahon showing up to declare your vote as having been cast among the significant voting blocs?

What an odd, and whiny, assessment of voting you must have.

toto said...

I am clearly not odd or alone.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. They want to know every vote equal, and every voter to matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

American voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic

Van Harvey said...

tofu said "I am clearly not odd or alone."

So true, you are Legion. Doing my best to get the time to finish the post, but time has been skimpy, but what the heck, you've got time, right?

Van Harvey said...

Here you go tofu,
Nine out of ten dictators agree with Emperor Palpatine: "I love Democracy..."

Sorry for the delay.