Sounds Good, But Watch Out--electoral hoax

Few people grasp why the president is actually elected by the Electoral College rather than by straight popular vote. Of course, some of those people are wondering who the EC plays in sports; do they have a football team, how do they stand on supporting women's athletics?

Those afore mentioned people tend to swing elections. Show them something shiny and they will follow anyone anywhere. I'd venture to say they are basically good people. Most people are, until you tempt their greed for material things, power, recognition etc. Greed and envy can be easily triggered and then all bets are off, especially if you can rationalize the result.

Now we have states oddly voting to by-pass the electoral process in presidential elections. I'm not exactly sure why, except they may resent states like South Dakota or Texas having a say. The main incentive I see for by-passing or eliminating the present electoral system is to further strengthen and centralize federal power over the states and people.

Some have complained that laws vary from state to state. Those same people have often touted various european countries for one custom or another, ignoring the fact that many states are as large or larger than most european countries. You do not expect France and Germany to be identical in law and character.

The system we have was designed to give some weighted influence to smaller state, and limit the possibility of a majority tyranny over the minority. States were considered just short of being countries. By throwing all electoral votes toward the candidate with most popular vote you guarantee that a very limited and un-diverse set of voting blocks can carry the day.

The present system is designed as one of those checks and balances which were put in place to make it tougher for megalomaniacs to have their way with us. "Us" being individuals. The way of power is supposed to be #1--the individual, #2--the states #3-the federal government. It has flipflopped completely, and because so many people now look to european models for leadership[, they don't even realize the implications of this or why it is not a good plan.

I attribute the emergence of gang mentality, insane public school culture, general environment of fear, inability to let kids have the run of the neighborhood, all of that, to the shift in power out of the hands of the individual and family, to the state, to the feds. What blinds people is that secret pretense we have been perfecting for at least 40 or 50 years. It is such a sacred pretense (like all those which serve as the cornerstone of a dysfunctional system) that you just can't name or expose the truth of it.

But make no mistake, pretense has been key in the surrender of local and individual power, responsibility, and even thought.

For those who do not want a few large population centers to dictate their fate, removing the thorn in the side of those who would love to control you from afar is a bad idea. Of course, president is only one part of the mix, or used to be. It does appear that executive power has run amok for many years at a geometrically increasing rate. And other representatives have managed to create a system by which we are somehow told of our choices by those who own and buy the officials. But, how many really resisted the government - corporate partnerships when they saw some benefit for themselves?
Don't lie.

I've known many people who voted a certain way because some favorable government act was going to enrich their employer their union, themselves. Did the taxpayers footing the bill owe you that favor, or benefit from it? Irrelevant to those who stood to benefit, although they would often disingenuously spout off platitudes in support of the ridiculous like hawkers at a fair.

So, if your state for some reason votes overwhelmingly in favor of the candidate favored by people in other states or other regions, if you are CO, Mass, NC, or some others, California, I guess, all your electors will be required to support the guy you do not want. It is a bad move, as were other moves which eroded sovereignty of states, and consequently individuals. The things ensuring individual liberty and rights are good, but rarely the items pushed by those who see centralization as progress. Quite the opposite.

In school a lot of teachers who were actually not very independent in their thinking, used to push us to think the electoral college was a fool's scheme. They also seemed to see the office of president as akin to king or supreme ruler, so what can you expect.

No wonder people think in those terms today, rather than wondering why Congress allowed or encouraged Bush, since the same people had a majority for much of his reign. The same general players and power camps secured more executive authority under Bush as are doing so under Obama. The 911 report was merely a plan to usurp power from people and localities. Obama could not do what he's done without cooperation. Congress has been giving over much power to executive discretion for a long long time.

The Bush crowd, with democratic congress and help, set the stage for the current power grab. First it is in thew name of keeping us safe, then to prevent certain financial meltdown, next who knows what. We aren't safer and definitely losing economic freedom and power.

Maybe people want a king, absolute and final, a total dictator. Someone to worship, and if it all goes sour, someone to fight against. I don't get it.

What could have motivated those states? Anger that Bush won the election with a possible sliver of more popular votes going to Al? That part seems debatable, but I still think it is a good idea that some geographic weighting is in place. Pure majority vote on everything is not a good plan. Got to put limits on anyone's power over others.

Once again, back off the federal government to its proper limits, back off the executive branch to its proper limits, and maybe people would come to see president as something other than supreme czar. And for the love of Pete, quit calling these damned agency heads, "czar". What the hell is that about? I do not answer to royalty. Sorry. I do not recognize nobility, and I don't subject myself to its arrogant assumption of authority. What a sick thing that we accept all these soulless clerks as supreme authority over finances, industries, health, etc.