Demanding ID at the polls, perhaps illegally

My decades-long experiences as a voter in Philadelphia were mostly satisfactory, but my luck ran out on Nov. 8.

When I entered my center city polling place at 4 p.m., poll workers improperly demanded that I produce identification. The 2011 general election occasioned my third or fourth visit to this site. A registered voter is required to produce identification once after s/he moves to their new address.

I reminded them that lawmakers in Harrisburg were currently haggling over a proposal to require identification during each election, which means that they had no legal authority to demand this.

They told me that the judge of elections directed them to demand ID. They said that the judge can do this while the legislature is determining what to do in the future. I declined and they asked me to recite my address, which I did.

I informed them that I was going to phone the elections board. One poll worker responded that they would tell me what a great job they were doing.

This was at least the third time that I voted at this polling place since my polling place was relocated a few years ago.

A similar experience occurred last May. When I entered the polling place, a worker yelled at me to produce identification. At that time, I was not aware that identification was an issue, so I produced ID.

Both these experiences were bizarre and disturbing. I have to wonder where the commission finds these people. Whatever the merits of the proposed legislation, it is still not the law. In addition, I probably would have produced ID had they asked me for it as a courtesy. However, they had no right to make demands, even to have me recite my address.

I complained to anyone who I thought was responsible or had an interest in my concern - the Pennsylvania Department of State, state Rep. Babette Josephs and newly-elected City Commissioner Stephanie Singer, a Democrat who does not assume office until January. I reluctantly contacted the city commission office still run by departing Commissioner Marge Tartaglione.

A City Commission lawyer hooked me up with my Democratic committeeman, who immediately apologized and promised that this kind of conduct would not be repeated. He explained there was a miscommunication and described other unusual circumstances that contributed to this episode.

While his explanation begged more questions, I deeply appreciated his responsiveness.

I confess to not following the city commission election closely. I was aware that the commission under Tartaglione was heavily politicized. My attempts to learn more about the election process or research voter turnout and past election results were undermined by the agency’s website, if you can call it that. The website is essentially a blank slate that is utterly useless.

A few weeks after the election, I learned that my experience was nothing unusual after reading an Inquirer interview with Singer and Al Schmidt, the incoming commission members who will replace, respectively, Tartaglione and Joseph Duda. Schmidt is a Republican. (I, a3, 9/17/11)

In excerpts, Schmidt said, “The common denominators during the campaign really focused on transparency, making sure the office provides information to people when they need it…that it’s more efficient and more accountable to taxpayers and people who depend on it for service…They’re not transparent in how they spend taxpayer dollars…but more importantly, the information that people need to become engaged in the civic life of the city.”

Singer: “Part of it is simply making certain information is easily, publicly available, through the usual formats and also on a website. Budget detail and election results and things like that. And part of it is changing the culture of the office…making clear that we’re here to serve the public - the voters, the candidates, and the parties. And that our job is to make it easier for people…to be engaged.”

Schmidt: “The training of election board workers has been really very poor, and I think it shows in a lot of ways. I know it hurts our minority party and other minority parties…They’ve never seen a poll-watcher certificate before and they kick people out…It causes a lot of havoc on election day.”

Schmidt and Singer talk like serious people intent on serving the public to the best of their abilities. Under ideal circumstances, there would be nothing special about them. The Schmidt-Singer team should be the standard, not the exception.

Occupiers need to occupy GOP enclaves

‘We were sold out’

- Marchers in Philadelphia

‘I got rained on’

- Me

Occupy Wall Street espouses a noble cause, but I spent a few extra minutes in the rain on Friday, Oct. 14, 2011, standing on the sidewalk as 150 or so Occupy activists marched down JFK Blvd. east to City Hall.

The protests in Philly, downtown Manhattan and elsewhere leave me with mixed feelings. Most crucially, I was initially flustered because they were demonstrating in major cities where they preached to the converted.

I was relieved when they took their cause to the suburbs and the offices of Republican members of Congress. In the Philadelphia area, demonstrators crowded into U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick’s district office a few miles from a major mall in lower Bucks County on Oct. 12, 2011. Next day, 150 people occupied Doylestown, the seat of Bucks County, and protesters marched the two blocks from City Hall to U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey’s Philadelphia office.

A good start, but that effort must expand.

When occupiers moved their tents and other facilities onto Dilworth Plaza of City Hall, one member proclaimed that this was the center of “government.” Huh? Philadelphia is run by Democrats. While they are not perfect, Democrats in Congress along with President Obama have presented proposal after proposal to relieve the nation’s horrific economic conditions.

It was Republicans who principally brought us our $1.3 trillion in wars and billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich, and it is Republicans who hang tough together to shoot down Democrat-proposed remedies while GOP governors slash millions of dollars to urban centers.

So why bother the Democrats? True, Philly’s City Hall and downtown Manhattan are highly visible sites, but the protesters are pressuring those who are essentially on their side. While Mayor Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican and is now an independent, the vast majority of New York’s elected officials are Democrats.

Both Philly and NYC have already spent small fortunes for police coverage, and businesses in lower Manhattan have suffered.

The Occupy crews must transfer their energies to Republican enclaves. With the exception of locals, it would be difficult for many demonstrators to reach GOP enclaves. For instance, Rep. Nan Hayworth’s district offices are far up in the northern NYC suburbs where public transportation is minimal.

At the same time, Rep. Michael Grimm’s offices in Brooklyn and Staten Island should be relatively easy to reach. His SI office is located on New Dorp Lane. From the Wall Street area, take the ferry to Staten Island, transfer to the SI railroad (a glorified subway) and exit at the New Dorp Lane stop. Walk east a few blocks. His office is on your left.

Occupiers scored a victory on Oct. 21 when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Eric Cantor canceled a speech at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, explaining in a statement that his office “was informed last night by Capitol Police that the University of Pennsylvania was unable to ensure that the attendance policy previously agreed to could be met,” according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. (I, fp, 10/22/11)

The university in turn issued a statement: “The Wharton speaker series is typically open to the general public, and that is how the event with Majority Leader Cantor was billed. We very much regret if there was any misunderstanding with the majority leader’s office on the staging of his presentation.”

Cantor decided against traveling the 130 miles from Washington after news broke that occupiers would march to Wharton that afternoon. They claimed they planned no disruptions inside Huntsman Hall, where Cantor was to speak, but they certainly intended to demonstrate outside. In Cantor’s absence, hundreds of occupiers marched to Huntsman yelling slogans and brandishing signs.

If Occupy troops would regularly take their protests to the suburbs and the offices of Republican House and Senate members, think of the impact they could have. They already are affecting policy, however slight, but suburban protests would have an even greater effect.

Besides, let Republican taxpayers bankrupt their communities with excessive spending on police protection.

Looney Tunes, Supreme Court-style

'It’s a purifying of the court - trying to return it to where it should be’

- Marjorie Dannenfelser, right-wing advocate

Where? Back to slavery?

The Supreme Court has emerged as a hot issue among the Republican presidential contenders, a be-careful-what-you-wish-for move that they may regret.

By calling attention to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, they will remind voters that one of the president’s jobs is to nominate Supreme Court justices. Jimmy Carter won one disaffected citizen’s vote in 1980. This writer was ready to vote for independent John Anderson, even if his chances were slim, out of frustration with Carter’s presidential performance and aversion to Ronald Reagan’s policies.

Carter reminded flustered Democrats as to how Supreme Court justices get hired, and that was enough to convince me. President Obama can take advantage of this strategy in his re-election campaign.

Rick Perry happens to be right in urging term limits for Supreme Court justices in his book “Fed Up!” in which he writes in favor of proposals “to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power.”

Term limits of 10 to 15 years, 20 years tops, would limit the damage that an unfit judge might incur. Perry’s idea of a bad judge probably differs from mine. It is true that the most brilliant judges would likewise be term-limited, but even the likes of Brandeis and Marshall are not indispensable. If we lack sufficient legal talent to replace the current crop, then we are in deep trouble.

It stands to reason that Supreme Court justices should be at the top of their game when they are nominated, the product of extensive experience which affords a sturdy foundation for legal wisdom. They would be in their late fifties at the least and would remain well past the traditional retirement age.

Presidents from both major parties play games with term limits so they would spend decades on the court. Clarence Thomas was 43 when the first President Bush nominated him and Elena Kagan was 50 when President Obama sent her name to the Senate. Kindergarteners would probably have their careers set if presidents could get away with it.

Perry and other contenders zeroed in on social issues, as catalogued in a New York Times piece, such as the usual suspects - abortion, same-sex marriage and the role of religion in public life. That could help inspire the GOP base and win backing in the primaries.

Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which is described as a conservative legal advocacy group, told the Times, “There’s an even more dramatic overstep on the part of the courts now. With the grass-roots revolution on the ground and the Tea Party movement, there’s a desire for a return back to first principles.”

First principles? Does Dannenfelser and her friends read legitimate books about the Constitution? The Constitution legalized slavery even though the nation’s birth was triggered by the founders’ hunger for freedom. Delegates signed the Constitution because the Southern delegates demanded the continuation of slavery. It was the price for enacting the Constitution.

Does Dannenfelser miss slavery? As for “first principles,” whose first principles? The delegates fervently clashed over proportionate representation in Congress.

Except for term limits, Perry and friends present some befuddling ideas. He suggested that Congress should be authorized to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote. Newt Gingrich told the Values Voter Summit in October that “judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the American system of self-government.”

As the Times piece notes, Congress may just have the authority to limit cases. However, this means that two adjoining sections of the Constitution contradict one another. Section 1 of Article III states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2: The court “shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

How do we set limits? If limits are set, how does the court determine when those limits apply to a case? How else can a citizen seek justice?

Gingrich and Rick Santorum, a senator from Pennsylvania for 12 years, share the goal of eliminating or disrupting the operations of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, which hears cases from federal district courts in nine Western states. “That court is rogue,” said Santorum. “It’s a pox on the western part of our country.”

There are many Pennsylvanians who thought of Santorum, from the Pittsburgh area, as “a pox on the western part of our” state.

Misguided election reform

An operation dubbed Americans Elect has an intriguing idea - conduct a national primary election on the Internet to run a centrist candidate for president.

On the surface, it sounds like a useful process to bolster the democratic system. However, the organizers would be wise to spend their time, effort and money to benefit more realistic initiatives.

Doyle McManus, in an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, explained how it works: “Americans Elect…plans to put a centrist presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states…Americans Elect is a collection of Republicans, Democrats and independents who say they’re fed up with the polarization that has poisoned American politics.

“The group plans to hold a national primary election on the Internet - a mass-participation exercise that anyone can join,” he continues. “Candidates can nominate themselves and voters can form committees to ‘draft’ candidates, including politicians drawn from the major parties

“…The group is collecting signatures to put itself on every state’s ballot…Americans Elect says it plans to choose a presidential nominee (and a vice presidential candidate, who by the group’s rules can’t come from the same party) by June. What happens then depends mostly on the shape of the contest between the Democratic and Republican candidates.”

If history is a guide, we can safely predict that AE’s nominees will either make no practical difference or divert enough votes from one party to tip the election for the other party. We certainly cannot discount the possibility that the AE team will actually win.

A presidential election is a grandly ambitious starting point for installing independent or third-party candidates into elective office. Any political campaign takes an extensive amount of money and organization, and obviously a presidential election could be too much to manage.

McManus correctly points out that Americans Elect should start with running candidates for congressional posts.

At this time, every member of the House is a Democrat or Republican, and two senators are independents.

It would be practical to run independent candidates in swing House districts and for Senate seats in low-population states. The smaller scale of the district or the state will allow the candidate an easier opportunity to reach many voters, especially if most residents are clustered in metropolitan areas.

Most independents elected to the Senate or governor in recent years ran in small states, including Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island. Independents also won statewide office in Connecticut and Minnesota.

It would probably benefit the nation far more if Americans Elect joined forces with two other movements, one to effectively replace the electoral vote with the popular vote and another to level the playing field for independent candidates.

California lawmakers passed identical measures in 2006 and 2008 to join other states in turning over the electoral votes of all participating states to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarenegger vetoed it, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Current Gov. Jerry Brown signed an updated version last Aug. 8, making California the largest state to make this commitment. Brown’s signature raised the number of combined electoral votes to 132, from 77.

An organization called the National Popular Vote has been working with lawmakers in all 50 states since 2006. To succeed, states with a combined 270 electoral votes are needed, which is the majority that a presidential candidate must obtain to win the election.

Political reform organizations have been promoting a system called Instant Runoff Voting that allows the election of a candidate to receive the majority vote in a race with multiple rivals.

Under this system, roughly, a voter casts a ballot for his preferred candidate (Candidate A) and then votes for other candidates in order of preference. Let’s say his second preference is Candidate B.

The first result leaves no candidate with a majority, but Candidate C has the top spot with a plurality of 40 percent. The voter’s first preference, Candidate A, has 20 percent and Candidate B has 33 percent. His vote for A is transferred to B and, if most voters think this way then B will win with 53 percent of the vote.

Because Maine employs the winner-take-all system, its current governor can now follow through with his intent to tell the president to “go to hell.” Paul LePage, the Republican, was elected with 38 percent of the vote while his two closest opponents shared 56 percent.

“Three is a crowd in our current voting system,” reads a description posted by the Center for Voting and Democracy. “Plurality voting, in which the candidate with the most votes win, is dysfunctional when more than two candidates run.

“It promotes zero-sum politics that discourage new candidates, suppress new ideas and encourage negative campaigns rather than inclusive efforts to build consensus.”

The Center for Voting and Democracy further clarifies how IRV works: “IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates.

“First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot.

“The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.”

Instant Runoff Voting is currently employed to elect mayors and other officials in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Aspen, Colo., Takoma Park, Md., and London, England, according to the Center for Voting and Democracy.

Australians have elected its House of Representatives this way since 1949 and Ireland has elected its president since 1922 with IRV.

There is now a realistic chance for us to acquire the popular vote for president to level the playing field for independents. It would help if all reformers would join this effort.

Perry and Romney: Who is dangerous?

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are proving why they are so utterly incompetent to govern the United States. Perry could very well provoke World War III with his big mouth.

President Obama was contending with arguably the most volatile flashpoint worldwide when Perry charged into New York City with both guns blazing on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011, with Romney close behind - all so they can compete for Fundamentalist Christians who believe that God granted the land of Israel to the Jews. The vast majority of American Jews do not employ this argument on behalf of Israel.

Perry’s most notorious line during a news conference in Manhattan: “We would not be here today at the very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn’t naïve, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.”

From Romney: “What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster. It is the culmination of President Obama’s repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position.”

As they scuffle for the Republican presidential nomination, these nitwits aggravated a crisis that could lead to more violence in the Middle East. If they come across a burning building, they might as well pour a few gallons of gasoline on it.

Obama rates criticism for his approach to Israel, but Perry’s blast is sweeping and dangerous. Romney’s “under-the-bus” crack is an ignorant distortion. Obama expended an excessive amount of time and effort to bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas together to resolve the conflict. Could he help it if both misleaders refused to move close enough for a legitimate compromise?

Netanyahu is locked in by a far-right constituency and persists in allowing settlement expansion in the West Bank, which contradicts any willingness to accept a Palestinian state. Abbas should be well aware that a powerful segment of his people will reject a reasonable pact and he continues to demand far more than Israel can accept.

A decade ago, President Clinton failed to convince Yasser Arafat to accept an offer for a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza, East Jerusalem and most of the West Bank.

President Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 created an existential problem for Israel. By ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush eliminated a counterweight to Iran which was in turn empowered to threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation.

Most Republicans have impressed me as being sincere in their support of Israel, but that does not mean they will deal with a given situation appropriately. Perry and Romney have already exposed their own reckless conduct.

A fiend in need, a right-winger indeed

‘To have revenue there must be taxes’

- To be identified below


Time to lay down the law, literally: You want services, find the money. You want limited government, we’ll limit your own government.

This would be a politically opportune time for President Obama and congressional Democrats to do just that.

So there was Susan Collins crying about post offices that might close on Maine’s offshore islands. Michael G. Grimm and Nan Hayworth bawled about flood victims on Staten Island and in upstate New York counties. In South Carolina, fellow Republicans who want to rule us crowed about shrinking the very government that currently operates remote post offices and brings relief to citizens who lose their homes to Irene.

Then Mitt Romney told the faithful for presidential contenders on Labor Day that Americans “simply have to rein back government to be what it was considered by the founders.”

Founders like George Washington? From the farewell address in 1796 of America’s first president: “It is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects, ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.”

Republicans define “public exigencies” according to their political exigencies.

Unemployment insurance is no exigency for Republicans. Neither is health care. Nor gun-related crime in Philadelphia and other big cities. Unless these issues involve enough of their constituents, they don’t care.

Eric Cantor picked the wrong issue when he urged that money to help flood victims be offset by other cuts. The House majority leader made himself vulnerable to attacks because to even hint at this is tantamount to opposing motherhood and apple pie. This was compounded by criticisms from Republicans whose constituents must now swim for their supper.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said at a committee hearing on Sept. 6, 2011, that post offices on two islands in Maine could be shut down as part of the Postal Service’s effort to close its deficit. As a visitor to Maine, I share her concerns about the closings and any actions which might be detrimental to Maine.

However, Collins has habitually stuck with Republican positions - with some exceptions - that have driven this country into the ground, particularly her ongoing support for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Collins joined Sen. Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat who chairs the subcommittee charged with post office oversight, in attacking the Obama administration for its inadequate response to the post office’s crisis. “The proposals put forward by the administration to date have been insufficient,” Carper said, as The New York Times reported. (nyt, b8, 9/7/11)

“I just don’t understand why the administration doesn’t have a plan to put before us today, given the dire straits that we’re in,” Collins added.

We take their word for it, but why should Obama bother with a plan if Congress refuses to allot him sufficient funds?

House Republicans smacked back at Cantor, indirectly, in demanding aid for their constituents, particularly northeastern representatives who sounded off in a Times piece. (nyt, a24, 9/7/11)

“You can’t put a number on keeping citizens safe,” said Michael G. Grimm of Staten Island, where many homes were flooded. “It’s something the federal government must do. For example, if we’re attacked, we wouldn’t hold a budget meeting.”

Nan Hayworth, who represents northern Westchester and other counties due north of NYC, said, “My priority in the coming weeks will be to see that the Hudson Valley has all the federal resources necessary to recover from Hurricane Irene. I simply won’t let politics get in the way of doing the right thing for our families and communities that have been affected by the disaster.”

Funny, but she never let “politics” stop her before.

Cheers to Rick Perry for criticizing the distribution of $245 billion in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, as he did in a book published in 2010. Were we surprised to learn he received at least $83,000 in farm subsidies between 1987 and 1998 when he was a cotton farmer in West Texas, as The New York Times reported. When he becomes president, he pledges, government will become more “inconsequential” in our lives.

As inconsequential, perhaps, as the $17 billion in federal stimulus money that the Texas governor used to balance his state’s budget; the $2.03 billion in a recent fiscal year for Texas’ role in the No Child Left Behind program; his acceptance of a $1 million federal grant to administer health-care services; his demand and receipt for federal money to fight wildfires; and his request to the federal government for $350 million to imprison illegal immigrants in county jails and state prisons in 2009 and 2010. All this was catalogued in the same Times article. (nyt, fp, 8/29/11)

Obama was wise to target a defective bridge linking Ohio to Kentucky in need of repair - the home states of House Majority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, respectively - as he touts his jobs bill which calls for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Obama and congressional Democrats and other good-government advocates can hammer home Republican demands for federal money when they need it for their home states and districts.

Moral of this story: Republican leaders might be careful in the future about living in adjoining states.

potpourri

Match these governors - Jerry Brown and Tom Corbett - with the following words: historical and hysterical.

Brown signed legislation on Aug. 8, 2010, to end the electoral college’s grip on presidential elections. California’s 55 electoral votes provided a movement to sideline the electoral college a chance to be taken seriously.

Corbett made it harder to be taken seriously when, the following month, he backed a legislative proposal to award electoral votes by congressional districts in Pennsylvania instead of according to who wins the popular vote statewide. Not a word about working to end the electoral college.

Brown’s signature left us with hope that in a presidential election in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2016, a candidate need only win the popular vote to move into the White House. The numbers signal that it is reasonable to expect that the electoral college will mangle the democratic process no longer.
.
The electoral college leads the pack of other glitches in the system, including concerns about the amendment process, federal control of Washington, Puerto Rican statehood and other relatively minor issues.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote.

At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings.

Philadelphians who voted for Bush were no help to him. Al Gore collected all of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes because he won the popular vote there. However, Gore lost the election nationwide because Bush won the majority of the electoral votes, so Bush’s backers in Philadelphia got their wish, anyway - if indirectly.

That is how strange the system gets.

Besides, there was never a conclusive determination as to who won the most electoral votes.



Instead of tinkering around the edges, Pennsylvania lawmakers need to work strenuously to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. I would be surprised if a Republican legislative plan to revamp the presidential electoral system here is not being pursued for partisan purposes. Whatever the motive, this new process will still deprive citizens of a vote that counts.

Gov. Tom Corbett and state legislators have a historic opportunity to make the popular vote a reality, even without struggling through the amendment process. A movement known as National Popular Vote has already convinced eight states (plus Washington, D.C.) to commit to turn over their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

To work, the process requires the commitment of states combining 270 electoral votes. California provided a massive 55 votes last Aug. 8 when Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation to this effect. That raised the number to the 132-vote mark. Pennsylvania’s 20 votes would boost it to 152 votes. Four presidents reached the White House while losing the popular vote, the latest occurring only 11 years ago. Let’s avoid taking the fifth on this.




The most notorious snag in the U.S. Constitution - the electoral college - could be sidelined in the coming years. Many of us may actually live to experience it.

A movement to render the electoral college irrelevant, through a backdoor method, has been plodding along in recent years. A giant step toward that end was taken in Sacramento on Monday, Aug. 8, 2011.

It left us with hope that in a presidential election in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2016, a candidate need only win the popular vote to move into the White House. The numbers signal that it is reasonable to expect that the electoral college will mangle the democratic process no longer.

California lawmakers passed identical measures in 2006 and 2008 to join other states in turning over the electoral votes of all participating states to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority of support nationwide, the Chronicle reported.

Both bills were vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. The sponsor of the bills, Democrat Jerry Hill of San Mateo, discovered that the third time was the charm when Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed new legislation to the same effect.

Seven states and Washington, D.C., preceded California in this venture, but as America’s most populous state California added 55 electoral votes.

Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states.

Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote.

At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings.

In an era when it took six days to travel 150 miles, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 created the electoral college partly because of sparse communications. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That is a reason mentioned in Richard Beeman’s “Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Revolution.”

With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans have no excuse for being unfamiliar with our presidential candidates. Usually we know more than we want to.

With this communications arsenal, the public can decide who runs our country, not a select group of people who are known as electors.

An obscure California-based group called National Popular Vote has been working with state lawmakers throughout the nation since 2006. States which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement on Aug. 8 are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington (the state) plus Washington, D.C.

That leaves states with a combined 138 electoral votes.

It is possible for this mission to succeed, says NPV founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills near Palo Alto. Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” he said, according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11)

He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as “likely” or “inevitable” at this stage. It has an even chance and will take ongoing effort. Colossal effort.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Colorado and Rhode Island have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. The other states to have initiated action are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. That leaves 27 electoral votes.

Four states which might join this movement come to mind. They are Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political influence could allow us voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.





The monster that devoured the presidency four times and threatens to do so again, so to speak, may at last be kept at bay, perhaps in time for the 2016 presidential election.

A mild-mannered Clark Kent-style movement has been plodding along in recent years to toss a net over this political Godzilla, without resorting to assassination. This movement, called the National Popular Vote, has been working with numerous state governments so they will assent to surrendering their electoral votes if one presidential candidate wins the popular vote.

So far, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and five other states have signed on. A giant step was taken in Sacramento on Aug. 8 when California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation committing our most populous state to join the other states.

California added a mammoth 55 electoral votes that day. Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states. Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

So we are left with hope that a presidential candidate can move into the White House by receiving the majority or plurality of individual votes, not the majority of electoral votes - even without slaying our constitutional dragon. No need to seek a constitutional amendment to overturn the electors’ system.

California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state. Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor under the proposed system. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority or plurality of support nationwide, as The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote. At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings. Bush was the fourth successful presidential candidate to falling short of winning the popular vote.

In an era when communications were sparse, the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia created the system of electors - known as the electoral college - partly because of sparse communications throughout the states. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That reason is mentioned by constitutional scholars.

During the ratification process, as a point in fact, Dummer Sewall spent six days on horseback traveling from Bath, Me., to Boston to serve as a delegate at Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, according to Pauline Maier‘s “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788”. With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans can readily access the qualifications of our presidential candidates.

The other states which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington. That leaves acquiring the support of states with a combined 138 electoral votes. National Popular Vote founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills, near Palo Alto, said Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11) He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as likely or inevitable, but it has an even chance and will take ongoing effort to make it succeed.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Rhode Island and Colorado have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. Maine and Connecticut are among the other states to have initiated action; the rest are Arkansas, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. Another 27 electoral votes will be necessary. Four states which might join this movement come to mind: Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue as a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political alignmnet could allow voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.




New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-



The most notorious snag in the U.S. Constitution - the electoral college - could be rendered ineffective in the coming years, perhaps in time for the 2016 presidential election.

A movement to create a backdoor method to replace it with the popular vote has been plodding along in recent years. A giant step toward that end was taken in Sacramento on Monday, Aug. 8.

It left us with hope that a presidential candidate will need only win the popular vote to move into the White House. An analysis of this movement’s efforts signals that the electoral college can be stopped from mangling the democratic process once and for all.

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation committing our most populous state to join other states in turning over their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority of support nationwide, the Chronicle reported.

Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and five other states preceded California in this venture, but California added a mammoth 55 electoral votes on Aug. 8. Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states. Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote.

At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings.

In an era when communications were sparse, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 created the electoral college partly because of sparse communications. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That is a reason mentioned by constitutional scholars.

With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans can readily ascertain the qualifications of our presidential candidates. Usually we know more than we want to.

With this communications arsenal, the public should decide who runs our country, not a select group of people who are known as electors.

An obscure California-based group called National Popular Vote has been working with state lawmakers throughout the nation since 2006.

The other states which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington.

That leaves states with a combined 138 electoral votes.

It is possible for this mission to succeed, says NPV founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills, near Palo Alto. Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11)

He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as likely or inevitable, but it has an even chance and will take ongoing effort to make it succeed.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Rhode Island and Colorado have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. Maine and Connecticut are among the other states to have initiated action; the others are Arkansas, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. Another 27 electoral votes will be necessary.

Four states which might join this movement come to mind. They are Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue as a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political influence could allow us voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.





Democrat Jerry Hill of San Mateo, discovered that the third time was the charm when Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed new legislation


During the ratification process, Dummer Sewall spent six days on horseback traveling from Bath, Me., to Boston to Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, according to Pauline Maier‘s “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788”.















The The most notorious





To: Paul LePage, Maine’s gov

Subject: Your taste in art

Oh, Paul, you moved too hastily.

Your discomfort with that 36-foot-wide mural recounting Maine’s commie-pinko history…er, labor history…rates sympathy, but there is a solution that should satisfy everyone.

Your spokeswoman, Adrienne Bennett, made a valid point when she told The New York Times: “The Department of Labor is a state agency that works very closely with both employees and employers, and we need to have a décor that represents neutrality.” (nyt, a18, 3/24/11)

We heartily concur that Judy Taylor, who created the mural, got hysterical in saying, “I don’t agree that it’s one-sided. It’s based on historical fact. I’m not sure how you can say history is one-sided.”

We’re surprised you have not dubbed Taylor one of those “idiots” who protested the mural’s removal or instructed her to “kiss my butt” as you suggested to the NAACP some weeks ago.

Lynn Pasquerella, upset about your regard for the late Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, went into a temper tantrum as evidenced by her March 30 letter to the Times. Pasquerella is president of Mt. Holyoke College, Perkins’s alma mater. (nyt, a24, 3/30/11)

She wrote: “Perkins, who is buried in Maine, also had deep roots there. She is an extraordinary role model for girls and women seeking inspiration in a world that needs more female leaders. Moreover, she sets an example for the political figures of today as to how service to our nation’s working people must always be at the core of our national enterprise.”

That last line was a jab at you, Paul, considering these wild accusations that you do not care about ordinary people.

In case you are as forgetful as you are idiotic - your enemies’ attitude, of course - let’s backtrack.

First, you ordered the removal of this mural which documents Maine’s labor history in the reception area of the state’s Department of Labor building in Augusta, and then you ordered it removed to a secret location - all because business executives might feel uncomfortable there.

Perkins is drawn in one mural conferring with some of the women and children whose lives she helped improve as secretary of labor under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. After graduating Mt. Holyoke, she would go on to witness the tragic Triangle Waistshirt fire in Lower Manhattan and, as Pasquerella points out, aided Roosevelt “in bringing about landmark reforms like the Wagner Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Social Security.”

You also ordered renaming a number of rooms which are already named after Perkins and other labor figures.

Some balance is needed that calls for a two-step solution. Retrieve the mural and re-display it. Then, display an alternate artist’s rendering that your business associates will appreciate.

Got it! A huge portrait of a shark on any wall nearest to the labor mural. That should make your corporate friends more comfortable, especially their lawyers.

Let’s carry this further. At the state’s Ethics Commission, we can set up a huge photo of Richard Nixon when he flung his arms in the air before boarding a helicopter.

At your business development office, we could display a massive white whale to reflect the flabby, contented nature of business leaders, who are presumably mostly white, and it would be in keeping with nautical themes tied to Maine.

No lobsters, of course. We don’t want anyone to see red.

The Waste Management office can be decorated with notes containing your quotes and your photo can hang at the Maine Developmental Disabilities Council.
As a periodic visitor to Maine, I would think that displaying any mural anywhere in Augusta is the most effective means of concealing it from the world, and perhaps from the rest of Maine. Augusta is hardly the attraction we find in Bar Harbor, Camden, Portland, Ogunquit or Sebago Lake. Should the mural be displayed at the Labor office once again, Augusta will likely be a must-see draw for many tourists.

If you don’t like it, Paul, you can kiss my butt.









Sens. Susan Collins and Joseph I. Lieberman should be proud of brokering the deal to trash the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that discriminated against gays in the military. (check when this happened)

It did not take long for them to disgrace themselves by bullying the people of Washington, D.C., when they threatened to slash school funding if city leaders refuse to revive a school voucher program.

Just another cynical reminder that Congress can impose pet policies on their host city that they cannot do to any other city. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Washington has been allowed limited self-government since 1973, but is still under the thumb of Congress. D.C. residents have no voting representation in either the House or the Senate and could not even vote for president until 1961. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton represents Washington in the House in an advisory capacity.

Lieberman and Collins convened a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Feb. 16, 2011, when they scolded D.C. politicos in declaring that they are prioritizing the renewal of the voucher program, called the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, The Washington Post reported. (WP, b5, 2/17/11)

“I think the extra funds that come to D.C….will be in serious jeopardy if the opportunity funding is not in this three-part program of public and charter schools,” said Lieberman, an independent representing Connecticut; he is a former Democrat normally allied with the Democratic party.

Added Collins, a Maine Republican, “I believe unless there is a three-sector approach, the money for D.C. public schools and D.C. charter schools will be in jeopardy.”

Lieberman, who chairs the committee, has joined with Collins to sponsor legislation to revive the voucher program for new enrollees. In the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Speaker John A. Boehner said he is proposing similar legislation which will mean an extra $2.3 million for 2011 and $20 million over the next five years, according to the Post. (wp, fp, 3/16/11)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attitude toward this kind of measure was made clear two years earlier during a previous voucher dust-up, as quoted in The Los Angeles Times: “How would the rest of the states feel if we suddenly determined what was going to happen in those states with regard to vouchers, school choice and charter schools?” (LA Times, 3/11/11)

At the time, scandal-scarred Republican Sen. John Ensign (both he and Reid are from Nevada) said on behalf of vouchers, “What we are talking about here is kids ahead of the special-interest groups.”

Congress voted to raise spending on D.C. public and charter schools in 2004 as part of a pact to enact a $14 million voucher program allotting $7,500 to families who wish to enroll their children in private school, according to the Post. The White House suspended the program in 2009, but students participating in the program as of 2010 are permitted to retain their yearly vouchers through graduation.

Finally, the House voted in favor of vouchers in D.C. on March 30, 2011, but now must go before the Senate.

Two Washingtonians earlier expressed their fury in the Post. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate for D.C., said during a hearing in the House in February 2011: “The inescapable conclusion is that the Republicans believe they can indulge their personal and ideological preferences with impunity here in the District.”

Marc Osgoode Smith’s letter to the editor was published Feb. 19; he is co-chair of the Local School Advisory Board of the Capitol Hill Cluster School. He wrote, “Sens. Lieberman…and Collins threaten to impose financial penalties on more than 45,000 D.C. Public Schools students over a $14 million political hot potato. (wp, a20, 2/19/11)

“And perhaps more disturbing, The Post’s editorial board actually endorses this exercise in extortion,” he continued. “Even my fourth-grader and kindergartner would know the inherent unfairness and cynicism of tying their educational aspirations to an issue in which they have neither a stake nor a voice.

“Congress wants vouchers? Why not just appropriate the money to the U.S. Education Department and have it administer the program? It is, after all, a federal initiative. But to threaten education funding for 45,000 children - not to mention a reform effort the senators ostensibly support - over an issue that they themselves have the power to resolve? That’s just childish.”

What’s important is less the merits of school vouchers than the gall of anyone exploiting their power to dictate policy to another jurisdiction. The 600,000 citizens of Washington are Americans like all members of Congress. Of course, many relocated from other communities around the nation.

It stands to reason that the framers of the Constitution simply wanted property they could control to operate a functioning government - not to subjugate Washington residents as England’s King George III subjugated them. There can be little doubt that the framers would have supported adjustments in this arrangement if they knew it would lead to this situation.










Many women would no doubt agree that Harry Burn, as a member of the male species, was good for something.

Burn singlehandedly gave women the right to vote. As a legislator in Tennessee, Burn had been voting against suffrage for women when the 19th Amendment came before that state’s Senate and House of Representatives for a ratification vote. On Aug. 18, 1920, the 24-year-old Burn recognized that his anti-suffrage vote in the House would keep it tied 48-48. He decided to obey his mom, who had urged him to support the right of women to vote.

Tennessee was almost the final hope for suffragists. Eight state legislatures had already voted down ratification, and the governors of Vermont and Connecticut - which have since elected female governors - would not even authorize a vote in their respective legislatures. Tennessee’s legislature was the last of 36 states to ratify the 19th Amendment, which became law on Aug. 26. All American women were allowed to vote in the 1920 presidential election.

The 72-year struggle to grant women the right to vote is a fascinating story, which makes one wonder if there could have been an easier way. James Wilson, the first delegate to the Constitutional Convention to speak publicly in favor of the Constitution, assured fellow Pennsylvanians at the State House on Oct. 6, 1787, that serious problems with the Constitution can be resolved later through the amendment process, according to Professor Pauline Maier’s book, “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788.”

Wilson did not seem to mention that the framers of the Constitution prohibited a simple majority of members of Congress, the people or the states from amending the Constitution. They raised the bar so high that the most reasonable measures could be rejected. Article V requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states to enact an amendment.

Article V reads in full: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and forth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Defenders of the Constitution in its current form - counting the 27 amendments - would contend that this uphill process ensures that only worthy amendments will become the law of the land. It also ensures that the will of the majority is thwarted and that minorities can be denied basic rights.

Any proposed amendment, no matter how beneficial, can easily be blocked on the basis of parochial interests by one-third plus one of members of the House or the Senate or, if it gets past Congress, stopped short in one-fourth plus one of the state legislatures.

It is ironic that women in America traditionally outnumber men yet could not vote until 1920.

A New York Times account dated June 5, 1919, reported that women have clamored for the right to vote since the American Revolution. The Seneca Falls, N.Y., women’s rights convention in 1848 was the first major suffrage demonstration.

Movement leader Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 when she made a test vote at the polls and was arrested. She refused to pay her fine, but was never jailed.

Anthony drafted the proposed federal amendment in 1878 and a California senator introduced the amendment in the Senate.

The amendment reads: “Section 1 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex; Section 2 - Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article.”

The Times account adds: “In 1878 the vote was 16 yeas to 34 nays; in 1914 it failed by 11 votes, in 1918 it failed by two votes, and on Feb. 10, 1919, it failed by one vote. It has been voted on three times in the House. It failed there in 1915 by 78 votes. In 1918 it passed the House with one vote to spare. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House with 14 votes more than the necessary two-thirds.”

The Times story continues, “Foreign countries or divisons of countries in which women have suffrage are: Isle of Man, granted 1881; New Zealand, 1893; Australia, 1902; Finland, 1906; Norway, 1907; Iceland, 1913; Denmark, 1915; Russia, 1917; Canada, Austria, England, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Scotland and Wales, 1918; Holland and Sweden, 1919.”

The final drive to achieve congressional support paralleled Woodrow Wilson’s administration. When Wilson was inaugurated president in 1913, Alice Paul from Mt. Laurel, N.J., led a march of 8,000 participants in Washington. Through the years before Congress finally acted, Paul and the National Women’s Party picketed the White House, staged large suffrage marches and demonstrations, and spent time in jail, wrote Jone Johnson Lewis in About.com/Women’s History.

“A family legend is that my grandmother was one of a number of women who chained themselves to a courthouse door in Minneapolis during this period,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson recounted that the work of women who were employed in factories to support America’s role in World War I inspired the President Wilson to finally endorse the women’s right to vote. He said in a Sept. 18, 1918, speech: “We have made partners of the women in this war. Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and to a partnership of right?”

So finally the showdown arrived in Tennessee as both supporters and opponents lobbied the legislature. The Senate passed the amendment and in the House it all boiled down to Harry Burn, then 24 years old. He broke the tie in favor of the amendment after his mother, Febb Ensminger Burn, sent him a telegram, which read in part: “Dear Son: Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!“

In a biographical sketch, Brown was quoted to say years after the vote: “I had always believed that women had an inherent right to vote. It was a logical attitude from my standpoint. My mother was a college woman, a student of national and international affairs who took an interest in all public issues. She could not vote. Yet the tenant farmers on our farm, some of whom were illiterate, could vote. On that roll call, confronted with the fact that I was going to go on record for time and eternity on the merits of the question, I had to vote for ratification.”

Johnson recalled that Charlotte Woodward was the only woman who attended the convention of 1848 who was alive in 1920 when she was finally eligible to vote, but evidently she was too ill to go out to vote.

Had the amendment process been simpler…



Pity the poor independent voter whose attitude toward the two major parties is simple: A pox on both your houses.

That long-standing phrase could be taken literally given GOP control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic control of the U.S. Senate.

Many independents voted for Republicans last November to send a message: If those in charge mess up, we will vote them out. At this rate, Republicans will be vulnerable to voter wrath in November 2012. The budget plan that effectively scraps Medicare is already a campaign issue that should terrify Republicans.

As television host Rachel Maddow correctly points out, Republican candidates pledged to focus on supplying jobs to the millions of Americans who are out of work. GOP House members insist that all their legislative initiatives since early January are tied to new jobs.

It is a stretch that their Jan. 19 repeal of the Affordable Care Act has anything to do with job creation. Or their new proposals on Tuesday, Feb. 8, to add restrictions on funding for abortions and eliminate federal financing for women’s health care clinics that provide abortions. Republican House members engaged in internal party squabbles over funding reductions.

An end to gridlock? Republicans can barely agree on a bad course of action, much less any course.

American voters will always be upset with this country’s direction so long as Democrats and Republicans are fighting one another. Why must we tolerate this?

More importantly, why must voters be forced to choose between candidates from the two major parties? Each Democrat voted out of Congress was replaced by a Republican. Did the dissidents specifically want Republicans in charge? Would voters consider electing a credible independent with a viable chance of winning?

Let’s suppose that in Congressional District 1 an independent candidate with a sensible platform entered the race against the Democratic incumbent and the Republican challenger. Voters are disappointed, justly or not, with the Democratic incumbent and are not enthused with the Republican. What would they do?

Under the present system, they might fear they will throw their vote away for the independent because most of their neighbors will vote Democrat or Republican. Or, the independent might draw votes from the lesser of the two partisan evils - in this case, the Republican - and the greater evil, the Democrat, will win. Also, the party candidates no doubt are better financed and operate more efficient political organizations.

Suppose a system is created in which no one candidate draws votes away from another candidate. Instead, citizens can vote for their candidates and then list their next preferences. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, then a person’s vote can be transferred to a next-preference candidate with a larger share of the votes.

The Center for Voting and Democracy describes further how the system, called Instant Runoff Voting, operates: “IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates.

“First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.”

IRV has prompted criticisms, but at the very least it takes us in the right direction away from what we now have.

An educated guess: If IRV was in place last November nationwide, the new crop of House members would have likely consisted of a healthy mix of independents and Republicans, along with incumbent Democrats who survived re-election because voters ranked them as their next preference. Maybe neither party would have the majority.

The infusion of a large number of independents in Congress would be the best move for America. The democratic process would be enlivened. Independents would inherently act on the basis of policy and the needs of their constituents. They will not be beholden to either major political party to any appreciable degree, even though they would form alliances with either party depending on the issue at hand.

A system allowing for expansion of candidates would also render conflicts over redistricting somewhat irrelevant. Every 10 years, each major party maneuvers to benefit their chances of winning the most congressional seats. What difference would redistricting make if a level playing field was created for independents?

There are good people with fine intentions in both parties, but they will always factor in the wider political needs of their parties. They need their parties for financial and organizational support in future elections, and they will consider how there votes will affect the political fortunes of other party members.

As it stands, it is nearly impossible to comprehend why the Republican Party exists now except to perpetuate their place in government. They back policies that are harmful to the poor and middle class, and only the greediest among the rich need their help. Democrats make a good-faith effort to serve the public, but they still tailor their positions to shore up re-election chances for the president and for senators and representatives from swing areas.

Democratic leaders would call this moving to the center, others would call it blatant pandering.

Two independents now serving in the Senate usually vote with the Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-acknowledged socialist, evolved as a highly respected mayor of Burlington, part of the largest metropolitan area in Vermont, and he subsequently served in the House before running for the Senate in 2006.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman represented Connecticut for three terms before losing the Democratic primary in 2006. He ran as an independent and beat the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The emergence of viable independent candidates is possible in communities with relatively small constituencies such as congressional districts and in small states for Senate and governor posts. It does not seem practical for an independent to get elected president or senator in a large state.

The latter thought may appear to be unrealistic, but it is certainly not impossible. After all, this is America.









The McCain qualifier

Meghan McCain, 26, whose father chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, slammed Christine O’Donnell’s qualifications as a Senate candidate during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Oct. 15.

She proclaimed, “She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business. What that sends to my generation is, one day, you can just wake up and run for Senate, no matter how (much of a lack of experience) you have.”

I would certainly not vote for O’Donnell, but she still has the constitutional right to run for office. One day, Meghan will be able to wake up one day and run for the Senate - when she turns 30. She can now run for the House of Representatives (25 is the minimum age) and at 35 she can run for president.

She can even compete with her father for the Republican nomination…in 2020. Or she can run against dad in the general election as a Democrat or of another party.

When the delegates convened for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they demanded very little of candidates for the presidency, the House and the Senate. They only need to meet certain age requirements and to live in their state on election day. Candidates for Congress must live in this country for so many years and, as we all know, a candidate for president must be born in this country.

This last requirement alienated Frank Costanza, George’s father on Seinfeld, who emigrated from Italy to Queens. Played by Jerry Stiller, Frank one day declares: “That’s why I could never become president. That’s also why, from an early age, I never had any interest in politics. They don’t want me, I don’t want them.”

Practically speaking, both qualified and unqualified candidates get nominated and elected to office. It is the right and responsibility of the people to decide who is suited for public office, and very often the public makes both exceptional and dreadful choices.

Most people would gamble their life savings on Democrat Chris Coons wiping out O’Donnell, a Republican, in the Delaware Senate election on Tuesday.

If Meghan wants to do this right, she might start a drive to amend the Constitution to add requirements for qualifications. Her father would be easily disqualified if the qualifications cover even temperament, courtesy to colleagues and…drum roll, please…judgment in their choice of vice presidential running mates.

We will never forget when her dad, Sen. John McCain, picked Palin to run for vice president in the presidential election. We also will never forget what McCain gave us.

The question of qualifications is intriguing. Some people would automatically demand an IQ test. More conservative citizens may well set a quota on graduates of Eastern Seaboard universities like Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

It is worth considering a set of qualifications not only for presidential candidates but also congressional hopefuls. It would be awfully hard to determine qualifications on which most Americans can concur.

However, three related issues come to mind which deserve consideration.

Recall when Hillary Clinton ran for senator of New York? Critics piled on that she was moving from Arkansas to New York as sort of a carpetbagger in reverse. She was criticized for running for the Senate almost immediately after moving into the state.

It is legitimate for anyone to wonder if she was taking advantage of New Yorkers to establish a political career. After all, Clinton must have understood that New Yorkers would be more accepting of her political views than Arkansans.

In West Virginia this year, Republican Senate candidate John Raese divides his time between West Virginia and Palm Beach. His children attend school in Palm Beach and his wife is registered to vote in Florida, not West Virginia.

Maybe he plans to divide his time between Palm Beach and Washington, D.C., if he is elected senator.

Residency requirements for congressional candidates should be expanded. Candidates must demonstrate a basic commitment to the state they want to represent or govern. That can only be guaranteed by enactment of strong law or amendment of the Constitution.

They should live in their adopted state for a specific number of years, probably between three to five years. Anyone living in his residence must be registered to vote in the state that s/he seeks to represent.

We should also consider whether a House member should live in the congressional district that s/he represents.

My representative, Democrat Bob Brady, lives in Philadelphia, but a different section. Brady has served his constituents well and he certainly understands the needs of the congressional district, which are primarily the same in the district where he lives.

In addition, there is always the potential that a member of Congress can be redistricted out of their district. S/he could be representing, and living in, a congressional district for decades and then the state legislature changes the district’s boundaries separate from the town or street where the congressperson lives.

It just seems peculiar that a member of Congress lives outside his/her district no matter how effective, qualified and experienced s/he might be.

The provision requiring presidential candidates can be safely overturned. Two governors who are barred from running for president can probably be trusted for loyalty to America just as much as any other politician here.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm moved from Vancouver, Canada, to California when she was 4 years old and later moved to Michigan. Her husband is a Michigan native.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger moved from Austria to Los Angeles more than 40 years ago and has been an American citizen for more than 25 years. As a movie superstar, he has been a taxation bonanza and he contributes to charitable causes.

Besides, the United States is at peace with both Austria and Canada for the moment.

For those who want to assure that Schwarzenegger cannot be elected president, we can submit this provision: no mangled Austrian accents in the Oval Office.

The Hudson horror: Soaking the poor

As the wealthy lap up their luxury, the rest of us are now expected to find more money we do not have to rebuild our bridges and roads and supply jobs for the building trades unions.

Such is the message conveyed by our leaders in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, if indirectly through flunkies. They refuse to raise taxes on the rich or profitable corporations, yet they want us to pay higher tolls and fees.

“The pain of higher tolls is nothing compared with the pain we would feel if the span of the George Washington Bridge collapses,” writes Mitchell Moss in a New York Daily News op-ed. (nydn, p27, 8/17/11)

“There are dozens of critical maintenance projects like that - basic improvements that need to be made to keep things running smoothly,” the urban policy professor continued. “Contrary to popular belief, tolls are actually the best way to pay for highways and bridges.”

In a letter to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Ricke C. Foster, president of the Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, writes: “The state has suffered for decades without the needed funds to invest in our highways and public transit systems. The recent recommendations by the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission offer a commonsense solution to our state’s transportation problem, in particular, raising additional funds specifically from transportation users.

“The cost for a typical motorist will be only 70 cents per week in the first year, growing to a still-modest $2.50 per week by year five - less than the cost of a gallon of gasoline,” he continues. “It’s a plan that will put Pennsylvania back on track to economic recovery and provide for our long-term prosperity.”
No argument. Our infrastructure has long been deteriorating. We know that. Likewise, repair projects to this end will create many jobs. We also know that the governors of both New York and New Jersey refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett has rebuffed all calls for imposing a production tax on wealthy corporations that have been extracting shale gas underneath Pennsylvania land.

So the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey antagonized motorists on both sides of the Hudson when in late August it proposed massive toll hikes on its bridges and tunnels across the Hudson and its bridges between New Jersey and Staten Island.

A commission in Pennsylvania recommended increases in taxes and fees to pay for repairs of state roads, bridges and mass-transportation systems. The increases would include annual vehicle and drivers’ fees.

The Port Authority originally proposed raising tolls for E-ZPass users from $8 to $12 and tolls for drivers who pay with cash would be charged almost double, from $8 to $15 for each trip. Fares for the PA’s subway-style service known as PATH would rise from $1.75 to $2.75.

The PA mess swiftly got ugly. Letters to the editor that were published were almost unprintable. Union workers filled some hearings to argue that the toll increases would produce jobs and upgrade the infrastructure, the NY News reported. (nydn, p5, 8/17/11)

“This plan will be a lifeline for New York City workers, but it will also be a lifeline for our city’s infrastructure,” said Bernard Callegari, a member of Construction & General Building Laborers’ Local 79.
Ah! So poor and middle-class citizens should pay higher tolls and and train fares so we can give Callegari and his friends jobs - jobs that will probably provide higher salaries than many of these people currently earn.

Also, union representative Michael McGuire said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch. We have serious infrastructure needs.”

Added Local 79 member Dennis Lee, “Haven’t we learned something from (the bridge collapse in) Minnesota when all those people died? Are we looking to be a Third World nation?”

Joe Valentine, vice president of Taxpayers of Staten Island, engaged in a shouting match with a union member after saying, “They come in here and try to intimidate me and the rest of Staten Island. You people are not even from Staten Island…I want your hands out of my pocket.”

Few people would be surprised if the unions and politicians orchestrated this display. The Port Authority would get its toll and fare hikes and the unions would get their jobs. Everyone else would be squeezed even more at a time when most people are barely keeping their heads above water, financially speaking.

That kind of conduct on the part of the unions is a sure way to lose sympathy. Any reasonable person would be pleased for anyone to find work, but those who learned of this behavior is probably anxious to see these guys waiting in long employment lines.

If the politicians were behind it, they artfully played the divide-and-conquer game.

What the union members should have done was team up with the commuters. Instead, they apparently fell for the oldest trick in the book.

What’s more, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie balked at the PA’s toll-hike proposals - even though they appoint the members of the authority. Nobody believed them when they claimed they were caught flatfooted by the news.

Nor did anyone acclaim the governors knights in shining armor who rescued them from such high tolls. The PA reduced the toll hikes considerably, but would raise the PATH fares 25 cents each year for the next four year instead of boosting it by $1 in one year.

Is it necessary to raise tolls to fund infrastructure repairs? Some of the wealthiest people in the world live in New York and New Jersey. They were already paying extra taxes before Christie ended it in New Jersey and Cuomo agreed to let them run out in New York. Cuomo campaigned on a no-tax pledge and must contend with a Republican-controlled state Senate.

Christie sacrificed money for school and community services to soothe the rich. As a precursor to the toll increase, fares on New Jersey Transit trains rose nearly as much as 50 percent on May 1, 2010; a round-trip from Trenton to New York increased from $21.50 to $31.

So it’s strange to read Christie’s words in The New York Post: “What’s the cost of not paying higher tolls, if in fact we stop investing in our infrastructure to the region?…It’s about creating good-paying jobs for building tradesmen and women across our state, to put them to work on these projects.” (NYPost, p6, 8/18/11)

Rob Wonderling, president of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, tried to justify Pennsylvania’s fee increases in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed: “Additional proposals called for generating the revenue through an increase in the annual vehicle and drivers’ fees to inflation - by $13 and $5, respectively. The fees paid by these citizens have not been adjusted since 1987.”

So a failure to adjust said fees for 24 years obligates an increase. Maybe the state can think about adjusting the fees downward.

electoral college

The most notorious snag in the U.S. Constitution - the electoral college - could be sidelined in the coming years. Many of us may actually live to experience it.

A movement to render the electoral college irrelevant, through a backdoor method, has been plodding along in recent years. A giant step toward that end was taken in Sacramento on Monday, Aug. 8, 2011.

It left us with hope that in a presidential election in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2016, a candidate need only win the popular vote to move into the White House. The numbers signal that it is reasonable to expect that the electoral college will mangle the democratic process no longer.

California lawmakers passed identical measures in 2006 and 2008 to join other states in turning over the electoral votes of all participating states to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority of support nationwide, the Chronicle reported.

Both bills were vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. The sponsor of the bills, Democrat Jerry Hill of San Mateo, discovered that the third time was the charm when Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed new legislation to the same effect.

Seven states and Washington, D.C., preceded California in this venture, but as America’s most populous state California added 55 electoral votes.

Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states.

Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote.

At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings.

In an era when it took six days to travel 150 miles, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 created the electoral college partly because of sparse communications. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That is a reason mentioned in Richard Beeman’s “Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Revolution.”

With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans have no excuse for being unfamiliar with our presidential candidates. Usually we know more than we want to.

With this communications arsenal, the public can decide who runs our country, not a select group of people who are known as electors.

An obscure California-based group called National Popular Vote has been working with state lawmakers throughout the nation since 2006. States which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement on Aug. 8 are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington (the state) plus Washington, D.C.

That leaves states with a combined 138 electoral votes.

It is possible for this mission to succeed, says NPV founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills near Palo Alto. Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” he said, according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11)

He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as “likely” or “inevitable” at this stage. It has an even chance and will take ongoing effort. Colossal effort.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Colorado and Rhode Island have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. The other states to have initiated action are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. That leaves 27 electoral votes.

Four states which might join this movement come to mind. They are Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political influence could allow us voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.





The monster that devoured the presidency four times and threatens to do so again, so to speak, may at last be kept at bay, perhaps in time for the 2016 presidential election.

A mild-mannered Clark Kent-style movement has been plodding along in recent years to toss a net over this political Godzilla, without resorting to assassination. This movement, called the National Popular Vote, has been working with numerous state governments so they will assent to surrendering their electoral votes if one presidential candidate wins the popular vote.

So far, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and five other states have signed on. A giant step was taken in Sacramento on Aug. 8 when California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation committing our most populous state to join the other states.

California added a mammoth 55 electoral votes that day. Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states. Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

So we are left with hope that a presidential candidate can move into the White House by receiving the majority or plurality of individual votes, not the majority of electoral votes - even without slaying our constitutional dragon. No need to seek a constitutional amendment to overturn the electors’ system.

California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state. Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor under the proposed system. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority or plurality of support nationwide, as The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote. At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings. Bush was the fourth successful presidential candidate to falling short of winning the popular vote.

In an era when communications were sparse, the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia created the system of electors - known as the electoral college - partly because of sparse communications throughout the states. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That reason is mentioned by constitutional scholars.

During the ratification process, as a point in fact, Dummer Sewall spent six days on horseback traveling from Bath, Me., to Boston to serve as a delegate at Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, according to Pauline Maier‘s “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788”. With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans can readily access the qualifications of our presidential candidates.

The other states which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington. That leaves acquiring the support of states with a combined 138 electoral votes. National Popular Vote founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills, near Palo Alto, said Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11) He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as likely or inevitable, but it has an even chance and will take ongoing effort to make it succeed.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Rhode Island and Colorado have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. Maine and Connecticut are among the other states to have initiated action; the rest are Arkansas, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. Another 27 electoral votes will be necessary. Four states which might join this movement come to mind: Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue as a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political alignmnet could allow voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.




New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-



The most notorious snag in the U.S. Constitution - the electoral college - could be rendered ineffective in the coming years, perhaps in time for the 2016 presidential election.

A movement to create a backdoor method to replace it with the popular vote has been plodding along in recent years. A giant step toward that end was taken in Sacramento on Monday, Aug. 8.

It left us with hope that a presidential candidate will need only win the popular vote to move into the White House. An analysis of this movement’s efforts signals that the electoral college can be stopped from mangling the democratic process once and for all.

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation committing our most populous state to join other states in turning over their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. (SFChronicle, 8/9/11) California’s electoral votes currently go to the person who wins the most votes in the state.

Most California voters might choose one candidate, but the state’s electoral votes could be handed to the competitor. It would also make it impossible for a presidential candidate to win an election without a majority of support nationwide, the Chronicle reported.

Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and five other states preceded California in this venture, but California added a mammoth 55 electoral votes on Aug. 8. Under federal law, states representing a majority of electoral votes, 270 out of 538, must agree in order to shift how votes are awarded in those states. Brown’s signature brings the number up to 132, almost half the required amount.

It was more than a decade ago when we were bludgeoned over the head with an anachronistic handicap to the democratic process. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and it was never clear if he even won the electoral college vote.

At best, Bush took Florida by a 537-vote margin in a state populated by 18.5 million people representing scattered races, religions, ideologies and political leanings.

In an era when communications were sparse, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 created the electoral college partly because of sparse communications. How could people assess the qualifications of presidential candidates when they had no way of knowing anything about them? That is a reason mentioned by constitutional scholars.

With today’s media outlets and technological advantages, 308 million Americans can readily ascertain the qualifications of our presidential candidates. Usually we know more than we want to.

With this communications arsenal, the public should decide who runs our country, not a select group of people who are known as electors.

An obscure California-based group called National Popular Vote has been working with state lawmakers throughout the nation since 2006.

The other states which made this commitment prior to Brown’s endorsement are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington.

That leaves states with a combined 138 electoral votes.

It is possible for this mission to succeed, says NPV founder John Koza of Los Altos Hills, near Palo Alto. Brown’s signature “gives it the credibility so that it’s not just a theoretic or academic idea,” according to The Sacramento Bee. (Sacbee, 8/9/11)

He is right. We can hardly describe the possibility as likely or inevitable, but it has an even chance and will take ongoing effort to make it succeed.

Koza’s Web site lists 12 states with 111 electoral votes among them which have moved on this approach in varying degrees. Both the House and Senate in Rhode Island and Colorado have passed bills to this end. Bills in the other 10 states have either been introduced or passed in one of the two chambers of each state.

New York’s state Senate, controlled by the Republicans, voted 47-13 for the measure. Maine and Connecticut are among the other states to have initiated action; the others are Arkansas, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

That brings us to 243 electoral votes if each of these states follows through, which is no guarantee. Another 27 electoral votes will be necessary.

Four states which might join this movement come to mind. They are Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin whose votes amount to 51 votes.

While Koza does not view this issue as a partisan matter, it is likely that Democratic-leaning states will join the effort more than Republican states. Some of these states would not support this venture now, but a change in political influence could allow us voters to decide who is elected…elected…as our president.





Democrat Jerry Hill of San Mateo, discovered that the third time was the charm when Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed new legislation


During the ratification process, Dummer Sewall spent six days on horseback traveling from Bath, Me., to Boston to Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, according to Pauline Maier‘s “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788”.















The The most notorious





To: Paul LePage, Maine’s gov

Subject: Your taste in art

Oh, Paul, you moved too hastily.

Your discomfort with that 36-foot-wide mural recounting Maine’s commie-pinko history…er, labor history…rates sympathy, but there is a solution that should satisfy everyone.

Your spokeswoman, Adrienne Bennett, made a valid point when she told The New York Times: “The Department of Labor is a state agency that works very closely with both employees and employers, and we need to have a décor that represents neutrality.” (nyt, a18, 3/24/11)

We heartily concur that Judy Taylor, who created the mural, got hysterical in saying, “I don’t agree that it’s one-sided. It’s based on historical fact. I’m not sure how you can say history is one-sided.”

We’re surprised you have not dubbed Taylor one of those “idiots” who protested the mural’s removal or instructed her to “kiss my butt” as you suggested to the NAACP some weeks ago.

Lynn Pasquerella, upset about your regard for the late Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, went into a temper tantrum as evidenced by her March 30 letter to the Times. Pasquerella is president of Mt. Holyoke College, Perkins’s alma mater. (nyt, a24, 3/30/11)

She wrote: “Perkins, who is buried in Maine, also had deep roots there. She is an extraordinary role model for girls and women seeking inspiration in a world that needs more female leaders. Moreover, she sets an example for the political figures of today as to how service to our nation’s working people must always be at the core of our national enterprise.”

That last line was a jab at you, Paul, considering these wild accusations that you do not care about ordinary people.

In case you are as forgetful as you are idiotic - your enemies’ attitude, of course - let’s backtrack.

First, you ordered the removal of this mural which documents Maine’s labor history in the reception area of the state’s Department of Labor building in Augusta, and then you ordered it removed to a secret location - all because business executives might feel uncomfortable there.

Perkins is drawn in one mural conferring with some of the women and children whose lives she helped improve as secretary of labor under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. After graduating Mt. Holyoke, she would go on to witness the tragic Triangle Waistshirt fire in Lower Manhattan and, as Pasquerella points out, aided Roosevelt “in bringing about landmark reforms like the Wagner Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Social Security.”

You also ordered renaming a number of rooms which are already named after Perkins and other labor figures.

Some balance is needed that calls for a two-step solution. Retrieve the mural and re-display it. Then, display an alternate artist’s rendering that your business associates will appreciate.

Got it! A huge portrait of a shark on any wall nearest to the labor mural. That should make your corporate friends more comfortable, especially their lawyers.

Let’s carry this further. At the state’s Ethics Commission, we can set up a huge photo of Richard Nixon when he flung his arms in the air before boarding a helicopter.

At your business development office, we could display a massive white whale to reflect the flabby, contented nature of business leaders, who are presumably mostly white, and it would be in keeping with nautical themes tied to Maine.

No lobsters, of course. We don’t want anyone to see red.

The Waste Management office can be decorated with notes containing your quotes and your photo can hang at the Maine Developmental Disabilities Council.
As a periodic visitor to Maine, I would think that displaying any mural anywhere in Augusta is the most effective means of concealing it from the world, and perhaps from the rest of Maine. Augusta is hardly the attraction we find in Bar Harbor, Camden, Portland, Ogunquit or Sebago Lake. Should the mural be displayed at the Labor office once again, Augusta will likely be a must-see draw for many tourists.

If you don’t like it, Paul, you can kiss my butt.









Sens. Susan Collins and Joseph I. Lieberman should be proud of brokering the deal to trash the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that discriminated against gays in the military. (check when this happened)

It did not take long for them to disgrace themselves by bullying the people of Washington, D.C., when they threatened to slash school funding if city leaders refuse to revive a school voucher program.

Just another cynical reminder that Congress can impose pet policies on their host city that they cannot do to any other city. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Washington has been allowed limited self-government since 1973, but is still under the thumb of Congress. D.C. residents have no voting representation in either the House or the Senate and could not even vote for president until 1961. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton represents Washington in the House in an advisory capacity.

Lieberman and Collins convened a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Feb. 16, 2011, when they scolded D.C. politicos in declaring that they are prioritizing the renewal of the voucher program, called the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, The Washington Post reported. (WP, b5, 2/17/11)

“I think the extra funds that come to D.C….will be in serious jeopardy if the opportunity funding is not in this three-part program of public and charter schools,” said Lieberman, an independent representing Connecticut; he is a former Democrat normally allied with the Democratic party.

Added Collins, a Maine Republican, “I believe unless there is a three-sector approach, the money for D.C. public schools and D.C. charter schools will be in jeopardy.”

Lieberman, who chairs the committee, has joined with Collins to sponsor legislation to revive the voucher program for new enrollees. In the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Speaker John A. Boehner said he is proposing similar legislation which will mean an extra $2.3 million for 2011 and $20 million over the next five years, according to the Post. (wp, fp, 3/16/11)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attitude toward this kind of measure was made clear two years earlier during a previous voucher dust-up, as quoted in The Los Angeles Times: “How would the rest of the states feel if we suddenly determined what was going to happen in those states with regard to vouchers, school choice and charter schools?” (LA Times, 3/11/11)

At the time, scandal-scarred Republican Sen. John Ensign (both he and Reid are from Nevada) said on behalf of vouchers, “What we are talking about here is kids ahead of the special-interest groups.”

Congress voted to raise spending on D.C. public and charter schools in 2004 as part of a pact to enact a $14 million voucher program allotting $7,500 to families who wish to enroll their children in private school, according to the Post. The White House suspended the program in 2009, but students participating in the program as of 2010 are permitted to retain their yearly vouchers through graduation.

Finally, the House voted in favor of vouchers in D.C. on March 30, 2011, but now must go before the Senate.

Two Washingtonians earlier expressed their fury in the Post. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate for D.C., said during a hearing in the House in February 2011: “The inescapable conclusion is that the Republicans believe they can indulge their personal and ideological preferences with impunity here in the District.”

Marc Osgoode Smith’s letter to the editor was published Feb. 19; he is co-chair of the Local School Advisory Board of the Capitol Hill Cluster School. He wrote, “Sens. Lieberman…and Collins threaten to impose financial penalties on more than 45,000 D.C. Public Schools students over a $14 million political hot potato. (wp, a20, 2/19/11)

“And perhaps more disturbing, The Post’s editorial board actually endorses this exercise in extortion,” he continued. “Even my fourth-grader and kindergartner would know the inherent unfairness and cynicism of tying their educational aspirations to an issue in which they have neither a stake nor a voice.

“Congress wants vouchers? Why not just appropriate the money to the U.S. Education Department and have it administer the program? It is, after all, a federal initiative. But to threaten education funding for 45,000 children - not to mention a reform effort the senators ostensibly support - over an issue that they themselves have the power to resolve? That’s just childish.”

What’s important is less the merits of school vouchers than the gall of anyone exploiting their power to dictate policy to another jurisdiction. The 600,000 citizens of Washington are Americans like all members of Congress. Of course, many relocated from other communities around the nation.

It stands to reason that the framers of the Constitution simply wanted property they could control to operate a functioning government - not to subjugate Washington residents as England’s King George III subjugated them. There can be little doubt that the framers would have supported adjustments in this arrangement if they knew it would lead to this situation.










Many women would no doubt agree that Harry Burn, as a member of the male species, was good for something.

Burn singlehandedly gave women the right to vote. As a legislator in Tennessee, Burn had been voting against suffrage for women when the 19th Amendment came before that state’s Senate and House of Representatives for a ratification vote. On Aug. 18, 1920, the 24-year-old Burn recognized that his anti-suffrage vote in the House would keep it tied 48-48. He decided to obey his mom, who had urged him to support the right of women to vote.

Tennessee was almost the final hope for suffragists. Eight state legislatures had already voted down ratification, and the governors of Vermont and Connecticut - which have since elected female governors - would not even authorize a vote in their respective legislatures. Tennessee’s legislature was the last of 36 states to ratify the 19th Amendment, which became law on Aug. 26. All American women were allowed to vote in the 1920 presidential election.

The 72-year struggle to grant women the right to vote is a fascinating story, which makes one wonder if there could have been an easier way. James Wilson, the first delegate to the Constitutional Convention to speak publicly in favor of the Constitution, assured fellow Pennsylvanians at the State House on Oct. 6, 1787, that serious problems with the Constitution can be resolved later through the amendment process, according to Professor Pauline Maier’s book, “Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788.”

Wilson did not seem to mention that the framers of the Constitution prohibited a simple majority of members of Congress, the people or the states from amending the Constitution. They raised the bar so high that the most reasonable measures could be rejected. Article V requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states to enact an amendment.

Article V reads in full: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and forth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Defenders of the Constitution in its current form - counting the 27 amendments - would contend that this uphill process ensures that only worthy amendments will become the law of the land. It also ensures that the will of the majority is thwarted and that minorities can be denied basic rights.

Any proposed amendment, no matter how beneficial, can easily be blocked on the basis of parochial interests by one-third plus one of members of the House or the Senate or, if it gets past Congress, stopped short in one-fourth plus one of the state legislatures.

It is ironic that women in America traditionally outnumber men yet could not vote until 1920.

A New York Times account dated June 5, 1919, reported that women have clamored for the right to vote since the American Revolution. The Seneca Falls, N.Y., women’s rights convention in 1848 was the first major suffrage demonstration.

Movement leader Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 when she made a test vote at the polls and was arrested. She refused to pay her fine, but was never jailed.

Anthony drafted the proposed federal amendment in 1878 and a California senator introduced the amendment in the Senate.

The amendment reads: “Section 1 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex; Section 2 - Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article.”

The Times account adds: “In 1878 the vote was 16 yeas to 34 nays; in 1914 it failed by 11 votes, in 1918 it failed by two votes, and on Feb. 10, 1919, it failed by one vote. It has been voted on three times in the House. It failed there in 1915 by 78 votes. In 1918 it passed the House with one vote to spare. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House with 14 votes more than the necessary two-thirds.”

The Times story continues, “Foreign countries or divisons of countries in which women have suffrage are: Isle of Man, granted 1881; New Zealand, 1893; Australia, 1902; Finland, 1906; Norway, 1907; Iceland, 1913; Denmark, 1915; Russia, 1917; Canada, Austria, England, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Scotland and Wales, 1918; Holland and Sweden, 1919.”

The final drive to achieve congressional support paralleled Woodrow Wilson’s administration. When Wilson was inaugurated president in 1913, Alice Paul from Mt. Laurel, N.J., led a march of 8,000 participants in Washington. Through the years before Congress finally acted, Paul and the National Women’s Party picketed the White House, staged large suffrage marches and demonstrations, and spent time in jail, wrote Jone Johnson Lewis in About.com/Women’s History.

“A family legend is that my grandmother was one of a number of women who chained themselves to a courthouse door in Minneapolis during this period,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson recounted that the work of women who were employed in factories to support America’s role in World War I inspired the President Wilson to finally endorse the women’s right to vote. He said in a Sept. 18, 1918, speech: “We have made partners of the women in this war. Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and to a partnership of right?”

So finally the showdown arrived in Tennessee as both supporters and opponents lobbied the legislature. The Senate passed the amendment and in the House it all boiled down to Harry Burn, then 24 years old. He broke the tie in favor of the amendment after his mother, Febb Ensminger Burn, sent him a telegram, which read in part: “Dear Son: Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!“

In a biographical sketch, Brown was quoted to say years after the vote: “I had always believed that women had an inherent right to vote. It was a logical attitude from my standpoint. My mother was a college woman, a student of national and international affairs who took an interest in all public issues. She could not vote. Yet the tenant farmers on our farm, some of whom were illiterate, could vote. On that roll call, confronted with the fact that I was going to go on record for time and eternity on the merits of the question, I had to vote for ratification.”

Johnson recalled that Charlotte Woodward was the only woman who attended the convention of 1848 who was alive in 1920 when she was finally eligible to vote, but evidently she was too ill to go out to vote.

Had the amendment process been simpler…



Pity the poor independent voter whose attitude toward the two major parties is simple: A pox on both your houses.

That long-standing phrase could be taken literally given GOP control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic control of the U.S. Senate.

Many independents voted for Republicans last November to send a message: If those in charge mess up, we will vote them out. At this rate, Republicans will be vulnerable to voter wrath in November 2012. The budget plan that effectively scraps Medicare is already a campaign issue that should terrify Republicans.

As television host Rachel Maddow correctly points out, Republican candidates pledged to focus on supplying jobs to the millions of Americans who are out of work. GOP House members insist that all their legislative initiatives since early January are tied to new jobs.

It is a stretch that their Jan. 19 repeal of the Affordable Care Act has anything to do with job creation. Or their new proposals on Tuesday, Feb. 8, to add restrictions on funding for abortions and eliminate federal financing for women’s health care clinics that provide abortions. Republican House members engaged in internal party squabbles over funding reductions.

An end to gridlock? Republicans can barely agree on a bad course of action, much less any course.

American voters will always be upset with this country’s direction so long as Democrats and Republicans are fighting one another. Why must we tolerate this?

More importantly, why must voters be forced to choose between candidates from the two major parties? Each Democrat voted out of Congress was replaced by a Republican. Did the dissidents specifically want Republicans in charge? Would voters consider electing a credible independent with a viable chance of winning?

Let’s suppose that in Congressional District 1 an independent candidate with a sensible platform entered the race against the Democratic incumbent and the Republican challenger. Voters are disappointed, justly or not, with the Democratic incumbent and are not enthused with the Republican. What would they do?

Under the present system, they might fear they will throw their vote away for the independent because most of their neighbors will vote Democrat or Republican. Or, the independent might draw votes from the lesser of the two partisan evils - in this case, the Republican - and the greater evil, the Democrat, will win. Also, the party candidates no doubt are better financed and operate more efficient political organizations.

Suppose a system is created in which no one candidate draws votes away from another candidate. Instead, citizens can vote for their candidates and then list their next preferences. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, then a person’s vote can be transferred to a next-preference candidate with a larger share of the votes.

The Center for Voting and Democracy describes further how the system, called Instant Runoff Voting, operates: “IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Voters have the option to rank as many or as few as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates.

“First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate earns a majority of votes.”

IRV has prompted criticisms, but at the very least it takes us in the right direction away from what we now have.

An educated guess: If IRV was in place last November nationwide, the new crop of House members would have likely consisted of a healthy mix of independents and Republicans, along with incumbent Democrats who survived re-election because voters ranked them as their next preference. Maybe neither party would have the majority.

The infusion of a large number of independents in Congress would be the best move for America. The democratic process would be enlivened. Independents would inherently act on the basis of policy and the needs of their constituents. They will not be beholden to either major political party to any appreciable degree, even though they would form alliances with either party depending on the issue at hand.

A system allowing for expansion of candidates would also render conflicts over redistricting somewhat irrelevant. Every 10 years, each major party maneuvers to benefit their chances of winning the most congressional seats. What difference would redistricting make if a level playing field was created for independents?

There are good people with fine intentions in both parties, but they will always factor in the wider political needs of their parties. They need their parties for financial and organizational support in future elections, and they will consider how there votes will affect the political fortunes of other party members.

As it stands, it is nearly impossible to comprehend why the Republican Party exists now except to perpetuate their place in government. They back policies that are harmful to the poor and middle class, and only the greediest among the rich need their help. Democrats make a good-faith effort to serve the public, but they still tailor their positions to shore up re-election chances for the president and for senators and representatives from swing areas.

Democratic leaders would call this moving to the center, others would call it blatant pandering.

Two independents now serving in the Senate usually vote with the Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-acknowledged socialist, evolved as a highly respected mayor of Burlington, part of the largest metropolitan area in Vermont, and he subsequently served in the House before running for the Senate in 2006.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman represented Connecticut for three terms before losing the Democratic primary in 2006. He ran as an independent and beat the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The emergence of viable independent candidates is possible in communities with relatively small constituencies such as congressional districts and in small states for Senate and governor posts. It does not seem practical for an independent to get elected president or senator in a large state.

The latter thought may appear to be unrealistic, but it is certainly not impossible. After all, this is America.









The McCain qualifier

Meghan McCain, 26, whose father chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, slammed Christine O’Donnell’s qualifications as a Senate candidate during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Oct. 15.

She proclaimed, “She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business. What that sends to my generation is, one day, you can just wake up and run for Senate, no matter how (much of a lack of experience) you have.”

I would certainly not vote for O’Donnell, but she still has the constitutional right to run for office. One day, Meghan will be able to wake up one day and run for the Senate - when she turns 30. She can now run for the House of Representatives (25 is the minimum age) and at 35 she can run for president.

She can even compete with her father for the Republican nomination…in 2020. Or she can run against dad in the general election as a Democrat or of another party.

When the delegates convened for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they demanded very little of candidates for the presidency, the House and the Senate. They only need to meet certain age requirements and to live in their state on election day. Candidates for Congress must live in this country for so many years and, as we all know, a candidate for president must be born in this country.

This last requirement alienated Frank Costanza, George’s father on Seinfeld, who emigrated from Italy to Queens. Played by Jerry Stiller, Frank one day declares: “That’s why I could never become president. That’s also why, from an early age, I never had any interest in politics. They don’t want me, I don’t want them.”

Practically speaking, both qualified and unqualified candidates get nominated and elected to office. It is the right and responsibility of the people to decide who is suited for public office, and very often the public makes both exceptional and dreadful choices.

Most people would gamble their life savings on Democrat Chris Coons wiping out O’Donnell, a Republican, in the Delaware Senate election on Tuesday.

If Meghan wants to do this right, she might start a drive to amend the Constitution to add requirements for qualifications. Her father would be easily disqualified if the qualifications cover even temperament, courtesy to colleagues and…drum roll, please…judgment in their choice of vice presidential running mates.

We will never forget when her dad, Sen. John McCain, picked Palin to run for vice president in the presidential election. We also will never forget what McCain gave us.

The question of qualifications is intriguing. Some people would automatically demand an IQ test. More conservative citizens may well set a quota on graduates of Eastern Seaboard universities like Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

It is worth considering a set of qualifications not only for presidential candidates but also congressional hopefuls. It would be awfully hard to determine qualifications on which most Americans can concur.

However, three related issues come to mind which deserve consideration.

Recall when Hillary Clinton ran for senator of New York? Critics piled on that she was moving from Arkansas to New York as sort of a carpetbagger in reverse. She was criticized for running for the Senate almost immediately after moving into the state.

It is legitimate for anyone to wonder if she was taking advantage of New Yorkers to establish a political career. After all, Clinton must have understood that New Yorkers would be more accepting of her political views than Arkansans.

In West Virginia this year, Republican Senate candidate John Raese divides his time between West Virginia and Palm Beach. His children attend school in Palm Beach and his wife is registered to vote in Florida, not West Virginia.

Maybe he plans to divide his time between Palm Beach and Washington, D.C., if he is elected senator.

Residency requirements for congressional candidates should be expanded. Candidates must demonstrate a basic commitment to the state they want to represent or govern. That can only be guaranteed by enactment of strong law or amendment of the Constitution.

They should live in their adopted state for a specific number of years, probably between three to five years. Anyone living in his residence must be registered to vote in the state that s/he seeks to represent.

We should also consider whether a House member should live in the congressional district that s/he represents.

My representative, Democrat Bob Brady, lives in Philadelphia, but a different section. Brady has served his constituents well and he certainly understands the needs of the congressional district, which are primarily the same in the district where he lives.

In addition, there is always the potential that a member of Congress can be redistricted out of their district. S/he could be representing, and living in, a congressional district for decades and then the state legislature changes the district’s boundaries separate from the town or street where the congressperson lives.

It just seems peculiar that a member of Congress lives outside his/her district no matter how effective, qualified and experienced s/he might be.

The provision requiring presidential candidates can be safely overturned. Two governors who are barred from running for president can probably be trusted for loyalty to America just as much as any other politician here.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm moved from Vancouver, Canada, to California when she was 4 years old and later moved to Michigan. Her husband is a Michigan native.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger moved from Austria to Los Angeles more than 40 years ago and has been an American citizen for more than 25 years. As a movie superstar, he has been a taxation bonanza and he contributes to charitable causes.

Besides, the United States is at peace with both Austria and Canada for the moment.

For those who want to assure that Schwarzenegger cannot be elected president, we can submit this provision: no mangled Austrian accents in the Oval Office.