Is this the face of a crazy man? If so, then what of the men, both Republican and Democrat, who want to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial?

Ron Paul promotes “crazy” conspiracy theories, according to writers such as Leon H. Wolf on RedState. What frequently goes unasked is, in comparison to what?

Some of Paul’s beliefs are odd, but they’re not nearly as insane or dangerous as the war on drugs or the war on terror. One really can’t say with a straight face anything Ron Paul believes, in concert with his libertarian outlook, would result in the mass incarceration or murder of thousands of innocent people. That distinguishes Paul from his opponents.

In any case, let’s not forget: Conspiracies do happen, sometimes with the participation of thousands of people in government. One of the worst in contemporary history was the Vietnam War, about which the government lied wholesale to the American public for more than two decades (read Daniel Ellsberg’s book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers or watch the documentary featuring Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America). And let’s not forget the Tuskegee experiments. Let’s also not forget the racist origins of the drug war or the CIA’s using drugs to fund covert operations, some conspiracies about which Ron Paul was right. And this is a doozy: The US government murdered thousands of people during Prohibition by poisoning alcohol supplies.

Given the breadth and horror of US government conspiracies that have become public knowledge, some additional conspiracy theorizing shouldn’t seem “insane” at all.

I break with Ron Paul in that I am more firmly grounded in rational skepticism, and I require more than folk tales and ambiguous circumstantial evidence interpretable in multiple ways before I accept a proposition, such as a conspiracy theory. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it happened.

But, because it’s possible—because it’s the kind of thing the government is widely acknowledged to have done before—running with it isn’t really “crazy” or, as far as I’m concerned, a disqualifier for public office. Indeed, after the past decade of politicians and their media lapdogs preaching faith in the government, I’d rather a candidate have an abundance of suspicion of the government than a dearth of it. We could’ve used more suspicion when government foreign policy “experts” were telling us Saddam had WMD’s and supported terrorists.

I feel like some Americans haven’t absorbed what’s happened to this country. Our economy has been trashed. Our prisons are full of Americans rotting away even though they’ve done nothing wrong. Our police act like gangs, beating people without cause and stealing property via asset forfeiture. Our Congress is deliberating on whether to censor the Internet and allow the indefinite detainment of American citizens without trial. Our president, Barack Obama, thinks he can start wars by himself and kill American citizens without accountability.

The people who let all this happen and want it to continue? They’re the serious ones. The people, like Ron Paul, who might perhaps be too suspicious of the establishment and want to reverse the assaults on our honor and our liberty? They’re nuts.

Which I find crazy! To me, authoritarianism and murder, and the prejudice and avarice that lead to them, are so completely beyond the limits of moral behavior that nothing else—especially a few off-the-wall conspiracy theories that aren’t so much more outlandish than anything we know the government’s done—can possibly compare.

Maybe Americans have become so used to their country’s brutality it doesn’t even register for them anymore as the ghastly moral crime it is.

See also

The sharp-as-usual Conor Friedersdorf wrote a smart post about Ron Paul and conspiracy theories.

Now let’s get crazy

Think Ron Paul is crazy? Check out his opponents. is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Can the United Nations and the president send American troops to war without asking Congress?

In a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Barack Obama cited UN Security Council authorization to justify war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The Washington Times editorial on the subject adeptly explains why Security Council Resolution 1973 is illegal under the UN’s own charter, which prohibits military intervention in the internal affairs of a state. The purpose of the UN is to help prevent wars between states, not to meddle within states.

Under United States law, the Security Council resolution also constitutes insufficient authorization for military action. Some defenders of Obama’s stance on the resolution cite the 1945 United Nations Participation Act as purportedly allowing the president to wage war based on UN authorization alone. But the Act really prohibits such unilateral military action on the president’s part.

I’ll quote the relevant section of the Act, Section 6:

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

The language of the section can be somewhat confusing, so I’ll break it down into more easily digestible parts.

• “The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.” This means the President of the United States can arrange a deal with the Security Council whereby the American military would be “on call” for the Security Council. Any such deal would be subject to congressional approval. (No such deal has ever been negotiated.)
• “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein…” If the US has a deal with the Security Council for American troops to be “on call,” then the president doesn’t need congressional authorization to use military force under the auspices of the UN mission. This is what Obama defenders point to as legal permission for the president to ignore Congress when going to war in Libya. But remember, the US has no “on call” deal with the UN.
• “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.” Outside any congressionally approved “on call” arrangement, the president must seek congressional authorization before waging war on behalf of the UN. As I’ve written, the US has no forces “on call” to the UN, so this final sentence applies to the Libya operation.

Therefore, as per the United Nations Participation Act, Obama’s war in Libya is illegal. This makes three ways in which the war is illegal: Firstly, the Constitution forbids it. Secondly, the UN charter forbids it. And now, thirdly, the Act under discussion forbids it.

I shall add a fourth criterion by which the Libya war is illegal: the 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to the resolution, the president can only wage war under these three scenarios:

1. Declaration of war.
2. Specific statutory authorization.
3. American territory or soldiers are under attack.

Congress has not declared war against Libya. No law otherwise authorizes war against Libya. And Libya did not attack the United States or its military. These conditions forbid Obama’s Libya intervention under the War Powers Act, in addition to the other reasons I’ve described that the war is illegal.

Watch this

In this video from the Cato Institute, Rep. Tom McClintock explains why Obama’s war in Libya violates the Constitution.

Can the UN allow Obama to wage war? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

President Barack Obama, without congressional approval, has announced US military intervention in Libya.

I wrote the following letter to President Barack Obama regarding military action in Libya:

Mr. President, in 2007, you said the president could not legally attack another country without congressional approval. Yet that’s exactly what you’ve pledged to do regarding Libya.

The Constitution clearly says Congress, not the president, can authorize war. Alexander Hamilton supports this interpretation in Federalist 69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Why are you reneging on what you said in 2007, thereby breaking the Constitution you swore to uphold?

Update: Vice President Gene Healy of the Cato Institute speaks in a good podcast on this topic: “Obama Makes War in Libya, Tells Congress Later“.

A letter to the president regarding Libya is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

The Washington Post considers that possibility in an article a few months before the 2006 elections, noting Burns was running even with Democratic challenger John Tester in the polls despite Burns’s favors for Abramoff. Senator Charles Schumer, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, agrees in the article that scandal was not the preeminent issue for many afflicted politicians in 2006, but part of a larger tapestry of voter considerations.⁵

Scholarly research and analysis of elections in general supports Schumer’s notion scandal will not necessarily dominate elections in which it is a factor. But scandal still emerges as a significant influence on electoral outcomes, even if that might not be obvious from the 2006 campaign season.

Monica Bauer and John R. Hibbing find most incumbents who lose do so because of redistricting or scandal.⁶ The Watergate scandal of the 1970’s bore an especially potent impact on elections: Forty percent of all the incumbents in the 1970’s who achieved impressive victories one year and then lost two years later, won in 1972 and lost in 1974.⁷ Of course, Watergate constitutes the most serious instance of corruption in American history, having threatened the integrity of the electoral process and forced a President of the United States to resign. Influence peddling or sexual immorality scandals appear middling in comparison. The effects of Watergate, however, support the concept scandals that are serious enough can influence elections.

Research from Alan I. Abramowitz on the House of Representatives and the Senate further demonstrates the effects of scandal on electoral outcomes. Regarding the Senate, Abramowitz maintains senators at whom he looked who experienced scandals lost considerable voter support. And four of the five senators in his analysis who allegedly broke the law failed to achieve reelection.⁸ As for the House, Abramowitz says of the six incumbents who lost in 1988, three had done so because of scandals.⁹

Peering more deeply into how scandal affects electoral outcomes, John G. Peters and Susan Welch examine House elections from 1968 to 1978.¹⁰ They assess how much different kinds of scandal—“bribery, conflict of interest, campaign violations, morals charges, abuse of congressional prerogatives, crimes not covered by one of these five categories, and a residual ‘other’ category, acts not punishable as crimes but not fitting into the other categories”¹¹—befall politicians and spark “electoral retribution” from voters.¹² Of the scandal categories, campaign violations rank as most frequent, comprising one-third of the scandals in the Peters and Welch study. Conflict of interest, bribery, and then “other crimes” follow with 42 percent of the scandals. Ten percent of the scandals revolved around abuse of congressional prerogatives. Morals charges and the other category take the remaining 15 percent.¹³

Peters and Welch discover electoral retribution usually ranges from 6 to 11 percent of the anticipated vote.¹⁴ The amount varies for different types of scandal. Morals charges bring the worst losses of votes, and then bribery comes next. Electoral retribution also ensues for abuse of congressional prerogatives, “other crimes,” and campaign violations. Apparently, though, voters do not care enough about conflict of interest to exact retribution; Peters and Welch speculate voter expectation of such behavior in politicians might explain this.¹⁵

Incumbency advantage does not prevent electoral retribution to any degree. Seniority does not decrease the voter losses that accrue from a scandal.¹⁶ Furthermore, politicians from both the Republican and the Democratic Parties lose votes as a consequence of scandal.¹⁷

How much does all this impact scandal-ridden politicians’ chances of remaining in office? Not much, the answer might seem at first glance of Peters and Welch’s data. Seventy-five percent of candidates who ran in general elections even under the cloud of scandal won. But that statistic does not account for politicians who resigned, declined to run again, or lost their primaries. Considering these eventualities, the percentage of legislators who emerged safely from scandals falls to 62.¹⁸ If nearly half of incumbents lost their jobs somehow after a scandal, then, as Peters and Welch say, that should qualify as a serious electoral effect. (After all, if politicians thought they could win reelection after a scandal, they likely would not quit.)¹⁹

And any assumption scandals did not damage the campaigns of politicians who survived would not be appropriate. The amount of injury to them equaled the harm to politicians who lost or surrendered their offices. Entrenched incumbents, however, had a long time to build name recognition, accumulate money reserves, and obtain voter support via constituent service. This furnishes them with an electoral cushion that allows them to withstand even substantial losses of votes. Incumbents who received what Winston Churchill called the Order of the Boot, in contrast, either lacked the service time of the surviving incumbents or hailed from tighter districts, meaning the electoral cushion did not exist for them. So the same losses the long-term incumbents in safer districts could tolerate doomed the other incumbents.²⁰

Still, after conceding that many incumbents do indeed lose their reelection bids and that survivors persevere through significant losses of support, one might yet wonder why voter abandonment is not total for any politician whom scandal afflicts. Peters and Welch posit if a scandal issue is relatively unimportant, and if a candidate possesses qualifications more important to voters than the scandal, then voters will “trade” scandal demerits for value points and back the politician, anyway. The two scholars extend their argument by contending scandals would bear less efficacy than they otherwise might in highly partisan districts and in multiple issue elections.²¹

The idea of scandal versus qualifications commerce stems from the “trading theory of corruption voting,” which Barry S. Rundquist, Gerald S. Strom, and John G. Peters advance in another study of how scandal influences electoral outcomes.²² In this study, Rundquist and his compatriots experimented to see whether voters would discount scandal, and if so, what would persuade them to do so. The probabilities the test’s subjects would overlook scandal in different situations appear below:

As is evident, Vietnam constitutes the most important solitary “trading” criterion. The combinations of party, Vietnam, and polling information, and of party and Vietnam, place first and second, respectively, in the list of all criteria. Of significant impact as well are domestic issues and the combination of party, domestic issues, and polling information. In addition, at the other end of the spectrum, no test subject would ignore scandal absent other context into which to place candidates.²³

What import does everything in this paper have for the 2006 elections?

First, “trading” played a role in electoral outcomes. For example, CNN exit polls for the Montana Senate race show voters who identified themselves as Republicans or conservatives overwhelmingly supported Burns. Voters who backed the War in Iraq (an analogous issue to Vietnam), who opposed withdrawing troops from Iraq, or who cited terrorism as an “extremely important” issue²⁴ opted for Burns, too.²⁵ These phenomena, whereby ideology and issues trumped corruption, would explain why Burns almost eked out a victory in the Montana Senate race.

Second, drop-offs in voter support clearly appear for many of the candidates who won despite their links to the Abramoff or Foley scandals. In the table below appear the candidates who lost votes from 2004 to 2006, as well as their percentages of vote totals in those respective years and degree of loss.

If these candidates had not been entrenched incumbents with cushions of support, they could have easily suffered defeat considering how many voters they hemorrhaged. That applies especially to Doolittle, who could have used his entire cushion this year. Doolittle might have to pray hard to win reelection in 2008, if class discussion about losing challengers coming back to achieve victory holds true.

Third, incumbents did lose their jobs because of scandal this electoral cycle. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Representative Bob Ney resigned because of their involvement with Abramoff. Senator Burns and Representatives Richard Pombo²⁶ and J. D. Hayworth,²⁷ who also dealt with Abramoff, lost their reelection campaigns. Also, as a consequence of the Foley scandal, Representative Mark Foley himself resigned. In total, the Abramoff and Foley scandals exacted five casualties. Ergo, the 2006 election season has confirmed the notion scandal does eliminate many incumbents.

The upshot of all this is, even though voter trading and electoral cushions protect incumbents against the effects of scandal, it still significantly influences electoral outcomes.

¹ Blaine Harden, “Corruption That Shook Capitol isn’t Rattling Elections,” washingtonpost.com <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700767.html>.

² Beyond Delay, “Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)” <http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/doolittle.php>.

³ Ibid., “Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)” <http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/blunt.php>.

⁴ Ibid., “Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)” <http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/sessions.php>.

⁵ Harden.

⁶ Monica Bauer and John R. Hibbing, “Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson’s ‘The Marginals Never Vanished,’” American Journal of Political Science 33.1 (Feb. 1989): 262.

⁷ Ibid., 266.

⁸ Alan I. Abramowitz, “Explaining Senate Election Outcomes,” The American Political Science Review 82.2 (Jun. 1989): 392.

⁹ Ibid., “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections,” The Journal of Politics 53.1 (Feb. 1991): 35.

¹⁰ John G. Peters and Susan Welch, “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections,” The American Political Science Review 74.3 (Sep. 1980): 697.

¹¹ Ibid., 701.

¹² Ibid., 699.

¹³ Ibid., 701-702.

¹⁴ Ibid., 697.

¹⁵ Ibid., 703.

¹⁶ Ibid., 704.

¹⁷ Ibid., 703.

¹⁸ Ibid., 702.

¹⁹ Ibid., 706.

²⁰ Ibid., 704.

²¹ Ibid., 706.

²² Barry S. Rundquist, Gerald S. Strom, and John G. Peters, “Corrupt Politicians and their Electoral Support: Some Experimental Observations,” The American Political Science Review 71.3 (Sep. 1977): 956-957.

²³ Ibid., 958-959.

²⁴ On the other hand, voters who said the War in Iraq was “extremely important” supported Burns’s Democratic challenger, John Tester. This meshes with the class discussion about Republicans viewing through the lens of the War on Terror, which they would argue includes Iraq, and Democrats seeing through the prism of the War in Iraq, which they would maintain is separate from the War on Terror.

²⁵ CNN.com, “Elections 2006: U.S. Senate / Montana / Exit Poll” <http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/MT/S/01/epolls.0.html>.

²⁶ Hank Shaw, “Pombo, Abramoff Linked by Records,” Recordnet.com <http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/NEWS01/610110323>.

²⁷ Beyond Delay, “Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ)” <http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/hayworth.php>.

Does Scandal Matter? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Voters have tired of Republican President George W. Bush for his ignorance of reality in Iraq and abuses of power at home. And Americans have soured on Republican custodians of Congress for lining their pockets with lobbyists’ bribes and concealing the depredations of individual congressmen. Because of these failings of national Republicans, the incumbent Republican Senator for Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, must win re-election this year against the Democratic challenger, former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse.

The son of long-time Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, Lincoln Chafee has demonstrated stoutness of heart and independence of vision in the United States Senate. Whereas every other Republican—alongside many Democrats—voted for the war in Iraq, Chafee opposed it. Whereas many GOP lawmakers retreat from environmental protection, Chafee embraces it. In recognition of Chafee’s efforts for the environment, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters have endorsed Chafee in this election. Also, whereas the Religious Right scorns the legality of abortion, Chafee respects the right of women to choose it. Consequently, the National Abortion Rights Action League has endorsed Chafee as well.

Using roll call votes for 2005, National Journal calls Lincoln Chafee the most liberal Republican in the Senate. According to the Journal, Chafee is more liberal than 57 percent of other senators in economic matters, more liberal than 60 percent on social issues, and more liberal than 58 percent on foreign affairs. Overall, Chafee ranks as more liberal than 59.2 percent of his fellow senators.

Linkages of Chafee to Bush from the Whitehouse campaign are patently hyperbolic. While the White House (pun unintended) and the Republican National Committee indeed back Chafee, such is because he is the only Republican with a hope of winning in Rhode Island. In this narrow circumstance, then, necessities of politics and not bonds of affection have brought Chafee and his more right-wing brethren together. And Chafee will owe them nothing in return.

At this point, one could reasonably ask, why not support Whitehouse instead, if Rhode Island wants a senator who won’t follow Bush’s lead? As much a maverick as Chafee might be, after all, his Democratic opponent could distance himself from Bush further still.

The answer is, these troubling times have shown the need for people of valor and conviction in Washington. America requires statesmen who will resist political temptations and say “no” when their own party errs. Senator Lincoln Chafee has shown himself to be such a leader. Nothing indicates Whitehouse would act similarly.

Furthermore, Republican moderates like Chafee would have to rescue their party from the clutches of evangelicals and neoconservatives who have badly led the GOP. In the process, the Republican Party would look more and more like the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. The resurgence of that grand old party would greatly benefit American politics.

Chafee for Senate is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Republicans, after all, have left the door open for Democrats: They have pushed an unpopular war in Iraq. They have tainted themselves with the stench of Jack Abramoff. They have supported a president who, through incompetent response to terrorism and Hurricane Katrina, has earned the ire of the American public. And, recently, they have bickered amongst themselves over how to treat detainees as part of the War on Terror.

Democrats will not repeat the historic Republican success of 1994, though. Certainly, one of the ingredients for a sweeping and enduring victory is present: A party in power has disgraced itself before the American electorate. But Democrats lack a coherent vision of where to guide the country. They adeptly illustrate how Republicans have maladministered the government; what they don’t do is explain how Democrats would perform better.

Without an overarching vision, like the Republican Contract with America in 1994, Democrats can still take the House and maybe the Senate in 2006. Americans have become so angry about the course of the nation they could think anyone would steer the helm of government better than the GOP. Any Democratic victory would be soft, however, absent a clear agenda. Democrats would be unable to govern cohesively or decisively. Without anyone else to blame for the consequent mediocre performance of government, Democrats would be vulnerable to Republican counterattack in 2008.

When Democrats controlled the legislative branch, Republicans nevertheless won the Senate in 1980. This did not portend a change in Republican fortunes, however, for Democrats retook the Senate a few years later. Unless Democrats figure out what they stand for, they could experience the same fate as 1980′s Republicans.

Democrats, beware is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

1. Presidential candidates have little reason to campaign to the whole country. If partisan or personal loyalty makes victory certain in a state, a candidate can safely ignore it in favor of other states. Conversely, if a candidate will definitely lose in a state, then he won’t waste his time there. Only competitive “battleground states” see much activity.
2. We have less national turnout. If a state will assuredly support one candidate, why bother voting? Also, lack of vigorous campaigning in a state might contribute to voter apathy during an election.
3. With the winner-take-all plurality system, candidates try to attract moderate voters, so to avoid turning people off, they emphasize their personalities more than their policies. This results in bland, visionless candidates who take those traits into the White House.

I believe a new presidential electoral system is in order. We need something that rewards candidates who have bold ideas, while drawing more voters into the process as well.

Therefore, I recommend we emulate the French.

Hear me out! The French have an excellent method by which to elect their president. It is a two-stage electoral process. In the first part, candidates from all the country’s parties can run. Candidates who mobilize partisans with daring policy agendas will perform best here. Afterwards, during the second stage runoff, the first and second place finishers of the first round compete. Whoever achieves a majority vote wins. This requires the candidates to make themselves as palatable toward the center as possible.

Eliminating the Electoral College and implementing two-round direct popular vote elections here would deliver many benefits. It would reward courageous candidates with striking ideas in the first stage, but it would weed out dangerous fanatics in the second stage. It would allow smaller parties to achieve greater prominence than they could achieve in a winner-take-all elector paradigm. It would give candidates reason to campaign to every American. And it would give each voter a larger role in determining the outcome of the election.

As a German friend also pointed out to me, “I don’t quite get it that in the US, votes for the Greens i.e. are all lost, even help a candidate from the right to get into office (see 2000)—a second turn of the elections would allow Green supporters to vote for the Democrat.” This is an important point. The major parties would have to give adherents of smaller parties reasons to vote for them. This would force the Democrats and Republicans to take other parties, such as Greens and Libertarians, seriously, and perhaps heed some of their political desires. This would make more Americans feel as if they play an important role in the republican process.

To complete the reform, we also need to make going out to vote easier. Right now, we seemingly make voting as hard as we can. Elections take place on weekdays, so if Americans want to vote, they must take off work or rush to the polls before or after work. When they get there, they must wait a long time to finish the process, because the volunteer polling coordinators are old, retired people. (Young people have to work, after all.) All this makes voting seem not worth the hassle to millions of Americans.

To change that and increase turnout, every Election Day should become a federal holiday. That would allow Americans to vote without worrying about missing work and forfeiting pay, or hurrying through throngs of people in the morning or evening. Younger Americans would also be able to volunteer to oversee the polls, thereby making voting a smoother and faster experience.

While we’re on the subject of changing our electoral system, let’s consider this: At the time the Constitution was drafted, one of the Anti-Federalist objections to the document was to the pluralistic election of representatives. The Anti-Federalists argued this could allow the election of representatives whom most of the community despised, but who still managed to get more votes than anyone else. Instead, according to the Anti-Federalists, districts should select their representatives by majority vote.

I believe that Anti-Federalist objection has merit. How can a representative represent a district if most of the people there hate him? Changing congressional elections to two-stage elections, similar to what I outlined above for presidential elections, would be a good idea. That way, we could ensure the majority of citizens in a district would have voted for their congressman. All the benefits of switching the national presidential election to a two-stage majority vote model would apply here.

Many conservatives would object to the national scope of my reform plan. They’d correctly point out it would erode federalism. Because population centers—cities—would yield greater power, our executive branch might also shift to the left. Given the power of the presidency, this might produce a government similarly inclined to governments in Europe. Anathema to conservatives, that would be.

To counteract the leftward effect and to placate conservatives, I suggest we repeal the 17th Amendment. Let the state legislatures elect senators again. Senators who don’t rely upon the people as an electoral base would be a lot more willing to challenge the president. Not only might the Senate be more conservative than the President, but they’d feel safer defying him since the people who put him in office wouldn’t be the same ones who put them in office. They wouldn’t have to worry as much about the President’s popularity.

In addition, with the people electing both the House of Representatives and the President under my plan, we’d need more checks against the tyranny of the majority. Election of federal senators by state legislatures would constitute such a check.

No electoral procedures could solve all problems. But this extensive reform plan would eliminate many of them:

• Campaigns focusing only on battleground states.
• Nullification of millions of votes.
• Candidates whose only goal is to win a plurality of the ballots.
• Victories by candidates whom most of the community doesn’t support.
• Apathy of the electorate toward politics.

We especially should not underestimate the importance of the last element. Only an interested and engaged citizenry can serve as the foundation of a republic. Without it, a republic cannot stand.

Heal our republic: change our electoral system is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

This is one of the most nonsensical, dangerous things I’ve heard in a long time. During this era of nonsense and danger, that’s saying something.

According to the left-most justices of our “illustrious” Supreme Court, local governments can use the police power of government to expel citizens from their homes to make room for new Wal-Marts and mini-malls. With this decision, the Supreme Court has given the finger to the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

“Due process of law” and important “public use” are no longer requirements to take away one’s property. Now, all that’s necessary is a greedy city council and a wealthy entrepreneur who wants to make a bit more money. This is exactly the kind of action, taken by a strong and intrusive government, that would make the teeth of Thomas Jefferson gnash in agitation. (I refer readers here and here, for starters.)

Americans who cherish their freedom must act against this scourge. Go to the web sites of the House of Representatives and the Senate, find the contact pages of your representatives and senators, and tell them to do all they can to oppose eminent domain for the spurious benefit of private businesses. Write Letters to the Editor of your local newspapers and post to Internet message boards as well. Do not vote for any politician who speaks in favor of eminent domain abuse.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can take back our country. Let’s get to it.

Addendum: Castle Coalition, a group fighting eminent domain abuse, is worth visiting.

Eminent domain helps Americans pick up where Soviets left off is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

“This is a great day in the histroy of America,” President George Bush said after the bill’s passage. “For the first time in millennia, Americans will be able to worship the creator of their choices, without having to tolerate the Islamic and the atheistic heathen.” After Vice President Dick Cheney pulled him aside and whispered emphatically into his ear, Bush returned to the podium and said, “Oops, forget I says that last part.”

In this election year, liberals who ordinarily would have opposed the creation of a government church instead voiced support for the plan.

“Anyone who would oppose this is nuts,” said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat from South Dakota.

Reaction outside the Beltway took on a markedly different tone. The hundreds of average Americans who pay attention to matters of government protested in various cities across the country against the bill. Five letters poured into congressional mailboxes objecting to the establishment of any state church.

“If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I’d go to Iran,” said one letter.

During a press conference late in the afternoon, a reporter asked presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer, “How does the president justify the bill’s obvious inconsistency with the First Amendment?”

“There is no inconsistency,” Fleischer replied. “The First Amendment only forbids the passage of any law respecting the establishment of a church.”

“Isn’t that what the bill would do?” pressed the reporter.

“Absolutely not,” answered Fleischer. “The word ‘establishment’ implies an already existing institution, and the word ‘respect’ implies the government will pay homage to it. What the bill in question will do is create a new institution that the government will control stubbornly. This is totally consistent with the vision of the Founding Fathers as expressed by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote about ‘divine Providence’ and a ‘Creator’ in the Declaration of Independence.”

When every hand in the press room immediately shot up, Fleischer said, “That will be all,” then rushed behind the press room curtains.

Little word has emerged as to how the Senate will vote on the bill, but given Daschle’s support of the bill, it will most likely pass.

House Votes to Establish Church; Politicians Defend Constitutionality is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos