Finding Confidence In Elections
More Reforms To End The Perception of Stolen Elections
A couple of things I would like to emphasize is the shortening of the campaign system. This would also need to be reflected in not only ranked choice, but in the shortened campaign season. Granting the long primary season for presidential nominations has a lot to do with the fact our two-tiered governing system, since we have already in place only one day for national elections, we could certainly install a one day primary before the national election that could take place six weeks before the federal presidential election itself. That would accomplish, what not only I, but many others see as our biggest challenge to the democratic process–less money to influence. Look, you are going to be hard-pressed to convince me that American elections have not been “stolen”--not by dead dictators and fraudulent counts, or fixed voting machines (you know how easy it actually would be to determine if the machines had been tampered with—come on, a good IT tech professional knows what sites I visit on my computer, even if I clear my browsing history before allowing someone else on my computer. I clear cookies everyday but they are never really gone). But elections are stolen and fraudulent through advertising. Many countries forbid negative advertising, and in some there have been laws that you cannot directly say anything about an opponent at all unless engaged in a policy debate.
How to Become a Candidate
If someone wants to work in almost any government position a background check is performed. To be a school teacher in most jurisdictions one has to undergo a background check. To be a school teacher in most jurisdictions one has to undergo a background check. Depending on the position, I suppose there are differing levels of background checks, but background checks are required in almost any citizen who wants to work for almost any level of government. Even in the private sector, again depending on the position being applied for, background checks are often routinely performed before hiring. When I once had a business of my own that really needed little skill but the ability to drive, I nevertheless still checked that the references they provided were real, and by law, since they would be hired to drive ice cream trucks and sell to children, I had to submit applicants for approval to local authorities to make sure they had no legal sex offender status.
But if you want to be a politician, come on, let’s have a go, we welcome one and all. Any Crook, Criminal, or Deceiver come aboard. ?? And yet people tell me all the time, that’s crazy talk to think we should do background checks on politicians.
There’s a lot of talk about whether Trump could still run for office if he is convicted and people say, yeah, look Debs did it. Well, in all honesty Debs had no chance to win the presidency. Even in his previous run he only obtained six percent of the vote, and he lost half of that when he ran from behind bars. But I want to point out something else in t section 2 of the fourteenth amendment that seems to be overlooked:
“except for participation in rebellion, or other crime”
Section 2 is the section on voting rights, and it was section 2 that people of the time were saying actually would have prevented Debs' service as president, even should he have won.
Or other crime. Any crime. Blowing your nose in public disqualifies anyone from being president were it a crime. If you want to get DiSantis out of the way, then make eating pudding with your fingers a felony, he’s gone. In all seriousness even though Trump could win, he cannot be sworn into office if he is convicted. Of course that is section 2. Section 2 is about voting rights. But if one has lost his voting rights then his citizenship is not “full citizenship”. What that actually means is not only that one can be held in captivity but that during one’s captivity he has his rights as a citizen curtailed. He becomes (still) a ⅗
Representation
George Washington did not assert himself very much, during the constitutional convention, into the floor debate. At one point, discussing the ability of the government to have a standing army. Elbridge Gerry, opposed to a national military force, at one point suggested limiting the total number of members to, I believe, 5000 members. Washington quipped, 'Then we must also limit the number of any military that attacks us to the same limit.’ Obviously Waahington’s point was taken, and Gerry more or less backed down, although it remained a stickler, and was supposedly the motivating factor in Gerry becoming one of the members who refused to sign the constitution.
But the only time Washington exerted himself fully into the argument was over the number of citizens each member of the house. No more than 30,000 per. Washington was so adamant it is the one line in the constitution that (more or less depending on later interpretations) .
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.
Now we have widely misabused the phrase. “Shall not exceed” legally, in a contractual setting , means a maximum, no more than that is permitted. If a contractor’s payment shall not exceed x then he cannot have more than x. If we accept the constitution as any sense a contractual agreement to the states, and the house of representatives a contractual agreement with the people, as the only part of the government separated from state oversight and directly representing the people—then shall not exceed is a contracted constitutional mandate that every thirty thousand citizens is entitled to one representative, they could have at least have one, the only caveat being if the state did not have at least 30,000 it was still entitled to one represented. Through the years of the 19th century the number was gradually extended and the contractual limitation was abandoned and a representative could represent more.The first congressional apportionment began the fudge attempt and congress attempted to apportion representation to every 40,000 people. Washington immediately vetoed it, taking my position in his veto that shall not exceed meant the 30,000 citizen threshold could not be exceeded. But of course the mandate has been diluted to mean shall have at least, and perverted from a maximum to a minimum.
But the house membership did expand throughout the 19th century. It expanded of course because more states were added but it also expanded to maintain a numerical limit of a representative’s district. Beginning in the last decade of the 19th century and continuing into the first decade of the 20th, however, when powerful speakers Thomas Brackett Reed and Gurney Cannon took over the rules committee and put into place powerful senior committee chairs did the modern house really evolve into a career. Prior to the civil war, when members received little pay, careerism was seldom a factor and exceeding two terms was a rarity. By the time Reed began his transformation of the house the “average” service had increased to eight years. But even then the house had not been considered the pathway to a career, though some would enter the senate or become brokers in their states. And as part of his attempt to solidify his own power in the house in 1911 they limited all future increases in size. We in essence were stuck at 435 members. When Arizona and New Mexico were added as states they each got one member, increasing the size to 437 (again when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted) but then at the next reapportionment, representations were again diluted and the amount of people each representative represented increased. The representatives of territories do have certain positions on committees, but they cannot lead committees or vote, and they can't even vote on legislation and could not participate and if they could have done so, of course, a democrat would now be speaker. I do not know if it is still true, but originally in 1790, territorial delegates didn’t even need to be sworn into office.
The 12 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
The third through twelfth amendments became our first, known as the bill of rights. The second was ratified as our 27th. The first has not yet been ratified, but none of the initial twelve had a closing date and so the second became ratified in 1992.
But the first could still be ratified:
“After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”
Would this be unworkable today, were it to be ratified? Well we have one representative today for every 762,000 people. But if there were one representative for every 50,000 our 2020 census total of 331,449,281 persons means we should have 6,629 representatives which would mean way too many to all be meeting in one capitol building. In fact the representatives would have outnumbered the capitol rioters 66 to 1 which would not have been very good odds for the rioters and even if Trump had been permitted to lead the march to the capital Nancy could have punched Donald out and the 6,629 legislators could have all wielded baseball bats and simply chased them away. Okay that is silly.
We live in the year 2023 C.E. I dare say no representative does not have access to a little thing called a computer and there is absolutely no reason imaginable that they would need to meet all together at any one time. In fact voting is done electronically anyway and could be just as easily done elsewhere, at home, in their districts.
It is time to pass the first amendment and bring representation into our modern era.
Hi Ken, we are in agreement on some but not all your statements. I agree we need to shorten the campaigns. Labor day to the day before the General Election would suit me. If ranked voting would limit the amount of money wasted on campaigning, I'm in.
The first ten Amendments comprise the Bill of Rights. They were introduced in 1789 together, and all were ratified by 1791. James Madison is credited with authorship. He originally wanted them included in the Constitution but accepted the compromise of inclusion in the first 10.
As to apportionment. I don't think (not factual just my opinion) the early Americans imagined a country of 330 to 350 million citizens. Hence the 30,000 made sense to them. The original 13 States contained approximately 4 million people. Personally I would prefer 250,000 to one apportionment of legislators or even 500,000 to one. The 1 representative for 762,000 is nothing short of ridiculous and I absolutely agree it needs to be changed for the sake of fairness. We already have unfair representation in the Senate, we don't need it in both Houses. Personally I would cap the House of Representatives at 1,000 working from home or meeting in Washington, doesn't matter. Even with that many reaching agreement on any important matter would be both difficult and time consuming.
I am totally confused by your paragraph starting: 'The third through twelfth...' I double checked and the first ten Amendments comprise the Bill of Rights. The 27th Amendment is about altering the compensation of the Legislative Branch.
Your discussion of Territorial Rights is correct. The District of Columbia, however is wholly within the Continental United States of America, unlike the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The native born and naturalized residents of DC, are considered citizens and as such are subject to Federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. They even have a representative in Congress. However that Representative has NO vote and no ability to submit legislation. The population in 2020 was 712,000+, larger than two of the 50 States, which naturally enrages the citizens. Their license plates read "Taxation without Representation". Puerto Rico is much closer to mainland USA and should either be cut loose or also welcomed to Statehood along with DC. As to the others - mostly Pacific Islands, they should have a choice of self governance or remaining territories.