Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Where is the "no"?
Hear ye, hear ye, the public court of opinion is now in session. Wow, just saw Thom Hartmann in full Throttle, with the guest Libertarian. It was something watching the debate get heated and animated to a crescendo that was not the same as usual for Thom. Thom was at the edge of breathing fire. LOL. From my view this libertarian stuff is very queer.
Using the Merriam Webster definition; absorbed or interested to an extreme or unreasonable degree: obsessed. Not the sexual stuff.
Here these characters that call themselves Libertarians however from my view they are like parasites. First and foremost a libertarian is dodging the elements of being a citizen. To be an American citizen means allegiance to the Constitution and pledge to the flag. The Constitution basically says the government is committed to raise taxes. And we must pay them.
As a citizen we recognized we must pay them. Otherwise that citizen fails the basic pledge and commitment. What Libertarians are saying is they do not want to be a citizen. Therefore America should require by authority for those individuals to leave the country. To complete the Libertarian manifest of “ you are on your own”, to withdraw from residence in giving up allegiance to one's native country and commitment to the Constitution. To be Banished is justified and inorder.
It all makes sense, the Progressives are pushing for national popular vote laws which are consistent with majority rule, a basic principle of democracy. On the other hand the Republicans are pushing for continuation of rigging elections, consistent with their basic principle of rule by a small group of ruthless billionaires.
Unfortunately some Senate Democrats sided with the Republican principle of rule by the rich today, which is what failure to reform the filibuster equates to. The Senate might as well be honest with we the people......just go ahead and crown one of the Kochs King of the United States and give the Teabaggers something real to revolt about.
The Republicans are not the only Party that uses Gerrymandering to create a more favorable district for the State elections. Here in California the Democrats have done the same thing Hartmann admonishes the Republicans of doing. We have a Democrat Governor, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat Assembly. And it has been shown where the Democrats have Gerrymandered districts to accomplish their control of State politics.
I have been accused of being too angry or forceful in some of my comments. DID anyone notice Hartmann's reaction to the Libertarian guest he had on today. He actually resorted to name calling and trying to yell over the voice of his guest. He lost it for a while there, so I guess it can happen to anyone who is passionate about the issue they are debating or making comments on!
I agree with your argument about bearing arms by the militia and how they are controlled in the military. In California as in most states you have the National Guard for the Army and during the time the Guard is on active duty they are issued their weapons during training exercises and they are not always issued live ammo. When there is a natural disaster or a civilian disturbance like a riot is taking place the Guard is called in to assist the local police and they are issued their weapons to control the disturbance. But, for the vast majority of the time the National Guard's weapons are locked up tight in the Armory. The National Guard is the modern day example of the Militia as stated in the Constitution. So in reality the modern day militias are only issued their weapons when they are called into service for a national disaster or other form of discord among the civilian population. They are not issued arms to take home with them, so the notion that it is every person’s right to bear arms in their homes does not follow the reality of a modern day militia. But trying to convince someone who thinks they will have to defend themselves against the tyranny of the Federal Government will be a very interesting to observe in today culture of weapon hoarding.
It comes from a time when the states were more like independant nations joined in a union of convenience so, although the electoral votes are largely alotted according to population, each state also has a certain minnimum regardless of size to show the fact that all the states are also equal partners.
I would favor either doing away with the electoral college and going solely with the popular vote or having the congressional districts drawn by non-partisan officials.
Kend, the system was set up when travel was by horse, carriage or on foot which explains the timing. Also, they thought it was good for two different reasons. One it allowed the people to pick representatives in their home states and the representative would go to the capital and vote in person. They did not have the communication mechanisms for communicating the vote. Second they didn't trust the rabble of the general populace and so they wanted the elites who would be elected as the electors to do the actual voting not the people, and also the apportionment was skewed to protect the less populace states and give them more say than a one-person one-vote system. Very confusing but even though it made some sense in 1783, it makes no sense today, but ever since then the tradition has become more important than the reality.
This is the progression of the Bush Jr / Rove 1,000 year Reich. Rove set out to rig the system such that Republicans would control the country for a thousand years and so far they're getting away with it. Using elected power to entrench dictatorial power is what we've come to expect from tinpot 3rd world countries, NOT the United States.
It just goes to show that for Republicans, fairness and the spirit of the founding fathers is optional when it comes to winning elections. "It's not how you play the game. Winning is all that matters."
A nationwide popular vote is only a change for the better IF IT HAS RANKED CHOICE VOTING. Otherwise, a nationwide popular vote will just make the winner-take-all system even more of an obstacle to breaking open the two-party dictatorship.
Sorry Thom, but on this one I have to disagree. I think you are taking a too partisan view of this. As a member of the Green Parrty I welcome this move and as long as we have an Electoral College system I would like to see all states have the electors chosen proportionally. While I might not choose this way of doing it over other options, I would choose this way of doing it over no change at all. As soon as one of the really conservative rural districts picks a Libertarian or Constitutional Party candidate in a narrow three-way contest, the Republicans will realize their mistake and run to the Statehouse and change it back to the way it was. The current winner-take-all system is a blockade to the alternative parties and maintains the lock on the two-party dictatorship.
Republicans detest the democratic process. They have no shame. I suspect as more Americans get to know how they behave that this version of the Republican Party will have fewer and fewer members. They are sowing the seeds for their own elimination as a major political organization. I believe that most Americans love democracy. They will not want to be affiliated with the crazies who have taken over this Party. In California there are already as many people registered as Declined to State as there are in the Republican Party. Even in my town of Irvine, a rich city in the middle of Republican Orange County, there are as many people in the Democratic, Republican and DTS so no party has the advantage in registration. Declined to State is the fastest growing designation in IRvine.
Today when Thom was talking about getting rid of the electoral college entirely, and replacing it with the popular vote he laid it out simplistically. So when we were watching Al Sharpton tonight, he had on Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania and a representative from Ohio, Ed brought up the popular vote like Thom did and he seemed to say that they could do it emphatically. It might be interesting for Thom to contact Ed and get him to come on and discuss this issue.
The Electoral College is an example of an institution that has outlived its usefulness and has been morphed into a mechanism to influence the outcome of elections. But beyond what Thom has said, there are other, deeper problems in our system that also need to be addressed. The two party system is a setup for more of the same. We really need a runoff system in which any number of candidates can go through several passes to achieve a true consensus of the voters. Public campaign financing would also be nice. Follow the money, folks. Observe who comes out against this kind of reform, to whom they're connected, and you'll instantly see who's interested in what's right for the country and who is representing the special interests.
Thanks so much Thom for launching this effort. I am a PCO and an active Democrat and I will talk to my state legislators and press my Dem colleagues to do the same so that we can make this a priority issue.
Brilliant. Let's do it.
niiiiice! well put, but try to sell it to a zealot!
Election rigging in Virginia....Frightening absonding with Democracy that is left of the country's broken political system. This should be illegal or at least criminal to even suggest that a state can hand over its majority of of votes when a minority of voters loses the popular vote. The Electoral College is vstly unfair to the majority of the states now. SO abolish it and elect by popular vote results.
More lame options for the poll, what about a No option so there are actually choices?
What else is interesting about the domestication of dogs is that when dogs go feral, they revert to the scavenging that Thom talked about, not all the way back to wolves. This indicates that the ancestor of the domesticated species--in other words the species that human started with--was not wolves, but a scavenging species descended from ancient wolves.
My neighbor is a data base expert (or at least he does it professionally). There are much faster ways than emails.
My problem with this approach is the power of advertising. For example, we had a propostion in CA to label GMO foods. When it first came out the polls indicated that 72% of the people wanted it. After the most money being spent on any propostion to defeat it, the propostion failed.
Another propositon CA had on the same ballot dealt with human trafficking. At least, that is what the title said. What it acutally did was reclassify other sex crimes (e.g. prostitution) as human trafficking with larger prison sentences. It won by a 83% to 17% margin. The only people that supported it publicly were the labor unions for prison guards. The ACLU, council of churches, and friends committee on legislaton came out against it. Your "pure" democracy approach could be fooled by a catchy title even without advertising.
I haven't heard a full explanation of this "polygon" idea for districting, but I think my way is pretty good too. It creates some safe districts on each end and some swing districts, just by making districts based on population density.
Is it 4 years or 2?
Kend - The Electoral College consists of people who are chosen by each party (Dem.'s and Repub.'s) and these Electors or people generally vote for the Party that wins the popular vote in each State. The candidate that gets the majority of the popular vote, they receive the total number of Electoral votes from that state. Generally all States except Maine and Nebraska, which is based on a proportional basis, basically vote the candidate with the most popular votes. There are 538 Electoral votes in total and a candidate must have at least 270 votes to win the election. The Electors from the party with the most popular votes cast their votes for the candidate they represent. The Electors are not bound to vote for the candidate of their party, but I have never heard of an instance where they cast their electoral vote for the opposing party. Basically Americans leave the actual decision to who is elected president in the hands of the Electors in the Electoral College. That is why a candidate can lose the popular vote by the people and win the Electoral Vote to become President. In the beginning of this country the white landowners came up with this model to elect the president, because they did not trust the less educated masses to make the right decision. That is why people say "we", meaning the individual voter does not actually elect the President of the United States. Crazy I know, but that is it in a simple explanation. And if I got anything wrong please feel free to correct me, this is the best I could do to explain it to Kend. Our elections also take only one day to vote, but to verify the Electoral Vote takes longer for some reason. Also the number of Electoral Votes are based on the number of people who reside in each state. More people equals more Elctoral Votes for that State. After reading Thom's Blog it looks like I may have it wrong concerning the Electoral Vote! Now I get what he is saying. Instead of the Electoral Votes going to the winner with the most popular votes state wide, the Republicans want the Electoral votes to be divided up in each State and be counted on how each district votes and therefore they, the Repbulinuts can win, not based on the winner of the total votes statewide but on the votes from the districts they have gerrymandered in their favor by redistricting the districts to allow them to retain a larger Republican vote in that district. And if they get away with it, those of you who are Democrats, will get screwed future elections! Those crooks will do anything to win, even if it prevents the system we have used for fair elections to go by the wayside! And I do not vote Democrat and it pisses me off!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (nothing about OWNING it or the ammunition for it)
When I was a member of a “well regulated Militia” (US Army), during Basic Training, I was issued a weapon (M-14), but with NO ammunition. We KEPT our weapon in a gun rack, at night, during meals and class rooms. The only time we had ammunition is when we were at the rifle range, and then it was three cartridges at a time.
After Basic, my issued weapon was turned in and that was the last time I saw it. After that I was sent to two AIT for my MOS training. My first training station, the only time I had a weapon was when I had guard duty (for one night), but it didn’t have any ammunition to go with (armed with and empty weapon). At my second training school I was issued a weapon (the first and only time I had an M-16) only long enough to qualify with it (couple hours) because I had orders to go to Vietnam. In Vietnam I was issued an M-14 plus 5 clips (100 rounds). It was required that we carried it from our living quarters to our work station and if we were leaving the base. My weapon was kept in a gun rack, most days, for 22 hours out of 24 and I was in a War zone.
My point, the second Amendment says “to KEEP and bear Arms”, and nothing about owning a weapon or the ammunition for the weapon (Arms). A “well regulated Militia” (the one I was in) regulated when, where and how we KEPT our weapon (which we did NOT own). The “regulation” also regulated when, where and if we had ammunition for the weapon.