This election got it right

I love the electoral college. It speaks to me.

Go on, carp about how Hillary won the popular vote. But we are the United States, you must remember. United States. Emphasis on States. Why should California and New York tell the rest of us how to live?

That's the forgotten, or ignored, part of the equation. The two largest fragments of our country are not our whole country. The rest of us, indeed together with them, we are the whole country.

Damn the popular vote. We are not one nation. We are a union of sovereign States, each with an existence which does not depend on the opinions of our other, sister, states. The vast majority of our sister states did not want Hillary Clinton as our President. So she is not.

And that it how it should be. The majority should not rule without the consent of the minority in their true rights. I believe someone named Jefferson said as much. The Electoral College allows the minority to be fully and completely represented in these United States. Indeed, it checks the power of the majority by ensuring that power will be diffused. It has surely been diffused this past election year.

Freedom is only won when power is properly checked. Power has been properly checked this election cycle.

Go now. What are you waiting for?

I am not a fan of Donald Trump. I do not want him to be the standard bearer for the GOP in November 2016. But I do have two words for those who say they will move to Canada if he is elected. Two very simple words.

Go now.

I am not a fan of Barack Obama. I suspect I feel about him the way many anti-Trump supporters feel about The Donald. In truth, I likely feel more powerfully anti-Obama than they feel anti-Trump. But never once during the 2008 or 2012 Presidential campaigns did I ever think that I would leave my country if that man were elected. This is my country. I will not abandon her merely because I do not like her choice for President. But if you would, if you would leave simply because you do not like the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then I have two words for you.

Go now.

I'm aware of the spike in google searches for immigration to Canada in recent days. I love Canada myself; if forced to leave the United States, I would go there, if you'd excuse the irony, in a New York minute. But as it is, my country is the USA. And I will not leave her merely because the political tides are against my beliefs. But to those of you who would, I have two words.

Go now.

What are you waiting for? Clearly your patriotism is shallow and parochial. Go now. The door is open.

Presidential vs Parliamentary elections

Uh oh. Although she maintains a strong lead among Democrats, Hillary Clinton is neck and neck with two GOP Presidential hopefuls, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, when two months ago she would've swept them right off the landscape. But she does lead the Donald in a hypothetical head to head race against him. Yet neither of them are considered trustworthy by the electorate as a whole. Meanwhile, Joe Biden might be entertaining the notion of jumping into the race himself. Isn't there a fascinating and exciting 16 months of nail biting election coverage ahead of us?

Not if you give it a moment's thought, no. Too much can happen, and many unforeseen or foreseeable things might occur along the way which would affect the contest unimaginably.

Is the American election cycle too long? It is very easy to say yes. Issues and worries such as mentioned above certainly go a long ways towards supporting that answer. Yet we shouldn't be all that sure that the most obvious other democratic system of parliamentary style campaigns are that much better. True, they're shorter. But does that enhance elections or merely condense them to the point where sound bites and knee jerk reactions are all that matter? Given too that they tend to be called when the party in power at least perceives their standing as greater than the opposition and it's easy to wonder if they're a true measure of the will of the people. The parliamentarians may only be manipulating them.

Ideally, longer campaigns should give the voters greater time to consider the candidates and the issues more clearly and thoroughly. Yes, we realize that that's not likely to happen. Indeed, it may never happen at all. Perhaps all we're stuck with with longer election cycles is exactly what we have: an attempted media frenzy over people most of us don't care much about. But we did say ideally.

Still, the vetting process we deal with in these United States does offer something which parliamentary systems don't necessarily. It does allow voters the time to see and hear from candidates they might not get to experience in a more party dominated scheme. And it further allows the crackpots, blowhards, marginal players and egotists a day in the sun before reality, um, sets in. It may also, again, allow the opportunity for a better look at the important issues of the day.

Hey, we're not saying we believe this all true. Yet it does make some sense. At least, more sense than fretting over The Donald's computer prowess.

No Excitement for 2016 Elections

November 2016 is a long way away, and several candidates have formally entered the fray. With such notables as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul testing the waters for the GOP and each offering what on paper seem substantial differences with the anointed Hillary Clinton of the Democrats the prospects for next year should be appealing. But the fact is that it's getting a lot harder to become excited about elections, and that's considering there are things which at one time would have made excitement easy.

Take for example Dr. Ben Carson. It's pretty obvious that many conservative media and social organs like him, and no doubt that he might well be a good right winger. He's surely outside of the Washington loop, which is supposed to make him all the more appealing. Yet it's quite easy to say the right things to an audience which you're trying to cater to. But can you actually translate that into good use of real power?

That's a very difficult thing to do. Outside of the political structure one can say whatever they want. Inside the structure, when there are hundreds of elected officials many of whom are working at cross purposes to you, and millions more bureaucrats who can effectively stymie your efforts, well, how effective can you be?

This is not to let politicians off the hook. When you pledge something you must do your best to make it work. Yet all too often the invariable compromises move you father away from your mark. And that's before the courts allow their various opinions of the non-elected to block your way too. It makes one wonder whether, as many libertarians assert, voting is worth it.

It is, but only because the alternative of long range tyranny is far worse. Sadly, that assertion really doesn't inspire the citizenry very much. That's no doubt in part because of the force everything to the middle thrust which defines American politics. Why get excited when you know the end result will most likely satisfy no one?

Carson and 2016

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and darling of conservatives as well as a potential Presidential candidate, has said that, you know, there might not even be elections in 2016. With "...a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all of these things gong on, like the ISIS crisis, that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation." You can read more here, if you like: http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/ben-carson-2016-election-may-not-happen/ But we will say this: it really only makes him sound as though he is already running for the White House.

Most of the rest of the story has Dr. Carson saying only that the 2016 elections could not happen. And, to be fair, they could not happen. Yet we must always remember that could is a word which belongs, basically, in the category of 'if'. It really doesn't mean much.

In fact, his very use of such rather arbitrary polemics is disappointing. Conservatives almost universally express a positive belief in America and America's future. Yes, America will come to an end one day; all things must pass. But in saying such things, especially in the off the cuff manner in which Carson expressed himself, doesn't actually add anything to the debate about who should lead our nation after the current Chief Executive. It doesn't do much except lay the seeds, however also unlikely in the next two years, for panic. And panic, especially in the public arena, only helps someone who is trying to get something. In this case, that would be Ben Carson trying to become President of the United States.

The move seems too calculated to be taken at face value. Carson can only be saying it to create a sense of urgency which, he hopes, will propel him to the Republican nomination in 2016 and the White House in 2017. It is too much of a political move, an outsider's move, to be taken seriously.

We like Dr. Carson. We think he would make a good President. But there's no need for panic. He would be better to frame the debate over 2016 in terms of hope rather than the macabre. Our nation needs a Ronald Reagan, not a Chicken Little.