A New Conversation

Communism: a) A theory advocating elimination of private property. b) a system in which goods are held in common and available to all as needed.
Capitalized: a) a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. b) a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state owned means of production. c) a final state of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equally. d) communist: systems collectively.

Democracy: a) a government by the people: especially: rule of the majority b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. 2) a political unit that has a democratic government. 3) capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States --from emancipation Republicanism to--New Deal Democracy. 4) the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority. 5) the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

This morning I heard a podcast on Taiwan and China. It was about the question of Taiwan independence or Taiwan's reunification with China. This is the conversation we need to change. I don't think we should still be discussing whether it should be Communism or Democracy. Those two ideologies have been exhibiting their forms of government for years, both insisting that they are the correct model. I say they have both exposed their worse sides now and we should be talking about adopting the best ideas from both philosophies. I see nothing wrong with 1)"a theory where goods are held in common and available to all as needed." Of course, not all goods, but definitely the essential resources of a nation should be held in common. 2) "a government in which the supreme power is invested in the people and exercised by them... (directly)...(I left out that indirect representation part)...usually involving periodically free elections." 3) "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
We practice this combination of philosophies in our lives. We have families where individuals are distinct from one another, have different opinions, different careers, different lives and yet share things in common such as a home, property etc. Democracy gone awry elevates individualism and power above community and the well being of all citizens. Communism unbridled elevates power and control above change or challenges to that system. Commonly owned is replaced by state owned or controlled. Why can't we combine individual freedom, (through equal opportunity for all) but the wealth of the nations held by the people. By wealth, I mean that no citizen is without the opportunity to secure for themselves the basic needs of life. And of course every nation should see to it that those who cannot secure for themselves those basic needs are taken care of. Adopt a capitalist society with a strong socialist bent. The wealth that is essential to a good life, (food, education, health care, jobs, cannot be left unmanaged or exploited. There is enough wealth for everyone. But it does have to be protected against those market forces that seek to own so much of that wealth that others are left without enough for their own well being. The few own the most. That is the worst of capitalism. The few control the most or everything. That is the worst of communism. There should be private property and common property. There should be individual opportunity but there should be regulation of common resources.
I guess my point is this. Not all ideas that promulgate the common ownership of wealth are evil. Not all ideas that make the idea of private property sacrosanct should go unchallenged.

The Electoral College and elections. Sources-How Stuff Works, A Peoples History.

In the United States a system called the electoral college allows a candidate for president to win the election while not having a majority of the popular vote. This is an indirect voting system. This is not allowed in Russia. There, a candidate is elected by the process of a direct vote of the people.
The American system was instituted by the framers of the Constitution. Some thought a popular election was too reckless. Others didn't want to give Congress the power to select the president. So a system was set up that would allow voters to vote for electors who would then vote for the president. (Article 11, section 1 of the Constitution)
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of U.S. senators plus the number of it's U.S. representatives. The electors of each state meet in their state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are sealed and sent to the president of the Senate who on January 8th opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress.
Most of the time the electors cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. Other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However their have been times when the electors have voted contrary to the peoples decisions and there is no federal law or constitutional provision against this.
Four presidents have won with fewer popular votes than their opponents, but more electoral votes.
In 1877, the democratic candidate Samuel Tildon won 184 electoral votes and needed only one more to be elected. (He had already won the popular vote by more than 250,000 votes) The Republican candidate Rutherford B Hayes had 166 electoral votes. His people went to work. Since 1873 there had been a depression in the country. There was plenty to promise. The South wanted the Federal troops removed. They also wanted more of the federal money that was then going mainly to Ohio and Maine. In the East there was unemployment. Both the East and West were against protective tariffs, national banks, and railroad subsidies. The Hayes committee made concessions to the Democratic party and the white South. Colorado had just been admitted to the Union. They decided to appoint electors rather than holding elections. Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. Hayes managed to secure 185 electoral votes thus becoming the next President.
The goal of the presidential candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will allow them to win the most electoral votes. The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors, thus creating more confusion, and little continuity in the process.
The point is, it is far easier to control or buy off or appeal to the narrower interests of 538 electors (that figure changes with the population) than to accept the choice of the electorate. The system is created to be gamed. It seems to me, it is time to return to the idea, one man, one vote. We need more challenges to these antiquated systems. Caucuses are of the same stripe...again created to give power to fewer people thus making it easier to control the results.

Why I must blog.

I must either blog or explode. Now that I have a lot of time to read, pay attention to news and listen to very interesting people and ideas, I find I want to talk about them. Of course my family does not have the same amount of free time as I do, so I have no place to go and discuss these things. Therefore, I have decided to start unloading my thoughts somewhere. Obviously, since there are many other bloggers all over the world this is a forum commonly turned to by many to communicate what they are thinking. Once I master how to actually use this forum, I mean to talk about things that I don't understand or like. For example, why we still use the electoral college or turn over our individual voting rights to delegates. But right now, I have to go do the laundry . I just wanted to give a preview of the direction this blog will be going in. However, being me, I will probably digress into any other topic that sparks a strong reaction in me.

I confess to my idiocy!

This is so damn frustrating. I am trying to get a full post here, but cannot. Sarah is badgering me for a password, which I don't remember creating. I am about ready to confess to any password under her grueling questions.