Tag: Congress

Electoral College

(This post is a little longer than usual because of the topical importance and resulting need for more detailed background than normal.)

Pondering the protests in the streets following the election of Donald Trump as our next President, I’ve been confused about why the protests are being conducted. To say that he is “not my President” is a denial of fact. Whether or not one likes him or his potential policies, he will be the President of all U.S. citizens. To protest his policies, is to claim the ability to see into the future and know what will transpire over the next four to eight years. To protest over the outcome of the popular vote (which, as of this writing, is still not completed) versus the electoral vote is a fair protest. In reality, however, that protest is against the fact that the elections were legitimate and conducted in accordance with our Constitution. But there is much more to the story than that…

Let’s start with the premise that the United States is a democracy.

If you look at the definition, it isn’t. A democracy requires direct participation by all citizens. Even in the late 1700s, when the Constitution was proposed and adopted, that would have been unwieldy with a population estimated at 3.5-4.0 million. Even today, with our advanced data collection processes, it would be nearly unworkable. The U.S. was set up as a republic. A republic means that the power resides in those citizens eligible to vote for representatives to carry out their governmental business for them. From the very basic foundations of our Constitution, the United States was designed to be a representative form of government – it was never envisioned as a pure democracy.

Let’s look a little at the structure of Congress.

It was established with a couple of basic principles in mind – to give the ultimate power to the people, but to also limit the power of the majority. Talk about paradoxical goals!

The first part of the equation was simple – you have a House of Representatives (a.k.a. – “The Peoples’ House”) with a direct vote for a representative within their district. This makes the elected official both locally responsive and accountable. The problem, when you get these representatives together in the Capitol, is that they all have one vote. The drafters of the Constitution had already seen the failure of the Articles of Confederation where the states had too much power, but they couldn’t create a system where the states had no power. Had they left the House to itself, they would quickly face a “tyranny of the majority.” In other words, the states with the highest populations (which would give them the most representatives) would quickly dominate to their benefit and to the detriment of the lower-population states.

The Senate was established to give the states equal footing in one half of the Congress. In fact, as originally outlined in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, the state legislatures selected the two Senators who would represent the state. That was changed by the 17th Amendment and we, the people, now vote directly for the Senators as well as the Representatives. The difference being that where Representatives are locally accountable, Senators are accountable across the entire state.

What about the Executive Branch?

To save time and space, I’m not going to address the Vice-Presidential side of the structure since that position is now linked more directly with the Presidential selection. It is assumed (and indeed, we have probably been taught) that when we vote, we are voting directly for the President. The fact is, we have never voted directly for a President since the adoption of the Constitution. It has always been a vote for a group of electors from our state. If we were more diligent about reading and studying the actual language of the Constitution, the incorrect attributions and deletions would be recognized. In that sense, it is like the Bible! Fortunately, while it is almost as difficult to read, understand, and correctly interpret, the Constitution is a lot shorter!

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the role of the Electors (and is modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments). It also places some restrictions, but for the most part, the process by which electors are selected is controlled by the states – as it should be. Typically, it is left up to the political parties to select their electors which means they have a degree of loyalty to the party and the state and oftentimes are long-term party functionaries. It has happened, but for an elector to vote outside their party affiliation would be political suicide. Further, some states require they vote with the state’s majority selection by law.

So what is the value of the Electoral College?

Looking back to the previous discussion concerning the bicameralism of the Congressional structure, focus on the Senate. The purpose of the Electoral College is the same, but is now an ingenious application to the Executive Branch!

The whole idea is to, again, prevent the population majority from taking advantage of states with smaller populations.

In this recent election, some are saying that Sec. Clinton obviously would have won if it weren’t for the Electoral College. That is not a valid argument. When campaign strategies are planned, it is done with reality in mind, not “what if…” The Trump Campaign targeted the states needed to get the required electoral votes – not necessarily the population centers. The Clinton Campaign did the same. With an election this close, it is not possible to predict which candidate would have been the more successful in the other scenario. In fact, without the Electoral College, four states would largely determine who would win the presidency – California, New York, Florida, and Texas. Most other states would not have enough votes to justify more than a cursory visit by the candidates because the election would hinge on the four. It almost comes down to that now…

How would we get rid of the Electoral College?

Think about the basis for it. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change the original document itself and the two amendments already addressing electors. The process is covered in Article V of the Constitution. An amendment may be proposed using one of two methods – two-thirds of both houses of Congress may propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the collective state legislatures may call for an Amendment Convention. Once it is proposed, it must be ratified to be put into effect. Three-fourths of the state legislatures (or three-fourths of the states’ Amendment Conventions) must ratify it. So, to sum up, 2/3 must propose it and 3/4 must ratify it. Interestingly, an amendment (even to make the election of the President a popular majority proposition) is never directly voted on by the people.

So, once an Amendment to do away with the Electoral College is worked out, it must still be ratified. Since 3/4 of 50 is 37-1/2, a majority would require 38 states. To block such an amendment would require 13 or more “nays.” When we consider the four largest states by their electors (which will give an easy comparison of relative populations), we have California with 55, Texas with 38, New York and Florida with 29 each. If we throw in Illinois and Pennsylvania with 20 each, those are the states that would most benefit from the removal of the College. There are 14 states with 5 or fewer electors. Those states would be the ones most “disenfranchised.” (That does not include the District of Columbia with only 3 electors – but no vote in the Amendment process since it is not a state.) If you add in the 20 states with 6 to 10 electors, it would not be difficult to find 13 from those 34 smaller states who are unwilling to become “second-class citizens” in the Presidential election process.

It is highly unlikely that an amendment to remove the College would be ratified.

So what is the purpose of these demonstrations and attempts to get electors to change their votes?

To be honest, they serve no purpose other than a way to vent frustration at an election that didn’t yield the protestors’ desired results. That’s fine as long as there is no violence, no destruction of property, no harassment, and no disruption of critical services (like blocking passage of an ambulance on an emergency run) – but I think there are better ways to waste time…

Security

There are a number of levels of security classification. The higher the level of classification given to information, the higher the level of clearance required to see it and the higher the risk of damage if the information is disclosed.

When an individual is granted a security clearance, all of the information classified at that level is not shared with that person. It is compartmentalized and handled on a “need-to-know” basis – if they don’t need to know it, they won’t see it! In fact, clearances are usually downgraded when the individual is no longer working with the more highly classified information.

The procedures vary and I won’t get into that, but some things are common – an initial briefing, periodic briefings that reiterate the salient points of the initial briefing, and then an exit briefing. All of these briefings discuss the proper procedures for the handling of classified material and the potential consequences to you (if you’re the one being granted a clearance), your compadres, your family, and the country if the information is compromised. The consequences can be wide-ranging – everything from the destruction of the country, your death, or the deaths of other individuals (singly or on a large scale). The potential consequences for mishandling that information are also covered – criminal prosecution, jail, or execution in extreme circumstances. These are not briefings easily forgotten – partially because they are structured to reinforce their critical nature!

When your life and the lives of those around you are in the balance, you take security and classified material very seriously. Unless the proper protocols are followed, having unsecured classified information in your possession, risks compromising that material. Intent has no bearing! It is black or white – either it is secured or it isn’t. This is particularly true of electronic platforms because they are often easily hacked. It is also imperative to know if and/or when that information is compromised. When trying to determine if that data is erased, or wiped clean, it certainly deserves something other than a flippant, “Like with a rag…?”

The trigger for this post was the 3rd Presidential Debate – not the debate itself, but a statement made in the debate. Hillary Clinton stated as fact, that the response time for nuclear weapons is four minutes. I spent over 28 years in the US Army and I worked with nuclear weapons during part of that time and I don’t know if that is an accurate statement or not. I was not dealing with response times. I did not have a “need-to-know” and quite honestly, I didn’t want to know! My questions now become, is that information accurate, and did the whole world need to know that?

Military commanders do their best to get inside the decision cycle of their adversaries. There is a major advantage to knowing the timeline of their cycle because a commander can insert himself and the forces at his disposal to disrupt their decision-making ability. According to Mrs. Clinton, there is a four-minute window in which to compromise our national defenses. Again, if accurate, that is information I would only want those with a true need to know to possess.

As the election approaches, we have four choices. I will rule out the two third parties simply because there is no chance that either will win, and even if they do, they will be fighting both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress. With a degree in Political Science, I can tell you – that is a recipe for gridlock like we’ve not seen. So that leaves two viable candidates.

I will state up front, Donald Trump is not my first choice for President. I do not like some of the things he has said which indicate some character flaws. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, also has some serious character flaws that I won’t get into at the moment.

So, who to vote for…?

First, to not vote is an abdication of personal responsibility for the future of this country and even the world. Second, to vote for someone who has no chance to win is, in effect, the same. If it is in protest, it will not get the attention of the major parties. (It is like spitting into the wind – the only one who notices and suffers the consequences is the one doing the spitting.) The net result of either of those options is the same – the future is determined by the vote of someone else.

A recent television ad highlights a former missile launch officer talking about when the order comes down to launch, the missile is launched. He goes on to say that he wouldn’t want Trump to make that decision. Obviously, Hillary Clinton approved that ad.

So again, who to vote for…?

What isn’t stated in the ad is that this officer alone cannot launch a missile. It requires additional personnel – to include a second launch officer acting in concert with the first. Further, he knows that, likewise, an order to launch is not made in a vacuum at the sole whim of the President. It is a deliberate act with many “moving parts” and fail-safes. The possible exception is the response to an imminent attack – and even then, within the “four-minute window” and beyond, the fail-safes are still in play.

While I have deep suspicions about the women coming forward to accuse Trump of unwanted advances, even if true, they do not directly compromise the security of this nation, nor endanger the lives of those who serve to protect us.

I will state that I cannot – I will not – vote for someone who has casually put our country, our servicemen, and others at great risk – intentionally or not! By her actions and cavalier approach to security, Hillary Clinton has already shown that she does not respect the lives and sacrifices of those of us who have answered the call to potentially put our lives on the line to serve our great nation! What could her future actions entail?

Trump may be temperamental and blusterous, but he has not compromised the safety of this nation through his actions, his email nor his speech. I see no other option for our security and the future of our country – I will vote for Mr. Trump and strongly urge you to do the same!