It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9

It's broke . . .

You may have noticed that last Sunday I didn't post a new blog (blog? blog article? blog post?). Last week was the Republican Convention, and being that I live here in the wonderful city of Cleveland, I did what any sane person would do: I got the heck outta Dodge!

(Now, to be perfectly honest, if I lived in Philadelphia, where the Democrat Convention is to take place, I'd get the heck outta Dodge too!)

Actually, Friday the 15th was the celebration of ten wonderful years of marriage to the most beautiful (and patient, and forgiving, and tolerating . . . ) woman in the world. I took that day off in order to celebrate; along with the following week for a mini-vacation. It just so happens that the convention was taking place the same time we were on vacation.

We went to Maumee Bay State Park and stayed at the lodge. The park is located on the coast of Lake Erie, between Sandusky (think Cedar Point) and Toledo (think Mud Hens and Tony Packo's). Nothing like catching a couple of Mud Hens baseball games!

Me and the most beautiful, patient, forgiving, tolerant (etc.) woman in the world!

Getting back to the topic of this post . . .

Currently we have a two-party system. The Republicans and the Democrats. A.K.A. Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Stupid. The part that pisses me off the most about both of these groups is that deep down they don't give a rat's ass about doing what is best for the country. Oh, they say that they do. But honestly? All either party cares about is doing what is best for their own party. Getting re-elected and staying in power means more to them than what is best for the very taxpayers paying their salaries.

I know I talked about third-party options previously, but no one ever takes groups like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party seriously enough to make a dent in the two-party monopoly. Though that may change. Usually, the Libertarians are dismissed as a bunch of people who only want to legalize drugs. Well, with Colorado and Washington both legalizing the dancing with Mary Jane, and many more states looking at that viable tax revenue option, Libertarians will soon seem like the "normal" of the bunch.

The 12th Amendment gives us the procedure for electing both the President and the Vice President (also known as the Electoral College). In a nutshell: the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes President AND the person with the majority of electoral votes becomes Vice President. Two separate elections. Now, somewhere along the line, our benevolent party leaders decided that it wouldn't be good to have a Democrat President and a Republican Vice President (or vice versa), so they decided to make a change and have the party candidate choose their "running mate".

You may notice that they didn't change the Constitution via Amendment (like when the 18th Amendment - prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcohol - was repealed by the 21st Amendment). They simply decided to ignore the Constitution for the betterment of the parties.

So, the system is broken.

My wife had a great idea, and I think it's the perfect solution: Let everyone who wants to run, run. The person with the most votes becomes the President. And the person with the second most votes becomes the Vice President. Parties be damned!

And I agree. Let the games begin!

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Why You Don't Choose The President

It's official: GOP candidate Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan for his VP. Will this turn out to be a good choice? We don't know. There is the impact on the election and, more important, the impact on the potential administration. 

We understand why the election impact: a candidate is trying to capture a voting block that he may otherwise be not as likely to win over on his own. (Note: I'm using "he" throughout, since when the gender of the person is unknown, "he" is grammatically correct usage. Using "he/she", or alternating "he" and "she" makes reading clumsy for the audience.) What I want to address is the impact on the administration. Mainly, why do we let candidates pick their own running mates?

According to Federalist #68: "The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter." The 12th Amendment gives instructions on choosing the President and Vice President. In neither document does it state that the Vice President is chosen by the President - neither as President, nor as a "running mate". 

Shouldn't the Vice President be elected in the same manner as the President, as described by our founding documents? I understand that choosing one's own running mate allows the balance of the ticket, but one of the main responsibilities of the Vice President is to take over in case of the loss of the President. If something happens to the President, wouldn't we want the SAME things in a Vice President? Isn't the point to have a seamless "change of command" in such a loss? Why would we want someone who would take us in a completely different direction? 

Think back on all of the President/Vice President combinations we've had. Would you honestly have voted FOR the Vice President chosen?

Barack Obama / Joe Biden
George W. Bush / Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton / Al Gore
George Bush / Dan Quayle
Ronald Reagan / George Bush
Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondale
Gerald Ford / Nelson Rockefeller
Richard Nixon / Spiro Agnew / Gerald Ford
Lyndon Johnson / Hubert Humphrey
John F. Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson

The above list goes back to just before my birth. Just think about the combinations. Why would anyone willingly choose these combinations? Sure, some of those aren't so bad, but if given the opportunity to choose, would you have done the same? I don't think I would have.

But again, when the game is to get elected, what is best for the country slips in importance.

So remember when going to the polls: Since the Vice President is selected as a running mate, you don't, ultimately, get to choose who is President. If something were to happen to this person if elected President, would you REALLY want their chosen Vice President to take over? Brrrr - is there a chill in the room, or is it just me?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #20

How about a new amendment to the Constitution:

No one can campaign for public office prior to 30-days from an election.

This is a real winner for a number of reasons:

• No one remember sanything said the two-years prior to the actual vote.
• Think of all the money that could be saved and used for more valid purposes (insert silly ideas here).
• We won't have to listen to all of the mudslinging.
• No chance for flip-flopping on issues.
• More advertising space for Cialis commercials . . . er . . . maybe not . . .

I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons. Any suggestions?

© Emittravel 2011