Giving It Up

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Senate approved an act that takes away the MA citizens’ right to select our nation’s president.  I find that very troubling.  From my understanding, our nation was set up as a republic that gave more power to the states versus the federal government.  The reason for this was to ensure as much individual freedom as possible by making government as large as desired locally, and the smallest to still be functional, nationally.

That is changing now.  And not for the better, in my opinion.  Massachusetts will become the sixth (as stated in the article below) state to give up the right for their citizens to vote for president.  They have decided that no matter how your state votes, they will vote for the presidential candidate that the nation chooses.  That’s called diluting one’s vote.  It’s also called populism.

If the desire, as stated by those that vote for this type of legislation, is that it will be more fair and get people to think their vote matters more.  They are wrong and illogical.  Though the intent is nice, the path leads in the opposite direction.  I, for one, will feel disenfranchised by this.  I live in a state where the vast majority voted for Kerry in 2004, yet it’s electoral votes would have been given to George Bush.  How is that empowering for the voters of this state?  (Clue:  It’s not).

If the intent was to ensure more weight for the individual, why not allow proportional voting where the states electoral votes mimic the outcome fo the state’s popular vote rather than the all-or-nothing method currently employed by the majority of states?  In that way, you leverage your local community rather than being diluted by those in distant parts of the nation.

To win future elections, candidates will spend all the time in the most densely populated areas as that will be where the return on investment will be greatest.  Is that fair?  Our candidates platform will be  built on the needs/desires of a select few that reside within the major cities, never finding it valuable to go to Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana,  the Dakotas, Montana, or Colorado.  They, as recognized states within this republic, will go unheard.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Reply

What I'm Doing...
Interesting Articles
  • What's Elevated, Health-Care Provider?

    The indecipherable language of government has actually become dangerous to the well-being of the nation. As the federal government claims ever greater powers, its language has become vague to the point of meaningless and meaningless to the point of menacing.”
    by Peggy Noonan Wall Street Journal
  • The Aphorism Drive

    Here is a truism, if not an aphorism. Without death and the certainty of physical finitude, Homo sapiens would never have left the cave. Unhappiness and uncertainty — rather than happiness and certitude — are what get us off our duffs.

    No misery. No Sistine Chapel.

    So what happens to the creative spirit when government steps in to soothe our anxieties? Without unhappiness, what happens to culture? Without adversity, what happens to motivation? Parents know. Suffice to say, the work ethic is not strong among the coddled.

    Most important, with all needs met, what happens to freedom — that human recoil against imposed order?”
    by Kathleen Parker
  • Economic Freedom Is Still the Best Policy


    It is said that the only thing that people learn from history is that people learn nothing from history. Looking at how the world is handling the current economic crisis, this aphorism appears sadly true.”
    by Mart Laar Wall Street Journal Europe
Login



Wise Words
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful easily break through them.
by Anacharsis - (Scythian philosopher - 600 B.C.)
CIRCLE Gear
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales