February 12, 2017
The Trump Protests
I wrote this as a Letter to the Editor but didn't send it in because it would have been heavily edited.When you look at massive protests in history - women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, Vietnam war, Tiananmen Square, the Rodney King verdict, the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter - they all have something in common: rebelling against unfairness and injustice so egregious that it not only forced organized protest, but civil disobedience and violence as well. And I think one of the underlying reasons behind the almost daily protests we've seen against President Trump is because of what progressives and Democrats perceive as the unfairness and injustice of the election. Mr. Trump "won" with just 46% of the vote and received more than 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. How is a president supposed to govern and implement his policies after a "victory" like that? He can't, at least not without resistance. Hence the protests.
Also, the left sees a country divided 50/50. But because of radical Republican racial gerrymandering, they're furious at the overwhelming imbalance of their lack representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures all over the country.
There are practical ways to address this unfairness and injustice. First, regardless of which party has control, states should have a bi-partisan commission draw the Congressional and legislative district lines, adhering to strict rules and guidelines, so the voters can choose their elected officials instead of the elected officials choosing their voters. And second, a Constitutional amendment that removes the antiquated and asinine Electoral College - the only election of its kind in the world - and replaces it with a popular vote.
By going to a popular vote Democratic and Republican presidential candidates would campaign in red and blue states instead of
Bi-partisan state commissions and shifting from the Electoral College to a simple popular vote makes sense. Too much sense. But since Republicans benefit from the status quo, and have a majority in Congress and the states, neither will happen. Therefore, these protests will continue, and eventually, I'm afraid, get out of control because that's what happens when egregious injustice and unfairness goes ignored and unaddressed by those in power.
Few more points:
1. Getting rid of the Electoral College should have Donald Trump's support because he declared
I wrote this as a Letter to the Editor but didn't send it in because it would have been heavily edited.
When you look at massive protests in history - women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, Tiananmen Square, the Rodney King verdict, the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter - they all have something in common: rebelling against unfairness and injustice so egregious that it not only forced organized protest, but civil disobedience and violence as well. And I think one of the underlying reasons behind the almost daily protests we've seen against President Trump is because of what progressives and Democrats perceive as the unfairness and injustice of the election. Mr. Trump "won" with just 46% of the vote and received more than 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. How is a president supposed to govern and implement his policies after a "victory" like that? He can't, at least not without resistance. Hence the protests.
Also, the left sees a country divided 50/50. But because of radical Republican racial gerrymandering, they're furious at the overwhelming imbalance of their lack representation in the House of Representatives and state legislatures all over the country.
There are practical ways to address this unfairness and injustice. First, regardless of which party has control, states should have a bi-partisan commission draw the Congressional and legislative district lines, adhering to strict rules and guidelines, so the voters can choose their elected officials instead of the elected officials choosing their voters. And second, a Constitutional amendment that removes the antiquated and asinine Electoral College - the only election of its kind in the world - and replaces it with a popular vote.
By going to a popular vote Democratic and Republican presidential candidates would campaign in red and blue states instead of concentrating pandering solely to the handful of toss-up states that decide the election. And Americans in those solidly red and blue states can go to the polls knowing their vote will matter.
Bi-partisan state commissions and shifting from the Electoral College to a simple popular vote makes sense. Too much sense. But since Republicans benefit from the status quo, and have a majority in Congress and the states, neither will happen. Therefore, these protests will continue, and eventually, I'm afraid, get out of control because that's what happens when egregious injustice and unfairness goes ignored and unaddressed by those in power.
Few more points:
1. Getting rid of the Electoral College should have Donald Trump's support because he declared it a "disaster for a democracy" in a 2012 tweet.
2. I'm sure Trump voters would say that he would have received more votes than Clinton if the winner was decided by popular vote because more red and blue state Republicans would have voted. But 1) more red and blue state Democrats would have voted as well; 2) Clinton was always clearly ahead in the national polling, even the days before the election. And the polls did get the final vote about right; and 3) saying "Trump would have won if it was by popular vote" would be like Tom Brady missing the Super Bowl because of an injury and the Patriots losing the game. Of course Patriot fans could say that "the Patriots would have won had he played." But the game would go into the books as the Patriots losing and the Falcons winning. Same thing about the election. The final results are what we have to go with, despite it being an "Electoral College" election. And Trump lost by more than 2.8 million votes. Period.
3. I had an idea for drawing district lines fairly, although it wouldn't technically be bi-partisan.
Democrats and Republicans each draw three maps that 1) adhere to the rules and guidelines (which were written by an equally divided bi-partisan commission), and 2) are "obviously and distinctively different from one another." The state Supreme Court gets the six maps randomly so they don't know which party drew which map. If there are two maps that are not "obviously and distinctively different" (and were drawn by the same party), then the Court will allow the other party to pick one of their own maps as the one that will be used. And the process will then be over.
If both parties submit two maps that are "somewhat similar," then the process starts all over again.
If both sets of maps pass that first round, then both parties exchange maps and chooses one of the other party's maps. Those two maps go back to the court - again, without knowing which party drew them - to decide which one adheres to the rules and guidelines the most. And that map will be the one that will be used. This way, the party that "lost" actually chose the map that will be used.
It's important that the judges study the maps alone, both times. And there wouldn't be any oral arguments or judicial deliberation during either part of the process. In the first round, each judge either gives the six maps the green light or declares two maps "somewhat similar." In the second round, they just vote for the one that is most inline with the rules and guidelines. And the map that receives the most votes will be the one that's used.
Only two judges are needed to determine if two maps are "somewhat similar." And if that happens, the maps must be released publicly.
This can be done for congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. As far as the asinine way the parties select their presidential nominees and the insane 19-month presidential campaign are concerned, see this post.
+/- show/hide this post
