An Open Letter to Jon Corzine

Folks, As S.D. is pointing out in another post, our very electoral system is under attack.

As many of you are well aware from the elections of 2000 and to a lesser degree 2004, our presidential elections are not decided purely by popular vote. Rather, each state has a winner and that state sends electors to vote for that person, in numbers representative to that state's presence in Congress.

This was done so that larger states would not have dominion over the course of the nation; in short, so that everyone is represented fairly.

Well, so far two states are trying to end that through unconstitutional legislation. Maryland and now my native New Jersey have signed bills awarding their states' electoral college votes to the winner of the national election, rather than to whomever won their own state's voting. This is as illegal and unconstitutional as it gets.

This is saying that if someone wins 75% of your state's vote, but the overall national vote goes to someone else, then your state's results mean nothing, the electors will be told to vote for the other person, even though it does not represent your decision. That is fraud, and it has to be stopped before our election process is irretrievably broken. Such nonsense may well lead to the breakup of our nation along party lines.

Part of me wonders if this would be happening if Al Gore lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. It should come as no shock that the two states seeking to undermine our free and fair election process are heavily Democrat.

Such is my outrage over this, I had to act.

I wrote the following letter to New Jersey governor Jon Corzine in the hopes that common sense and respect for our nation's laws will prevail. If I receive a reply, I will let you know.

Dear Governor Corzine:

I am writing to you somewhat shocked, and honestly appalled at the legislation you signed this weekend to award the state's 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national election.

Sir, do you realize that this is a direct violation of the United States Constitution, mentioned in both Article II as well as the Twelfth Amendment?

Our electoral process is clearly set up so that regional blocs cannot control the fate of the entire nation. This way, every state has a say in the outcome of the election.

The idea of a national popular vote was discussed by the authors of the Constitution and deliberately rejected.

This idea was rejected not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous states would have much greater influence than the smaller states and therefore the interests of those smaller states could be disregarded or trampled. Additionally, a nationwide election would encourage regionalism since the more populous areas of the country could form coalitions to elect president after president from their own region. With such
regional preferentialism, lasting national unity would be nearly impossible.

Sir, I implore you to reverse this leglislation, as it is detrimental to not only the fairness of our electoral process, but to our stability as a nation as well.

Sincerely,F D

- F. D. for Two Joe Schmoes

P.S. I've also written a letter to my representative, Frank Pallone (D-NJ) with the problem in simple terms so even he can grasp the seriousness of it. I will also post any replies I get from him. Admittedly, Rep Pallone is pretty good at replying to me, with Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) responding less often, and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) never replying at all.

Here's the letter:

Honorable Rep. Pallone:

As you are probably aware, over the weekend our governor signed legislation which would award our states electoral college votes to the winner of the national election. I am writing to express my outrage over this and to ask you to ask Mr. Corzine to rescind this, since it is in clear
violation of Article II of the US Constitution, as well as Amendment XII.

Our electoral college is in place to be representative of our nation. Each state votes in the presidential election, and the winner of each state sends its respective number of electors to elect our President. This was designed intentionally by the Founders to prevent larger states from dictating election outcomes to the smaller states.

Under Governor Corzine's bill, the voters of New Jersey, and indeed America itself, will be disenfranchised. Say for example, New Jersey's voters vote 70% for Candidate A, but Candidate B wins the popular vote. Is it fair, then to award the electoral votes of New Jersey to the
candidate that it's own constituents did NOT vote for?

No, it's not fair, in fact, it's illegal, unconstitutional, and blatant vote fraud.

I urge you to stop these unconstitutional bills from destroying our electoral
process.

Thank you,
F D

Tyranny by Popular Vote.

The first sign of tyranny is showing its ugly head. Maryland and now New Jersey have pushed through a law that would award their state's Electoral College vote to the presidential winner of the national popular vote.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59683

Folks, this move is completely unconstitutional.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states the following:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

Our founding fathers rejected Democracy as a form of mob rule and implemented a Constitutional Republic. They wanted to prevent the big states from controlling the rights of the small states. To put it in clearer terms, a national popular vote would have bill in New York City determine what is best for Farmer Bob in Kansas. The brilliance of this system makes sure that Farmer Bob in Kansas is just as equal to Bill in New York City They had the foresight and wisdom to understand that a national popular vote would hand control of the country to a tyrannical centralized government.

This is another disgusting ploy from the Democrat party to sabotage our time tested traditions, and guarantee that left leaning cities like Los Angeles and NYC control the rest of the country. Everyone needs to write, e-mail, or call their House of Representatives, Senators, and State Governors and protest this abhorrent move. I sincerely hope this issue will be brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to stop this now, before it gets out of hand.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml

S.D. for Two Joe Schmoes.

A Call For True Fairness

I'm making a bet here that if you're actually reading this page, then you have at least a passing interest in political affairs and of our government.

That said, I think most people, liberal as well as conservative, can come to an agreement that the media's handling of the presidential campaigns for both major parties has been anything but fair.

Go back to the summer of 2007, where the media was coming up with ways to shun some candidates by establishing "tiers" - there were the "top-tier" people - generally those with a lot of cash backup or with really bland agendas which won't do any good but sound all fluffy, then the "second-tier" candidates, generally people who actually backed up what they said and took a decisive stand on issues. These are the Mike Gravels, Ron Pauls, Tom Tancredos and Duncan Hunters.

Maybe for the next elections, and even for state elections as well, we can do some things befitting our American heritage of "equal treatment" and individual liberty:

1. DO NOT jump the gun and lump candidates into "tiers". Why not trust the people to make that decision? Or are you afraid a man (or woman) of principle will get elected? The media shun Ron Paul but he still makes pretty impressive showings despite getting support from the grassroots. My personal favorites, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, were written off almost from the start and essentially ignored by the media. How, I wonder, might they have fared if not lumped into the "long shot" bunch?
2. Let all the candidates into the debates. Fox denied Paul and Hunter access to debates, citing they "didn't have the room", which is a load of nonsense from a multi-billion dollar company. Am I to seriously believe that Fox couldn't afford a bigger table or at least a couple chairs and microphones? By not allowing all the candidates on, you're only stifling freedom of choice, you're not allowing people to hear the assorted platforms and ideas and therefore not allowing them to make a more educated decision.
3. What about some of the other parties? I know their support bases are small (I'm registered with the Constitution Party myself, one of a scant few in new Jersey), but their opinions need to be heard as well. Have debates where you get a few of the other parties involved. Put the Greens up there, but the Libertarians up there, the Constitutionalists, whoever wants to come be heard. Interview them on the shows like all the major party candidates do.
4. Please, media elites - Stop trying to predict the future! Polls change daily and don't mean squat. This election cycle has managed to make the whole lot of pundits look like utter jackasses and the frauds they are. Maybe this is a sign that the people have no respect for you and your biases.

If only the talking heads would just throttle back and let the democratic process work itself out without their meddling, maybe the country wouldn't be so close to veering so dangerously off course.

- F.D. for Two Joe Schmoes

Dim Bulbs in Washington

Have our leaders lost their minds, or are they simply wandering around in the dark?

Congress has decided to ban incandescent lightbulbs.

Why, you ask?

Because the lie of "man-made" global warming has consumed Congress, and supposedly, incandescent buls do not fit into the new order, where fluorescent bulbs do. The incandescent bulbs allegedly burn out faster and use more energy than fluorescent lights.

But here's some information you may not know:

Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury inside, making them a toxic mess if and when they break. The light from them is not as bright, and some complain the light causes headaches among other things.

Worst of all, where our incandescent lights are mainly made here in the USA, every last one of the replacement fluorescent lights are made in Communist China.

So, if you boil it down, our Congress has sold out yet more American workers and a small piece of our freedoms in the name of a lie.

Thank you, Congress. And you wonder why most Americans can't stand you. Keep selling the people down the river like chattel, keep stepping on us, and try not to cry too much when you're voted out of office.

- F.D. for Two Joe Schmoes