The Monkey and I made some pretty bold predictions this year that turned out to be true:

1) that Barack Obama would win the Presidency in a landslide, and

2) in so doing, he would rewrite the red state/blue state electoral map.

With the confidence boost at our heels that only presaging political events accurately can provide, we are making some other predictions for the years to come.

1) Sarah Palin will not be the Party’s nomination for President in 2012.

2) Neither will Mike Huckabee.

3) If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, he will lose the Presidency, due to the MiMM Universal Axiom of Presidential Politics, which states: voters will decide the Presidency based on two factors: likeability and familiarity, with likeability trumping familiarity.

4) If Louisiana Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal enters the race, he will win the nomination and pose the biggest challenge to President Barack Obama. Jindal has strong conservative credibility, established legislative and executive experience, and a phenomenal academic resume, but his likeability and intellect, two traits in a Republican challenger that a President Obama will make virtually imperative in 2012, will catapult him ahead of GOP challengers and make him more appealing to the broader electorate.

We have learned many things over the course of the 2008 election cycle, and one of these things is the fact that in the current political climate, viable candidates cannot just appeal to their base. A political candidate of either Party must have crossover appeal if that candidate intends to be successful. This fundamental truth is even more evident during election cycles in which one particular Party has a branding problem, as was the case in 2008 for the GOP. If President Obama is successful in office, a Republican will have as difficult a time in challenging him for the post as John McCain did in attempting to follow up GWB’s disastrous run of Republican rule.

In fact, Obama’s potential success may indicate at least one caveat to my prediction about Jindal: if Obama does enjoy high job approval, Jindal at his young age may be wise to sit 2012 out and make the rest of the Republican field battle it out amongst themselves in what would be perhaps a futile attempt to unseat a potentially extremely popular President.

And yet Jindal’s strong suits cannot be overlooked or underestimated. The son of Indian immigrants, Jindal is a Brown University graduate and a Rhodes Scholar. He has business experience working for McKinsey & Company, the elite consulting firm. He served in the US House of Representatives and is currently a very popular Governor of Louisiana. These credentials will appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, while his stern pro-life stance will certainly energize the GOP base. With the American Electorate demonstrating their openness to diversity in the office of the Presidency, his non-white racial background would unlikely be detrimental, and possibly a huge bonus and opporunity for the Republicans to lay claim to the banner of diversity within their ranks. His youth and lack of extensive political experience beyond a single term in the Governor’s office in Louisiana and a single term in the House of Representatives have already been mitigated by the very fact that Obama received a majority of the vote in 2008, even with relatively light experience, in comparison to his rivals.  And also like Obama, his life story is an “only in America” tale of the offspring of immigrants pulling himself up by the bootstraps and making it in a big way in American politics and rewriting the unwritten rules of Louisiana politics that would be sure to inspire a whole new generation of voters and Americans with and without conservative political leanings.

The “will she or won’t she” questions surrounding Sarah Palin and her intentions for 2012 are likely nothing more than distractions that the establishment within the GOP will capitalize on for as long as they are reaping a reward.  In other words, for as long as she is drawing crowds and attracting attention for a failing and struggling brand, they will allow and encourage her to remain in the spotlight.  Her lack of broad political experience, introspection, and fresh ideas will eventually reveal her to be nothing more than footnote in history. The Republicans are desperately in need of substance within their ranks. This time, in 2012, they will have to take a page out of the Democratic playbook a find a candidate that combines fresh ideas with charisma. As demonstrated by the fervor and excitement surrounding Obama’s election, American voters are starving to be inspired, to be moved, to be energized. Their candidate in 2012 needs to do all of the above, and it wouldn’t hurt to bring a few new ideas to the table, along with the ability to string together coherent sentences.

Four years ago, on Election Night, I was in a hotel in Columbus, Ohio amid a throng of celebrating Republicans. As I had to keep a professional veneer up through the filming of my documentary, I wouldn’t shed actual tears until the next day, driving to the airport with my wife, listening to Kerry’s concession speech on the car radio, holding hands somberly.

We were disgusted and afraid. Disgusted with the outcome and afraid of what more calamities another four years of hard right-wing rule would bring to this nation. From a political perspective, the four years intervening the elections was a nearly endless span of time, finally culiminating last night in a flourish and celebration I have not seen before in my entire lifetime.

Four years passed and again, on Election Night, I was holding back tears. This time my tears were of joy and sadness. Joy that we as a nation could come this far. Not only that in just four years the people decided to elect a man that will hopefully reverse the negativity, incompetence, and harm that this corrupt and criminal adminstration has wrought upon its citizens and the world, but also that we have come this far, since the dawn of this nation, born intertwined to the horrible scourge of slavery and the hatred that this most vile of institutions has caused, to finally elect a black man, a truly African-American man, to the highest office in the land. Now is the time for African American men and African men all over the world to look at themselves and realize that all is possible: healing, success, and prosperity. And to the people on the planet who viewed America with suspicion, resentment, or hostility, know this: ours is nation of new beginnings, of hope, of possibility, of consciousness.

The sadness I felt in my tears were feelings of regret that so many who worked so hard never had the opportunity to witness what I witnessed in their lifetimes, particularly Obama’s mother and grandmother, but certainly including the millions who lived, suffered, and died under slavery, apartheid, and bigotry, who never saw a glimmer of hope for their calamity.

Candidate Obama was often criticized over the last two years for being more style than substance, for waging words instead of action, and for being underqualified and inexperienced. As a Literature and Philosophy major, I have always argued that words mean things. Words create worlds. In many ways, words are all we have when it comes to transferring enthusiasm, inspiring legions, and stimulating imagination. Without words, Lincoln wouldn’t be the Great Emancipator or Reagan the Great Communicator. Without words, King wouldn’t have been able to describe his dream. Without words, the Great Teachers like Jesus would have faded into the fabric of the past like “tears in rain,” forever unknown, forgotten, and meaningless in our current days.

Obama’s mastery of the language will inspire hope, move people, and create change through the promise of prosperity and greatness. He need only assemble a brilliant team of accomplished states-men and women, economists, and the most creative and industrious thinkers of our times. His words will provide the passion, his ideas the energy, his vision the goal. Words are everything.

Beyond the policies that Obama and his adminstration will put into place over the next four years, which we all hope will live up to the expectations and excitement generated by his historic campaign, what the election of Barack Hussein Obama tells us is that once and for all, truly anything is possible. Anything.

What his election tells us is that the mantra of hope, of positivity, of affirmation, of attraction, of inclusion, of union, of simply “yes,” is a mantra that we can we take to the bank, literally and figuratively, to heal ourselves, our pocketbooks, our relationships, and our world.

Yes, he will enact policies that will be progressive in nature, a return to the promises of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, but from an energetic perspective, his election is just as much an affirmation on a spiritual and personal level as it is a forum for a positive progressive political agenda.

That a man born to a Kenyan and a white woman, with Hussein as his middle name, who was virtually unknown outside of Illinois just four years ago, could not only pull himself up by his bootstraps, a result of sheer willpower, confidence, and positive thinking, in order to achieve an Ivy League education and begin a promising political career that should make any free-market conservative proud, but also ascend to the Presidency so quickly, instructs us that the only thing that should guide our individual actions on a daily basis are our dreams, aspirations, and hopes.

If Barack Obama could achieve what he did in just four years, what then is impossible? Can this economy turn around quicker than it crashed apart? Can the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be ended with dignity, strategy, and poise? Can our healthcare system finally be reformed? I answer yes to all of this, guided by the example of President-Elect Obama.

But more important than political policies existing in the external world, are the promises of change on a more intimate level, in the internal world of each of us that his success no doubt portends. Can I heal my personal finances? Get that job I desire? Heal my relationships? Achieve lasting prosperity, health, consciousness, or whatever else I desire? Yes, yes, yes.

The lasting refrain from President-Elect Obama’s campaign is of course the slogan, “Yes We Can.” I can recall no other mere campaign slogan that is as applicable to any person’s personal life experience than this one. In the case of adversity, challenge, fear, obstacles, pain, hurt, and even death, we can persist, we can succeed, we can overcome.

Obama’s win is as much about us as it is about this country or him as a man or President. The lesson in his victory is that all things are possible, if only we apply unyielding confidence, affirmation, and positivity. There will be time to be disappointed later, so why project failure, loss, discomfort, or disease? If we expect the best, the best will certainly come, in time. And it is always darkest before the light of day. In this way, we had to experience the shame and horror of the Bush Presidency. We had to experience darkness so we could appreciate the light.

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for showing us the way towards creating a greater, more expansive life experience, if only we choose to accept it. All is available. All is flowing to us. All that is required is a resounding, “YES!”

Oh, and thank you, Pittsburgh Steelers.

Thought for the Day 11/5/08: You Are Who You Are Looking For

I, Lord, went wandering like a strayed sheep, seeking Thee with anxious reasoning without, whilst Thou was within me. I went round the streets and squares of the city seeking thee; and I found thee not, because in vain I sought without for him who was within myself.” – St. Augustine

As soon as I saw the first shot of Clinton Portis jogging down the passageway leading from the locker room to the field during the opening moments of ESPN’s broadcast of the 2008 Election Eve Monday Night Football showdown between the 5-2 Pittsburgh Steelers and the 6-2 Washington Redskins, I knew something wasn’t quite right. How did I know this?

Clinton’s burgundy jersey.

Knowing that the Skins not only almost always wear white jerseys at home, but also during their recent playoff runs have usually complimented those white jerseys with matching white pants, a combo I’m not too in love with but tolerate due to the winning that usually goes along with the ensemble, the fact that Mr. Portis was seemingly out of uniform gave me a moment of pause. Then the camera pulled out to a wider shot and revealed something I’ve never witnessed once during a lifetime of being a Redskins fan: the monochrome look: burgundy-on-burgundy.

As much as I liked the all-burgundy look, I was concerned about why freshman Head Coach Jim Zorn and the boys would want to tempt fate on a national stage for one of their biggest games of the season. A couple seasons back, the Skins found their winning ways with the all-white getup, so I had to question if now was the time to try anything different. Such is the nature of superstitions in sports. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and that goes for uniforms, daily habits, shaving, and whatever else the Monkey Mind wishes to associate with success.

In the case of my beloved ‘Skins, there is no doubt in my mind that the players associate white-on-white with winning. Burgundy-on-burgundy, while cool, is an unknown, and perhaps the preseason would have been a better time to fiddle with things like uniforms, especially in the case of the Redskins, who have been none too successful wearing any uniforms other than their plain old regular boring outfits that they’ve been sporting since the early ’80’s. The last time they wore throwback unis, they suffered a horrible defeat at the hands of the soon to be Superbowl Champion New York Giants at Fedex. The only other time in recent memory that I recall the ‘Skins wearing alternate or throwback digs was during the Steve Spurrier era, and we all know how that went. Now that Skins lose again in alternate threads who knows how long it will be before management decides to change their outdated look?

Will the “Redskins Rule” Continue to Hold in ‘08?

My diatribe on unis out of the way, there is another huge sports superstition still surrounding this game that has nothing to do with textiles, and that is the fabled “Redskins Rule.”

Discovered by Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau in 2000 (and slightly amended in 2004) the Redskins Rule has accurrately predicted the outcome of 17 straight Presidential elections, dating back to 1940 (before which the Redskins were not called the Redskins, nor based in DC) which is either an eerie unexplainable connection between sports and politics or an oddly random occurrence that is at least mildly interesting.

The Redskins Rule states:

If the Redskins win their final home game preceding the US Presidential Election, then the Party of the winner of the previous election’s popular vote will win the current year’s Presidential election.”

To put that into context of the Monday night contest, since the GOP won the popular vote in 2004, if the Redskins were to beat the Steelers, the Republicans would win the election in 2008. What a way to conflict a fan if the fan has an interest in politics.

Prior to 2004, the Redskins Rule read simply that if the Redskins win, the incumbent Party wins the election and if they lose, the challenging Party wins. Case in point, while I was in Cincinnatti for a Bush campaign event I was covering for my documentary Swing State Ohio in 2004, I found myself in a sports bar rooting against my Redskins who faced the Green Bay Packers at home just days before the election, in order to ensure a Kerry victory. My team lost but that dissatisfaction was enlivened by the prospect of Kerry winning the election a few days later. When Kerry lost, many thought that for once in over 60 years the rule had proven false. But Hirdt had another look at the data and realized that the connection between the fate of the Skins and the election was not quite as direct, hence his refinement of the rule to take into account the popular vote from the previous election, as stated above.

So I will accept this loss at the hands of a quality opponent like the Steelers because Redskins Rule will undoubtedly prove true yet again in 2008.

And maybe, just maybe, whoever made the decision to scrap the sure-win white-on-white for monochrome burgundy is an Obama supporter and was doing all he could to ensure a Democratic win, outside of attempting to convince players of possibly many political stripes to throw the game for the good of the country.

In our last post, the Monkey and I described the fundamentals and history behind the Electoral College and offered the idea that the College must be scrapped if we are to move into an era of more free and more fair elections in the 21-Century.

it is clear that electing our President soley by means of a popular vote would not only fairly gauge the intentions of our entire nation of voters, but it would also remove any suspicions of legitmacy when the odd circumstance occurs in which the outcome of the popular vote is different than the electoral college result, as it happened most recently in George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000.

More Expansive Campaigns

Most proponents of the Electoral College maintain that this system is still adequate and legitimate because it does a better job of lending authority to smaller states by making their votes count more and maintaining fairness by precluding large urban areas from determining the outcome of the election by making their votes count less. The Monkey and I would argue, however, that what the current system actually does is in essence make the election “about” a handful of swing states, rather than about the concerns and issues facing the entire nation.

The 2004 election is a perfect example of this. Each candidate visited Ohio over 20 times in final month of the campaign. More than anything, the 2004 election was “about” Ohio, and therefore the issues the candidates spoke about were skewed towards issues mainly facing Ohioans: unemployment, lost manufacturing jobs, and “values” issues like Gay Marriage that made its way onto the ballot in Ohio. A national popular vote would force the candidates to make their campaigns more broad and expansive, catering more to the concerns of the entire nation, rather than to the idiosyncracies of one contained geographical area.

In 2008 the number of swing states or states in play has expanded beyond Ohio to include Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri, and perhaps a few more. So in many ways, this seismic shift in the traditional red state/blue state electoral map has forced the candidates to become more inclusive in their rhetoric and policies in order to capture the votes of a broader based spectrum of voters, but this is more due to Candidate Obama’s broad appeal than any advantages or inherent qualities of the current Electoral College voting system. No Republican would have predicted in late ‘07 that North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado would be in play for Democrats.

51 Simultaneous Elections a Recipe for Chaos

Perhaps more significant than the fact that we currently don’t use a national popular vote to determine our President in this country, is the reality that on Election Day we are running 51 state elections executed by hundreds or even thousands of local Election Boards, each run in a different way under different rules with different standards, different ballots, and different means of collecting votes. It is almost as if our current election system is asking for chaos, disorder, and uncertainty on Election Day. It should be recognized as a national shame that for the past two election cycles, in 2004 and 2000, that some level of controversy has stained the outcome of the election and that a winner was unable to be determined on Election Day itself. Instead, this type of uncertainly has come to be expected. The sad reality is that in the midst of chaos and lack of uniformity lies the opportunity for shenanigans. Without a uniform ballot, a uniform voting machine, and uniform rules stipulating how elections should be run, it is virtually impossible to conduct a clean, transparent, and fair election.

Election Day a Federally-Mandated Holiday?

Instead of celebrating one of our greatest freedoms and the most visible aspect of living in a democracy, for many Americans, Election Day is a day of hassle, wasted time, and frustration. For many living in urban areas, long lines, a lack of machines, misinformation, and general chaos makes voting a rather daunting task. Combine that with the pressure that many feel to go to their jobs instead of vote, or the fact that many employers intimidate their workers to not shirk their work duties in order to vote, turnout is often a problem because our country does not support workers on Election Day. When I was filming my documentary Swing State Ohio, I ran into several voters on Election Day who did not want to be interviewed for our film for fear that their employers might see them voting instead working their jobs.

Election Day should be a federal holiday like Labor Day or Memorial Day, with the vast majority of our workforce having the day off to celebrate their freedom and their precious privilege to vote. Many schools are already closed on this day as they are often used as polling sites. Imagine what a different day Election Day would be if American workers all across the country threw Election parties, held colder-weather barbecues, and purposely celebrated the most fundamental aspect of living in a democracy? There would certainly be a loss in productivity, but the gains in voter confidence, enthusiasm, and turnout would be priceless. Soft intimidation to not vote would also be a thing of the past, and so would ridiculous lines or feelings of frustration about rushing to get back to work, or even worse, giving up at the polls when the wait is too much to tolerate in light of the pressure of having to answer to an employer (which was the case for one of the gentlemen we spoke to while filming our documentary).

Take Money Out of the Equation: Federally Mandated Airtime for Candidates

When thinking about Presidential campaigns, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: should capitalism extend to politics? Much has been made this year of Barack Obama’s renegging of his promise to accept federal election funds, in contrast to his opponent, Sarah Palin’s Running Mate, who has stuck to his word in order to collect some $80 million in federal funds for his campaign. While this may be a legitimate criticism of Obama, it is odd that a Republican is choosing to take advantage of public funds while the Democrat is engaging in economic realities of the free market in order to fund his campaign, by some estimates to the tune of half a billion dollars when all is said and done.

It is absolutely outrageous that our political system allows this kind of money to be spent on what is in essence an extended job interview. While one could argue that Obama enjoys such a huge campaign coffer due to the enormous support he has cultivated from millions of Americans and is merely a reflection of the will of the American people, it is still sad that at the end of the day, money fuels politics just like everything else in our society. The consequence of this is that prominence of money promulgates an unfair two-party system which inaccurately relegates to the choice of President into two black or white categories (no pun intended), instead of reflecting a wider spectrum of perspectives.

A solution: take most of the money out of the equation. The vast majority of money spent on Presidential campaigns ends up on our televisions. If instead of the current system we had a system in which the Federal Government mandates a certain quantity of airtime on federal airwaves (upon which our major networks broadcast) for each candidate, coupled with a requirement for party candidates to accept Federal election funds as well as a stricter restrictions on how that money can be spent, we would have a campaign mostly devoid of misleading, negative advertising, as well as an opportunity for third-party candidates to also have a voice.

For example, if a candidate is nominated by a political party and received a reasonable number of votes or signatures confirming their candidacy, they would be entered into the new Federal Election System, (mandated by a Constitutional Amendment, to be discussed in a moment). Currently, the “major party” candidate can receive public financing for their campaigns based on guidelines outlined here. A read-through of the guidelines will tell you that this system is still not without the influence of private funds and is still heavily skewed towards major party candidates. Interestingly, back in 1907, President Theodore Rooselvelt suggested that an entirely public system be put into place, with all private funds to be forbidden. Why is not this notion common sense? Why are not more Americans outraged that Campaigns are to be sold and bought by the highest bidder, whose concerns will later be addressed and recompensed by the elected candidate?

My proposal for a new Federal Election System would grant all eligible candidates blocks of longer-form television advertising, which lends itself to greater veracity and reduced communication through sound-bites, elevating the discussion to actual themes and issues that voters care about, rather than personal attacks, wedge issues, and red-herrings. An example would be that during a certain week of programming, each candidate would receive 10 minutes of programming from 7:50pm to 8:00pm. Monday would be the Democrat, Tuesday the Republican, Wednesday the Green Party, Thursday the Independent, etc. This would level the playing field and make the campaign a disussion of ideas.

In addition to say, a dozen or so blocks of programming for each eligible candidate, the Presidential Debates would be the other national forum for candidates to make their case. Obviously the debates would include more than just the two parties, and they would be true debates with ample opportunities for each candidate to directly question and respond to one another.

A side note: most often the major rationale for excluding third party candidates is because they lack broad support, only represent fringe issues, or worse yet, don’t stand a chance of winning. We would argue that their absence from the national stage is the reason why they don’t stand a chance of winning, in addition to the general lack of awareness on the part of the electorate to their existence at all. Our society is so skewed towards just two parties thanks to endless marketing, lobbying, and propaganda on behalf of what amounts to two sides of the same coin, that voters are often left with a false choice or a battle between the lesser of two evils. Our democracy should be able to withstand the entrance of more voices, more perspectives, and more choices. This will only serve to enrich and enliven our political health.

The public funds disbursed by the Federal Government would be a much smaller amount and would be used for the candidates to travel around the country and reach individual voters with their messages. Under this proposed system, the only allowable use of private funds would be for Parties to fund their conventions, but the conventions of all eligible parties would receive equal broadcast airtime.

Instant Runoff Voting

Another major problem with our election system involves the inherent weaknesses of “plurality voting,” in which in our system a candidate who doesn’t even receive the majority of votes can win the Presidential election (as was the case with Bill Clinton and obviously George W. Bush, to name two). Some local governments employ runoff electoins in which candidates who received the least number of votes are eliminated from the ballot and a whole new election is held to determine a winner. This type of system is more fair in that it ensures that the winner will in fact receive a majority of votes, but it is problematic because it is costly to conduct and often turnout is low because voters have to return to the polls on a separate day to finish the election.

A preferrable and more practical system is called “Instant Runoff Voting,” in which voters rank-order their candidates on a single ballot. This is a more accurate gauge of voter preference, eliminates the “spoiler effect,” an instantly ensures that the winner will receive a majority of votes. Here’s an animation that explains it better than I can:

A Constitutional Amendment

While the Constitution addresses voting in terms of not infringing the vote in relation to a voter’s gender or race, there is no specific right to vote guaranteed in the Constitution, nor is there any Federal law stipulating specifically how elections should be run, as this function is left to the states to legislate and execute. We propose that Congress adopt a Constitutional Amendment stipulating the following functions and features of the vote for the office of the Presidency:

• Voting is a right, not to be implicitly or explicitly infringed by employment obligations.
• The Presidential Election is federal election. Citizens vote directly for the Office of the Presidency by means of a national popular vote, determined by a uniform paper Instant Runoff Ballot.
• Election Day is federal holiday.
• Eligible Presidential Candidates must use public financing. Use of any private funds is prohibited, except to fund party Conventions.
• All eligible Presidential Candidates receive equal broadcast airtime, in the form of long-form advertising and Presidential Debates.

A Tall Order: First Task is to Believe in the Possibility of Change

We are not suggesting small, incremental changes in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns and elections. Instead, we are suggesting both a paradigm in shift in the way we view these important functions and features of democracy, as well as the granting of new voting rights for all Americans. Some might argue that this is too much to ask, that the problem will never be fixed, or isn’t worth the energy as the system is already completely corrupt. It is important to remember that no change occurs without first the belief in that change existing within the mind. As out of reach and crazy this type of reform might seem, we must believe that change can occur before any change will occur. While some might dismiss my proposals as mere fancy, it is important realize that this type of cynicism will only result in more of the same.

Although others may have different ideas as to how to reform our system, it is pretty much commonly accepted that our system is outdated, prone to fraud and abuse, and not an accurate way of fairly and transparently measuring the will of the electorate. It is abundantly clear that the variety of ballots, laws, and systems in place in each individual state creates more opportunity for confusion and frustration instead of a pervasive feeling of empowerment and participation in a system that is often billed the first and greatest democracy in the world but often fails to measure up to that expectation. Without a fair vote, our voice is lost. And by definition, without the people’s voice there is no democracy.

Thought for the Day, 11/2/08:

“The only way ‘yes’ can be manifested is when you do more affirming than denying. The Subconsious Mind always acts — and it acts on the most predominant thought.” – U. S Anderson, “Three Magic Words,” page 36.

For more information on this important issue, please visit:

FairVote.org

National Popular Vote.com

Photo by: Steve Woods.

Every few years there comes a time when many in the United States once again question this country’s antiquated and arcane voting system. Oddly enough, this time of questioning usually coincides with a federal election that is often dubbed, “the most important election of our time.” It is sad that in a country self-described as the greatest democracy in the world that so often, and more and more in recent years, abundant questions abound as to the efficacy, legitmacy, and fairness of our U.S. electoral system, particuarly in the case of Presidential Elections.

The Monkey and I are trying to avert our eyes to the various reports popping up in recent days regarding voter suppression and other woes that clearly stained the 2000 election, and possibly threw the 2004 election in the State of Ohio. On the surface, this looking the other way may seem like denial, but in actuality we are instead attempting to not invoke the “Law of Attraction,” and give even more energy to the idea that the fix is already in on this election, in order to prevent this notion from snowballing into fruition on an energetic level (remember, the Law of Attraction works “both” ways). But it’s getting tougher to ignore, or more accurately, to divert our attention from. Just this morning in fact, CNN.com ran with a headline story on their homepage about 50,000 voters being purged from the rolls in the State of Georgia, a state where polls are indicating a historic upset could very well be in the works.

The silver lining to many of these disturning concerns that Democrats and Progressives share about voter suppression and that Republicans and Conservatives share about “voter fraud” (which is mostly a sham, anyway) is that many of these issues could most likely be remedied with a few fundamental changes to how we run elections in this country.

While simple in theory, these changes will take a lot of energy from citizens and our legislators to put into place. Most importantly, these changes will require a massive shift in consciousness towards simplicity, transparency, and practicality.

A Little History

Most US citizens are aware of the fact that our Presidential election is not a direct election or a popular vote (which often makes me and Monkey wonder why we even collect national polling data, as such information is useless in a practical sense, although it does satisfy curiousity and give cable news networks something to blabber about). Instead, we use a system based on an “Electoral College,” and it goes something like this:

• The Presidential Election is not a national election at all, but a collection of 51 simultaneous state elections (including Washington, DC).
• Citizens in actuality don’t vote for any candidate in at all, but instead cast ballots for “Electors” who in turn cast ballots for the candidate for whom they are pledged to vote. The Constitution allows state legislatrues to each choose their own method for selecting Electors. Oddly enough, they don’t have to vote for the person you voted for, but in practice end up voting for the candidate who receives the most popular votes in their state, except in the case of Maine and Nebraska, in which different Electors are chosen for each Congressional District. Hence, these are the only two states that could possibly “split” their slate of Electors.
• The number of Electors in each state are calculated by taking the number of US Senators in that state (always 2) plus the number of US Representatives. DC gets an equal number of Electors as the least populous state, which currently provides three Electors. (As a side note, Washington DC currently enjoys the highest per capita number of Electors with regards to its total population, essentially lending it disproportionate weight when it comes to throwing Electoral votes towards a candidate).
• Based on a Federalist system, the US Electoral College is really a manifestation of the idea that state governments are mostly independent and that the Federal Government is an institution created to govern the “Federation” of States, not the people. In this way citizens have the power to elect local and state governments as well as the US Congress, who in turn are responsible for electing and holding accountable the Federal Government.

Away from Our Federalist Ways

It is important to understand the current system is rooted in Federalism, which is a concept I would argue that many Americans are not completely familiar with, especially given the huge emphasis that the Mainstream Media places on national and Presidential Politics today. In order to change the Electoral College, there must be a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we view the office of the Presidency. It would require us to remove the lens of Federalism when gazing at the conundrum of fairly electing our Executive leader, a change that in many ways would veer away from the origins of over 200 years of governance. In many respects, this change in perception of the Office has already occurred. Now all that is required is for the laws of the land to catch up with the shift in perceptions and a altering of expectations about how we select our Executive leaders.

The Founding Fathers had amazing foresight and wisdom to be able to shape our government in the way they did in a time period in which this nation was unbelievably different than the country in which we are currently living. Despite academic test scores and recent surveys that indicate a staggering lack of civic knowledge on behalf of our citizens and particularly our young people, voters today are still lightyears more sophisticated than the average citizenry of the late 1700’s, with access to volumous and unlimited information and resources to fuel their opinions on the foreign and domestic policy matters at stake during Presidential elections. While the Founding Fathers displayed a vibrant commitment to creating a government and a society that was unique in its capacity to provide and protect unprecedented expressions of freedoms and safeguards to Democracy, capitalism, and the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they didn’t entirely trust the average rather uninformed voter and wished to keep the reigns of power within the hands of the informed, privileged, and landed gentry embodied by the original delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

In other words, in the area of electing Presidents, they were either shortsighted, or were incapable of predicting the impact that the Executive Office would have on the citizens, both symbolically and practically speaking. Quite simply stated, the times have changed. Today, in 2008, citizens see the person who occupies the office of the Presidency as the leader of this nation of people and even more, as the leader of the free world. That changed perception of the office requires a change to the method by which we select the President. In practice, the President no longer presides over a federation of states, but instead over a nation of people. Hence, the President should be primarily accountable to, and elected by, a nation of people, not an arcane and often hidden body of Electors.

A Solution is Right in Front of Us

Thanks to Founding Fathers, the power to make changes to our government lies in our hands. A huge majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote to decide the Presidency, and yet the Electoral College remains, along with a multitude of weaknesses in our system that are on full display in tightly contested elections like in 2000, 2004, and most likely, in 2008 as well.

In my next post, I will explain several methods to update the means by which we elect Presidents, as well as several reforms which would prevent the cloud of illegitimacy that has plagued the last few elections. Until then…

Thought for the Day 10/2/08: You Are What You Think

“We are what we think, we do what we think, we become what we think, and thus it must always be.” — U.S. Andersen, “Three Magic Words,” page 143.

Image courtesy: Sanja Gjenero

The most popular post on this blog, with over 1300 unique views, is a post I wrote during the primaries in which I predicted a landslide win for Obama over Palin’s Running Mate, using primary results as a guide. I argued that since primaries are actual elections and not just polls, in which often emotion and conjecture can come into play, they are a much more accurate gauge of voter intention than a mere poll.

It now seems like that prediction is holding true, with states like Texas and Georgia beginning to shift towards Obama’s favor.

When all is said and done, three major factors will have determined the 2008 Election:

1) Candidate Likeability: According to the Monkey’s Universal Axiom of Presidential Politics, voters will vote for people they like and/or for people with whom they are familiar, with likeability trumping familiarity. Bottom line: President-Elect Obama has proven himself the more likeable figure, especially during the debates, trumping Palin’s Running Mate’s Familiarity. In fact, due to the extremely extended election cycle this time around, Obama had nearly two years to lodge himself within the voters’ minds as a familiar political personality.

2) The Sarah Palin Effect: At one time her Running Mate’s Ace in the Hole, she is now his Joker card, not even living up to her reputation as a “reformer,” facing charges of corruption and abuse of power in Alaska, “unrepentant” cronyism, improper travel expenses and per diem collection on behalf of herself and her family while serving as Governor, ill-advised associations with the Alaskan Independence Party, as well as in very un-”Joe Six Pack” fashion, accepting over $100,000 worth of clothing from high-end “elitist” department stores like Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. A joke in terms of policy, substance, and her record, Palin has proven to be her Running Mate’s Achilles Heel. Voters already know what a uninformed, under-qualified, partisan, dogmatic candidate brings to the table if elected, just look no further than the Joker currently occupying the Oval Office and the collossal mess his policies have delivered for the American people.

3) The Economy, Stupid. This issue is what set back the Republican brand back in 1992, and will inform voters’ decisions in 2008. Pocketbooks rule and right now people are feeling all misty-eyed about the unprecedented prosperity we experienced the last time a Democrat was in the White House

But I wouldn’t exactly be partying like it’s 1999 if I were Obama. He is inheriting a country in shambles and will have his work cut out for him in real terms and in within the minds of voters as he must now live up to enormous expectations. The Monkey and I think he is up to it.

Thought for the Day: 10/24/08:

“Every great artist and engineer, physicist, chemist, and astronomer, all who seek after creation and answers, must perforce have some contact with the Universal Subconscious Mind. This contact comes when they get themselves out of the way and let the only mind in all creation provide them with the answers.” — U.S. Andersen, “Three Magic Words,” page 85.