http://thoughts-of-an-average-man.blogspot.com/

Only the last paragraph has been changed

As I watch the Republican Presidential primaries play out I can't help but be disturbed by it's course. At the time of this writing, Newt Gingrich pulled a rather surprising upset in South Carolina and now stands to gain more momentum towards the nomination. He is not only surging in most polls, he is surging among evangelicals. This is where it gets puzzling. The mainstream media has successfully convinced America and now apparently Americans of faith, that the personal lives of our leaders are inconsequential to their overall ability to lead.
I am of course speaking of Gingrich's marital past. Are we now saying that marital infidelity and political fidelity are mutually exclusive? I don't buy it and here is why. Marriage is a contract and more importantly, a covenant made with another person before God. In the covenant of marriage, you make a commitment to a person that you esteem above all others, that you put before yourself in all matters, and that when the time comes to choose between him or her and personal gain, you forsake the personal gain. That is the marriage covenant. To treat that covenant so lightly that on TWO occasions, with TWO different spouses, you choose the pleasures of adultery over the commitment to your wife speaks greatly of ones character.
Now apply that same thought process to political decisions. When elected to office, you enter in to a contract with your constituents. It is not a lifetime commitment and the only "skin" you have in the game is that of getting re-elected. If you have treated the covenant to a spouse made before God with such glib disdain, then what loyalty to a mere voter will you have when the tough decisions place you between your constituent and personal gain?
The mainstream media has convinced America that we all make mistakes and that we can all relate to the shortcomings of a Newt Gingrich. I'm sorry, I cannot relate to tossing aside the commitment that I have made to my wife for the pleasures of another woman. I don't think that most Americans can either.
We are at a crossroads in American values. President Obama has damaged this country and if re-elected will release Obama 2.0 and an aggressive version of left wing politics the likes of which our country has not seen. As evidenced in 2008, after the nomination of John McCain, American conservatives seem ready to accept the lesser candidate either in conservative credentials or character in order to secure the election. They appear poised to do so again with either Gingrich or Romney. I for one am not willing to, and American conservatives should not be willing to either. I am all for forgiving repentant people for their transgressions, that does not mean I want them as my President.
Should Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney secure the Republican nomination, I will be leaving the party after 27 years.  Given Newts personal failures and Mitt's wavering on issues most important to family values conservatives, the Republican Party will be asking one of these two to look the American public in the eye and say "Trust me, I have your best interests at heart and not my own."  I don't believe either one of them.

Yet, despite having similar populations, Presidential campaigns spend well into the millions of dollars to win over crucial enclaves in Northeastern Ohio and Western Pennslyvania while completely ignoring our region.  The reason for this?  The Electoral College, a ridiculous and antiquated system put into place hundreds of years ago that has now outgrown it’s purpose, the nation is now spread out in terms of regional balance, and the constant attention paid to swing states over non-swing states does a disservice to the voters in those non-swing states and the smaller swing states.  Here’s an excellent and jaw dropping example, in the State of New Hampshire, which has 4 electoral votes, the Obama and McCain campaign spent roughly 15 million dollars to contest the state while in New York, which had 33 electoral votes, they both spent less than 500 thousand dollars.  If a state with less than ten percent of the total electoral votes of another has campaign expenditures well exceeding 500% of the larger state isn’t ridiculous, I’m not sure what is.

This damages the critical notion that Presidential elections give the President a mandate to govern the entire country.  One could easily argue that the President really only has a mandate from the states of Ohio, Pennslyvania and Florida, since winning 2 out of those 3 states is seen as being absolutely essential to winning for a nominee of either party, while the votes of tens of millions of people from places like Batavia across the country aren’t really that relevant.

The best known example of the failure of our electoral college system in the modern era is Al Gore defeating George W. Bush in the popular vote but losing the electoral college, which makes this argument seem like it is a partisan one for the Democrats…..but several near misses and arguments should give Republicans pause about the current system.  George W. Bush almost lost his re-election, despite winning a majority (over 50%) of the popular vote because of around 250,000 votes in the state of Ohio that were left to be counted as the day after the election began.  Also, Republicans in a state like New York, really have no real reason to vote in the Presidential election despite to express their own individual feelings because in reality, their vote does not count for much.  The same holds true for Democrats in a state like Texas.  Why should they bother with the system as is?  Barring Nelson Rockefeller and Lyndon Johnson returning from the grave, the Democrats are going to win New York and the Republicans are going to win Texas, neither are swing states nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

The answer is bypassing the electoral college.  It may have been necessary hundreds of years ago but damages the basic principal of 'one-man, one-vote' that defines a democratic-republic (lower case) today.  The prevalence of swing states makes repeal almost impossible, so another solution is at hand.  The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in state legislatures across the country.  Instead of a constitutional amendment, this bill assigns the electoral votes of each state to the winner of the national popular vote total, but only kicks in when states composing the majority of the electoral college (270 electoral votes) have enacted the bill as law.  It has been introduced in New York and has pervasively stalled in the State Legislature.

Tom Golisano, the Paychex CEO, former Buffalo Sabres owner and Western New York philanthropist has taken over the organization and is renewing it’s push in the State Legislature.  Having worked there myself for the only Democrat to vote against Sheldon Silver, former Assemblyman and now City of Buffalo Comptroller Mark Schroeder, I know that a reform package can only pass in Albany if it’s given a strong shove by the voters.  Calling your state legislators frequently and in a large volume with others makes does actually make a difference, I have seen it happen.  Had it not been for voter fury I personally think that State government probably would have had a shutdown last year and Governor Cuomo would not have been able to pass a state budget on time this year.

We need to unleash that passion again, this time on our state legislators to tell them that the National Popular Vote bill needs to be passed to guarantee the basic principal of ‘one man, one vote’ and make sure that all of our votes for President, regardless of party, are actually meaningful.