An Anonymous Reply Part 2

This is Part 2 of yours truly trying to go over a letter that someone wrote regarding their stand for Amendement 36 and countering what I said in an online piece from the CSU-Pueblo Today website. This amendment would do away with a winner take all in Colorado in regards to the electoral college votes. To refer to it click this link.
http://www.colostate-pueblo.edu/today/live_viewStory.asp?documentID=525

And Now Part 2 of "As The World Turns" or "Guiding Light" take your pick. Too bad they say that anymore in those shows :)

The first point McCullen makes is that if a candidate only wins by "a
close shave" as has happened in the past, this will no longer be reflected
as a landslide victory in the electoral college. Well of course, that is the
whole point. The people of Colorado who are in a minority are just as
important as those in the majority, to deny this is to deny basic voter
rights.

OK the writer brings up 'voters rights' once again, and I will get to this in a bit. But why should we split the vote to make the minority voters happy? In life their will be those who win and those who will lose. You vote for who gets the Electoral College votes and whoever gets the most popular votes wins the Electoral College votes.

Now the part about 'voters rights.' Last Friday national syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz brought up a column by Mona Charen which told its readers that if you don't know the issues and/or who is running for office than don't vote. This piece is worth reading, because this begans to chip away at the ideal of 'voters rights.'
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20041022.shtml

I think it should be said that voting is NOT a RIGHT but a previllage, and I heard Neal Boortz talk about this. Like Boortz I am also in favor in limiting who can vote. Who should not vote? Well for starters those who are unemployed and are taking handouts from our goverment for granted for starters. You are taking money from those who produce and are giving it to those that are not produce and making a living. All right enough of that lets move on.

He then suggests that because of Amendment 36, presidential candidates
will no longer campaign in Colorado. On the contrary, a true democratic
system would force candidates to make more of an effort to win individual
voters in our state instead of relying on the fact that Colorado will most
likely always vote slightly Republican. It is important to note that
Republican candidates seldom visit heavily Democratic areas such as Pueblo
knowing that they will win the state through the more traditionally
Republican areas anyway.

Where you have Republican strongholds you will get visits from the Republican candidates, and those that are home to mostly Democrats you will get the Democrat candidates. John Kerry paid a visit to Pueblo yesterday and Pueblo is a stronghold for Democrats along with Denver and Boulder. Few weeks ago Bush visited Colorado Springs which is a stronghold for Republicans and most of the other areas of Colorado. Old Hat.

However it is interesting that the writer thinks that the candidates will work harder for the votes under 36 but the warnings of Colorado being a one vote state should be taken into account. It has been argued that 36 would give some leverage for the 3rd parties (ie Ralph Nader). Would Nader or some other party get an electoral vote too should they get a good percentage? If the 3rd party does become a factor then the electoral vote is split even more. If that does happen then Colorado will truly be seen as a state with one electoral vote. I would like to see the 3rd parties given a chance but Amendment 36 is not the best way to do it. Their are also other issues at stake in Colorado. Will Colorado be heard on a national level regarding military base closings, water, highways you name it. Could Colorado really lose power if this become law. Bill Owens believes this, and could very well be possible.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-09-19-oppose_x.htm

Now what if 36 gives Bush a win. Here is a story from the Boulder Daily Camera regarding this.
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/election/article/0,1713,BDC_16316_3259236,00.html

Another question to ask is, what is the point of presidential
campaigning? A presidential candidate can set up shop on the steps of any
community and lie through his teeth promising anything he wants, but the
truth is the track record for a candidate speaks far louder to informed
voters than empty speeches.

Yes and you have to your homework regarding the records of ANY CANDIDATE. You get the ideals you take them into accord, and based on what you think public policy should be like you take action. You have to watch what they do and not just want they say. Their is no one perfect in the world of public policy. You look and the pros and cons of each candidate and you vote accordingly. For me party trumps person until further notice.

Next, McCullen informs us that Amendment 36 is being financially backed
by J. Jorge Klor de Alva, who he claims is a wealthy California resident.
Instead of doing some research on the issue, McCullen immediately assumes de
Alva is a wealthy liberal democrat whose only intent is a Democratic win at
all costs. What he doesn't mention, (or perhaps doesn't know) is that de
Alva pushed for this same sort of Amendment in his own state (despite
McCullen and Bill Owens claims to the contrary) and in several others. It
just happens that Colorado is one of the first to really listen to these
ideas, and that California is too expensive for a college professor to
attempt to change by himself.

Yes lets talk about Alva a bit. Yes this man does have lots of money and according to a report in the Denver Post he is running a university in the country of Brazil. He used to run the private for-profit Universty of Phoenix here in the United States.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2453449,00.html

KCNC-TV Denver also says the Alva has the money
http://news4colorado.com/campaign2004/local_story_288172553.html

I am not only one who says that Alva is liberal read this piece by Owen Loftus
http://www.colostate-pueblo.edu/today/live_viewStory.asp?documentID=543

As far as trying this in Cally. Alva should have tried harder. They got the most electoral votes their. 55 of them at the moment. Just remember that those who petitioned Amendment 36 were the ones who got on the ballot in the first place. Were the voters listening to new ideals or just falling for the 'its just letting the voters decide this' from the petition carriers? If you don't want to see a Amendment voted on don't sign the thing. Pure and simple. Now their were some that did sign it that want to see it changed don't get me wrong. All I am saying is that I have been approached by petitioners many times. So I know that they like to say let voters decided the issue.

Next, McCullen reminds us that in 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but
lost the electoral vote. Is it too much to ask that the man who the American
people chose to be president be awarded the office? Apparently so.
McCullen claims that our founding fathers established the electoral
college to create a system of "checks and balances" so that no one group of
people could have control over who leads our country. But this is exactly
what is happening, 200 people determine who enters the White House, not the
American people. It is far easier to get into the pockets of the 200 in
charge than the 260 million who think they have a say in who's in charge.

If the founders wanted a 'pure democratic' government that would have establishment that type of system. But they did not set up a system like that. It was a system of checks and balances so that no one could tilt the scales. We have 3 branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), and with have a system of checks and balances regarding the election of the President of the United States. This would be in the form of the Electoral College system. We are a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. If you have taken any courses in American Government you would be told this. The Electoral College makes sure that everyone is heard and not just the Cally, the Northeast or Midwest in which their is high populous. In other nations such as India, Russia, and China their been plagued by 'regional conflicts' because of what the high populous areas imposed on the less populous. With the Electoral College system the Bush and Kerry have to come out to Colorado and make their stand.

I will refer to Cato once again so click the link at the bottom.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-21-00.html

The problem is that the founding fathers had very little faith in the
illiterate, ignorant settlers who made up America during the years when the
electoral college was established. Now that we have swelled to a population
that the founding fathers could never have imagined and exist as a quarter
of a billion fully literate, intelligent human beings, isn't it time that we
as a people are allowed to choose our own president? McCullen thinks not.

Our founders were not able to envision what is going on now, but somehow now that were are bigger and have more technology or whatever maybe we should evolve and try a 'pure democracy' now. What makes you think it will work today unlike attempts at pure democary in the past? It will still drift away from the orginal intent of our goverment which has worked for such a long time and we would no longer be a constitutional republic.

To Be Continued