Here’s how. Illinois has a recall election. So what if Illinois does not have recall elections. First the Illinois legislature must to pass a recall bill attach a rider authorizing triple overtime for all election workers who work to prepare Illinois’s first recall election if the election is held within 25 days of the passage of the new recall law.

Even if Gov B vetoes the legislation an override will be no problem. That might take 2 to 3 weeks, right? Well, maybe five weeks if the Gov sits on the bill before vetoing it. And, how long will it take to get a recall election ready for the voters? 25 days, right? That’s all within 60 days. Oops, I forgot, it might take the former Lieutenant Gov as new Gov a day to appoint a Senator. Missed by a day—darn.

Beast 22

You may ask why the Electoral College is a voter suppression issue. I am a Californian, and my vote is ignored or effectively denied by the Electoral College process because all votes for any candidate who receives over 50% of the total votes are not counted for electoral purposes. In addition, the Electoral College process also ignores those who vote for the losers–whose votes would otherwise be counted in a popular vote election.

Denying felons their right to vote appears to contradict the 15th Amendment’s proscription to not deny the right to vote to any person on account of “previous condition of servitude.” (According to the 13th Amendment “involuntary servitude” applies to those persons who receive it as punishment for a crime. Therefore, the right of felons to vote is especially protected by the 15th Amendment. It is not unreasonable to ask why the overwhelming majority of our states continue to restrict or prohibit the right to vote to felons (including those who have served no time)? Furthermore—why aren’t more politicians raising this issue? Is it because felons are such a small constituency?

If the state and federal court systems fail to nullify the state laws restricting and denying ex-felons the right to vote, this issue could become another proposed amendment at a Second Constitutional Convention.

The third voter suppression impediment will not require an amendment to the Constitution in order to improve the fairness of federal elections. Instead, Congress must act to expand the powers of the Federal Election Commission as there is currently a lack of standardized federal laws, rules and regulations for Congressional and Presidential elections. Currently, the rules of the Federal Election Commission deal with campaign finance. There are no regulations dealing with standardization of voting methods, verification of electronic voting machines, and how voter registration and eligibility is administered and verified; the requirements for serving on a board of elections; a code of ethics; federal approval and oversight of local election plans and procedures. Federal laws would standardize the penalties for violations of these new federal election laws and regulations. Federal or state courts could be separate courts of original jurisdiction. The glaring failures of fairness of partisan state election officials in Florida and Ohio in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 have made citizens more aware that Presidential elections can be sabotaged by just a few well-placed persons who have an agenda for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the whole. We now know that we are being irresponsible to ourselves and our country not to have a well-defined electoral process covering both the substance and mechanics of an election that is applicable to all fifty states, Washington D. C., and our Territories and Commonwealths. Until, there is a standardization of all procedures for Congressional and Presidential elections we will lack the national integrity that should be an enforced component of our right to societal power–our right to vote.

Congress is in the process of re-regulating our financial system for the benefit of our nation’s economic safety. Let us, then also persuade Congress to federalize and regulate our Congressional and Presidential elections so Americans can feel secure that their vote counts equally to every other voter; and that their vote is counted; reliably and accurately.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

While, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870; a direct legacy of the Radical Republicans (my favorite American political party), was primarily intended to prevent blacks from voting, the language is clear. When the language is unambiguous, then legislative intent is irrelevant. The only question is, does an ex-felon or felon qualify as having previously been in a condition of previous servitude .

Let us get real. Congress is not going to pass a proposed amendment for two reasons. First: There are few issues that can attain a 2/3 majority—certainly not the Electoral College. Second: Do you really think that the House of Representatives is going to give up its power to elect the President when no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes?

It’s not just that presidential election popular vote winners sometimes lose those elections that drives up my annoyance meter, it’s that during the presidential campaign the candidates necessarily pay extra attention and pander to the constituents of “swing states.” Hey, I am a citizen of the most populous state and I think that my state deserves more attention. If we had no Electoral College, Californians and New Yorkers would be getting the attention they would deserve in a fair and meaningful democracy. Instead, we Americans have a plutocracy.

So, how do we kill the Electoral College? Article V of the Constitution gives us the answer. Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call upon Congress for a constitutional convention. And that will not be easy. Let us not have a 2nd Con Con just for one issue. While we’re at it, let us propose at least three more proposed constitutional amendments that will end the existence of three other obstructions to representative democracy: the presidential veto, the filibuster/motion for cloture, and the private financing of public elections. Let us show the power of democracy in its most meaningful manifestation: from the bottom to the top.

Think chronologically for a moment.  The first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were added  in 1791.  What other rights were already acknowledged as fundamental rights prior to and including 1791?  (Just one clue.  Some of these “other” retained rights are found in a document signed in Philadelphia in 1776.)
Wait a second. You know about the Declaration of Independence’s rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but you’re unsure about the right to safety.)  You must have missed school the day the class talked about the right to safety.  No, you did not miss that day.   Your class never had that discussion even though the right to safety is stated later in the same sentence that the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are memorialized.  In fact, “safety” is stated to be a foundation of society along with “happiness.”
So why does the  right to safety continue to be ignored by Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court as a constitutional right even though the wording of the Ninth Amendment certainly implies that Safety is one of those “other” rights retained by the people?  I think it’s primarily because those who interpret and apply the meaning of the Ninth Amend are fearful of the full impact of the stated rights of the Declaration of Independence.

If any of the three branches of government acknowledges even the most patently obvious right to safety, don’t they have to recognize the Declaration’s “other” rights such as the rights to equality, happiness and the right to alter or abolish the form of government?   No. They don’t. Do not naively expect any of our three federal branches of government to recognize any of the rights of the Declaration anytime soon. Government can continue to stick its necks so deeply into the sand that ultimately the people will come to understand that government is mostly irrelevant when it comes to receiving some additional information and clarification regarding human rights, including, by way of constitutional amendment, the enumeration of certain “other “ rights  retained by the people and finally articulated at a Second Constitutional Convention.  Now, when you think about trans facts you’ll something else to consider.

Beast 22

The Republican Primaries

The Winner-Take-All Primary

The Republican primaries are the most undemocratic as the party has a winner-take-all system. In effect, a vote only counts if it is cast for the winning candidate. Some may say that should be no problem for that is how electoral votes are counted. However, no responsible mind will claim that the Electoral College is democratic. Ironically, the Electoral College is a constitutional impediment to a democracy of “one person, one vote.”
A winner-take-all system ignores and gives no value to those votes that are cast for the losing candidate(s). The winner-take-all system tends to create a winner in the early part of the primary process and frequently results in the voters of many states having neither voice nor vote in deciding who is to be a Republican presidential candidate.

The Caucus

The primary caucus is undemocratic for several reasons. The caucus does not give an opportunity for all persons to vote. Every state with a caucus system, in effect, discourages thousands of voters from participation. For example, in a caucus there is no absentee voting which provides an alternative way to vote for those voters unavailable or not inclined to vote in a caucus. The caucus system also applies peer pressure to voters lacking the secret ballot and discourages voters who may lack the time, transportation, or physical ability to attend one.

The Democrats

The Proportionate Primary

The Democrats deserve praise for having proportionate voting. This means that every vote counts in determining the proportion of delegates awarded to each candidate—winners and losers. So, if a candidate has 49 % of the votes, he or she will receive 49% of the delegates (or the number of delegates which corresponds closest to 49% of the votes).

The Caucus.

Democratic caucuses are no more democratic than Republican caucuses.

Super Delegates. The Super Delegate is an elitist concept and an affront to democracy. In assuming that leaders of the Democratic Party are entitled to be uncommitted delegates completely independent of the primary electoral process, a mockery is made of the principles of equality and “one person, one vote.”

How the People Can Democratize the Primaries

Isn’t it ironic that the world’s oldest democracy lacks a democratic process in the primary selection of its presidential candidates for the general election? Shouldn’t Americans care whether the primaries are fair? Of course they should–if they care about democracy. If we, the people, give up democracy, we give up our right to power. Without political power, we are lost to the whims of tyranny.
Some might say that little can be done by the people to reform the primary system as primaries are controlled by the Democratic and Republican national parties. The parties, in turn, give latitude to the states’ respective parties to decide what kind of primary to have and when it should occur. Congress could pass a law regarding how, when, and what kind of primaries should be held, but the likelihood of Congress passing a law on such a politicized issue is non-existent.
What can the people do? The people should provide the rules and conditions necessary for holding presidential primaries. How? By a constitutional amendment proposed at a constitutional convention. (I didn’t suggest that the solution would be easy.). If Congress will not act, there is no other way to accomplish presidential electoral reform.
Of course, in order for a constitutional convention to occur, the concurrence of 2/3 of the state legislatures is required. The legislatures will not apply to Congress for a constitutional convention just to pass one amendment. There will be other proposed amendments at a constitutional convention—including abolition of the Electoral College, more federal control over presidential elections, elimination of the anti-democratic filibuster, elimination of the presidential veto and the elimination of private financing for public elections. (Nor did I imply that the solution would be simple.)
In conclusion, we the people, not political parties, must make the hard decisions regarding the democratization of our primary elections. A constitutional convention will not be easy or simple, but it will be necessary if we are to have a meaningful representative democracy.

In order for government to secure them, there must be a workable definition of “rights.” Otherwise, Americans will continue to select rights as they have previously done: arbitrarily and incompletely.

After spending a great deal of time analyzing what human rights share in common, I have drawn certain conclusions:
There are four components of every human right.
First: Human rights are individual. There are no group rights. There are no states’ rights. There are no corporate rights.
Second: Human rights are based on an individual’s essential personality attributes shared with all other persons. This suggests that those traits which are universal to every person are the foundation for all of our rights.
Third: Human rights are fundamental desires (wants or aspirations).
Fourth: In order for rights to be secured there must be a just expectation that the government will enforce that right. In order for a just expectation of enforcement of a right to exist, there must be general awareness of the right.

Once I discovered four components to a human right, I was ready to state a definition: A human right is an individual fundamental and universal desire whose origin is based on the shared personality attributes of all persons and whose enforcement and enhancement is secured by government.

Still, there was a very big piece of the human rights puzzle that remained missing even after I had a definition. What were the basic personality attributes common to all individuals? Here is what I concluded. Humans are mental, physical, emotional creative beings. This was not my original conclusion as I borrowed it from the Tarot; an ancient map of consciousness developed by B.C.E. Egyptians. The Tarot divides the human into four parts: mental, physical, emotional, and creative/intuitive. I decided that this composite human made more sense than any other definition of a human. I also like the fact that the emotional and creative corresponded to right brain behavior and that the physical and mental quadrants corresponded to left brain activity.

Working inferentially, I began making comparisons between the four basic attributes of the human to the four divisions of society as developed by W.I. Thompson (Commerce, Education, Media, and Government) and four rights of the Declaration of Independence. I concluded that the emotions correspond to the right to Life which is another way of saying that all individuals have social (government) rights. The creative self corresponds right to Liberty –a way of saying that all persons have cultural (media) rights. The mental quadrant corresponds to the right to the “pursuit of happiness” or educational rights. Finally, I determined that the physical corresponds to safety, or in macro terms: security (commerce) rights.

After this comparison exercise I began looking at the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution.) and became even more convinced that it was arbitrary, incomplete, and very much a reaction to civil and criminal law abuses by the British. For example, consider the Third Amendment which prohibits soldiers from being quartered in one’s house during peacetime. To this date, there has not been even one case arising under the third amendment. Not quartering soldiers may be a right because the Constitution says so, but it hardly meets the test of corresponding to a basic attribute of the personality or a fundamental desire. Furthermore, very few people are even aware that it is a stated right of the Constitution. I’ve looked at many other foreign constitutions and the Declaration of Rights of the United Nations and I found no right similar to the Third Amendment. Nor did I find anything comparable to the Ninth Amendment which states that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution shall not demean or disparage other rights retained by the people but not stated in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is a definite reminder that there are other unstated rights beyond the Constitution.

I also concluded that social, cultural, educational and security rights were overly generalized and that there would have to be a way of making rights more specific so they could be applied to our daily lives. I shall discuss my findings in an essay to follow. I shall call it, “What is a Human Right? Part II.”

There is another aspect of democracy ignored by the caucus process. The caucus process makes no attempt to be all inclusive. What percentage of voters over 70 years old stayed home because of inclement weather in Iowa? How many swing shift voters get excluded?
Why are those voters who choose to not attend an electoral process without a secret vote discriminated against in a democracy? Bypassing a primary election like cutting back on music and art when a school district is caught in a budget crunch. So, do states continue with the caucus system because they want democracy on the cheap? Do we have to take to take it that way? A primary caucus as a substitute for a primary election denies the individual his or her right to democracy.

We will never know the number of voters in Texas who avoided certain caucuses due to the unpredictably large turnouts; favoring party activists and young voters who are more likely than some to persevere through such minor inconveniences of insufficient parking or insufficient restroom facilities.

If Americans have the right to a democracy, why is it that the electoral rules of political parties can subvert a democratic electoral process for the President of the United States with anti-democratic caucuses and winner-take all primary elections? Presumably, we citizens have been too busy to remedy such electoral abuses. That situation need not remain the case forever. If the two major parties fail to reform their primary election process, then the people may choose to require a more democratic primary process by amending the Constitution at a 2nd Constitutional Convention to assert the right to a democratic primary electoral process–.the right to power.