The Birth of a New Party in America?

We live in surreal times.  Who would have thought Donald Trump would win the presidency?  Before you Trump supporters get self righteous, just keep in mind that only 19.7% of Americans voted for him.  Go ahead and check the numbers.  Anyway, Trump won the election process.  Full stop.

Now what?

He evidently meant what he said.  About everything.  A border wall.  Obamacare.  Abortion.  Fair trade.  Taxes.  Infrastructure.  Global warming.  Nukes.  And what he didn't "say" is just as important.  Like, about misogyny.  Inequality.  Drugs.  Bernie Sanders.  Taxes.  Real estate.  Obama.  Nukes.

Donald Trump does not handily fit into the mold of a Republican.  In fact, he's probably more of a Democrat.  The Republican party stands for fiscal conservatism, wild-west freedom, small government, small taxes.  Democrats stand for redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, controlled capitalism and fiscally stimulative polices, such as free education for all.  Those are two polar opposites.  Is it any wonder why they cannot agree on new legislation?

Donald Trump falls somewhere in between.  So do a few other legislators.  Isn't it time for the emergence of a third political party?  Wouldn't it be nice if such a party gained enough power to be able to attract enough "moderate" Republicans and Democrats to pass meaningful legislation?

All countries are constantly undergoing metamorphoses.  The U.S. is no different.  Perhaps the 2016 election of Donald Trump, when viewed twenty years hence, will be heralded as the point when moderates started to come together to agree on stuff again.  Perhaps the election of a radical president who didn't really herald from either political party will be seen as the obvious signal from the people that what they wanted was something neither of the established parties were really offering.

Perhaps 2016 will be seen as the first evidence of fertile ground for the germination of a third political party.  Call them the "Progressive Conservatives".

Making History

John Dickerson, of CBS's Face the Nation, asked a focus group a great question yesterday. He asked, "We're in a library and let's imagine we're here twenty years from now, and there's a book on the shelf about 2016. How does this story end?".

The "story" he was referring to was the current U.S. presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The question was a good one because it provoked thought and reflection about the current times and what we're going through.

I saw an article a few days ago that reported the results of a recent U.S. financial survey. Startlingly, about 70% of survey respondents indicated that they had less than a thousand dollars in their savings account. Now, consider this article by respected economist Larry Summers, which suggests that the global economy is hitting stall speed.  That means that even though the world population is growing, the global economy is not.  That, in turn, means that people are faring worse than before. That's not a good thing. What's worse, as Summers points out in his article, governments and central banks aren't sure what to do about it.

I believe the answer to Dickerson's thoughtful question to his focus group is that the United States is a country of growing inequality between the top 10% and the rest of the population, a process that started in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and one that has accelerated since the new millennium with the election of another Republican, George W. Bush.  I believe that it's this rising inequality of income and wealth which is creating a sense of inequity in society, and which is causing voters to crave a great disruptor-in-chief, like Donald Trump.

In this election year, while showing that he can indeed be the human Molotov cocktail the masses want tossed into 2016 society, Donald Trump has also frightened and offended enough people to prevent them from electing him president.

Returning once again to Dickerson's question then, what will that history book about 2016 say about the era we are proceeding through? I believe it will read that, while Hillary Clinton went on to become president and steady the ship that is the United States of America, that 2016 was a preview of a new era when, years later, a younger, pragmatic version of Bernie Sanders and, perhaps, a nobler version of Donald Trump, would emerge to become the 46th president of the United States, to lead the citizens on a journey toward a more compassionate society. He/she would do it not just because it was the right path to lead them on but because it was a necessary one to strengthen the union and, some would say, indeed, to preserve it.

Trump Bows Out

The momentum is with Hillary Clinton.  Take a look at these two apps, 538 and NYT poll that report, more or less in real time, which way the winds are blowing.  Right now they're suggesting it's going to be a Hillary Clinton blowout and a Donald Trump blowup.

If Florida swings Democrat (as it appears to be doing) and if Texas becomes a contest, watch for Trump to bow out of the race, claiming the election's rigged.  Then watch Mike Pence come within a whisker of defeating Hillary.  But it'll be too little too late for the GOP.  And it'll be Hillary Living History all over again.

You heard it here first.

Could we extinguish the war in Syria if we took away their arms?

Here's a thought: Why don't we take away the armaments we've supplied the warring factions in Syria and then see what happens?  Would the fire of war be extinguished or would the tribes resort to IUD's, hand-to-hand combat, blades and pitchforks?

The United States and Russia are responsible for arming, and in Russia's case, supporting their side in the Syrian war.  A burning fire is being sustained and a growing number of innocent people are being displaced or killed.

What would happen if the United Nations agreed to a weapons non-proliferation treaty of sorts, one where they could not be bought, sold or otherwise conveyed to third-parties beyond their country of manufacture?  It would be akin to choking off the blood supply to cancerous tumors.

What would the warring tribes around the world do, with no one to give them weapons?  Where would they turn, but to their own ingenuity?

This U.N. resolution could incorporate a pledge to protect all nations, in the same way that N.A.T.O. countries are obligated to protect one another, or the way the United States protects its allies.

With an absence of all arms, including rifles and hand guns, warring tribes would have to resort to sticks and stones or, at most, their own brains to make weapons.  In time, either the smartest tribes would come out ahead, or, if found to be committing crimes against humanity, aggressors would be beaten back by the military superiority of one of the few, agreed protector nations, like the United States.

The only losers in the armament-free world would be the private defense contractors, who would no longer enjoy a thriving market for their products, and terrorists.

What's not to like?

Hillary to Win By a Landslide in November

Recent polling suggests that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by 6-10 points in the swing states.  I am surprised they are not showing a wider lead.

I predict Hillary will get two thirds of the popular vote.  Here's how I come up with that:

Trump has alienated all non-whites and other minorities, as well as women.  The only group he hasn't offended (so far) is white men.

America's racial profile is roughly 13% black, 17% Latino, 6% Asian, 62% white and 2% "other".  Assuming Hillary Clinton wins all the non-white voters plus the traditional 30% of the white vote that the Democrats win, she will win the election.  But wait, of the 70% of white voters that vote Republican, normally, half are women and I assume half of those women will also vote for Hillary because they don't like Trump.

My math yields 67% for Hillary, 33% for Trump.  Go ahead and check it.

Now, admittedly, this is a crude estimate based on very broad assumptions.  Obviously, some non-whites will vote Republican and perhaps more white women will vote for Trump but, on the other hand, some white men who normally support Republican candidates may in fact vote for Hillary this time for whatever personal reason (maybe they are war vets who feel Trump has betrayed them).

In summary, I believe Donald Trump will lose very badly in this election and the GOP will be doing much soul-searching afterward.  As they should.

What Americans Want

If there is are any pattern emerging from the American primaries, it's this: economic inequality sucks and Establishment politicians are gonna pay for it.  That's why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are doing so well.  Of course, Hillary Clinton, considered part of the Establishment, also has the most credibility when it comes to being able to close the gap between the rich and poor, which is why she's faring so well.  But don't dismiss the possibility that this election, come November 8, will be a huge protest vote from the American electorate, and that Donald Trump will be the next president.

Their Just Not Getting It

I love The New York Times but they're just not getting it.  This article seeks to explain how Trump's policies may backfire against workers but, after reading half way through, it feels like they're baffling me with bullshit.

In contrast, Trump's message that he'll 'slap a 45% tax on Chinese goods and that'll stop 'em from stealing our jobs' is straightforward, easy to understand and seems to makes sense.

If you're gonna argue against a simple argument, make sure your argument is just as simple and straightforward.  Otherwise, you're gonna lose the Donald Trump voter.  Heck, you lost me, and I'm not even voting for Trump.

I Rest My Case

Here's a great place to start.

On Trump's March 25 Interview with The Times

I read the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the New York Times on Friday March 25.  Apparently, it went on for over a hundred minutes spread out over two sessions, one in the morning and a followup in the afternoon.  I believe I can get a better sense of the man if I watch his speeches and read transcripts of his interviews with the press, especially with papers like The Times.

This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.

First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world.  That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower?  And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him.  The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about.  He's addressing the disenfranchised masses.  And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country.  Do I agree with his views?  Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things).  But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are.  He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.

For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does.  He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country.  This I believe, after reading the transcript.

So what did he say?  Well, he said he's for "America First".  He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought.  Or, more accurately, re-negotiated.  Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia.  Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries.  He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.

There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion.  As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories.  I suspect that Germany feels the same way.  Why would it not?  U.K.?  Same.  Australia, which is a world away?  Same.  Japan?  Of course.  South Korea?  Ditto.  Saudi Arabia?  Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America.  America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans.  Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.

So Trump has a point.  Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop.  But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?

The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries.  Imagine if 200 countries had nukes.  Now, there's a frightening thought.  Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them.  The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons.  The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving.  The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course.  Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes.  North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes.  China, an economic superpower, has nukes.  And, of course, Russia has nukes.  Nuclear weapons exist.  But they are so far being contained.  The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working.  No one has blown up anyone.  Except for the United States in 1945, that is.

So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt.  Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people.  So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.

Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again.  No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots.  Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.

I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.

Trump: The Ultimate Politician

Is Donald Trump telling it like it is, or just telling us what he thinks we want to hear?

In Boca Raton, Florida last Sunday he said, "We're gonna bring the jobs back .. I'm working for you folks .. I'm self-funding my campaign".  That's all they needed to hear.

It doesn't matter that Trump can't just slap a tariff on imported goods from Mexico, or countervailing duties on products from China, without support from other parts of the US government or without triggering a trade war.  Maybe that's why he also said at that same Boca Raton venue, "We're probably gonna have free trade".

Say what?  I wonder how many people in the audience picked up on that one.

Maybe he meant that his dream team negotiators, which would include guys like Carl Icahn (who at age 80, is probably more interested in enjoying some time at the club than sitting in a room with a dozen Japanese trade experts), would call the other countries' bluff and cause them to suddenly increase the value of their currency which would make American products more competitive which, in turn, would lead to more American jobs.  Or maybe he meant that the threat of tariffs on Mexican products would cause companies like Carrier Corporation, which manufactures air conditioners, which he also mentioned in his Boca Raton speech, to cancel their plans to relocate their Indianapolis, Indiana factory to Mexico.

Who knows?  Because Trump leaves out the details.

Even if Trump did somehow impose tariffs on imported goods, in today's highly interconnected global economy, the consequences would be higher prices for everything; i.e. more inflation. Inflation leads to higher interest rates.  That can't be good for fragile home mortgages.  And house prices.  And consumers.  Who would have less disposable income.  Which would mean less consumption, and a shrinking economy.  A recession, by another name.  But that would mean layoffs and fewer jobs, wouldn't it?

Wait, what?

The point is, in the global economy of today, tough trade talk and tactics may bring economic consequences that are far more depressing than the ones we are in today.  At least the economy is growing.  At least hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being added every month, despite what Donald Trump would have you believe.  At least we can afford Vietnamese-made shirts and Chinese-made shoes and Mexican-made Fords.

Of course, Trump prefers not to get bogged down in details about any of his promises, and his supporters don't bother to go there.  Because, as the wise American  author, Upton Sinclair, who wrote many aphorisms, stated, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".  Trump's supporters believe their jobs depend upon placing their faith in Donald Trump and upon not trying to understand his opponents' rational arguments.

If Trump were truly earnest about helping the bottom 75% he would stop promising to cut taxes, which would benefit Trump and the rest of the top 25% a hell of a lot more than the bottom 75% (since nearly 80% of federal income taxes are paid by individuals earning over $100,000 a year, according to public sources like this one which means that any cuts would not benefit the bottom 75% that much).

No, Trump is interested in one thing: getting elected to be president.  To do that he knows he must also be competitive in attracting the top 25% as well; hence, the need to cut taxes.

Trump says he's not a politician?  He's the best politician out there in the worst sense of the word.

How Trump Changed the Game

Donald Trump seems to know his audience, basically, a dumbed-down America.  It took thirty-five years, but I give credit to Reagan and the GOP for driving America in the ditch like this.  Trump plays to it.  He makes it up as he goes.  He speaks their street language.  He appeals to how they feel.

The rest of us -- his opponents, the media -- don't seem to get it.  I thought the Fox News Detroit debate moderators asked excellent questions and were well prepared with their facts when they confronted Trump.  Yet they were trying to argue rationally.  Rubio, Cruz and Kasich don't get it either.  They're trying to debate Trump about policy, that is, when they're not ganging up on his track record as a businessman, something they are not qualified to comment on, according to Trump.  But it's not so much about policy for Trump.  It's about the the reason behind whatever policy of the day he is espousing.

The reason is always because Donald Trump wants to "make America great again" which, loosely, correlates with more jobs and a better life for Americans, right?  As such, it is tough to nail him down on policy.  Or anything, for that matter.  It's too late to nail him down, quite frankly.  He has first-mover advantage.  He was the first to coin the slogan "Make America Great Again".  He is the master marketer in this game.  That's because he changed the game.

The game is about appealing to the bottom 75% of America.  Provided he can motivate them to vote, he will amass a majority of GOP delegates and he will become the party's nominee for president.

So far, they are coming out to vote.  Seven hundred and forty thousand people voted in the SC primary a few weeks ago, nearly a hundred thousand more than in 2012.  And on Super Tuesday, GOP voter turnout was way up, sometimes setting new records.

What about his opponents?  Cruz and Rubio are senators and part of the regular political establishment.  That's why Trump uses every opportunity he gets to point out that they are funded by big money lobbyists and other donors, and that he personally hates "That word, politician" and, by inference, politicians.  He is in one stroke identifying with the masses, stating that he is not one of the political Establishment, and that his opponents are!  That's masterful.

In this game that Donald Trump has defined, except for Ben Carson, whom he "loves", his opponents are automatically disqualified.

And what about John Kasich?  I thought he was the one that made the most sense on stage Thursday night.  Unfortunately, he too doesn't get it.  The conventional war he is fighting is not the war that Trump is winning.  Kasich, though justified in making the case that he is the one with the most experience and the best track record as a politician, buried himself by doing so.  He just put an exclamation point behind the argument that he is one of the Establishment.

The rest of the GOP -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan -- do more damage by attempting to stop Trump than they would by lying silent.  They too are Establishment politicians, after all.

Who will win the contest for president?  If it's Trump versus Sanders, I think Sanders will win.  Yes, he too is an established politician but people don't see him that way.  They seem him as champion of the little guy.  And someone with more integrity than Trump.  Sanders is therefore a less risky bet.

If it's Trump versus Hillary, then I think the advantage will go to Trump, although the race will be very close.  And if Clinton's past comes back to haunt her (remember the emails, Benghazi, even Whitewater, for heaven's sake), definitely Trump over Clinton.

The way it looks now, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.  So, it looks like Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America.

Two Days Before Super Tuesday 2016

It's a three-way race for the GOP nomination as we head into Super Tuesday.  According to the latest polls, Donald Trump is way out in front and favored to win the most delegates on Tuesday.  When it's all over, he could have a total of 277 delegates, if my math is correct, more than Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio combined (275 total).  After March 1, delegates will be awarded on a Winner-Take-All basis.  Since Trump is leading polls in upcoming states, including mega states like Florida (99 delegates), New York (95 delegates) and California (172 delegates), Trump should win the GOP nomination with the minimum 1237 delegates that are required.

Unless Rubio and Cruz team up after Super Tuesday.  If that happens, either through one of the two of them dropping out of the race after Super Tuesday, which is unlikely, or by their cutting a deal at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, July 18-21, which is very likely, then Trump will be the GOP candidate for president.

And here's the interesting part: If Hillory Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as many predict -- according to the polls -- only Rubio would beat her.  Trump versus Clinton and Cruz versus Clinton contests are, at this point anyway, too close to call.

Sources:
Polls
Super Tuesday explained
Delegates leading up to Super Tuesday
How GOP primaries work in 2016

How Judge Scalia's Death May Spell Death of Gun Rights in America

On Saturday the United States buried one of its most outspoken Supreme Court judges in decades, Justice Antonin Scalia.  May he rest in peace.

Justice Scalia was the deciding ballot in a 2008 5-4 Supreme Court vote against gun control.  In Scalia's opinion, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended for individual citizens to be able to keep loaded firearms in their homes for protection.  Four other judges evidently agreed.  Justice Stevens, arguing for the opposing judges, felt that the Framers had intended only for the people's militia to bear arms, not for the people, themselves.  And that the Framers would have been horrified if automatic weapons (machine guns) had existed and had been included as legitimate arms for self defense.

So, people, we have Justice Scalia to thank for a gun-crazed America in recent years.

Which brings me to my next point.  That's why it's incredibly important that President Obama gets to nominate a liberal judge to the bench and why the United States Senate needs to confirm that nominee.  Then, when a gun control case is next brought to the Court will it result in what the majority of Americans want: gun control.  Something legislators, especially Republicans, who are beholden to their benefactors, are loath to implement.

Then, maybe, will we stop hearing about people harming other innocent people, like this deranged man did on Saturday in Michigan.  The day Justice Scalia was being laid to rest.

May God have mercy on his soul.

Trump Wins SC - Polls Were Right

Well, unlike Iowa, where the polls were off, they came through for Donald Trump Saturday night and this blogger has to admit he was wrong. Ted Cruz did not win as I had predicted.  The question now is whether Trump is going to be the GOP nominee for president.  Super Tuesday will likely answer that question.

If Trump does become president, how effective would he be?  I mean, if his own party despises him, and if he can't work with the Democrats, what policies could he possibly advance?  If you thought Obama had it tough bridging the divide between the Democrats and the Republicans, imagine how difficult it would be for an outsider like Trump to force Washington to do his bidding.

Can Americans and the Free World stand another four years of dysfunction?  Has the United States become ungovernable?  How did it come to this?

Ted Cruz to Win South Carolina

According to this week's polls and experts, Donald Trump will win in South Carolina tomorrow.  Depending on whom you ask, he is ahead of the next closest candidate, Ted Cruz, by 5 to 18 percentage points.

I'm not so sure.

For one thing, the polls that have been taken are based on small sample sizes -- typically around 500 supposedly registered Republican voters in a state where around 650,000 of them voted in the last primary, in 2012.  That means their margin of error is huge, around 5 to 7%, statistically, all other things being equal, which means, in turn, that the lead could flip in the final contest tomorrow.

For another thing, Trump supporters are more likely to brag about their support for him, wearing their support of a non-politician, an outsider, as a badge of honor.  Since polls rely on a telephone respondent's willingness to "take a short poll", I believe that Trump supporters are more likely to wish to share their support of this straight-shootin' non-politically-correct disruptor of establishment politics.

Finally, in case anyone missed social studies class, South Carolina is a southern state. Ted Cruz is a good ol' southern boy (regardless of where he was born).  He's one of theirs.  Donald Trump is a bombastic New Yawka; a Yankee.  He might as well be a foreigner to some South Carolinians. Whom do you think voters are more apt to trust?

I predict Ted Cruz will win South Carolina tomorrow.

p.s. I am a Democratic supporter.

Why Republicans Will Lose in 2016

Regardless of who wins the presidential primaries for the Republicans, he or she will not get elected president of the United States.

Virtually all of the Republican front-runners decried President Obama's unilateral action to curb gun violence in America, yesterday.  But, as this editorial states, among others, they and the NRA are crazy.  Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of curbing guns and gun violence.  "Do something!", they are practically pleading.

This time, Republicans (and some Democrats) who are willing to continue to take tainted money from the gun lobby will have the wrath of the voters to contend with.  They will not get elected.  And that includes the Republican candidate for president.

You heard it here first.

The Republican Presidential Nominee Front Runners

If you want to know who the front runners are for the GOP ticket, just pay attention to the names that are getting the most mentions after last night's final Republican candidates' debate.  Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.  Everyone else is an also-ran.

Realistically, Trump doesn't stand a chance.  His simplistic view of things open him up to future attacks by Cruz when the gloves come off during primary season, striking fear and doubt in the hearts of all those Apprentice show fans.

That leaves Cruz and Rubio for Prez and Veep, respectively; a nice fit, really, since Cruz appeals to the Bible belt and to the far-right, and since Rubio appeals to the college educated 'Establishment', as well as the Latinos and immigrants.

Cruz-Rubio for 2016.   You heard it here, first.

No Democracy in America Without Senate Reform

The U.S. Senate commands tremendous power.  Without it, laws cannot pass.  Including gun laws.  Yet the constitution of the Senate, which states that there will be two senators from each state, regardless of population, means that a citizen of Wyoming has 66 times the voting power of a citizen of California.  How is that democratic?

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Country's forefathers arrived at what is called "the Great Compromise" or "Connecticut Compromise", which allowed for small states to have the same number of senators as large states.   Why?  Some say it was to protect the autonomy of the states, regardless of whether they were large or small.  Others claim it was a pure power grab by the small states.  The compromise was probably struck because, back then, it wasn't as big a deal.  After all, the country had 4 million residents, compared to 315 million today, and the largest state, New York, was only 11 times bigger than the smallest one, Delaware.  Today, California is 66 times bigger than Wyoming and the gap is growing as more people flock to California and the coasts than to the middle.  So unequal representation is getting worse.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that smaller states are also predominantly white, red-neck, gun-toting, conservative, Republican, so-called "Red" states.  In effect, that means that Red state voters command more voting power than Blue state voters (see Table).

How is this manifested today?  Even when a majority of Americans are for stricter gun laws, like they are today, according to the polls, and even when the President, himself, is scheduled to go on national television tonight to address the Nation on the topic of guns, terrorism and security, both the majority and the President are prevented from passing sensible laws by the minority, the small state citizens, like the ones in Wyoming, who command 66 times the voting power of the citizens of California.

So how do Americans reform the Senate?   The U.S. Constitution requires a two thirds majority to amend the Constitution but, in the case of the Senate, there is a special, additional rule that requires the consent of each and every state.  That makes it nearly impossible to change U.S. governance.

So, the nearly 40 million residents of California continue to pay their taxes and yet, do not get to advance their wishes or needs because of their extremely minuscule vote.  It seems to me the last time that happened, the year was 1776.  And the citizens revolted.

This is Why I'm Not Voting for Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada

This is Why I'm Not Voting for Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada

1.              Because they're no longer "Progressive" Conservatives.  This is the Reform Party disguised as the old PC party.  This party is as regressive as anything we've seen in Canadian politics in my lifetime (since 1958).
2. .       Because Mr. Harper unilaterally decided he didn't like the long-form census and thus, killed it.
3. .       Because Mr. Harper likes climate change and global warming.  He thinks it's a joke because Canada will benefit from a melting Arctic and from a longer growing season and from warmer winters in Calgary, his home town.  And since he thinks it'll advantage Canada over the rest of the world, he thinks it's a game that Canada will win, in the short term, and because he doesn't care about the rest of the planet.
4.        Because Mr. Harper is a control freak and a bully who doesn't tolerate dissent within his own cabinet, his party, and within the federal civil service.
5. .       Because Mr. Harper favours the wealthy.  That's evidenced by tax cuts that favour the wealthy and the higher income earners in Canada; all, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
6. .       Because Mr. Harper has overtly taken the side of Israel over the Palestinians.  Because Mr. Harper thinks Arabs may be terrorists.
7. .       Because Mr. Harper will not help Ontario administer its Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, even though it will not cost the federal government a penny to do so.  And just because he disagrees with Kathleen Wynne about it, ideologically.  So, like a child, he's not going to help her because he didn't get his way.  He didn't get her to back down.  Well, get out of the way, Mr. Harper.  Kathleen is going show you how it's done, with or without you.
8. .       Because Mr. Harper refused to take consultation from Chief Justice of the land, Beverley McLachlin, in 2013, during the consultation period on the potential appointment of Quebec justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court.  Because Mr. Harper went on to appoint Nadon, anyway.  Because the Supreme Court itself ruled that Nadon's appointment was unconstitutional because Nadon was not a sitting judge in Quebec and therefore ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court and had to suffer the indignity of being fired from the Supreme Court (or, rather, had to pretend that he had never been hired in the first place).  In other words, because Harper tried to stack the Court in his favour with judges that favoured Mr. Harper's ideology and, in the process, tried to hijack the Constitution.
9. .       Because Mr. Harper is making a mockery of democracy in Canada by using his 2011 majority win to stuff through legislation in a hurry, without debate, that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of Canadians, in some cases, via what is called "omnibus" bills, bills that are hundreds of pages long, that require lots of time for opposition parties to read and comprehend, and that contain all kinds of rule changes; but that get precious little time in Parliament and just get rammed through by the Conservatives.
10. .        Because Harper's Bill C-51 put into law power that allows Mr. Harper to eavesdrop on any Canadian he wants, in the name of fighting terrorism, and to jail any Canadian he wants, in the name of terrorism, and to arrest any journalist he wants, in the name of terrorism.  It seems to me the one terrorizing Canadians with laws like this one is Mr. Harper, himself.1
11.            Because Mr. Harper wants to ban travel by Canadians to foreign countries that Mr. Harper thinks are terrorist havens.  And because Mr. Harper won't say which countries those are, or when he will name them.  Meanwhile, businessmen, family members, journalists, anyone with a legitimate reason to travel abroad, all are left wondering how much further Mr. Harper will restrict and/or violate their human and constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
12. .         Because Mr. Harper has bet this country's future on the Alberta oil sands and because that bet is going badly, all of a sudden, and because there is no Plan B.  Because Mr. Harper said himself that, like any good financial adviser worth his salt, we don't alter course suddenly during times of market volatility and because Mr. Harper forgot another saying of financial advisers, namely, that one ought not to put one's eggs in one basket, in this case, oil.
13.           Because Mr. Harper has shamed Canada on the world stage, by not living up to his commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions like he said he would.
14. .         Because Mr. Harper refuses to take in Syrian refugees.
15. .          Because Mr. Harper has, in his nearly ten years as Prime Minister of Canada, refused to sit down with all ten premiers all but once.
16.             Because Mr. Harper is better suited perhaps to a time long past, and because Canada deserves better than this to lead it and the world in this 21st Century.
17. 7. Because Mr. Harper is using wedge issues like the niqab and women's rights to wear such coverings (or not) during citizenship ceremonies to divide Canadians and rally his supporters so that he can win the October 19 federal election.  Shame on you, Mr. Harper!

Can Harper Win Again in 2015? You Bet He Can!

You might ask why Canadians would ever give the Conservative party another mandate in Ottawa when they go to the polls later this year (election date still to be determined).  The answer is, because only 30% or so of them need to vote for the Conservatives, that's why.

Huh?

That's right.  Canada's "First past the post" electoral system means that the candidate with the most votes in each riding wins that riding.  The party with the most ridings forms the government.  Since the advent of the Bloc Quebecois and the Green parties (ignoring the fringe elements, the Communist party and any other wackos), Canada has five parties that split the vote.  Mathematically, as long as you get over 20% of the vote, you win.  Practically, since the Greens get so few votes, and since the Bloc Quebecois (the separatists) only run in Quebec and therefore get a small percentage of the vote, that means you have to get around 30% of the vote to form at least a minority government.  A majority requires more like 40%, as Jeffrey Simpson stated recently in this G&M piece.

That means Harper, ever the political strategist, only needs to concentrate on his supporters --- business owners, farmers, gun-owners, old white guys, old white guys with money, the fossil fuel industry, the West, rural Ontarians, the wealthy, and young families with good paying jobs and kids in hockey who would like to pay less tax because, let's face it, who doesn't support kids in hockey and who doesn't want to pay tax?

What I'm saying is that Harper will pinpoint which ridings he can win and he will target the Conservatives' money on those ridings.  He will also target his platform to resonate with his supporters.  And he will go for that 40% to win another majority government.

Is that fair?  Of course, it is in Canada's system.

What can be done?

First past the post systems are supposed to eventually result in a two-party system, given enough time.  That hasn't happened in my lifetime (57 years).   In fact, it's gotten worse.  Canada has gone from three political parties to five.  Trouble is, there is only one Right-wing party, Harpers's, and there are now four parties to split the left-wing vote.

What to do?

How about adopting second-level run-offs, like they have in France and other countries?  Let's say the Conservatives and the Liberals come in 1 and 2 with, say, 38% and 30% of the vote.  Let's have a sudden-death final among the top two finalists to settle the score.  All of a sudden, we might find that the Liberals win and the result is 62% Liberal and 38% Conservative.  Huh?  That's right (or Left, depending on how you look at it).

Canada needs a two-stage election process.  Now!