Wikipedia Sarch Link

Search results

Saturday, November 17, 2012


This follow-up to the post THE ELECTION IN SUMMATION is being carried out for a number of reasons as documented in the pages of this Blog and will be expanded on in this posting as follows.
It has been said that if any avenue can be found for frustrating any process those with the resources and means to implement it will discover it. The exploiting of a “gray” area in the Constitution to cover-up the actions of a very unprofessional executive by those attempting to prove that their “Society’s” way is the “only” way and then attempt to use the cloak of the Electoral Process to ingrain it with a semblance of legitimacy via Deal-Making, (see the post THE UNVEILING OF QUID QUO PRO DEAL-MAKING) is a clear demonstration that the process is broken. This begs the question, how could a process that was so carefully developed be circumvented? Any system implemented with the best of intentions can be misused if the means and purpose are available. As pointed out in the original post, the “gray” area in the Constitution regarding the rights of legal residents who choose non-citizenship was exploited especially since the Amendments also make their primary focus citizens, as Amendment XIV reinforces. Under these circumstances, how can redress be enacted? One such remedy, would be to ensure that the power of the selection process is not kept in the “hands” of a few (States), which can be exploited especially since the Constitution does not explicitly address the method for choosing “electors”, which ultimately elect the individual elected to the Presidency, either in Article II or in Amendment XII. Those advocating the current system, always fall back on the smaller versus larger States influence argument, which is a bogus argument, because those with the means to influence will implement it all costs. A fairer method would be to allow for a rotation system via, which those States holding the 1st contests (whether Primary or Caucus) are rotated and all given the same opportunity to influence the eventual outcome as the present system allows those holding the initial contests to do. However, the methodology selected is not my focus (as I don’t have the answer), since this is a political matter, which in consistency with the Proprietorship’s Guidelines I stay clear of, as my only point is the application of fairness.
Currently, it is clear that those States hosting the first contests have an unfair advantage over those not given the same advantage, and those with an interest in maintaining the status quo go to great “lengths” to maintain it, even though the Constitution never entrusted such authority in any single State. However, when the rights of individuals are trampled on and the cloak of the current process for implementing the Electoral College system used to legitimize such wrongs, it’s a definite indication that it’s time for change. A better process would benefit all, because the reputation of your Country as an upholder of fairness is also being tested. If the manner of a simple arrogant executive is allowed to run amuck for twenty-two (22) years and counting (even internationally) while hoping that those who have concluded that theirs is the “only” way are given a “free” hand to implement their political correctness, how then can the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” lead by example internationally. To prevent the type of injustices documented here from being continually covered-up via the same selection process (status quo), a welcome fundamental change is needed. WHO OUT THERE IS WILLING TO LEAD FOR THAT CHANGE?  

No comments: