Why Charlie Kirk’s Death Scares Me

 As I depart Washington, D.C., today, I reflect on the recent death of Charlie Kirk. I am not a fan of his; in fact, a lot of what he has said seems pretty objectionable to me, not that I am all that familiar with his content. But murder isn't the appropriate response to political disagreement. Kirk's death really scares me for a few reasons.

On a personal level, I have been to the UVU campus, okay, probably more like driven by it. I went to BYU. The proximity of the event makes it a bit more real. I remember there was once a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, an event I had considered going to. It was shocking to learn I could have been there; I could have been shot. Granted, it has been years since I have been to UVU, but still, knowing the place where a shooting occurred just makes it more real to you.

Second, I'm somewhat politically active myself. I talk about what I think is right for this country. I certainly am envious of Charlie's success. I wish I had the platform and reach he did. In fact, I don't think more than a dozen people will read my words.

But the broader point is that it might dissuade others from being politically active. Why make yourself a potential target? In a sense, it is all risk and no reward. Why put yourself out there?

I think this is a very dangerous line of thinking. The way we can learn more about ourselves and others is by engaging, by talking, and by debating. The best way to do this, I think, is in a public forum, which is exactly what Charlie did.

So perhaps, in a way, I am a fan of sorts. While I disagree with his ideas, I applaud that he was willing to put himself out there and share what he thought was right. I think we all find ourselves guilty from time to time of not caring. Our nation faces great problems, perhaps even an existential crisis if things continue the way they have. But what do we do about it? Keep our heads down and just try to live our lives. So, in a sense, perhaps Charlie is someone we should all be a little more like. We should speak our minds and stand up for what we believe in.

Perhaps people like Kirk are a critical part of our democracy, someone younger voters could relate to, someone who got people out of their own space to engage in the political process.

May God bless Kirk's family, and may justice be swift against his killer. 

"How to Kill The Electoral College"

 A great video that follows some of what we said in this post.

Adam Ragusea's Thoughts on Chick-fil-A

I'm not sure this is strictly politics related, but I enjoyed this podcast on boycotting companies and think you might as well.

Unbalance of the Senate vs The house, and the problem with Gerrymandering

 

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won with 365 electoral college votes to McCain’s 173. But in 2010, both the house and senate flipped, switching from democrat controlled to republican controlled. Was this because in two short years the desires of the American people changed? Perhaps, or perhaps it was due to the major redistricting that took place in 2010 after the census.

 

When we look at the state of our politics today we can see a divide. This divide is not by accident, it grows every 10 years. The reason, Gerrymandering. Every 10 years we have a census. We count the number of people we have in our country, legal or illegal. No discrimination no risk for deportation[1] . Then in most states, the districts are drawn by the state legislature, while the governor has a veto. It is a tradition, it is necessary, but there is a problem. The state legislature carves up these new districts not to further diversify the votes and take true samples of society, but to retain power. It started in 1812, governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, signed a bill that allowed the redistricting of Massachusetts to benefit the then Democratic-Republican Party. This process attacks democracy as states are allowed to redistrict to politically benefit one party over another. With no competitive districts, can democracy truly thrive? Is it not in the clashing and conflict of principles that we can become further enlightened?

 

When we go through this redistricting process; it is a major political battle, and it always ends with districts becoming more and more partisan. There is, however, a way to counter this. Take Iowa, they have a simple yet effective way to redistrict. After census data is reviewed, there are four simple rules Iowa state representatives will follow when creating new districts.  One, population equality, without this rule one representative could be responsible for many more people than another, as is the case with the senate, I’ll save that for another time. Two, contiguity, districts should look like each other, no weird shapes, no odd angles, just simple square boxes, or as close as we can get. Three, Unity of counties and cities. Representatives should represent the people in the county or city they are a part of. That is the true purpose and reason for having a representative, someone who lives within the community who can and will talk to the government on the people's behalf. And fourth, districts should remain as compact as possible. There is no reason to have abnormally large districts, simple compact squares, that is what we need.

 

This process seems to work well for Iowa, could we not implement it at a national scale? We already tried this, and it worked! In the 1960s, the population was growing significantly. Cities were getting larger and larger. Many people who lived in rural areas were moving to the city. The result was cities that housed more people than the rural areas had fewer representatives in congress, both at the state, and federal levels! There were multiple court cases brought to the supreme court [Baker c Carr (1962) Wesberry v Sanders (1964a), Reynolds v Sims (1964b)].

The supreme court decided that malapportionment - drawing districts that differed in population size was unconstitutional. This was held to violate the principle of “one person, one vote,” which is derived from both Articles I of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Before malapportionment was outlawed, districts could vary in population by a factor of ten; now districts need to be redrawn every ten years following the Census to ensure they have an equal population. This denied the state governments a powerful tool by which they could fix political outcomes.

 

We have a problem though, in 2004 there was a supreme court case Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004); it was a challenge to the redistricting of Pennsylvania. In this case, the court decided to not overturn a redistricting that occurred in Pennsylvania. Although there were diverging opinions in the 5-4 ruling that day. The decision was made more so the court will stay out of politics than the legality or illegality of the redistricting. This decision is key to the reason for the state of our politics. Although it may not have been the intention of our supreme justices, they have effectively made challenging a districting plan on the premise of gerrymandering practically impossible.

 

If partisan gerrymandering is again permitted, this creates a loophole that once again gives state governments some of this power. It also seriously undermines the egalitarian intentions of the “one person, one vote” jurisprudence of the 1960s. The courts have already decided that they wish to stay out of political decisions, and that is ok. What we need to do then is bring this issue up, to our representatives, to our neighbors, or friends. The more people are aware of this problem that divides our nation, then the more likely we are to be able to do something about it.

 

There is no bigger proof than in the election year of 2012, following the 2010 Census. There was a shift in the partisan advantage. The Republican Party won a majority of the 33 seats though it won fewer votes than the democrats. This was not an accident, but rather a systematic bias that we will see be repeated throughout the next decade. The House of Representatives has a total of 435 seats, 234 of those seats (54%) were won by republican representatives, even though the Democratic Party won a slim majority (50.6%) of the popular vote. This could only have been possible through political gerrymandering.

 

If you are a democrat or republican, it shouldn’t matter. Political gerrymandering is dividing our nation more so than we already divide it. The more our nation becomes divided we weaken ourselves. Yes, different ideas are good, it allows us to challenge and debate. However, when our representatives only represent a specific demographic there is little chance of compromise.

 

I beseech you, understand that compromise is key, different ideas help create better ideas. Skewing the election only helps those in power stay in power. New ideas are needed to stir the pot and create even better solutions. Talk to your representatives, talk to your neighbors, talk to your friends. Bring back the idea that we should take an active role in our politics.

 

This is the start. After this, we take on the senate, with their amassed consolidation of power, the excess of money they deal with, and the lack of morals our political elite have.

 

 

References:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/27/gerrymandering-republicans-electoral-maps-political-heist

https://web.archive.org/web/20091107114029/http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html

●     Gerrymandering in America: the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the future of popular sovereignty / Anthony J. McGann, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; Charles Anthony Smith, University of California-Irvine; Michael Latner, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo; Alex Keena, University of California-Irvine.

Why Single Party Rule is Bad For Democracy (Factually)

This isn't the first time we have shared the Factually podcast here (the first time was regarding homelessness). 

Well, this episode is also great and is very similar to the outline to the book we were going to write. I hope you enjoy. More content to come shortly.  

Bring Democracy to America

 “As the Founding Fathers were emerging from Constitution Hall in Philadelphia, a woman from the crowd called out:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“Dr. Benjamin Franklin turned to her and replied: 

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

(The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85)

My question to this is, Do we even want a republic?

Some people might be offended by this comment. The founding fathers were inspired by God to make this country, and who am I to question divine providence?  Such a tale is a bit of revisionist history told by modern christians. The founding founders were deists, and did not even believe in the judeo-christian God. The founding fathers were not perfect by any means. Afterall, many of them were slave owners, literally owning people while seeking freedom for themselves.  The government they created was not perfect by any means either.

But this republic has failed its citizens too many times over. In just 2016, the will of the people was subverted by the electoral college. A system created to give the white slave holders of the south more political power. That seems like a bold statement, but consider this. The census counts everyone, voter or non voter, and in the case of black people or “other persons” as the constitution puts would be counted as 3/5ths of a person. 

Source

Look at this chart

Think about it, a whole ⅓ of the south was slaves.  And all of those slaves counted in the census gave power to the white men that were actually allowed to vote. The electoral college was a tool of oppression. 

It is a relic of the past, in a time where the framers of the constitution doubted the judgement of the people, and when information traveled slowly. Perhaps, there would be a good reason for a delegate to go rogue, as things could change between the vote and the convection. The electoral college wasn’t entirely the product of racism, there was some reason behind it.

But the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. It's time the will of the people is adhered to.The electoral college isn’t the one part of our republic that ought to be changed. The senate has two senators per state.  For what, so the states are equality represented. What are states though except arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Why does it matter that states are equally represented? It should be the people that are equally represented. All people. And even people from outlying areas. Puerto Ricans should have a voice in the government. The lack of democracy is so egregious, that people in the very nation’s capital have no voice in the federal government and no voice in who becomes the president.  And do they pay federal tax in Washington DC? You bet they do.

We have become the literal thing we fought, a government that taxes its citizens without their consent or representation. A government that doesn’t listen to the will of the people. It's time to change our country into a true representative democracy. A system of government that listens to the people, and not some archaic system. 

I’m calling for an abolishment of the electoral college and the abolishment of the US senate.

No senate? But the legislative branch has always had two parts.

Well, I think it should still. 

And here is a new part of the legislative branch, I call it, “The House of Randoms”

And it is what it professes to be. Instead of being elected, The house of randoms randomly selects its members. Each member serves a single year, and each year the entire house is redrawn. The results are truly random, meaning it's possible to serve any number of years consecutively or nonconsecutively, but it is unlikely.  However, this is a topic for another day.

In summary, America needs change, America cannot rest on its laurels. The former tools of oppression need to be removed from the American system if we are to be a true democracy. If we truly want to be the land of the free and not just a land where some people are free. Where some people are listened to and others are not. Let's improve this great country.

Immigration In America

I recently watched a video by Mr. Beat about PragerU. I enjoyed Mr. Beat’s analysis of the assertions made by PragerU. Fact checking is critical. But I think there is something even more fundamental to the PragerU video I want to object to. 

The host of the PragerU video says it is not possible or desirable to let in everyone. 

In a sense, she is right. But she asserts the method of enforcement for this is the US government. I have a big issue with this. Let's take a step back and think about what the video is asserting, that the government should regulate immigration. That the US government should decide the amount of people who should be let into the country, they should determine the skills and qualifications they have. The video asserts that unskilled workers should not be let into the country.

Let's go on a short tangent now.

Imagine instead of living in a free market like we do now, we lived in a centrally planned command economy. That the government projected the amount of bread that would be needed in the next year and directed factories to produce adequate bread for the population.

This is a system that has been tried before. It might remind you of the USSR, where millions of people died because of food shortages. It seems time and time again, forecasting needs is difficult. The government is not in a good position to estimate the needs of consumers.  And it seems central planned economies often fail.

Consider North Korea and South Korea. There are countless metrics I could reference here. 

Look at this graph of GDP per capita in south Korea vs North. Also, North Koreans are shorter than South Koreans. 

Now this isn’t definitive, but I think this difference in height is probably at least in part explained by differences in diet, that an unhealthy diet will lead to stunted growth.

In short, centrally planned economies have failed time and time again and lead to suboptimal outcomes.

Now instead of looking at projections for food, why should the government project labor needs? After all, that is what regulating immigration is doing. Farms, for example, need laborers. Ideally, cheap, unskilled labor and they need a lot of it. With less regulation, farmers could hire the workers they want. With increased regulation though, the government needs to project how many unskilled workers to be let in.

Really though, I don’t know what the right number of immigrants to be let in is, and I don’t think anyone really knows. Except, as people act in rational self-interest in a free market we ultimately get to the right answer.  It is the free market itself that should regulate immigration. When there are jobs to be had, workers will come to get them. And if there are ever no jobs to be had, then people will not come, as it is no longer to their advantage to come.

Any system where the government is projecting what the market will want is a system that is inherently flawed. The market will demand what it wants, the government does not need to interfere, and in fact, when it does, suboptimal outcomes result.