Iraq 2.0

Today President Trump declared military action against Syria. My first time hearing the speech, I thought President Trump did an alright job, and that the speech writing was pretty good. After thinking about things, I felt there were a few issues with the speech. This isn't the biggest deal, but it sounds like President Trump is always yelling, which isn’t ideal for a speech about such a grave matter. A little vocal variation and less yelling could have done some good, but that is a issue for a different blog. After all, this is a politics blog, not a public speaking blog. I thought the line “To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep” is a hard statement to argue with. It really does seem Russia and Iran are backing the wrong side. Even excluding the chemical weapon attacks, the Al-Assad regime has oppressed the Syrian people for generations. But as I thought more about it, perhaps this is not the best statement for the United States to make, especially as the speech continues, and Trump mentions, “...our friends, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt and others…” [Emphasis added]. (Transcript available here) Of all the atrocities Saudi Arabia does to its own people, is this who we want to identify as our friends? Today in Saudi Arabia, women need a male guardian to do almost anything, such as renting an apartment or filing a legal claim. Saudi Arabia backs rebel groups of countries it doesn’t like, playing a large role in the civil war in Yemen and is partially to blame for the humanitarian crisis there (Source). The United States doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to friends either.

Let’s go beyond the speech here and look at the ideas Trump is proposing. Trump is announcing attacks on Syria because of a chemical weapon attack. However, no UN inspectors have actually been to Syria to confirm the attack. Russia has continually denied the attack. So, there have been reports of the attack, but there is not solid evidence without UN inspectors. Does this ring a bell? Well it should. In 2003, President George W. Bush declared war on Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Well, years later the American public learned that they didn’t! If President Bush could have waited just a little longer, UN inspectors could have gone to Iraq and confirmed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It would have saved countless lives, dollars, and time. Likewise, I ask today, why don’t we follow the process set by the international Community? Why do we insist on unilateral action? Perhaps this time will be different, but then again as the President might say, “maybe not.”

Killing Democracy: First Past the Post

We all know America is a democracy (well actually a constitutional republic but most Americans just call it a democracy). Also, we all know how a democracy works (well, the majority know the simple fundamentals of it anyway), but most Americans do not realize how crude our democracy actually is.

If you ask Americans off the street what is wrong with our democracy, you may get many different responses to that question. If you ask long enough, one of the responses may be about the first past the post voting system. If you have no clue what that is let me explain.

The first past the post (FPTP) is a voting system in which each person has one vote. Who ever has the most votes wins the election. Seems fair at the basic level but it is not. So what's the matter with this type of voting system?

Allowing voters to only vote once gives many people the feeling that their vote will not count if it is for anything other than the republican or democrats because a vote for a 3rd party is a vote wasted. With less representation, there becomes more apathetic citizenry that do not take the time to vote for they feel their voice is not heard. Switching out FPTP with a option that allows for more than one vote may increase desire from voters to put faith in their preferred candidate/party thus creating a more active voting base.

The alternative vote would allow a voter to vote more than once in a numerical order. If you identify more with socialists, libertarians or whatever you would know that your vote is not wasted on those parties. Once all the votes are accounted for, the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated and that candidate’s votes are distributed to the voters second choice. This process repeats until there is one candidate.

For example, if you really do not like Hillary but you really, really do not like Trump, and you prefer Hillary to win over Trump. Instead of voting for what you consider lesser of the two evils, which in this example would be Hillary, you vote for you most favored candidate with confidence knowing it's not going to waste a vote to help Trump get elected. This would work vise versa as well, if you preferred a more conservative candidate but didn't want Hillary to win you would vote for Trump as a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) choice to ensure you vote is not wasted.

The only thing the alternative vote does is add more options and more possible representation to the citizens. In the end, without any change to our voting system we will continue to be dominated by a two party monopoly (which is only one party more than North Korea and China).

I leave with this quote by John Adams.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

If you want more information about the alternative vote click the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE