Electoral College

The electoral college was created to create a filter between the votes of the citizens of the united states and the election of the president. Envision yourself at the beach playing in the sand, the electoral college acts as a sift, that has influence of which sand particles it chooses to fall through, but is heavily influenced by the weight of the sand. In the real world, the electoral college is heavily influenced by the popular vote, but ultimately gets to choose who they cast their vote for. I believe this is fair because some people who vote are not educated enough and may cast their vote willy nilly. For example, people may have voted for Romney because they are racist and did not want Obama, or vice versa. The electoral college is largely better educated in politics. Also, the electoral college runs parallel with the federal government as far as a republic goes, having a sort of screen between the public and their direct influence over the inner workings of the government. The electoral college generally succeeds in modern day elections because, typically, we have only two candidates. Most of the time the popular vote indicates how the electoral college will vote. The electoral college failed in the election of 1824 because there were 4 candidates who all received a respectable amount of electoral votes. It was left to the House of Representatives to decide, based on the will of the public, who to elect as president. In the end, John Quincy Adams was decided over Andrew Jackson to become the 6th president. In this example, we see how the electoral college initially failed to elect a president. Then, we see how he House of Representatives, with influence of the public, decided who to elect.

Baker vs Coakley

IF I were 18 and eligible to vote, I would cast my vote to elect Mr. Charles Baker to become the next governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. I wouald not vote for Martha Coakley because I believe her paritcular focuses are out of touch and would put Massachusetts behind in the ever lasting race to become the best commonwealth in the nation. There are many reasons, however, I would vote for Charley Baker. I believe that Education is important in the early stages of life, where Coakley focuses, but I believe the most opportune time to learn is during grades 9-12, where young minds strive to reach the pinnacle of their childhood educations. Raising the states limits on charter schools would allow for better learning environments for young minds. Higher education is just as important as a secondary education for this is where young minds test the waters of adulthood, trying to get their foot in the door that leads to the real world. Accelerated bachelors and Masters programs for higher achieving students allows them to get an edge on the competition. I believe that higher achieving minds should be rewarded for their achievements and hard work, which is why I would vote Charley Baker in this aspect. This would also reduce the cost of the programs, and get the students out the door earlier. This way they have a smaller debt and a jump start to paying it off. I for one believe that sick time for workers should not be a major point of discussion in an election because it seems like common sense that if someone is really sick they deserve to take time out, however, working in the food business in an establishment of over 100 employees (on the payroll) I have seen firsthand the fraudulent nature of taking a sick day. People should earn their sick days when they are healthy, and to ensure that these days would be paid days, I would vote for Baker's Policy of this being implemented in workplaces with 50+ workers to ensure small businesses aren't hindered by paying these days. One of the main reasons I think Martha Coakley is not right for this position is her criticism of Baker on focusing too much on Welfare Reform. Welfare is a major source of fraud nationwide and requires action to fix it. Coakley doens't seem to think so, why? I do not know, but that is her business. Stricter welfare policies and incentives for businesses to higher welfare recipients A reduces fraud and B gives work to welfare recipients to get them off of it. Simple as that Coakley doesn't know what she is talking about. Boom.

The Proclomation of the Emancipation

Mr. President Abraham Lincoln was trying to ratify the 13th amendment, but it wasn't as easy as he would have liked it to be. Facing a congress full of ignorant, racist schmucks, President Lincoln was shorthanded in his freedoom-fighting army of actual intelligent representatives. Even his secret arsenal (his cabinet) had a rough time siding with him! WTH!!!! Not to mention he abuses his implied powers by lying about a Peace Convention held in Richmond, Virginia. Not sue honest now, eh, Abe? Another thing, Abe, didn't you bribe members of congress in hopes of swaying them to vote for what YOU wanted? Sure they were lame ducks, but is that morally the right thing to do? Sounds a little corrupt to me................... Honesty is a hard policy to live by wholesomely, but Lincoln had good intentions with his fib. Taking a step back, wouldn't you lie to congress if it meant passing the 13th amendment, wouldn't you lie to congress if it meant righting the wrongs of thousands of Americans over the course of 100 some years? I believe Mr. Lincoln, although not abiding by his coined nickname, did the right thing. On another note, the emancipation proclamation was not only to free the slaves but to piece back the torn country. That's right, many people forget the fact that America was not America during the civil war, it was divided into two sections, the north and south. One of the most notable things from the Gettysburg Address is the way Lincoln does not take sides, but incorporates the North and South as one. He wanted the country to be one again, he wanted America back, which is why he rushed so quickly to pass the amendment, to end the war and reconstruct America!

Family Guy; Can it be Educational?

Yes, yes it can be. Take, for example, Seth MacFarlane's Family Guy episode, Petoria. Peter becomes fed up with the local government when he is not allowed to build a pool in his backyard because he is too close to the curb. When he confronts the local authorities, he discovers that his property is not actually labeled on the official U.S. map. With his new found discovery, Peter decides to succeed from the U.S. and start his own small nation, Petoria. Peter becomes power happy with his new nation and reaps the benefits that he has created for himself for the short time that they last. While out on diplomacy to the U.S., Peter fancies his diplomatic immunity, which means he cannot get arrested for the crimes that he has done until his trip is over with. Also, Peter can now create his own laws, build his own pool, make his own allies and such with his new nation because he is the one who decides to create laws. Unfortunately, Petoria does not last as long as Peter hoped for. He runs into problems with the U.S. because Peter invited his friends from North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, among other countries, The U.S. did not take too kindly to this. Soon after, his power is cut off and he runs out of food, sadly, Peter cannot provide these things anymore in this small nation. Peter tries to establish his dominance by simply taking his friends pool because he received advice from a member of the UN. The U.S. takes this as a threat and quickly suppresses Petoria. Peter ran Petoria in a dictator like fashion. He made the rules, he made the laws, and had no one to oppose him. Petoria will rise again.

A World Without a Government

Yo yo yo it's OG Bloggy Johnson comin' atcha' sideways with today's topic; what would the world be like without a government? Crazy, crazy, crazy. That's what it would be like. Ya'll take that trip to the cinema and peep that movie "The Purge"? Picture that, but no one dictating when the purge starts or ends. There would be no such thing as "legal" or "illegal". Crime would just become a hobby, theft a pass time, vandalism a sport. Without order, there is no land of the free, it would be land of the crazy, psycho, blood crazed "citizens". Thankfully, our founding fathers' founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize this, and for our best interest, established a governing body. With order comes peace, and with peace comes tranquility, which is the ultimate goal. A tranquil living environment for people is optimal. Along with this comes safety as well. In order for people to live comfortably, they need to feel safe within their living spaces. Although many people "hate" the government and want to "impeach" the president,the services they provide and execute are vital to our nation's overall well being. The things the government does, both on and off the golf course, are what makes our gears spin in a somewhat harmonious manor.

RAT-I-TAT-TATIFICATION

The founding father's knew they done goofed with the Articles of Confederation, so, they tried again. This time, they gave it a really cool, unique, totally original name, The Constitution.

For the constitution to become the official rule, 9/13 states needed to vote to ratify. This meant that each state needed to hold individual elections to decide whether or not they would ratify it. Federalists, those for ratification, scurried quickly to organize voting sessions before those who apposed ratification, anti federalists, could convene.

A series of tactics were utilized in order to secure ratification among the states. For example, New York was mostly anti federalists, however, John Jay and James Madison, lead by Alexander Hamilton, were able to sway the voters to the other side. Writing essays and stalling tactics were what pushed New Yorkers to the other side.

Ratification was eventually voted in, mainly because anti federalists could not gain support of the intellectual members of the colonies. Anti federalists were not capable of establishing an anti Constitution campaign because the supporters lacked education and intelligence. Conformity also played a roll in ratification as more and more states ratified.

Information from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit2_13.pdf since I didn't have the paper to pull info from.

Why the Articles of Confederation Failed as told by OG Bloggy Johnson


There were many reasons as to why the Articles lasted just a short few years. The purpose of these articles were to limit the power of the central government and boost that of the state governments. The intent of this system was to prevent another monarchy like that of Britain because, after all, that is the reason the pilgrims sailed across the ocean in 1620.

A major issue of the Articles was that congress was not allowed to tax citizens. Basically, there was no way of creating revenue which in turn disabled the government to invest money. Another issue that was addressed in the Constitution is that each state was given one electoral vote, no matter the size. This made the smaller states happy, but the larger states saw several issues with this system. States were not proportionally represented in Congress.

Not to mention, we did not even have a national guard! This problem arose during Shays' rebellion, when Shays and his fellow farmers rebelled without any militant reaction from the government!

These were the main problems with the Articles that were addressed and fixed, for the most part, in the constitution.