Hands of the People

As the 2024 Presidential election is coming near, something is always brought up. The popular vote and the electoral college. The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can win the popular votes and still lose the election. Because of the Electoral College, this has happened five times in the United States history. The most noticeable and recent was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more popular votes than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

But why did the founding fathers make the electoral college? The founding fathers were deciding how to choose the president for the first time in the world’s history, they were setting a precedent. There were three main reasons why they did not want to have a popular vote. Mainly, they did not trust people in the 18th century to be informed enough to make educated decisions. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” would steer the country astray. And lastly, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

However, the electoral college also has racist origins. When deciding how many electors to assign to each state, the question of whether the count of enslaved persons should be included as a portion of the count of a state’s total population confounded the authors. in 1787, around 80% of Southerners were enslaved Black people who could not vote, however, Southerners wanted more representatives, and came up with the "three-fifths compromise" where three-fifths of the enslaved Black Population would be counted to allocating representatives and electors and federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Souther States would ratify the

 constitution and gave Virginia, home to more that 200,000 slaves, a quarter of the total electoral votes required to win the president. For 32 of the United States first 36 years, a slave-holding Virginian occupied the White House.

The Electoral College was for a country that has slavery and masses of uneducated voters who would elect demagogues and dictators who would destroy the nation. Mostly, the Founding Fathers’ assumptions proved untrue. When the electoral college was created in 1787, there were no political parties, however today most electors have to vote for their party’s candidate. It was also assumed that each elector’s vote would be counted, however, all but two states passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state's popular cote count, and there is no semblance of elector independence. The founding fathers also assumed that most elections would not be decided by the people or the electors, but by the House of Representatives. After George Washington's unanimous election, they believed future elections would feature a large amount of candidates who would divide the electoral pie in smaller pieces, giving Congress a chance to pick the winner, however when political parties formed, the number of candidate shrank. Only two elections have been decided by the House, and the most recent one was in 1824.

When the electoral college was first formed in the United States other countries followed as well. In the Americas, Colombia adopted an electoral college in 1821, Chile adopted one in 1828, Argentina in 1853. In Europe, Finland adopted an electoral college in 1925, and France in 1958. However, over time, these countries changed their minds. All of them abandoned their electoral colleges and switched to directly electing their presidents by popular vote. Colombia switched in 1910, Chile in 1925, France in 1965, Finland in 1994, and Argentina in 1995. The United States is the only democratic country with an electoral college.

Many people argue that the electoral college gives power to smaller states and ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States.

However, I have to disagree because, if anything, it allows swing states to decide instead of the people. In a democracy, the people should have the power to decide who is in or out of the office, it should be in hands of the people. The President should be a representative of and by the people.

Eight years ago I wrote something about the Electoral College.  We have the same opinion about it. 

Considering immigration policies proposed by two candidates, a student's reaction

  In light of the upcoming elections, I have tried to keep myself as informed as possible about both candidates’ policy plans for their potential time in office. As much as I would like to argue that morality is salient in terms of who we choose to run our country, I am actively trying to remove myself from the mindset of “moral righteousness” and concentrate on policies that would ultimately better the lives of all Americans while increasing the health of our economy. One policy area that is completely divided—and I cannot seem to understand why—is the issue of immigration. This is one aspect of the divide I do believe we need to not only look at in terms of policy, but also in terms of understanding the value of human beings.  

I recommend that we approach many questions with open-minded attitudes. If you could cleanse your heart so that no remnant of either love or hate could linger there, so that love would not blindly incline you toward error, or hate repel you from truth, you would be in a better mental state-of-mind to dispassionately consider the arguments of various sides. Of course, you must not abandon your moral compass, so that you can apply your ethics and values to the contrasting opinions, but that needs to come after you have open-mindedly considered each position with sympathy and trust in the side that presents its position. 

Before I get into a more neutral view of the candidates differing views on immigration, I feel it would be insincere not to explain my own thoughts on the issue. I understand that immigration policies are put in place to protect our country and that all countries have their own set of immigration laws in place. Some countries are made up of mostly foreign-born citizens while others have strict regulations so much so that it is almost impossible to gain citizenship. Those who know the history of what this country was built on understand that the earliest “American” citizens were literally immigrants themselves. My irritation lies in that fact; Christopher Columbus didn’t discover this land. There were successful, thriving tribes of indigenous people living here first who had their land forcefully taken over, were reduced to slaves, and were essentially given a death sentence in doing so. These “great Americans” were immigrants themselves, and we gloss over that undeniable fact with ease when we are talking about how strict and sometimes brutal, we feel the need to be with immigration laws today. I can agree to a certain extent that immigration laws are imperative to keep this country safe, fruitful, and flourishing. Though it is deplorable to me that some of us justify those laws simply because this is our country, and we should keep everyone else out. Due to our history, the logic—or lack thereof—of many individuals entitlement to gatekeeping this country simply infuriates me. But I digress.

I think the nations with many immigrants, such as the United Arab Emirates, do not give citizenship to the guest workers and foreign residents, but I could be wrong.  Western European nations and the USA tend to have a percentage of the population between the high single digits and low double digits that are foreign-born. I think the United States these days has about 15% of the population foreign-born (including my wife and my brother-in-law, and two of my four grandparents when they were alive). Germany has 18% of its population as immigrants, and 28.7% of its population has a migration background. In the UK, it’s 16% who are foreign-born. In France, it’s a little over 10%. In Canada, it’s about 23% of the population. In United Mexican States about 1% of the population is foreign-born, including about 800,000 who were born in the United States of America.  Taiwan has about 3.4% of it’s population foreign-born, mostly from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The role of immigration in protecting a country has two sides.  Many people are concerned that with declining birth-rates, a country will be weakened as its population declines unless it allows some immigrants to help stabilize the population.  Thus, immigration boosts a nation’s population and makes it stronger.  On the other hand, many citizens do not want to have so many immigrants enter their country that they feel their national culture is threatened or diluted, and sometimes people feel their nation may face a security threat if immigrants actively try to change their countries in ways that weaken the cultural strength of the nation. 

The United States and other nations of the Americas are societies made of mixtures of indigenous people/ideas and immigrants or persons enslaved and brought to the land. As Samuel Sewall put it in his hymn for peace written on January 1, 1701: “…So Asia and Africa, Europa with America, All four in concert join'd, shall sing…” We’re all brought together here because of the decisions of our ancestors (or ourselves, if we are immigrants). The countries of Europe may claim to have cultures based on tribes or ethnicities or cultures that have existed on their land for many centuries, and those cultures may be favored as the “national” cultures, although in most cases, there are many minority ethnicities and historical colonies of other ethnic groups even in the nations of Europe and Asia, not to mention the vast diversity of tribal peoples in most African lands. 

All governments have a duty to protect their citizens.  In democratic societies, the government should also generally enforce policies that are favored by the electorate, with the limit that the Constitution or values enshrined in the Constitution should be held as more important than any temporary whim of the electorate (if the electorate feels strongly enough about an issue, they must have means of changing the constitution, but that approach should be a more difficult process than passing mere laws). Most Americans like immigrants, and want to keep the nation open to a certain number of people who come here as part of family unification efforts, and bring in a smaller group of people who have skills or abilities that American citizens lack, and bring in an even smaller group of people who are fleeing oppression or danger in their homelands. The minority who are actively xenophobic and only want to allow in immigrants who are like them (English-speaking western Europeans or Canadians, I suppose) are especially vocal and vehement in their opposition to immigration, but they are certainly not a majority of the population. Perhaps most Americans prefer that only 5% or 10% of the population ought to be foreign-born, and they feel uneasy when 15% of us are foreign-born.  

When we are talking about the policy proposals of both candidates, we need to fully understand both sides. Donald Trump’s emphasis on fixing what he feels is a broken immigration system is to continue building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which ideally would be fully funded by Mexico. He aims to restrict both legal and illegal immigration, which focused on a travel ban on Muslim-majority countries. He introduced a “zero-tolerance” policy that separated children from their parents who were entering the country illegally. He has proposed merit-based immigration laws that gave preference to skilled workers over family-based immigration to bring focus to the job market and increase economic health.

I must address a few concerns with his proposals. First, I literally cannot comprehend the effectiveness or efficiency of this idea to prohibit illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. Throughout history, walls have been somewhat successful in keeping invaders out during war. However, walls deteriorate. People find ways to breach them, build tunnels under them, or find ways around them. There is not one wall in history that has been completely invulnerable. I also genuinely do not understand how or why Mexico would agree to pay for such securities—I mean, how would that country benefit from such an expensive endeavor? That is a huge promise with no factual backing as to how he would get Mexico to agree to such terms. 

I think every humane government official in almost any country would prefer that 100% of immigrants and visitors entered their country following legal processes, and no one came in illegally, without permission or documents. Persons who enter a nation without authorization are vulnerable to many cruel and dishonest practices.  Employers and landlords may cheat them and exploit them, and they would have little recourse to seek legal help. Their exploitation would lower wages in the sectors of the economy where they found employment (e.g., agriculture, food processing, landscaping, construction, informal day labor), and that would harm citizens and legal immigrants, whose wages in those sectors would be depressed by competition with the undocumented or illegal workers. Yes, some economists (Milton Freedman comes to mind) have said that the phenomenon of illegal immigration and an illegal workforce is beneficial to everyone (he claimed exploitation as an illegal worker in the American labor force still gave illegal immigrants a better life than they could hope for working in their countries-of-origin). 

So, this is to say that Democratic and Republican candidates should generally agree that they would like to stop illegal immigration, but they differ in the methods they proposed to use, and how far they would like to prioritize this policy goal. Trump claims it is one of his highest goals. He would dramatically increase resources devoted toward the issue. His behavior suggests his words may be false, since when the Democratic and Republican legislators had a bipartisan bill to increase and reform resources used for immigration and the fight against illegal immigration, Trump told Republican legislators not to pass that law. Many people who become undocumented or illegal residents come here legally (arriving at airports or legal border crossings), and just overstay their allowed time here. A wall wouldn’t stop that type of illegal immigration. Illegal crossing into the United States is very dangerous, and many people die crossing in remote areas.  Perhaps walls that are staffed with border guards all along the border would save lives, but the walls could be electronic at possibly a lower cost than creating a massive metal wall the whole length of the border.

Now, I want to touch on Kamala Harris’s immigration proposals. Harris wants to build a pathway for citizenship while still increasing immigration restrictions (i.e. improved asylum rules and partial border shutdowns if illegal crossings reach a certain number). She focuses on family reunification policies, keep DACA in place, and emphasizes immigration rights that she believes are important to increase the economy. From what I have researched, she believes in equality for immigrants while trying to address the root cause of the migration from South and Central America. 

I have gone past my hour time limit for this assignment, and although I have more, I wish I could say about this issue, I want to say this; there is a humane, respectful, and responsible way to go about immigration policy. We may never figure out the perfect way to deal with immigration, we must remember that these individuals are human beings. I can say undoubtedly that Trump’s immigration policy proposals are not only ineffective but also lack the understanding that these people are human beings who deserve quality of life, no matter where they came from or where they may end up. Immigration is an issue that I believe in the depths of my soul should be treated with humanity. 

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-immigration/story?id=103313097

https://www.docketwise.com/blog/where-the-2024-presidential-election-candidates-stand-on-immigration

Trump also seems to lack any understanding of the USA’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol (which the USA accepted on 1 November 1968—The Senate consented to accession, and President Nixon signed it). Our obligations are to accept any person who presents herself or himself on our territory and requests protection and asylum from persecution, and allow them to remain in our nation while we investigate the veracity of their claims of persecution. We cannot send them back to the place where they say they will be persecuted unless we find that their claims of persecution are false or without merit. 

As President Nixon said: “United States accession to the Protocol would thus constitute a significant and symbolic element in our ceaseless effort to promote everywhere the freedom and dignity of the individual and of nations; and to secure and preserve peace in the world.”

Student Paper About Safe Roads Amendment

Transportation Amendment-Yes or No

I had planned a trip to Chicago with my family last month.  My son was so excited; my husband not so much.  We were going north on I-55, and my husband was already agitated with all the construction and orange barrels everywhere.  That is when we hit the mother of all pot holes.  This thing was as deep as it was round.  I could instantly see the panic in my husband's eyes, then I heard the sound of a cannon going off.  It was our tire, there was no saving it.

Anywhere you go in Illinois; this is how our roads are.  Why is that? Where is Transportation revenue going?

On November 8, voters will have the chance to add an amendment to the Illinois Constitution.  The proposed amendment is called the Safe Roads Amendment or Transportation Lockbox by supporters. This amendment prohibits the General Assembly or any local government from using, diverting, or transferring money raised from transportation revenue sources for non transportation purposes.  Transportation revenue includes gas taxes, fees, license taxes, and registration and title fees.  Over the past decade, the state of Illinois has diverted more than $6.8 billion away from transportation projects that should have been spent on them.  The result of these diversions is crumbling roads and unsafe bridges across the state.  This will affect pretty much everybody in Illinois; we all drive or use the roads one way or another.  The following is a quote from a flyer that is being distributed to homes across Illinois in support of the Safe Roads Amendment.

PRO: from a flyer being distributed by Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding: "Half of Illinois’ roads and 4,200 of our bridges are in poor condition. … Our state of disrepair isn’t because we lack money. It’s because the politicians have used the Road Fund as a slush fund. Over the last decade, $6.8 billion has been swept out of the Road Fund.  

The next quote is from House of Representative members against the Amendment, this is what they says:  CON: From a letter written by State Reps Barbara Flynn Currie, Laura Fine, Elaine Nekritz and Pamela Reaves Harris:"This amendment would severely curtail the ability of the state to react to these types of events. … Other states that have passed transportation funding lockboxes, have release valves for emergencies. …The proposed Illinois amendment is missing a safety valve."

Illinois is not the first state to put a "lockbox" on their road funds.  Wisconsin and Missouri have passed similar amendments.  The problem with Illinois compared to Wisconsin and Missouri is we do not have a balanced budget and they do.  

Polling in Illinois shows that 85% of voters support the idea of a transportation lockbox. All the amendment needs is a 60% majority vote to pass.  Most of the general assembly that was polled, was in favor of the Safe Roads Amendment; and those that were not in favor was because the amendment needed a safety net, in case of emergencies.  This new amendment will not cost the state of Illinois any more money because the money is there.  It just needs to be spent on what it is allocated for.  Some sources do say that if this amendment is passed, Illinois will have another reason to raise taxes.  

This paper does not make the case that this is relevant to social welfare policy, so I will try to make that argument.  Safe roads and infrastructure are a way to encourage economic development and increase incomes throughout the state.  If we neglect transportation infrastructure, it is possible that this will drive away businesses, or create dangerous situations for motorists such the disaster your family encountered on the 55. Neglecting transportation infrastructure can cause deaths, as for example in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse on August 1, 2007 or notorious Point Pleasant Silver Bridge Collapse on December 15, 1967.  Also, spending on transportation infrastructure will stimulate the economy, so it is a way for the government to provide a public good while at the same time pumping tax dollars back into local economies.

One does need to ask what the money diverted away from transportation was used to purchase.  I do not know the specifics, but I do know in general where state money goes.  The state of Illinois spends most of its money on Health & Social Services (41.8%) and Education (24.7%).  The state spends 5.5% on transportation, but I notice that only 2% of state revenue comes from motor fuel taxes. (All this information comes from the FY 2015 report from the Illinois Comptroller).   So, it is quite possible the money was taken from the transportation fund to spend on education or health and social services. Education, even more than transportation infrastructure, is a sort of investment in the public good that ought to bring economic returns to the whole state.  Spending on health and social welfare is more often pure consumption (although some of it is investment that can save money, like in prevention programs).

Here is an update on the final result of the voting for the amendment: it passed with about 80% voting in favor.  I voted against it. The amendment was supported by trade unions and large businesses that all profit from infrastructure spending.  I am not always a knee-jerk opponent to what large trade unions or large businesses desire (I am often quite sympathetic to whatever unionized labor is trying to get), but in this case, I was not convinced that this amendment would really improve the state, and I am not sure that transportation infrastructure spending is so much more important than, for example, education spending.  Should we have an amendment that forces the State of Illinois to pay a certain amount per student for every student in public K-12 education, or for each student in public Illinois universities?  Perhaps we should, but the education lobby is not as strong as the lobby that backed this particular amendment.  I doubt there will be any terrible consequences of this amendment, or at least it will cause no harm to compare with the horrifying disaster the state is experiencing because of the inability of political leadership to make a series of tax increases and spending cuts the state needs. Time will tell.    

Looking for Good Information about Candidates

Our family watched some of the debate on Friday night. I was not impressed by either candidate. On the other hand, neither candidate really came across as disturbing to me. McCain has been one of my favorite Republicans on the national scene (there aren't many I like in Washington), although he is no Richard Lugar, that's for sure. Obama is one of my favorite Democrats, so it's always nice to see him take a stand. I think that both candidates said some misleading things, and I can't stand to watch people spew bad information. As a scholar, good information is what I want, and I look at bad information the way some people look at spiders or snakes. It makes me uncomfortable. And so, after about an hour of the debate, we turned off the television and turned on a DVD player to watch an episode of Deep Space Nine.

But, what to do about politics? We need to stay informed.
In watching politics, I like to recommend the neutral fact-checking websites.

These are:
Fact Check (The Annenberg Foundation )
Pros and Cons
Fact Checker (Michael Dobbs at the Washington Post), and
PolitiFact (St. Petersburg Times and the Congressional Quarterly)
Health Care 2008 (Kaiser Family Foundation)

Another useful tool is the Project Vote Smart site.

Platforms

Yesterday was constitution day, and so our university had a panel discussion of the first amendment and freedom of the press. The experts discussed election coverage a bit, and this inspired me to consider how much I know about the platforms of the three major parties in the U.S. (The Green Party is a major party in Illinois, where they received over 10% of the vote for governor in the last election). From the media I know a great deal about campaign strategies and opinion polls and political advertising, but I don't know details about about what the candidates are actually proposing to do.

I look for about 20 minutes online to find basic summaries from neutral analysts, but I couldn't find any decent comparative coverage of actual positions on issues. It seems the candidates have not responded to the Project Vote Smart surveys, so that wasn't available.

I at last turned to the official websites of the campaigns. I've collected what the official websites say (and the Green Party shares a draft of their party platform, but not a final draft yet). I've put it all into a 29-page Microsoft Word document using a table with three columns, one for each party, and rows for each issue. I haven't done any editing, I've just copied and pasted what the parties say they want.

You can download the party platform information from this link to the paper [Word doc, 398 KB].