Tyranny of the Majority: Why Gerrymandering and the Electoral College Don't Serve Democracy

Isn't Donald Trump winning the popular vote exactly the reason for the Electoral College to begin with?

Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From?

While the Electoral College was originally designed to balance the interests of smaller and larger states and to prevent more populated areas from having too much influence over the selection of the president, its purpose was to ensure that all states, regardless of population size, would have a meaningful role in the election process. This system means that winning the popular vote nationwide doesn't always guarantee a candidate the presidency; instead, a candidate must secure enough electoral votes by winning individual states.

In recent years, some argue the Electoral College does not fully represent the popular vote, especially when a candidate wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. Others see it as a way to maintain state representation and avoid a scenario where only high-population areas dominate election outcomes.

So what's the purpose of Gerrymandering in all this? Weren't the Framers concerned about a popularity vote?

The Framers were indeed concerned about a purely popular vote. They feared that direct democracy, where decisions are made directly by majority vote, could lead to what they called "the tyranny of the majority." This concern was partly why they created the Electoral College — to act as a buffer, giving each state a proportionate voice rather than allowing the most populous areas to entirely dictate election outcomes.

Gerrymandering, however, is a separate issue tied specifically to the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts, not to the Electoral College directly. Gerrymandering allows political parties in power to shape districts to favor their party, sometimes creating "safe" seats and minimizing competition. While the Electoral College itself isn't affected by Gerrymandering, gerrymandered districts influence the House of Representatives and, indirectly, political power within states.

Here's where it does relate, though: Gerrymandering can influence which party holds power at the state level, which can, in turn, influence presidential elections. For example, if one party controls a state's legislature due to Gerrymandering, they may enact voting laws that can affect voter turnout and electoral outcomes. Additionally, in extreme cases, Gerrymandering could impact the selection of electors if a state decides to allocate electoral votes by district (as done in Maine and Nebraska), though this is rare.

In short, while the Electoral College reflects the Framers' goal of balancing power among states, Gerrymandering represents a more modern manipulation of electoral influence within states, often intensifying partisan divides and making it more difficult for some votes to carry equal weight.

Gerrymandering is often seen as "democratically insane," as it distorts the principle of one person, one vote. The goal of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected, but Gerrymandering manipulates district boundaries to favor a particular political party or group, undermining that principle. By shaping districts in ways that dilute opposition votes and concentrate supporters, it creates a skewed representation in Congress and state legislatures. This process can reduce competition, lower voter engagement, and ultimately result in elected officials who do not reflect the will of the majority.

As for the Electoral College, many argue that it has indeed become increasingly problematic, especially in recent years. The system was originally intended to balance the influence of smaller and larger states, but in practice, it can feel broken. For example, it’s possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but still win the presidency, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This disconnect between the popular will and the electoral outcome has led to significant criticism, as people feel their votes may not have equal weight depending on where they live.

Critics argue that this makes the system less representative and that it disproportionately elevates the influence of swing states while ignoring others. It has also fueled calls for reform, including proposals to either abolish the Electoral College altogether in favor of a direct popular vote or to move toward a proportional allocation of electoral votes.

In both cases — Gerrymandering and the Electoral College — the frustration stems from a sense that the systems no longer serve their original democratic purposes effectively. They seem to disproportionately favor political elites or certain regions, creating a sense of unfairness and eroding trust in the democratic process. This has led to widespread calls for reform in both areas, though achieving such changes is a complicated and often contentious issue.

So what the hell was the purpose of Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is primarily for manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party, group, or incumbent. A practice typically employed by the party in control of a state’s legislature to maximize their electoral advantage in future elections. Gerrymandering works by strategically drawing district lines to either "pack" voters from the opposing party into a few districts (thereby minimizing their influence in other districts) or "crack" their voters by spreading them across multiple districts to dilute their voting power.

The primary goals of Gerrymandering are:

Political advantage:

By manipulating district boundaries, political parties can create districts that favor their candidates or policies, ensuring they win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support in the general population.

Incumbent protection:

Gerrymandering can be used to protect current officeholders by designing districts that favor their re-election prospects, reducing competition and increasing the chances of electoral success.

Party entrenchment:

In some cases, Gerrymandering aims to create long-lasting political dominance by designing districts that consistently favor one party over others, even if their overall support in the population is not as strong.

Weaken opposition power:

By splitting or concentrating opposing voters, Gerrymandering can prevent the opposition from winning a fair share of seats, even if they have significant overall support in the state.

Historically, Gerrymandering has been used in the U.S. since the early 19th century, and while its purpose is often to favor a political party, it has also been used in the past to manipulate ethnic or racial representation. For example, in some cases, districts were drawn in ways that diminished the voting power of minority groups. This practice, however, has been limited by legal rulings that aim to prevent racial Gerrymandering and ensure fair representation under the Voting Rights Act.

While Gerrymandering can provide short-term political gains for those in power, it's widely criticized for distorting democracy, leading to uncompetitive elections, reducing voter turnout, and fostering political polarization. Which seems reasonable to me. So why does it still exist?

I see no valid reason to offer ways in elections to support a ruling party as it aids "the tyranny of the majority."

Many critics of Gerrymandering do share concern that it contributes to "the tyranny of the majority." The idea behind a fair, representative democracy is that all voices — including those of minority groups — should be heard and have an equal opportunity to influence the political process. Gerrymandering undermines this by allowing those in power to manipulate district boundaries to entrench their dominance, often at the expense of true representation.

When Gerrymandering is used to favor one party, it creates a political system that isn't truly responsive to the will of the voters. Instead of districts being competitive and reflecting a broad range of political views, they become "safe" seats, where one party has an overwhelming advantage. This can lead to a lack of accountability, as politicians in these districts have little incentive to listen to the concerns of voters outside their base. It also limits voter choice, as some districts are designed to ensure a particular party will win no matter the actual vote.

Concerns about "the tyranny of the majority" is valid in the context of unchecked power. In gerrymandered districts, even if a majority of people in a state or region support a certain candidate or party, the way the lines are drawn can mean that minority views are systematically shut out. This can lead to a situation where a large portion of the population feels politically disenfranchised, knowing that their votes are less likely to make an impact.

In an ideal system, elections should reflect the will of the people in a fair and transparent way, without manipulation. Gerrymandering distorts that, turning elections into contests of political strategy rather than true reflection of public opinion. Some advocates for reform argue for independent commissions to draw district lines instead of leaving the power to political parties, aiming to create fairer, more representative electoral maps.

So why does Gerrymandering still exist? It seems ludicrous and contrary to the American citizen. It persists because it allows political parties to manipulate district boundaries to secure electoral advantages, protect incumbents, and maintain power. It thrives due to the control state legislatures have over redistricting, limited federal oversight, and legal challenges that often fail to address partisan Gerrymandering. 

Increased political polarization, voter apathy, and a long history of the practice also contribute to its continuation. While some states have implemented reforms, resistance from those benefiting from the system, along with legal and structural challenges, makes it difficult to eliminate Gerrymandering altogether.

One wonders if this was a primary concern, to get our elections under control, eliminate Gerrymandering by partisan groups lacking neutrality (districts DO need to be drawn after all), dark and big money in our elections has to go, Citizens United needs to go (a first sign if not others before it to indicate there was an increasing problem with the SCOTUS). The best case would be for all of us to pay for our elections, and have them go through a neutral and monitored governing body with no money going to any campaign. This would have to be a compartmentalized group, outside the reach of political or government. 

Both parties would be supplied advertising, ads, etc. While it would require taxes, sad how that frightens so many, it would finally clean up our elections, stop the abuse, and lead to more reality. This would lead to more bi-partisan work being done, with more good decisions bravely being offered, and in the end more good ideas being utilized.

I would offer we also need to get back to news as a "loss leader". Eliminate for-profit news. Social media, OpEds and entertainment news may well today prevent that. We may well be quite beyond saving this situation. Oddly, comedy news has been a boon in this area, often pointing out much of what no one else is willing to address.

A potential solution could involve a combination of publicly funded advertising and stricter regulations on media ownership and content:

Publicly Funded Advertising: 

Implement a system where all political candidates receive equal funding for advertising, reducing the influence of private money. This could be funded through a small tax, ensuring a level playing field.

Stricter Media Regulations: 

Enforce regulations that limit the concentration of media ownership and ensure diverse viewpoints are represented. This could help reduce the bias and sensationalism often seen in for-profit news.

Non-Profit News Organizations: 

Encourage the establishment of non-profit news organizations that prioritize public interest over profit. These organizations could receive government grants or tax incentives to support their operations.

Educational Campaigns: 

Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about media literacy and the importance of critical thinking. This could help people better understand and evaluate the information they consume.

Transparency in Advertising: 

Require full transparency in political advertising, including clear disclosure of funding sources. This could help voters make more informed decisions and reduce the impact of misleading ads.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that ensures power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, whether through Gerrymandering, electoral manipulation, campaign coffers (greatly supplied by a few billionaires or soon, trillionaires), or other tactics. The health of OUR democracy relies on its ability to fairly represent all people, not just the majority, not just those in power.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Crime, Punishment, and the Right to Vote: A Constitutional Debate

AI Chatting...

I asked:

How can prisoners lose their right to vote when imprisoned?

ChatGPT:

In many countries, including the United States, prisoners lose their right to vote while incarcerated due to a legal principle called "felony disenfranchisement." This practice is based on the belief that those who commit serious crimes should temporarily forfeit certain rights, such as voting, as part of their punishment.

In the U.S., voting rights for prisoners vary depending on the state. Some states permanently disenfranchise convicted felons, even after they serve their sentence, while others restore voting rights after release or after completing parole or probation. The rationale behind this varies, with debates focusing on punishment, rehabilitation, and civil rights.

The restoration of voting rights is part of broader discussions about the rights of formerly incarcerated individuals and whether this disenfranchisement disproportionately affects certain groups, particularly minorities.

If you'd like information specific to U.S. elections, please visit CanIVote.org for more details from your state or local election authority.

I said:

That seems unconstitutional.

ChatGPT:

The argument that felony disenfranchisement is unconstitutional has been a topic of debate for many years. Critics argue that it contradicts democratic principles, particularly the 14th and 15th Amendments, which guarantee equal protection and prohibit racial discrimination in voting. Here's an overview of both perspectives:

Constitutional Basis for Felony Disenfranchisement

14th Amendment (Section 2): The 14th Amendment explicitly allows for the disenfranchisement of individuals for "participation in rebellion, or other crime." This is often cited as the constitutional basis for states enacting laws that restrict voting rights for prisoners.

Historical precedent: Courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement laws, reasoning that the right to vote can be restricted as a part of the punishment for committing a crime.

Arguments Against Felony Disenfranchisement

Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): Critics argue that stripping the right to vote disproportionately impacts minority groups, especially Black Americans, due to systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system. This could violate equal protection under the law.

15th Amendment (Racial Discrimination): In some cases, felony disenfranchisement laws have been challenged for being rooted in racial discrimination. Historically, these laws were implemented after Reconstruction as a way to suppress the Black vote.

Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment): Some argue that permanently stripping someone's right to vote is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, especially if it continues after the sentence has been served.

Democratic Participation: Philosophically, denying voting rights to prisoners is seen as inconsistent with democratic values. Critics argue that voting is a fundamental right, and disenfranchisement limits rehabilitation and civic reintegration for prisoners and former felons.

Current Legal Landscape

State laws vary: The U.S. allows each state to determine its policies on felony disenfranchisement. Some states, like Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote even while incarcerated. Others, like Florida and Iowa (after reform), have restored voting rights to some or all former felons after their sentence is served.

Recent reforms: There has been a trend toward reforming felony disenfranchisement laws. In 2020, states like California passed measures to restore voting rights to those on parole.

Legal Challenges

Numerous legal challenges have been brought to courts, arguing that these laws are discriminatory or unjust. While many of these challenges have failed, the landscape is slowly shifting, with increased scrutiny on felony disenfranchisement policies.

The constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement is still a matter of interpretation, and ongoing debates question whether it aligns with modern concepts of justice and equality.

I said:

"Participation in rebellion, or other crime." sounds like "crime" is related to rebellion not general crime.

ChatGPT:

Yes, the phrasing in the 14th Amendment’s Section 2—“participation in rebellion, or other crime”—has an interesting historical context. It was written in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War and originally intended to address issues of loyalty and punishment for those who participated in the Confederacy's rebellion.

Here’s a closer look at how it connects to rebellion and evolved to justify felony disenfranchisement:

Historical Context:

14th Amendment (1868): Section 2 was drafted as part of the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War. Its primary focus was to reduce the representation of states that denied voting rights to male citizens, especially newly freed African Americans. The exception clause—"participation in rebellion, or other crime"—was added to allow for the disenfranchisement of former Confederates who had taken up arms against the U.S. government during the war.

“Rebellion” Clause: At the time, there was a clear concern about the political participation of those who had rebelled against the Union. The goal was to prevent those individuals from influencing future elections and policies. Essentially, this clause permitted states to deny voting rights to individuals who had committed treasonous acts against the U.S.

Evolution to Felony Disenfranchisement:

Over time, the “other crime” portion of the 14th Amendment’s language has been interpreted more broadly, allowing for the disenfranchisement of individuals convicted of felonies, even though the original focus was on rebellion. Courts have largely upheld the use of this clause to justify felony disenfranchisement by:

Broad Interpretation: While the 14th Amendment was concerned with rebellion, its language was broad enough to encompass other types of crimes. States took advantage of this flexibility, developing laws that disenfranchise individuals convicted of a wide range of crimes, not just rebellion.

Legislative and Judicial Expansion: After the Civil War, states, particularly in the South, began to expand disenfranchisement laws to apply to other crimes. This expansion allowed states to disenfranchise Black citizens through Jim Crow laws, which disproportionately targeted African Americans for convictions that could strip away voting rights.

Legal Precedents: Over the years, courts have upheld felony disenfranchisement under this broad interpretation. For instance, in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disenfranchisement of felons did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, citing the 14th Amendment’s Section 2 as constitutional justification.

Criticisms and Controversies:

While the original intent of the language in the 14th Amendment may have focused on rebellion, its use to justify modern felony disenfranchisement has been controversial for several reasons:

Historical Roots in Racial Discrimination: Many felony disenfranchisement laws were developed as tools to suppress Black voting after Reconstruction, which has led to criticism that their current application still disproportionately impacts minority groups.

Evolving Social Norms: Critics argue that laws focused on rebellion may not align with modern ideas of justice, rehabilitation, and civil rights, especially when applied to felons who have served their time.

Reform Movements:

Given this historical context, modern reformers question whether felony disenfranchisement laws, grounded in post-Civil War ideas of rebellion and crime, are still relevant or justifiable in a contemporary democratic society. Many argue that the laws need re-examination to ensure they aren't unfairly disenfranchising large segments of the population, especially after individuals have served their sentences.

In short, while the 14th Amendment’s reference to “rebellion” was initially a specific post-Civil War concern, the interpretation has expanded over time to justify felony disenfranchisement, a practice that remains contentious today.

Sine qua non.

On the unnecessary / redundant word "democracy" not being in the US Constitution

This is where an AI can come in handy, saving time and offering references (DO check references an AI gives you to back up its statement as I've found them massively incorrect at times. At other times 100% correct in their contentions, but serving up the wrong like by 100%.Kind of like Wikipedia. Trust but verify. As always in life in general.

This post is by a MAGA conservative, claiming not to be Republican (but in action, definitely IS), who is lost somewhere up Donald Trump's backside, and deep into the toxic/somewhat or completely racist, conservatism served up by the GOP these past few decades, as it descended into a Trump presidency in 2016, and is now attempting to place that insurrectionist back in the White House:

POSTER:

"There is NO Democracy, if you are sure there is then take my Democracy challenge test, it's really easy and comes with Cash awards of $147 for every time you find the word Democracy, First you must announce you are taking the test put it on every social media you can and anywhere else you can THEN take out your copy of the Constitution, don't' have one, there are lots of places you can download a copy for free Next you go through the {federal] Constitution, you can do that as many times as you want, Every Time you find the word put a check next to it when you are done, there is no time limit so when you are sure you found every time Democracy appears then you add up all your finds, tell everyone in all the places you announced your taking the challenge test and claim your prize money.. Pretty simple isn't it so Are you ready, one more thing if your count is ZERO then you have to stop using that word, OK that's all of it When do you want to start?"

RESPONSE:

Saying there IS no "democracy" is so ignorant as to be shocking.

We'll skip the grammar and spelling issues...

Wow, the ignorance involved there is embarrassing and explains a lot of the issues our conservative Americans have stumbled repeatedly into, while being urged to do so by their political leaders. 

And sadly sometimes, by their religious leaders.

This post is based on a false premise: that the word "democracy" HAS to appear in the US Constitution for the United States to be a "democratic" country.

Democracy is not just a word, it's a concept and a practice that can take different forms and expressions. Democracy is a form of government where power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives. A constitutional democracy is a system of government in which the people’s representatives are both limited and empowered by a written or unwritten constitution that protects the rights of everyone in the country.

The United States is a constitutional democracy, or a constitutional republic, where the people elect their public officials and the Constitution limits the powers of the government and guarantees the civil liberties of the people.

The Constitution DOES NOT HAVE TO USE THE WORD "democracy" to embody its principles and values. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the constitutions of many other countries that are considered democratic, such as Canada, Germany, India, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Examples of how the United States practices democracy, is in holding regular elections, allowing freedom of speech and assembly, having an independent judiciary, and respecting the rule of law. Democracy is not a static or perfect system, but a DYNAMIC and EVOLVING one that requires constant participation and improvement from the people. 

On that last issue, you will find many conservatives balking at the consideration of the Constitution being a "living" document. My argument on the fact that it is is simple. The Framers themselves amended the Constitution. End of argument. THEY even changed it. We have later on. It's a living document. End of debate. Truly.

He needs to explain why he thinks the word democracy is so important, and what he thinks democracy means in practice?

The toxic right wing have long used this creed as their dog whistle for rebellion, that this country is a Republic, not a Democracy. When all along it's a moot point, but they're spelled differently so...must be a conspiracy. Or something. Nope, just words, used as needed and not overly so. Otherwise the US Constitution would be a five volume set. And then it would actually be even a greater nightmare.

One gets the feeling, that he's clueless. That they're clueless. But then, that also explains MAGA and the toxic conservatism being practiced these past few decades by the once "Grand Old Party", but now just a sad faux Republican Party.

Of course he came back, apparently not having read the response above or understanding it:

POSTER:

"Oh you poorly educated kid [I'm 68, he's 75]. Have you even read the constitution federal or state seems not. How about the federalist papers? It has a pretty good explanation of why a democracy was passed over. Not chosen as a good type of government for this new unique country. So go study up then come back. In the meantime you’re just another uneducated lefty useful idiot they love that kind the DNC only exists because of them. I’ll wait while you get educated on American history and its creation but don’t take too long I could drop and check out forever any minute now a lot I knew that were younger than me are already long gone"

So that required a response...

RESPONSE:

Sigh...ever going to read a book not written by seditionists?
Good god you're still orgasming over your belief you have some massive knowledge.
You do. Inflated by toxic conservative beliefs of utter nonsense. No sense.

Look...
The constitution does not have to explicitly mention the word “democracy” in order to embody democratic principles and values. In fact, many scholars and experts agree that the United States is a constitutional democracy, a form of government in which the people are sovereign and the rights of individuals and minorities are protected. But you'd prefer an autocrat apparently.

The constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and representation that aim to prevent tyranny and ensure popular sovereignty. The constitution also guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law, that are essential for a democratic society. The constitution can also be amended to reflect the changing needs and preferences of the people, as it has been 27 times since its ratification in 1788.

The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, that were and this is important, TO PERSUADE THE STATES TO RATIFY the Constitution. That is different than how many try to use them for selfish purposes and incorrectly. Have you ever written an article or a position paper on a topic, then talked later to someone about it, especially if they understand your position and more so if they agree? You speak differently, for good reason. You probably haven't written such a paper, or understand what I'm talking about here. But trust me, the two are the same, but very different. 

These papers explained the rationale and benefits of the proposed system of government, as well as address some of the criticisms and concerns raised by the opponents of the constitution, known as the Anti-Federalists. Who today might be called, MAGA Republicans. 

The Federalist Papers do NOT reject democracy, but rather argue for a republic, a representative form of DEMOCRACY as opposed to a DIRECT democracy, where the people vote on every issue, which would be nuts. The authors of the Federalist Papers believed that a republic would be more stable, effective, and RESPECTFUL of the rights and interests of the people than a direct democracy, which they feared would be prone to Factionalism, Corruption, and Mob rule. Which conservatives have now given us ANYWAY if you're paying ANY ATTENTION AT ALL to how broken the Republican Party now is.

Therefore, the constitution and the Federalist Papers DO NOT contradict the idea of democracy, but rather support and enhance it. They provide a framework and a foundation for a constitutional DEMOCRACY that has endured for over two centuries and inspired many other nations around the world.

But you just want to say, "NO NO NO I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND YOUR NOT!"

Uh huh...

To be clear about my MAGA = Anti-Federalists of Jefferson's time, they had similarities. However the Anti-Federalists were more intelligent and productive, thus:

The Anti-Federalists were more concerned with the protection of civil liberties and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, while the MAGA Republicans are more likely to support measures that restrict voting rights, civil rights, and immigration.

The Anti-Federalists were more influenced by the ideals of the American Revolution and the principles of republicanism, while the MAGA Republicans are more loyal to the personality and agenda of former President Trump.

The Anti-Federalists were more sympathetic to the French Revolution and its democratic aspirations, while the MAGA Republicans are more hostile to the European Union and other multilateral institutions.

Well, that's it, so far.. 

Writing Yourself Back Into Sanity

Gun control. Hang on, hang on! Give this just a moment. Let's use that as an example, as well as address it, just for the moment.

I'm a writer. I write myself into impossible situations in fiction, or my characters anyway. Then I write my (their) way out of it so at first, my reader thinks my character is lost. Then, not lost, but in a fun way. Hopefully.

When I build into those situations both as the author and character God, I try to write cleverly. Whenever I can't, when I'm just as lost as my character (happens all the time, that's the fun of it!), I first have to realize, I'm lost. I consider all the rational, logical, even illogical ways out of the situation or scene, or picadillo. Once I find I have no solution, it's like there's a click, and I realize where I am. Stuck.

That's when it occurs to me to look 180 degrees about in order to see where to go. It's jarring at times. It's counter-intuitive. It's at times humorous. Or feels insane. But then, I ruminate about how to make whatever it is that rises to the surface, to work. Not forcing it, but jostling it about in my mind as mental attachments are formed and then, solutions begin to spark into life. Exercise at times aides that along. Also, removing oneself from the problem. Rest, entertainment (but be careful, that can also be a trap).

So often, that realignment to 180 degrees, becomes the actual and best solution. At times, the only solution.

I first discovered that in my life. With heavy contrast comes obvious elements previously unseen in the situation. Counter-intuitive, like I said. It's not always intuitive. So you have to break out of that mindset you are locked into.

That's what I've meant about conservatives and Republicans of late. They seem to have difficulty with situations that require counter-intuitive solutions or, ways of viewing things. They can'/t see the forest for the trees you might say, so much of the time.

I've shared this 180-degree concept with people over my lifetime and they've been surprised at first how often it works to their benefit in giving them insights or perhaps, outsights. It's a technique for thinking out of the box. Or realizing there was never a box to begin with. Now that's thinking outside of the box.

When I look at guns, the gun situation in this country, gun control, mass shootings, where we are at now...the obvious solution, for a child...is arming everything and everyone. It is an ill-informed, juvenile consideration,.

It is where the, "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" solution comes from. But it sounds like the solution of a five-year-old. Or, the NRA, or the Republican party. Of conservative gun owners and those who cannot see clearly any other solution. Because it's not obvious. It's lost among all the other chatter in the situation.

It's low contrast, obscured because of a reverent almost religious attachment to the US Constitution. Which is not a God. And once you consider the destructive dynamics of a God consideration, outside the blanket goodness attributed by theists to deity worship, one begins to see what is truly there.

Welcome to my world!

Remember a long time ago? Further up the page here when I mentioned getting out of tough creative solutions to fictional problems? Yes, those were the good old times, weren't they? The good old days of a moment ago. Before all this insanity in the world was boxing us about the head and brain, mind and morality. Yet, we really must continue on....

So, to summarize, IF you turn about 180 degrees you can frequently clearly see potential solutions.

And in this case, that is...the reform of gun control laws. Or going further in turning up the contrast levels, a rethinking of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. I know, I know, all that and the rest.

If you cannot see that, well...that's how the NRA and the extreme conservative Republican party and how so disingenuously they ard the travesty in the oval office, Donald Trump, have all continued to trick and con us all. To subvert reality to their own ends and not ours.

The solution isn't usually all that hard. It's just hard for some to see. But once it's been seen, you really cannot unsee it. That's the problem with atheists, you see. I went through that myself. I was raised strict Catholic. Old school, old country, old Slovak Catholic. Then I came to understand I was only half that. The other half was Irish by way of my father's family. I realized I was more Irish Catholic. That broke with the old strict traditional Slovak Catholic I had been all my young life. This was about the beginning of high school for me.

There were some other issues that helped me along, which aren't relevant here today about this. But you get the picture. I started looking around. In reading science fiction all my life, brilliants thinkers had given me a methodology to see when you are blinded by your reality and not THE reality. After a decade or so of theistic and philosophical, then college and studies in anthropology, sociology, and a degree in psychology, it all became clear.

Then I had to shake off the remaining vestiges of a lifetime of fear invoked by religious dogma and finally one day, after being a devoted theist, an adamant agnostic, a staunch atheist, I found the reality that wasn't in that box built by humanity and found one that was always there in form, a part, and parcel of the universe itself.

That is when one has to act.

That has been nearly impossible.

But times are now a changing yet again and those who are conning us are on the way out. Demographics are changing starting to fit a reality we have lived for some time now. We just have to open our eyes, our minds, and take in what is there and where we are headed. We can get in front of that train and get run over, or we can help it along and gain the love and respect of all those feeling abused because we refuse to see them or...to respect them. In ways they know, they deserve.

We will all one day, our descendants will one day, all look back at now and marvel at how really damned stupid we were and for so very long.

Really, it just takes courage.

And being honest about what is and what isn't, If only or even for a moment as we study it, we can see what is there without us in the picture. Then put us back in and see how we truly fit into what is and what has been. And what we haven't been able to see. For whatever reason.

Whatever it takes. And if that is looking about oneself 180 degrees, or counter-intuitively, so be it. Or if you have another way, one THAT WORKS, great! Use it. But do...use it!

Because we have to stop not seeing what is there and start seeing what others can clearly see while we refuse or simply cannot see it. Or see it all.

Especially when the solutions were there, staring us all right in the face.

Having Constitutional Awareness

I grew into adulthood thinking there was the great disparity between the haves and the have nots. I cane to realize it was also between those who knew and those who did not, the educated and the uneducated. As I matured in my learning and understandings I came to find that the haves did not always know, even if they were uneducated. Their wisdom was problematic.

I'd assumed they didn't pay attention in school or to life. Then I thought they may have or not, but they followed a path of ignorance in the realm of knowledge.

Then I discovered that there is not just objective truth and subjective truth. That there is subjectivity in objectivity and there can be some objectivity in subjectivity.

Finally I came to the realization that if three people take a path to knowledge, but very dissimilar ones, you could find one who was on one path, and correct. One on another path and incorrect. But then the third could also be on a correct path.

I found that curious.

Until I discovered that there is a truth that is objective. But the orientation behind it, or the desire for what it should lead to, could be very different, even opposing in nature.

And so that brings us to our current political climate.

Even if considering only the best in this situation (that is sans Russian intervention in our culture, both social and political engineering), we could still have a situation with two passionate parties, each arguing opposing things, with very different and moral reasons. Where the question at hand isn't: are they right or wrong (they both are or can be, specifically). The issue is more all encompassing.

Even if your desired path achieved the goals you strive for, are the priorities "correct"? Will they have any collateral damage you SHOULD be aware of and concerned over and are not seeing, or considering?

When you then bring into the mix the paradigm regarding how this country was set up and how it has evolved, what should be morally correct? What is considered by some, of typically fewer numbers and in an Elite, supportive of the structure of the nation? Is the nation built upon the ideals of humanity? Economy? Or merely an elite who should make the important decisions?

If you study those questions and the reality supporting them, it is rather amazing.

When you try to make a situation (or yourself) look better than it (or you) actually do, or change the narrative to seem more positive or reasonably productive, we call that reality, "spin".

When it is used in a negative fashion as weaponized information to hide something or change the narrative in a negative way against others, we call it disinformation (from the Russian, Dezinformatsiya). A favorite Russian, Donald Trump, GOP and NRA tactic.

Also that of the tobacco and car industry. But those two have been slapped down and told in courts to stop it. And it was very costly in the end for them, but no where near the amount of money (or "winning") they did for decades (or the innocent lives lost to line their pockets with money).

Then there is the Russian concept of Maskirovka, using a mask or camouflage in your actions, using the fog of war (or society, or media) to your benefit. Be that in war, or peace time actions. It is in the grey area between war and peace. It is subverting your enemy's processes (America mostly and western democracies) to the abnormal. It disorients. Unbalances. Disrupts. And it is effective. At times, even when the subject (victim) knows about it.

What we have today are people on both sides doing what they believe is their best for our country, while having opposing paths and not giving due consideration for the fundamental concerns of "the other" or "others". For the most part regarding considerations one does not fully understand, gives priority to, or even sees as essential to the goals. It's the old situation with two opposing armies, both praying to God to help them win because they are in the right. It's ignorant. And dangerous.

That being the goal of, a healthy nation. One would presume....

But there are objective truths. It just depends on what what dimension(s) you are viewing the situation from, and are you selecting the appropriate dimension(s) to begin with?

Constitutional originalists do not give as much weight to the reality of our evolved constitutional laws as the original, or original intent of the Founding Fathers with little or no consideration for a "living" US Constitution (ratified 1788) meant to evolve to enhance the original intent.

The argument for a living, evolving Constitution is inherent in its existence.

It has after all, been amended. By the Founding Fathers themselves, who wrote it. Which therefore makes it a living evolving entity by definition. Not a religious tome, those which are defective in that sense from the day they are born into existence. IF they did not mean for it to be a living document, they would have rewritten it, added in the amendments as the original documents, and resubmitted and ratified it.

But they did not. They chose instead to amend. Arguments that ratification was too delicate to have gone through again is merely divisive and subjective, by those who desire one thing against all history and reality. You cannot argue that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing in the 2nd Amendment, but did not know what they were doing in making it to begin with...an amendment.

Much therefore is against those arguments of those 2nd Amendment (ratified in 1791) types who demand it is written in stone. Or given to us, as some have actually said, Wayne LaPierre of NRA for one, from God. Because after all, their favorite amendment then, which they would argue gives them the right to own and bear arms, regardless if they are war weaponry or not, regardless if for militia use or not, evaporates quickly.

We can end the confusion on the 2nd Amendment. And then there is the related slavery issue. Many have said that part of the reason for the odd wording of the 2nd Amendment does have to do with this issue of slavery and slavers protection and control over their "property". The north and south had contention on this and so, best not to be too clear on certain things. I doubt the foresaw the issues it would cause two hundred years later when this was no longer at issue and this oddity was still abusing our nation. Only now it's a matter of children being murdered in their schools and in the streets.

It just takes good men and women to do what is most needed and greatly desired by many. So too about issues of the fundamental structure of America being built on money and not people. Humanity.

The US Constitution actually begins....

"WE THE PEOPLE..."

Why? If then not for the people rather then starting with, "FOR OUR MONEY AND WEALTH"?

There is a reason for that.

Another interesting phrase says:

"...promote the general welfare...."

It does not however say:

"...promote the specific and minimal welfare...."

We have our path. We just need to stay on it and if necessary, continue to evolve America as our Founding Fathers set up for us to do and to beware, those who would abuse our charter and our ideals.

Now, all that being said....

It is interesting (and greatly concerning) how the alleged basis of this gun issue is about citizen gun owners who continue to disingenuously claim that their guns protect their rights. They say they are the protectors of all our rights, even those of us who do not even want some of those "rights".

Some even being questionable rights at this point in history anyway. Some not even being the rights they were given and utterly misunderstanding the intent and meaning. In part due to poor education that continues to be made worse on purpose (uneducated being easier to control), but in greater part due to those elected representatives who with a wink and a nod, control their electorates opinions. Distract them. Abuse them.

There is nothing more powerful, certainly no gun, no weapon, that is able to achieve as much as... a vote.

But because of voting incorrectly for so very long, because of voting against one's own best interests for that of the proffered shiny objects in the room, some citizen's (mostly #Republican it seems) have put us in this dire position.

They (yes, we too) have allowed Citizens United, Gerrymandering, and money to have a vote for the lofty and the few, until finally we have this counterintuitive situation wherein they cannot think themselves out of...except to repeat the same tired old dysfunctional mantras and sound bites they have been peppered with to say by their enemies whom they believe to be their friends and leaders.

It is a position from where they have convinced themselves to believe (unknowingly having been convinced by others for their own benefits divorced from those concerns of these poor citizens) that their need for guns against their own government does something for them. Arm everyone. Arm teachers (who mostly do not want that, just school supplies they cannot even afford).

Where their available and allowed personal weaponry along with a manufactured and delusional conceit of a how a citizen militia could outflank the US Military, Our standing army was not at first desired by the Founding Fathers and a state by state militia could potentially counter that. And so we have that in our National Guard. But people believe it was in Joe Bob's weekend militia were we seek our counter to the federal military branch?

Laughable really, but we do love our delusions.

And so, our children continue to be slaughtered.

And their suggestion to resolve this is what?

Simply more and more of what is killing us by adding gasoline to the flames with the only and ever the same mantra from the NRA and gun owners:

More guns, more guns!

Vote. But vote, correctly for a change and see life, not death in a gun culture such as we are and such as we have been.

Humanity, is more important than any of our devices, or our games, our toys, our guns.

Change American culture to something that can again be respected. Not just in the homes of gun owners and the boardrooms of gun manufacturers and the NRA, but the entire world. To once again look up to us and appreciate us for who we are and not who would once were, or certainly who we now could be, if only....

The situation as it is, in even considering repeal of the 2nd Amendment was brought about greatly by the NRA and extremist gun supporters who wouldn't give even an inch. So here we are. Your bed, you made it, you set yourselves up for this possibility. Your actions have demanded, either giving into anything you want, or repeal.

You are also somewhat culpable in these mass shootings.

According to the 2nd Amendment, let's start slow and take it's lead. That should satiate the NRA.

Also why has, why WOULD, the government block research on this issue?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So ONLY those who have been militia'd (current and ex military), who had training ("well regulated" and "Militia" (capitalized)), should have greater than hunting weapons?

Let's face it. ALL citizens having weapons is not well regulated or a Militia.

Perhaps then when ex military are no longer of military age, their military style weapons could go away, as they are no longer useful as a fighting force, so why would they needs military weapons?

Or we could leave them with them as award for services rendered (not all of them, perhaps).

One could also argue MOST citizens do not need hunting weapons (is it a weapon if against a defenseless animal?)

The 2nd is not open house on doing whatever you want. Only an uneducated child would read it that way. Or an addict.

It's a complicated and long term issue going back to the founding of our country.

But really, it's not all that complicated. Some people just want to make it out to be complicated.


#NRA #GOP