Southern Humboldt’s Women Stand for Solidarity

Layne Murrish and her husband, Don with their signs.

Layne Murrish and her husband, Don with their signs. [Photos all provided by Layne Murrish]

Yesterday, a relatively large number of activists gathered in the small town of Garberville in solidarity with protesters marching to bring attention to a variety of issues around the Nation. Since 2017, Women’s Marches have taken place in mid-January. The first marches were packed but this year’s protests were generally much quieter. However, in spite of fears of bad weather disrupting the event, Southern Humboldt’s event drew between 70 and 80 people, according to several estimates.

Layne Murrish, who captured the images for this story, said that event began at 1 p.m. on Church Street. The event-goers stood along Redwood Drive rather than march. “Smoking Caterpiller had music playing almost the whole time,” she said.

Nicole Devine created a large art piece that was placed in the center of the crosswalk. “She set up in the middle of the road and people drove around it,” Murrish explained. Towards the end of the event, participants gathered in the crosswalk with the art piece for a series of photographs.

“Traffic was very cooperative and drove around us,” Murrish added. “It was nice energy.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

161 comments

  • Wow

    It’s like I never even left…

    Nice to see some of those peeps in photos. Hi Gretchen:)

  • It would be nice if every Americans vote counted equally. The electoral college places states before citizens.

    • The electoral college keeps California and New York from dominating the election process.

      • If the one vote idea determined the election we could have national elections in California and New York and not bother with the other states.

        • This is a telling map: 2016 electoral college by county.

          • Even more red in 2020!

          • That map shows that large swaths of land in the US have a population that voted for Donald Trump. It seems to try and convey that this is right and proper…

            But most of us believe that a large landowner doesn’t get a bigger vote than multiple people living on a small piece of property. One person, one vote is the essence of democracy. The electoral college skews this principal so much so that in the last five elections, two people won the presidency while losing the popular vote. In effect, larger land owners got a bigger vote than those crowded into smaller areas.

            The electoral college ensures that millions of people’s votes are meaningless because they live in non competitive areas.

            In effect, those seeking to be president are, because of the EC, not seeking to win votes so much as to finagle the right fit of state wins.

            Each state is guaranteed a minimum of three EC votes no matter how few people live in them. Thus, in effect, because statistically the residents of less populous states are older, more conservative, more rural, more religious, whiter, and less educated in general, we’re skewing our presidential elections to favor candidates that reflect that demographic.

            That is the antithesis of democratic and the ideal of one person, one vote. The electoral college takes the votes of some people and makes them worth more than others. That’s undemocratic and skews the presidency in favor of those who can squeeze the rules of each state to wring out the most electoral votes rather than those who win the approval and the votes of the most people.

            • Alas, we live in a Republic.

              “I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

              ― John Adams, The Letters of John and Abigail Adams

              • There has never yet been any sort of nation state–monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, theocracy— that did not eventually destroy itself. And defining what counts as a democracy is certainly more problematic than defining a monarchy. But democracies have managed some pretty long runs. The Icelandic Commonwealth has the Althing which was founded in 930. The Isle of Man has been a self governing democracy for a similar amount of time. The City of Athens, depending on how you define democracy, lasted about 200 years.

                In addition, we have forms of communication today that allow a greater number of voters to be educated about issues and, if we can find ways to move beyond partisanship to partnership, democracy is certainly more promising that it can achieve fairness for its citizens than any of the other forms of government.

                • Government Cheese

                  Fairness is the problem. Be fair to addicts. Be fair to thieves. Be fair to tresspasers. Be fair to murderers. Life is not fair. Politics are not fair. Because someone chooses bad life choices doesn’t mean I need to share. Self responsibility, dedication, self sacrifice and good ol fuking determination are all lost arts nowadays. Stop relying on others for your fair share!!!!

                  • Life isn’t fair. Life can be cruel. That doesn’t mean humans should chose cruelty. That doesn’t mean that humans should choose to be deliberately unfair.

                    • Yet that is exactly what you are saying. The Electorial College is not “fair.” Equality is not the same thing as that most childish of schoolyard concepts “Fair.” What if I am well above average in intelligence? Is it “fair” I should have to be controlled by the average and below average? If I think that it is “fair” that cities should determine what farmers grow simply because they have more people, know what they need but not the knowledge to know what works when farming?

                      “Fair” is a piss poor way for any adult to use as standard to do anything as “fair” is never actually what it defined to be- “impartial” and “free from bias”- in the real world. Only in the whining of children saying “that’s not fair.” Life is not a piece of cake, to be cut up equally in order to be “fair.”

                • Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. It is, essentially, mob rule. The Constitution crafted a representative Republic to reduce the probability of the government being overrun by the passions of the mob. Here’s 2 reasonable articles on the topic:

                  https://mises.org/wire/why-james-madison-hated-democracy

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/

                  If the federal government was constrained to its intended role then a more direct democracy would be feasible through local politics. After all the power was supposed to be retained by the People.

                  9th Amendment : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                  10th Amendment : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                  “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
                  ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

                  • We do have a representative democracy. The House is a great example of how that works well–it is obviously unwieldy for each person to vote on legislation for a large nation like ours. However, I’m unclear on how one person/one vote democracy isn’t good for electing a president yet works just fine for electing governors, senators, and mayors.

                    • Originally US senators weren’t elected by the People but by the state legislators… ostensibly for the same reason as the EC. (17A)

                      Smaller executive positions (governor, mayor) are overseeing a more homogenous constituency than the president.

                    • California’s millions are “homogenous?”

                    • The founding fathers were mostly aristocrats and intellectuals (I’m not dissing just restating a fact) that were predisposed to distrust people not in their class (they probably had a similar term to deplorables for them.) They set up rules that reflected their prejudices and fears of the “mob.” As we grow in understanding, we should adapt their rules to ones that more closely fit our understanding. They weren’t deities. They were very smart but not perfect.

                      Fairness requires that people should have a say in the rules over them and those that lead them. And, as much as can be logistically managed, they should have that say in proportion to the amount it affects them. The Electoral College is a means of taking away a proportion of power from some and redistributing it to others in unequal portions.

                      A voter in Wyoming has more than three times the voting power of one in California because of Electoral College. That’s unreasonable. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

                      I just don’t trust someone in Wyoming to understand the needs of this country over three times more than I or you do. As well as I do, yes. But not more than I do. And certainly not almost four times as well as I do.

                    • I said “more homogenous “… which is true, but yes, California is quite diverse and that is problematic for electing an executive that represents more than just the plurality of the people.

                    • Kym, yes you are unclear. It is because the president can not be representative of everyone, he is not proportional to the demographics, he is not checked by another popularly elected group like the House versus the Senate. The corruption and partisanship of the process needed some check before the less populous States would sign onto the process. And the method they chosevas a safeguard for the rights of States was the Electorial College, where personal “favorite son” candidates were not sure of a victory.
                      “They didn’t want another despot on their hands. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power. . Plus the old-school electoral system has its benefits. With the Electoral College, for example, there’s no chance of a run-off election or a protracted national recount… “John F. Kennedy’s popular vote margin over Richard M. Nixon was just 118,574,” writes Will. “If all 68,838,219 popular votes had been poured into a single national bucket, there would have been powerful incentives to challenge the results in many of the nation’s 170,000 precincts.” ” Just think of the opportunities for election fraud in close votes- and the incentive would be so tempting in one big vote rather than 50 smaller ones. The Court challenges would never end.
                      https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

                      Now the Supreme Court is going to look at the issue of faithless electors. Thing change but not by fiat.

                      And, damn it, it has pretty much worked well for us despite the Trump derangement syndrome that thinks its has better solutions.

                    • Thank goodness for the Bill of Rights, something democracy has never thought should override the popular vote.

                    • “A voter in Wyoming has more than three times the voting power of one in California because of Electoral College. That’s unreasonable. ”

                      Do you think that if three New Yorkers drove to Wyoming and decided to take the property of one Montanan that would be reasonable? What we’re taking about is a balance between populace and individual rights. What should be the check on the majority’s power over the minority? Do you want to dismember the US Senate because it can sometimes frustrates the will of the House of Representatives or do you find that two house act as some protection of the rights of the individual and the actions of democracy? The Electorial College is the only check on the co-opting of the Presidency by the tides of fanaticism so that there is some small say, only on close calls, with the individual not aligned with the masses. Simply the right to say no, you push me too far. It’s not like a Wyomingite gets to chose the candidates. They at best get to say “no.” That seems like a good compromise in a world of partisanship.

                      “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

                      ― Benjamin Franklin , and we’re almost there now. Democracy is only a virtue when it tolerates rights.

                      We need a few more noes. “I see plainly how many firm acts have been done; how many valiant noes have this day been spoken, when others would have uttered ruinous yeas.” Ralph Waldoe Emerson

                  • In my 1911 I trust

                    Ullr you hit the nail on the head. I was going to quote Alexander Fraser but you beat me to it.

            • Well stated I was just going to Those old dudes that wore white wigs realized that people are idiots so they were scared of true democracy. Otherwise rural state would have no say in national elections, so why would those states want to be a part of the nation? Checks and balances. But personally I believe at this point if were to restructure the government we could replace about 90 percent of them with a couple computers and have better results

            • Yes! This is great, tell them.”Information is power.” Utah Philips, or whom ever he requoted and cited. Love you Kym.

            • If the electoral college were not to be fair, it would have been done away with a long time ago. But, it is so very entrenched in the Constitution, I do not believe it could be changed. On both sides, those who win support it, those who lose say it is not fair. I notice no one said anything when Obama was elected twice, and during his 8 years, did nothing to change it. As for the framers of the Constitution, they were mostly farmers and business people, who said no to oppression from the British, and were trying to get out of such high taxes, and religious persecution. We kind of have a British rule thing now in Calif, high taxes and no representation. I am just going to reveal some stats. During Trump’s presidency, women are doing better than ever before in history. More women have started businesses than at any time in history. Minorities have lower unemployment than ever, and are doing so well by Trump, ask the Black freedom Caucus, who meets with Trump regularly. He has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars for inner city opportunity centers, to help the poor move up, and start their own businesses. More women are working now, with Trump, than ever before. Young people now have more good opportunities to do so much with their lives, every parent must be thrilled their child will not be living at home, but on their own. Trump’s cabinet is very diverse, women, minorities, gays, he appoints those who can do the job, doesn’t really care what they look like. The soccer player Rappinoe said Trump doesn’t have people around who look like her. The Trump appointed US ambassador to Germany is gay. Looks just like Rappinoe. If we did not have the fair electoral college, Hillary would have won, and we would all be in soup lines. Same with Sanders and Warren. They are big fans of Agenda 21, want us all off our lands, and into block cells in the city, where they can control us. No thanks. Remember, communism and socialism have killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years. Bad people.

              • Stuber, I’m not speaking for Obama or Democrats so really it doesn’t matter whether others have spoken up before But the Democrats have introduced bills several times to get rid of the EC. I think the first one was in response to the disparity between Nixon’s win of the popular vote by about a half million votes but he got a much larger percentage of the EC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment]

                Hmm, I reread this and it sounds snippy. I didn’t mean that. We differ politically but we don’t differ about caring for folks.

          • It’s almost identical to a heat map showing population density.
            https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTSNnyfDDM-Mc3Bw3hJdmR1I_1YBhlO3vX5C4N7VTBZcURYeZeB
            Lots of empty desert and farm land voting for Trump. Is this a democracy or a geocracy, where Landmasses themselves vote?

          • Please note that this is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE results not the voting results for the election. It provides the best evidence for getting rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

            • Nope. It clearly shows, county by county, what the voters sentiments were at that time. It shows what the majority (or plurality ) was in each county.

        • No. During the last election, the combined population of California and New York in 2016 was 47.8 million while the total population of the US was about 323.1 million.

          • …and 130 million who actually voted for president. Urban areas would dominate any national election determined by popular vote…. starting with California then New York. Pretty much anywhere in the blue in the map above.

            • Choosing a president based on one person, one vote seems more sensible than choosing one based on the amount of people squeezed into an area or rather the lack of people squeezed into an area…which is what the Electoral College does.

              • Government Cheese

                What happens when republicans win the vote in 8 years by popular vote? I know, liberals will protest for the electoral vote again.

              • The dispersal of the power of the electorate across the whole country without allowing population centers to dominate national interests makes sense to me.

                The EC certainly accomplishes this.

              • The electoral college balances the vote.

                People like to think that we are a Democracy but we are a Republic. And the founding fathers had wisdom in choosing to avoid *mob rule* by establishing that the states —
                not the people as as individuals –choose the president.

                It’s already been mentioned, I’m not sure why folks think it’s ok ,or i guess they just choose to ignore it , but if the United States
                actually selected our president by popular vote the liberal & heavily
                populated coasts –new York, Florida & California —would determine the vote , which leaves the other more rural and less populated states –with their own needs concerns —absolutely unrepresented !!

                Our candidates would also be under no obligation to hear or address the needs or concerns of those people , and would have full reign to campaign and pander soley to the more populous regions.

                ADITIONALLY, while some states are signing on to the bogus “back door around the electoral college” mandate , it stands on shaky legal ground and because abolishing the electoral college literally takes a constitutional amendment it’s unlikely that it will actually materialize . For obvious reasons ammending our constitution is not something we can do on a whim! It requires 2/3rds vote in Congress, & a whopping 3/4th of the states to ratify
                . Not happening anytime soon, I promise.

                • The electoral college subverts the vote. Period.

                  • another guest in the wall

                    maybe move to Europe?

                    this system was here long before any of us wankers got our panties in a bunch, by believing too heavily into the left right paradigm. it’s a top down control grid, and if you got money, you have pull, if you don’t have money, you are just left wanting.

                    so many big money interests steam rolling the will of the individual, for profit.

                    I simply cannot fathom how we’ve been blinded and pitted against one another for a rich man’s profit.

                    • How about, “If you don’t like direct democracy, don’t vote!”
                      I mean, your elector will vote whether you do or not, right?

                • Ah, yes mob rule…or its other name democracy.

                  • Yes. But it’s a derogatory term for direct democracy. Ochlocracy, a government by mob or a mass of people.

                    The threat of “mob rule” to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic.

                  • If a person voted for Trump in California, it did not give them representation as California electors all cast votes for the victor even if they won by one vote. One of the things that holds our country together is that we’re the United States, not one big state that can easily be taken over by a mob impulse or a demagogue. Anyone who wants their way must not run over their neighbor with a steam roller but must find agreement.

                    Each State agreed to join based on being given certain rights under the Constitution, one of which is that each State has the right to choose how its electors are chosen. And it varies from State to State without one State controlling everything. Without such a streak of individuality, the farmers of Nebraska would have their lives ruled by metropolises. The rights of the individual would disappear because too many would be made negligible without the power of their State to stand up for them.

                    Well go ahead. If you think that individuality matters less than consensus in diversity, call a Constitutional Convention. Open the floor go changing the Constitution because of a fit of pique over Clinton losing the election to Trump. May actually be able to get such an amendment but I doubt it. But you very well might get some Amendments you don’t like too. There are too many less populated States who would fear the rule of a few urban centers to get the 2/3rds vote in the Senate or the 2/3rds vote of each State legislature. The Constitution works to temper the impulsive mob rule that has helped make Consensus required and mediated the violence of people who are made to feel impotent. We have no coups because we always have a chance of change based on the balance between the mob and the individual. You want to eliminate the Senate too? Because that body was given in essence the power of saying no to less populous States too?

                    It is really distressing to find there are people so disrespectful of the Constitution that they think its whole premise of balancing idividual rights versus democracy has not been a great piece of luck for us who live under it. It is an embarassing failure of our defunct public education system that they don’t see the struggle there was to create a framework balancing the rights of the individual against the mood of the mob. I don’t think if they succeeded, they would find their pettiness rewarded by Utopia. They would be surprised at the ugliness they created when the mob turned on them.

                    • another guest in the wall

                      we need more thoughtful people who were educated in history of tyrannical powers, and the real influence the average person had before the Magna Carta.

                      How many years have the individual had to fight off the unchecked power of the elite. I think this is an effort to delegitimize a wonderful experiment in the rights of the individual in the face of what some call mob rule.

                      I’m not sure if we are using this TDS, as a pretext to undermine our system of government, so as to legitimize the United Nations subversive attempt to undermine the liberties of the individual.

                      I fear that fear of an armed population is the only thing standing in their way.

                    • I was really enjoying this thread with just the exchange of ideas and no one shaming people for thinking differently…sigh.

                    • another guest in the wall

                      wisdom is a bumpy road. I truly believe in the common people who want a better future for their families and future. not trying to shame, but there is a dark force that sets us against one another, and that is the saddest part of these attempts to exchange important ideas, knowing that we are up against something that wants non stop war and division.

                      let’s keep the vibration and the intentions focused on our children and what the future is for them.

                      a higher calling.

                    • Kym- you let quite a few insult stand without comment when they attacked those who disagree with you. As William Buckley said “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” Much offended are you?

          • IDk, I have been thinking lately, instead of scraping the electoral college.. Why not move to just abolish the entire Presidential Office! Why do we even need a president? We don’t. It’s too prone to corruption and has little actual checks and balances. It’s outdated to have a president.

            Abolish presidency to save democracy

            The petition makes the case that the three branches of government are not equal.

            “Congress is more dependent on the President than he is on Congress,” reads the petition. “The President has the elements of power; Congress has but words: he can act; Congress can but talk.” The pamphlet printed in 1868 offers that a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy, and the exorbitant powers of the executive branch are borrowed from monarchs, which make it impossible to hold a president accountable. And if the president is above the law, they argue, he’s an autocrat and not a (small d) democrat.”

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/10/donald-trump-russia-election-inept-monarch-abolish-presidency-column/923543002/

            • An interesting idea but what happens when there is a need for a quick decisive action? I need to think about how this would work.

              • It’s definitely a lot to think about, here is an older article from 1973 New York Times that lays the argument out a little more.

                https://www.nytimes.com/1973/02/13/archives/should-we-abolish-the-presidency.html

                “The usual objection one hears in this country that a war emergency requires quick decision by one man seems to me invalid. Even in that case, no President acts without consultation. If he can summon the Joint Chiefs, so can a Chairman summon his Cabinet. Nor need the final decision be unilateral. Any belligerent action not clearly enough in the national interest to evoke unanimous or strong majority decision by the Cabinet, ought not to be undertaken.“

      • The electoral college keeps citizens from dominating the election process.

        • Yes, although I doubt you mean that as a compliment to the Constitution. It gives some power sometimes to those who would stop citizens from killing each other off. Riots are democracy at it’s core, not tempered by discourse.

        • In my 1911 I trust

          The electoral college keeps people in New York from ruling people’s lives in Kansas. Seems pretty fair to me

          • The Electoral College completely disenfranchises rural voters. The majority of states are winner-take-all.

            • In my 1911 I trust

              Yep and you have the right to pick and choose which state to live in. Which state offers most job opportunity, which state is more aligned with your core values. I think its great we have the opportunity to be able to choose which state to live in that not only provides job opportunities to our own specific careers but also aligns with our values. I am currently in that process myself. I would truly be bummed if the state I am trying to escape was able to rule over me from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. I believe that is why the United States was founded in the first place, right? Colonists were tired of being misrepresented by a people thousands of miles away. The electoral college prevents that. There would be riots and revolutions if we got rid of the electoral college. Think with clarity and purpose people.

              • The electoral college disenfranchises rural voters just like it does everyone else. See all these red counties?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California
                Their votes didn’t count for shit, thanks to the electoral college.

              • Yes, thank you 1911.

                The Senate and the Electoral College were a monumental asset to our republic from before the constitution. They were both but dreams of creating a United States where people held dignified elections rather than mob rule.

                Mob rule will eat itself and destroy everything in it’s world, just like a locust invasion. The EC guarantees we all survive rather than succumb to anarchy.

                It should also be noted that states (senate) and the EC rely on economic opportunities that aren’t beholdin’ to the hyper wealthy such as Bloomberg is currently proving. Should the wealthiest of all be able to purchase the office of the President?

        • It fascinates me that we choose to ignore the impact of the Russian interference in our last election and focus on problems with the Electoral College instead. And we forget the various strategies that the Republicans use to insure their illegal election. Remember Gore vs Bush and the hanging chads? Another way to “elect” an idiot. And the Republicans seem to have an endless supply of crooks and idiots.

      • Government Cheese

        Hillary was planning on winning with the electoral vote. Ohhhh. That didn’t work out, so now you want to change it. Hey, let’s just change the bill of rights while we are at it, Oooooo and the constitution, that could have a makeover. Americans don’t want socialism. Lazy,dumb people who don’t want to take risks want socialism.

        • The electoral college is a socialist institution…

          • In my 1911 I trust

            So what’s your complaint then?😂

            • Socialist, capitalist, these terms are not value judgements, they are descriptions of how a system operates. Capitalist systems do a great job of distributing goods and services, as long as they have socialist systems in place to prevent monopolies and price gouging. In systems where monopolies are unavoidable, such as police, fire, military, medicine and utilities, socialist systems are less extractive and potentially more responsive to local democracy than a capitalist monopoly. The Electoral College is an evolutionary spandrel, a socialist institution which no longer serves any purpose but exists through institutional inertia. It was created to prevent populism, a dubious goal to begin with, but in modern days it clearly does nothing to achieve that goal. It serves only as a pointless election randomizer.

                • No, not said well at all. Pure baloney.

                  None of us alive today can speak nor understand clearly why our constitution formed the senate and the EC. I would guess that the House of Reps exemplifies why it’s necessary. Our population has exploded the past 2 centuries. How many different and warring mobs could have ruled America in that time period?

                  • “None of us alive today can speak nor understand clearly why our constitution formed the senate and the EC.”
                    “Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain it.”
                    “Fuckin’ magnets, how do they work?”

              • In my 1911 I trust

                Monopolies are illegal, there are safeguards built into our capitist society. Socialists are constantly attempting to and succeeding in installing socialist government programs within our capitalist society. The drain on our coffers from these programs has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Socialism is like a cancer that will eat our capitalist society alive, to the benefit of no one.

                • There are no safeguards against monopoly and price gouging built into capitalism. You need outside regulation for that.

                • Socialism as an exclusive Economic system is a state run monopoly on capital goods. However, exponential unchecked linear growth of Capitalism is what is bringing our demise curerrently. For example, Maxam.. Humboldt would be in a far less worse space economical if it had regulated Maxam or it had continued with the sustained 50% harvest plans of Original Pacific Lumber. And it’s not just the Lumber industry that is feeling the unrelenting grip of unchecked Unabridged Capitalism. The fish are over fished, the coal is gone, the iron ore is depleted Agriculture is ran in many ways by Automation and big business. The factories are becoming more and more Automated. The opportunity that once flourished in America has largely changed and dried up. We can’t blame that on “Socialism”.. that’s all Capitalism’s doing.
                  And here it is, if we don’t start instituting more humane chapters within our capital model we set the stage for unintended Socialism. I mean just look at the poision Complex in America. Poverty statistics and Crime go hand in hand. Either way. We either have large industrial prision complexes or we provide avenues for people to better themselves through say affordable education. I would rather see an educated populous than an imprisioned one. Just sayin..

                  • In my 1911 I trust

                    Actually all those problems you stated are a direct result of overpopulation, not capitalism. The extraction of those natural resources at such an intense rate also happens to correlate with the largest population boom of our country, the boomers. Capitalism just allowed extraction of those resources at that rapid rate to be possible.

      • thank you, people forget the history of voting and how the founding fathers wanted to try and protect from mob rule…nothing new under the sun folks

      • another guest in the wall

        Black Box voting and Fractional Magic, by Bev Harris.

        https://youtu.be/8ezmpqwVEnM

        If the system can be hacked or jacked, does it matter whether it’s the EC or by the individual?

        It’s not who votes, it’s who count’s the votes.

        let’s be honest, if you were capable of changing the votes because you felt the world was at stake,

        would you not be tempted to override the dumb, uneducated masses?

        sobering thought.

  • Get a job hippies 😉

  • Carlotta Resident

    *sighs* Repeat after me: the United States is not a true democracy, it is a constitutional republic. It was never meant or designed to be mob rule. Different parts of the country value different things. Different cultures are different, that’s just how it is. The culture in the south is different from the culture in New York is different than the culture in the Midwest or Southwest.
    Everyone deserves a voice, not just those in the city centers, and our system helps to protect those who don’t who would otherwise be relegated to the rule of the mob. I guess my point is that there is a reason why things are the way they are. States with higher population still get more of a say than say Wyoming in the Electoral college. Just because you don’t like what they have to say does not give you the right to take away their voice.

    • The electoral college has only existed since the, 80’s. If our founding fathers wanted it that way vs the popular vote, then a type of EC would have been created, over 200 hundred yrs ago!

    • thank you for saying it

    • Everybody deserves a voice, so let’s give the vote to anonymous electors and inanimate landmasses instead of citizens. Great idea.

        • Nonsense. Not only nonsense but utter, inconceivable nonsense. Do you really think that even now Humboldt Co residents get a voice in the State legislature? Or do the urban areas reach into the county and take what they want? Do you really want all things to be decided for you by the State? Without let’s say a county or city government deciding what they want? Do you really think that would give Humboldt Co a voice? Because that is just what you are saying if you go think about it a bit further than it’s a shame Trump got elected. Do you want LA deciding what Alaska can do? Or New York City ruling Fran fishing out of Humboldt Bay? Do you really think they would understand or even care about those things? Of course location matters. You can’t eliminate it and think that will work for getting your streets fixed.

          • You couldn’t be more wrong. The electoral college actually disenfranchises rural voters in California, since this is a winner-take-all state.

            • Except for Maine and Nebraska all the states are “winner-take-all”.

              http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/2016-election-results-by-state/

              • …and the Electoral College completely disenfranchises rural voters in all such states.

                • Not in states dominated by rural sentiment. Hence, Trump won.

                  • Just because rural voters happened to agree with the electors assigned to their nearby urban districts, doesn’t mean their votes counted. Trinity co voted for Trump, yet those voters counted for nothing.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California

                    This is going to be Texas very soon, maybe this year.

                    • And here’s the rub: federal election results should have very little to do with may day to day life. Local and state policies should dominate any of my interests not the federal government. The federal government has become an overbearing behemoth. It seems logical to me to try to hold the government to the terms of the orginal contract rather than gut parts of that contract.

                      The 9th and 10th amendments should have contained the federal government. This allows people to have a voice in the policies that matter. For We the People the Federal government should only be there to make sure state and local governments don’t subvert our rights.

                    • I don’t know, I think regulating interstate commerce, industrial pollution, finacial speculation, providing for a common defense, social security, ensuring civil rights are respected and maintaining the commons are pretty important, too. I hope we can add healthcare to that list one day.

      • Another Guest in the Wall

        don’t hate the player, hate the game.

        • In my 1911 I trust

          Reply Jaekolopterus, social security is not a right, nor has it ever been mentioned in the constitution. The duties of the federal government are national security, wars, borders, interstate commerce, and protecting our civil rights. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else should be left to the states and the social security program should have never been started.

  • The founding fathers, wise though they were also expected only land owning men to vote. They also designed our constitution to be malleable to adapt to the times, which it has due to PROGRESSIVE pushes throughout history. The EC has outlived it’s usefulness and it’s time to do away with it. Period. For all you conservatives who don’t want to see anything change- you have been on the wrong side of history at almost every turn. Please get out of the way if you can’t lend a hand, to paraphrase.

    • another guest in the wall

      maybe just focus on the local community, it’s hard to think that a small group of motivated people can change the course of history…

      this system has been highjacked by special interests long ago.

      “they’re called lobbyists.”

      remove the real cancer from the host, or are we simply fooling ourselves to think that we have any power as individuals unless there”s a substantial amount of money involved.

    • I am “lending a hand.” Hopefully to keep idiots from shooting themselves in their collective feet. Do you think the Constitution, with its attempts to balance individual rights with democracy,didn’t lead to expanding rights to everyone? Do you think “progressives” magically rammed through all these evolutions in politics all by their lonesome out of thin air without the courts, without the Congress and without discussion? Really? It is the very document that gave rights to petition the government, to assemble, to enforce freedom of the press. As far as I can tell it’s 99% “progressives” who want to shut down anything they don’t want to hear. There will be no help for the country if they can freely dictate to everyone each minute change they think of. And every failure of law they create, they want to fix with more of the same. Progressives eventually screw up everything is not restrained. They know what end they want but never seem to notice that getting there takes work and compromise, not a magic wand of government enforcement.

      I used to think “progressives” were needed to motivate change where needed but they seem to recognise no caution and are incredibly dangerous fools after all. The more they implement their fixes, the worse they make everything.

      • There is an element to new progressives, which is pretty offputting. The lack of critical thinking, the ‘regulate everything’ side. The attempt to silence people with other perspectives. Overly sensitive, coddled college kids who vote to remove McKinley statue because he wasn’t ‘Woke’ enough for them. I don’t like that shit either. I’m not saying the progressives are always right, and I think they should be balanced by other viewpoints, sure. But, they have been on the right side of history more times than not.

        • The right side of history has been written by the winners. By definition, the progressive liberals have attacked the conservative side because they wanted to steal the conservatives acquired wealth. It’s quicker to steal than work to grow prosperity.

        • That would be true only if you define Progressive as inherent success and refuse to accept the side effects. It’s goals are always sympathetic. It’s methods are not and its results are on average fails to achieve its goals. For example Prohibition was a Progressive idea. Drug addiction as a disease idea, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, communism are just some of the Progressive things that killed more than they saved. In fact regulation is at the heart of liberal and progressive thinking- the idea of forcing government to change human behavior.

          If you honestly look at stereotypical Progressive ideas, you’ll be forced to admit that even most of their successes are almost as damaging as the things they sought to fix. Look at public housing- a progressive idea if ever there was one. Everyone should have clean, safe and affordable housing so the Progressive gave it to them. But the expenses of it could never keep up with the reality that concentrating poor people in one spot subjected them to the damaging behavior of destructive neighbor, criminal influences and trapped their inhabitants because they think they could only afford to live there. Hearing stories by residents of public housing is a litany of being trapped behind locked doors, having violent neighbors, gangs, drugs, destruction of their environment and danger at every turn. But now they are such fixtures of expectation that they are hard to eliminate. Are they better than being subject to bad private landlords? Probably yes for most residents. Did they create more chances of being victimized? Yes they did for most residents.

  • It's late and I'm hungry

    Democracy now! (Fist pump!)
    Until it’s inconvenient. A good anology for illustration purposes of true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. If you’re one of the wolves and you can’t see past today’s meal, a true democracy makes perfect sense. But guess what? Eventually four lions and two wolves will vote on what’s for breakfast after the sheep has been devoured. So, even if you’re a wolf today… yeah, tomorrow matters.

    For those that might have forgotten, here’s an example: When placed on ballot, Californians voted against gay marriage. What say you same folks that still want a mob rules system and think the electoral college is now an inconvenience because your team lost? Although that analogy wasn’t 100% similar, and you may or may not agree with gay marriage, which constitutional safeguards should remain in place, and which ones should be deleted? And remember, no take-backs later!

    Those of you that are reducing this to a left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican issue are missing the target by a mile. Remember that in time, the political pendulum always swings back in the opposite direction. The majority that you’re a member of today will more than likely be the minority tomorrow. However, safeguards should always be the constant, even if they don’t always work in our favor at every turn. No system of government is perfect, but ours really is pretty good.

    And it is late (almost midnight), and I really am feeling munchy. Doesn’t Cecil’s sound great right about now? I vote “Yes!” Too bad life isn’t fair, and I can’t always have what I want when I want it. There’s always tomorrow (next election).

  • I am loving the photos, esp the one of Don and Layne…
    Something about [edit] protesting the electoral college, in the streets of Garberville, that typifies ridiculousness, but doing it in the name of improving the status of women, is even more absurd!
    Garberville women: it’s an Oligarchy! Work, save, and invest! You can be wealthy too! Then you can buy votes, like the power structure around you, like everyone else! And there is the true meaning of Democracy:

    The ability to use money, to get your way!

    Obviously, none of you people have the slightest understanding of how this country functions!

    Humboldt County women, on the other hand, need to have more self respect, make better choices, and stop letting the ambient extremely poor quality men make all your decisions!
    Stay in school, get a career, don’t smoke that shit, and aim a little higher than “drug dealer’s wife”, and you may have a happier political experience as well…

    Don’t wait, while holding your breath, for the election process to change, as it was conceived by old men who have lost many of their functions and abilities, and primarily their ability to evolve! Read this illustrative story, if you think things are bad in Humboldt:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/19/2020-democratic-candidates-bogeymen-voters-who-back-trump/4463037002/

    • If you think women need to join the oligarchy, then drug dealer is the only choice around here. The US scores more poorly in upward mobility than almost any other developed nation.

      • Billy Casomorphin

        I was enjoying your concise and erudite assessment:

        “The Electoral College is an evolutionary spandrel, a socialist institution which no longer serves any purpose but exists through institutional inertia. It was created to prevent populism, a dubious goal to begin with, but in modern days it clearly does nothing to achieve that goal. It serves only as a pointless election randomizer.”

        Then I read your later statement, which I regard as overly pessimistic, but only because I had a friend, 50 years ago, who did two weekends in jail after being arrested for possession of a few hundred marijuana seeds… Drug Dealer, if that is what you are, is an occupation that should be owned! We don’t have to hide or get upset if people recognize us as what we are! I’m a retired healthcare worker, and I won’t get upset if you call me one! If I can see that you are a drug dealer, I might label you as such, although someone may perceive a stigma…

        Meanwhile, where upward mobility is concerned, pessimism or negative affect aside, everyone gets the same chances, the same opportunities, and only how hard you are willing to work for something will mitigate this! So, the female child born in Hoopa, can end up graduating Medical School, and I have seen this happen. Women have 50% of all work in this country, and in Healthcare and Education, they have over 75%! If anything, I would say that men are being overmatched, and, in the future, men may have to march for diversity in hiring, and fair chances against the women! Wait 25 years, I have predicted this!
        Even a Drug Dealer can save and invest, buy a business, start a brewery, a winery, buy a tire shop, a dry cleaning business etc. There is no limit to building a fortune, and defeatism serves nobody. Mobility is as upward as you have the energy to make it, so you don’t have to sit in Humboldt and wish for something better… We all have a capacity to grow, learn and to thrive, if we recognize it in ourselves.

        Meanwhile, smile, you live in the richest part of the wealthiest country on earth. Stick out your hand and grab some of it!

        Fussing about the Electoral College is just a diversion! American women enjoy the best times in 50 years.

        • We are the richest nation in human history, yet have the most expensive healthcare with the worst outcomes of any developed nation. Our labor unions have been under serious attack by oligarchs for half a century, while they horde unpresidented amounts of wealth.
          https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report
          To say that we have serious work to do as a society isn’t pessimistic.

          • Healthcare is a mess, but so is the state of humanity’s health. Healthcare is a sore subject with me, since it is plainly not accessible in rural areas, and seriously needs to change! Unions are a big fucking mess all by themselves, and I have no love for Unions! Unions exist where people fail to effectively negotiate, and represent a separate form of exploitaion from employee/employer. Enough said.

            Wealth is distributed unevenly, but, it always will be, as humans are selfish.

            Cheer up, things may improve, but probably not in my lifetime! There are ways to succeed without healthcare, unions, or exploitation. See if you can find one!

            • If workers cannot exploit their own labor, then the exploitation is purely one-sided. Even highly-skilled laborers need unions to insure fair wages and work hours.

              • No, they don’t. I never was in a union, never will be. Where you work is your choice, not that of some clown in a suit.
                Your labor is as valuable as you make it, your experience is as invaluable as you make it. Look around, somewhere there is someone who will pay what you say.
                You don’t have to play in the union game, unless you want to… Unions are often just another criminal enterprise, and many unions are operated by thugs…

              • In my 1911 I trust

                The most successful people I know are independent contractors, or own their own business providing services to others. They are not part of any union. My friend, who is a carpenter, just raised his hourly rate to $40/hr, and he has work coming out of his ears. No union. I have a friend that owns a plumbing business here, $90.00/hr, no union. The current fate of our country is due to our refusal to let people fail. Humans are hardwired as predators. We prey on the weak. Quit instituting social programs and let those who can’t succeed, fail. Autism is prevalent nowadays because we have worked for so long to prevent certain people from dying. Bad genes multiply and mutate exponentially down genetic lines, not the other way around. Our safeguard to that in the past was natural selection, now that we have thoroughly done away worth that, we are reaping what we have sown. Stupid, weak people and disease.

                • The problem with that theory is that people that might seem worthless–say Stephen Hawking with Lou Gehrig disease—have a great deal to offer including making serious science accessible to the layperson not to mention he was courageous and humorous. And people that are great predators (for example–serial killers that have never been caught) have been detrimental to our advance as humans adding pain and suffering to the lives of countless as the results of their evil are felt by the loved ones of the dead.

                  • In my 1911 I trust

                    I am speaking more along the lines of social programs that take from a more successful part of the population and distribute to less successful parts. Our society has insulated itself enough from the environment through civilization itself. Laws, freedoms, a social contract on how to interact decently with other people. When you start redistributing resources in such a way that criminals, drug addicts, those with genetic problems and other diseases that can be passed on can proliferate easily, it causes problems down the road. Those people should be taken care of by their family or themselves, not the state. And if they can’t, they should perish. Humans will benefit, our gene pool will benefit, and the planet will benefit. You can’t be a humanitarian and an environmentalist, especially when the root cause of all our problems, societal and environmental, is overpopulation. Don’t hurt anyone, just let go of those who can’t survive anyway and put criminals away.

                    • who gets to decide the genetic defect worth eliminating?

                      I understand your concern, it’s just that the end result is eugenics codified into law because of a desire for purity.

                      Well, that’s what WW2 Germany was focused on.

                    • No more doctors for those with diseases? No more classes for the mentally handicapped?

                      “the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Hubert Humphrey

                    • In my 1911 I trust

                      Nobody determines any genetic worth. Just stop attempting to help anyone and everyone through government social programs and redistribution of wealth. Doctors are still there, people still have health care, children still have what they need. Just let people live without government interference. There are enough people who will not be able figure out how to survive without the help of the government and will ostricize themselves from society on their own, nobody needs to step in or do anything.

        • another guest in the wall

          correction.

          sitting in Trinity county, not Humboldt.
          .

  • Wait, I need to go make some popcorn. What a great discussion!

    I have always said that my friends are more important to me than any political opinions that I might have, so I try my best not to force my political opinions upon my friends. I am more of a student of human nature than of politics, and I have discovered that no matter how intelligent my political reasoning is, I have never changed anyone’s mind about politics.

    My father always said that “you are who you would be if you could remain entirely anonymous”. I always sign my name, not out of any sense of ego, but I discovered that I can be a total asshole when I’m anonymous. So… I stay away from deep political discussions. I would be curious though about how many people have changed their minds about the electoral college.

    In a “perfect Democracy”, every person gets one vote. By extension, our Democracy would be so wonderful that it would soon take over the whole world. One world, one vote one Democracy! Every person, everywhere would have one vote. Election officials would no longer need to register anyone, because no matter who they are, they would have an opinion, right?

    The perfect way to do this is to have everyone mark a ballot, then dip their finger into Indelible ink so they couldn’t vote twice. No matter their intelligence, their education, their sex, color or nationality, you get one vote. No matter your mental health religion or political opinion, you get one vote. Now that we are a world democracy, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago would no longer rule the vote by their overwhelming population and way of life. China, India, and Africa would rule the world with their amazing voting power, one person one vote.

    I know that a lot of my friends, if I still have any after forcing my opinions on them, don’t like Los Angeles telling us in Humboldt county how to live our lives. On a National level, the people that live in rural states don’t like California and New York telling them what to do or think, because we are all different people with different ways of life. The Electoral College gives smaller population densities a small influence in what would become an overwhelming rule by people that that like to huddle together and tell us what we need to give them, like our water and wilderness. After all what would someone in Los Angeles know about running a ranch in Wyoming? Shouldn’t Wyoming have some small influence?

    To be honest, I have changed my opinion several times about the Electoral College, usually when the vote didn’t go the way I liked it to go.

    • Ernie states it very well.
      The EC was necessary to convince the less populous States to join the Union. The people of those states were reluctant to allow themselves to be ruled by a democracy of numbers dominated by New York voters who could appropriate their resources, ie;
      Three wolves and a sheep voting on “what’s for dinner?’.

    • Ernesto,

      There’s only one rule in this country, the golden rule!

      If you have enough money, you too can be president, although the job is a killer, and I wouldn’t want it, for sure…

      But then, I hate meetings, and the behavior of humans is exasperatingly stupid, most of the time anyway…

      The electoral college would be fairer, if we first elected the electors, but if we did, those damn election signs would just never go away, like when they wanted to pass the SHCHD tax and the whole thing degenerated into High School hijinks…

      No, the guy with the most money, and the best strategists and contractors, he’s gonna win. And that’s America, just leave it to the professionals…

    • The Electoral College only works for the presidency. In effect all the sheep, the sheep dogs and the wolves vote. But some sheep/wolves/dogs have more powerful votes than others.

      The Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives, etc. are there to make sure that the wolves don’t vote to eat the sheep. They aren’t part of the Electoral College.

      The President is more likely to fairly represent the most people if everyone gets an equally weighted vote. It is odd to me that people think that handicapping people who live in California (yes, including the rural voters) in order to give more weight to the voters in Wyoming will somehow more fairly represent rural voters in California.

      • It’s unreasonable to equate the electoral vote to unequal value of voice.

        The **states themselves** elect the president. Not the people. And that ” voice” is based on census data / senate / house numbers.

        https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation

        Every vote in every state (but two which allow split vote) below the majority needed to win the electoral vote, is given no voice!!

        Get over it , lol …

        • Yes, in effect the states are electing the president which in a loose federation of states like the US was in the beginning where people took immense amount of identity in their state makes a certain sense. People often identified first as which state they were native of. Now when a Vermonter today could be a Floridian tomorrow…not so much. And as improving travel continues to shrink the distances between us, it will make even less sense.

          And, C’mon…get over it? This is a discussion on what might improve the country or might not. Not discussing isn’t helpful until we reach a consensus as a country. You might as well tell anti abortion people that Roe vs Wade passed—get over it. Or tell vegans that we’ve been eating meat since caveman days—get over it.

          • The vegans probably should get over it! 🍳🐟
            And I’ll bet many did tell the Roe V Wade crowd at the time to “get over it,” but they got the 2/3 senate and 3/4 state support to reverse that didn’t they? Until we have the same *bipartisan* support and urgency for change of our current EC system it will remain. So yea not much to do, but get over it . And get out the vote!! The less than 50% eligible vote rate is a way larger, and more readily addressed issue than the electoral college at this point imo

            • Excellent point!

              Less than 50% voter rate is no cause to off the EC. It’s another reason to be glad we still use the EC.

              Vote as much and as many times as possible, the EC will support you.

            • Getting out the vote is very important. I wish I knew what to do to get people to understand how important it is.

              • If our choices were really ‘ours’ no problemo.

                The Demo/Repub ‘party corporations’ run the show without OUR input. Remember what they did to Bernie last time??

                The Dems need to implode to give room to a truly progressive party.

                IDPol is NOT progressive…it just divides us and takes our eyes off the prize/

                Did you all know that Trump’s 2020 budget has proposed huge cuts to SSI/SSDI? Reaguns did it in the 80s and 21,000 people died.

                But they’re TAKERS……nevermind the bankers/MIC/CEOs sucking up all the communal wealth…

                Dog eat dog is a shitty way to live. Some people have no bootstraps. Hilarious to read some of you think *anyone* can become a ‘billionaire’ in this country…you are delusional and brainwashed by ?? The powers that be…MSM etc.

                But you know what? The DEms have been making noises for years about the same thing…cutting Social Security…cuz “the budget”. Funny, the military can waste/lose 21 TRILLION dollars but politicians in DC have to balance the budget on the backs of the old, infirm and crippled.

                You thought homelessness was bad now…granmas dying in the streets…

                • In my 1911 I trust

                  I’m all for the cuts to social security, that program will not be there for me. Why should I pay into it? Instead of depending on the government, you should’ve planned and saved for your retirment, just like I have to now. Just think of how much healthier the planet became and how many more resources were available for the future when those 21,000 people died?

                  • Have you heard Bill Gates talk about the death panels?

                    His point being, that you could hire quite a few teachers, instead of keeping grandma or grandpa Alive that last year.

                    Can you imagine what the millenial generation will vote for, if they don’t have awesome grandparents?

                    • In my 1911 I trust

                      I would almost be considered a millennial. I voted for Trump. I haven’t heard of Bill Gates talk about death panels, but I do know that our country is trillions of dollars in debt and has been bankrupt by almost defunct social programs that are funded by overtaxation of the people. A lot of that taxation is without representation because, even though many try to argue the contrary, social security is bankrupt, and has been. The likelihood of me receiving any benefits from this social program that i am forced to pay into is almost 0. So, since “fairness” is an ongoing theme here, I ask, how is that fair? Some generation is going to have to bite the bullet and really reign things in, in order for this country to survive. Its obviously not your generation, it may not be mine, but it could be, so don’t be surprised when your generation is called on its shit.

      • Kym,
        You and I are people that can disagree and still be great friends, a quality that I appreciate. Not all people are like that… Maybe you’ve noticed.

        As someone else pointed out, why would Wyoming want to join the United States If they had little or no say in how they were ruled. Maybe they would think that they would be better off being their own country. Some feel that way in California also, like the people that want to form the state of Jefferson to get away from being ruled by L.A.

        The United States looks at itself much like a beautiful woman looks at herself. No matter how beautiful that she might be, she can still find some flaw that she wishes was better. But, there are no Unicorns and pigs still don’t fly, so we get what we get. With all its flaws the U.S. is still the most beautiful country in the world, we should try hard not to screw it up.

        “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature” Abraham Lincoln

        • Kym why doesn’t my edit show up on my comment. I added:

          “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature” Abraham Lincoln

          Which I felt was the most important part of my comment, but after trying twice to add it, it disappeared…. Bummer

        • Ernie, I value people who can have a conversation about differences and seek to make sure the person they are talking to knows they still care about them and appreciate them in spite of the differences. I wish more of us had that skill or at least attempted to learn it. Thank you.

          To me, the presidency is one very small part of what creates representation for minority populations. (Not one small part of our democracy but the powers of the presidency are not designed well for providing protection for minorities–we have other aspects of our government that do that much better). The presidency however does have considerable powers that should represent the voters of the US. To handicap the voters of some areas in order to provide supervotes for other areas in this critical one third of the branches of government, is the antithesis of democracy.

        • So wise Ernie.

          Jefferson State!

      • It is not solely a matter of fair, even if you think that everyone having a vote and the most votes wins is fair. The founders were leery of putting too much power in the hands of one man. They had had enough of kings. So they were sought to limit power given to a man. Any man for any reason.

        Demagogues are defined as leaders of a mob, literally the definition. Mobs are creatures of emotion, misinformation and violence. No one ever used the words “rational mob.” So to keep a demagogue from gaining so much power they could swing a whole country around willy nilly, the writers of the Constitution DELIBERATELY chose to temper the bad effects of pure democracy without killing the good aspects of democracy by inserting representatives between the voters and the office. The very thing you object to is the only device the framers could come up with at the time to slow up a popularly elected man from joining with a popularly elected Congress to grab so much power they could never be pried loose and the minority is both legislated out rights and administered out of them too. It was not an inadvertent side effect- it was the point.

        And it has served us well. Each State has chosen their own method of choosing electors from appointments to direct elections. This assures enough diversity in the body to allow one man with a conscience to object and, if the election is close enough, foil a power grab. This is the virtue of rights that you seem think have no value. Those who have lost power are never driven so far down that they have no hope and resort to violence. Their rights mean that the voters can’t silence them- can’t make them disappear. So, unlike almost everywhere else in the world, we are not subject to coups or military dictators or 7 different leaders in a year nor political riots.

        A democracy is not innately good. It is only as good as the majority of its voters at each moment. Some moments the majority of the voters are frightened and irrational. The Constitution, with its fixation on balancing powers , has done an admirable job of being flexible enough to survive democracy while rigid enough to support it. I doubt you can come up with a better, more stable framework than the framers did. We are undeservedly lucky that they were so eager to compromise in order to make room most of the time for those who don’t compromise.

        • The electoral college doesn’t “temper” the “bad” effects of democracy, it subverts and randomises the process, rendering it moot. You guys make a big deal about how it helps rural voters be represented, but it does no such thing. You can clearly see here in California, a winner-take-all state, that it renders rural voters basically meaningless.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California
          All the EC does at the federal level is turn a popular vote into a contest decided by drawing straws.

          • First I’m not “you guys.” And second the comment about California would seem to support the idea that a majority takes all system does leave the minority without any say so, not the reverse.

            • I support a ranked-choice voting system. The randomized winner-or-loser-takes-all system we currently have serves only the entrenched oligarchy.

  • Maybe you can just report the news and keep your political views to yourself.

    • Me? How does this article promote my political views?

      • Not the article persay kym, but your lively contributions to this comment section clearly promote your political stance on the electoral college.

        I’d say in light of its 200y functioning history, and the rigorous and insurmountable hurdles to abolishing it, while it is interesting to hear the opposing reasoning, even arguing over it at all is probably a fruitless effort . And ALL of our time might be better spent elsewhere. 😉

        • Kym is pretty A-Political. She’s just not a Kluker or super judgemental. As they say, the further you drive North in Cali the further south u are… I mean don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of state’s rights too… It’s just cali is a bubble. The national debt is A political, and grew by over 1.2 trillion last year. Tariffs helped but we owe a lotta money. Jesus is all right with me.

          • Most choices she makes are political. The only thing that makes her site better than a political propaganda site is her personal belief in the benefits of freedom of speech itself although she objects to much of the speech itself. That is a very admirable and rare quality in the current milieu of political hatefulness.

            • Billy Casomorphin

              Mr Cove Guy:

              Maybe you could just not be rude! We’re just talking…

              Ms Kemp’s blog, she gets to say stuff too.

              Thanks for your consideration!

              • To respond to a comment, hit reply at that comment. It to a bit to figure out that you weren’t calling me Mr Cove Guy. At least I think you were not.

        • Anon, Yep, the comment section here is accessible to all (except those who persist in egregiously breaking the rules). That includes me.

          The articles are neutral. The comment section is for debate.

      • Yeah, I am glad I don’t get my news from a Robot! Everyone is entitled to their POV..

      • Supporting Kym Kemp comments are personal choice. I like to read what she writes. She holds the tiller, we trim the sails, and every day we get there.

        Yes, KK is doing a fine job. She works hard for us.

  • Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is the reason for the electoral college. The [edit] founders knew that people would just vote to steal shit from others at the point of a government gun, which is exactly what is happening today and exactly the definition of “democracy” that they despised and commenters here love. Losers want to take shit from the productive in society and blame society for their failures. Exactly what the founders feared is exactly what is happening in this country today.
    I commend you ULLR, Guest and others for a valiant effort. You make eloquent arguments. I hope you find a larger audience where the odds of persuading a few people actually stand a chance. We need people like you to do the job (teaching basic civics) that, evidenced by this comment section, government schools invariably fail to do. Thank you!

    • In a winner-takes-all political system, the only alternative to “the tyranny of the majority” aka democracy, is the “tyranny of the minority”, aka autocracy. This is not a party-line issue, look at all the Republican votes that were thrown out in the name of the Electoral College.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California

      • Billy Casomorphin

        Government is a very imperfect mechanism, and, it is difficult to change the gears.

        That said, if we had to take everyone’s opinions into consideration, we would likely accomplish even less than the nearly nothing that the House and Senate manage to actually do, each year.

        The calculus of the electoral college must have been difficult to derive, but in a big country with unevenly located population, it probably works as well as flipping a coin…

        Everyone gets the right to run for office, and attempt to manipulate the system and subvert it for their own gain and personal edification, and for that of their friends. But then, the citizens get to try and throw you out every so often too! That’s life and reality, in the land of the free…

        Don’t be expecting big change, mostly, and 50-100 years from now, don’t be surprised by anything you see or hear…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.