Internet Arguments: The Pence/Hamilton Thing

I have a bad habit of getting into arguments with people online. I would say I spend too much time on it... but I'm not sure that's true. The alternative is to avoid engaging with people, which seems like the sort of action that perpetuates this culture in which our views and the views of others are never challenged. We will likely never understand each other so long as we never make the effort to do so.

So, I get into Internet arguments. They're not always productive, and I don't think they result in changed minds per se. However, I don't mind making the effort to humanize my ideas and to at least attempt to understand where people are coming from.

However, if I'm going to spend a bunch of time writing like that, I should probably get some use out of it. Otherwise, all that work will simply fade away, banished to wherever it is that old Facebook posts go.

So, here's a discussion I had with some folks in response to a post my aunt made on Facebook. Unedited except for names, though I don't think the discussion is private, so theoretically anybody can find this discussion if they look for it.

Revised Amendment XXVIII

After discussing it with a friend, it became obvious that there was a problem with the run-off method in my proposed amendment: basically, that getting people to go out and vote a second time in the case of a run-off would be difficult for many people. So, instead, there needed to be some way to have that run-off election without having an entire second Election Day.

I've edited the amendment to reflect a better system:

Why I'm Running for President

I don't want to run for President. I don't want to be President.

Yet, strangely, these are the thoughts that made me decide to run for President. These are the thoughts that have been driving me toward my 2020 run for the past 12 years.

AMENDMENT XXVIII

I would like to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution:

The President shall, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

All eligible voters within the Unites States, its Territories, and all its Possessions, may vote by ballot. They shall name in their ballots the person they select for President and who they select for Vice President, and the choice for President and Vice President shall be distinct. The Person with the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of votes counted; And, if no person has such a majority, then another election shall take place within 30 days, this election featuring only the two People with the highest number of votes for President from the initial election; and the Person with the most votes for President from this second election shall become President. The Person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President, shall be Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of votes counted; And, if no person has such a majority, then another election shall take place within 30 days, this election featuring only the two People with the highest number of votes for Vice President from the initial election; and the Person with the most votes for Vice President from this second election shall become Vice President. If both the President and Vice President require a second election, the second election for the Vice President shall be held on the same day as the second election for the President.

Please allow me to explain what this amendment would do and why it's important:

The Politician Stigma

Recently I read a sentence that said, "you've probably dreamed of becoming a model, athlete, or worst of all, a politician."

This got me thinking about how we perceive politicians. By no means is the author alone in their disgust with that particular profession. Few professions are more reviled, whether for being corrupt, inept, unbending, and/or oblivious. These things are all bad on their own, but these faults (real or imagined) are magnified by the fact that these are the people in power in this country.

However, I have a theory that this revulsion toward politics as a profession may be a part of the problem; that the politicians we have are a product of the reputation we lay upon them.

"You're Watching the Wrong News"

I try not to argue of Facebook. It's not what I would consider an enjoyable activity. However, with the election getting ever closer, more and more political stuff is showing up in my feed, and sometimes, against my better judgment, I feel the need to respond. This response pulls me into a war that I frankly don't have time to fight, and I generally try to extricate myself as gracefully and quickly as possible.

In one of these recent debates, I was told that I don't "watch the right news," and that I need to get "all of the facts," as if more facts will make me suddenly think people (especially black people) shouldn't be upset over the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

Still, this criticism got me thinking about where I get my news and when I choose to act upon it.

How It Should Be

Police killed more civilians this week.

What happened? How many more times will it happen, how frequently, before people lose all trust in their police force?

I'm not going to condemn all police officers here. The policemen who did these things don't represent all police officers. The brave officers who lost their lives while protecting peaceful protesters in Dallas this week are a testament to that fact. However, every time something like this happens, I can't help but wrack my brain trying to figure out what could be different, what we'd need to change, to stop this from happening. This is not how it should be.

Green Party vs. Libertarian Party

As the Democrats and Republicans vie for the top spot among American political parties, there are several other political parties, collectively called "third" parties, presumably because, frankly, they'll never be first or second. The two most prominent of these third parties are, I believe, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.

I'm not a big fan of party politics, but these two parties and their tactics are kind of fascinating to me, in the same way it's fascinating to watch a bug struggling in vain to escape a spider's web. The Green and Libertarian parties seem to primarily be mostly-ineffective spoilers to the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively (with the notable exception of Ralph Nader in Florida in the 2000 election), but I don't think they have to be.

Skipping the Line

I don't know many passionate Hillary supporters. For the most part, she continues to be favored not for who she is but who she isn't in this election. Which certainly isn't ideal for the Democrats, though they'll certainly take it.

However, some rather forceful anti-Bernie rhetoric would sometimes cross my Twitter feed. Some of the criticisms were fair (his plans aren't necessarily realistic, his temperament may not be suitable for a head of state) and some were mostly just blanket insults aimed at his supporters which, frankly, aren't doing any favors for the Democrats' image. (Pro tip: insulting your new members isn't exactly the best way to retain those new members.)

One complaint about Bernie in particular popped up time and again, and still does; a complaint that frustrates me to no end. That complaint, more than any other, eliminates any faith I may have had in the Democratic Party. A complaint lobbed, usually, from Democratic loyalists and insiders that, basically, ensures that I will never want to be a part of that institution.

Time and again, I heard the criticism that Bernie "skipped the line."

Hillary Has My Vote

I have some reservations about Hillary Clinton, which I've discussed previously. In short, it's partly because she's been so far removed from the the reality of normal Americans for decades (even before she was First Lady), and partly because of my frustration with the two-party system, which she embodies fully.

That said, I have no reservations about voting for her this election. Here's why.

Choosing the Right Politician

There certainly isn't any single metric people use to select their politicians. People have used everything from years of experience and ethical effectiveness to "I feel like I could have a beer with him."

Today I'm going to share my ideal basis for choosing a politician. Hint: it's not just "I agree with them about a lot of things." That sometimes happens, but not always.

In Defense of Politicians

The definition of a politician according to Merriam-Webster:

Politician, noun
1. a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially :  one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2a. a person engaged in party politics as a profession 
2b. a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

It's rare to hear the word "politician" spoken without an accompanying sneer and obvious disgust at the concept. However, today I'm going to defend their existence and explain why I wouldn't mind having more of them.

Constitution Series Part 30: Signatures (Virginia)

Let's continue exploring the lives of the people who signed the Constitution! Today we're tackling Virginia, the most populous state at the time of the Constitutional Convention, which curiously only had two delegates sign the Constitution, not including George Washington...

Constitution Series Part 28: Article VII and Signatures (President, Delaware)

With the structure and powers of the government established, as well as a way to edit this Constitution, there's just one more thing to do: establish how this Constitution will be adopted by the states.

Constitution Series Part 27: Article VI

I'm going to refer to Article VI as a "typing up loose ends" article. Not to say there isn't some important stuff in here (it's all pretty important), but these are notes that didn't seem to fit into the rest of the articles, which is why I imagine they're lumped here.

Constitution Series Part 26: Article V

Today, we'll see how we can edit the Constitution to add to or change it. After all, though it's a fascinating document and the basis for a pretty good government, all things considered, it's also flawed; incomplete in some ways, and poorly thought out in others. So, rather than starting over, we can simply amend it.

Constitution Series Part 25: Article IV, Sections 3 and 4

ARTICLE IV

Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Constitution Series Part 24: Article IV, Sections 1 and 2

With the major stuff out of the way, only a few details remain before we can put a pin in this document that details what constitutes our government. The biggest detail (and, therefore, the biggest article of what remains) is about the relationship between the states and the federal government, and the relationship between the states and themselves.

As a reminder, when I quote the Constitution in these posts I'm quoting from the transcript of the Constitution at the Federal Archives website.

Constitution Series Part 23: Article III, Section 3

The final section of Article III deals with treason: what it is, and how it is to be punished.

Constitution Series Part 22: Article III, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3

The first clause of Section 2 listed the cases that federal courts were designed to handle. As I noted, the vast majority of federal cases are handled by the district and appellate courts, and only a few actually reach the Supreme Court.

The remaining clauses of Section 2 clarify which cases go directly to the Supreme Court (spoiler: almost none) and where juries figure into all of this.