Brooklyn – A double funeral was conducted here on Saturday afternoon when Mr. and Mrs. Ferdinand Tiffany were laid side by side in Evergreen cemetery. When Mrs. Tiffany died on Monday night, her husband felt that nothing remained for him to live for and expressed the wish that he might be buried with her. His wish was granted, for on Friday morning he was suddenly stricken with pneumonia and died before noon. His wife’s funeral was postponed a day and these two who had traveled life’s journey together for nearly fifty years were carried together to their last resting place.
Lynn, Springville Twp. – Chas. Henning and Robert Sheldon left here yesterday for State College, where they will take an agricultural and dairy course. ALSO W. B. Fish is progressing with his water works, piping water to his house and barn which will be a great convenience when finished.
Harford – News has just reached us that Mrs. Fred Chamberlain, of California, who was seriously injured in an auto accident, in which her husband was killed, underwent a surgical operation on Dec. 3, from which she did not rally. She leaves two small children to mourn her loss. ALSO A nine pound and quarter son—William George, was born to Mr. and Mrs. George LaBarre, in Dr. Burns’ Hospital, Scranton, Dec. 1st.
Birchardville – Miss Chadija C. Dayton, a trained nurse from Rochester, is visiting her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Watson Dayton, near this place.
South Montrose – H. R. Decker, the well-known breeder, recently shipped a very fine, pure bred Holstein calf to California. It arrived in splendid condition, after its six-day journey. The express charge was over thirty dollars
Montrose – Miss Helen Burns, daughter of druggist and Mrs. Geo. C. Burns, at a recent class election, was honored by being chosen secretary of a large class of students at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. The fact that she was the only girl elected to fill an office is particularly gratifying to her many friends. ALSO Wm. Spence is now the oldest member of A. M. E. Zion church, and he has a fine record for attendance. It is a pleasure to hear him sing and exhort.
Ararat – Samuel Entrot, having exchanged his large farm in Ararat for the store property and stock of goods of J. L. Wadman, of Ararat village, will have a public sale, Dec. 23rd. Fifty head of registered Holsteins, other stock, and a large stock of farm tools, etc., are to be disposed of. The scarcity of help and poor health made it necessary for Mr. Entrot to give up farming.
Little Meadows – The dance held in the hall, Nov. 29, under the management of the Emmet Club, was not very successful, owing to the bad roads and rain. ALSO E. J. Shaughnessy and family are going to move to Binghamton this week. We will be sorry to lose our neighbors. James Murphy has also gone to Binghamton to work for his brother-in law, who runs a milk route.
Friendsville – Martin Coleman, of Middletown, is boarding with Thomas Lee and attending the Turnpike school. ALSO One of the oldest churches in Susquehanna county is the unused little Church of the Holy Spirit, located in the grove near Carmalt Lake. The late Rev. Elisha Mulford used to conduct Episcopalian services there occasionally, although it is said it was first used by a number of Quakers for a meeting-house.
East Rush – Another one of East Rush’s boys was laid at rest last Sabbath, when the funeral of Abijah James, which was held at Jersey Hill, occurred. He was in business at Ely, Minnesota, as a druggist for the past few years and was taken sick sometime late in the summer and came to Chicago for treatment, but there seemed to be no cure for him. He leaves a wife and one son and a number of brothers and sisters to mourn him.
Susquehanna – Jesse Payne, aged nearly 96 years, died in the Susquehanna Hospital on Thursday. He was a veteran of the Civil war and until recently resided in New Milford. A daughter, Mrs. Ella Griffin, and a son, Thomas Payne, both of Susquehanna, survive. [Jesse mustered in on Sept. 5, 1864 to Co. C, Two Hundred and Third Regiment. He mustered out with his company in June of 1865.]
Gelatt – Russell Howell has gone to State College where he will take a course in butter and cheese making.
Marriages Licenses: Seburn Nye and Theresa Payne, Jackson; Emmett M. Sivers, Lawton and May M. Marbaker, Forest Lake; Kenneth H. Hunter, Great Bend and Blanch E.Vail, Montrose; C. Fred Stiles, Endicott, N. Y. and Claudine V. Stanton, Great Bend; Lingi Lesti and Marie Pingareei, Susquehanna.
News Briefs: A mine cave in Dunmore, Tuesday, carried a horse and wagon to the bottom of a thirty-foot hole. ALSO One of the oldest newspapers published in this part of the state, The Bradford Argus, established in 1833, suspended publication last week. E. A. Parsons was the publisher for years. At his death, some time ago, his wife undertook the management of the publication. The soaring prices of printing materials are given as the cause of the death of the paper. The plant of the Argus has been purchased by the Towanda Printing Company.
ROUNDING UP THE CHICKEN THIEVES: It has been suspected for some time that some of the chicken stealing in Montrose has been due to several youths and enough evidence being secured the sheriff and 2 constables raided a certain domicile. The house was surrounded, that is on three sides, and Constable Chapman walked in the front door and grabbed the first one in sight. The most guilty made a jump for a rear window, taking sash and all, and Chapman “hollered” for aid and Constable Rosche beat it around the back of the house, with a 38 caliber revolver in his hand, and was making good time when he fell over the rocky cliff in true motion-picture style. He saw the fleeing youth and three times his pistol barked. This convinced the guilty one that he was needed, and as the bullets were flying close he gave himself up. Taken before Justice Davies, the thefts were admitted, stating that some of Horton Brown’s fine prize birds had found their way into the stewing pot—and other birds had likewise flown in that direction. Amusement was shown when told of the culinary operations in making fricasseed chicken. The bird was picked, head and feet chopped off, and without the usual preliminary dressing, was dumped into the scalding pot, the formality of removing the entrails being omitted in the act. It was related that one miscreant didn’t eat any of the birds, objecting more to the fact that one of the members stirred the contents with his fingers, than to the fact that the fowl was not properly dressed. [Names omitted to protect descendants who may read this article.]
200 Years Ago will continue next week.
On November 14, 2016, a new law became effective that provides individuals with certain criminal convictions with a new tool to prevent third parties from obtaining access to this information. Prior to that date, the only way a person could avoid public disclosure of a criminal conviction was through the expungement process. Expungement is a process through which a judge orders the permanent destruction of a criminal record – and the corresponding documents and files associated with that criminal conviction. After the expungement occurs, the records simply no longer exist.
Generally speaking, it is very difficult to obtain an expungement for a misdemeanor or felony conviction. There are certain classes of offenses that are not even eligible for an expungement, i.e., sexual assault convictions. As to non-sexual assault misdemeanor and felony convictions, an individual is not eligible for an expungement until they reach the age of 70 and can demonstrate that he or she has no other convictions over the intervening 10 years. As to summary offenses, the expungement rules are a little more lenient as it permits expungement for summary offenses provided that you have no other convictions in the previous 5 years. There is also a statutory provision that allows for an expungement after you have been dead for three years, but this presents obvious logistical difficulties!
The new law permits an individual to file a petition with the Court seeking to limit public access to conviction information. It would still permit criminal justice agencies to have access to the conviction information but not the general public. The class of convictions eligible for such court-ordered limited access is restricted to only offenses that are unclassified misdemeanors, third degree misdemeanors or second degree misdemeanors. Felony convictions and first degree misdemeanors are not eligible offenses. To put it another way, only those convictions where the potential period of maximum incarceration does not exceed 2 years are eligible under this new limited access law.
As with the expungement statute, a person seeking a court order limiting access to his or her criminal conviction information must demonstrate a clean record over the intervening 10 years since the conclusion of the punishment for the offense. Moreover, there are also excluded misdemeanor convictions that do not qualify for relief under the new limited access statute: (1) any sexual assault misdemeanor that requires registration under Megan’s Law, (2) second degree misdemeanor simple assault; (3) sexual intercourse with an animal; (4) impersonating a public servant; (5) intimidating or retaliating against a witness or victim; and (5) intimidation, retaliation or obstruction in child abuse cases. Finally, there is a volume restriction in the statute, if you have four or more misdemeanor convictions, then your criminal history is not eligible for limited access relief. Before any relief is granted, a copy of the petition must be served upon the district attorney’s office, which has the right to object to the requested relief.
The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has created forms to assist people who are interested in seeking limited access relief for misdemeanor criminal conviction. If you are interested obtaining one of these forms, go to www.pacourts.us, click on the forms link, and from there go to the “for the public” section, and you can find a proposed petition and order that you can type in your pertinent information, print out and then bring to the courthouse for filing.
Quick! Please pass the cranberries!
Pharmacists are routinely asked whether cranberry juice or cranberry extract supplements are effective in treating or preventing a urinary tract infection (UTI). About 6 out of 10 women will experience one or more UTIs in their lifetime, a condition, which causes painful, frequent and urgent urination. Other symptoms may include pain around the belly button and/or a strong odor to the urine and cloudy or blood-tinged urine. Researchers estimate that 25–35% of women diagnosed with a UTI will suffer a recurrence within 6 months.
While an antibiotic may help clear up a UTI, in this day of antibiotic resistance, an increasing number of women are opting for more natural and sensible ways to treat or prevent a UTI. The cranberry was used medicinally by Native Americans for the treatment of bladder and kidney ailments. Before the advent of antibiotics, cranberry consistently remained a popular treatment for UTIs as far back as the 1600s.
How do cranberries affect the bacteria that cause UTIs? It was first hypothesized that acidification of urine contributed to an antibacterial effect. However, the current theory focuses on the cranberry’s ability to prevent bacterial binding to host cell surface membranes. Studies have observed that chemicals within the fruit prevent the attachment to the bladder wall of bacteria that tend to cause UTIs, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli).
But does it really work? Many studies have shown a modest effect of cranberry juice and its extract on UTIs. A 2016 study revealed that the consumption of a cranberry juice beverage – in this case, an 8 ounce glass once daily for 24 weeks – lowered the number of UTI episodes in women with a recent history of UTI. A couple of glasses each day may further lower your chances of having recurrent UTIs. What about cranberry capsules? First, supplements are not regulated by the FDA and, therefore, it is not known how much of the active ingredient each product contains. Hence, many of the products sold in health food stores and elsewhere may not have enough of the active ingredient to prevent bacteria from sticking to the bladder wall. The typical dose of cranberry extract is 400 mg once daily.
Can anything else be done to help prevent UTIs? The following steps may help: Drink plenty of fluids. Do not postpone going to the bathroom. Urinate when you feel the urge. Wipe from front to back to prevent bacteria from the bowels (intestines) from getting into the urinary tract. Wash the genital area every day and before having sex. Empty your bladder before and after having sex.
Most infections clear up with treatment. However, if an infection does not resolve itself, or if you have repeated infections, you may be given a special test such as an ultrasound to check for abnormalities. Besides antibiotic resistance, why not use an antibiotic that has been shown to work in UTIs? On May 12, 2016, the FDA announced it is requiring a stronger warning on package inserts for common, popular antibiotics called fluoroquinolones – such as Levaquin® (levofloxacin), Cipro® (ciprofloxacin) and Avelox® (moxifloxacin) — medications taken by more than 26 million Americans each year. The FDA advises that the serious side effects associated with these antibiotics – such as permanent nerve damage, tendon damage and deterioration of the aorta – generally outweigh the benefits for patients with sinusitis, bronchitis, and uncomplicated UTIs who have other treatment options. The bottom line is that cranberry appears to be a safe, herbal choice for UTI prophylaxis and has relatively good tolerability.
Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Visit him at www.rx-press.com.
While America slept, a casual attitude took root in the land. America's Republican Form of Government came under attack. Too few of her citizens and statesmen could rouse themselves from slumber to defend the Republic's ramparts. In 1913, the Sovereign States without forethought divested themselves of the rights, powers, and ability to effectively exert influence over the Federal Government. They accomplished this “feat” by ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment. In so doing, state legislatures transferred the choosing of U.S. Senators to voters at large. Senators so chosen were no longer beholden to or accountable to the interests of their state, but they were demonstrably incentivized to buy the affection of special interests at the expense of the public purse. This adjustment notably destroyed an essential element of federalism as conceived by the Constitution's Framers.
Today we find our indirect method of presidential election under attack—amazingly, by these same forces of ideological progressivism. Let me set the scene. President-elect Donald J. Trump prospectively won 306 electoral votes by carrying popular-vote pluralities in 30 states on 8 November 2016. Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton prospectively won 232 electoral votes by carrying popular-vote pluralities in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson finished third with no electoral votes. Green Party candidate Jill Stein finished fourth in popular votes in most states (usually with around 1% of the vote), and prospectively won no electoral votes.
By Constitutional prescription and statute electors (of the Electoral College) will meet in their respective states to cast votes for President and Vice-President on 19 December. In January of the year following, the U.S. Senate will open and tally the votes for both offices. Assuming there will be no deluge of faithless electors casting votes, Donald Trump will be declared America's 45th President. The process is very straightforward. All presidential candidates predicated their campaigns on the basis of essentially the same process which has been in operation since 1788.
Yet, there now comes an outcry from people who foolishly assert that this system is outdated and needs to be replaced by a system called “National Popular Vote (NPV).” The genesis of their outrage at the present Electoral College System is that candidate Clinton received a greater number of popular votes (amassed almost entirely in California) than each of the other candidates. Proponents of an entirely popular-vote system assert that that method is democratic, and should be the basis for election of president in the future. Those same proponents note that this is the fifth time in the Republic's history that a president will have been elected without having won a plurality of the national popular vote.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), long an opponent of the Constitution's Electoral College, has recently introduced a Constitutional amendment with the object being to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a popular election system. Said she (as quoted in the “L.A. Times”), “In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."
Opponents of Boxer's constitutional amendment promptly declared it DOA (Dead On Arrival) and said there appears to be absolutely no chance of passage. The constitutional amendment process requires two-thirds approval in each house of Congress, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states over a seven-year period. Yes, indeedy, it does appear that her amendment is on a fast track to nowhere since Republicans are in firm control of Congress, and shortly will have the presidency too. Beside that, more than half the states are run from top to bottom by Republicans. It would seem that Republicans have no incentive to abolish a system which has worked well for them thus far. And one would think that they have the common sense to stand pat on the tried-and-true Electoral College.
Time to relax and go back to sleep? Not on your life! That's just what progressive politicians are hoping for. Progressives have one agenda, and it is to “progress” away from the Constitution. Progressives are masters of strategies of “incrementalism.” Even now, their incremental strategy is eating away at our Republican Form of Government! Progressives hold out a shiny object for opponents to focus upon, then—like a magician—use the opposite hand to pull the stealthy tricks the general public never saw coming. Progressive politicians of both parties hope that constitutionalists will remain focused on Boxer's full frontal assault—a feint designed to distract.
So what are the fast tricks the public doesn't see coming? The progressives are running three scams simultaneously. Never forget that for a progressive, the end always justifies the means. Anything and everything can and is being used to obtain the Statists' dream: unlimited power—with concentration and consolidation in the hands of their cabal.
SCAM #1
Jill Stein is acting as “front man” in demanding hand-recounts of election results in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Stein finished fourth in the voting in all three states, so she has absolutely no stake in how the recounts turn out; she has absolutely no chance of winning in any of the three—or in any of the other 47 states for that matter. Wisconsin and Michigan have already agreed to candidate Stein's request. As of the date this column is being written it appears that Mrs. Stein has missed the filing deadline for a recount in Pennsylvania, and a statewide recount is highly problematic. Mrs. Stein asserts that recounts are needed to verify integrity of the electoral system, though she and her team have no proof of any voting irregularities or fraud. Odd though; if election integrity is in question, one would have thought that Mrs. Stein would have been a proponent of Voter ID laws. Also, since substantive voter integrity measures can only be applied on Election Day itself, one would have thought her supporters would have already taken those measures and turned over their evidence to Department of State authorities. It's also weird that Mrs. Stein isn't the least concerned about election integrity in New Hampshire, Virginia, or California—all states won by Mrs. Clinton. Anecdotal evidence suggests Mrs. Stein would have more irregularities uncovered in those states, and she'd achieve the very same outcome: a fourth-place finish in each state's popular vote tally.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton and her team have thrown their support behind Mrs. Stein's recount demands, even though during the election campaign Mrs. Clinton publicly and repeatedly berated Mr. Trump for verbalizing the thought that he would reserve judgment on election results until he saw how they turned out. Clinton claimed in both a debate, as well as on the campaign trail that she would abide by the election results, even asserting that any other course would be catastrophic. Perhaps the kettle is now calling the pot black, no?
Funny thing—Michigan's Secretary of State said government employees would have to work night and day, including weekends, and with overtime pay to complete the hand-recount of some four million-plus ballots before the appointed date for recount certification. She added that no candidate receiving only one percent of the vote—and having no chance to win the election—had ever done this before. Michigan law had never even contemplated such an absurdity. But that's okay; Mrs. Stein was only required to pay $900,000 for the hand-recount. Michigan taxpayers, on the other hand, are on the hook for an estimated $4 million bill. Incidentally, no candidate in Michigan history has ever had such a large margin to overcome to win a recount. And that's not just Jill Stein's pathetic finish behind Trump; Hillary Clinton's deficit totals 10,704 votes.
So here's the deal. As long as presidential election recounts are ongoing, candidates Stein and Clinton can and will provide daily fodder to the FNNs (Fake News Networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) who were all-in on trying to defeat candidate Trump. Their “News coverage,” alongside that of “The New York Times” and “Washington Post,” will concoct a false narrative to keep left-wing snowflakes agitated, marching, protesting, and hopeful that Trump's election can still be overturned. False hopes all; Stein would have to overturn certified election results in all three states for Clinton to have a chance for victory. But it certainly can help to keep the country from uniting behind the President-elect. Nothing like keeping the population roiling and divided—and that is exactly the “m.o.” (modus operandi) of these Progressives.
Second, there seems to be some hope in progressive circles that if Trump can be deprived of the electoral votes of Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), and Pennsylvania (20), Trump would be left with 260 votes, 10 short of the 270 required for election. Intuition informs me that all three states would move heaven and earth to certify recounts before deadline to ensure their electoral votes are counted. And even if any two states were unable to cast their electoral votes and transmit them to the U.S. Senate, the votes of the one remaining would be sufficient to ensure President-elect Trump's election with at least 270 votes. That brings us to the Progressives' second scam.
SCAM #2
Voter Intimidation. Yes, that's it! Clinton supporters now consider it a legitimate strategy to intimidate electors pledged to vote for President-elect Trump. Individual electors pledged to vote for Mr. Trump are being besieged by emails, letters, phone calls, and other messages, requesting/demanding they vote “their conscience,” i.e., for Hillary Clinton. In some cases electors are being threatened with bodily harm, or harm to loved ones, reputations, employability, or property. In other cases, blackmail is the purported technique of choice. Every person still drawing breath has something embarrassing or of which one is not proud. That blackmailers would take advantage of such things in an attempt to influence electors' votes is nothing short of despicable. It may be even more.
To what extent is this voter intimidation illegal? Consider this elucidation by Hans von Spakovsky writing for “Conservative Review.” “Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to 'intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.' While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. Electors who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b since the Electoral College is an essential part of the federal voting process. This is supported by Section 14(c) of the VRA, which says that 'voting' includes 'all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.' Obviously, the votes cast by Americans on Nov. 8 will not be effective if the electors they chose are intimidated from casting their votes in the Electoral College.” Where is U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to speak out on this? And when might the MIA AG Lynch open investigations into voter suppression of electors?.. . Crickets.
Additionally, in some 29 states, it is illegal for an elector to vote for a candidate other than the one to whom pledged. “Faithless electors” can actually be fined and prosecuted in those 29 states. Yet, supporters of candidate Clinton are offering to pay the fines of Trump electors who faithlessly vote for Clinton rather than Trump. Perhaps these offers should be viewed as bribes, or at the very least as enticements to commit a crime. Hopefully, electors offered bribes or enticements will notify their state's attorney general to open investigations, as appropriate.
Scam #3
The most dangerous scam being pulled is the one currently going on quietly behind the curtains. While everyone in the news media and virtually all national politicians agree that there is virtually no chance of abolishing the Electoral College by constitutional amendment, enemies of the Electoral College are masters of subversion. The Constitution specifies that each state is empowered to decide for itself how to award its electoral votes. The states of Maine and Nebraska, for instance, award their electoral votes on the basis of congressional district as well as statewide vote totals. Their systems are eminently within the bounds of constitutional authority, and other states could well consider their example.
But, progressives have dreamt up an entirely different scheme which keeps the electoral college in form, while defeating its purpose and the intent which infused its creation. Eleven states have already bought into the scheme, and proponents continue to work feverishly in states that have yet to sign on to a sub-confederation of states. The scheme is known as the National Popular Vote (NPV). It's aim is to form a collaborative agreement among sufficient states—possessing 270 electoral votes—to award all electoral votes (of the member states) to the winner of the combined total of votes of the 50 states and District of Columbia, REGARDLESS of how the voters of any individual state in the sub-confederation voted.
Essentially, this scheme repudiates the importance of one's state of residence; instead every vote in America carries equal weight. The presidential election would effectively be transformed from 51 separate and individual elections, to 51 separate but conjoined elections, the result of which is heavily impacted by voter turnout in the most densely populated cities of America. So far ten states—Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington—and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have signed on to NPV.
No matter what proponents of this scheme say, it is a mischief-making proposition which could have unintended, even catastrophic, consequences. Just take the 2000 presidential election for example. Candidate Al Gore finished approximately 550, 000 votes ahead of candidate George W. Bush at the time. Gore's lead was run up by his vote total in California. But, suppose that Bush had challenged the result because he believed there had been massive voter fraud—all across America. And suppose that both candidates had run entirely different campaigns, as they surely would have if the NPV rules had been in effect, and the end result was a difference of only 537 votes—spread across America, instead of in just one state (Florida). The search for votes would have spurred a nationwide recount.
The beauty of the electoral college is that it quarantines electoral problems as they occur in specific jurisdictions. National Popular Vote erases that protection. How many days did it take to sort out three counties in south Florida in 2000? Imagine the magnification of that problem if the search for votes had been extended from three counties to more than 9000 precincts in 3041 counties. NPV is much like operating a ship without watertight compartmentation in the North Atlantic. Should the ship hit an iceberg or experience any leak, the problem cannot be isolated; the entire ship is at grave risk of sinking.
One of the many other problems with National Popular Vote is that densely populated states with very weak election laws unduly put at risk the entire electoral process. Just as an example, think about the voter rolls of Chicago. Chicago's reputation for clean elections might be somewhat suspect. But at least under our present electoral college system, the problem is confined to Illinois, and Cook County is understood to be the focus of the problem. Under NPV, if one party ran up the vote by illicit means the election totals would have broad implications for the national vote total—and change the outcome.
One might notice that the 10 states and district that have already signed on to NPV are run by Democratic office-holders and vote reliably Democratic in presidential elections. Nevertheless, the movement is bipartisan in nature, and progressive Republicans—most notably, Newt Gingrich—have lined up to support the idea. Even Donald Trump until better-informed on 14 November 2016, a day after his “60 Minutes” interview supported the idea of presidential election by popular vote. The National Popular Vote's website still carries Trump's endorsement and interview transcript, without noting his present repudiation of the idea.
Consider this: if NPV backers are able to push their scheme through as few as four more states—say Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida—a sub-confederation of only 14 states and the District of Columbia could hold the trump card (pun intended) in 2020's presidential election. The NPV’s view of American equality is purely majoritarian: every citizen's vote is equal to every other citizen's vote; the winner of the presidential popular vote, no matter how small his or her numerical margin, would be elected.
The Constitution's system of presidential election is much more complex. It includes some measure of equality, but it recognizes the existence and desirability of organized interests and desirability of and for pluralism. It recognizes America as a union composed of multi-ethnic backgrounds and an amalgam of varied experiences and outlooks. To win the presidency, the successful candidate must rise above regionalism to represent a broad cross-section of the population.
The National Popular Vote campaign is currently getting a second look by many people dissatisfied with the 2016 presidential election outcome. Every Pennsylvanian should be concerned that NPV would empower New York and California to dominate presidential politics. Under NPV presidential candidates would spend virtually all of their time in the top 20 metropolitan areas. There would belittle incentive to campaign in “fly-over” America; too little bang for the buck as far as votes would be concerned.
The ideas for fixing our electoral college system are solutions in search of a problem that does not exist. Vote integrity is the real problem with American elections. To “true the vote” would require (1) voter ID for every voter casting a vote; (2) live voters prove citizenship at time of registration; (3) noncitizens, non-residents, and non-eligible voters removed from voter rolls; (4) dead voters prohibited from voting; (5) live voters permitted to vote only once; (6) prosecution of voter fraud raised to a high level of priority by District Attorneys; and (7) severe penalties, including jail time, for those participating in vote fraud. True voter rolls, true voters, and true votes that express the will of only eligible, registered votes—what a concept. Perhaps, that's what Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton should focus on for real election integrity!
(And while we're at it, perhaps all states could get back to holding Election Day in person on the same day, with no early-voting, no same-day voter registration, and tightened restrictions on absentee voting.)
National polls and state polls consistently show 70 to 80 percent approval for abolition of the Electoral College, and replacement by a popular vote system. Yet most individuals polled have no understanding of the consequences of such a change. Now, you do! Don't fall for the siren song of “democracy”; America is a Republic. The American System is NOT pure majoritarianism; it's just the best system ever devised by mortals. But don't take my word for it; do your own research; the information's out there.
