So this morning something happened that was a pretty big deal. I was given the Melchizedek Priesthood. This gives me the authority to perform certain ordinances. I have the authority to baptize people into our church. I can give blessings to individuals- the ordinance involves laying my hands on their head and communicating with God- asking him to bestow a particular blessing on the individual.
I'm really excited to have this power- but what is important to understand is that authority only comes through humility and submission to God. All of the power comes through Him and not through me. If anything, this authority gives me the responsibility to act as His servant and His tool. I hope I'm given the opportunity to weild it to help His children.
I want to speak about something that has been very important to me in the past few months. Its a very special belief in my religion, and that is the belief that it is possible for all of God's children to actually become like Him. Our doctrine is slightly vague on this concept but I interpret it as being my opportunity to act as our Father in Heaven does someday and weild the same power that he does.
To some of you that may sound quite outlandish- let me help you understand. One of the consistent traits of fathership throughout humanity is the father's hope for his child to succeed in life. If the father fills his role, it is usually the child's hope to someday become like his or her father. I like to think that our Father in Heaven greatly wants us to succeed and wants us to progress and match Him in power. This is doctrine that can be found in a teaching that we call the Oath and the Covenant- if we use our authority worthily and act as a servant of the Lord then we will have all the Father hath- this can be found in Doctrine and Covenants section 84 verses 33-44 if you want to read it for yourself.
The reason I bring this up is because receiving and living worthily to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood is one step in eventually becoming like my Father in Heaven. God uses the Melchizedek Priesthood to do all that He does. I can only hope to do His work with this new mandate.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Election Without Representation
A ridiculous system of presidential election has run rampant in our country nearly from the day of its inception. It thwarts the will of the majority in an election that is decided by electors and not the American people themselves. How can the United States of America claim to be an example of democracy to the international community if its most important election is lacking fundamental representation? It can’t. In our system of democracy, in terms of electing the highest office in the land, the majority should rule and every vote should be counted as equal. Our Electoral College system of election is outdated and does not serve our country’s needs for adequate representation and needs to be abolished. We need a bipartisan movement to put in place a direct election for president.
Our country’s Declaration of Independence claims very clearly that all men are created equal- yet when voting for president this is very far from the truth. Because of the Electoral College, votes in a small state like Wyoming count for much more than those in a populous state like California. In California, there are approximately 645,455 voters per electoral vote compared to only 166, 666 voters per electoral vote in Wyoming. Because our current system promises at least three electoral votes to all states, Wyoming, with a population of 500,000, is overrepresented in our electorate, with the larger states having less say on who is president of their country. In a direct election for the presidency, a vote in Sacramento would count exactly the same as a vote in Cheyenne.
The Electoral College distorts the campaigning of presidential-hopefuls. Because the majority of states in the USA consistently lean either Republican or Democrat election after election, presidential candidates focus solely on the swing states. Renowned New York Times reporter James Booker said on the matter, “We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers.” Candidates focus all of their time, money, and promises on a select few states instead of addressing nationwide concerns. If a direct election were held, the entire electorate would be much more educated and exposed to each candidate and in turn each candidate would be much clearer on his or her policies and promises to the entire nation because the candidates would have to cater to the nation as a whole- not just to the small portion of citizens residing in the swing states. This is because they wouldn’t be pandering to just a handful of the small swings states to gain the “swing vote.”
Under the Electoral College it is possible for candidates to win the election without having the majority vote. A total of 18 elections have ended that way; this means that a total of 1/3 of all of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the vote in the USA (Dahl). How is this democracy? The whole point of a vote is that the public opinion and ideology will be implemented in government through a representative president. This was especially the case in the election of 2000. With such a slim margin of electoral votes between the two candidates, the election was decided by a court case! That is a true testament of how broken the Electoral College system is. When the minority of the population gets the choice in the matter it is not beneficial to the concept of democracy. In the recent 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 365 electoral votes while Republican John McCain gained only 173. The fact is, however, that Obama didn’t receive over two times the amount of votes from McCain. Obama received 53% of and McCain received 46% of votes from citizens (CNN). The Electoral College skews the results and does not directly reflect the public opinion.
The rules of the Electoral College are set-up to possibly cause a great deal of trouble. Firstly, the electors that are elected in the general election are not bound to the candidate they represent. They are expected to represent the vote of the people but they aren’t bound to by law. Any elector could possibly go against the will of people and cast their vote for whomever they want (Dahl). There should be no electors in the first place, they serve no purpose. Instead, all votes should just go directly to the candidate. Secondly, the electoral votes are set up so that it is possible to have a tie. In this case the vote goes to the Congress and each state gets one vote (Booker). This would widen the gap of public opinion even further: one vote for California which has 35.5 million residents and one vote for Wyoming with 500,000 residents. What a large gap of representation!
People will try to make the case that there are many advantages to the Electoral College. It is said that because of this system, not as much money needs to be spent. Because the candidates only have to focus on the swing states that they have to focus less on gaining money or if they decided to take public financing, the public is able to supply less money to candidates to run their campaigns because they have such a small area to focus on. Another case is that there is less chance for corruption- so much focus and attention is on a smaller area because of the way the system works that it would be harder of candidates to win by nefarious means.
While there is some merit to these advantages, the disadvantages greatly outweigh them. Candidates already use a great deal of their resources and time fundraising; they wouldn’t have much more time to spare to raise money if the election was direct. A direct election would also give voice to the minorities of each state and put out a proportional vote where every ballot was counted toward one candidate or the other instead of the majoritarian, winner-take-all formula.
We need to abolish the Electoral College as soon as possible and replace it with a direct election. We need the people to vote for president- instead of voting for unnecessary electors that just complicate the system. So many votes carry no value because of the winner-take-all scheme that excludes third party candidates. In some states votes count for much more than the votes in others- this is completely unfair in a supposed democratic system. It’s time that the people’s voices are heard and have the majority decide who is to fill the country’s highest office.
Our country’s Declaration of Independence claims very clearly that all men are created equal- yet when voting for president this is very far from the truth. Because of the Electoral College, votes in a small state like Wyoming count for much more than those in a populous state like California. In California, there are approximately 645,455 voters per electoral vote compared to only 166, 666 voters per electoral vote in Wyoming. Because our current system promises at least three electoral votes to all states, Wyoming, with a population of 500,000, is overrepresented in our electorate, with the larger states having less say on who is president of their country. In a direct election for the presidency, a vote in Sacramento would count exactly the same as a vote in Cheyenne.
The Electoral College distorts the campaigning of presidential-hopefuls. Because the majority of states in the USA consistently lean either Republican or Democrat election after election, presidential candidates focus solely on the swing states. Renowned New York Times reporter James Booker said on the matter, “We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers.” Candidates focus all of their time, money, and promises on a select few states instead of addressing nationwide concerns. If a direct election were held, the entire electorate would be much more educated and exposed to each candidate and in turn each candidate would be much clearer on his or her policies and promises to the entire nation because the candidates would have to cater to the nation as a whole- not just to the small portion of citizens residing in the swing states. This is because they wouldn’t be pandering to just a handful of the small swings states to gain the “swing vote.”
Under the Electoral College it is possible for candidates to win the election without having the majority vote. A total of 18 elections have ended that way; this means that a total of 1/3 of all of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the vote in the USA (Dahl). How is this democracy? The whole point of a vote is that the public opinion and ideology will be implemented in government through a representative president. This was especially the case in the election of 2000. With such a slim margin of electoral votes between the two candidates, the election was decided by a court case! That is a true testament of how broken the Electoral College system is. When the minority of the population gets the choice in the matter it is not beneficial to the concept of democracy. In the recent 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 365 electoral votes while Republican John McCain gained only 173. The fact is, however, that Obama didn’t receive over two times the amount of votes from McCain. Obama received 53% of and McCain received 46% of votes from citizens (CNN). The Electoral College skews the results and does not directly reflect the public opinion.
The rules of the Electoral College are set-up to possibly cause a great deal of trouble. Firstly, the electors that are elected in the general election are not bound to the candidate they represent. They are expected to represent the vote of the people but they aren’t bound to by law. Any elector could possibly go against the will of people and cast their vote for whomever they want (Dahl). There should be no electors in the first place, they serve no purpose. Instead, all votes should just go directly to the candidate. Secondly, the electoral votes are set up so that it is possible to have a tie. In this case the vote goes to the Congress and each state gets one vote (Booker). This would widen the gap of public opinion even further: one vote for California which has 35.5 million residents and one vote for Wyoming with 500,000 residents. What a large gap of representation!
People will try to make the case that there are many advantages to the Electoral College. It is said that because of this system, not as much money needs to be spent. Because the candidates only have to focus on the swing states that they have to focus less on gaining money or if they decided to take public financing, the public is able to supply less money to candidates to run their campaigns because they have such a small area to focus on. Another case is that there is less chance for corruption- so much focus and attention is on a smaller area because of the way the system works that it would be harder of candidates to win by nefarious means.
While there is some merit to these advantages, the disadvantages greatly outweigh them. Candidates already use a great deal of their resources and time fundraising; they wouldn’t have much more time to spare to raise money if the election was direct. A direct election would also give voice to the minorities of each state and put out a proportional vote where every ballot was counted toward one candidate or the other instead of the majoritarian, winner-take-all formula.
We need to abolish the Electoral College as soon as possible and replace it with a direct election. We need the people to vote for president- instead of voting for unnecessary electors that just complicate the system. So many votes carry no value because of the winner-take-all scheme that excludes third party candidates. In some states votes count for much more than the votes in others- this is completely unfair in a supposed democratic system. It’s time that the people’s voices are heard and have the majority decide who is to fill the country’s highest office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
