Friday, March 13, 2009

Oregon’s House Democrats Outlaw Presidential Elections




I received a press release from Speaker of the Oregon House Dave Hunt.

In it, he expresses glee at ending the election’s process in Oregon for the next presidential contest.

“There was a time perhaps when an electoral college made sense. But in today’s world, we should be looking at ways to break down barriers between people and their government, not just blindly follow traditions that really don’t make sense in today’s world.”

Since I began blogging a coupla years ago, it has been with an eye and an ear toward making sure that those of us who disagree with the Elite have a voice. I don’t know of any state with a greater disconnect between its urban and rural citizens than Oregon. Oregon is held in thrall of its Leftist metropolitan denizens as it seeks to free up/unfreeze resource use and development. There have been several acts by our state government that have exacerbated that division. The big one, passed some 36 years ago, was SB 100 that established central land use planning for all governments in Oregon.

Fear and distrust of rural citizens in this state have continued apace. This bill, House Bill 2588 is the greatest slap in the face of individual liberty, dignity and trust that has ever existed. Period. Democrats have reduced presidential campaigning into a moot point. It won’t matter that your candidate deserves our electoral votes. Regardless of the outcome of the vote in this state.

The corrupt Democrats of Oregon have spoken. Oh, and there are some Republicans that need to have their heads cracked.

Republicans are supposed to believe that the individual has rights. We can accept the collectivist approach preferred by Democrats when advanced by Democrats. But a diminution of individual rights through collective action as endorsed by a Republican is beyond the ken. The sanctity of the individual has been breached by the following House Republicans:

State Representative Tim Freeman.

State Representative Vicki Berger.

State Representative Scott Bruun. (More on Bruun later. He hopes to be our next Governor. Sorry Scott. Won’t happen. And this won’t help you, either.)

State Representative Bill Garrard.

State Representative Greg Smith.

State Representative Jim Thompson.

These “Republicans” are those who co-sponsored this legislation and voted to pass this legislation.

If the job of the electors of the state of Oregon is to elect limp-weasels like this then our job is harder. Our elected representatives’ job is to protect the rights of those they represent. And not just the “stakeholders” of their district. Some rights exist outside the parochial boundaries of your legislative district. As a citizen of Oregon I am a “stakeholder” in all and anything I choose to be a “stakeholder” in. At times, a vote by a state representative is greater than his district. He is voting for the entire state.

It only becomes an issue when limp-weasel Republicans forget that all Oregonians have a right to have their vote recorded as indicated by the results of their election. Not an election in any other state. The results of this state.

The sad truth is, is that these “Republicans” fail to represent rural Oregon. And worse, they fail to represent all of Oregon.

Rather than defending the value of your vote—of your citizenship—they are willing to let large, metropolitan states determine who your next President will be. They will be the stakeholders. You will no longer have a stake in the election process.

Bastards.

I cannot begin to tell you the level of disappointment I have in these “Republicans.” If there is any caucus discipline left, I hope that Representative Hanna whips some of these “too clever by half” morons.

He still has two-thirds of the caucus. You reward the two-thirds that breathe, walk and chew gum.

You whip the retards.

11 comments:

DANEgerus said...

It's an interesting exercise in self abuse. The electoral college is Federally defined, so what exactly do they think they are doinig except pissing into the wind? Additionally, schemes to alter the electors' choices, especially for a 'blue' state like Oregon, ultimately provide more scenerios for an advantage to the minority Republicans then for the authoritarian Democrats.

But the bill certainly exposes the authoritarian leanings, and short-sighted arrogance, of the Democrat party.

OregonGuy said...

Dane--

Thanks for the comment.

The Constitution allows us to choose the method for selecting our Electors. And this National Popular Vote Legislation has been bassed in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey. The goal is not to amend the constitution, but it's more like "Constitution-Lite."

As soon as "enough" states (equaling 270 electoral votes) pass this legislation, their thinking is that the popular vote will de facto elect the next President. Will this require Constitutional muster? No.

That Republicans turn their backs on the votes of our state's citizens is the creepiest part. Again, the idea of a collectivist seeking collective action is an expected outcome.

But it gets pretty hard to point out the differences in how human value is measured by the parties when a third of Oregon's House Republicans turn their backs on the voices of its citizens.
.

Uncle Walt said...

Seems to me that it violates the Constitution ... on the "equal protection" clause, IMO.

What it does, is give citizens in states that don't have similiar legislation TWO votes in the presidential election. ONE in their home state, and A SECOND in states with this legislation. If I were a resident of Oregon, I'd damn sure file a lawsuit against the state for giving my vote the same weight as a resident of (say) North Dakota, in determining Oregon's electoral votes.

ALSO - because it counts the votes of citizens in other states, it gives them "standing" to file suit in Oregon regarding Presidential elections.

OregonGuy said...

There is a question whether or not this would violate Green. What we don't know is whether or not the 9th Circuit would find a failure.

I can do the math, and know that even given the prior considerations of the measure, that Oregonians could be disenfranchised because of this bill. The problem is, there is no harm until the bill's effects take place. What I hate about stupid Republicans is, that they don't ever seem to take the moment to think things through.

In the event, they are no worse than Democrats.

Hang 'em all, sez me.
.

Lc Scott said...

Hanging is to good for these republicans, now dragging them behind a herd of wild boars might do the job.

I have to say that I am surprised at Vicky Berger

MAX Redline said...

Wrong. Dragging them behind a herd of wild boars is a silly concept, and reflects an overall lack of understanding of piggish behavior. There are better means of dealing with the problem.

MAX Redline said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Uncle Walt said...

Ahh ... for the good ol' days.

When you could tar and feather a politician, then run them out of town on a rail.

Brian B said...

You know, there was a time when I would have said that even TALKING about revolution -- and I mean real revolution, not just a major swing of the political pendulum -- was rash, reactionist, and "fringe". But even *I* am getting to the point where I don't think it's crazy to mention the word.

Bob said...

I'm not sure when "the culture war" is going to go hot, but I'm ready.

Uncle Walt said...

I emailed my Washington state representatives, urging them to oppose any such legislation in my state. Here's the reply I received from Rep Hatfield, and my reply back...

Perhaps I can explain why others "fail to understand" the arguments you
put forth.

The Electoral College is NOT about a "level playing field" or
"uniformity". It never was. Nor was it ever about the popular vote.
I refer you to the Federalist Papers on the subject. In them, you will
discover it was about putting a "check and balance" on the popular
vote. Basically, it was intended to prevent an unqualified, but
charismatic, candidate from attaining office. Unfortunately, the
Founders left the method of setting up the Electoral College to each
state. Which, btw, is further proof that it was never intended to be
about a "level playing field" nor "uniformity".

If the Founders had intended it to be about "uniformity", they would
have set the Electoral College up as a federal standard ... rather than
leaving it up to each individual state how to run it.

If they had intended it to be about a "level playing field", they
wouldn't have created it in the first place ... and left elections up
to the popular vote.



Quoting "Hatfield, Sen. Brian"
> The electoral college has already been change by Maine and Nebraska, which
> proportion by Congressional district. Because those states are small, few
> people are aware of the "unlevel playing field" that is being created. If
> California proportioned by Congressional district, we'd NEVER elect another
> Democrat President. If Texas did it, the same could be said for
> Republicans. It's not about "taking away Washington's voice." It's
> about uniformity. If I
> could vote to force Maine and Nebraska to go back to the old way, or
> force ALL
> 50 STATES to proportion by Congressional district, I would.
> Unfortunately, we
> can't do that so the National Popular Vote compact is the only way we
> can get to
> uniformity and a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. Frankly, I can't understand why others
> can't understand this argument.
>
> -BH