Essay arguing for the continuation of the Electoral College. I wrote this for my Writing Class.

Article II, Section 2 States; “Each State shall appoint,…,a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the congress… The electors shall meet… and vote by ballot for two persons… The person with the greatest number of votes shall be president… after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be vice president” (Smith & Barnes 43-44). Otherwise known as the Constitution this document sets up the basis for the Electoral College which most Americans are familiar with, if ever having voted for president. Article II summed up declares every state receives so many votes determined by the equation; two senators plus “x” amount of House Representatives. Votes of the people of each state are tallied up and the presidential nominee whom wins will be voted for by all electors, who were elected by that parties assembly to ensure their vote is in line with the winning party, in that state; a not so difficult task that has been played out by advocates against the electoral college as a complicated process that the mass of the population dislikes. However, is it really all that bad for America and what really are the true arguments against the Electoral College that demonstrators don’t want the public to know about? The Electoral College must be kept, alas; since it is already implemented supporters do not feel obligated to protest for the continuation of this important institution. Given that this is the case it must be discussed what the founding fathers were contemplating when they created a system that had never been tried and tested, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College, and the arguments to keep as well as the arguments to eliminate it. Through reason it is hoped that that people will be able to see how much the Electoral College is truly needed in the American political system and how without it our nation “is one nation gone under” (Ronald Reagan).

American Politics began after the signing of the Declaration of Independence soon after which the revolution ended and the hard work for the framers began; to create a form of Government as dissimilar as possible Britain’s while ensuring the freedom of the individual and the power of a State. Initially the Articles of Confederation were written and voted on but it was seen as inefficient for a central government to operate, the articles created states as basically separate Nations, and the only way to enact the articles was for a 13 out of 13 vote for; if any state abstained or voted against the articles they would fail. After more conferences and many compromises later the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were created to secure individual freedoms and create a strong Federal government with strong separate state working underneath; the Federal Republic was thus created. Concerning the president the reason for such a week initial plan was the people did not want another King; the reason they had just succeeded from Great Britain. The Federal government however did not want a week leader or group that would be inefficient dealing with other nations, crises, and local problems. The framers such as Gerry, Sherman, Pickney, and Mason saw “the people [as] uninformed and would be misled by a few designing men” (Peirce 42) and new they could not be trusted in governing a nation. “Three major proposals for electing the President were debated…: election by congress, election by a direct vote of the people throughout the nation or election by intermediate electors” (Peirce 39), since the direct vote option was ruled out and the colonies did not want an appointment through just congressmen the only option to ensure that a democracy would not take hold and destroy the nation was to create voting representation for the House as well as for the president. Voters could now vote for a representative to either cast their vote in congress or cast the vote on behalf of the will of the people on the president. No such proposal had ever been enacted before in any democracy let alone any republic.

The problem with such a new system in government is the possibility of flaws. When initially created the Electoral College required each member to cast two votes; one for President and one for Vice President. The goal was to have two members of the executive voted in by the people and for the people. Another hope was the Vice President would be a bonus to the nation and help the president in crisis situations or just solve every day American problems. However, the reality of the situation proved otherwise. Even if the president was elected in as a promising member of the government odds were the Vice President was elected in to be a thorn in the Presidents rear end because many times it was an opposite party presidential candidate. Imagine John Kerry being George W. Bush’s VP or perhaps even Ross Perot as Clintons VP? As one can imagine nothing would get done. The other reality was the president and the vice president would generally be elected under a corrupt deal. The election of 1824 was just such a case. “…the election was narrowed down to 4 men: John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, William Crawford, and Andrew Jackson” (Peirce 82) with all four very qualified and known in their areas very well for their accomplishments. After the election and the votes were counted Jackson had a decisive lead of ninety-nine electoral votes over Adams eighty-four but since neither obtained the amount needed to win, the vote went to the floor of the House. Clay, who had no chance, despised Jackson and pledged his voters, in congress, would go to Adams in exchange to become secretary of Defense. Therefore, Adams pulled out the leader despite initially losing the electoral vote as well as the majority vote (pierce 84-86). All fun and games in a government that once believed party politics would tear it apart.

Despite the flaws in such a unique system there are good reasons for such a plan. A main rationale for the Electoral College is to outweigh the ignorance of the electorate. At the time of the creation of the constitution few people had little education and a vast majority did not even go to school. America’s governing body feared the uneducated for “Our Founding Fathers, who are cited so frequently and appropriately on this floor, believed deeply that a successful democracy and a viable democracy require an educated and engaged citizenry” (Bill Frist). Today one may argue all of America is educated therefore the Electoral College is outdated. On the contrary, in today’s society with boundless information available at each individuals finger tips ignorance has increased. Few people pay attention to politics; as can be seen in the less then 40% voter turnout. Even for the individuals that do vote few can even explain who they really are voting for. So in other words ignorance has increased since the signing of the Constitution. Another reason for the Electoral College is to better represent the citizenry. Advocates against the Electoral College argue the citizen’s vote is not heard and is worthless and a direct voting system would work better. The opposite is true in that with a popular voting system each vote counts as 1/300,000,000 if everyone were to vote. In the Electoral College each vote can count 1/689,655; give or take a few thousand based on population. Since not everyone does vote this figure is far lower, so if only 40% voted then only 120,000,000 people would vote, so each electorate represents 275,862 votes. To break it down even further the people who are most likely to vote are elderly(in many cultures wiser) citizens, with higher education (what the founding father wanted), and rural (the men and women Jefferson thought our nation should function around) in other words the minorities of the nation. The individuals who do not vote are simply the opposite. Therefore the election can be as balanced as possible rather then skewed; elderly citizens can have equal representation with the younger generation, higher educated citizens then have a larger voice in a society that demands knowledge of politics, and the rural population that is so much a large force in America yet few people even acknowledge their existence or well being now have larger roles.

Being that the Electoral College system was created over 200 years ago and is now the oldest living constitution in the world, never to have its original wording changed (although interpretations have changed vastly) so can this document still be trusted? The arguments against the system include: it does not represent the will of the people, a more accurate vote counting system is in place today then there was in the 1700’s, and the electoral college promotes a two party system. A prime example inaccurate representation from the College was the election of 1860 for Abraham Lincoln; “Stephen Douglas was second in popular votes, he was fourth in the electoral college in this contest” (Longley 131). A recent example is George W. Bush’s presidential victory in which he lost the popular vote, but won in the Electoral College. People who use this argument feel cheated because their candidate had the majority individual votes, but did not win. Therefore, according to this system the democracy has failed. This is true, the democracy has failed. The democracy that so many Americans believe in has been bombarded by politics and is in a decaying and crumbling state with no hope for recovery (unless politician b is elected). The problem with this assumption is there would need to be a democracy at one point or another in American History for it to fail at all; therefore the assumption of a failed democracy is a good thing. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, and Bill of Rights never once have the word “democracy” (Peirce, Longley, Farrand, Barnes, and Internet 1-?). America was founded as a republic so a system of representation shows a perfectly functioning system. Arguing against the system of the Electoral College is like arguing against the Congress based on how their representation works. Freedom Factor by Gerald Lund depicts a future in which the representation of America was completely wiped out. A Senators aid was trying to push a new amendment that would entitle citizens to vote congressional members out of office at any moment and any time for any reason. This would create a democratic system where the elected officials could do nothing but throw money at the citizens to keep their job putting the nation in a bankrupt state and divided state. Such a policy would eliminate the foundation of a representative legislature and eroding away the Electoral College would be the next step. Democracies in the past, such as Greece, have failed once the masses discover they can vote to give themselves money or free public projects. Another example was of the German democracy that elected Hitler. Democracy on paper and in real use is one of the worst forms of government because it puts the well being of the nation in the hands of the uneducated and ignorant as previously discussed. Technology has grown so much since the constitution that today millions of votes can be counted overnight. If electronically cast, the votes can be counted and tallied up the very second the voting is over. In today’s elections the margin of error between candidates could be merely a few hundred and human error in casting ballots or hackers on e-voting machines can happen any time and in Florida has been shown to happen. This means that there will be even more hotly contested battles across the nation. For instead of one state having a problem the entire nation will be under pressure to make sure every vote is counted. The president that is known throughout the world today was directly shaped because of the way the president was chosen for the position; “…on the assumption that a satisfactory method of electing the president had been discovered, the committee further recommended that the president now be given power… to make treaties, and to nominate and appoint ambassadors and judges to the supreme court… “(Farrand 165).

Of the major arguments against the Electoral College the injustice of a two party system is the most used. Because the Electoral College is a winner takes all system, it promotes a system for only two parties to have a chance. The major question to this is simply; how? How does a winner take all system promote a two party system? If there are three candidates that are all three qualified could there not be a 3 way race, and then in the end one win? The fact is the party’s themselves are why Americans believe there are only two choices (Somewhat hard to prove and perhaps a controversial statement for I am the only one I know to propose it). During election years the common belief is a vote for anyone else besides democrat or republican is throwing away a vote and when choosing between the two it is merely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Another theory is because of the ignorance in America no one knows what the two parties stand for (I can back this up when a Reagan quote was mistaken for a democratic ideology), so why would America want to take the time to figure out one or two more parties and what they stand for. Also the theory of if there really is a better choice why not vote for that choice? When confronted about what would happen if the winner take all system were eliminated and a state could cast its electoral votes more then one way the answered can surely be there would be more choices for president. Would there really be a larger selection? Is there not any party imaginable on the ballot including communists, socialists, Libertarians, Green, Constitutional, and so many more? Why these parties are rarely voted for? The answer is they are too far out of mainstream politics in America they would make poor leaders and perhaps destroy either the American economy or the morals of society (granted Libertarians are ever growing in popularity). If Americans do not already vote for a vast array of candidates then why would a change in voting make a difference? Even if a party could gain ground if they had more money, which generally is the theory that would happen if more attention were paid to them, then that proves the only way to win an election is through propaganda aimed at the ignorant and uneducated thus proving once again the Electoral College is needed to cancel out the easily swayed by propaganda vote.

America has risen to great success in the past 200 years as one of the youngest nations in the world along with the oldest living constitution. There then must be something right with content and the wording of the documents that govern our nation, in fact not one part of the original writings have been changed (except through interpretation within the second). The Electoral College is apart of these documents as well and should the success of the nation not be attributed as much to this as it is the second amendment or the first? The reason for wanting change is clear when the party that supports such a measure has the majority of the population in the nation as a member, and relies on the uneducated poor and most ignorant as their voting base. The fact of the Electoral College is it will allow any presidential candidate in as long as he (or future she) supports the nation as an entire whole. I challenge America next election to disregard the ignorant saying of throwing a vote away and go out and cast your vote for the person you want disregarding parties perhaps even run for office if your ideology is that important. This would mean one would need to be educated in what each presidential candidate stands for and actually thinking about what each person as a voter stands for. Even if one of the original two still win they will need to rethink their campaign strategy in the future to better represent America. This will probably not happen and probably will never happen so until it does the Electoral College is the best option for the United States of America.

Annotated Bibliography

Farrand, Max. “The Framing of the Constitution of the United States.” New Haven and London. Yale University Press. 1913

This book covers the events leading up to what the founding fathers decided to implement into a government and the thought process that the founding fathers were in during the creation. It also gives the exact wording of the documents that America is founded on.

Longley, Lawrence D. & Peirce, Neal R. “Electoral College Primer.” New Haven Conn. Yale University Press c1996

This book dives into the reasons the founding fathers decided to create a electoral college after the revolution and how it was intended to work. Furthermore, it also explains in detail how the Electoral College system works in today’s America. He uses evidence and support from the past as well as from the 1996 election to show the reader what the Electoral College really is and what it means for Americans.

Lund, Gerald M. “Freedom Factor” Desert Book Co. 1987

Nathaniel Gorham, one of the signers of the constitution, shows upas a ghost and takes Bryce Sherwood to a world where the constitution never happened and the form of representations were never enacted. It is a fictional book that depicts a world devoid of the bill of rights and the constitution. The reason for the ghost is to show the Senators aid what would happen if direct representation were implemented in the American Society.

Peirce, Neal R. “The Peoples President: The Electoral college in American History and the direct vote alternative.” New York Simon & Schulster. 1968

Peirce uses this book to explain what the history of the Electoral College has been as well as where he thinks it is heading. The direct vote system is also brought up as a counter example and goes into how this would affect the American Voter. Other issues brought up are the efforts to reform the Electoral College including ones that have passed such as the twelfth amendment and other that have not done so well.

Smith, Edward & Barnes, William. “The Constitution of the United States.” New York, Barnes and Noble. 1972

Smith and Barnes explain the fundamental papers that have shaped this nation from the very beginning. They analyze the “Declaration of Independence” and why it was written, “The Articles of Confederation” and why it failed as a document for an effective government, and the “Bill of Rights” and “Constitution” and how they have lasted throughout the years. The articles themselves are written out for quick and easy access.

 This was writtent to the Denver Post as a reply to a recent article about the Weld County farms being shut off from all well rights, enacted by Boulder.

I am currently working At Miller Farms, a family owned and operated 500 acre farm since 1949, as a Laborer. It is now owned by Joe Miller in the second generation. I am originally from Colorado Springs and work for the Millers every summer since I was 13 and looking for work. Today I am 18 and going off to Indiana for College in August. The farm is located 16 miles east of Longmont on HWY 66. This year has been our scariest, if not toughest, year for the farm. With the wells being taken away by the county of Boulder we no longer are certain how long the farm will last!

A fact of the area is that since I last checked Weld County was the second largest County in the production of Agriculture in the United States! Also ever since Zebulon Pike discovered Pikes Peak, he claimed this area as a Desert and declared no one could or would live here “In regard to this extensive section of country, I do not hesitate, in giving the opinion that it is almost wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course, not inhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence.”! Colorado’s Front Range is now growing at a Dramatic rate while our water reservoirs do not. Colorado Springs, for instance, has reduced the consumption of water per person through their water restraint programs however the usage has gone up because of the number of people moving to the area!

As Americans, we do not see or acknowledge problems in society that do not directly affect us! At farmers markets, where I sell our produce , many people would rather buy form Wall-Mart (and actually utter this under there voice to me)! Americans no longer care about the local farmers because China and Mexico can produce a lesser value product for cheaper! (Take the I-pod for example; it is a lesser quality of sound then a Compact Disc but it is cheaper so Americans take the I-POD). Granted Globalization is a very good force in the world and has brought along a increase in lifestyles for citizens all around the world, if we do not tap into our Agricultural recourse which is what America was founded on we will soon falter in the sense all our food will come from abroad and foreign nations will be able to dictate what food America will receive. Today Americans spend the least amount of money on Food per paycheck then any other nation in the world and have not seen an increase in grocery prices for some time now! However at this current trend I believe we are on the verge of one that no one will like!

I would like to leave off by saying: at one point in Americas History (specifically the late 18^th century) more then 75% of the Population were from rural regions. Today only 2% of Americans live and work in rural areas and that statistic is falling! Everyone has forgotten the American feeling and Dream of what owning Land is like and I do not mean a city back yard but actual acres of your own land!

Sited Sites;

http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/WELD/agriculture.htm, Weld County Colorado, Colorado State. Further citations on bottom of web site.

 Written after the Nov. 2nd Election.

Congratulations the race is now over and the votes are now in! Another successful day in American politics or was it?

Did you vote?

If you did then thank you! I appreciate you making an attempt to vote for the right person! And even if you did vote were you voting because you felt obligated, did you even pay attention to the ideology of the legislature or did you just listen to biased commercials, did you vote strait ticket without even knowing who the hell you voted for, do you believe that a vote for anyone other then Republican or Democrat is throwing away a vote, could it just be the Legislative doesn’t matter in politics and the only thing that counts is president?

Well congratulations if you did not vote because only the president matters, because you are in favor of a King to rule our nation. Believe it or not this was the sole reason America left Britain in the first place; because there was a Parliament but only the king or Prime Minister mattered! We have placed far too much power in the role of the Executive thus creating the state we are in today! If more attention were paid to the legislature the citizens could have more of a voice in the National government thus creating a government for the people by the people not in the manner of the King (president).

Congratulations if you voted because you felt obligated! You in my books threw away your vote! You neither cared what happens to the nation nor do you care how your life is run! I suggest you vote next year for a Socialist party or Communist party so your life can be run for you without thinking!

Congratulations if you voted for a Republican or Democrat because anything else is simply throwing away your vote! You are what created this 2 party system that everyone complains about! Today Lieberman was voted in as an Independent signifying if a 3^rd party has the ideas a community wants they too can come into power. It is the thought that “any other vote is throwing your vote away: that has lead to the new, “Are you going to vote for a Sleazebag or a Lying bag of scum?” If people would actually vote for whom they like based on ideas rather then who they disliked least many more choices would be available and more politicians would have to have a policy nailed down for fear that someone else thought better then they did. There would be no more Flip Flopping Kerrys. Washington (the first president) stated a party system would destroy our nation! Next year Vote for whoever you want!!!! PLEASE maybe next election the state of Indiana or whatever state you are from can make a statement by having the most votes for other candidates ever! By no means do I want our electoral college changed for it’s not the system that’s flawed it’s the individuals inside that are flawed!

Congratulations if you voted strait ticket! You probably voted for someone who you disagree with and later on will complain about how he or she is handling a situation! However the fault should be placed upon your shoulders because you voted them in without knowing who they were! If all people thought for themselves no one would vote strait ticket!

Congratulations if you voted because you heard a commercial, paid for by a biased group, and now base your political “idiotology” solely upon that. These commercials are all mudslinging and taken out of context in every sort of way possible! If you want real evidence on how a candidate votes look at what they worked for in the past and supported in the past!

Congratulations if you did not vote because you have no idea what is going on! I am glad you did not because your vote would not be educated therefore odds are the wrong person would be voted in! However, WHY DO YOU NOT CARE!?

And finally Congrats if you did not vote because your vote doesn’t count! You my friend I will deal with on a separate note!

Thank you for reading and Have a wonderful day Americans!

“Push for Pusch 2024” Presidential elections!

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.

By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

 

       I was driving through Kansas, as so many of my future stories may begin with, and I was listening to my book on tape, which long story short, I finally obtained after wasting $10 of shipping for a cassette I didn’t want only to buy 10 blank Cd’s to burn from the library! Yuck! This book on tape was Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged.” I was pleased with the first book I read by her, “We The Living” and decided delve deeper into her portrayal of what fiscal implications of a communist, socialistic, and liberal ideology have upon a free society.

    I recommend buying the book and if you must the Audio (I usually do not like audio because it is abridged but then Kansas Happened!) for I will not do the book justice if I am to summarize it. Anyways, I will cut to the chase about the piece that caught my attention. In the book I was struck by a comparison of socialization goal; for the halt of change. If this is true then I can correlate the democratic/ socialist party with what the “drive by media” would like to portray the conservative party with; one with unwanted change and unacceptable changes within a society. One now must ask how this is possible for the word conservative itself is one that means to take things slow and use caution and liberal is one of great change and acceptance. I would like to let the reader know that I am one that dislikes words on the basis that for each and every individual it means something different. For example to be Free to a democrat is to have the poor be equal with the rich and to a conservative it means to have the freedom to excel in life with as much effort as one chooses to use. By looking through the words themselves and focusing on the ideas and actions of each party a realization of what socialism actually does to a society can be seen.

    In the book Rand depicts a future that is stricken with a goal of equality and happiness for all. The goal is acknowledged through the bad reputation which money recently obtained. Money in this society is itself a deadly sin! Men and women who work for it or strive for more money and use that as the gauge to their success are shunned for not helping the less deserving others and being greedy. To this world it should be the goal of all men to risk their well being to help the less fortunate and poor. This usually resorts in bankruptcy of the business and individual because in today’s terms it would be seen as economical suicide. Such as in the book a railroad was constructed to lead to no where in Mexico to help the unproductive citizens get around. The railroad was a flop and after the construction Mexico socialized transportation and the railroad was handed over to the State. Cause of concern for any business but to the people this was a great sacrifice for the betterment of society. This business teeters on the brink of bankruptcy throughout the majority of the book but is miraculously saved by Government regulations that hinder competition. Other bankrupt businesses the book depicts has the business owner (charity owner) expecting others to pick them back up with loans/grants of money! This is the Catch-22 of the book; if making money is the greatest evil one who loans money must have earned the money from greed therefore the bankrupt citizen is accepting money from an evil person. Rand’s portrayal here of society is to set up for what the entrepreneurs of this society use to destroy it. She shows that the only way charity works is through capitalists that work for money. If money is not made help can only go so far until the one who did the helping is equal to those being helped. This shows that the Donald Trumps of the world can do more help then the red crosses. Red Cross can not make money so it relies on capitalists to give money to them so they can help. If Trump would give up all his money to the charity now he would have no money left to go on with his company, he would be equal to those who he had just helped, and he would no longer be able to give any more in the future. In fact he would be relying on the same sum of money he had just donated. If Trump were to keep his company and strive for more capital he could give more sums of money in the long run then he is currently worth. In the book, however, the charities bites off the hands that feed them, therefore thrusting the society closer and closer into poverty. With no entrepreneur making money how are non profits charities suppose to continue wasting money (pardon the language but most times money is simply thrown at a problem)?

    This is the way society is heading right now! You can see this in everyday society when people shun the rich for making a profit. Oil companies are a prime example at the present. The media “enlightens” society that oil companies are evil because they provide a product that most citizens need and want, the catch is they are making money off of our needs and wants. How Dare they! Nevertheless what the media does not enlighten us to oil companies are also law abiding following government regulations upon what must be and must not be put in each batch of gasoline to ensure a quality product. Oil Companies also pay huge sums of taxes to the government because society sees that as acceptable since they make so much. In reality society (pardon the language) screws themselves, because the taxes put upon the oil company are just pulling out of the consumers pockets. The oil company now has to take from somewhere to fill back up where the government took, so they must charge more to make a profit and continue on with business as usual; paying salaries, drilling, finding new recourses, transportation, utilities, insurance, maintenance, and growth. If these can not be addressed then the company will falter creating a larger need for government subsidies and inevitably creating an even larger debt that I am sure America dislikes. Yet Americans still see them as greedy and need to be regulated even further. On the other side of the energy spectrum Americans today seem to accept the subsidies given to ethanol because it is viewed as saving the American way. Or is it!? Americans want cheap goods and the American way to achieve that is through competition. No goods are produced when there is no demand. If companies are making money now why is there a need to change how their product is created. Oil is the same way as long as the price is low people do not see a need for change and if the liberal government were concerned about the American people they would not create a cheaper gas but let it get expensive and let Ethanol on its own time become cheaper then gas with no government subsidies! Liberals do not want change they want complacency! Their catch-22 is they want Ethanol to be competitive with oil so they give out subsidies but they want gas to be as cheap as possible so their theory is tax it? If they were serious they would make Oil expensive and let it rise above ethanol then a dramatic change in production would occur through capitalisms supply and demand curve that has yet to fail rather then socialism. This is what the conservative idea wants, change. Republicans want the market to change to ethanol so the economy can grow but the only cost effective and market fail safe way is for consumers to demand it not for government to demand it.

    To change growth must occur and competition must happen! In the book the socialist thinkers create a law banning competition as well as banning any new products or any more products to be created after the enactment of the law! The theory is that if no one creates anything and no competition is had then society can be equals! Also all the works of art, books, and business ideas that no one paid attention to in the past will now get their “fair” chance to succeed now with no competition. No man would have envy over another man and everyone would be complacent to stay where they are. This is Utopia but as any scientifically or religious man and women know it can not be achieved with the biology given to man and religious temptations man is born with. Man will always demand more and man will never work for nothing. Research has shown that if a person works for nothing meaning nothing is achieved through their blood and toil they will first give it up and look for meaningful work but if this state continues madness ensues. Who created the experiment and why? The Nazis discovered this when they asked Jews to dig hole and fill them in every day just to start over the next day! Work was done but the person new it contributed to nothing. Normally the men and women would stop when they figured this out but since the Nazis made them go on the subjects went mad. This state is what Rands book shows. Workers now could not get ahead but they could also not get behind. If no work was done and they earned just as much as if they were working…. Why work? In the book men and women who use to enjoy the challenge their job created and enjoy trying to reach for the next level of achievement simply walked out of the job when their mind caught up with them. They saw nothing could be achieved so the individuals walked off never to be seen again. A communist would say this is how to better the collective of society but how does the individual feel when they accomplish a task for another person that does nothing. Why would a Plumber fix a sink when the person they are working for will never do anything to better the plumber's life and a fellow plumber gets paid just as much for sitting at home? For would I write this if I knew no one would read it and no one could be inspired by it? Inevitably this democrat idea policy ensues with nothing. Nothing is what happens, no new discoveries, no new art, and no further production. Life then halts and complacency must arrive if not the individual becomes depressed and insane.

    Society today is following this theory through welfare and feeling sorry for individuals who can’t find work. Which, is a funny concept considering liberals say there are huge unemployment rates during the statistical full employment of five percent in the economy. Welfare was created by FDR to help America out of the depression. This was not the welfare system we know and acknowledge today, this welfare system was based off of work done for the nation. If you were out of a job you could work on improving the nation for instance constructing the Hoover Damn or many others created in the Tennessee region, work improving national forests, work improving cities, and work improving other aspects of society. The pay checks offered to the people were far less then what they would earn in any other job. This policy initially put Americans to work improving this great nation in exchange for money to help improve the economy which would then create jobs the government workers would go to for better pay, in the end eliminating a government program! (Which should be the goal of all government organization but alas we have a bureaucracy!) Today we simply hand over a check that is comparable to many jobs, if not more; in exchange for ones word they will find work. This pay check is needed by some of the proud citizens who want a good paying job that they will be productive in but for many this is either a second source of income or their means of income living happily on the lifestyle tax payers pay for. This is now the democrat idea policy of complacency and equality once again. A true conservative ideology would be if welfare must exist then it would be to use FDR’s (considered a democrat but again words have many meaning) policy of working for a pay check to help in the transition to a better private employer job. A welfare check that would decrease as time went on slowly forcing the individual to find a job and be productive. One can say a capitalist society in the real world is the best way to peruse a communist goal of equality. If everyone were to work to the standard of the most productive all could be equal and all who see themselves as too good to work would be the outcasts. Instead of dummying all down to the worthless who do not work.

    Praising individuals who do not accept responsibility is another fault Rands depicts as a growing concern in society. Throughout the book the common saying is “it’s not my fault it went wrong,” and “Who is John Gauld.” The question of John Gauld is a saying that is not known where it came from and because no one knows who John Gauld is, it is used to show why ask who’s at fault, or why something went wrong. When a society does this no one will take chances and because no one is accountable for mistakes consumers are less willing to buy products offered by businesses. The producers then are in charge of the market. If they can not produce a service it is not their fault so they then wonder why no one will buy from them! When that happens the companies create laws through lobbying congress that forbid competition which allows the business to produce what ever product they want in whatever condition they so choose and the consumer has no other choice but to buy it.

    Again society is following in the footsteps of this book. Democrats want a Socialized Health care system to “ensure” all citizens have access to health care. The problem is when the government creates this there is no other choice for the citizens but the government health care. So whatever the doctor sees fit for the citizens there is no longer any second opinions. The doctors must follow all government restrictions and be subject to government pay. Believe it or not government pay is not the greatest! Doctors would now be equal to pay with teachers so why go through medical school pursuing one of the hardest and most grueling fields that is ever changing when they can become a teacher with the same pay, less work, and mush less risk. Doctors will be in greater demand so the qualifications to become one will be less and soon any one with a GED will be able to become one. Remember the kid in class who got an F in Biology in High school but liked to tear animals apart, can you say “Hello Doctor Clark!”

    Ayn Rand’s future takes place in America during the Industrial Revolution and during the peak of the Unionization of companies. She depicts the socialization/ communization in a very rapid time period but one can see the laws in the book as slowly making their way into our society. Currently Individuals who call themselves democrats hate greed and believe it is the root of all evil, they hate companies that make profit, and they hate competition. The focus of most hate is directed upon Wall-Mart which like them or not they run much more smoothly and far more efficient then government. Remember how I said I am one of ideas not words! You can say there are republicans out there that want the same thing Ayn Rand depicts as wrong in a society; then they are not republicans. To be a fiscal republican one must allow competition, allow innovation, allow productivity, and allow incentives; anything else is not a republican view. Politicians who hide under the republican banner but say and do the opposite are imposters.

    Parties are the problem with America and if we are to rise above words and represent ideas this system must be abolished! All other theories of how to fix the electoral system are simply band aids to a growing disease of party politics. No one can argue for the continuance of the party system even Washington said party politics will tear the nation apart! Look at today we are a split nation and vote for candidates solely based on party rather then qualifications. Democrats do not want change because they lose their socialization of Americans and Republicans do not want change because they lose their large conservative base. But behind everyone lies an Idea that words cannot and never will convey! I have the idea for a market where individuals compete based on productivity and the want for self improvement! I believe in the idea for a nation that rewards hard work. I believe in an idea for a nation that stands up for human rights granted to us by God! And I believe in an Idea for a nation that stands for Morals! Any other words that try to encompass these ideas are non existent and if they do exist the word only represent this to a few! I stand for no party of change I stand for an Idea!