Time's Man of the Year

There is much that disturbs many Americans about the Electoral College's selection of Donald Trump as President while the American Electorate voted for his opponent with a plurality of 2.5 million votes.  There are those especially admirers of Alexander Hamilton that believe our government is not a democracy but a republic.  Yet, our founders did show their wisdom in providing the means to amend the Constitution to reflect changes in American Society and remain consistent with the mores of a civilized state.  Time magazine announced its 'Man of the Year' which it has done since 1927.  Mr. Trump was interviewed by Matt Lauer of the Today Show on NBC.  He told Mr. Lauer that it was an honor that he appreciated but denied the appropriateness of the subtitle of 'President-Elect of the Divided States of America'.  The first aspect of this of Time's Man of the Year is for an individual who has made a fundamental impact on events and the international scene of that year.  It is not a statement on the benevolence or malevolence of that individual.  It is instructive to remember that the Man of the Year in 1938 was Adolph Hitler, in 1939 and 1942 was Joseph Stalin, in 1957 was Nikita Khrushchev, in 1979 was the Ayatollah Khomeini, and in 2007 was Vladimir Putin.  Yet, there were also individuals such as Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Dwight Eisenhower and Pope Francis.  I am not saying that Donald Trump is deserving inclusion in either list of recipients that I have provided.  Mr. Trump's actions once he becomes President will make it evident among which group of recipients he will deserve to be associated.  Yet, I have concerns and I can feel my heart take a second beat each day when I hear of the most recent appointees made by Mr. Trump's Transition Team.  This is only my opinion but there are far too many generals and billionaires to my liking.  His association with the Alt. Right and White Nationalist is, I believe, is a potential danger to all of us.

Is the Electoral College Relevant

Today I had the opportunity to spend a good part of the afternoon with my wife and a good friend whom I have known since August of 1977.  We live in Northern Virginia, very much a part of the Metropolitan Area of the District of Columbia.  During the course of our conversation we were sharing both our lament and disgust at the failure of our electoral process in our recent presidential election.  There is much I question about it yet I do not deny the legality of it but above every aspect that has brought Mr. Trump to a position of power that, I believe, it possesses no legitimacy in a truly democratic state.  I have always been an ardent defendant of the U.S. Constipation as well as a supporter of the ACLU with both my voice as well as financial support.  Why?  Because it is an organization dedicated in the defense of the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to all our citizens.  Yet, this election presents and faces each citizen with a constitutional dilemma that confounds us with our perceived wisdom of the Founders when the Constitution was written and approved in the 18th Century and the changes along with the realities of the 21st Century.  Twice, now, in less than twenty years we have allowed two men to assume the awesome office of the presidency without receiving a majority vote of the American Electorate.  We need to give considerable thought whether we wish to turn our backs to the concept of one person one vote in determining those whom we wish to serve in elective office.

When the Constitution was written in 1781, we were a nation of 3 million within 13 coastal states.  Today we are a continental nation with a population of over 300 million.  I can understand the hesitancy in amending the Constitution which has only happened 27 times in the history of our nation.  We should also remember that the first ten amendments were agreed upon with the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.  I agree with those who feel care and deliberative thought should be taken at anytime we consider amending the Constitution but I also believe that we have reached a point in our history where the Electoral College is no longer a safeguard to fair and equitable national elections for the highest office in our government.  I believe that 2000 and 2016 have shown the fallacy in that assumption.  If we wish to be the shining beacon of democracy to the rest of the world, the election of the president should be based on one person one vote.  The Electoral College should be seen as an anachronistic period of 18th and 19th Century America and not belonging to 21st Century America.  If we deny such a democratic concept as I suggest for electing our president, should we then rethink how we elect all our other local and national officials.  I am sure there are some who would disagree with me but I believe that there are far more who believe in our democratic heritage as I do.