About Me

My photo
Jack is a graduate of Rutgers University where he majored in history. His career in the life and health insurance industry involved medical risk selection and brokerage management. Retired in Florida for over two decades after many years in NJ and NY, he occasionally writes, paints, plays poker, participates in play readings and is catching up on Shakespeare, Melville and Joyce, etc.

Monday, December 3, 2018

Diluted Democracy, a Distant Relative (?) and an Old Short Story



Work in Progress

At this time, the blog's highly paid team of consultants is hard at work trying to upgrade certain blog features, include the advertisements appearing on the blog.  (We just wrote a check for $102 to the Lymphoma-Leukemia Society representing the ad revenue over the past seventeen months, so keep clicking on those ads).  You will note the temporary absence of these ads and other shortcomings over on the right side of your screen.  (These don't show up on smartphones anyway, just on desktop and laptop devices.) This ought to be cleared up in a few weeks.  Bear with us.
JL


Diluted DemocracyDo We Like it that Way?


If you look at the total number of votes just cast across the nation in filling the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, the Democrats outpolled the Republicans by about eight million votes.  And if you look at the total number of votes cast for all the electors from the states who chose our President in 2016, you will again find the Democrats outpolling the Republicans by over two and three-quarter million votes.  The way our government is set up by the Constitution, the odds are stacked against the popular choice.  That’s because the Founding Fathers did not trust the common man.  They looked across the sea and saw the bloody disaster that popular democracy was about to bring to France.  They wanted to make sure that would never happen here.

The first safeguard they established was the United States Senate, a very undemocratic body.  Each State sends two Senators to Washington, elected by popular vote within that state regardless of its population. (Originaly, until the 17th Amendment took effect in 1913, Senators were picked by State legislators, making it even less democratic.)  A third of the Senate is elected every two years.  But despite the Democrats polling about ten million more than the Republicans in all of the Senatorial votes nationwide in 2018, the Republicans won more races.  In New York, Kirsten Gillibrand won re-election, receiving almost 3.7 million votes to return her to her seat while in Wyoming, John Barrasso only needed 136,000 votes to accomplish the same thing.  That’s the undemocratic way the Senate is elected and little can be done about it other than trying to develop a majority in each individual State.
 
East Face of the Capitol Building.  Senate meets in North wing to right, House in South wing to left.


The House is a little bit better.  States are apportioned seats in Congress based on their population.  That’s good.  But regardless of the statewide totals for voting for Representatives in Congress, it takes a majority in each Congressional District to elect a Representative.  This is where “gerrymandering” comes in, carving up the districts geographically to include enough voters of one party to create majorities in as many districts as possible, even though statewide, that party may be a minority.  The key to “gerrymandering” is found in State Legislatures which draw up these districts.  That’s why the key to control of the House of Representatives in Washington rests with the folks elected to those more local legislatures in Atlanta, Augusta, Albany, Austin, Annapolis and such State capitals.  It’s not so bad as it is in the Senate, but “gerrymandering” has the same effect: it dilutes democracy.

A quick glance at the Electoral College, which chooses the President reflects the same thing.  Each State has a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives it has.  That continues the undemocratic role of the Senate, giving less power to more populous States.  It’s ‘winner take all’ in all States except Maine and Nebraska where only the electors chosen based on the number of House Represenatives are “winner take all” while the other two electors, based on their having two Senators, are voted on separately.  But this rarely makes a difference in the outcome.

So, it is safe to conclude that democracy in these United States is very, very diluted.  That’s the way the writers of the Constitution wanted it.  They didn’t trust the people.  Many in government today do not either.  If we were to change it, how would you suggest we do it?

Possible Remedies:   Changing the Senate would be hopeless.  We are not going to discard the Constitution.  But some have seen proportional representation in the House as a partial solution, whereby the number of seats each Party would win would be determined by the percentage of votes, statewide, that party received in that State’s Congressional races.  For example, in a State with ten Congressional seats, and in which the Democrats received 60% of the votes, they would get six Representatives in Congress, possibly the six who received the most votes in their respective races.  The way it works today, if most of that 60% were centered in a few carefully “gerrymandered” districts, the Democrats might only get two or three Representatives in Washington.

As for the Electoral College, proportional division of the Electoral vote, rather than “winner take all” is a possible solution, but that would still not fully negate the undemocratic role that the 100 Electoral votes representing each State’s two Senators, regardless of that State’s population, contribute to the College.
Jack Lippman




 
Where Turneth the Worm

An original Short Story retreived from our archives

Anna Lida lived at the end of the tunnel.  She wasn’t very sure whether she was a boy or a girl but it really didn’t matter, since all of the others down there were about the same, including her friend, Eartha.  The important thing was to get enough to eat.  Periodically, Anna and the others would work their way through the tunnel and come out amidst grass and soil, which contained all kinds of good things, animal, vegetable and otherwise upon which they could nibble.

Early on, Anna wondered why she couldn’t move around more easily as the other creatures she saw who had legs could.  Easy to please though, she was content to accept the explanation that she and her relatives should be thankful that they had been given the ability to simply crawl about, and she was more or less satisfied to do just that, actually enjoying going for a nice wiggle around the yard occasionally. 

Anna?
But down deep, both in her thoughts and underneath the soil where she often dreamt as she curled up to take a nap, Anna aspired for something better.  She often, in the depths of the tunnel, discussed such things with her friend, Eartha.  What was the purpose of it all, together they wondered.

One day a little boy with a small shovel came into the yard and started to dig a hole very close to the tunnel.  Suddenly, a lot of dirt came tumbling around Anna and the next thing she knew, the boy had her in his fingers and was putting her in a can with a little water at the bottom and some other wiggling friends of hers. A few minutes later the boy pulled Anna out of the can and stuck something sharp through her.  Before she knew it, she was at the end of a length of string being thrown into more water than she could ever imagine existed.  She wiggled, and wiggled and wiggled but could not get free from the sharp thing.  All of a sudden, a little fish swam up and tried to take a bite of her.  It missed the first time, but had pulled enough on her to pull her loose from the sharp thing.  Anna, feeling much better, and none the worse for being punctured by the sharp thing, swam away.  But her freedom was short-lived.  The fish swam after her and caught her between its teeth and ate her up for dinner.

But that was only the beginning of Anna’s adventure.  The next afternoon, another fish, much, much bigger than the first one, swam up to the fish which had eaten her up, and in one gulp, swallowed it whole.  Now a funny thing happened to Anna.  Even though her body had been all chewed up and digested by the little fish which was now being digested by the big fish, making that fish very happy, she was well aware of what was happening.  Anna Lida was a smart creature and figured this was going on in the part of her that was separate from her body. 

After a few days, something strange happened.  A big bird, like the ones she had hidden from when she saw them flying over the yard, came swooping down over the big water where the big fish lived.  Diving straight down, it grasped the fish into his beak and flew straight up into the air. In a few minutes, it landed on the branch of a tree where, between two nearby branches, there was a nest of twigs, grass and dry weeds.  In it were three baby birds.  Quickly, the big bird chewed up the fish and spit out its pieces into the open mouths of the little baby birds.  Even though it had been several days since Anna had possessed a physical body of her own, she knew what was happening because the part of her which was separate from her body was still working.

A few weeks later, the baby birds, now strong enough to try to fly, left their mother’s nest.  One of them flew over a field where some men wearing funny clothes, with spots on them to make them look like bushes, sat with long sticks.  When they pointed them, they made a “bang” noise and smoke came out of one end.  One of the men pointed his stick at the bird, made smoke come out of it, and before the bird even heard the “bang” sound, it was dead and fell to the ground.    


Then it started raining very hard and the men went away and left the bird on the ground, where it lay for weeks, slowly rotting away.  Anna felt terrible about this, because she had become part of that bird, from the first day its mother had brought the big fish which had swallowed the little fish which had swallowed her back to the nest.


But a few days later, lo and behold, a bunch of familiar crawling creatures, relatives of Anna Lida, found what was left of the bird.  She recognized Eartha among them. They nibbled at it until it was all gone.  Anna knew exactly what was happening because she had enjoyed feasts like that many times before and was very happy that some of the remains of the bird were now within the tummy of her friend, Eartha.  The only problem was that she had no way of letting her know, once they were back in the tunnel, that their souls were now merged.  But she would figure out how to do this, some way, some day.
JL




“Widows” Letter

My letter regarding the movie “Widows,” included in the preceding blog, appeared in the Palm Beach Post on November 26 for its 80,000 daily readers to see. 
JL





My Tenuous G.O.P Connection

Billionaire and major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson’s mother’s name was Sarah and her maiden name was Tonkin. She resided in the Boston area and married Arthur Adelson, a taxi driver, and ran a knitting shop.  Although not a terribly common name, there are Tonkin families in New England, some of which are in the Hartford, Connecticut area.  Sarah Adelson had three brothers (Morris, Benjamin and Max), whose family names were spelled either Tonkin or Tonken, and their children would be Sheldon Adelson’s first cousins. 

I was born a year earlier than Sheldon Adelson in New Jersey.  My mother’s maiden name was Saslow, and she was of the same generation as Sheldon Adelson’s mother.  I recall that her mother, my grandmother, Mollie Saslow, had a sister in Hartford whom we visited on occasion whose name was Bessie Tonkin, making her my mother’s aunt and my grand aunt.  I do not know Bessie’s and Molly’s maiden name.  I can attest by memory or documentation as to the accuracy of the information provided thus far.  From here on in, it gets somewhat hairy, including the fact that I vaguely recall reading somewhere a while back that Sheldon Adelson’s parents met in Hartford.

Bessie Tonkin, my grand aunt, acquired the Tonkin last name by marriage to a Tonkin and had to have been of the same generation as the parents of Sheldon Adelson’s mother, Sarah Tonkin Adelson.  How many "Tonkins" could there have been in Hartford at the time?  Perhaps she was a sister-in-law or a cousin by marriage to Sheldon Adelson’s grandmother or grandfather. If she were a sister-in-law to Sheldon Adelson’s grandparents, that would also mean that my grand aunt Bessie was Sheldon Adelson’s grand aunt by marriage, making me, two generations later, his second cousin twice removed.  A few years ago, I managed to reach Sheldon Adelson’s secretary in Las Vegas who reported back to me that Sheldon did not remember having an Aunt Bessie. That is understandable since she actually might have been his mother’s aunt. 

Not wanting to get involved in the never-ending complexities of genealogical research, I realize that if Bessie Tonkin were only a cousin of Sarah Tonkin Adelson’s parents, and not their sister-in-law, it would make the connection even more remote, relegating me to possible third cousinhood to Sheldon and not worth investigating further.  Too much time has passed for me to have anyone to contact in Hartford about this, and of course, please do not ask me to lend you anything.  Speak to Sheldon, who might or might not be my second or third cousin by marriage, twice removed, about that, especially if you are a Republican contemplating running for political office.
JL





HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.
Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by sending me an email at Riart1@aol.com.

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACKSPOTPOURRI.com 
Contact me by email at Riart1@aol.com.   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT ADDRESS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end, though few followers of the blog have done that lately.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                
To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking. THESE FEATURES, ALONG WITH OTHER VALUABLE “SIDEBAR” ITEMS, INCLUDING ADVERTISEMENTS, MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE ON ALL MOBILE DEVICES.  CHECK THEM OUT ON YOUR DESKTOP OR LAPTOP COMPUTERS.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman 



No comments: