Letter to Utah Debate Commission

Here is an open letter I sent to the Utah Debate Commission.

Utah Debate Commission
Email: debate@utahdebatecommission.org

Dear Ms. Slighting,

Thank you for your letter telling me about the Utah Debate Commission. I am thankful that your website states that “Candidates from all existing registered political parties in Utah will have potential access to debate participation.” I wasn’t sure if that was your goal because your letter stated that while you seek to educate the public about all “viable” candidates, you only promote debates among “leading” candidates. This made me wonder if an unstated goal of the Utah Debate Commission is to maintain the status quo of a two-party system. I was further concerned when I learned that the commission co-chairs are picked from the two major parties.

It is my opinion that the number one goal of the Utah Debate Commission should be to educate voters on all candidates, ideas, parties and causes by promoting only those debates that include all viable candidates; not just the leading ones. The commission should refuse to support any debate that excludes viable independent or “third’ party candidates. In the race for the Utah fourth congressional district seat, there are candidates from the Constitution, Libertarian and Independent American parties that deserve to be heard. And the public deserves to hear their unique ideas and contributions.

I would also request that the co-chairs be periodically chosen from among all registered political parties in Utah that appear on the ballot.

Sincerely,
Collin Simonsen

Reforming the Electoral College

This is an essay I wrote during the last presidential election on reforming the electoral college. I would propose reforms returning the college to its originally intended function. You can see that this essay is a bit dated because it refers to Jay Leno's Tonight Show in the present tense. 

There has been a lot of talk about how the electoral college should be done away with and replaced with a direct, popular vote. I would like you to consider the proposition that it would be better to reform the electoral college than to do away with it. There are some very good reasons for doing so.

               I admit that a popular vote scheme would be better than what we have now. It seems odd that you can have the majority of Americans vote for one candidate, and yet the electoral college elects another. Furthermore, the electoral college means that the candidates spend all of their time and money on just a few states and never visit states that are not in play.

               But some problems with our current system would not be solved by going to a popular vote. For example, did you know that over $2 billion dollars were spent by the Romney and Obama campaigns? In a popular vote situation where the candidates must appeal to the entire nation, the cost could even go higher. A reformed electoral college system could drastically reduce the amount of money involved in presidential campaigns.

               Another problem that would not be solved is the problem of the uninformed voter. Every year people vote for a candidate without really knowing anything about him or her. Jay Leno and others have exposed people’s ignorance over and over again through street interviews. Leno often meets people who are voting for a candidate while they actually disagree with most of his positions. This shows that for some people, the election is a mere popularity contest, not a serious election based on issues and the qualifications of a candidate.

               The way to fix this is to reform the electoral college so that it functions how it was meant to function. The idea of the electoral college is that when you went to vote, you wouldn’t vote for a president. Instead, you would vote for someone you trusted to be a member of the electoral college. That person would then get to actually meet the candidates and then report to you what they learned about the candidates. The candidates would not have to spend so much time and money bickering. The amount of deceptive ads aimed at people who don’t have the time to put much thought into the election would be decreased.

Instead of having ignorant voters skewing the election, the members of the electoral college would put the necessary time, effort and thought into the selection of a president. These electors would be less likely to be swayed by sound-bites or exaggerations. They would read policy papers and fact-checkers. They would be less likely to be swayed by a clever turn of phrase at a debate.

               Under this system, the candidates would visit almost every state because no matter how liberal or conservative a state is, there are conservatives, moderates and liberals in each of them. For example, Utah just reelected democrat Jim Matheson. If Utah, one of the most conservative states in the US, can elect a democrat for congress, then it could elect a member of the electoral college who votes for a democrat. If President Obama could reasonably expect to persuade at least one elector from Utah to vote for him, he probably would have visited at least once. And both Romney and Obama would have visited cities in California, Oregon and Washington. Or even if the candidates did not visit those states, they would at least speak with the electors who would then report to their constituencies. Under the current system, and under the popular vote scheme, states like North Dakota, Alaska and Hawaii don’t get any direct attention. But they would at least get some attention (proportional to their population) in a reformed electoral college system.

               Another advantage of the electoral college system is that it could help the candidates to be more moderate and pragmatic. In our system (and probably in a popular vote system) the candidates have incentives to vilify the other candidate. Professional electors would be less likely to put up with that. They would probably meet and get to know the other electors and would act more professionally than your Facebook “friends” who like to call all members of the other party “insane.”

               Lastly, an electoral college system could give more power to third parties. Many people in America are frustrated with both major parties over big issues. Both parties have spent too much and many are unhappy with them for our foreign wars. Under the current system, all of the electoral votes in a given state go to the individual who won the most votes. But under a reformed electoral college system, you could have electoral votes going to several different presidential candidates. This could lead to the election of a third-party candidate who would bring fresh perspectives to national politics. Many republicans felt that the “Ron Paul” vote was ignored in this last election. A reformed electoral college could have given him a more realistic shot at a third party run. This would apply to all third parties, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution etc. If third parties were strengthened in this way, then some of the divisiveness of our politics may be eliminated. Currently we have a two party system where it is easy to believe that one party is good and another is evil. With more participation in third parties, there would be less tendency to consider just one of them good and the other evil. Instead, voters would think more about which party best represents them currently. Party loyalty would go down, and hopefully American loyalty will go up correspondingly.

               

Introduction: Why I'm Running.

Tessa has encouraged me to write a statement outlining what I stand for and why I am running. I plan on making several posts on specific topics, but here is an introduction to some of my thoughts on politics and my candidacy.

I think that both major parties engage in “soft” corruption by passing legislation that benefits their supporters more than the American people in general. This is called “special” welfare to contrast it with “general” welfare which is what is explicitly allowed under the constitution. US Constitution Article I Section 8. 

The best way to eliminate this kind of soft corruption is, in my opinion, to take a strict and narrow view of the constitution.

Some may wonder why we need to follow the constitution so closely. After all, it's such an old set of laws. But I think that if we, as a society, begin to go soft on how we follow the law, then we risk becoming a lawless society.

This does not mean that I disagree with Thoreau who taught that at times it is our duty to disobey a bad law. But I'm not talking about resisting slavery or unjust wars like he was. I'm talking about the practice of bending the rules to bestow a benefit on a political ally. I'm sure Thoreau would agree with me that that is not a good instance to employ “civil disobedience.”

There is also some virtue in putting up with an inconvenient law or even a bad law while working to change it or to find a better solution. The Declaration of Independence wisely states, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”


Also, Theodore Roosevelt, when acting as police commissioner of New York City, chose to enforce the unpopular "no alcohol on Sunday" law even though he disagreed with it because he understood the value of doing things the right way. He understood that enforcement was the police's job, while legislating was the legislature's job. Similarly, it is the job of the American people to amend the constitution, not the judiciary's.

The founders knew that they could give the federal government more power than they did. But they knew that the power to do great good, was also the power to do great evil, and it is unwise to trust mere humans with too much of that power no matter how good their professed motives. Thus, the power was divided into three branches and among the states and the people.

A candidate from the Constitution party would not be immune to the soft corruption, but it would be harder to get away with because everyone would know that a Constitution party member has promised not support any “special” welfare projects at all. Any budget she or he votes for would be something that benefits the American people in a broad way. Examples of this are interstate highway systems, bankruptcy courts, military (so long as it is not favoring certain defense contractors...), the postal service, science and education. 

Another way that the Constitution party would fight soft corruption is to prohibit congress people from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office. This would cut down on the dealing with special interest groups.






This concludes my general statement, but I want to say two more things. First I want to explain some things about the party that I may disagree with or may be wrongly reported in public sources (like Wikipedia). Then I want to quickly list some ways the Constitution Party differs from the Republican Party and even agrees somewhat with the Democratic party.

1. Wikipedia calls the Constitution Party a “theocratic” party. I don't think that is correct. Even if it were, it would not mean that I am a theocrat because although the Constitution Party is explicitly Christian, that is not why I joined it. Indeed, some members of the party probably view me with skepticism because I'm Mormon. I joined the party for its emphasis on the Constitution. As a Mormon I believe in allowing all people the right to worship how they want or to not worship at all. I would never attempt to pass a law establishing an official religion or criminalizing atheism. I would never force religion down anyone's throats. I would allow a religious person to make religious statements in her capacity as a college professor, but I would allow the atheist professor the same right, which she already enjoys, apparently, to express her beliefs.

2. The Constitution Party could be seen as nativist because it calls for a pause in immigration. I would take a more moderate approach than the party but I do note that most people believe that our immigration system should be overhauled in many ways. If anyone believes that either the party or myself are racist against Mexicans or any other immigrant, let me say unequivocally that I believe all men and women are created equal and that as a congress person I would support legislation combating racism and prejudice. I have even toyed with the idea of supporting a constitutional amendment to enshrine the civil rights act (with some modifications) in the constitution.

Here are some ways that the party agrees with democrats.

1. The party believes in reigning in the military. Neither the democrats nor the constitutionalists want to completely wipe out the military's effectiveness, but the defense department seems to be more like the war department, which is not its proper role. There is now a department of Homeland Security, to do, apparently, what the defense department isn't doing.
2. Many democrats were critical of the Patriot Act, and the accumulation of power in the executive. So is the Constitution party.
3. The Democratic National Committee agrees that we must secure our borders and that immigrants must learn English.

Agreement with libertarians.

1. While libertarians and constitutionalists disagree on what constitutes marriage, we both agree that it is not the job of the government to define what marriage is. I was surprised when many libertarians applauded the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. I can see why they liked the outcome, but they were rejoicing in an act that cemented the Supreme Court's power in deciding what marriage is. Let's allow communities, individuals, families, churches and other groups decide for themselves what marriage is and let the state follow, not lead.
2. Both parties believe in a limited government and low taxes.
3. Both parties would decrease the level of foreign involvement in wars.

I'm on the ballot.

My name is in the news. Now I just have to beat the 7 other candidates.


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29151266&nid=148&title=dozens-file-for-attorney-general-congressional-district-elections&s_cid=queue-2

What the Word "State" Means.

We live in a country called the United States of America. Every school child knows how our country came about; there were these 13 colonies that were being mistreated by the British government. So they banded together, made a knew government and rebelled against the British. These 13 colonies called themselves "free and independent states." So what did they mean when they changed from "colonies" to "states?"

One view of it is that the states are administrative divisions of the nation. In France, for example, there are administrative divisions that help the government govern. Is this what is meant by "state?"

It doesn't appear so. When we look at other uses of the word "state" it takes on a very different meaning than "administrative division."

For example, our national government has a "State Department" that is led by the Secretary of State. Does the State Department deal with the individual states? Does he, for example, visit Alabama or Hawaii or Texas to work out deals with the national government? No. In fact, the Secretary of State represents the national government in dealing with foreign governments. So why is he called the Secretary of State?

It is because the "state" he represents is the United States of America. In other words, the state of the United States of America.

Here is another example: the official name for Israel is "The State of Israel."  Why is that? Is Israel an administrative division of another country? No.

It is because of this startling fact: the word "state" means "nation." 

That's right: a state is merely a nation.

So what does it mean that we are the United States of America? That there are 50 separate nations? No, there are 50 united nations who have entered into a contract where they agree to have an overarching government that unifies all 50 nations into one. 

This, by the way, is what is meant by the "federal" government. A federal government exists where  the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments. 

In our modern republic, this concept has sadly been mostly lost. Alexander Hamilton stated that "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either [the state government or the national government], they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." But since we have come to believe that states are mere administrative divisions of the national government, states have lost the ability to provide a check on the growth of national power. Unfortunately, we now live in a republic that appears to be run more by corporations, banks, labor unions and special interest groups than by the people. This is due, in part, in my opinion, on the fact that states can no longer serve as "free and independent" nations to balance out the power of the government in Washington DC.