On Thursday the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 459. The bill would give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The measure would not go into effect until states with a majority (270) of the 538 national electoral votes approve similar legislation. Thus far seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted the procedure, known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The measure now goes to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated whether he will sign it. Previous Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed the bill.
Brown's signature and California's adherence to the Compact would definitely be a step in the right direction, the direction of democracy. We elect every other office by who gets the most votes; this would make the democratic principle universal for all our elected officials. The idea was first approved in Maryland in 2007. Since then New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, D.C. and Vermont have joined. California's big bloc of 55 electoral votes would get the Compact nearly half way to enactment, as the total of ratified states plus the national capitol would come to 132.
Those who object to electing the president by popular rather than electoral vote usually say it would eliminate the importance of smaller states in presidential elections. That's not true, though. The present electoral college system neglects both small and large states, and candidates concentrate almost all their time and resources on 12-15 swing states. Some like Florida are big states but others like Nevada have small populations. No one pays any attention to big California, reliably Democratic, nor big Texas, reliably Republican. Likewise, no one worries about small Democratic Connecticut or small Republican Wyoming.
It is better by far for the candidates to have to concern themselves with people and their concerns, wherever they live, rather than the needs of those who happen to live in just a few strategic states. This bill is a welcome step along that path. To see my earlier comments on why popular vote is preferable to the Electoral College, see my 2007 blog "The Electoral College: Democracy Denied."
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Revive the Space Program
As I write, space shuttle Atlantis is presently docked at the International Space Station to deliver four tons of equipment. This is the last shuttle mission before the fleet is retired. The American manned space program will now go on hiatus. After fifty years in space and thirty years with the shuttle, any U.S. astronauts going up will now have to hitch a ride with the Russians. As a lifelong space enthusiast I have to admit I'm terribly disappointed with this shortsighted state of affairs.
It seems all part of a nation abandoning its dreams and pulling in on itself. The spirit of adventure and exploration that gave rise to the country seems to have evaporated. We appear to be under the sway of decision makers more concerned about saving a nickel than making a dollar. As a child, I watched the first astronauts go up. First Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, then John Glenn fired our imaginations and national pride by rocketing into the heavens on a column of flame. Before the end of the 1960s, strikingly courageous trailblazers backed by American resolve, organizational acumen and scientific prowess had fulfilled President Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon. Missions to Mars were planned for the 1980s. And then things started getting scaled back.
The entire space shuttle program has cost $209 billion. That's $7 billion a year, $7 billion that is equivalent to less than one month's expenses in Afghanistan. Viewed from a practical standpoint, money invested in the space program has yielded a huge return for the U.S. economy. That investment has been responsible for immense advances in computers, electronics, weather prediction, the GPS system, communications, cryogenics, physics, aeronautics, and the developments of myriad substances able to withstand extremes of temperature and stress. Take a look at some spinoffs here. There are thousands of them.
In the 1960s the space program was 4.4% of the U.S. budget. In 1972 that was cut back to 1.6%. Now it is less than 0.5%. While the forward-looking nations of the world that are emerging as the new leaders are investing in space, technology and modern infrastructure, many who seem to hold sway in America tell us we cannot afford to dream and explore, to embrace cutting edge energy production or even to modernize our aging and inadequate transportation system. That is poppycock. We will spend three times the entire NASA budget this year paying absentee "farmers" not to grow crops.
I would instead contend that the nation that loses its spirit of adventure, scales back its vision and turns its back on the future by failing to keep up with the innovation of its international competitors is far along the path toward obsolescence and decline. I for one have heard quite enough from those who continue to tell us what we can't afford and can't do. We Americans need galvanizing dreams, the call of the frontier, and a national challenge to call forth our best efforts. The establishment of a moon base or a Mars program would fit the bill nicely. We have been waiting and drifting long enough. Let's go.
It seems all part of a nation abandoning its dreams and pulling in on itself. The spirit of adventure and exploration that gave rise to the country seems to have evaporated. We appear to be under the sway of decision makers more concerned about saving a nickel than making a dollar. As a child, I watched the first astronauts go up. First Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, then John Glenn fired our imaginations and national pride by rocketing into the heavens on a column of flame. Before the end of the 1960s, strikingly courageous trailblazers backed by American resolve, organizational acumen and scientific prowess had fulfilled President Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon. Missions to Mars were planned for the 1980s. And then things started getting scaled back.
The entire space shuttle program has cost $209 billion. That's $7 billion a year, $7 billion that is equivalent to less than one month's expenses in Afghanistan. Viewed from a practical standpoint, money invested in the space program has yielded a huge return for the U.S. economy. That investment has been responsible for immense advances in computers, electronics, weather prediction, the GPS system, communications, cryogenics, physics, aeronautics, and the developments of myriad substances able to withstand extremes of temperature and stress. Take a look at some spinoffs here. There are thousands of them.
In the 1960s the space program was 4.4% of the U.S. budget. In 1972 that was cut back to 1.6%. Now it is less than 0.5%. While the forward-looking nations of the world that are emerging as the new leaders are investing in space, technology and modern infrastructure, many who seem to hold sway in America tell us we cannot afford to dream and explore, to embrace cutting edge energy production or even to modernize our aging and inadequate transportation system. That is poppycock. We will spend three times the entire NASA budget this year paying absentee "farmers" not to grow crops.
I would instead contend that the nation that loses its spirit of adventure, scales back its vision and turns its back on the future by failing to keep up with the innovation of its international competitors is far along the path toward obsolescence and decline. I for one have heard quite enough from those who continue to tell us what we can't afford and can't do. We Americans need galvanizing dreams, the call of the frontier, and a national challenge to call forth our best efforts. The establishment of a moon base or a Mars program would fit the bill nicely. We have been waiting and drifting long enough. Let's go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)