Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Opinion & Editorial

by Bob Brown and Daniel Kemmis

In 1952 Sen. Estes Kefauver defeated President Harry Truman in the New Hampshire primary with the momentous result that Truman announced he would not seek re-election. In that same primary, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower defeated Ohio Sen. Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft, grandee of congressional insiders. If the plans of party leaders hadn't been upset by a direct vote of the people of one small state in 1952, the contest for president would probably have been between Taft and Truman. The American people liked Ike, but they likely would never have had the chance to elect him if not for the New Hampshire primary.

For most of U.S. history, the process of nominating presidents was dominated by a few men hammering out deals in the smoke-filled rooms of the great national conventions. Over the past few decades, the rise of presidential primaries has largely broken the power of the bosses. People are more empowered now, but has the system kept pace with their empowerment?

Most states now hold presidential primary elections, but tiny, unrepresentative and atypical, New Hampshire continues to have the nation's first one, and in the tradition of 1952, it continues to profoundly influence our presidential selection process. In fact, with only two exceptions in the last 56 years, the winner of the presidency has carried the first primary in New Hampshire.

It is no wonder, then, that other states, mostly larger and arguably more representative of the nation, have been busily moving up the dates of their primary elections. The result is that by Feb. 5, a majority of states will have held primary elections or caucuses. While Montana Democrats are still going to wait until the bitter end of the primary season in June to select their convention delegates, Montana Republicans will choose theirs in caucuses on Feb. 5. Both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president are likely to be known by Feb. 6, a full nine months before the general election. Instead of a deliberate process in which the ideas of candidates can be tested state by state, a stampede will begin on Jan. 3 in Iowa, and thunder to a chaotic climax on Feb. 5.

This aspect of our democracy couldn't be much worse. It favors glib, well known, well financed candidates. It assures that thoughtful ideas are trampled in the din of the stampede.

Traditionally, states determine their own election laws, so arriving at a coherent system of nominating presidential candidates won't be easy, but it is past time for all of us to begin talking about it.

The National Association of Secretaries of State has a proposal that would divide the country into Western, Midwestern, Southern and Northeastern regions. The regions would vote on a sequential basis, the first one in February, the second in March, the third in April, and the last in May. The order in which the regions vote would alternate every four years with each presidential election cycle. Some form of rotating regional primaries deserves careful thought, especially if geographically meaningful regions like New England or the Rocky Mountain West were represented.

Another proposal worthy of consideration would also designate four groups of states, but instead of regions, the groupings would be based on state populations, with the 12 smallest states (including Montana and our surrounding neighbors) always voting in February, then in ascending order of population, culminating with the 13 most populous states voting in May. The small states would provide an opportunity for less well known candidates. Those successful in the smaller states in the beginning of the process might ultimately prevail in the big states at the end.

Our democracy also has room for improvement in the general election phase. Our unique and arcane electoral college makes candidates focus on winning majorities in swing states rather than on winning a majority of the votes of the people. Four times in U.S. history, most recently in the election of 2000, candidates with the most popular votes have lost to candidates with the most electoral votes. The Electoral College is controversial, and perhaps deserves to be, but it would take a constitutional amendment to change or do away with it. Small states like Montana, which are advantaged by the Electoral College, should be wary of a constitutional amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution, however, requires all of a state's electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. In fact, Maine and Nebraska now allow their electoral votes to be determined proportionately or by congressional district, reflecting much more accurately the choices of the people in these states. This coming June, California citizens will vote on an initiative to abolish the winner-take-all allocation of that state's mammoth electoral vote. If adopted by other states, such a system would retain the advantage that the Electoral College gives to small population states, but would be far more representative of the choices of the people in states of all sizes and in the whole nation.

We need to reform both our presidential nomination process and our presidential election process. Our badly flawed democratic system is still better than any non-democratic alternative. But we can and should make it better.

Bob Brown and Daniel Kemmis are Senior Fellows at The University of Montana's O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West. Brown is a former Republican Secretary of State and President of the Montana Senate. Kemmis is a former Democratic Mayor of Missoula and Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives.

'Year of Land and Water Grab'

Dear Editor,

I foresee 2008 as the colossal "Year of the Land and Water Grab." A mass of federal bills and initiatives dealing with environment are at the starting line awaiting the January reconvening of Congress. Individually, in volume and scope they are of such significance as to endanger this proud experiment in government of, by and for the people. Citizens must wake up and exert what is left of their ability and influence to direct our representatives in Washington. Unfortunately most people appear oblivious to impending possibility of losing our form of government and way of life through powerful forces aimed at gaining control over our land, water and natural resources and thereby the people. When private property ownership and rights are extinguished we lose our freedoms. Following is legislation deserving attention.

The National Park Service is in position to expand its land holdings. The Historical and Legacy Study Act, HR 3998, with an undisclosed total acreage in 10 sites nationwide, includes thousands of acres along the Mississippi for a proposed new River Trail Park extending from Minnesota through Texas. Also included is the Rim of the Valley HR1835 which converts almost a half million acres of mountain ranges in the Los Angeles area from Forest Service to national park land. A so-called corridor would encircle five heavily populated valleys: San Fernando, Simi, La Crescenta, Santa Clarita and Coneyo. Land use and reduced property values of some 170,000 ranch, farm and home owners would be strangled through aggressive regulation, road closures and restricted access.

The Northern Rockies Environmental Protection Act, HR1975, would add to current Wilderness over 25 million acres in five Northwestern states. The largest commitments would be nearly 10 million acres in Idaho, 8 million in Montana, and over 3 million in Wyoming. This bill, currently with 117 co-sponsors predominantly from the eastern and other heavily populated states, contains highly misleading misinformation. Claims that the timber industry had been heavily subsidized by government, and timber revenues are now being replaced by a sustainable tourist and recreation economy, are both entirely false. The timber industry used to provide for families, communities, schools and highways. Now government compensates with grants constituting totally inadequate welfare checks. The bill implies "protection" of trees, wildlife and habitats while in reality forests are now being consumed by catastrophic fires from fuel build-up due to mismanagement. With tax funding increasingly incapable of financing fire-fighting, the Forest Service resorts to extensive "Just Let it Burn" practice. With correct thinning the forests themselves would be capable of financing needed fire prevention, fire-fighting and forest health restoration.

The above constitutes only a segment of the ongoing continent-wide Wildlands Project planned behind closed doors and now underway to link parks, forests and other government controlled lands throughout the United States and Canada. In 2006 Canada closed down a 4.4 million acre, 250 mile stretch of coastline from Vancouver to Alaska. A new park wilderness of 25 million acres was recently announced, as part of the Arctic Boreal, a Biosphere Reserve occupying approximately 58% of Canada. Mining, drilling and most lumbering have been curtailed in government restricted lands throughout both Canada and the U.S.

Two proposed federal bills would very likely provide an open door passageway from the Mexican border to Interstate 19. The Tumacacori Highland bill HR3287 would convert a major portion of the Arizona Forest Service land into Wilderness while HR2593 would essentially undermine law enforcement efforts in this vulnerable area.

The issue of roads vs. roadless on public lands needs concrete definition. The Rights of Way Recognition Act, HR 308, would provide clarification of statutes for inventoried roads addressed in the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act, HR2516 and S1478. Removal of roads from public lands converts them to bona-fide wilderness restricting access and use by the public. This is contrary to the historic purpose for which these lands were legally set aside. Also, nationwide hundreds of thousands of acres of private and state lands located within proposed federal "roadless" areas would require assured right of way access.

Of concern is the secretly planned, but now well documented, North American Union uniting Mexico, United States and Canada, plus the development of a trans-continental super highway with Port of Entry in Kansas City. An interstate highway system under Spanish management appears imminent all without apparent initial awareness or approval by Congress. One questions if the primary purpose is the claimed importation of merchandise for American markets, or possibly export of natural resources for processing elsewhere. Will our economy continue to support this investment and purpose, or is our country simply being "sold out"?

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is a giant step toward world government and global taxation. It would give massive power to international bureaucrats with their own source of funding, accountable to no one. With Bush in full support, this is now on "fast track" in the full Senate awaiting ratification by two thirds vote. It is unconscionable that our country should rush into a treaty agreement of this magnitude, jeopardizing our sovereignty, with so little public knowledge or input. Senators must be urged to vote for rejection or at least a delay. If 70% of the planet under oceans falls to Third World control, United Nations orchestration of shipping and free markets would be facilitated by powerful top-down domination over world resources. Our claim to the vast continental shelf and oil riches of the North Pole would be lost. Licensing, taxation and control would exist over shipping and sea-bed resource exploration and development. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) would trump the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the ancient saying, "He who rules the sea, rules the land."

ISA control of pollution could feasibly extend inland to continental rivers and streams identifying point source pollution from public and private lands, and even individual households. The Clean Water Restoration Act, HR2421, with 179 co-sponsors is basically a massive federal land and water "grab." By a change of terminology "wetlands" takes control of every farm, ranch and piece of private property containing water as well as activities affecting that water. Simply removing the word "navigable" from the word "waters," gives the federal government authority over all waters of the United States. The term "intermittent streams" could include dry washes and drainages. The term "protection" becomes synonymous with "control." Treaties and sanctions originating at the global level funnel power down through layers of government to provide severe environmental rulings often using "endangered species" as the tool.

Poised and ready for action and vote, all of the above would significantly impact the economic and social well being of every citizen. They address the management, virtually the ownership, of all land and natural resources of our country. In these rapidly changing times with global influence and world-wide population shifts, we must keep in close touch with our leaders and legislation at all levels: county, state and federal. The year 2008 is destined to make history. For bill information refer to: http//thomas.loc.gov.

Clarice Ryan
Bigfork

©2006 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney