Civics 101

There's a show on TV called "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" I think the show title is misleading because it's not a matter of whether you're smarter, it's a matter of whether you've retained as much information currently. If you were in a class actively learning something or are maybe a year out from that, you'd be expected to remember more than someone who learned it umpteen years ago who hasn't had to use that knowledge in many, many years.

That being said, there are some concepts that people should retain because they're bigger concepts or things that are relevant in everyday life. You might not remember the dates of the Civil War or even the names of all the relevant people, but you should certainly know what the Civil War was about or that there even *was* a Civil War.

Since so many people apparently don't know/understand basic concepts, I'm going to give a civics lesson today, lack of a teaching credential notwithstanding.


Electoral College

Our voting system for president of the United States is not based on counting every single person who is eligible to vote who actually votes. It's based on the concept of the electoral college. Each state and the District of Columbia each have a set number of electoral votes, based on how many reps and senators each state sends to Congress. The least number of electoral votes a state has would be 3. Most states follow a "winner take all" rule, which means that whoever gets the most votes in that state ("popular vote") gets all of the electoral votes, no matter the margin of victory. In some states, electoral votes can be divided among two or more candidates, depending on the outcome of the popular vote. A candidate for president wins an election by winning a majority of the electoral votes. Here's a website that has a good explanation of the whole electoral college process.

So for all the people who insistently claim that Bush "stole" the election from Gore, please go back and read and understand the electoral college. "But Gore got more votes so he was the true winner." Ummm, no, thanks for playing, but you fail the civics course. From the website mentioned above: "Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote." Here's another important note: "How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote? It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State."

I'm really amazed by the number of people who have no understanding of the electoral college, especially some people who purport to be educated members of society interested and invested in our political system.


Double Jeopardy

Most people seem to understand that the same person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. But they don't seem to understand that it means the same court under the same jurisdiction. If someone commits a crime that breaks state and federal laws, they could be tried in both a state court and a federal court for the same crime because they are technically being tried for two different crimes - one that breaks a state law and one that breaks a federal law. And then there's the civil court. Double jeopardy only applies to governmental prosecution. In civil cases, there is no prosecution - the person is being sued for monetary damages. There is no prosecutor - there is a plaintiff. So for all the people who insist that the monetary judgement against O.J. Simpson is wrong because he was acquitted and so therefore can't be tried twice for the same crime - no, thanks for playing, but you also fail the civics course. I've heard when this distinction between the two kinds of trials has been explained to someone, and their response is to say they don't really understand it - all they know is that you can't be tried for the same thing twice. OK, you're either just really stupid or you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge that your position is stupid. If you can't understand the difference between a criminal court proceeding and a civil court proceeding, then as far as I'm concerned, you're not allowed to have an opinion since you can't retain or comprehend the relevant facts.


First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Here's a website which has the U.S. Constitution online. So people seem to focus on the "freedom of speech" portion of the amendment and then extrapolate that to mean that everyone can say anything they want at any time. Most people understand that it doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no such fire, so you can't endanger lives that way, but short of that, you can say anything you want, wherever you want, and no one can stop you. Right? WRONG!

The First Amendment applies to what the government can do and what laws they can enact. It has no jurisdiction over individuals or private property. If someone is in my house and says something I object to, I certainly have the right to tell that person to stop saying what they're saying and/or asking/making that person leave my home. Similarly, someone does not have the right to demand to come into my home and be able to spout things that I personally find objectionable or offensive.

So, for all the idiots on the various private discussion boards that I'm on who object when they break the established and set community rules and are then called on it, reprimanded for it and made to suffer the consequences for it, who then turn around and scream that your First Amendment free speech rights are being stomped into the ground - you're complete idiots. Have you not figured out that the First Amendment only applies to government and laws? Have you not figured out that none of those discussion boards are run by the government? Have you not figured out that all of those discussion boards are private enterprises owned and run by private citizens and would be the equivalent of their business or home, which you do not have the right to invade and run amok in without interference? As far as I'm concerned, screaming about having your free speech rights impinged upon in a situation like that is just as idiotic as anyone invoking Godwin's Law. In this case, "shut up and sit down" is an entirely appropriate response.


Class dismissed.