A few months ago I reviewed Mr. Weiland’s website and since then his website has been changed. Before the revamp of his campaign website Mr. Weiland saluted an article, “Cynicism Is Corporate America’s Greatest Weapon. Disarm It.”, and states that the author “…highlights the growing cynicism of the American public, a cynicism that has grown in lock-step with the rise of big money.” The author writes with great interest about popular upheaval through the generations and beckons the need for it again because he reminds the reader, “They were afraid of Occupy. They’re afraid of you.” All the while and throughout Rick’s old website he pledged to get government working with no more disruptions like that seen with the government shutdown – supposedly caused by Big Business, Big Oil, Big Ag, and perhaps anything Big as long as it’s not Big Government, but nobody and nothing specific. Who started the political fight in Washington and who reacted to who’s poor decisions are questions we continue to fairly debate in political circles, but instead of pointing fingers directly at a House Member, Senator, or President, Rick simply says blame Big Business. As for the undefined “they” who are supposed to be afraid of the anarchist and socialist protesters squatting in city parks, the writer has obviously forgotten about the Red Mayor and the “Hard Hat Riots” of 1970. Americans are just as serious about their freedom today as they were then.

The article “Cynicism Is Corporate America’s Greatest Weapon. Disarm It.” is no longer found on Mr. Weiland’s new campaign website, but he’s still completely focused on Big Money. The new website is careful not to vilify capitalism and instead it vilifies the so-called “1%” as opposed to Big Business. The great majority of everything penned on his campaign website, regardless of topic, condemningly points the finger of blame at the Big Money Super Rich that he feels has hijacked our nation, and this class warfare is the single silver bullet needed to revive America.

Mr. Weiland’s campaign website contains no statements on the federal debt burden, agricultural policy, foreign policy, border security, government surveillance, gun rights, or the military, but does address multiple times the topic of destructive unbridled corporate interests. (He never mentions the necessity of complicity on the part of Big Government necessary for corporate interests to become a problem.) Tom Daschle has grandly endorsed Rick in this election for Rick’s belief in the right to have abortions, the President’s healthcare reform, affirmative action and “equal pay” for women. Nothing is mentioned on Rick’s new campaign website about his views on abortion. Where is Rick’s courage that he has to take on Big Money when it comes to fighting for, as Daschle would suggest, for a woman’s right to choose in our state during the election? Also, as the State Director of AARP he established a Senior Bill of Rights that sought to strengthen Social Security payments yet he refuses to consider any reforms to promote the program’s solvency. Although the government will always send out Social Security checks I’m quite certain that money won’t be worth half as much in the future without reasonable reforms now on government spending. Mr. Weiland has also stated his dislike for Big Ag (I assume he means Cargill and ADM but maybe he means the Sheehans), but then supports the full ethanol mandate to the shock of those that believe that directly causes their grocery bill to increase. The best thing the Democratic Party of South Dakota could have done was find a centrist, but alas Rick is publicly left in political philosophy of President Obama.

I assume for Rick’s political electability that he supports small business owners. When does small business become Big Money? At what size of employer-ship does a business become untrustworthy in a free republic? What is the capital requirement necessary to go from patriot to traitor of the people? Based on Mr. Weiland’s statements, we would assume lobbying arms of corporate entities are the chief villains working against our noble government. Back in reality we know a leading company in an industry can be expected to be an authority on the product or service they provide. It’s in that company’s best interest to promote that industry and to defend it against potential misinformation perpetuated by a competitor or interest that stands to gain from the company’s or industry’s demise. For instance a non-profit organization, labor union, or a government administration with a large war chest may be at odds with a successful and law-abiding corporation and all the power of the corporation may be needed to defend itself and not be crushed. Mr. Weiland would see such a voice smothered. The ability of a corporation to exercise its free speech is essential in a free society.

What Rick never mentions which is the truly “Big” culprit of a free society is Big Government. When elected or appointed government officials have the power to artificially create success or failure for an American business then businesses have no choice but to cater to the inevitable corruption that competition for such favor will give rise too. Simply stated, government manipulation of the free market shifts power to the bureaucrats and they become industry king makers. What we know as Crony Capitalism is at its worst in a controlled economy. Favoritism towards businesses through government interference and discrimination is in the same vein as a feudal society, which sees the country’s resources and justice redistributed by a central authority which can and will create an embedded class system. We have only look at Communist China with its permanent rich upper class and permanently poor lower class to see the end result of centrally planned Big Government. Monopolies become achievable goals when the government is your business partner. Mr. Weiland should realize that by expanding government, which is his ardent wish, he’ll welcome the exasperation of the same problems which disappoint all honest Americans.

Rick also wants to limit campaign contributions supposedly to make elections fair. Rick does offer at gatherings a suggested Constitutional amendment to consider limiting campaign contributions in federal elections. Let me ruminate on his ingenuous proposal. Perhaps the silliest hypocrisy of that belief in limiting campaign contributions is his MoveOn.org sponsored petition against particular government shutdowns. I wager Rick would claim politicians were guilty by association when surrounded by corporate lobbyists, but why can’t I rule the same judgment on him when MoveOn.org has no history of supporting campaign contribution limits and were fined for it in the past? His close companionship with Tom Daschle over the years is filled with irony since Mr. Daschle works for DLA Piper which handles many corporate clients with great influence and success. Such a search for democratic justice is familiar territory with our current President’s similar, and now broken, campaign promises. As has been stated elsewhere and will now be again, political donations are a form of our freedom of speech in an open and fair election.

Rick Weiland’s opus of discrimination and suspicion towards our nation’s most successful, the titans of capitalism, only fantasizes of an America that never existed where nobody with a fat wallet tried his or her hand at political change. The romance of the Have’s and Have Not’s struggle shape his radical political character and in all discussions about the nation’s issues he promotes only classic monoscopic class warfare, which results in economic despair, even less bi-partisanship, and less respect and tolerance for your fellow man or woman. Without the wealthy boogeyman or abstract “Big” villain Rick’s entire platform collapses since there is no one left to blame and therefore nothing left for him to say.

One wonders why an “ultra-conservative gadfly” would continue the act since she said 3 decades ago “I can’t do the stupid Victoria airhead thing anymore! …You know what really kills me is that people buy it, the voice, the poems..”The Real Victoria Jackson You’d think after 30 years of being sick of it, as a “serious actress,” she would have stopped the act. But instead these days, as a “Tea Party Activist” she calls for a “White History Month” in that same voice she’s been sick of for decades.

Of course, she’s not the only person who will be at that Special Evening with Jason whose racially offensive comments graced the pages of the Huffington Post. I must assume Ken Crow, Ravnsborg’s campaign manager, will also be there. Another famous personage, who stated at an immigration rally “[W]hen you learn about breeding, you learn that you cannot breed Secretariat to a donkey and expect to win the Kentucky Derby. You guys have incredible DNA and don’t forget it.” [That Awkward Moment When The Tea Party Rally Gets Overtly Racist, Huffington Post, 19 Jul 2013] These unfortunate remarks unfavorably tinged an event cosponsored by the Black American Leadership Alliance. [Black American Leadership Alliance Outspoken Against Illegal Immigration Bill, Breitbart, 28 Jun 2013] The only thing Huffington Post managed to find of interest in an anti-illegal immigration rally cosponsored by the BALA was Ken Crow’s unfortunate comments at the event.

Ken Crow is also apparently a Tea Party Activist like Victoria Jackson, despite both of their Huffington Post Famous racially insensitive comments. He was formerly a member of the Tea Party of America until he resigned after a Sarah Palin rally fell through after “I dabbled in witchcraft” Christine O’Donnell was invited twice against the wishes of Palin’s people. Now he runs Tea Party Community and Tea Party Tribune, both of which have endorsed Jason Ravnsborg.

The Tea Party is an unorganized movement and anyone can claim to be a member regardless of ideology. I suppose Victoria Jackson and Ken Crow can both claim to be members of the Huffington Post Famous Racist Wing of the liberal media invented notion of what the Tea Party is. Of course, these false claims propagated in the media didn’t keep Mia Love, Tim Scott, Allen West, or T.W. Shannon down. Black conservatives will continue to rise up and fight the liberal machine that is trying to destroy the American Dream, regardless of liberal propaganda and liberal infiltration of the conservative movement.

We fought the revolution for representation in government so it is to be expected that it should be a chief concern for our democracy. Our country was founded by those who were very careful to ensure that government always remain the servant of the citizen, and not the few in power. President George Washington, famous for a reserved style of governing, was a firm supporter of a maximum size for voting districts. James Madison, our fourth President of the United States, authored Federalist paper # 55, which analyzed the House of Representatives. He supported the need for a close relationship between elected Representatives and their constituents so that they could better empathize and serve them. Madison also addressed finding a properly balanced voting district size with the goal to best reflect the will of the populace to the federal government.

The U.S. House represents a more accurate depiction of the present will of the people than any other office. It is not meant to duplicate the same purpose of the Senate, where long oratories occur, and the Members are more entrenched. The Senate acts to balance out the “passions” of the U.S. House. The Senate is meant to offer the utmost and equal value we hold for each state in the Union, whereas the U.S. House correlates and respects population changes and locality. The only exception is that each state is guaranteed a voice through one representative regardless of population.

Responsibility for the disconnect between the people and elected Representatives can be attributed to the ever increasing size of voting districts; the number of citizens represented by one U.S. House Member currently averages about seven hundred thousand. When a Representative has too large a constituency, the voters will be effectively disenfranchised through a shrinking fraction of representation as each House Member has to represent more and more voters in their respective districts. This dilution of personal representation leads to voter apathy as people start to think that their vote doesn’t count and populist upheaval becomes more common as people feel more distant from their government. The multiple schisms within the major political parties and numerous recall attempts can be connected to this disenfranchisement of Americans. The movements to split up states, or even secede from the Union, can be blamed on the washing away of our voice through that strengthening and embedded oligarchy in Washington D.C.

Increasing the number of Representatives will further enfranchise our voters. South Dakota could have two or three U.S. Representatives, from separate districts of our state to carry our people’s will to the halls of Congress. Although it may be more appropriate to have separate districts for each U.S. Representative given the cultural differences between east river and west river, historically our Representatives have been voted in by “district at large.” If our Representatives are voted in by “district at large” then we risk having photocopies of candidates, but we won’t have gerrymandering to fear every reapportionment. Either course of action would result in increased representation for South Dakotans. Because the number of U.S. Representatives would be increased equitably across the country and not just in South Dakota, based on smaller district sizes, the ratio of power between parties in the U.S. House will not change significantly. However, the effect on party power is irrelevant to honest governance and all Americans should be further enfranchised on principle even if the end result was a minor change in the ratio balance of power in the House of Representatives.

The reasons that have been given since the last increase in House Membership in 1911 for limiting the number of Representatives include the challenge of finding space to accommodate new members and the claim of greater difficulty in effectively conducting the orderly business of government in a deliberative way. However, given modern day advances in communications and other technology, the U.S. House can adjust to increase the size of its membership and still remain efficient. A gradual increase in Membership at each reapportionment is preferable to a sudden large increase in the number of U.S. Representatives in order to lessen the shock on all government operations that support the U.S. House. The countless committees, especially the “Committee of Oversight and Government Reform”, and the subcommittees and office support staff will make ready the Congressional chamber for the new members. Eventually, building a larger House chamber with additional office buildings is the only rational course. The additional cost for an increase in the Membership would not be insignificant, but it is money well-spent to ensure that all Americans have a voice in the House of Representatives. In comparison to the wasted dollars in pork barrel legislation, we should consider this upkeep of our free society an honorable burden.

Equitable representation is a keystone in our Republic, and it should be the responsibility of our generation to readjust to the growing population. The lack of government respect shown for our constituencies is visibly apparent with a despondent and enraged people. The infusion of hundreds of new members to the U.S. House over time will entirely unravel establishment politics and allow fresh and invaluable debate. The increased representation will enhance voter participation in politics, and our Republic will benefit through the interest, optimism, and activity. The “People’s House” must open its doors again.

The Electoral College as expressed in Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution explains that the President shall be elected by the Electoral College, which is composed of electors from all the states. It was established by our Founders so that the people of our state can decide how our electors may vote based on our people’s will. In contrast, in Great Britain’s Parliament, the Prime Minister is elected by the majority party. As Americans we hold high the need for checks and balances; therefore, we have organized the offices of President and Congress into separate branches. Our federalism is promoted by the Electoral College as a foundational element of checks and balances in our political system. The Electoral College is an expression of the Founder’s wish that we remain a republic. The Founders left it up to the states to decide whether or not to have the electors appointed by the state legislators or elected by popular vote. We act as South Dakotan’s first, and second as part of the Union, which is an expression of the fact that the original 13 states were in effect 13 countries. Consider Arizona’s struggle with the federal government over illegal immigration.

Our Electoral College is a barrier against tyranny. It is similar to our system of local and state government which insulates us from possible federal abuse, where each level by choosing whether or not to cooperate with the federal government then enables that government’s power. The institution of the Electoral College has no permanent sitting body so that corruption through bribery cannot transpire to win votes. The Founders of the U.S. Constitution feared domination of the presidential elections by states with the largest populations. In the Federalist Papers No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that we need electors who will be true to their people through rules that keep them aligned with their home states. For instance, the electors could only meet once in their home state to insulate them from national pressure.

The United States of America is not a direct democracy, but rather a type of representative democracy. The Founder’s knew that unlimited power to any majority of the people through direct democracy would transform into a form of tyranny. A famous writer in American exceptionalism, whose literary passages can serve us, traveled through our country in the 1830’s. Within the traveler Alexis de Tocqueville’s, ‘Democracy in America’, we find telling words, “what I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there, but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny”…if ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.”

Proponents of the National Popular Voting system state that under the Electoral College System, presidential candidates do not bother campaigning in states that predictably go to one party or another. That is like blaming the American system of government for the weaknesses of the messenger. If the National Popular Vote became law in South Dakota, then we would certainly become a fly-over state. The current South Dakota Electoral College is set up to allow us to vote in a block so that South Dakota’s interests are not drowned out by a larger state’s interests. This “winner takes all” system awards our 3 electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate receives a majority of the state-wide popular vote for president. Presently, five states control over 58% of the needed 270 votes to become President of the United States. If the National Popular Vote is adopted, the presidential candidate has far fewer states to please. We would then have to hope that we as South Dakotans are greatly similar to Californians as to how we wish to be governed.

We should be promoting South Dakota’s influence on national politics, not diminishing it. As an example of how the majorities tyrannical consolidation is true even on a state political level, notice how many counties in South Dakota have been districted with counties with larger populations which ensures that little to no voice shall surface from rural areas on the legislative floor. I believe every county has an inherent right to a direct vote in the state legislative process, but that is another debate.

South Dakota owes its statehood in 1889 to the Electoral College. In 1888, the Electorate voted into office Benjamin Harrison, rather than the winner of the popular vote, Grover Cleveland. Cleveland did not want South Dakota entered as a state because of the inclusion of at least two more Republican Senators in Congress. Before his departure from office, he quickly signed into existence four states, two with Republican and two with Democratic majorities, to keep a balance between the major political parties. There you go…checks and balances in unexpected forms. Even the ancient Roman Republic used an Electoral College to preserve the rights of its people.

 In the midst of a national deficit crisis, our legislators should not be busy bypassing the Founder’s Constitutional protections for states. Our Constitution is constantly being re-interpreted to suit a politician or political groups’ special agenda, and the voters must remain steadfast to preserve our rights. The direction of our government is based on public opinion, and I urge you to voice your concerns to our South Dakota state legislature.