FA+
Shop
Doran's Soapbox: Why I Moved to the United Kingdom
13 years ago
This is a political discussion. I apologize if that's disagreeable to anyone, it's something I try not to subject my friends and watchers to often, but the issue described here is something of great importance to me, and I think it really should be to a lot more people than it is.
Now, there are a lot of reasons why I made the decision to move out of the United States and in to the United Kingdom. I really love the UK in a lot of ways; my closest loved ones that I want to build a family with are here, as are a number of good friends. At the same time however, being here means moving away from my parents and other family whom I dearly love, not being around to watch my nephews grow up, being far from a lot of deep friendships I've developed over the years, and being far from the country of my birth that is home to me, and that I also dearly love. It is a hard thing, and was not a decision I could make lightly. Fundamentally though, one reason mattered above all the rest, and made it a necessity rather than any sort of actual decision.
I am male. And by chance, the person I love and want to share my life with and grow old with was born with boy parts too.
In the United Kingdom, this thankfully doesn't make a great deal of difference (1). The legal relationship we can and have formed is called a 'civil partnership' rather than a marriage, and despite the historically demonstrated problems with such 'separate but equal' political distinctions, for most legal intents and purposes it affords us the same rights as a male-female marriage would. We can visit one another in the hospital, be recognized together when we want to take out a mortgage on a home, and, most directly impacting us at the moment, have our relationship recognized at the federal level such that it provides the justification for the UK Border Agency to let me move to this country to be with him.
In the United States, this is not possible (2). While some few individual states have made the decision to allow same-sex marriages or some other form of legal partnership, and President Obama has recently stated his support for such legal equality (3), many states continue to explicitly ban same-sex couples from forming legal partnerships. More to the point, a federal decision ironically called the 'Defense of Marriage Act' forbids any of these unions from being in any way recognized by the federal government (4). One of the main things this means is that there is no path to immigration through a committed same-sex relationship; I cannot in any way bring my life partner to be with me in the US the way he was able to bring me to be with him in the UK.
Forced to make the choice between the love of my country, family and American friends on one side, and the love of my life partner and British loved ones on the other, well, you know how I chose. But it's not an easy thing. Hopefully I'll still be able to visit with my parents maybe once a year, and various good friends in the US once every several years, but I'll be a rare and fortunate case to actually have the resources available to do all this. So many people don't even have this option. If their loved one lives in another country, there's no way to bring that person into the US to be with them that doesn't carry the ever-present risk of deportation. For same-sex relationships within the US it's certainly more feasible to at least be together, but in most states there can be no legal recognition of their relationship. It's easy to dismiss this by saying 'who cares what the government thinks of my relationship?' until one starts to face real-world problems such as filing taxes, trying to take out a mortgage on a home, and visiting your life partner in the hospital when they're sick, injured, or dying.
My dear readers, this is the 21st century. The human race certainly has some maturing to do on the whole, but we've made incredible progress in even the last hundred years in technological development and social equality, which I feel are two very important measures by which to evaluate a civilization. While even in the most developed nations things continue to be imperfect when it comes to equal treatment of races and genders, and especially income stratification, the progress that has been made in recent history for equal civil rights is inspiring. Yet despite this, the US is currently clinging to outdated and unethical practices that divide the population into different social classes, affording certain rights to segments of the population and denying them to others. This denial of rights is quite plainly in violation of the specific language of the Constitution and the ethical ideals our nation was founded on (5).
I love America. It is the home of my birth. But the country shames me, and shames us all, in the way it has allowed itself to be dominated by inexcusably outdated social ideals. While I will freely admit that a large share of the problem rests in the way that the two-party system has led to a completely polarized political landscape where it is virtually impossible to hold a civil discussion about the way forward for the country, and plenty of this blame can be placed at the feet of the Democrats, it is the conservative side of the political spectrum that is most severely holding the country back and trying to keep it in a social dark age (and who effectively left me with no choice but to leave the country).
I am perfectly willing to accept that the Democrats are not perfect, and I would delight to see the Republican party be able to provide a foil for my side of the political spectrum such that we can all sit down together and hold an intelligent discussion about fiscal responsibility and foreign policy. The way the landscape is now, however, it's difficult to imagine this happening. The state of the world is this: the irresponsibility and laissez-faire approach of the US Republican party over the past dozen years has helped drag our entire world into an economic recession (6), while its head-in-the-sand reaction to the entire scientific consensus of the developed world that human-induced climate change represents a clear and present danger to the stability of our civilization borders on the criminally insane (7). And yet, in this US election year of 2012, neither of these issues dominate American political discussion with nearly the fervour that same-sex marriage issue does. Don't get me wrong; same-sex marriage -should- be an issue of great importance, as that is the entire point of this journal. However, my point is that we are faced with a political party, representing (goodness knows how) approximately half of the voting population of the most economically and militaristically powerful nation in the world, that would prefer to ignore the most important issues facing not only the country but our entire civilization and instead fight tooth and nail to ban the right of people in a committed and loving relationship to be together, simply because the nature of that relationship makes them uncomfortable (8).
I hope that you can the absurdity of this as clearly as I do. All you have to do is look up. Look around. Witness the way the world is evolving. Witness the way that the majority of the developed world recognizes same-sex relationships and other measures of social equality, and that by comparison, America's outdated social discrimination puts it closer to some extremist theocracies in the Middle East and Africa where simply being gay is legally punishable by imprisonment or death (9).
What I think really gets to me is the people I've spoken to who I believe do have good sense about them, and say they prefer to vote for conservatives over issues of fiscal or foreign policy or whatnot. Now, that in and of itself I can absolutely respect. I might feel a bit different about those issues but that's what politics are about, and I'm always happy to discuss and learn more about such things. But when those same people are also, by the way, campaigning energetically for banning same-sex unions of any type (10), denying the scientific consensus about the impact of modern industry on global climate (11), and giving as many get-out-of-jail-free cards to large self-obsessed corporations as possible (12), I see these issues as very large elephants in the room that cannot just be ignored under the guise of, 'oh, I'm only voting for him because of his stance on government spending.' An unfortunate truth of representative democratic voting, especially in a two party system where the options are so few, is that you get the whole package. Voting for someone over one issue you like their stance on means they'll be bringing along the other issues you might not care for, even these ones that I feel are holding our civilization back to a dangerous degree, when considering the big picture. While this 'package deal' problem exists with any politician, the Democrats aren't the ones I see using insidious tactics to forward a whole host of unethical and interrelated goals that threaten the development of our entire species (13).
So in the end... what's to be done? As much as it might feel like it, my conclusion for all of this isn't simply, 'vote Democrat.' Certainly it's what I tend to do, but the take-home message isn't quite that. The message is to vote at all. To pay attention. And for the love of all that is green and good, RESEARCH. Even just spending five minutes on Wikipedia reading up on the candidate or issue you're considering voting for. It really isn't very hard these days, which is a really wonderful perk of the information age. Be sure you know what you're getting when you support a candidate or issue, vote, and find ways to be involved or at least stay informed between election cycles. Even adding your name to online petitions for causes that are important to you. It's so easy to dismiss all of it with cynicism, telling yourself that it doesn’t matter because all the politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt and nobody cares about petitions, and I see so many people taking this stance. I of course cannot be certain that such things -do- matter, but just maybe they do. Maybe my vote can make a difference, however small, and maybe a politician receiving a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of his constituents can make him stop and think for a moment. Just maybe it can make even a small difference in forwarding something that's desperately important to you (14). Meanwhile, you know what will -definitely- make no difference at all? Sitting on your rear and -not- voting.
I apologize for sounding preachy about all of this, but I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of some of these issues. The one fundamental thing I would simply urge you to do above all else, dear readers, is simply... care. Don't just float through life ignoring everything to do with news and politics, telling yourself that it doesn't concern you. I think you'd be surprised how much out there does actually concern you. What you've just read after all is an example discussion on how it all concerns me.
If you've taken the time to read all of this, you have my gratitude and appreciation. Thanks much!
- - - -
Sources and further reading:
(in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia is not always a perfectly valid source, however it has been my experience that the articles linked here concern topics that are widely discussed and reviewed to such an extent that an informal peer review process does leave these articles quite sound and well-referenced. If you want to dig deeper into any of these things, these articles link to additional sources.)
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s.....United_Kingdom
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r....._United_States
(3) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/09/p.....?iref=obinsite
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defens.....f_Marriage_Act
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_.....tection_clause
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes.....000s_recession
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s.....and_opposition
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r.....y_or_territory
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....e-sex_marriage
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....Global_warming
(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....t_interference
(13) http://truth-out.org/index.php?opti.....-left-the-cult
(14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respec.....r_Marriage_Act
Now, there are a lot of reasons why I made the decision to move out of the United States and in to the United Kingdom. I really love the UK in a lot of ways; my closest loved ones that I want to build a family with are here, as are a number of good friends. At the same time however, being here means moving away from my parents and other family whom I dearly love, not being around to watch my nephews grow up, being far from a lot of deep friendships I've developed over the years, and being far from the country of my birth that is home to me, and that I also dearly love. It is a hard thing, and was not a decision I could make lightly. Fundamentally though, one reason mattered above all the rest, and made it a necessity rather than any sort of actual decision.
I am male. And by chance, the person I love and want to share my life with and grow old with was born with boy parts too.
In the United Kingdom, this thankfully doesn't make a great deal of difference (1). The legal relationship we can and have formed is called a 'civil partnership' rather than a marriage, and despite the historically demonstrated problems with such 'separate but equal' political distinctions, for most legal intents and purposes it affords us the same rights as a male-female marriage would. We can visit one another in the hospital, be recognized together when we want to take out a mortgage on a home, and, most directly impacting us at the moment, have our relationship recognized at the federal level such that it provides the justification for the UK Border Agency to let me move to this country to be with him.
In the United States, this is not possible (2). While some few individual states have made the decision to allow same-sex marriages or some other form of legal partnership, and President Obama has recently stated his support for such legal equality (3), many states continue to explicitly ban same-sex couples from forming legal partnerships. More to the point, a federal decision ironically called the 'Defense of Marriage Act' forbids any of these unions from being in any way recognized by the federal government (4). One of the main things this means is that there is no path to immigration through a committed same-sex relationship; I cannot in any way bring my life partner to be with me in the US the way he was able to bring me to be with him in the UK.
Forced to make the choice between the love of my country, family and American friends on one side, and the love of my life partner and British loved ones on the other, well, you know how I chose. But it's not an easy thing. Hopefully I'll still be able to visit with my parents maybe once a year, and various good friends in the US once every several years, but I'll be a rare and fortunate case to actually have the resources available to do all this. So many people don't even have this option. If their loved one lives in another country, there's no way to bring that person into the US to be with them that doesn't carry the ever-present risk of deportation. For same-sex relationships within the US it's certainly more feasible to at least be together, but in most states there can be no legal recognition of their relationship. It's easy to dismiss this by saying 'who cares what the government thinks of my relationship?' until one starts to face real-world problems such as filing taxes, trying to take out a mortgage on a home, and visiting your life partner in the hospital when they're sick, injured, or dying.
My dear readers, this is the 21st century. The human race certainly has some maturing to do on the whole, but we've made incredible progress in even the last hundred years in technological development and social equality, which I feel are two very important measures by which to evaluate a civilization. While even in the most developed nations things continue to be imperfect when it comes to equal treatment of races and genders, and especially income stratification, the progress that has been made in recent history for equal civil rights is inspiring. Yet despite this, the US is currently clinging to outdated and unethical practices that divide the population into different social classes, affording certain rights to segments of the population and denying them to others. This denial of rights is quite plainly in violation of the specific language of the Constitution and the ethical ideals our nation was founded on (5).
I love America. It is the home of my birth. But the country shames me, and shames us all, in the way it has allowed itself to be dominated by inexcusably outdated social ideals. While I will freely admit that a large share of the problem rests in the way that the two-party system has led to a completely polarized political landscape where it is virtually impossible to hold a civil discussion about the way forward for the country, and plenty of this blame can be placed at the feet of the Democrats, it is the conservative side of the political spectrum that is most severely holding the country back and trying to keep it in a social dark age (and who effectively left me with no choice but to leave the country).
I am perfectly willing to accept that the Democrats are not perfect, and I would delight to see the Republican party be able to provide a foil for my side of the political spectrum such that we can all sit down together and hold an intelligent discussion about fiscal responsibility and foreign policy. The way the landscape is now, however, it's difficult to imagine this happening. The state of the world is this: the irresponsibility and laissez-faire approach of the US Republican party over the past dozen years has helped drag our entire world into an economic recession (6), while its head-in-the-sand reaction to the entire scientific consensus of the developed world that human-induced climate change represents a clear and present danger to the stability of our civilization borders on the criminally insane (7). And yet, in this US election year of 2012, neither of these issues dominate American political discussion with nearly the fervour that same-sex marriage issue does. Don't get me wrong; same-sex marriage -should- be an issue of great importance, as that is the entire point of this journal. However, my point is that we are faced with a political party, representing (goodness knows how) approximately half of the voting population of the most economically and militaristically powerful nation in the world, that would prefer to ignore the most important issues facing not only the country but our entire civilization and instead fight tooth and nail to ban the right of people in a committed and loving relationship to be together, simply because the nature of that relationship makes them uncomfortable (8).
I hope that you can the absurdity of this as clearly as I do. All you have to do is look up. Look around. Witness the way the world is evolving. Witness the way that the majority of the developed world recognizes same-sex relationships and other measures of social equality, and that by comparison, America's outdated social discrimination puts it closer to some extremist theocracies in the Middle East and Africa where simply being gay is legally punishable by imprisonment or death (9).
What I think really gets to me is the people I've spoken to who I believe do have good sense about them, and say they prefer to vote for conservatives over issues of fiscal or foreign policy or whatnot. Now, that in and of itself I can absolutely respect. I might feel a bit different about those issues but that's what politics are about, and I'm always happy to discuss and learn more about such things. But when those same people are also, by the way, campaigning energetically for banning same-sex unions of any type (10), denying the scientific consensus about the impact of modern industry on global climate (11), and giving as many get-out-of-jail-free cards to large self-obsessed corporations as possible (12), I see these issues as very large elephants in the room that cannot just be ignored under the guise of, 'oh, I'm only voting for him because of his stance on government spending.' An unfortunate truth of representative democratic voting, especially in a two party system where the options are so few, is that you get the whole package. Voting for someone over one issue you like their stance on means they'll be bringing along the other issues you might not care for, even these ones that I feel are holding our civilization back to a dangerous degree, when considering the big picture. While this 'package deal' problem exists with any politician, the Democrats aren't the ones I see using insidious tactics to forward a whole host of unethical and interrelated goals that threaten the development of our entire species (13).
So in the end... what's to be done? As much as it might feel like it, my conclusion for all of this isn't simply, 'vote Democrat.' Certainly it's what I tend to do, but the take-home message isn't quite that. The message is to vote at all. To pay attention. And for the love of all that is green and good, RESEARCH. Even just spending five minutes on Wikipedia reading up on the candidate or issue you're considering voting for. It really isn't very hard these days, which is a really wonderful perk of the information age. Be sure you know what you're getting when you support a candidate or issue, vote, and find ways to be involved or at least stay informed between election cycles. Even adding your name to online petitions for causes that are important to you. It's so easy to dismiss all of it with cynicism, telling yourself that it doesn’t matter because all the politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt and nobody cares about petitions, and I see so many people taking this stance. I of course cannot be certain that such things -do- matter, but just maybe they do. Maybe my vote can make a difference, however small, and maybe a politician receiving a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of his constituents can make him stop and think for a moment. Just maybe it can make even a small difference in forwarding something that's desperately important to you (14). Meanwhile, you know what will -definitely- make no difference at all? Sitting on your rear and -not- voting.
I apologize for sounding preachy about all of this, but I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of some of these issues. The one fundamental thing I would simply urge you to do above all else, dear readers, is simply... care. Don't just float through life ignoring everything to do with news and politics, telling yourself that it doesn't concern you. I think you'd be surprised how much out there does actually concern you. What you've just read after all is an example discussion on how it all concerns me.
If you've taken the time to read all of this, you have my gratitude and appreciation. Thanks much!
- - - -
Sources and further reading:
(in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia is not always a perfectly valid source, however it has been my experience that the articles linked here concern topics that are widely discussed and reviewed to such an extent that an informal peer review process does leave these articles quite sound and well-referenced. If you want to dig deeper into any of these things, these articles link to additional sources.)
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s.....United_Kingdom
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r....._United_States
(3) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/09/p.....?iref=obinsite
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defens.....f_Marriage_Act
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_.....tection_clause
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes.....000s_recession
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s.....and_opposition
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r.....y_or_territory
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....e-sex_marriage
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....Global_warming
(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi.....t_interference
(13) http://truth-out.org/index.php?opti.....-left-the-cult
(14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respec.....r_Marriage_Act
I can only imagine how you feel with all the conflicting emotions you must be going through, but I'm usually around if you need a hug ^.-.^
And sadface 8< because yah this is hard topics to even talk about or listen to. I hava hard time with this, even. A lot of people if they knew what was in my head (thankfully it's really easy to pretend there's nothing in there!), they'd say I was so backward too. But I learn. Thanks for sharing Dorey :> *hugs*
It is a hard issue, or hard mess of intertwining issues, and it isn't fair to people that we're forced to chose in such an 'all or nothing' sense.
Though for what it's worth, my own desires aren't about being the one on top and enacting some kind of misguided revenge on all the groups I've felt wronged by. I just want to be allowed to live my life and love whom I love. And right now the UK allows that in ways the US doesn't.
One thing to teach them is that yes, it is fully possible to be racist against whites and sexist against men.
I feel uncharacteristically aggressive and single-minded saying that, but with this issue that's really where I am anymore. I'm fed up with the stupidity and bigotry, and I'm calling it out for what it is whenever I encounter it.
I'll really be hoping for positive developments in Minnesota and the rest of the States this November.
Voting definitely does help to change things, though I think Jessie Ventura put it better than anyone when he said "The problem with this country is that people keep voting for the same two knuckleheads who have screwed everything up! You want things to change, stop voting for republicans and democrats!"
While it does sound empowering, the underlying issue that seems to polarize the country is that the US is deeply divided on the direction they should go. Most elections end with near 50/50 results, and given that in the end there are only two choices that are polar opposites, it's frightening that it keeps turning out so evenly. Makes one wonder if America really would have been better off if the south had split so the two very different viewpoints could have their own nations and own leaders.
Anyway, moot point - Dory, I doubt anyone would question your decision to move to the UK, and I think it's a wonderful choice (even if I'm more bias toward Canada, heh). I wish you the greatest happiness and success, and hope the Commonwealth treats you to a life that you could not have back in the US. *hugs tight*
I'd welcome some kind of change that brought more options to the playing field, but what few third party offerings there have been either are even more extreme or out of touch than the main parties, or just can never build enough support to have a shot at doing more than dividing voters so the party they're all competing against wins out.
I love America, and as you say there is a lot to love about the place. I left so I could move forward with my life, not to turn my back on it. I'm happy and doing well here, and in the mean time I'll keep voting absentee and... I guess writing journals like this to try and spread awareness. ^^
One other major drawback I realized I forgot to mention is the 8 year limit for presidency too. That's the other MAJOR problem with the US system. On the rare chance the US gets a leader who knows what he's doing, they most they can ever hope to have him/her in power is 8 years - two terms. That's horrible! 8 years is simply not enough time for long-term policies to be implemented and take effect, and that's a big part of why the US has such big financial issues. A president can start an initiative with the best of intents, but if it takes 10 to 15 years for the full financial turn around to happen (and some long-term plans can take even longer) he's already doomed the day it gets put into play because the next president is quite likely to reverse the decision and undo the work. A good president should be allowed to keep running for office as long as he/she wants. In Canada, the longest-serving Prime Minister served a total of 21 years in three different terms, the second longest served 19 years (and actually died as PM). A lot of great programs they spear-headed would not have happened if they had been limited to a mere 8 years.
The term limit issue certainly seems relevant too, and kind of a hard one to sort out. It can be good as a defence against people who would get in office and really do damage, but yeah, everything is so short-sighted and it means that by the end of each 8 year cycle, the majority of the voters are usually fed up with the entire party so the power just swings back and forth each cycle, and the new party to take power does all it can to undo everything that was done by the previous regime. It really does seem like as long as there's a good way to vote someone out of office if they start getting too crazy though, if somebody really is a good leader, why force them out? As you say, it might open up the ability to actually develop some longer-term programs to benefit the country, rather than having them all just overturned a few years later.
Ah well - best now to try not to let it bother ya so much and just enjoy being in your new home and especially with those you love. ^_^
Oh, one other VERY unfortunate thing is that the US is also the only nation that insists its citizens pay income tax irregardless of where they live. More info here: http://www.taxmeless.com/IRS593Publication.htm
http://blogs.wsj.com/hong-kong/2011.....e-and-through/
Definitely read up on it and see what's required. In time, you could end up just giving up the US citizenship if it ends up being more trouble than it's worth.
K Fox
** My personal definition of stupidity is important - and it sums up to 'willful or deliberate ignorance of the truth'. Ignorance is a part of life, being the state of not having experienced something and not having been taught about it either. But deliberately ignoring a fact simply because it's inconvenient is stupid in my book, hence my definition. ANd it really does seem quite prevalent in the political game...
I am not a political scientist, and I'm willing to accept that there probably are some compelling reasons for the current electoral system existing, issues that I haven't thought of. At the very least, disbanding the electoral college and running elections on popular vote alone would really change how campaigns are run; instead of candidates focusing on 'battleground states' they'd probably pour most of their energy into major urban centres, and more rural populations might end up getting a bit disenfranchised. So there's that risk, and yet... I don't see how that's any worse than what we've got now. With the electoral system, as it is we have probably millions of voters whose votes don't really count, because they live in a state or district where it's already a given which way it'll go. If you live in a state where your political leaning is either the clear majority OR minority, your vote doesn't end up counting for much of anything, so it's easy to feel like it makes no difference if you aren't in one of those battleground states.
I'd be delighted to hear the arguments behind why we shouldn't just disband the electoral college immediately and go to popular vote alone. Because the only arguments I've heard so far are those above which, while having some difficult issues to sort out, certainly don't seem any worse than the way it is now. Most of it feels like it just amounts to whining from the people who have gotten comfortable with the way the system works now and know how to exploit it. Those who hold the power are always going to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that allowed them to get that power.
Thanks very much for your comments. :)
2) Both the 2000 and 2004 elections were prime examples of how poor the current system is, and how exploitable it is. Neither election saw the popular vote winner seated as president - Bush lost both popular votes, but won the 'electoral college vote'. How is this in any way representing what the people want? Why was this even allowed? I've always wondered why some of these vocal political groups didn't band together and make a big deal out of that - it should be illegal. Hell, America was founded on the idea of rebelling against improper representation (my personal synopsis of the situation, there). And here we are again, being poorly represented by those in our government - people who are making sometimes big decisions in our lives for us. This is not good, and it won't get better unless we can do something about it. But that something has to be subtle, and very simple, so that it's not seen as a threat to the status quo. I think pushing for a change to the electoral voting system is a good start, and if it happens than it opens doors to being able to make bigger changes down the road after some of the corruption has been corralled. The biggest problem I see with this is a multifaceted one. First, I simply don't have the time to attempt it myself, nor do I have anywhere near the resources. I am also sadly very short of patience when it comes to some of the people I will undoubtedly encounter in the effort - as I said before, I cannot abide by stupidity (my definition of it), and I get angry quickly when confronted by it. Angry does not present well, so someone with more patience than I needs to be the spokesperson of the movement. I do think this is best served as a movement by a group, not an individual, but I will also admit a lack of knowledge of where to start, or more importantly, who to trust to run with this idea. I can't be the only person thinking of this, but I've not heard anything about it before, so it must be being kept quiet. But if the right people were to start running with it, maybe enough noise could be made to institute the change, and finally get our country going back in the right direction as far as controlling some of the corruption that runs rampant through the government. Maybe. I like throwing the idea out there, and I keep hoping someone will eventually be in the right position to make use of it - so if you agree with me, then share this, or your ideas, with anyone you think can do something with them. I'm just too stuck staying alive right now to attempt something like this. That said, I do feel that this is critically important to fix NOW - the longer it takes, the worse things are going to get (as if they're not bad enough already...).
K Fox (I try to live my life by a simple quote, that I wish our government lived by - 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.' In recent times it seems they've gotten that backwards...)
I can certainly see your point though that flat-out disbanding the electoral college probably is too great a step, and as you say, it would run the risk of the risk of a new system replacing it that was just as bad. So hopefully there's room for something that can transition toward the popular vote being the most important element, at least, since that really feels like the way it should be.