By Carol Lucas
How is it possible in a country where the majority supposedly rules that we have situations where, indeed, the majority doesn’t rule? I am sure there are more than the two scenarios I am about to address; however, I am sufficiently perplexed by these that I choose to throw them out for your consideration.
Currently occupying the news almost every day is that of Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s use of a Senate rule: the ability of one of one hundred persons in a governing body to halt the confirmation of (at this count) 301 military promotions. Think about those numbers. One hundredth of the Senate impacting 301 promotions as well as the number of family lives that are also on hold. It is estimated that as many as 650 nominations could be affected by the end of 2023 should this continue.
And why? Because he chooses to politicize the military over the issue of abortion. Might I add, he actually plans to extend his “fifteen minutes of fame” by stating the following: “We are going to be in a holding pattern for a long time if the Pentagon refuses to end its policy of paying for travel when a service member goes out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. Reread those last four words. By whom is the stated reproductive care to be interpreted? By Tuberville, himself?
I learned that historically these confirmations are approved by unanimous consent, and this is required. Unanimous consent by definition of the Senate, however, requires all one hundred members to agree. No majority rule. Another aspect of this rule is a lengthy debate that can be put into place. However, most agree that time is of the essence with little remaining for debate.
Think of this bit of Tuberville puffery in terms of the global situation confronting the United States in the Pacific. There is that of China and Taiwan. Add to the mix Russia’s courting of North Korea. And all of this is further impacted by the continuing war in Ukraine.
Yes, there has always been some aspect of warfare confronting our country, and with the exception of September 11, thank God it has not been on our soil, yet. However, Senator Tuberville seems to be far more consumed by his need to police a military female’s body than to effectively police those parts of the world that seek to do us harm. If you think this statement is overly dramatic, simply consider the impact on our hometown situation. For the first time in 100 years, the Marines are left without a confirmed leader.
I strongly suggest you go online and access a video interview of retired Admiral Mike Mullen on PBS. His words are worth hearing. Furthermore, three military branches – the Army, Navy and Marine Corps – have no Senate-confirmed chiefs in place. I found the following quote: “These jobs are being performed without the full range of legal authorities necessary to make decisions that will sustain the United States’ military edge.”
So I suggest to the Senator from Alabama that perhaps we would have been better off had he stuck to football. Yes, there are dangers there, fodder for another column, but they don’t affect our entire country. And to you, dear reader, I also suggest that regardless of your stance on abortion, ask yourself this: should the efficiency and the readiness of our armed forces take a second place to the abortion issue?
So on to the second “majority rules” issue, that of the electoral college. I admit to lacking in-depth knowledge of how this works, and even after reading several sources, I am still baffled by some aspects of the system.
By definition, a group of people/electors, chosen from each state as well as the District of Columbia, come together in their respective states to formally elect the President and vice-President of the country. Note that senators and representatives do not fall under this system.
It seems that the main argument to keep the electoral college is that it keeps the smaller states relevant. In other words, it encourages candidates to pay attention to “small state problems.” I would argue that there are better ways to keep those state problems in the spotlight.
I contend the electoral college has many more cons than pros. Perhaps the most striking disadvantage is the number of elections won by popular vote but lost due to the electoral college. Most recently are the losses of Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Is it any wonder that people begin to ask whether or not it is worth voting since their vote may not count? Sadly, voter participation rates are already low. If we were to eliminate the electoral college, that would never become an issue.
Finally, it should be noted there is no provision in our Constitution and no Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the popular vote. Rogue electors can disrupt elections without consequences. I find that disconcerting.
So I conclude with a mathematical question – not bad for an old English major. When is one not equal to one but rather to zero? Ponder that.
Carol Lucas is a retired high school teacher and a Lady’s Island resident. She is the author of the recently published “A Breath Away: One Woman’s Journey Through Widowhood.”
