POST ELECTION THOUGHTS.

I am in good company for issuing an apology, although mine has to do only with a late posted blog not a national misadventure.

A Thursday afternoon/evening that included a visit to the orthopedist, a visit to the Temple Sholom exhibit, and final to the Mapp Transition Team meeting, followed by watching the second half of the Stanford domination of  #2 Oregon used up all the available hours before sleep.

Net results; my pitching arm is still weak, the exhibit is a well done photo dominated reminder of part of the golden era of Plainfield’s history, and the presence of over 120 participants willing to help our next mayor is most heartening for the future.

So much for chit chat. This past election once again has raised several questions some of which were highlighted in Sundays Courier. Specifically changes in election laws.

There should be national voting right’s laws; not those of each state many of which are just within constitutional rights but ethnically and economical restricting voting access. Two of the worst states are Texas, and North Carolina.

Another is the determination of voting districts in which states are able to make the election of Representatives and State officials safe for a particular party. New Jersey is one of the worst; the gerrymandering of Congressional districts has no logical geographic reason but will assure that our split of representatives in Congress will never change barring a complete collapse of one party.

The same is true of determining the makeup of the State Senate and Assembly. Our method of plotting voting districts evolves upon one person a so called independent. Such a person is beholden to both parties so status quo is operational mode.

Every 10 years there is a redrawing of entities for both national and state offices based on the census. Except when we lose a congressional seat there is little chance that an incumbent will be defeated.

This is also true in the separately devised state legislature districts.

The politicians have no desire to risk their livelihood; so it is unlikely that they will initiate any change. 

That is why there must be another change making in permissible and without difficulty for public originated proposition to appear on the ballot.