We welcome your comments. Send them to themail@rochester-citynews.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. Comments of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don’t publish comments sent to other media.
The events in Nicaragua
In CITY’s article about Nicaragua, you —more or less casually—accepted one possible narrative for the unrest in Nicaragua. To quote CITY: “In April, people flooded streets in Nicaragua’s cities to protest President Daniel Ortega’s plan to raise social security taxes and cut benefits to seniors. Protests against Ortega and his administration have continued, and police have responded with brutal, sometimes deadly force.”
I propose a different narrative: The unrest in Nicaragua represented a coup attempt, supported by the Nicaraguan right wing and the US right wing. For example, the so-called student leaders were invited to visit US far-right politicians like Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. They were welcomed with open arms.
It is true that the coup leaders have won the propaganda war, but the Nicaraguan government continues its progressive, successful leadership. “The threat of a good example” still motivates US foreign policy against Nicaragua. We should see the unrest for what it is, not for what the right wing wants it to be.
ARNOLD MATLIN
Entertainment and Parcel 5
On city officials’ interest in a Kansas City entertainment complex as a possible model for Parcel 5: The “Kansas City Live!” concept should be a non-starter for Rochester because of the noise that would impact adjacent residences. Five or six outdoor concerts a year could be tolerated, but clearly not 50. And you definitely don’t want potential visitors from the suburbs and beyond taking their dollars elsewhere to avoid the noise.
It would be a disaster if most every concert-goer was only after a free or cheap good time. How unfair it would be if taxpayers were forced to subsidize this type of artificial vibrancy. The reality is that Rochester’s population is too small to sustain a permanent entertainment complex without massive subsidies.
What goes on Parcel 5 should be very different from the former Midtown Plaza. At first glance, a park seems like the obvious Plan B, but it’s tough to envision suburbanites travelling downtown to experience a park when they have better and more abundant green spaces where they are.
For many years, Midtown Plaza functioned as a public town square, and then it didn’t. A worse version of Midtown Plaza is not the answer. It has to fail.
Another thing Parcel 5 shouldn’t be is the blighted empty lot it is now. Parcel 5 needs to just go away. I have an idea: Let’s expand all the surrounding buildings into Parcel 5 until it disappears.
MICHAEL BRUTON
CRCDS and the neighbors
Last week, local developer Angelo Ingrassia and Flaum Management Company announced a new development plan for the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School campus. It includes new residential buildings on top of the hill, where development already exists, and it leaves the south lawn undeveloped. Members of an adjacent city neighborhood group were pleased, as was the Landmark Society of Western New York. But a Brighton resident posted this comment on CITY’s report:
Yes, the members of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association are happy. Yes, for selfish, aesthetic, “street appeal” reasons the Landmark Society is happy. But the losers? The people living in the Town of Brighton on the east side of the campus, who were given no consultation whatsoever during this entire process.
The new plan shows a 16,000 square-foot building literally feet from the property lines. And it’s uphill, so the new building’s windows will look down into the neighbors’ houses and yards, destroying privacy. Light pollution at night, noise in the day, a parking lot with salt pollution in winter, plus fumes. All in a quiet woodland neighborhood.
PAUL BROOKES
The intelligence of voters
On Urban Journal’s “Trump, US Challenges, and American Voters’ IQ”: I’m sure that anything that hinders the Electoral College process will be ruled unconstitutional. Thank God that our forefathers were so much smarter than we are today and were wise enough to see the dangers created by the popular vote.
Of course the left advocates for the popular vote, because they are fine with California and New York electing every president. There are those of us who want better for the country than what California and New York are doing to their own states.
MICHAEL GREER
This article appears in Jan 9-15, 2019.
Mr. Greer has missed the mark. I suggest he investigate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which 11 states + DC (with 172 electoral votes) so far have agreed to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The plan would take effect once enough states have signed on to award the requisite 270 electoral votes. Since the Constitutional permits each state to determine how its electoral votes are awarded. the plan is de facto constitutional.
Trump, November 13, 2016, on 60 Minutes
I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. Theres a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
“The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 33870 margin.
Past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).
Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (RGA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (RTN),
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).
In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.
California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population
Alone, they could not determine the presidency.
In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.
The vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.
In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.
New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.
Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.
Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.
The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws, and now may change them in the same way.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
I’m quite disappointed that your publication isn’t addressing the incident of racism in the East End involving an RPO musician who was jailed overnight for the heinous crime of Parking While Black. While similar incidents have named and shamed the white-privileged perpetrators, there’s no effort here to name and shame the Downstairs Cabaret impresario as “Parking Lot Pete” or something similar. It adds to the unfortunate stereotype that liberal artsy white guys get a pass (see: Woody Allen, Bernie Sanders, et al).