The Electoral College Needs To Go and Here's Why

People are calling for an end to the Electoral College.

Has the Electoral College become an Antiquated System? According to Sen.Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) and 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, it has. In a recent CNN, Town-Hall Warren brought up the idea of abolishing the Electoral College. Warren stated that this plan has merit and that "We the People" should pursue it. 

The electoral college's practicality in America died a long time ago. In the last four out five presidential elections, Democratic candidates have won the popular vote. However, they only won the presidency twice out of those four elections. Does this seem like a healthy thriving democracy to you? The House of Public Discourse doesn't think so. 

What This Is About Is Making Sure Every Vote In This Country Matters

Republicans and the Religious Right doesn't want every vote to matter. They've desired to suppress the vote for decades.

Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote.[See Source]

In the present, the electoral college does not ensure that every vote matters not by a longshot. Your vote depending on where you live matters. If you live in a high population swing state your vote matters, however, if you live in a low population state forget it. If you live in Idaho you might as well stay home and not vote. The House of Public Discourse hates to say such a thing we encourage people to vote, but that's what the electoral college has done. Disenfranchised voters. 

Why would politicians fight for your three electoral votes when he/she could be fighting for 27 electoral votes in a swing state like Florida? Or, you switch to a one person one vote system and overnight your vote in Idaho carries as much weight as a voter in Florida. 

One Person One Vote

The popular vote would level the playing field for American voters. Instead of voters of a small state having to compete with voters from a large state for electoral votes a one person one vote system would ensure that your vote would carry the same weight no matter where you live. Abolishing the electoral college would make everybody's vote matter. 

It would motivate candidates to campaign in states where they now do not. Typically, you don't see Democratic presidential candidates campaigning down in Alabama or Southern states in general. However, those states have as much as 40%, Democratic voters. Under a one vote one person system that 40 % becomes enormous in determining the outcome of an election. 

On the other side, the same thing applies to Republicans. For example, Republican presidential candidates will campaign in upstate New York, but they're not going to campaign down in the New York City. Under a popular vote system, you can bet your bottom dollar they will. 

What's ironic is the biggest complaint you here coming from the Republicans who oppose one person one vote is that candidates will not campaign in the small states. Nothing could be further from the truth. The swing states, the big states, the highly populated states will not be as important as they are in the present. It is everybody's vote that matters. Both Democrats and Republican candidates will be going places that traditionally they have not. 


The one person one vote system would force aspiring politicians to fight for your vote not just for the electoral votes in your state. Things get real when you have to reach individual voters as opposed to a majority of voters in a particular area. Switching to a popular vote would be a benefit for this country. 

It would bring more accountability, honesty, and integrity. Most important, it would ensure that every single American citizen's vote matters. In this writers view, I can't see how anyone with a fair and balanced mind could oppose the one person one vote system. 

Written By: Johnny Hill

Is It Time to Trash the Electoral College?

Once again in America, we have a presidential election outcome that places the winner of the election in office even though they failed to win the popular vote. It's not the first time but many in America are protesting in the streets for it to be the last.

Why does the United Sates use the Electoral College and not the popular vote to decide the presidency? What is the Electoral College?

Yes, people are very upset that Donald Trump won the election based on the electoral college. Democrats still have the stinging memory of Bush v Gore in 2000. Gore conceded a day after an exhaustive manual recount in the state of Florida was halted by the United States Supreme Court. 

The decision by the court resulted in Bush getting the state's 25 electoral votes which put Bush over the 270-electoral vote threshold to win the White House. Now, let's be clear the current Clinton v Trump election does not have the same issues as Gore v Bush but it does share one thing the winner of the popular vote lost. The Supreme Court did not decide the outcome.

There weren't any hanging chads to ponder over but the outcome put this year's election results in the highly unusual category. This year's election results marks only the fifth time a president received the keys to the White House without winning the popular vote. [See Source]

Donald Trump won this election fair and square based on the Electoral College system a much maligned and complex system for choosing the presidency. Many are protesting in the streets right now because of this system and many ask why isn't a simple vote count of the popular vote used?

There is a misconception that when Americans go to the polls to vote for a presidential candidate they are voting for that person in the present Clinton or Trump. In fact, this is wrong. They [American Voter] are casting their vote for a group of electors who then vote for the president.

Another misnomer about presidential voting is that the president is elected once the public vote totals are tabulated. This may come as a shock to some but ever since they stopped Civics classes in High School people are quite illiterate when it comes to politics in this country. This tabulation is called the popular vote.

Because of these misinterpretations, people fail to understand or realize that we do not technically vote for the president, but rather for which Electoral College representative will get to vote for president. The president isn't officially elected until January. Soon after the election, the current Vice-President Joe Biden will call for open voting during a joint session of Congress. During this session, the electoral votes will be counted and submitted.

Who Are These Electors and How Are They Chosen?

There are two federal laws on the books that appertain to who can be an elector. The first comes straight from the Constitution of The United States. Article II states: 

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

The second is a provision buried deep in the 14th amendment that was a direct result of the Civil War which states:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." 

Other than these two restrictions anyone can be an elector. The political parties have much to say about who becomes an elector. Also, each state legislature determines its own method of selection. To simplify, each state nominates an elector who has a history of being loyal to their respective parties.

Here is where it [Electoral College] gets confusing and in many people's view undemocratic. The number of electors is equal to the number of electoral votes each state is allotted. In turn, this number is generally equal to the number of senators [two per state] and the number of representatives [based on population]. On election day, whichever political party’s candidate receives the most popular votes that party's chosen electors get to vote for the president in that respective state. One of the most confusing and labyrinthine aspects of the Electoral College is there are no federal laws or Constitutional provisions that require electors to cast their vote based on the state's popular vote results. However, most states have put in place laws that require electors to do so.

Has the Electoral College become an Antiquated System?

Initially, the Electoral College was established because without it candidates would focus their time on the big population centers, therefore, they would have the attention of the voters in these population areas and the vast rural areas of the country would be ignored. Essentially, what this meant was national elections would be nothing more than elections between big cities. So, the founders established the Electoral College and later the primary system as a stopgap. But, what did that lead to? It leads to big states being ignored and basically just flipped the whole process around. What this has led to is, in fact, small rural states having a disproportionate power and attention paid to them.

Based on this writer's research and in my view the Electoral College system must go. We have reached a time in our nation where the popular vote should determine the winner of any election not just the presidency. It's not only the simplest way it's the most democratic. The main reason it's unlikely to change no matter the level of protest it would take a constitutional amendment to change the rules and to do so would require three-fourths of the states to ratify it. This ratification is unlikely because more than a quarter of the states would be against it because they are small states and benefit from the Electoral College system.

One of this writer's all-time favorite political shows to this day is C-SPAN’S Washington Journal here is a very good debate for and against the Electoral College.

As we know today the very scenarios these gentlemen were talking about in 2009 came to past this 2016 election cycle. 

Some closing bullet points that we pose are a current modern day problem with the Electoral College.

• It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. 
• It distorts the presidential campaign, by incentivizing the parties to write off the more than 40 states (plus the District of Columbia) that they know they either can’t win or can’t lose. 
• The Electoral College system further distorts the presidential campaign by causing the candidates to grant extra weight to the parochial needs of the swing states.
• It distorts governance.
• The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy.
• The Electoral College creates the possibility of a 269-269 tie vote, and in almost every recent election there has been a relatively credible scenario for such an outcome.
• Although our system, as evolved, makes it very hard for third parties to win elections and almost impossible for a third party to win the presidency.
• In case of a tie, or if no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes cast for president, the choice of president is thrown in the House of Representatives but  the election is conducted on a one-state one-vote basis.
• For a deeper analyst of our bullet points, you can review our source here.

Debtors Prisons On The Rise! What Happened To The 14th Amendment?

Debtors Prisons On The Rise! What Happened To The 14th Amendment?

Debtor Prisons Where Suppose to be Outlawed In America

Since the late 20th century, the term "debtors" prison" has sometimes come to be applied when a court sends someone to prison over criminal duties which would normally be imposed monetarily, but cannot be paid.

"A debtors' prison is a prison for people who are unable to pay a debt. These prisons have been used since ancient times. Through the mid 19th century, debtors' prisons were a common way to deal with unpaid debt in Western Europe. Though increasing access and leniency throughout the history of bankruptcy law have rendered debtors' prisons irrelevant over most of the world, as of May 2013, they persist in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Greece, Switzerland and the United States. Then Since the late 20th century, the term debtors' prison has sometimes come to be applied when a court sends someone to prison over criminal duties that would usually be imposed monetarily, but cannot be paid. For example, in some jurisdictions within the United States, people can be held in contempt of court and jailed for non-payment of child support, garnishments, confiscations, fines, or back taxes. The charge for contempt of court is going to jail. The reason for the contempt of court charge is negligent non-payment, obstruction, or fraud." [See Source]

For over 20 years now, debtors’ prisons have been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. That does not mean that they do not still exist. In simplistic terms, the reasoning behind this decision came from the realization that incarcerating someone for a debt was in breach of the 14th Amendment.

"For example, in some jurisdictions within the United States, people can be held in contempt of court and jailed after non-payment of child support, garnishments, confiscations, fines, or back taxes. The charge for going to jail is in contempt of court. The reason for the contempt of court charge is negligent non-payment, obstruction, or fraud."

All this boils down to is mercantile for the lawyers and the local and state governments. It’s a booming business. People who have got caught up in this snare know the system is rigged, and our judicial branch has become a pay as you go franchise. These so-called fines and fees are nothing more than a tax on the human condition. Also, makes a great revenue stream for the growing ” Prison for Profit” trending across America. Additionally, though adequately served civil duties over private debts in nations such as the United States will merely result in a default judgment being rendered in absentia if the defendant willfully declines to appear by law, a substantial number of indigent debtors are legally incarcerated for failure to appear at civil debt proceedings.

Who is fooling who here? The powers that be know that an enormous amount of these cases will result in default judgments for failure to appear. They keep stats on these type of things derived from the court's public record of litigated cases. With the practice of austerity and the cutting of tax revenue in states across America and largely in the ” Red States,” we are seeing a new explosion of non-violent offenders entering into the correctional system.

The legal arguments are mounting against this ever-increasing practice. Many legal scholars and advocacy groups are now starting to question the legitimacy of using the "contempt of court,” dogma as the justification to detain someone for merely owing a debt. There has been a very gross over-reach or overlook of the key prevailing legal terms involved with being in contempt. Willful non-compliance and negligent non-payment.

Coexist T-Shirt $19.99 ( Free Shipping  

Reforms eventually outlawed the practice. But groups like the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union say it’s been reborn in local courts that may not be aware it’s against the law to send indigent people to jail for unpaid fines and fees — or they just haven’t been called on it until now.[See Source]

WELL ITS TIME TO CALL THEM ON IT.

Here are some bullet points that this activity fails the 14th Amendment constitutional test.

• In 1970, the Court ruled in Williams v. Illinois that extending a maximum prison term because a person is too poor to pay fines or court costs violates the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• During 1971 in Tate v. Short, the Court found it unconstitutional to impose a fine as a sentence and then automatically convert it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.
• And in the 1983 ruling for Bearden v. Georgia the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment bars courts from revoking probation for a failure to pay a fine without first inquiring into a person's ability to pay and considering whether there are adequate alternatives to imprisonment.

What sometimes seems to escape scrutiny is the balance sheets on this often political centerpiece in local and state elections. The big questions is jailing poor people for contempt of court for failure to appear for a debt practical? The numbers don’t lie.  

“It’s a waste of taxpayer resources, and it undermines the integrity of the justice system,” Carl Takei, staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Prison Project, told Fox News.com.“The problem is it’s not much of a money-making proposition … to throw people in jail for fines and fees when they can’t afford it. If counties weren’t spending the money jailing people for not paying debts, they could be spending the money in other ways.”

For example, according to the report, Mecklenburg County, N.C., collected $33,476 in debts in 2009, but spent $40,000 jailing 246 debtors — a loss of $6,524.[See Source]

But there is a more recent prime example of this. The push to have welfare recipients drug tested. There was a significant cost overrun for the States, which netted a single digit positive drug test result. When you are convicted of a crime courts, impose a fine and link that to a conviction no matter the infraction or classification of the offense. Fees are all those extras tacked on by the court to fund administrative services. These costs are ambiguous from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The 14 Th Amendment was enacted post Civil War as a stopgap measure to reduce the overwhelming human rights violations going on in the Slave owner South.

There have been studies conducted in several states with high prison populations that suggest the following.

A year-long study released in 2010 of fifteen states with the highest prison populations by the Brennan Center for Justice, found that all fifteen states sampled have jurisdictions that arrest people for failing to pay debt or appear at debt related hearings. Aside from citizens being jailed without legal counsel the study identified four causes that lead to debtors’ prison type arrests for debts;

• State laws that attempt to make criminal justice debt a condition of probation, parole, or other correctional supervision with failure to pay to result in arrest and re-imprisonment.
• State laws that consider incarceration as a penalty for failure to pay criminal justice debt. These actions are seen as a civil contempt of court charge, thus technically not in violation of state constitutions that prohibit debtors’ prisons, but for the same reason those incarcerated must be released immediately if they either pay or prove themselves unable to do so.
• Citizens are choosing jail time under state programs where incarceration is a way of paying down court-imposed debt.
• States that regularly arrest citizens for criminal justice debt prior to appearing at debt-related hearings, leading in many cases to multi-day jail terms pending an ability to pay to hearing.

During 1971 in Tate v. Short, the Court found it unconstitutional to impose a fine as a sentence and then automatically convert it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.[Source: Wiki]

There are so many examples how inequality plays out in the hum-drum of everyday life. We must call these forces out that would detain a person from freedom to move to and fro for non-willful, non-negligent, non-repayment of debt. The practice is a balance sheet nightmare and a big loss to the taxpayer.

The Return of Debtors' Prison via Court Fees

Authoritarianism + Racism + Fascism =The Tea Party

Mussolini

If you are behind the curve on just what Authoritarianism is please see Leave Your Authoritarianism At The Church House Please! As we begin the 2016 Presidential Election in earnest knowing who your constituents are is vital and even more important where they came from, in short, their history. In asking myself this question with the task of answering it properly my study was quickly directed to a term Mussolini American Republicans. Our research here in the HOPD quickly found that the Tea Party mindset is nothing new and has origins dating back to Mussolini. There was an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship in America. The upshot of the movement was to create an organization with a goal of reaching some 500,000 men. Their purpose was clear and simple. Intimidate the government. A Congressional committee was formed on the matter. Subsequently evidence found a plot to overthrow FDR.  This behavior is very much akin to the growing Secession Movement in America today coming primarily from the Tea Party crowd.[See Article] 

How fascists plotted to overthrow the US Government

Then low and behold the name Prescott Bush  materializes. That's right the original Bush traitor. The Daddy and Granddaddy to the modern day, Bush family who all but ruin this country and drove into the ditch. Prescott Bush was a Nazi traitor to this country and like his grandson Bush, Jr should have been tried for treason. [See Source] 

In 1932, Mussolini stated:

" We are absolutely opposed to Liberalism." 

Just like the Tea Party of today the Mussolini American 

Republicans felt that Egalitarianism was an absurd political lie.

What is Egalitarianism? 

Just like the Tea Party of today the Mussolini American Republicans felt that Egalitarianism was an absurd political lie. The moocher comments we hear today from the Tea Party and the go " fend for yourself," mantra of the Libertarians are shockingly similar to the outcry's of the Mussolini American Republicans. They claimed FDR's New Deal would lead to collective irresponsibility. Not unlike today's Tea Party, they claimed the fertile and beneficent inequality of men cannot be leveled by suffrage. 

These Are Not Lincoln Republicans!

Our research in the House of Public Discourse has concluded that the modern-day Tea Party is nothing more than a fascist movement motivated by racism and enabled by Authoritarianism. With the 2008 election rendering America, the first person of color to the White House created the spark to ignite this reemergence of blatant Fascism in America. The movement has been spearheaded by the American Christian Right. See the right-wing authoritarian follower is easily brainwashed. The late Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, and John Hagee have been some of the biggest perpetrators with a list growing daily. TV Pastors see money in Fascism, Racism, and Authoritarianism. They are obvious power and control seekers.  

Buy Our Source Here

Another similarity, just like the Mussolini American Republicans hated FDR the same can be said of the Tea Party towards Barack Obama. 

The Tea Party tries to sell their organization as a cross-section of America. They allege they are a nonpartisan mix of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. This is absurd. Our research in the HOPD clearly reveals that the Tea Party is primarily made up of Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers who make up the ranks of the Republican Social Conservative faction within the party. The Religious Right. According to a study conducted on the issue found that most of the Tea Party followers suffer from " The Hitler Syndrome." [See Source]

BREITBART AND THE TEA PARTY HITLER SYNDROME

The study points out over a dozen traits found in Tea Party members were consistent with Authoritarianism. These evaluation were based on the answers given by those participating in the study. All of these answers were a clear indication that a vast majority of Tea Party members suffer from "The Hitler Syndrome." 

THE RELIGIOUS-REICH AND RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS

Russ Limbaugh stated on a national radio station he wanted the right-wing death squads to come to America. What appalls this writer is our tax dollars funded these death squads? The American Republican Right has sponsored one of the most bazaars morally reprehensible acts ever in the history of man that is only rivaled by today's Isis. All this killing was done in the name of "GOD." Under Ronald Reagan, he merged the CIA operation with the " Vatican." In Reagan's zeal to bring down Communism, he empowered several former Nazis in Eastern Europe. Our study found that many of these operatives were Holocaust deniers. Moderate and Liberal Priest who opposed the Nazis doctrine were removed from power. Under G.W. Bush, the Bill of Rights was annulled. This annulment granted the now merged CIA and Vatican the right to spy on any American for any reason. What very few Americans realize is that our U. S. Supreme Court was given over to the Vatican.

In England, Bush's counterpart Tony Blair restored the Church of England to the Vatican and the E.U, was brought under the control of the Vatican. 

All of this was by design a plan and now the last piece of the puzzle. This   activity was said to prove GOD's forgiveness. And, while Rome's GOD had plenty of forgiveness for Nazis and pedophiles it strangely couldn't find any for the Nazis resistors in the Church. 

Rev Jay Smith

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."[See Source] It became apparent that no matter what President Obama does the extreme racist  Religious Right Nazis were going to criticize, obstruct, and commit sedition in this writers view. Here in the recent, we can add the 47 senators letter to Iran which constitutes treason under the Logan Act. The bottom-line is we have hoards of people walking around who call themselves Tea Party Patriots who are nothing more nothing less than brainwashed Nazis repackaged as American Patriots. 

The American Experiment Is Under Crisis!

Is the American experiment under crisis? Today you can ask five people their interpretation of any given constitutional  question, and chances are you will get five different viewpoints. Our founding fathers gathered  themselves in a small room in Philadelphia to hash out what at the time was nothing more than a governmental experiment, to form a new type of government for a new country they would call the United States of America. Not only were there no assurances that it would work but history at the time told them it wouldn't.  In their day, nations were ruled by rulers, not rules.  Kings told everyone else what to do. A government run by the people themselves was an old idea;  however,  it had never worked. People fight with each other. It's human nature. People are messy,  they have their interests, and they disagree. Rulers knew it took armies to keep people under control. These men [Founding Fathers] believed it took a constitution. They felt they could create institutions that would let conflict occur, then deal with it and that people would accept the outcome. That is, in fact, what they believed. In the Spring of 1787 it was time to deliver. There was much indecision as to whether they could. The Constitution was written in a time of crisis. Our founding fathers at that moment knew if they failed,  their country would fail. They responded by starting a nation in a small room with just a handful of ideas.[See Sources]

Many of the images and ideas we have of our founding fathers comes from 19th-Century historians. These historians advocated GOD himself handed down the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father. Jefferson wrote the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson called the men who wrote the Constitution demagogues. So what did this make Thomas Jefferson? Our founding fathers are the equivalent to " Greek Gods" in America. We The People have transformed these men into larger than life figures.  We have written untold books about them and have cast them in bronze. We have made educational films about them with many of those films' facts being entirely unsubstantiated. The average school child in America has been taught to speak of these men in a hushed whisper. These men were going to be whisked straight to heaven. These were real men that faced real challenges, but they were not gods. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has found several who did not believe in God period. These men knew they were not gods. In fact, they were in fear of any man who would march himself a god. King George II ring a bell? Our research found these men would be disgusted at the reverence "We The People,"  pay these men. Some of them would for sure. We should admire these men by all means but to give them GOD status is over-the-top. We should find solace in that these men were not " Supermen. " They were just ordinary men involved in an extraordinary ordeal of forming and shaping a new country, a new nation that the world had never experienced before:  the'' American Experiment."

For the record, Ben Franklin felt the Constitution would last about ten years. 

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and  the primary reason for much of the conflict. So history tells us that the first Constitution of America was a failure. The Articles of Confederation did not bind the new states together into one nation. This document functioned as a " league of friendship." We must remember the populists of that time still had the memories of being ruled and lorded over. The population was wary of any identity that would somehow become too dominant. And as back then as is the order of the day today, people were Virginians, North Carolinian's, Pennsylvanians, and New Yorkers. Sectionalism  was rampant. Just like in these modern times these citizens clamored for states' rights. These states saw themselves as sovereign nations.  In practice, they kind of, sorta, made an agreement to work together with other states. These arrangements fell apart so quickly that it boggles the mind. One of the biggest problems was there was no power of taxation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was flat broke. The US could not afford to protect ships on the Atlantic from pirates. They could not protect citizens on the western borders either. Each state printed its money. For example, the state of New York was charging Connecticut and New Jersey an " arm and a leg" for everything coming into its port.  So, in turn, these states planned a military attack on New York. The real breaking point was Shay's Rebellion. 

WHAT WAS SHAY'S REBELLION?

In closing, Part 1 of this series of articles,  do you the reader see where we here at the House of Public Discourse are going? This writer believes that history, in fact, does repeat itself. Sectionalism is on the rise in America. The Articles of Confederation  were a complete failure falling prey to sectionalism. Is our great "American Experiment." the Constitution of the United States, destined to go the way of the Articles of Confederation? Today, there is much talk of secession. Sectionalism has risen its ugly face more and more by the day. We are seeing shades of the Shay's Rebellion rearing its head through hate groups, radicalized religious zealots, political corruption, and domestic terrorism just to name a few. " The American Experiment Is Under Crisis," and in part 2 of this series we will investigate the question, "Is Secession  Inevitable?"  Back in 1987, a woman in the presence of Ben Franklin asked him the question. " Mr. Franklin fine sir, did the Constitution establish a Republic or Monarchy, Franklin replied:

Johnny Hill is a freelance writer who has extensive experience in writing for sales, marketing and advertising.   He has a background in radio broadcasting which is showcased in the music mixes he creates for his FB page, "One Nation Under the Groove."  Johnny  has been an avid  and life long student of politics . He is the founder of the House of Public Discourse Political Organization, which he created as a platform for his progressive liberal ideology.  You can follow Johnny on Twitter, @hillj60.