Friday, June 19, 2015

An Unacknowledged Letter to My Representatives in the Florida Legislature

An Unacknowledged Letter to My Representatives in the Florida Legislature

On April 28, 2015, I sent the following (lightly redacted) letter via email to my representative in the Florida Senate:

Dear Senator [XXX]:

I've been registered as a Republican in [XXX] County ever since that day in July 2001 when I also surrendered my Tennessee driver's license in order to obtain my Florida license. Until 2010 when I "retired," I regularly voted in November general elections via absentee ballot from Taiwan, where I taught in colleges and universities for 24 academic years, returning to the US for each intervening summer vacation. I take my privilege and responsibility as a voter very seriously.

Each time I review the red-and-blue maps illustrating the distribution of popular votes in the 2012 Presidential election, I bemoan the fact that there is so little blue on them--almost entirely in densely populated urban areas. Yet Barack Hussein Obama "won"-- again. There is abundant evidence of widespread fraud in the 2012 Presidential election, but I'll reserve my remarks on that issue to a separate communication.

I wish to enthusiastically encourage and literally BEG the Florida Legislature--while the GOP is still in the majority--to alter the manner in which electoral votes are formally cast in this "purple" swing-state. Instead of automatically, knee-jerkingly allowing all of Florida's 29 electoral votes to go to whichever party apparently wins the most popular votes, it would be much more representative of the actual will of the people to require 27 of those votes to be cast in accordance with the majority will of each respective U.S. Congressional District within the state. Then, allow only the two at-large votes to be cast in accordance with the winner of the majority of the popular votes statewide.

Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution 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." Paragraph 3 of this Section was changed by the Twelfth Amendment in 1951; and Paragraph 6, by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967. However, neither of the aforementioned amendments altered the manner in which Electors are chosen, i.e., "as the Legislature...may direct." States do not have to continue doing Presidential elections in a manner that has developed by mere tradition--unless the various Legislatures are truly content with their respective outcomes. Does any trace of vigorous life remain in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

If I have my figures correct, only three States in the U.S. have more votes than Florida in the Electoral College. Imagine the "domino effect" that Florida could initiate nationwide by changing its electoral votes to a [U.S. Congressional] district-by-district distribution instead of the now-traditional [popular-vote] winner-takes-all approach to what has unfortunately become a mere formality. A district-by-district arrangement would be a more accurate representation of the true will of the people and would make fraud more difficult to accomplish. [Fourth U.S. President] James Madison, the principal author of the U.S. Constitution, and his fellow Founders were not simpletons; rather, they were wise and well-educated patriots who did not devise unnecessary formalities or vestigial appendages.

I'm just a little (soon-to-be) 69-year-old lady who loves the United States of America immensely, and I cringe at the treasonous corruption spewing forth from Washington, D.C. I am following several national issues closely. Unfortunately, I probably have not paid enough attention to state and local issues here in Florida. I'll try to do better henceforth.

I'd very much appreciate your careful consideration of my Constitutional suggestion. I will also be sending this suggestion to Rep. XXX and (perhaps) to other GOP members of the Florida Legislature. To make such a suggestion to the Democrats would be a waste of my time and energy, I think.

And what kind of response did I receive? Crickets….Not one word--not even a form letter!

I’ve been on this senator’s email list for more than two years and have received newsletters regularly from the same address to which I sent the above remarks. My message did NOT bounce back; therefore, I must conclude than Some Entity—human, robot, or whatever—received my epistle and stuffed it somewhere.

On June 5 I sent my letter again, prefaced by the following paragraph:

Dear Senator XXX:

I have NOT received your reply to my email of April 28, 2015 (quoted below). Subsequent to the date of original transmission, an article on the same topic was published on the American Thinker website on May 11: “Breaking the Democrats' Electoral College Blue Wall” (by Richard Baehr, @http://www.americanthinker[dot]com/articles/2015/05/breaking_the_democrats_electoral_college_blue_wall.html). . . .

Continuing to hear nothing but the deafening silence of crickets, I emailed the following (lightly redacted) note to my representative in the Florida House:

Dear Rep. XXX:

Only a few days prior to May 22, 2015 (the date on which I received a copy of the May 21 edition of your [“XXX Report”] from [XXX]@myfloridahouse[dot]gov), I used the form at your website to send you a brief letter. Unfortunately, I did not retain a copy of the exact text because I actually believed what I was told on the form, i.e., that I would receive a copy of my message via email; however, I did not receive that promised copy). 

Obviously, my message was received by someone on your staff—otherwise [your staff member] would not have known my email address.

I tried to send you the same message that I had sent to Sen. XXX on 4/28/2015 at 12:35 am; however, I still have not received a reply to that message from either of you. Below is the text of my original message, plus a citation of an article that was not published until after the original message was sent. . . .

And what have I received from that member of the Florida House of Representatives? Only a couple of newsletters prepared for a mailing list.

Hello, hello….Are there any Republican-registered Floridians reading The Steady Drip blog? If so, what do you think of this silent treatment I have received?

I must add, by way of full disclosure, that I have always considered myself merely a Reluctant Republican at best. With the notable exception of the 1980 and 1984 elections (in which I was actually FOR the GOP candidate), I have consistently voted AGAINST all Democrat candidates for president by doing one of the following as I marked my respective ballots:

·        “for” a third-party candidate (who has less of a chance than an ice cube in Hades); OR
·        “for” an Elite Establishment RINO, while holding my nose as I darken the little oval next to the respective names!

I’m weary of this wretched ritual; hence, the Republican Party will NEVER receive even one penny from me until a big turnaround occurs! (I’m not holding my breath.)

Furthermore, I still have a bone stuck in my craw from the 2012 Florida Republican Primary: Although Mitt Romney received only 46.4% of the votes [], he received 100% of the state’s delegate votes at the Republican National Convention. I was among the 53.6% of FL Republican voters who preferred another candidate, but we had no voice at the Convention. Analogous to my aforementioned suggestion concerning the distribution of this State’s Electoral College votes, I think that the Florida Republican Party should allocate the delegates' National Convention votes proportionally, in accordance with the votes each candidate receives in the primary election. In my opinion, any other scheme is unrepresentative.

Is anyone listening to my little voice (besides God and the NSA). . .?

Cheryl J. Rutledge, Ph.D.
Musician, Retired Educator, Editor

No comments: