The (Meriden) Record-Journal (Conn.), Oct. 21:
Sorry Taylor Swift fans, but it’s hard to imagine that decades from now the singer will still have legions of fans.
No knock against Ms. Swift; the vast majority of musical acts have a short shelf life. Remember Leif Garrett, A-Ha and 98 Degrees? How about Dexys Midnight Runners? Vanilla Ice?
The list of flash-in-the-pan acts goes on and on.
Musical legends are few and far between, and their legacy lives on long after they’re gone.
Two such icons would have celebrated big birthdays in 2015. John Lennon would have turned 75 this month, and in December, Frank Sinatra would be 100.
Countless tributes of all sorts have been held in honor of the birthday boys, and they’re deserving of the pomp.
Think about the songs John Lennon left us with: “Imagine,” “Instant Karma,” “Working Class Hero.” And these came after he left a pretty good band called The Beatles.
Ol’ Blue Eyes’ catalog is incredible, as well, with hits like “My Way,” “Summer Wind,” “Strangers in the Night” and “New York, New York,” to name a few.
Lennon and Sinatra sang about heavy stuff; love, war, peace, regret. They took on big topics, which, clearly, resonate with people, as their work continues to sell and be celebrated.
The same can’t be said for the Bay City Rollers, Rick Springfield, M.C. Hammer, Chumbawamba, the Backstreet Boys … You get the point.
Sinatra once said, “Whatever else has been said about me personally is unimportant. When I sing, I believe. I’m honest.”
Lennon also spoke about the importance of connecting with his audience. “My role in society, or any artist’s or poet’s role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.”
Sinatra died in 1998 at the age of 82. Lennon, of course, was gunned down outside his New York City apartment in 1980. He was just 40 years old.
Who knows, maybe there will be tributes marking Taylor Swift’s 100th birthday in 2089 and fans will tear up listening to “Shake it Off.” It could happen … right?
The (Newburyport) Daily News, Oct. 22:
When the Electoral College was created by the Constitution in 1787, the United States was a vastly different place, starting with the fact that only 13 states were united under the Constitution after they ratified it.
The modern two-party system lay years ahead, and the idea that candidates for the White House should spend years campaigning for the job would have appalled men like Washington, Adams and Jefferson.
Still, many of the concerns that led the founders of the nation to create the Electoral College still apply.
A principal concern was that election of the president by direct popular vote would promote the growth of factions and regionalism – allowing candidates heavily supported by one region to triumph and serve the interests of only that region.
But many consider the Electoral College an anachronism and have organized an effort to abolish it and elect the president by a national popular vote.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed a law five years ago aligning the state with others that pledged to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national vote, regardless of the preference of their own voters,
Now a group of Republican legislators has stepped forward seeking to repeal that decision. The proposal got a hearing this week at the Statehouse.
The Republicans argue that if such a change is to be made, it should be done by a constitutional amendment.
“This is a system set up by our founding fathers, and if we want to change it, we should amend the Constitution, not find a way around it,” said state Rep. Bradley Jones Jr., R-North Reading, chairman of the House Minority caucus.
Jones also argued that changing the system could frustrate the will of Bay State voters.
“So, for example, if Hillary Clinton wins the state vote, but Donald Trump wins the national vote, we would still have awarded our electoral votes to Trump regardless of who won the state outright,” he said. “That’s the deal we agreed to.”
Backers of the change argue that Massachusetts would gain clout by killing the Electoral College.
They point out that the candidates for the White House tend to focus their energies on so-called swing states that could be won by either candidate based on the decision of a relative handful of voters in those states.
States like Massachusetts that are considered locks for one party or the other receive scant attention.
They would get a lot more if candidates needed their votes to offset a narrow loss in one of the swing states.
“A vote in Massachusetts would suddenly become important under a national popular vote,” said John Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote, the group pushing for the change.
Of course, the state would also get more attention if it weren’t so reliably blue.
Critics of the Electoral College system also decry the fact that it’s possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote and thus the White House and all the power that goes with it.
Just ask Al Gore, who lost in 2000 after narrowly winning the popular vote but losing a Supreme Court case that awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes to George W. Bush.
Democrats are still smarting over that result, which prompted the soul-searching over the electoral system.
But consider the alternative. The Florida vote was contested for weeks, with recount after recount. If the popular vote had been the decisive factor nationally, many more states might have been snarled in recounts and court challenges, leaving the nation in the lurch.
The Republican effort to kill the Electoral College deal signed by Gov. Patrick is likely to go nowhere in such a one-party state.
But the national campaign to abolish the Electoral College is also going nowhere fast.
The deal cannot go into effect until states representing at least half of the 585 electoral votes agree to participate. So far only nine other states in addition to Massachusetts have signed on. They represent 165 electoral votes. Even if the campaign ultimately succeeds, the inevitable court fights would further delay matters.
The Electoral College system has served the nation well for almost 300 years. An overhaul largely driven by one party may have unintended consequences that make us wish we had heeded the founders’ wisdom.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
