Mediaboss Marketing

Watch the CBSN Originals documentary Do We Still Need the Electoral College? in the video player above. It premieres on CBSN on Sunday, March 21 at 8 p.m., 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. ET.

When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, he became the fourth president in American history and the second since 2000 to win a presidential election despite losing the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes nationwide. But in the Electoral College which ultimately decides who wins the presidency Mr. Trump received 306 votes to Clintons 232. In 2020, despite Joe Bidens commanding 7 million vote lead in the popular vote, just a few thousand votes in key states could have swung the election for Donald Trump.

Cases like these have fueled efforts to reform the Electoral College or do away with it entirely, but some say it still serves an important purpose.

How did we end up with this system for choosing a president? Stanford University professor of history and political science Jack Rakove says the Founding Fathers had little precedent for the institution they were creating.

Executive power in the 18th century was either monarchical, king-like, or ministerial, the sense of a British Cabinet, Rakove explained. So you had to create an office that was completely new.

The founders considered three main proposals for electing the president: direct democracy, election by Congress, and an election by state-based electors.

The idea of direct democracy whoever gets the most votes, wins was appealing to many of the founders. In states like New York and Massachusetts, direct democracy was already being used to elect governors. However, it was unclear how voters of that era would be able to identify qualified national political figures, and some worried that the general population would be too ill-informed to take on the responsibility of choosing the president.

The problem was what you could do at the state level might not be transferable to the national level, Rakove said. The thing that happens from the 1790s on is that the growth of the popular press, and the growth of an evolving political press, where newspapers are committed to particular candidates or particular parties, became a prominent feature of American politics.

For the founders coming from Southern states, direct democracy would also mean that executive power would likely be dominated by the North because it had a larger voting bloc. At the time of the constitutional convention, nearly 40% of people living in the South were enslaved Black people who were not allowed to vote.

A big part of the Southern population consisted of African American slaves, who have no political existence whatsoever, Rakove said. If you have a truly popular election for a single officer chosen from the whole nation, there would be a big regional disadvantage for the South.

For Southern states at the time, having Congress choose the president would solve both of their main concerns with direct democracy. Congressional representatives, the countrys political elite, would have no problem identifying qualified national political figures.

And Congress had also already addressed potential Northern dominance with the so-called three-fifths compromise. The compromise stated that 60% of a states enslaved population would be counted towards the states total population for the purpose of allocating seats in Congress giving Southern states more political clout.

That was emboldening and empowering the South, said Wilfred Codrington III, an associate professor of law at Brooklyn College. It really disincentivized the desire to get rid of slavery because the more slaves you had, the more political power you had.

A presidential election by Congress, however, would infringe on the founders desire to establish a separation of powers.

If we have a congressional election and the president is ambitious then the president will become, in their terms, the lackey or the tool, the toady of Congress, Rakove said.

The compromise that was eventually enshrined in the Constitution is a system of state-based electors based roughly on state population. For the founders, this solved a whole array of potential problems: the risk of leaving too much power in the hands of an ill-informed public, Northern dominance of the executive branch, and breaching the separation of powers.

The upshot is the system having presidential electors became attractive, not because it was attractive in itself, but because it was the least unattractive option, Rakove said.

The Constitution specifies that each state gets same number of electors as its total number of representatives and senators in Congress, and the founders left it up to the states to determine how to they would choose their electors. All but two states Maine and Nebraska have adopted a winner-take-all system that awards all their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote in the state.

Advocates of the Electoral College celebrate its check on the power that large cities would have in a purely popular vote election.

Tara Ross, author of The Indispensable Electoral College, says it forces presidential candidates to court the votes of a more diverse electorate across the country.

We have a system where you have to win simultaneous victories in multiple parts of the country and the only way to get there is to build the biggest coalition you can, Ross said. Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates serve themselves best if they try to appeal to a wide variety of people.

But in recent years, as discrepancies between electoral votes and the popular vote have become more common, reform efforts have gained momentum. Electoral College reformers and opponents say the system is confusing, outdated and anti-democratic.

Critics note that states with small populations have disproportionately more clout under the current system. And the winner-take-all rules mean a handful of battleground states have an outsized influence on determining the winner, leading presidential candidates to devote much of their campaigning to just a few states.

One leading reform initiative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which calls on states to agree to allocate their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. So far, 15 states and Washington, D.C. have signed on not enough for it to take effect.

Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party who now works with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, says determining the president by who wins the popular vote would be more truly democratic and could help restore public confidence in the system.

I think unfortunately too many people in this country think their vote doesnt matter, Anuzis said. I think that has a horrible effect on politics in those states that are ignored, as well as public policy.

Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator who served as a presidential elector in 2020, has seen the system from the inside and thinks it needs to change.

The Electoral College sets up a system where every vote is not equal. And a vote in one place is more important than a vote somewhere else. Thats unfair, he said.

Kenyatta believes our democracy will only endure if we work towards improving the institutions it relies on.

I think we dont always think about the fact that this thing that were doing, its an experiment, he said. Theres nothing written on some tablet somewhere that says America has to succeed. It happens because every generation recognizes the role we play in ensuring that theres something to pass on.

Read the rest here:
Why does America have the Electoral College and should we keep it? - WSGW

March 1993: Nominated by President Bill Clinton, Janet Reno was sworn in as the first female attorney general of the United States.

January 1997: Also nominated by Clinton, Madeleine Albright was sworn in as the nations first female secretary of state.

January 2007: U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) became the House's first female speaker. In 2019, she reclaimed the title, becoming the first lawmaker to hold the office two times in more than 50 years.

Probably taken outside Margaret Sanger's Brownsville clinic trial at the King's County Court of Special Sessions, Jan. 30, 1917.

January 2013: The U.S. military removed a ban against women serving in combat positions.

July 2016: Hillary Clinton became the first woman to receive a major political party's presidential nomination. During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, she said, "Standing here as my mother's daughter, and my daughter's mother, I'm so happy this day has come."

January 2021: Kamala Harris was sworn in as the first woman and first woman of color vice president of the United States. "While I may be the first woman in this office, I will not be the last," Harris said after getting elected in November.

Womens economic status:

You would think with the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that women in general and women of color would have wage equality with white men. However, this is far from the case. Today in the U.S., women in general make 82 cents for every $1 men earn. For women of color, it is even worse, with Black women earning 62 cents and Latina women earning 54 cents for every white mans dollar. On the surface, this would seem to be racism and sexism. However, it is much more complicated than that, and white men are not the villain.

Read more:
Judith Dale: Womens History Month are we there yet? - Lompoc Record

Some of the biggest names in the US's Democratic Party paid tribute to the late John Hume on St Patrick's Day yesterday.

ormer US president Bill Clinton, his wife and ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi spoke of their admiration for the former SDLP leader in a virtual broadcast from Washington DC.

The pre-recorded segment was introduced by Bono, who famously invited Mr Hume and fellow Good Friday Agreement architect David Trimble to share the stage with his band during a Belfast concert held on the cusp of the peace deal being signed.

Mr Hume, who died last August, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, along with Lord Trimble, for his efforts to build peace.

SDLP leader Colum Eastwood also contributed to the tributes, along with retired party colleague Mark Durkan and former SDLP deputy leader Brid Rogers, as well as the UUP's Mike Nesbitt, former Irish President Mary McAleese and Taoiseach Micheal Martin.

Mr Eastwood said Mr Hume would be spoken about in the same way as historic Irish leaders such as Daniel O'Connell and Charles Stewart Parnell.

Mr Martin said that he was proud to participate in the transatlantic tribute, describing the late politician as having the "heart of a lion".

"We were lucky to have him and we will treasure his memory," the Taoiseach added.

Mr Hume's grandchildren read a poem written by his son, Aidan, in memory of his father, who also featured in the broadcast.

Musician Phil Coulter performed Mr Hume's favourite song, The Town I Loved So Well, written in homage to Derry in the city's Guildhall.

Mr Clinton said it was thanks to Mr Hume and people like him that a generation of young people had grown up away from the shadow of the Troubles.

"He treated everyone as a human being, someone who could agree that they wanted their children and grandchildren to grow up free from the horrors of sectarian violence," he said.

Recalling their 1994 visit to Northern Ireland, which included a peace rally in Derry, Mrs Clinton said that through his tireless efforts and "dogged determination", Mr Hume had brought others along with him on the road to peace.

"John was a visionary who believed that what we have in common is far more important than what divides us," she said.

The broadcast finished with a recording of Mr Hume singing Danny Boy.

Belfast Telegraph

Read more:
Grandees of Democratic Party pay tribute to 'visionary' John Hume - Belfast Telegraph

Todays columnist, Mark Kerrison of New Net Technologies, invokes David Bowie to get the point across that the vast majority of security issues are tied to changes. luvhermit CreativeCommons Credit: CC PDM 1.0

Despite his one-time appearance in the film The Prestige as Nikola Tesla, its unlikely David Bowie spent much of his time studying up on the challenges of technology. Still, he seemed to know what he was talking about when the glam rock and fashion icon encouraged us to Turn and Face the Strange, Ch-Ch-Changes. Bowie would fully understand that all data breaches or malware vectors are tied to changes. Facing those changes with a proper change control implementation has become so crucial for that very reason: Any change that slips by the team could introduce a malware disaster.

Gartner reports that 85 percent of all problems faced by IT teams, whether theyre operational or security, are often tracked to some form of change. They likewise predict that 90 percent of security breaches could have been detected with an effective change and configuration management process. Given that the average Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) a data breach runs about 190 days after infiltration, the longer a firm goes without a fully-implemented change control process, the more likely they are to suffer a devastating breach or even a ransomware attack. To properly implement change control, companies must start by understanding it.

This technology lets security teams identify changes in any environment so that any changes that represent a threat or open software up to a vulnerability are correctly identified as such. Unlike change management, which focuses on a given companys process in introducing change, in change control security teams understand what those changes are and their effect on the software environment.

Consider a zero-day attack, which by its nature can bypass whitelists and firewalls. The malware may go undetected, but the underlying changes to existing functions which enable that malware must occur. Change management helps firms avoid unexpected changes, but its in the realm of change control that they can determine those unexpected changes and deal with them.

We can identify these changes in four essential types:

Effective change control analyzes all changes, discerning between those that were harmless and ideally approved and those that were neither approved nor harmless. There are a few critical integrations an effective solution should leverage. Security teams should integrate data from change management into the change control solution. They need to empower that solution with analysis and Threat Intelligence to learn the patterns and behaviors of good changes, so that the team can reduce change noise and they can assess unexpected changes and assigned risk context.

Once detecting those risk-associated changes, an effective technology should offer remediation, using that risk context to help operations teams prioritize in the remediation process. Leveraging intelligent change control products and processes will better protect organizations from a breach, and also help spot potential breaches and contribute to enhanced IT operations.

Mark Kerrison, chief executive officer, New Net Technologies

Here is the original post:
Turn to face the 'ch-ch-changes' of change control | SC Media - SC Magazine

We all know the internet is required for full participation in our society and economy. Every business, device or government agency seems to require or highly encourage consumers to engage with them online.

Consumers are in a tough spot. Whether someone has access to the internet is the modern-day version of the haves and have-nots. Consumers must also Click to Accept to rules and policies not typically in their best interests. And if they say No to these rules and policies, these internet users are banished to the have-nots.

Consumers need a public policy to establish and exercise their digital rights. We deserve a digital Bill of Rights making possible a fair, transparent and empowering internet.

Consumers need awareness, trust and control, none of which they have at this time. In fact, all internet consumers operate as a marginalized set of users who lack the rights and privileges in the digital world that would be demanded and protected in our physical world.

Awareness is the first step. Consumers deserve transparency and notification describing the collection and sharing of their personal data, and a return on its value.

In other words, when consumers give up personal data, what do they get in return? Organizations use a consumers personal data, and how they do so is basically unknowable studies show that privacy policies now require a postgraduate degree to decipher, and only 1% of us even make the effort.

In 85% of the more than 600 policies studied by the Center for Identity at The University of Texas, organizations declare their right to change their policies, and your continued use of their products are considered your consent to those changes even if you had no idea of the changes. So, as a real matter, we have no awareness and no control.

Our current binary choice to simply accept the status quo or disengage is not a real or fair one.

We need laws that require organizations to fully disclose their use of and rate of return on a consumers personal data asset. Consumers also need control. Although awareness and trust may help consumers decide which websites to visit, which apps to download and which social media sources to follow, consumers still arent able to exercise control in the digital world.

Imagine a day when consumers could control their personal data asset like they control their money: If the product is you (and the product is definitely the consumer), shouldnt consumers be able to control that which directly affects every aspect of their lives? Shouldnt consumers have the ability to control the collection, use and misuse of their personal data assets?

Laws must establish the requirements for this utility the internet giving consumers awareness, trust and control as their most foundational rights. We need federal and state laws that construe personal data as the asset it is (analogous to currency), to define the value proposition for all parties involved in personal data transactions with the appropriate rights and redress. The first step will be laws that clearly address the issue of personal data ownership and halt the exploitation of people and their data.

These policies and protections are long overdue. For too long, consumers have not fully understood what they are sharing or how this information is used, i.e. the value proposition that underpins this transaction. In fact, plenty of diverse interests exist on the internet, and the personal data industry benefits from a lack of transparency and opaque ownership. The reach and intrusiveness of the personal data collector and aggregator have grown significantly, while consumer ownership and control remains undefined.

Consumers deserve better. We all deserve an internet that is fair, transparent and empowering.

Suzanne Barber is the director of the Center for Identity and the AT&T Foundation Endowed Professor in Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin.

Susan Combs is a former comptroller for the State of Texas; former assistant secretary for policy, management and budget at the Department of the Interior; and a fellow in the Center for Identity at The University of Texas at Austin.

A version of this op-ed appeared in The Hill.

Read more from the original source:
We Need to Give More Credence to Personal Data as the Asset That It Is - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin