US Presidential Elections

[Guard Dog]

I believe there have been some instances where the Electoral College made their choices against the respective state's popular vote.

 

And, anyway, the Electoral College just adds an extra layer of bureaucracy while making the whole election process less democratic.

 

No, there has NEVER been an incident where a "faithless elector" has changed an election, and in all of US history only 150 some odd times has an elector not voted as pledged (the electors are pledged to vote for the state winner). More than half of those were the result of a VP candidate dying before taking office, the rest involved Martin Van Buren and Civil War politics and was addressed by the passage of the 14th Amendment (among other things). In most states (GA, WY, AK, come to mind) the electors are required by law to vote as pledged. In some (like Michigan) the state has to power to override the vote of a faithless elector. The Constitution orders the states to appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Congressional Reps in such a way as the state may direct. All 50 states and 4 voting territories select electors from the political party whose candidate won the election. These are not a group of political elites, the are all Republicans or Democrats depending on who won.

 

Everyone stamps their feet and makes a stink about how undemocratic the EC is but that is hardly the case and it exists for a very good reason. Furthermore it is provided for by the Constitution so to get rid of it would require the amendment process. That means asking the smaller states to vote against the constitutional provision that protects them from the populous states. It simply will not happen.

[Sand]

The Electorial College needs to go away and I would be in favor of a Constitutional amendment. The purpose of the Electorial College is no longer valid. It was put into place because the regular folks were not savvy enough to keep up with news, and day to day politics. With the boon of the Information Age millions upon millions can just hope on the Internet and go to news service sites and get the information. The average US citizen is more aware of the political process, the issues our country faces, and the candidates' views and backgrounds than they were a two centuries ago.

 

The Electorial College is a dinosaur, a product of an emerging country in a time that information could not be finger tips way from the average joe on the street. Its time has l;ong since pass. As long the Electorial College is in place we will not move away from a two party system as well. By making the Popular Vote count for all elected offices we may open new ground for third party presidential candidates as well.

[Hurlshort]

The electoral does help smaller states have an actual impact in the election. Rhode Island and Montana would be a political no man's land without the EC.

[Enoch]

The electoral does help smaller states have an actual impact in the election. Rhode Island and Montana would be a political no man's land without the EC.

As well they should. People have the right to vote; geographical areas don't. The 945,000 residents of Montana should have exactly the same influence as 945,000 residents living in uptown Manhattan. It's an exceedingly dumb system in a modern democracy. But, unfortunately, as GD mentioned, it is quite unlikely to be changed anytime soon.

 

 

 

Obama will be the nominee. Hillary would need ridiculously large margins of victory in Texas and Ohio to pull even in the delegate count and the popular vote. (If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama had lost 10 straight contests and was pinning his hopes on a last-minute comeback, everyone would be wondering why he hasn't conceded yet.) Right-wing GOP'ers are still salivating over the idea of Hillary's (who they view as the embodiment of pure evil for no reason besides that Rush told them to) ego sabotaging the Democratic Convention. It ain't gonna happen. The superdelegates are all politically shrewd people who very much want the Democratic candidate to win in the general election. They won't screw it up.

[alanschu]

It's not uncommon for governments to have systems in place to help protect against tyranny of the majority.

[Enoch]

It's not uncommon for governments to have systems in place to help protect against tyranny of the majority.

True. But focusing entirely on geographic majorities/minorities is dumb, because it ignores all the other types of divisions where minority oppression can occur. What credible reason is there to worry about New York outvoting Wyoming more than we worry about Christians outvoting Jews or the poor outvoting the rich? The existing counter-majoritarian structures in the U.S. government (filibusters, vetoes, Court review, etc.), combined with the Federalist system (leaving significant authority to state & local governments) is more than enough to safeguard geographic minorities just like they do every other minority.

[Guard Dog]

Here is a little news that on the surface does not seem like much. It might even seem a little boring. But it is important and I'll explain why.

 

FEC chair: McCain can't drop out of public financing system

 

 

McCain is the co-author of the current campaign finance system. It's whole purpose was to get "special interest" money out of politics. So since he requested public financing for his campaign he must abide by the caps and controls of the FEC (Note the very thing HE CREATED!). Well the FEC says "Thou shalt not spend more than $X in the primary elections". That means the amount whatever it is must last a candidate from exploratory committee to convention. McCain is now running out of money under the cap, and the convention is in September. So he goes back to the FEC and tells them "I want to drop out of the Public Financing System" And since he never actually USED the public money he should be able to do so. But..... it turns out he used the promise of the public financing money to secure a loan to his campaign a few months ago. Under the law (THAT HE WROTE!) that is de facto use of Public Campaign Finance money. Well now he is in a real pickle. He can either stop campaigning all together when he runs out of money (that means from May-September you will hear nothing from him), or he can hire a bus load of lawyers to try to get him around the law that HE WROTE! If he opts for the path of hypocrisy he will have painted an enormous bulls-eye on his back for the general election. If he plays it straight he will have no shot what so ever to win in November.

 

I remember reading this some where in the Baldur's Gate games "Never call up what you can not put down". Does that ever fit here. Just think, his campaign for the White House is about to be sunk by the very law that made him a viable candidate to begin with. Irony is DEFINITELY my favorite form of humor.

[Pidesco]

I believe there have been some instances where the Electoral College made their choices against the respective state's popular vote.

 

And, anyway, the Electoral College just adds an extra layer of bureaucracy while making the whole election process less democratic.

 

No, there has NEVER been an incident where a "faithless elector" has changed an election, and in all of US history only 150 some odd times has an elector not voted as pledged (the electors are pledged to vote for the state winner). More than half of those were the result of a VP candidate dying before taking office, the rest involved Martin Van Buren and Civil War politics and was addressed by the passage of the 14th Amendment (among other things). In most states (GA, WY, AK, come to mind) the electors are required by law to vote as pledged. In some (like Michigan) the state has to power to override the vote of a faithless elector. The Constitution orders the states to appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Congressional Reps in such a way as the state may direct. All 50 states and 4 voting territories select electors from the political party whose candidate won the election. These are not a group of political elites, the are all Republicans or Democrats depending on who won.

 

Everyone stamps their feet and makes a stink about how undemocratic the EC is but that is hardly the case and it exists for a very good reason. Furthermore it is provided for by the Constitution so to get rid of it would require the amendment process. That means asking the smaller states to vote against the constitutional provision that protects them from the populous states. It simply will not happen.

 

I wasn't saying that a faithless elector had ever gotten the wrong person elected, just that some electors have voted against their their state's legislature. There's a list on Wikipedia with all of the faithless electors, I think.

 

 

Anyway, whet the Electoral College does is to give more voting "power" to some individuals that live in less populous states, so I don't see how you can argue that the EC isn't undemocratic. Of course, as you say, the EC won't be removed, ever.

[Guard Dog]

combined with the Federalist system is more than enough to safeguard geographic minorities just like they do every other minority.

 

Enoch you just summed up in a single sentence why I dislike and will not vote for democrats. Ever since FDR they have been working actively to erode the 10th amendment and have not even paid lip service to the concept of Federalisim. Granted the Post-Reagan republicans have been little better but when I must choose between fast decline and slow decline I must opt for the lesser of the two and vote for slow decline.

[Sand]

Maybe because it is that federalism isn't the best system. If there is a better system of government why not use it? Society and civilizations change over the course of time. Holding onto the past with an iron grip only leads to cultural stagnation.

[Guard Dog]

Maybe because it is that federalism isn't the best system. If there is a better system of government why not use it? Society and civilizations change over the course of time. Holding onto the past with an iron grip only leads to cultural stagnation.

Sand.... do you know what Federalism even is? Let me explain. Political power within any political entity is a zero sum game. Every one has equal share (anarchy) or one person has it all (autocracy) or it is somewhere in between. In the Federalist system the majority of power is supposed to remain at the lowest level, therefore closest to the voter so the voter has more political control over the issues that impact them directly. You live in Iowa, the government with the most power over Iowa should be in Des Moines where the people understand Iowa and it's needs, not in Washington where they do not. If you want to try a little experiment, write a letter to your State Senator and to one of your US Senators and see who gets back to you.

 

The US constitution spells out EXACTLY what the role of the Federal government should be, the 10th Amendment then says all power not assigned to the federal government belongs to the states. Remember a while back I pointed out adamantly that is a single state chose to provide free health coverage to it's citizens I would have no problem with it, but if the Federal Government tries to do it I would fight against it, donate against it, vote against it at every turn? That was whay I was getting at.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Enoch]

combined with the Federalist system is more than enough to safeguard geographic minorities just like they do every other minority.

 

Enoch you just summed up in a single sentence why I dislike and will not vote for democrats. Ever since FDR they have been working actively to erode the 10th amendment and have not even paid lip service to the concept of Federalisim. Granted the Post-Reagan republicans have been little better but when I must choose between fast decline and slow decline I must opt for the lesser of the two and vote for slow decline.

Well, legally, the 10th Amendment is a guarantee of residual power (dealing with "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States"), which doesn't actually limit anything that was given to the feds in the original Constitution. And, like it or not, the original Constitution was written with deliberately vague terms like "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" to allow the new government the flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

 

In a more practical vein, I can understand getting emotional about substantive issues, and I can understand having a preference over whether governmental decisions are made in the state capitol or in Washington, based on a guess at the substantive outcome of those decisions made in either venue. But, outside of hard-core Confederates, I really don't understand how one gets to the point where one cares so fiercely about which level of government makes which decisions. Surely it's the substance of the laws and regulations that matter moreso than the place where the legislators & bureaucrats make them?

 

To me, the question should be one of efficiency-- if an issue has an inter-state scope (e.g., air pollution, transportation, international economic competitiveness, etc.) it is most efficient to address it at the national level. Since the 20th century has been marked by dramatic rise in the economic and social interconnectedness of geographically distant places, it makes perfect sense to me that it has also been a period characterized by a growth in the federal government relative to state and local governments.

 

But that could just be the heartless federal bureaucrat in me shining through.

[Guard Dog]

But, outside of hard-core Confederates, I really don't understand how one gets to the point where one cares so fiercely about which level of government makes which decisions. Surely it's the substance of the laws and regulations that matter moreso than the place where the legislators & bureaucrats make them?

 

To that point I will counter by posing the same challenge to you as I did to Sand: Write one letter to your State Senator and another to one of your US Senators and see which one responds to you. The answer there should be self evident. The legislators and bureaucrats elected from the smallest voter pools will be most in tune with the needs and issues facing the people from those pools.

 

To me, the question should be one of efficiency-- if an issue has an inter-state scope (e.g., air pollution, transportation, international economic competitiveness, etc.) it is most efficient to address it at the national level. Since the 20th century has been marked by dramatic rise in the economic and social interconnectedness of geographically distant places, it makes perfect sense to me that it has also been a period characterized by a growth in the federal government relative to state and local governments.

 

But that could just be the heartless federal bureaucrat in me shining through.

 

I have no argument with that concerning issues like pollution and transportation where more than one state is affected. However when it comes to Education, Health Care, social issues, etc, what is good for the New York Goose does not work for the California Gander. For example Florida raises money through property tax and sales tax. The Department of Education Organization Act of 1980 then requires the state to pay part of that to Uncle Sam to fund the Department of Education which turns around and pays that money back to the States to fund education programs. Really is just feeds a bureaucratic machine who's appetite for money knows no limit. Now the DOE has the ability to withhold money (that the state raised in taxes) from the state if the State Secretary of Education (who is elected) does something the US Sec Education (who is NOT elected) does not like. Now with the No Child Left Behind act it is even worse. Now the DOE can target a single school in a single school district for a funding cut. Enoch, the local school board whose members were all locally elected has been effectively neutered buy a Washington Bureaucrat who is not elected therefore accountable to no one. I realize you are a Washington guy but as a lawyer, as an educated American, can you not see how someone would have a problem with that? To make matters worse, the US Constitution does not mention the word "Education" or allude to ANYTHING that can be construed as Education, so where does the Federal Government get this power? From nowhere, it takes it and what can one do? Nothing, really especially since five of the nine wise souls on 1st ST in DC have no heartburn with the Federal Government exceeding Constitutional limitations.

 

That is just one example, I have many others. I know Libertarian ideology leaves you scratching your head but you need to separate Libertarian ideals from the Libertarian party because believe me they are no longer the same thing. Much like Conservative ideals and the Republican party.

[taks]

Maybe because it is that federalism isn't the best system. If there is a better system of government why not use it? Society and civilizations change over the course of time. Holding onto the past with an iron grip only leads to cultural stagnation.

um, federalism has proven time and again to be the best... bigger gov't appeals to the poor and/or those that don't want to work as well as those foolish enough to believe the tripe of socialist mouthpieces. you are correct, society and civilizations change over time, yet somehow they have proven ridiculously incapable learning from repeated failures of systems that do not work.

 

taks

[taks]

Now the DOE has the ability to withhold money (that the state raised in taxes) from the state if the State Secretary of Education (who is elected) does something the US Sec Education (who is NOT elected) does not like. Now with the No Child Left Behind act it is even worse. Now the DOE can target a single school in a single school district for a funding cut. Enoch, the local school board whose members were all locally elected has been effectively neutered buy a Washington Bureaucrat who is not elected therefore accountable to no one.

this is the means by which the federal government unconstitutionally took power from the states. similar problem with the drinking age. congress couldn't pass laws that forced certain issues, so they simply extorted the states into submission by witholding funds.

 

taks

[~Di]

Nader is a self-important narcissist. And an arrogant idiot. *sigh* What a putz.

[Lokey]

(Sigh) Ok, but in the history of the US, it has ALWAYS followed the popular vote because that was what is was meant to do.

Hayes and DC 2000 immediately come to mind, stupid facts. Luckily failing your poli sci course means winning at life.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Lokey

[Nick_i_am]

um, federalism has proven time and again to be the best... bigger gov't appeals to the poor and/or those that don't want to work as well as those foolish enough to believe the tripe of socialist mouthpieces.

 

Are you saying that federalism is great, but disliked by the poor, those on the dole and dirty socalists?

[Pop]

OMG WHERE ARE THE COMMUNISTS

[Guard Dog]

(Sigh) Ok, but in the history of the US, it has ALWAYS followed the popular vote because that was what is was meant to do.

Hayes and DC 2000 immediately come to mind, stupid facts. Luckily failing your poli sci course means winning at life.

The popular vote of the STATE the electors came from. Read the entire thread, context matters!

[WITHTEETH]

Now the DOE has the ability to withhold money (that the state raised in taxes) from the state if the State Secretary of Education (who is elected) does something the US Sec Education (who is NOT elected) does not like. Now with the No Child Left Behind act it is even worse. Now the DOE can target a single school in a single school district for a funding cut. Enoch, the local school board whose members were all locally elected has been effectively neutered buy a Washington Bureaucrat who is not elected therefore accountable to no one.

this is the means by which the federal government unconstitutionally took power from the states. similar problem with the drinking age. congress couldn't pass laws that forced certain issues, so they simply extorted the states into submission by witholding funds.

 

taks

Do the states have any strings that they can pull back for balance of power? Senate/congress?isn't it the legislative branch that can change balance this back out? So they do have power if they can agree upon the issue correct?

 

Has the federal government always had power to trump the states government when not even at war?

[Guard Dog]

Here is a little news that on the surface does not seem like much. It might even seem a little boring. But it is important and I'll explain why.

 

FEC chair: McCain can't drop out of public financing system

 

 

McCain is the co-author of the current campaign finance system. It's whole purpose was to get "special interest" money out of politics. So since he requested public financing for his campaign he must abide by the caps and controls of the FEC (Note the very thing HE CREATED!). Well the FEC says "Thou shalt not spend more than $X in the primary elections". That means the amount whatever it is must last a candidate from exploratory committee to convention. McCain is now running out of money under the cap, and the convention is in September. So he goes back to the FEC and tells them "I want to drop out of the Public Financing System" And since he never actually USED the public money he should be able to do so. But..... it turns out he used the promise of the public financing money to secure a loan to his campaign a few months ago. Under the law (THAT HE WROTE!) that is de facto use of Public Campaign Finance money. Well now he is in a real pickle. He can either stop campaigning all together when he runs out of money (that means from May-September you will hear nothing from him), or he can hire a bus load of lawyers to try to get him around the law that HE WROTE! If he opts for the path of hypocrisy he will have painted an enormous bulls-eye on his back for the general election. If he plays it straight he will have no shot what so ever to win in November.

 

I remember reading this some where in the Baldur's Gate games "Never call up what you can not put down". Does that ever fit here. Just think, his campaign for the White House is about to be sunk by the very law that made him a viable candidate to begin with. Irony is DEFINITELY my favorite form of humor.

 

Man, was I right about this or what?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/mcc...ance/index.html

[Guard Dog]

Hey Pop, remember what we were saying about dirty campaign tricks? Does this count? I'd say yes.

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

[Walsingham]

Hey Pop, remember what we were saying about dirty campaign tricks? Does this count? I'd say yes.

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

 

Is Bill Clinton dressed as the Pope in that last pic?

[Azarkon]

So, with the recent turn of events, who are the likely contenders?