Electoral College
Jason Frey
the Electoral College.
The way it has been explained to me (And I'll admit, I haven't taken the
time to research properly) is that each state has a certain number of
"votes" based on it's population. These delegates to the electoral college
do the voting/deciding , and can if they so desire (though I don't think
it's really been done) vote against what people in their state voted for.
I also remember reading somewhere that there have been cases where, though
more people voted for Candidate A over Candidate B, Candidate B won because
he got the "big" states.
Along with that, my own surmisings make me wonder why a candidate even
*should* get an entire state's votes instead of the percentage of votest aht
is equal to the percentage of people that voted for them. Doesn't seem very
democratic.
Yes, the eelectoral college has been around since the beginning.. But then
again, I imagine it might have been a way to streamline the election process
for a country that had as it's fastest means of transmitting information,
the horse.. We're a bit beyond that now.
So, can anyone say why the electoral college is in existance, and then
provide a convincing argument why it should stay that way, given today's
technology, etc.?
- Jason
--
--
Linux - The Ultimate Windows Service Pack
tom mayes
process. The founders realized that a slick talking individual, such as
Clinton, can convince the masses of his worth when it didn't and doesn't
exist, and the college should correct the mistake made by the general
public. As you can see, in the case of Clinton, it doesn't always
work.
Sarah
Jason Frey <jf...@band.libart.calpoly.edu> wrote in message
news:8mmqms$rgu$1...@band.libart.calpoly.edu...
I agree. My understanding of our last Presidential Election is that vote
for vote, Clinton DID NOT win, but won by the electoral vote.
With today's technology a central clearinghouse to take each vote as it is
cast is not an unrealistic thing at all.
Sarah
Jason Frey
OK, but how do you figure that? I went back and read up on the relevant
documentation (IE the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clauses 2 and 3).
It doesn't provide a check and balance at all, from my reading. It provides
the electoral college the sole ability to elect the president and vice
president (As a side question, when did the current system whereby you vote
for president, you automatically vote for his VP come about?).
As far as I'm reading the above mentioned clauses, basically the legislature
dictated how the electors are picked, but that's where the state's
involvement stops. The electors are in no way beholden to the states that
chose them to follow the popular vote in the state. So, instead of a
population of umpteen-million (Scientifically calculated) choosing the next
president, we have basically a group of people the size of the US Senate and
HoR picking the next president.. If they wanted, they could elect Scooby
Doo, and the rest of the country couldn't do anything about it (Except mass
riots, and the overthrow of the government).. Hmm, now that I think about
it, maybe Scooby Doo would be a better choice for president. Nahhh.. Too
easy for the lobbyists. All they had to do was bring hash brownies... errr,
Scooby Snacks, and that would be it.
Yes, I know the abysmal number of voters who actually go and vote.. I have
talked to a few people, though, and most don't see the point. In general,
it seems that voting for president has the *legal* power of picking your
nose.. IE not a whole lot. I'll agree with the fact that the electors
usually go along with their states, but it's not written in stone that they
have to..
Arthur L. Rubin
> Along with that, my own surmisings make me wonder why a candidate even
> *should* get an entire state's votes instead of the percentage of votest aht
> is equal to the percentage of people that voted for them.
Maine, I believe, allocates 2 electoral votes to the state-wide winner,
and one to the winner in each congressional district.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Michael R. McAfee
works.
The electoral college provides no such "check-n-balance" as you described.
Indeed, if it did, we could not claim that America is the democracy that it
so clearly is. Imagine the total and justifiable OUTRAGE if the people's
clear choice for President were to be subverted by a handful of their
representatives abusing what was and is a sacred trust! The fact that you
perceive as proper, and apparently approve of a situation in which the vote
of a majority (or even a plurality) could be tossed aside and disregarded by
some untrustworthy lying rouge of a presidential elector tells us quite a
bit about you and your ideas. I do wish you, and those like you, had not
slept through your Civics classes.
The Electoral College simply is the vehicle that the Founders used to allow
the citizens of the United States that resided in each of its member states
to elect the President and Vice President. It was a sop to the
Constitution's potential opponents who were jealous of the power and
sovereignty held by the states under the Articles of Confederation. While
the Electoral College clearly is intended to transmit the wishes of the
Untied States citizens residing in each state and thus provide for the
popular election of the nation's chief executive; it does provide a role,
mostly symbolic, for the selection of President and Vice President for the
states. It also provides a very real role for state governments by allowing
them to govern by state law the details of how those electoral votes would
be cast. Additionally, and regretfully, it also allows through an imprecise
allocation of electoral votes vs population, a slight opportunity for the
election of a President and Vice President who's popular vote was less than
their opponents. Indeed, this has three time in our history. Two out of
three times the Republicans have "stolen" the Presidency with the election
of Hayes and B. Harrison. The third culprit was J.Q. Adams, a Federalist.
I think it is high time we give up this antiquated and undemocratic method
for electing the President and Vice President. It seems like in every
Presidential election we get some interest up, and with every Presidential
victory, the interest evaporates.
tom mayes wrote:
> The college exists to provide a check-n-balance in the election
> process. The founders realized that a slick talking individual, such as
> Clinton, can convince the masses of his worth when it didn't and doesn't
> exist, and the college should correct the mistake made by the general
> public. As you can see, in the case of Clinton, it doesn't always
> work.
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Jason Frey wrote:
> In article <398F1055...@idt.net>, tom mayes <zma...@idt.net> wrote:
> >The college exists to provide a check-n-balance in the election
> >process. The founders realized that a slick talking individual, such as
> >Clinton, can convince the masses of his worth when it didn't and doesn't
> >exist, and the college should correct the mistake made by the general
> >public. As you can see, in the case of Clinton, it doesn't always
> >work.
>
> OK, but how do you figure that? I went back and read up on the relevant
> documentation (IE the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clauses 2 and 3).
> It doesn't provide a check and balance at all, from my reading. It provides
> the electoral college the sole ability to elect the president and vice
> president (As a side question, when did the current system whereby you vote
> for president, you automatically vote for his VP come about?).
There is no automatic system whereby an elector automatically votes for a
Presidential candidate's Vice Presidential choice . The two offices are elected
in separate and distinct ballots since 1804. Prior to that, the College cast
only one vote but for two different candidates with the candidate receiving the
most votes becoming President and the candidate receiving the next most votes
becoming Vice President. The problem was that under the original plan, the
Electoral College kept casting tie votes for President and Vice President while
they were clearly trying to elect a President and Vice President from the same
party. This very nearly cost Jefferson the election of 1800 by forcing a runoff
election in the House between him and his Vice Presidential choice, Burr. As a
result, the XII Amendment was adopted.
Vice Presidential candidates are chosen by their party at the convention. It
would be rare indeed for a party to deny their Presidential candidate his/her
choice of a running mate. Rare, but not impossible.
>
> As far as I'm reading the above mentioned clauses, basically the legislature
> dictated how the electors are picked, but that's where the state's
> involvement stops. The electors are in no way beholden to the states that
> chose them to follow the popular vote in the state.
You error here. The state governments can, by law, dictate the manner which the
electoral vote be cast, for example all for the plurality/majority winner of the
popular vote, or to be cast in proportion of the popular vote. Also the state
government can by law require an elector's vote to reflect the popular vote.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 would indicate that
it would be unconstitutional for an elector to ignore the clear choice of the
people in casting his/her electoral vote.
> So, instead of a
> population of umpteen-million (Scientifically calculated) choosing the next
> president, we have basically a group of people the size of the US Senate and
> HoR picking the next president.. If they wanted, they could elect Scooby
> Doo, and the rest of the country couldn't do anything about it (Except mass
> riots, and the overthrow of the government).. Hmm, now that I think about
> it, maybe Scooby Doo would be a better choice for president. Nahhh.. Too
> easy for the lobbyists. All they had to do was bring hash brownies... errr,
> Scooby Snacks, and that would be it.
> Yes, I know the abysmal number of voters who actually go and vote.. I have
> talked to a few people, though, and most don't see the point. In general,
> it seems that voting for president has the *legal* power of picking your
> nose.. IE not a whole lot. I'll agree with the fact that the electors
> usually go along with their states, but it's not written in stone that they
> have to..
>
> - Jason
> --
> --
> Linux - The Ultimate Windows Service Pack
--
Michael R. McAfee
Sarah wrote:
> Jason Frey <jf...@band.libart.calpoly.edu> wrote in message
> news:8mmqms$rgu$1...@band.libart.calpoly.edu...
> > One of the posts I saw here today made me start thinking, and that was
> about
> > the Electoral College.
> > The way it has been explained to me (And I'll admit, I haven't taken the
> > time to research properly) is that each state has a certain number of
> > "votes" based on it's population. These delegates to the electoral
> college
> > do the voting/deciding , and can if they so desire (though I don't think
> > it's really been done) vote against what people in their state voted for.
> > I also remember reading somewhere that there have been cases where, though
> > more people voted for Candidate A over Candidate B, Candidate B won
> because
> > he got the "big" states.
> > Along with that, my own surmisings make me wonder why a candidate even
> > *should* get an entire state's votes instead of the percentage of votest
> aht
> > is equal to the percentage of people that voted for them. Doesn't seem
> very
> > democratic.
> > Yes, the eelectoral college has been around since the beginning.. But then
> > again, I imagine it might have been a way to streamline the election
> process
> > for a country that had as it's fastest means of transmitting information,
> > the horse.. We're a bit beyond that now.
> > So, can anyone say why the electoral college is in existance, and then
> > provide a convincing argument why it should stay that way, given today's
> > technology, etc.?
> >
> > - Jason
> > --
> > --
> > Linux - The Ultimate Windows Service Pack
>
> I agree. My understanding of our last Presidential Election is that vote
> for vote, Clinton DID NOT win, but won by the electoral vote.
>
> With today's technology a central clearinghouse to take each vote as it is
> cast is not an unrealistic thing at all.
>
> Sarah
Clinton DID win the popular vote by gleaning more votes for President than any
other candidate. He may not have had a majority, but he very clearly did have a
plurality of the popular vote.
tom
constitution and Dec. of Indep. and does not refer to the Federalist
Papers which describe the intent of these documents.
The constitution, like the Bible, can be read by 10 different people and
each could come up with a different meaning. Like it or not the
Electoral College has the final authority to decide who's president.
The only way to change this is to change the constitution and that will
never happen because you couldn't get 38 states to agree on the time of
day let alone the constitution.
No one stole the election at any time in our history.....neither party.
Because the Electoral College is the authority it may be a different
result than the popular election but you can't claim the election was
stolen. And the system is as it should be. We can't afford another
mistake like Clinton.
Sorry to ruffle your liberal feathers!
Michael R. McAfee
tom wrote:
> Obviously Mr. McAfee you are one of those individuals who only reads the
> constitution and Dec. of Indep. and does not refer to the Federalist
> Papers which describe the intent of these documents.
I hate to disappoint you, tom, but I'm afraid that I have indeed not just
read, but studied in depth the "Federalist Papers" as well as Madison's
notes from the Constitutional Convention, and even a wide variety of
articles and editorial published by the anti-federlist. I may not quite
qualify as a historian for the period, but I at least know that the
"Federalist Papers" are better described as a Constitutional sales pitch
than an explanation of what lay in hearts and soles of the Founders.
I'll play your game though, tom. List chapter and verse from the "Federalist
Papers" that deal with the electoral college and how it can be used to
subvert the will of the people. I'll quote those passages that assure us
that the college will be a truthful reflection of the will of the people.
You can then illustrate those instances when the college stepped up and
prevented a debacle by electing to the Presidency a man the general
population defeated.
>
>
> The constitution, like the Bible, can be read by 10 different people and
> each could come up with a different meaning. Like it or not the
> Electoral College has the final authority to decide who's president.
I hate to nit-pick, but I wonder if a Supreme Court lawsuit challenging an
Elector's vote could play a role. If so, then the Supreme Court, as the sole
interpreter of the Constitution, could arguably be considered the final
authority.
>
> The only way to change this is to change the constitution and that will
> never happen because you couldn't get 38 states to agree on the time of
> day let alone the constitution.
>
Kind of makes one wonder how we managed to amend the Constitution 27 times
(and counting)?
>
> No one stole the election at any time in our history.....neither party.
> Because the Electoral College is the authority it may be a different
> result than the popular election but you can't claim the election was
> stolen. And the system is as it should be. We can't afford another
> mistake like Clinton.
How long is the life expectancy of a Presidential Elector who violates
his/her trust by voting for any other candidates than those they were
elected to vote for and that vote changes an election? While they live, what
would be their quality of life be? Can't you just imagine what some drunken
NRA member could have done to an Elector who had been pledged to Reagan had
instead voted for Mondale? I don't want to even think about it!
>
>
> Sorry to ruffle your liberal feathers!
Liberal? You give me far too much credit. Try as I might, I find that I'm
just as intolerant of you reactionaries as you are of us progressives.
If you really want to live in a country that is ruled by the elite, why not
move to one. Iran comes to mind. I'll hold the door for you.
William Maslen
the candidate who won the popular vote in their state in the first voting round?
If more rounds are required they can vote for anyone as I seem to remember.
tom
morning to check it out, that the members to the college are only bound
by the first vote.
I am not a member of the NRA nor am I a republican or democrat but an
independent voter. I vote for the person who I feel will do the best
job for the country and follow the constitution. I'm sick of single
issue or single party voters who's loyalty is to the "party" or their
concepts and not to the nation at large. I believe this is how we got
into this mess in the first place.
It is amazing though how I can freely admit that many well meaning
people can read the constitution and related documents and come away
with different meanings and yet Mr. McAfee only believes his opinion is
the valid one. By his stating "A drunken NRA member" tells volumes of
his loyalty to one party and is unwilling to respect the opinion's of
others.
Maybe the solution is two fold. First a Supreme Court test case of the
Electoral College (although this would depend on the makeup of the court
at the time of the case and therefore may not be valid or even hold with
the next court and may be overturned) may be a good first step. Second
maybe we should establish a state for the far left wing of the nation
and a state for the far right wing of the nation. Then arm both sides
and let them fight it out. Then come in and destroy the winner of the
conflict so that we would forever rid ourselves of both sides.
Then maybe the solution to all of it is just term limits. One term in
office and one term in jail (since most politicians are liars, whores
and thieves anyway).
On a side note I do find it interesting that at the Democratic
convention Ms. Sanchez was not allowed to hold a fund raiser at the
Playboy mansion because Hefner exploits women. Yet they did allow a
man who exploits women and has been accused of rape to speak (clinton)
and allowed a man who exploits women and has been accused of killing a
woman (Kennedy) to speak. Seems to be a double standard to me.
William Maslen
Halfway there already. Arizona is a far right wing ultra conservative state.
Michael R. McAfee
William Maslen wrote:
> Hmmm, I could well be wrong here, but aren't the Electors only bound to vote for
> the candidate who won the popular vote in their state in the first voting round?
> If more rounds are required they can vote for anyone as I seem to remember.
>
Don't confuse a Presidential Elector, a member of the Electoral College, with a
party's convention delegate. Convention delegates are indeed pledged to their
candidate for just the first round of voting during a political convention. After
that, or upon release by the candidate that they are pledged to, they can vote for
which ever candidate they wish. At least that is how the Democratic and Republican
Parties handle their candidate selection.
The Electoral College does not cast multiple votes. They get just one shot at
electing the President and Vice President. If a tie results, the issue is decided in
the House of Representatives.
Michael R. McAfee
tom wrote:
> Mr. Maslen is right, I believe though I've not taken the time this
> morning to check it out, that the members to the college are only bound
> by the first vote.
How many votes does the college cast before they refer the election of the
President to the House of Representatives?
Let me help you out. Just 1.
>
>
> I am not a member of the NRA nor am I a republican or democrat but an
> independent voter.
It is clear, tom, that you are no democrat. It is equally clear that you
should not be a Democrat either.
> I vote for the person who I feel will do the best
> job for the country and follow the constitution.
I wonder how you would feel if, after working hard to help elect a
Presidential candidate; after casting your sacred vote for him/her, and
after your candidate had apparently won a close, bitter, and hard fought
election, your vote (along with the rest of the majority voters) was robbed
from you by an Elector who took it upon him/herself to disregard their
pledge and even the law (if it were to apply) and cast his/her vote for the
other guy? From your past statements, you probably would think it OK since
that Elector is so much better qualified than you in picking the President
and Vice President.
> I'm sick of single
> issue or single party voters who's loyalty is to the "party" or their
> concepts and not to the nation at large.
Many of us believe that the ideas of our party ARE what are best for the
nation. That kind of explains why there are political parties to begin with.
I'm sure that a sincere Republican believes that the core political values
held in common by his party will benefit all of America just as I hold that
those values held by Democrats would help improve our common society.
> I believe this is how we got
> into this mess in the first place.
Which mess is that?
>
>
> It is amazing though how I can freely admit that many well meaning
> people can read the constitution and related documents and come away
> with different meanings and yet Mr. McAfee only believes his opinion is
> the valid one. By his stating "A drunken NRA member" tells volumes of
> his loyalty to one party and is unwilling to respect the opinion's of
> others.
I have never claimed to be liberal. I'm as sure of my interpretation of the
Constitution and of political philosophy as I am because I have studied it.
FYI, the Democrats have plenty of NRA members, drunken and otherwise. We
just don't as many as the Republicans. How is Charleston doing with his
rehab anyway?
>
>
> Maybe the solution is two fold. First a Supreme Court test case of the
> Electoral College (although this would depend on the makeup of the court
> at the time of the case and therefore may not be valid or even hold with
> the next court and may be overturned) may be a good first step.
First, your going to have to find a College member who will soil him/herself
to the degree of casting their vote contrary to their pledge, and that vote
having an effect on the election of President and Vice President. Next, said
Elector will have to avoid the drunken NRA and or Greenpeace types long
enough to get into court. I think the prospects are pretty slim.
> Second
> maybe we should establish a state for the far left wing of the nation
> and a state for the far right wing of the nation. Then arm both sides
> and let them fight it out. Then come in and destroy the winner of the
> conflict so that we would forever rid ourselves of both sides.
My GOD! You are from IRAN!
>
>
> Then maybe the solution to all of it is just term limits. One term in
> office and one term in jail (since most politicians are liars, whores
> and thieves anyway).
We have term limits. It is a joke, just as I said it was when we voted for
it for state offices. I'm sure that Governor Hull much appreciates being
called a whore. Pro, working girl, hustler are much better descriptions for
her.
>
>
> On a side note I do find it interesting that at the Democratic
> convention Ms. Sanchez was not allowed to hold a fund raiser at the
> Playboy mansion because Hefner exploits women. Yet they did allow a
> man who exploits women and has been accused of rape to speak (clinton)
> and allowed a man who exploits women and has been accused of killing a
> woman (Kennedy) to speak. Seems to be a double standard to me.
The difference is "accused".
Besides, who said Ms. Sanchez (who ever that is) couldn't hold a fund raiser
at the Playboy Mansion. When did they move the Playboy Mansion to the
Democratic Convention in L.A.? I thought it was in Chicago.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> Jason Frey wrote:
(BTW, I've snipped the commentary above this point because you, Mr.
McAfee,
are clearly correct.)
> >
> > As far as I'm reading the above mentioned clauses, basically the legislature
> > dictated how the electors are picked, but that's where the state's
> > involvement stops. The electors are in no way beholden to the states that
> > chose them to follow the popular vote in the state.
>
> You error here. The state governments can, by law, dictate the manner which the
> electoral vote be cast, for example all for the plurality/majority winner of the
> popular vote, or to be cast in proportion of the popular vote. Also the state
> government can by law require an elector's vote to reflect the popular vote.
That law (which does exist in some states) is unconstitutional. The
constitution
provides that the state can choose the electors (probably by some
popular vote
scheme), but the state cannot dictate the electors' vote. In general,
however,
the elector-candidates are chosen by the presidential candidates, which
makes
for a fairly secure system.
> Additionally, the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 would indicate that
> it would be unconstitutional for an elector to ignore the clear choice of the
> people in casting his/her electoral vote.
I (and the US Senate, see
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/con007.pdf ) see
no
basis for the conclusion.
tom
Sanchez that if she held her fund raiser there she would lose her
speaking place at the convention. My god it's been all over the news
lately. And yes since she didn't hold the fund raiser but allowed
herself to be "strong-armed" by the Gore people in a sense she was
accused and also extorted by threats of punishment.
I guess Mr. McAfee we will agree to disagree on the subject of the
Electoral College and it's place in our society. The question is really
moot since it's here and here to stay.
If you truly believe either party represents our interests and not those
of the money people or corporations then the subject should be dropped
anyway because I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to
change mine. However, like most of the nation, I believe that
politicians are not acting in out interest and this is not a new
opinion......who was it that said, years ago, that we have a criminal
class and it's called the congress of the united states?.......It was
true then and it's true now!
In the end all that's important is that the debate continue and that
people are informed. I would rather have 100 informed voters than one
million voting on the looks of the candidates or the party line. and btw
the country is in a mess and getting worse (in my opinion).
Michael R. McAfee
"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote:
> Michael R. McAfee wrote:
> >
> > Jason Frey wrote:
>
> (BTW, I've snipped the commentary above this point because you, Mr.
> McAfee,
> are clearly correct.)
Thanks for voicing your concurrence!
>
>
> > >
> > > As far as I'm reading the above mentioned clauses, basically the legislature
> > > dictated how the electors are picked, but that's where the state's
> > > involvement stops. The electors are in no way beholden to the states that
> > > chose them to follow the popular vote in the state.
> >
> > You error here. The state governments can, by law, dictate the manner which the
> > electoral vote be cast, for example all for the plurality/majority winner of the
> > popular vote, or to be cast in proportion of the popular vote. Also the state
> > government can by law require an elector's vote to reflect the popular vote.
>
> That law (which does exist in some states) is unconstitutional.
How is that? Just what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law requiring a true
and proper reflection of the Presidential popular vote by its Presidential Electors
violate?
> The
> constitution
> provides that the state can choose the electors (probably by some
> popular vote
> scheme), but the state cannot dictate the electors' vote.
See above. Where does it say the state can not dictate that the Elector's vote reflect
the vote of those that they represent?
> In general,
> however,
> the elector-candidates are chosen by the presidential candidates, which
> makes
> for a fairly secure system.
We don't deal very well with reality here on usenet. Besides, it is the fact that we
don't directly elect our Chief Executive that chaffs us democrats, not the reality
that the Electoral College method has only let us down three times in the past.
>
>
> > Additionally, the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 would indicate that
> > it would be unconstitutional for an elector to ignore the clear choice of the
> > people in casting his/her electoral vote.
>
> I (and the US Senate, see
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/con007.pdf ) see
> no
> basis for the conclusion.
I see no Supreme Court precedent for an individual right to bear arms outside the
official militia either. Just because the Court has not ruled on a Constitutional
issues doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (or not exist). The idea that the feds can
interfere in the non republican practices of a state government are clear to me as per
Article IV, Section 4. Just because it hasn't happened yet is no reason to deny the
power to do so. BTW, good work Arthur! A very good use of creditable citation.
>
>
> --
> Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
--
Michael R. McAfee
tom wrote:
> Yes there is a Playboy mansion in LA and yes the Gore campaign told Ms.
> Sanchez that if she held her fund raiser there she would lose her
> speaking place at the convention. My god it's been all over the news
> lately. And yes since she didn't hold the fund raiser but allowed
> herself to be "strong-armed" by the Gore people in a sense she was
> accused and also extorted by threats of punishment.
I work for a living, and don't have an opportunity to hear broadcast
news/commentary like some folks (even some folks who work). I get most of my
news from the newspapers. I have seen some article headlines on the
internet, but haven't taken the time to read them. Quite frankly, I'm tired
of folks trying to make news stories out of nothing. So far as the
Democratic Party's Leadership having control over what is and isn't
presented at the convention, I'm sure that you will agree with me that they
don't just have a right to do that, they have an obligation. So far as
Sanchez's right to have a fund raiser anywhere she pleases, it appears that
she decided, on her own, not to have one at the Playboy Mansion West. She
obviously is free to to so, assuming Hefner was willing to host it for her,
she just didn't like the price she was going to have to pay if she did.
>
>
> I guess Mr. McAfee we will agree to disagree on the subject of the
> Electoral College and it's place in our society. The question is really
> moot since it's here and here to stay.
>
> If you truly believe either party represents our interests and not those
> of the money people or corporations then the subject should be dropped
> anyway because I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to
> change mine. However, like most of the nation, I believe that
> politicians are not acting in out interest and this is not a new
> opinion......who was it that said, years ago, that we have a criminal
> class and it's called the congress of the united states?.......It was
> true then and it's true now!
>
> In the end all that's important is that the debate continue and that
> people are informed. I would rather have 100 informed voters than one
> million voting on the looks of the candidates or the party line. and btw
> the country is in a mess and getting worse (in my opinion).
I'm not surprised you feel that way, tom. After all, with each passing
decade and century, America comes closer to fulfilling the promise of it's
revolution. Were are, today, more free - politically, economically, and
socially, than at any time in our past. And it is still improving, tom.
Yesterday, only white, male, wealthy, and mature Americans had any sense of
the freedom promised by the American Revolution. Today, more and more
members of the middle classes, women, and members of racial minorities have
a chance to experience that freedom. Who knows, maybe tomorrow most
everybody will experience the joys of freedom and the poor, and maybe even
homosexuals will have a chance to also. If we keep voting for Democrats,
that day may well come a little sooner.
Michael R. McAfee
tom wrote:
[snip]
> I guess Mr. McAfee we will agree to disagree on the subject of the
> Electoral College and it's place in our society. The question is really
> moot since it's here and here to stay.
>
The Electoral College method of electing our President and Vice President
was a compromise from the very beginning, and a not very well though out or
good one either. The concept was so poorly thought out that it had to be
altered by amending the Constitution just 16 years after its ratification,
and as a result of a debacle in just our 4th Presidential election. One of
the few failures the Founders make in writing our Constitution.
With the advances our society had achieved both in technology and in
advancing democracy since the adoption of the Constitution, it is time for
the Electoral College to be replace by direct, popular election of the
President and Vice President. Lazy as we are as a people, we still need to
demand of our Congressmen and state governments that this change is
necessary for the sake of democracy. It probably won't happen until the
system crashes again and we end up with another President who didn't get the
most popular votes, but it should.
There is just no moral justification for the Electoral College to continue!
>
>
[snip]
>
> In the end all that's important is that the debate continue and that
> people are informed. I would rather have 100 informed voters than one
> million voting on the looks of the candidates or the party line. and btw
> the country is in a mess and getting worse (in my opinion).
--
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> "Arthur L. Rubin" wrote:
>
> > Michael R. McAfee wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Frey wrote:
> >
> > (BTW, I've snipped the commentary above this point because you, Mr.
> > McAfee,
> > are clearly correct.)
>
> Thanks for voicing your concurrence!
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > As far as I'm reading the above mentioned clauses, basically the legislature
> > > > dictated how the electors are picked, but that's where the state's
> > > > involvement stops. The electors are in no way beholden to the states that
> > > > chose them to follow the popular vote in the state.
> > >
> > > You error here. The state governments can, by law, dictate the manner which the
> > > electoral vote be cast, for example all for the plurality/majority winner of the
> > > popular vote, or to be cast in proportion of the popular vote. Also the state
> > > government can by law require an elector's vote to reflect the popular vote.
> >
> > That law (which does exist in some states) is unconstitutional.
>
> How is that? Just what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law requiring a true
> and proper reflection of the Presidential popular vote by its Presidential Electors
> violate?
Hmmm...I suspect the Supreme Court would find that law was improper, if,
for
example, the candidate died between the popular election and the casting
of votes of the electors. Nontheless, we'll have to see if it happens
(which
it has, in 1972) and if it is prosecuted. I really don't know.
For the moment, I think the the Federal courts would overturn such a
State
law if it was ever enforced, but I can't decide exactly what their
reasoning
would be.
FWIW, if, (for example) the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
candidates
are from a single state (Texas, for example), then the Texas electors
are forbidden by the US Constitution from voting for both. I'm not sure
how a Texas state law could punish them for failing to violate the
Constitution.
> I see no Supreme Court precedent for an individual right to bear arms outside the
> official militia either.
Miller, in dicta...they stated that the weapon had to be suitable for
militia use...but just because I don't agree with you on that issue,
doesn't mean I cannot see your point.
> Just because the Court has not ruled on a Constitutional
> issues doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (or not exist). The idea that the feds can
> interfere in the non republican practices of a state government are clear to me as per
> Article IV, Section 4. Just because it hasn't happened yet is no reason to deny the
> power to do so. BTW, good work Arthur! A very good use of creditable citation.
Thanks.
Ted Louis Glenn
news:39A95B...@mcimail.com...
> Michael R. McAfee wrote:
> > How is that? Just what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law
requiring a true
> > and proper reflection of the Presidential popular vote by its
Presidential Electors
> > violate?
> State law if it was ever enforced, but I can't decide exactly what their
> reasoning would be.
The reasoning would probably be similar to the reasoning used to
overturn state attempts to impose term limits on federal officials
or to impose additional requirements on the candidates. The reasoning
is that the U.S. Constitution provides a list of qualifications for
federal offices that states cannot add to, modify, or ignore.
--
Ted Louis Glenn (tlg...@azstarnet.com) http://www.azstarnet.com/~tlglenn/
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Michael R. McAfee
Ted Louis Glenn wrote:
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote in message
> news:39A95B...@mcimail.com...
> > Michael R. McAfee wrote:
> > > How is that? Just what part of the U.S. Constitution does a state law
> requiring a true
> > > and proper reflection of the Presidential popular vote by its
> Presidential Electors
> > > violate?
> > For the moment, I think the the Federal courts would overturn such a
> > State law if it was ever enforced, but I can't decide exactly what their
> > reasoning would be.
>
> The reasoning would probably be similar to the reasoning used to
> overturn state attempts to impose term limits on federal officials
> or to impose additional requirements on the candidates. The reasoning
> is that the U.S. Constitution provides a list of qualifications for
> federal offices that states cannot add to, modify, or ignore.
Sorry, Ted, I must be a little slow this AM. I don't follow your argument. Let
me restate the issue as I see it. Let's suppose that a state government
decided that it would require Presidential Electors to cast their Presidential
and Vice Presidential votes for the candidates that they were pledged to
support when they were selected by the people during a Presidential General
Election. Arthur seems to think that the Supreme Court may very well find such
a state law unconstitutional, but he is unsure of just which portion of the
Constitution that would be violated. I feel that such a state law not only is
constitutional, but that the federal government may well be compelled,
independently of any state action, to require that Presidential Electors cast
their vote in such a manner under Article IV, Section 4. So far as I can tell,
the Constitution makes no reference to the actions of the Presidential
Electors in direct terms. Since a state law of this nature neither adds to nor
subtracts from the qualification for how Electors are selected, or the terms
which they serve, nor any other stated Constitutional term or requirement, I
don't see how your argument will bear.
>
> --
> Ted Louis Glenn (tlg...@azstarnet.com) http://www.azstarnet.com/~tlglenn/
> Tucson, Arizona, United States
--
Ted Louis Glenn
news:39ABD0B5...@pop.phnx.uswest.net...
The 12th Amendment does directly refer to the actions of the Presidential
Electors. Whether or not five U.S. Supreme Court justices would attempt
to apply their term-limits reasoning to this situation by asserting that
no state can add to, modify, or subtract from, those actions specified in
the U.S. Constitution is something we can only speculate about. And,
if they were to rule in such a manner, they would probably discount
the "Republican Form of Government" clause of Article IV, Section 4
because the 12th Amendment came afterwards and it explicitly
refers to the Presidential Electors while Article IV, Section 4, does not.
Michael R. McAfee
Ted Louis Glenn wrote:
I see what you mean now, however the issue is still far from being settled. The
12th Amendment seems more of a nuts & bolts requirement rather that restraint or
liberty on how an Elector determines who he will cast his vote for. In other
words, the Amendment dictates the procedure to be use in voting, not the
conditions an Elector must use in selecting his choice of candidates.
I hope we never have to find out. Our politics are strange enough already.
>
> --
> Ted Louis Glenn (tlg...@azstarnet.com) http://www.azstarnet.com/~tlglenn/
> Tucson, Arizona, United States
--
Jason Frey
Michael R. McAfee <mrmc...@uswest.net> wrote:
>I see what you mean now, however the issue is still far from being settled. The
>12th Amendment seems more of a nuts & bolts requirement rather that restraint or
>liberty on how an Elector determines who he will cast his vote for. In other
>words, the Amendment dictates the procedure to be use in voting, not the
>conditions an Elector must use in selecting his choice of candidates.
>
>I hope we never have to find out. Our politics are strange enough already.
Which kind of brings back the point I asked when I first started this
thread: Why have an electoral college.
I've not seen a real reason yet. Yes, it is in our Constitution, but the
Constitution was never meant to be sacrosanct (Note the amendments... Proof
that it isn't perfect). It seems that the electoral college is really
nothing but a source of confusion, given today's technology (Which the
Founding Fathers admittedly could not have forseen). Why bother with an
Electoral College, when you can go down, press a button, and instantly have
your vote whisked off somewhere to be tallied much quicker by a computer
than by a human.
Or, if you don't like the push-the-button idea, fill out a scantron
(Standardized test type form.. Use a penical, color in the bubble, a machine
can read off your answer).
Really, I haven't seen anyone say for sure that the people in the Electoral
College "has" to vote with their state. Yes they normally do (I believe
someone said something about an election in the 70's where one or two
didn't, but I don't recall for sure). If some sort of massive conspiracy
were to take place, the Electoral College *could* get together, and vote in
Jose the Crack Dealer On The Corner if they wanted to (Assuming Jose met the
requirements for President). Granted I highly doubt that's going to happen,
but why suffer a weakness in a system that doesn't need to be suffered?
Jason Frey
newsgroup in my newsreader. I did a search at Deja, and saw a post by
Michael McAfee to this thread dated 8/15, where he basically says the same
thing I'm thinking, that the Electoral College is old, outdated, and not
needed -
I think it is high time we give up this antiquated and undemocratic method
for electing the President and Vice President. It seems like in every
Presidential election we get some interest up, and with every Presidential
victory, the interest
To set the record straight, I didn't see it until just now.
It seems that he and I are in agreement on at least some things. :)