>> Table Talk >> White House >> White House Attic

One candidate wins the popular vote. Another candidate wins the Electoral College. What happens?
( Subscribe | Discussion summary )

Steve M.- 12:09 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.
It happened in 1876 and 1888, and the E.C. winner went to the White House each time. Would we put up with a result like that now? Or would popular outrage pressure the electors (who are legally free to vote however they please) to echo the popular vote?


FIRST | PREVIOUS | NEXT | LAST || RECENT

Recycla - 12:11 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #1 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I think the more interesting question is, what would happen if no one won 270 Electoral College votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:14 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #2 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

>Would we put up with a result like that now?

We'd have no choice; it's the law. You see, the popular vote is a fiction, in a way: the Electoral College does indeed determine who wins the election. It's a fail-safe to prevent the electorate from actually sending someone like, say, George W. Bush to the White House. Unfortunately, it didn't prevent the Reagan Administration. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:16 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #3 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Well, that's interesting, though it won't happen this year (if Perot couldn't even win a state in two tries, Nader sure won't), and I think the scenario I'm suggesting really could happen. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:21 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #4 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

Absolutely it could happen. Mississippi's recent gubernatorial contest went to the state House O' Representatives when neither candidate won a majority of the vote. So it's conceivable that the presidential election could similarly be put before the U.S. House. Of course, I trust that the vote would be thrown to the Democrat-majority House that will be seated in 2001.

All this was said, of course, without referring to the Constitution, wherein all answers lie. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:22 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #5 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

We'd have no choice; it's the law.
Not exactly. The law says the electors do the electing. The law (or at least the Constitution) doesn't specify how they have to vote. And, in fact, electors occasionally cast odd votes that aren't in the script -- an elector in '72 who was ostensibly committed to Nixon cast a vote for someone named John Hospers, so Nixon won 520-17 rather than 521-17. And my World Almanac says there were similar votes in '76 (Reagan got one vote) and '88 (Bentsen got one).

So the electors have some leeway. Which is why I ask whether they would be pressured to follow the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 12:24 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #6 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

What I meant was that we'd have to accept the vote of the Electoral College. Wasn't that your question? And they may be pressured but, like you just said, they can vote any way they want to...there's precedent to boot. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 12:25 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #7 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

In Mississippi, neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote, and state law required that it go to the state House of Reps. But a few states had no candidate win 50% in the 1992 presidential election, and the electors simply voted for the plurality winner -- which made sense, because the E.C. and popular vote winners were the same person, Bill Clinton. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by Steve M. on 12:26 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:26 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #9 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

What I meant was that we'd have to accept the vote of the Electoral College.
No, we wouldn't. The electors don't vote until December. That's a month for a public opinion groundswell to form and persuade some of them to vote with the people. The question is, would this happen? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SGeorge - 12:27 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #10 of 773
gee dumbja the undiscovered candidate

It depends on how the Electoral College votes. Now if Gore wins all states by a small margin and gee dumbja win states by a large margin but gore has 271 gee dumbja loses. Gore will win with both EC and popular. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Gentry - 12:31 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #11 of 773
Doctor, I want Prilosec, it's the purple pill! ... What does it do again?

The electors are bound in several states. However, the scenario of conflicting popular and electoral votes has happened in the past.

1824 of course, is the most obvious, with Adams winning only 31% to his opponents 41.3%. Neither received the requisite electors and it was decided by the House of Representatives.

In 1876, Tilden received more than 50% of the vote, but the electoral commission recognized Hayes electors from three disputed states, therefore electing him in the EC.

In 1888, Harrison received 47.8% of the popular vote and his opponent received 48.6. Harrison of course, won the EC. (Third place got 2.2% and fourth got 1.3%) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 12:35 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #12 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Great article on some of the mathematical underpinnings of the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

David Sallis - 12:36 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #13 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

But isn't there a slight temporal discontinuity in your question? How can we know how the College will vote (and hence create a popular groundswell of opinion to influence their voting) before they actually vote? Besides, they've already received the "groundswell of opinion": the popular vote!

I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I just don't recall any discussion after previous presidential elections about the impending EC vote. People assume that the EC vote will correlate to the popular one, which is a generally safe assumption but ultimately false. Any outcry (or outrage) would likely follow an EC vote, not precede one. Right? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 12:44 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #14 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Isn't there a slight temporal discontinuity in your question? How can we know how the College will vote...
We know because the EC vote is winner-take-all by state. Whoever wins the popular vote in each state wins all of that state's electors. You actually vote for a slate of electors, not the candidate himself; and, for example, the GOP slate, having been elected in a state, is not likely to vote for anyone but the GOP candidate in December.

Yes, there have been a few scattered renegades. Lloyd Bentsen's 1988 presidential electoral vote, for example, was nevertheless cast by a Democratic elector who simply flip-flopped his presidential and vice-presidential choices.

And a simple Democratic majority in the House of Representatives doesn't necessarily get you a Democratic president, if the vote ends up there. The House votes by state caucus, with each state having one vote. Whichever party controls the most state delegations would pick the winner. This would probably, but not necessarily, be the party that controls the House at large. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy - 12:45 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #15 of 773
Tim Russert has a fancy shirt wirt wirt, and we all know he's a little squirt wirt wirt

I think that's because this election looks like it may well be split, Gore with the popular and Bush with the state's electoral. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #16 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

David, in the last 27 presidential elections there's been no reason to pay much attention to the E.C. because if every elector voted for the candidate who won his/her state, the final tally would mimic the popular vote -- and this is precisely what happened (a handful of protest votes by electors notwithstanding). I'm talking about a scenario in which this would not happen.

Think about it. By 11:00 Eastern time on election night, we would know that one candidate was winning the popular vote but another candidate was winning the E.C. Remember that most Americans don't think about the E.C. -- they think they elect the president. Will they -- we -- be outraged if we find out our majority (or plurality) choice wo't be respected? I think the answer is yes -- I just don't know how deep the outrage will go and how effective it will be. But it will start literally hours after the polls close, when it will be clear who's won the popular vote (candidate A) and who's slated to win the E.C. (candidate B).

And then the press will give us a civics lesson, explaining the E.C. to those who don't understand it. And the party whose candidate is slated to lose the E.C. will stir up outrage -- justifiably, because that candidate won the popular vote. That's how I see it, at least. 
(BOOKMARK)

Don S. - 12:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #17 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Actually, the most recent Electoral maps are starting to favor Gore heavily, with even states like Jeb's own Florida in play. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 12:50 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #18 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Steve M. [on edit] Your statement in post #7 is not quite correct. In 1992 and in 1996 no one candidate got a majority of the popular vote. The plurality winner (meaning the candidate with the largest vote count but not a simple majority (50+%)) garnered the electors in each state where no clear majority was obtained, with the exceptions of Nebraska and Maine if I recall which allow for proportional representation in their state's electors. Thus the needed 271 votes in the EC to elect but not a corresponding popular majority. IIRC the total national percentages ran something like 42 and 48 percent for WJC respectively. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:52 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #19 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

We accept a presidential candidate as a winner who wins a plurality but not a majority. But would we accept a candidate as a winner who came in second in the popular vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Gentry - 12:52 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #20 of 773
Doctor, I want Prilosec, it's the purple pill! ... What does it do again?

But, in 1992 and 1996, Clinton won the most votes of the three people running (popular votes). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Sallis - 01:12 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #21 of 773
Kisses wife just after makeup has been applied.

Okay, Steve, I think I see what you're getting at. I think you're asking "Would the American electorate, being woefully ignorant about how their own system works, accept an Electoral College vote that is inconsistent with the popular one?"

Given the abysmal understanding we possess in general about our own political system, my answer is "Probably not." And so I see three possible responses by the aggrieved parties in this context: acceptance (followed by slander and obstruction of the winner--cf. Richard Mellon Scaife); attempted abolishment of the EC (it's been tried before); revolution.

A thoughtful and educated American might be more sanguine about such a scenario, but there don't seem to be too many of us these days. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 02:46 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #22 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a rejection of the electoral college. I think an awful lot of folks who know what it is, possibly a majority, think it's long outlived its usefulness and should go the way of indirect election of senators (which is also in the original Constitution). I certainly think it should go. Do you think we need the check on democracy that the E.C. represents? I don't -- I think the people can be trusted to choose the president. I think direct election is consistent with our values, and that abolishing the E.C. -- which I'm sure will eventually happen -- is consistent with our notion of the Constitution as a living document that can be changed, though not casually.

I think Americans see themselves as the people who should elect the president. I think the rejection of the popular will would set off an uproar. And why not? Public outrage that influences our representatives is part of the American way. If popular rejection of the idea of removing Bill Clinton from office stayed the Senate's hand, that was the system working, not failing to work. Similarly, if popular outrage persuades some electors to switch votes, that would also be the system working. And since the Constitution doesn't require electors to vote any particular way, an election influenced this way would be legal and constitutional.

Of course, it would've been better to abolish the E.C. a long time ago, but it's human nature not to take steps to prevent a disaster that consistently manages to prevent itself.

Frankly, I don't want a president who lost the popular vote -- whether I voted for this person or not. I like the idea of democracy and I don't like the idea of a president whose ascendancy seems illegitimate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 02:56 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #23 of 773
Class Maledictorian

And since the Constitution doesn't require electors to vote any particular way, an election influenced this way would be legal and constitutional.
Again, since Electors are carefully picked in each state by the Party organizations, having some change their vote resulting in the loss of the election by their party's nominee is unlikely.

While I agree that a 1888-type scenario would cause an outcry and would most likely result in the abolition of the Electoral College, I'm sure the popular-minority candidate would be seated after winning the Electoral Vote, and that the public would just have to get over its qualms. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 03:39 pm PST - Sep 15, 2000  - #24 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Steve M. 9/15/00 2:46pm

Read the article whose link I posted a few posts upthread. The EC isn't necessarily the dinosaur you think. 
(BOOKMARK)

Mike McG - 08:41 pm PST - Sep 16, 2000  - #25 of 773
Shuck Frub

There are some who argue that the Electoral College system ensures a more broad-based coalition for the winning Presidential candidate because it forces candidates to put together appeals to different regional interests, instead of collecting the votes of those with a single narrow interest, which would exacerbate class conflict, etc. I'm not fully conversant with these arguments (not being a political scientist), but they seem to have merit for me -- I'm not convinced that a society as sprawling as ours -- not only geographically, but culturally and in class terms as well -- would benefit from removing a buffer between us and direct democracy.

Still, I am disturbed by the "winner-take-all" nature of the EC. Off the top of my head, it seems that it would be better to tie the EC vote to the Congressional District vote -- i.e., when you vote for Joe Blfptzkst for Congress from your district, you're also voting for him as one of your state's electors. Then you vote for the other two electors from your state on an at-large basis. It seems to me that this would bring the Electoral College closer in alignment with the general political wishes of the whole population. Or am I unnecessarily complicating the process?

I dunno, this is just an improvisational riff, not fully thought out at all. Discuss amongst yourselves.

<on edit> I guess my point is that doing it this way would end the "winner-take-all" system in the big states -- make it possible for the candidates to split, say, California, 32-20, instead of one candidate getting all 52 (or whatever) electoral votes simply by winning the popular vote 51-49. The real problem is the way the present system places a premium on eking out a narrow victory in large states like CA, TX, NY, IL, MI, FL, etc., and getting a huge number of EVs that don't reflect the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 06:52 am PST - Sep 17, 2000  - #26 of 773

The 'winner-take-all' nature of the EC accomplishes several things. First, the winner-take-all model contributes to the buffer effect. It forces a candidate to have broad appeal, similar to a senator representing a state while a member of the house represents a district. Second, it prevents the EC vote from simply mirroring the congressional vote (which would probably result in a single 'majority party' system most of the time, for long periods of time).

 on edit:

(MM): The real problem is the way the present system places a premium on eking out a narrow victory in large states like CA, TX, NY, IL, MI, FL, etc., and getting a huge number of EVs that don't reflect the popular vote.

I forgot to address this. The winner-take-all model forces candidates to compete for that narrow victory, statewide. IOW, you really have to compete almost everywhere in battleground states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike McG - 01:44 pm PST - Sep 17, 2000  - #27 of 773
Shuck Frub

coffee:

Points well taken. As I said, I was just riffing of the top of my head. But I still think the elctoral college system, despite the upside aspects of the "buffer effect," also has some downside, too. I'm just not sure what to do about it. I guess that's what a forum like this is for. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 08:16 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #28 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I can now see one thing that would happen if my scenario came true: a lot of people would offer the (admittedly thoughtful) pro-E.C. arguments that have been posted here in newspapers and on TV and radio. Some of these people would be historians; others would be flacks for the candidate who won the E.C. And I think the Beltway media elites, who have become more and more wary of the people, would tend to treat these pro-E.C. arguments very respectfully and would attempt to marginalize anyone who said the E.C. was undemocratic. But I think that would only anger the public even more -- justifiably.

Whatever you think of the E.C., do you agree with me that a president who won the E.C. but not the popular vote would have to overcome the perception of illegitimacy? I think either winner in this scenario would have a problem, but I think a popular-vote-only winner would seem far more legitimate to the public than an E.C.-only winner. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 08:20 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #29 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I think a popular-vote-only winner would seem far more legitimate to the public than an E.C.-only winner.

Of course, because he would be more legitimate. After all, it is supposed to be a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And I don't think "people" in that phrase refers to "corporate overlords". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lazlo - 08:23 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #30 of 773
Four reasons (in no particular order) to wish that the Republic of Texass would just go away and leave the rest of the Union alone: George W. Bush, Richard Armey, Tom DeLay, and Phil Gramm.

Should this scenario occur and the electors give us a Prez that the people did not elect, then there will, at the least, be a groundswell of support for getting rid of this offensive and elitist Constitutional provision. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 08:41 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #31 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I'd love to see it happen. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 09:03 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #32 of 773

Whatever you think of the E.C., do you agree with me that a president who won the E.C. but not the popular vote would have to overcome the perception of illegitimacy?

 Probably. A very short-term problem though, in the larger scheme of things.

Recycla: "corporate overlords" have nothing to do with the EC system.

Lazlo: look at the math behind the system first, and consider what role the EC actually plays in our current system before condemning it as "offensive and elitist". Although the original intent and purpose of the EC were quite different, the result is what matters. The framers appear to have inadvertently created an additional safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (although not in a way they could have foreseen at the time). 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 11:24 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #33 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

The framers appear to have inadvertently created an additional safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (although not in a way they could have foreseen at the time).

 How, by allowing for the possibility of a tyranny of the minority? Without proportional representation there will (in essence) always be a tyranny of the majority (with the constitution the only protector of the minority voices). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 11:34 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #34 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

This is really none of my business since I'm not an American, but I'd strongly advise you to think carefully before scrapping the EC. Such institutions prevent one part of the country taking control of the whole thing. We know about that in Canada, about a quarter of our population lives in Toronto. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:50 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #35 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Finny, what are your thoughts on the health care system up there? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 11:53 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #36 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Recycla 9/18/00 11:50am

Let's stick to the EC discussion, shall we? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:54 am PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #37 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I know it's off topic, but I'm trying to do a survey. I promise, I just want to hear Finny's answer and then back to the EC discussion. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:04 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #38 of 773

How, by allowing for the possibility of a tyranny of the minority?

As to 'how', it requires a candidate to have (somewhat) broad appeal. The second part of your question, "a tyranny of the minority" is hardly a danger. Most states bind their electors (by law or in the state constitution) to vote the will of the electorate as expressed in the popular vote. It is hard to imagine a realistic scenario where the electoral college radically diverges from the popular vote. While it is possible for the EC outcome to (slightly) differ from the popular vote in an extremely close race, a difference of perhaps 1% would not bring about tyranny. We'd probably just elect the loser of the election four years later, as we have done in the past.

Without proportional representation there will (in essence) always be a tyranny of the majority (with the constitution the only protector of the minority voices).

Ummm...if you read that sentence closely it could be interpreted as an argument in favor of the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 12:10 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #39 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

The electoral college is proportionally representative? When, states are won "all-or-nothing", it doesn't seem like it to me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 12:13 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #40 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

Okay, briefly then:

1. It's wonderful. Anyone who believes the right-wing propaganda that it's bad should come up here and run for office opposing it. You'd get about five votes.

2. It has had some problems because it was starved for cash while the Liberals dug the country out of the deficit that the Conservatives created. (parallel situation to Reagan/Clinton in US). Now that there are budget surpluses again the pressure on the system is lessening.

3. I doubt it would work in the US. The interests opposing universal health care are just too powerful.

Back to the EC, it would be a very entertaining scenario if GW won the EC but lost the popular vote and the Congress. Can you say, "In over his head"? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #41 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Finny, thanks much. That's what I had thought. You all are very lucky to have that system. Many are dedicated to having a similar system here as well. It is an uphill battle against the corporate interests though. As for the EC, why is it "winner take all"? Does anyone know? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finny - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #42 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

Okay, briefly then:

1. It's wonderful. Anyone who believes the right-wing propaganda that it's bad should come up here and run for office opposing it. You'd get about five votes.

2. It has had some problems because it was starved for cash while the Liberals dug the country out of the deficit that the Conservatives created. (parallel situation to Reagan/Clinton in US). Now that there are budget surpluses again the pressure on the system is lessening.

3. I doubt it would work in the US. The interests opposing universal health care are just too powerful.

Back to the EC, it would be a very entertaining scenario if GW won the EC but lost the popular vote and the Congress. Can you say, "In over his head"? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lazlo - 12:23 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #43 of 773
Four reasons (in no particular order) to wish that the Republic of Texass would just go away and leave the rest of the Union alone: George W. Bush, Richard Armey, Tom DeLay, and Phil Gramm.

The "Founding Fathers," esp. Hamilton, were very distrustful of the wisdom of the people, hence its restrictions on the franchise as well as the fact that they chose not to allow the people to directly elect Senators (they were elected by state legislatures). The EC was a part of this elitism. The principle of it is offensive to my admittedly modern sensibilities. Then again, these were the same people who owned slaves and did nothing to try and end this abhorrent practice. Quite the contrary. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 12:24 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #44 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

On what grounds should the EC be defended? Is in an anachronism? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:38 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #45 of 773

The electoral college is proportionally representative? When, states are won "all-or-nothing", it doesn't seem like it to me.

Is the senate proportionately representative? The nature of a senatorial election has a lot in common with the EC process.

The "all-or-nothing" nature has been discussed before, what'd you think about the points raised/discussed before? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:41 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #46 of 773

Lazlo: as pointed out previously, there is an enormous difference between the original intent and the end result. It turns out that instituting the EC system was somewhat serendipitous on the part of the framers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:42 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #47 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

No, the Senate is not proportionally representative, and I think a case can be made that it gives more powers to states than to individuals.

 I have to admit to not having seen the all-or-nothing discussion earlier. I'll check it out. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:49 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #48 of 773

Here you go: Post #26

Oops, actually you might want to read a few posts before & after for context, too. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:53 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #49 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

coffee

 The winner-take-all model forces candidates to compete for that narrow victory, statewide. IOW, you really have to compete almost everywhere in battleground states.

Yes, but it allows candidates to completely neglect those states where they are obviously bound to win or lose. I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 12:56 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #50 of 773

As for 'proportionate representation', it depends on how one defines the term. For example, we have a bicameral legislature with "proportionate representation" in both houses. 
(BOOKMARK)

Finny - 12:58 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #51 of 773
Comme une vache qui regarde passer les trains

I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states.
Sure, but there's no way to achieve that. Even if you eliminate the EC, the candidates will still concentrate on those regions where the fight is close. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:00 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #52 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I suppose I would define "proportional representation" as representing the populace in the proportion to which they occur in the country. Like the House of Representatives. But what about the winner-take-all? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:02 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #53 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Yes Finny, but it wouldn't be so blatant and individuals would still have to visit states, like california, where even 30% is a significant amount of votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:03 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #54 of 773

Yes, but it allows candidates to completely neglect those states where they are obviously bound to win or lose.

Unfortunately true. This is not necessarily a reflection on the EC though, as it is in large part due to the constituency of those states.

I think I'd rather have candidates going to all of the states than just a few "battleground" states.

I'd rather have fewer "true believer" states (with more battleground states as a result). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:04 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #55 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I'd rather have fewer "true believer" states (with more battleground states as a result).

Well, yes, I think we all would. I may be wrong, but I think Nader is the only candidate who's visited all 50 states this year. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:14 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #56 of 773

No, the Senate is not proportionally representative, and I think a case can be made that it gives more powers to states than to individuals.

No, it doesn't. What it actually does is put the citizens of smaller, less populous states on equal footing with those in more populous states. For example, should South Dakota be powerless because several congressional districts have more people? Do you believe that GP 'abolish the senate' stuff is a good idea? 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 01:18 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #57 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Do you believe that GP 'abolish the senate' stuff is a good idea?

No, not necessarily, though I'd like to discuss it.

For example, should South Dakota be powerless because several congressional districts have more people?

Ummmm.....I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of privileging the rights of individuals over the rights of "states". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
coffee - 01:20 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #58 of 773

By South Dakota, I mean the people of South Dakota.

on edit: not just SD, BTW (insert your favorite state here)
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:29 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #59 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

How are those people "powerless". They have a representative or two don't they? 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 01:38 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #60 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The guy who's sworn in next January 20 will be the guy who gets 271 or more electoral votes. No other factor enters into it.

Some states have laws committing electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, but if an elector ignores this pledge and votes otherwise his vote will count and he will then face charges in his state that he violated the law. His vote is his vote however he casts it.

There is no way that this election will emulate the 1888 election; Gore will get a far higher percentage of the electoral votes than he will get of the popular votes, and this is the usual outcome. I believe he will get around 420 of the 535.

But I do believe that if the electoral vote contradicted the popular vote today there would be such a firestorm of public support for a constitutional amendment to scrap this odd anachronism in favor of a system that elects the guy with the most votes that it will be the last time the Electoral College convenes.

The Electoral College was set up because our Founders feared the rabble. This was (and remains) a legitimate fear; democracy was new then and they didn't know what to expect. The Electoral College, however, has proven totally useless; the only safeguard needed against the rabble was a representative bicameral legislature for our lawmaking, not a restraint on the right of the public to elect our Chief Executive.

(Nowhere is this need for a representative legislature made clearer than in California, where its I&R system causes many strange and unjust aberrations.)

I reject the argument that the Electoral College system requires a candidate to broaden his appeal. Indeed, unless we disintegrate into a multi-party system (heaven forbid!) it can be at least as persuasively argued that it allows a candidate to pander to the interests of only those who dwell in the most densely populated areas of a limited number of states. We no longer have states that are wildly different culturally from other states as we did in the past, but we do have people whose individual needs vary widely.

If we abolished the Electoral College everyone's vote would count the same regardless of where they lived; a candidate could no longer focus on "battleground states" because every vote would be worth fighting for; indeed, it would most benefit the candidates to campaign the most heavily where their support was least, because it would be a more fertile area in which to gain support -- there would be a higher percentage of minds he could theoretically change in his favor.

The times when the Electoral College results differed from the popular vote results are a mixed bag. In no case, 1824 where John Quincy Adams was elected over Andrew Jackson, in 1876 where, in our weirdest election, Rutherford B. Hayes was chosen over Samuel Tilden entirely extraconstitutionally by a judicial commission on a straight party line 8-7 vote, and in 1888 where the spectacularly undistinguished Benjamin Harrison won an electoral vote majority over Grover Cleveland, can it be persuasively argued that the Electoral College's choice was superior to that of the people.

Please note that we can't blame 1872 on the Electoral College; their selection was so bollixed up by the Reconstruction carpetbaggers and scalawags that they had nothing to do with it.

I believe you'll find, Recycla, that everybody who lives under socialized medicine would NEVER go back to the way we do it here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:40 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #61 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I believe you'll find, Recycla, that everybody who lives under socialized medicine would NEVER go back to the way we do it here.

Fergie, that's why I support Ralph Nader, the only candidate for a single-payer universal healthcare system. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 01:43 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #62 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

But Recycla, it WILL NOT HAPPEN unless there are SIGNIFCANT Democratic majorities in the House and Senate along with a DEMOCRATIC president. This is what you seem so unable to understand. 
(BOOKMARK)

coffee - 01:48 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #63 of 773

The rules of the House & Senate are very different, Recycla. In the House, a minority party is essentially powerless against a unified majority. For the most part, individual house members have no real power (outside of committee or leadership positions). Compromise is never required in the House.

 The Senate has very different rules. Any Senator can prevent something from getting done if they are determined enough to prevent it, and power is measured very differently in the Senate (it has nothing to do with chairing a particular committee, for example). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 04:09 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #64 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

coffee, could you please elaborate more. I appreciate the information you've laid out here.

Fergie, I'm going to vote for my Democratic Senator this year, and the Democratic congressman in my district is worse than the Republican. Gephardt is happy Nader's running. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 04:54 pm PST - Sep 18, 2000  - #65 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

Unless a party that is trying to pass legislation has 60 votes in the Senate in favor of the legislation, a single Senator can block consideration of that legislation by conducting a filibuster. This in fact is the mechanism that has prevented the passage of much social legislation through the years, including campaign finance reform. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and shut down a filibuster; this was reduced from 67 by a rules change implemented in 1975. Unfortunately, when that rule was changed the rule also was changed requiring the individual Senator conducting the filibuster to hold the floor continuously, so now it requires cloture just to terminate debate at all.

In the House, if it is unified the majority party can act in a manner basically unfettered by any objections of the minority however strenuous those objections may be. The House works by strict majority rule on all points except veto override or expulsion of a member. Debate is limited under House rules; each member has only a maximum amount of time and the total time permitted for debate can be limited even further by the majority leadership.

Legislation is frequently steamrollered through the House only to be stopped in the Senate. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 06:22 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #66 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Thanks for the clarification Fergie. Oh, I took the Insight for a spin this weekend, nice ride. How many MPG are you getting? 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 10:08 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #67 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

If you think the Electoral College makes elections more democratic, read this:

TV Spots Are Concentrated in Bush-Gore Battlegrounds

What makes the battle of the airwaves here [in Michigan] all the more unusual is that while Detroiters and their counterparts in other heavily targeted markets like Philadelphia, St. Louis and Milwaukee are being subjected to large daily doses of Gore and Bush advertisements, voters in other cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Houston, see virtually none. That is because in June, when the general- election advertising got seriously under way, the political parties picked 15 to 17 states — including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Wisconsin — in which they believed the election would be decided....
It is as if the 2000 presidential campaign were being offered on two television channels: one for those 17 states and a few overlapping markets in others, in which the electronic campaign is omnipresent; another for the 33 states where advertising is an afterthought.
I'm a New Yorker. My "safe Gore" state is being ignored. The factis, my Gore vote is meaningless and is not considered a counterbalance to a Bush vote in Michigan. That's not right. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 11:46 am PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #68 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

In re the EC and "vote cancellation":

I've been trying to see if there are any decent examples that illustrate either side of that argument or both sides. I'll use 3 examples of state pairing and use the participation estimates for the 1996 election from the Civic Values website and the EC website for votes available in the EC.

Pairings: CO & CT (8 votes each); FL & TX (25 to 32 votes) and the NY & MI paring noted above (33 and 18 respectively).

Numbers of votes cast (in millions)/participation percentage:

CO: 1.510/53%

CT: 1.392/56%

FL: 5.3/48%

TX: 5.6/41%

NY: 6.439/47%

MI: 3.848/54%

NOTE: All of these states are winner takes all, i.e, the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority of the votes cast) gets all the electors.

If CO went Republican and CT Democrat then in the EC and, in rough terms in popular vote, the cancellation argument holds.

However looking at the above numbers for the FL-TX pairing, roughly the same number of popular votes cast in each state but the end result would be a 7 EC vote difference for one or the other party's candidate if they went different ways. No cancellation there.

Lastly the NY-MI pairing, same kind of story except that even if MI were to have a participation level that in terms of total votes cast brought it into line with those cast by NY voters, and the the states went differnet directions, the end result in the EC is that the 6.4 million NY votes had more "power" by almost double in the EC than did the putative 6.4 million MI votes because the max they could bring to the table was 18 vs NY's 33.

From this I would say that the EC is not acting in furtherance of a "democratic (the concept not the party)" election. As always YMMV. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 12:32 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #69 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

Recycla, my mileage varies wildly by how I drive and what the conditions are like outside.

My best run was on a hot sunny day where I deliberately drove with a light foot to maximize mileage and didn't use any A/C. Everything around here (central Florida) is flat as a pancake.

This ride went through Cocoa Beach, Merritt Island and Cocoa, basically light urban with many traffic lights, then about twelve miles on a residential street (Indian River Drive) to Rt. 1, about five miles on Rt. 1 (similar to an interstate at this point) to a country road, on which I drove about 50 miles to Sanford. I then drove down to and through Orlando (mostly SR 50, Colonial Blvd.) in rush hour traffic jam conditions, and back along a couple of 55 mph country roads (SR 520 to SR 524 to SR 528) and back to Cape Canaveral.

Over the 144 miles of this run, which included an hour of stop-and-go driving in a traffic jam in Orlando, I AVERAGED 94.6 mpg.

If I drive with a lead foot with the A/C blasting I can sometimes get it as low, briefly, as about 47 mpg. My overall average for the car's first 10,100 miles is 62.1 mpg and, this being Florida, I use the A/C a lot. If I hadn't driven with such a lead foot for the first 2,000 miles or so it would probably be almost 70. Almost all of my rides regardless of conditions finish somewhere between 70 and 85 mpg, and the accuracy of its "FCD" ("Fuel Consumption Display") computer is consistently confirmed at the gas pump -- it is SPOT on.

The A/C cuts mileage by almost 20 mpg. If they redesigned the compressor to run with an assist from excess electricity instead of a fan belt they would probably improve this quite a bit. When the A/C is on the auto-start feature, which cuts off the gas engine whenever you stop the car at a stoplight (or for any other reason), is disabled.

When it rains you HAVE to use the A/C and rolling resistance (which in this car is about the same as a skateboard's) is impaired, so mileage suffers dramatically, but still you ALWAYS get at least 55 or so unless you drive like a testosterone-addled teenager.

For my money the Electoral College should be abolished, but it has never done any really great mischief so I'm not all het up about it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 12:41 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #70 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Yes, the guy at the Honda dealer said he had heard instances of it getting up to 107 MPG. I'm thinking about taking the Prius for a spin this weekend. As a side note, apparently they're going to move the hybrid tech. into the Civic. I think this will be much more successful. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 01:20 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #71 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

I have never been able to average over 100 mpg for a whole ride start-to-finish, but I have gone five mile rolling start, constant speed in the 50s, tail-wind assisted stretches at the computer's upper limit, 150 mpg, on several occasions.

It gets to be a game. The car actually does best on residential through streets; it's mileage at a steady 25 or so is in the 120-130 range normally.

It also does comparatively better in city traffic, because that's when the percentage of electric motor assist is greatest and the auto-stop feature engages when you coast at any speed below 20 mph and when you stop.

The Prius is SO SLOW and clunky compared to the Insight. In the Prius you are always consciously aware that you are driving in a very strange vehicle; the transition between electric and gasoline propulsion requires adjustment of the foot on the accelerator, and braking is VERY uneven, the transition between charge-mode and simple braking is so abrupt and severe that in my opinion it's actually dangerous. I often wonder, also, how reliable its Rube Goldberg twin-drivetrain will be.

It may be the Prius's lack of performance that hinders sales, though. I mean, this is a really SLOW car; you have to go to something like a diesel Peugeot or a diesel Chevette before you see performance like the Prius's -- 0-60 in over 14 seconds, and that's with the battery fully charged -- it's over 20 seconds with the batteries discharged! The Insight, though, is quicker than most econocars, even with the battery depleted, and I've had mine up to 115 mph (although I top out at 99 when the battery's depleted).

When you're driving the Insight, on the other hand, you'd never be aware that it wasn't a normal car unless somebody told you, or you turned on the Fuel Consumption Display or noticed the little Charge/Assist meter, or you drove it far enough to wonder why the gasoline gauge hasn't moved yet.

The Prius, however, seats five and the Insight is a STRICT two-seater, so that's a clear advantage to the Prius.

Also, the Prius in U.S. trim is EPA rated at 52 city and 45 highway mpg, more nearly comparable to a Suzuki Sprint than to my Insight's EPA ratings of 61 city, 70 highway.

Another advantage to the Prius, though, is that in American trim it is CARB SULEV certified (in Japanese trim it does not even meet LEV specs). The Insight is only CARB ULEV certified, probably because it accelerates from a standstill using torque primarily supplied by the gasoline engine while the Prius is all-electric until it's going about 15 mph or so. We are not talking about much difference in total pollutants here, though, even through the total emissions throughout the entire lifetime of the entire production run of these vehicles. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:23 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #72 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

I really like the bigger size of the Prius, the Insight is prohibitively small unfortunately, though I must admit I thought it drove nicely. Like I said, I'll take the Prius for a spin and get back to you. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 02:38 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #73 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Ferguson Foont 9/19/00 1:20pm

Given that, with my father being a trucker for nearly 50 years, I've grown up around diesel powered vehicles, I'm used to acceleration curves like that. It's all in what you get used to. For something that's just supposed to be efficient, cheap, basic transportation, I could get very used to it.

I had an '87 diesel Golf that I miss tremendously (a moronic drunk driver deprived me of that car). I consistently got 40+ MPH running around town and right around 60 on the highway. I drove quite a distance for work then, and I would put $5 of diesel fuel in it on Sunday, go back and forth to work all week, run around on weekends, and put $5 back in it on Sunday.

Yeah, you gotta live with 0 to 60 at 12-14 secs. Once you get into 5th gear, however, you can keep with anything moving a reasonable rate of speed, and can get little bursts here and there as needed. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ferguson Foont - 02:39 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #74 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The Insight, you know, fully meets all 2003 impact standards. This includes the new oblique and side impact requirements. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 02:40 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #75 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

DH100, you do not have to live with meager performance in the Insight, not at all. That's a zippy little car! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 02:41 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #76 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

Ferguson Foont 9/19/00 2:40pm

Hmmm... will have to check that out. Would LOVE 70-100 MPG for my commute. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:00 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #77 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Price is an issue too. I think the Prius can probably be had for around $18k, whereas the Insight is more likely, at least $20k. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ferguson Foont - 06:09 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #78 of 773
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich!"

The Prius lists for $2K more than the list price of the Insight, Recycla. The base Insight is $18K; the base Prius is almost $20K. The price I quoted, $23K, that I paid for mine includes destination, taxes, tags, and title -- it's what I actually paid after all the add-ons.

Only two dealer-installed options are available on the Insight, an upgraded stereo with four speakers and CD changer for $700, and a really nifty full-blown automatic climate control for $2,000. I got the climate control but when I upgrade the stereo I'll get much better gear at a much better price at Circuit City or Best Buy.

Unfortunately (and this is the only thing about the car I hate), cruise control is not available even as an option.

It is now only offered with a five-speed. I understand that the 2001 model will offer an optional CVT, which should improve performance and economy even more (if it's anything like the CVT on the old Subaru Justy). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 06:35 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #79 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Bill Clinton won around 400 electoral votes despite his Prius. 
(BOOKMARK)

Mike McG - 07:16 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #80 of 773
Shuck Frub

Don S.--

Do you mean "Priapus"? There's a car brand name to conjure with! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 10:42 pm PST - Sep 19, 2000  - #81 of 773
Class Maledictorian

(I was trying to bring us back on topic. Clumsily.)

Don't they already have a car with that name? By Ford?

Oh wait. I'm thinking "Probe." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 09:53 am PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #82 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Alright, back on topic. Sorry for the diversion. Thanks Fergie. Anyone know the electoral count when Lincoln won? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 10:47 am PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #83 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Recycla

Try here. Note that Lincoln won with only 39.8% of the popular vote in his first election but garnered 180 EC votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:37 pm PST - Sep 20, 2000  - #84 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Thanks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Busch - 12:35 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #85 of 773
Leela, Tobin, Emony, Audrid, Torias, Joran, Curzon, Jadzia, Ezri

In weak defense of the Electoral Collage (and avoiding the temptation to digress to a discussion about my new Subaru), the EC makes it harder for one party to steal a presidential election with ballot stuffing. The 1960 Presidential election's Illinois electoral votes have been disputed on grounds that the Daley machine got a bunch of dead people to vote. Be that as it may, any damage was confined to one state's electoral votes; Daley could have found ten million dead Illinois voters and it would have had no additional impact on the election's outcome, while the impact on the election would have been very different in a popular vote based election system. If the election were decided by a popular vote, having a large illegitimate popular vote in one state counted could more easily change the outcome of a Presidential election than with the EC system. 
(BOOKMARK)

Jim Sagle - 09:55 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #86 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

The EC is good because it prevents Southern regional domination. Dubya could well win the popular vote by racking up a huge Hee Haw total while losing the EC by a wide margin.

Thus the strictly theoretical arguments against it are trumped by the fact that Dubya sucks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:18 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #87 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

The EC is also good in that it prevents huge and predominantly Republican nationwide ad campaigns and a Republican-controlled national media from swamping grass roots voting efforts.

Thus the strictly theoretical arguments against it are trumped by the fact that the Republicans suck. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:20 pm PST - Sep 28, 2000  - #88 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I'm NOT being facetious here - this is NO time to be getting theoretical! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lee Green - 08:55 pm PST - Oct 1, 2000  - #89 of 773
If he's taking away the Grannies' right to vote now, what's he going to do to their social secuity?

to answer the question, the electoral college vote wins, but if the electoral college came in with a tie, the Congress, or it may be the House of REpresentatives gets to vote and break the tie...which you know is bad news for any democrat, currently.

In the election between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, there was a tie and the House (I think it was) voted for Jefferson. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 11:26 pm PST - Oct 3, 2000  - #90 of 773
Class Maledictorian

if the electoral college came in with a tie, the Congress, or it may be the House of REpresentatives gets to vote and break the tie...which you know is bad news for any democrat, currently.
Again, repeating my post from upthread, in the case of the presidential election being thrown into the House of Reps, a simple GOP majority in the House doesn't necessarily get you a GOP president. According to the Constitution, in this instance the House votes by state caucus, with each state having one vote. Whichever party controls the most state delegations would pick the winner. This would probably, but not necessarily, be the party that controls the House at large.

Furthermore, I believe it would be the INCOMING Congress which votes.... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:10 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #91 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Furthermore, I believe it would be the INCOMING Congress which votes....

I'm almost certain this is NOT the case. 
(BOOKMARK)

Russ Logan - 09:29 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #92 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Recycla

According to the 12th Amendment the EC meets on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes. The 20th Amendment ends the the terms of Reps and Sens at Noon 3 January. Under US Code Title 3 Chapter 1 Section 15 Congress shall be in session on the 6th of January to officially count the votes of the EC and certify the results. The provision of election in the House would then be invoked if needed under the 12th Amendment. Thus by this reading it would be the newly seated Congress that does this voting. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 10:34 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #93 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but perhaps it's the case. I had heard otherwise elsewhere. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 11:18 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #94 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

And you take what you heard "elsewhere" as a better source than the Constitution, eh?

Didn't think we'd hear a real "Sorry, I was wrong" from you.

Don and Russ are correct. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 11:36 am PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #95 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

If they're correct, I'M SORRY. Geez. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jamie Van Allen - 01:22 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #96 of 773
Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage. - Shakespeare (Twelfth Night)

And how, do you suppose, would the American public react if this election is decided in the House?

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 01:27 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #97 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Absolute chaos. The EC would definitely topple, it would be great. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 01:29 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #98 of 773
Class Maledictorian

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House.
No way. For the time being, this is a purely academic argument. 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 01:52 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #99 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Jamie Van Allen 10/4/00 1:22pm

BTW - I think the election will be decided in the House.
Not a chance. It won't happen until we have a viable third party candidate ... or a least one that has very large sectional popularity.

Recycla 10/4/00 1:27pm

Absolute chaos. The EC would definitely topple, it would be great.
Why, it's been decided in the House before, and didn't cause it to topple then. The election process has been modified since, but the EC has remained. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 02:50 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #100 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

The election would only be decided in the House if no candidate got a majority of electoral votes. This would happen only if more than two candidates carried some number of states. It didn't happen even in 1992, when Perot got 19% of the popular vote, so it sure as hell isn't going to happen this year!

I believe 1948 and 1968 are the last two elections where more than two candidates carried at least one state and therefore received electoral votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:02 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #101 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 2:50pm

This would happen only if more than two candidates carried some number of states.
Or if two candidates split the electoral votes exactly. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #102 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

True, though an exceedingly unlikely event. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:06 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #103 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 2:50pm

I believe 1948 and 1968 are the last two elections where more than two candidates carried at least one state and therefore received electoral votes.
Benson took W. Virginia in 1988, and Regan took Washington in 1976, both received 1 vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 03:08 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #104 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:04pm

True, though an exceedingly unlikely event.
Well, in 1800, the only time it was decided in the HOR, the two had the same EC votes. Though things were different then, and Presidents and VPs were voted on separate ballots, not as a "ticket".

The way things worked back then confuses me a bit. It looks like you could have "run" for VP, but wind up winning the Presidency. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:09 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #105 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Re 1976 and 1988: How could candidates who were not on the ballot carry any state? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:10 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #106 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

In 1800, I thought there were several other candidates with electoral votes, so even without the tie, it would have gone into the House due to lack of majority.

Also, 1800 was not the only election decided in the House; you've forgotten about 1824. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 03:50 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #107 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:09pm

Re 1976 and 1988: How could candidates who were not on the ballot carry any state?
Electors, in some states, are not "legally bound" to vote for their candidate, though almost all do.

Those years were years where an elector didn't "vote" for the person they were chose to elect, and chose someone not even on the ballot.

Hell of a system, eh? 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 04:00 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #108 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:10pm

In 1800, I thought there were several other candidates with electoral votes, so even without the tie, it would have gone into the House due to lack of majority.
Things were different back then, and you voted for Pres and VP on different ballots. Both the Pres and VP candidates received more than 1/2 the EC votes, but they received the same number, which sent it to the HOR.

It looks like you had a race for Pres with X number of EC votes, and a race for VP with X number of EC votes. When ballots were counted, whoever had the most was Pres, 2nd was VP. They didn't differentiate between the Pres and VP, when looking at EC votes, just line em all up.

To me, it looks like you could have run for VP and wind up winning the Presidency. It sounds strange, but that's what I believe could have happened.

Glad Amendment XII fixed that.

<on edit> Looking up Amendment XII, it was enacted after the election of 1800 but before 1804. Looks like they saw what a mess that election was. It went to 36 ballots before they finally got a President. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:08 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #109 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 10/4/00 3:10pm

Also, 1800 was not the only election decided in the House; you've forgotten about 1824.
Kewl, 1824 is strange as well. John Quincy Adams received fewer EC votes in the election, but won the election in the HOR, through a coalition vote, over Jackson, who had more original EC votes.

Whatta country! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wbrad - 04:37 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #110 of 773
"I think the Weimar Republic collapsed and the Nazis took over in 1933 because there were not enough citizens. ".................Gunter Grass

<http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/arg16.html>

scenario for 1888 happening all over again in the above article

From the story:

"In the 20 states that Harrison won in 1888, Harrison took approximately 51% of the vote to Cleveland's 45% of the vote. The 20 states that Harrison won accounted for approximately 66% of the total vote for president in 1888. In the 18 states that Cleveland won, Cleveland took approximately 56% of the vote to Harrison's 41%. The 18 states that Cleveland won accounted for approximately 34% of the total vote for president that year.

An analysis of the ARG surveys in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that were completed in mid-September shows that Al Gore, much like Harrison, has a smaller lead in the 26 states and the District of Columbia where Gore leads and Bush, much like Cleveland, has a greater lead in the 24 states where Bush leads." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:44 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #111 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Sure it's possible, but I would guess highly unlikely. I would say the only way you're gonna see one get the popular and the other get the EC is if the popular is really, really close ... less then 1/2% difference.

I don't think that's gonna happen this year. 
(BOOKMARK)

D H100 - 05:10 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #112 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

A great article explaining why the EC makes sense, from a mathematical standpoint.

Math Against Tyranny
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 05:20 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #113 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Fasinating article ... I've bookmarked that one. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D H100 - 05:23 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #114 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

I read it in print originally. That article turned me 180 degrees from how I used to feel about the EC. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 05:41 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #115 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

It's a very good article, and a great case for it.

There are 2 good reasons for the EC ...

It keeps ballot stuffing from being a major factor in elections. You'd have to stuff ballots in multiple states, to make any significate change. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #116 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

But if 51 districts are good, why not go further and have 436 -- one for each Congressional district (and DC)? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:24 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #117 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

If you have 436 districts, why not have 90 million??? ... oh yeah, that would be the same as a popular vote then. 
(BOOKMARK)

Recycla - 07:04 pm PST - Oct 4, 2000  - #118 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

Hmmmmm....the difference between 51 and 436 is the same as the difference between 436 and 90 million? Apparently to these limp-brained New Democrats. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 11:54 am PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #119 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

For someone a few frech fries short of a happy meal, let me explain it to you slowly.

The more districts you have, the more it becomes like a popular election, and the less your individual vote can make a difference.

Is 436 that number? not really sure, but it sure seems like it to me. That was the meaning the hyperbole of my statement was trying to get across. But apparently you didn't understand that either, like you didn't understand how ties, or non majority EC votes, were broken. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tresy Kilbourne - 12:14 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #120 of 773
Heal this.

The article also suggests why the Naderites' main complaint against two-partyism--the large overlap in the positions of the two parties--it not necessarily a symptom of politcal illness. The EC system intentionally penalizes factionalism, and thereby encourages each party to broaden their appeal beyond their base.

Naderites, who appear to think compromise is the root of all evil, hate that very notion. They want a system that delivers to them the candidate of their dreams, unsullied by the need to even entertain competing interests, even if that candidate is absolute anathema to everyone else. It's Serbian nationalism writ small, as the example in DH100's link suggests. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:18 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #121 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

On the other hand, in a proportional representation system such as Germany's, a party or faction compromises after winning its share of seats in the Parliament. That system seems to work pretty well. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 12:49 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #122 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

And Italy's proportional system has created over 50 different governments in the last 55 years.

Some countries proportion systems are stable, other countries, like Italy, are not.

Italy's government seems to be in a state of almost constant turmoil.

<on edit> Since Italy has changed their system from a totally proportional system, things appear to have gotten more stable. They changed some of it to direct candidate ballot, like we have here. 
(BOOKMARK)

D H100 - 01:00 pm PST - Oct 5, 2000  - #123 of 773
"Even if [Nader] did lie about it, so fucking what." - Formerly 'pure', and now thoroughly corrupt Naderites on TT (actual quote)

RjHeaney 10/5/00 12:49pm

Exactly.

Proportional governments have been kicked around for a long time. Something tells me the founding fathers deliberately split the difference between democracy and stability. It's served us well for 200+ years; why anyone would wish to screw with it so 'I can get something NEW' is beyond me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cohen - 05:53 am PST - Oct 6, 2000  - #124 of 773
No death penalty for the retarded--give Shrub a life sentence instead.

I read the Math Against Tyranny article and I think it's silly. One of the analogies the writer makes is to the World Series, where the winner is not the team that scores the most runs, but rather the team that consistenly edges out the other.

But that's a specious argument: in the World Series, the same two teams are playing each game. In a presidential election, yes, you've got the same two candidates, but DIFFERENT sets of voters in each state. And some sets of voters get privileged over others. As a message from Steve M. indicated earlier, most of the advertising this year is focused on a few battleground states, primarily in the Midwest. How does that help democracy, when the concerns of most of the country are ignored, and the concerns of a select group of swing voters in a particular region get all the attention?

Or moving to another key swing state, Florida, why should our country's Cuba policy be set because a small group of people can swing a key state in the electoral college--even though the strong majority of the people in the country probably have a different view? If not for the electoral college, the economic boycott of Cuba might have ended years ago. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recycla - 05:57 am PST - Oct 6, 2000  - #125 of 773
Klaus is a moron, he believes only what he reads in the New York Post.

How does that help democracy, when the concerns of most of the country are ignored, and the concerns of a select group of swing voters in a particular region get all the attention?

It doesn't. It just makes it easier to campaign since you only have to hit a few "battleground" states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 11:15 am PST - Oct 19, 2000  - #126 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

As to a President winning with a minority of the vote doing no great harm -- well in 1998 the Democrats won 51% of the popular vote for Congress, but got 49% of Congressional seats. So if we had had PR in electing Congress, we would have a had Democratic Speaker of the House, Democrats chairing the plum committes. Does anyone think this result was "harmless". 
(BOOKMARK)

joe bacon - 08:52 pm PST - Oct 21, 2000  - #127 of 773

FYI--it also happened in 1824. Andrew Jackson had more popular votes than John Quincy Adams, but Adams cut a deal with Henry Clay to ensure his election in the House of Representatives.

I am hoping that if this happens, we will see a movement to throw out the Electoral College and go to a one-person-one vote system for President. I enjoy living in California where my Presidential vote is 18 times more powerful than if I lived in Delaware.

I wouldn't be surprised if nobody got a majority. Nader may carry several states (Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Alaska), and hold the balance of power between Bore and Gush.

Then it would be interesting to see Ralph do his Monty Hall impersonation playing "Let's Make A Deal"... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 08:56 pm PST - Oct 21, 2000  - #128 of 773

Nader might CARRY several states???? I sincerely doubt it. Big Time. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:43 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #129 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Nader is not going to carry any states. He's not even going to finish second in any state.

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and still did not carry a single state. I think he finished second in a couple of states (Maine and Utah maybe?) 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 03:16 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #130 of 773

"Naderites, who appear to think compromise is the root of all evil, hate that very notion. They want a system that delivers to them the candidate of their dreams, unsullied by the need to even entertain competing interests."

I suspect that's not a fair representation of what Nader really believes. Third parties have a successful history in the United States of pushing issues onto the national agenda. We haven't seen a great example of this during our lifetime (unless you count Ross Perot, his problem is he didn't stand for much, he offered a protest vote but not much else). But I'll list three parties which made a big difference:

1) The Republican party. How quickly people forget that the one of the major parties today started out as a cranky fringe (hmm, guess some people will say it never changed it just got larger). The Republicans pushed slavery onto the national agenda. It's a complicated history because the issue was there in some form, the Whig party was already near collapse, and the original founders of the party, to some extent, were pushed aside in 1857-60 (after they had run Fremont) as professional politicians took over.

But that's one successful model for a third party. If someone believes that there is a large constituency for a few basic issues (eg. campaign reform, universal health care) and that the Democrats, for whatever reason, won't or can't push these issues, a third party is one way to steal everything left of center (that's the most ambitious strategy).

2) The Bull Moose party (TR in 1912) was formed when when some Republicans bolted their convention and crafted together a progressive agenda. They were fighting for the soul of the Republican party, threw the election to Wilson, and were ready to run again in 1916. Then Wilson did something very clever. He stole the whole progressive platform. If TR had won in 1912 I think it's possible that the Republican party today might have evolved into what the Democratic party is today (our sense of both parties was formed during FDR's presidency, FDR was a protoge of Wilson, Democrats were the reactionaries on race matters, were for states rights, and this only changed between 1912-1945.

But back to third parties. If the goal of the Bull Moose party was to get their issues before the public in hindsight one could argue that it was a great success. They weren't the ones who implemented the reforms but such things as women's suffrage, an end to child labor, the 40 hour work week, basic issues to us but they were very controversial at the time, were enacted. Both parties had to compete for the vote of progressives. That Wilson did so more vigorously is one of the ironies of history.

3) A variation of this strategy is to build a third party to push one issue, I'll cite my favorite, the National Woman's Party. This existed between 1913-1920 and had just one goal, pursue a scorched earth policy against which ever party was in power until women won the right to vote. They did most of their campaigning in the western states where women had gotten the vote through state initiatives.

And while their influence, in terms of number of members, was tiny, they did affect the political process, they scared Democrats (who were in power at the time) into approving bills which had been stalled in committee for decades. It doesn't take much to scare politicians, actually, especially if they face close elections (which is why the Democrats are crapping in their pants right now).

I'm sure Nader knows this history in some detail. The reason he won't quit is he doesn't see himself as simply a spoiler. If he gets 5% of the vote or more Democrats have to deal with him and his issues. I don't think he's pursuing the first strategy, it's more some mix of the second and third.

I have no trouble understanding why the Gore campaign, Democrats in congress, and those who have strong sympathies for the Democratic party, are furious at Nader. I 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:19 pm PST - Oct 22, 2000  - #131 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Ross Perot stood against the budget deficit. I'd say his campaign was very successful, given what happened over the following eight years. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 10:28 am PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #132 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The right-wing Washington Times spells out its fear that Gore might win the EC while losing the popular vote.

Vice President Al Gore's strategy to go after states rich with electoral votes raises a remote possibility that has not occurred in presidential politics since 1888.
There is a chance he could capture 270 electoral votes and win the presidency even if he loses the popular vote to Texas Gov. George W. Bush....
Mrs. Jeffe, the analyst from California...says a split decision between the popular vote and the electoral vote would make it hard for the next president to lead.
A presidential election "is about credibility — it's about legitimacy," she said. "It's not about words on paper."
That is the mild, soft-spoken version of the message we're going to get with increasing intensity from the right-wing press if this actually happens -- that Gore used a "strategy" to "win" an election he didn't really win and that his presidency is therefore illegitimate.

And that's the milder of the two messages I expect from the right-wing press.

The hardball version will be an all-out assault on the EC result -- with Fox News and the New York Post and the Washington Times and the Weekly Standard trotting out a carefully selected procession of Constitutional scholars and GOP spinners who say the EC is an antidemocratic remnant.

This could be accompanied by attempts on the part of both the right press and the GOP to target states in which Gore won a plurality but not a majority -- pressure would be applied to electors either to vote for Bush or to abstain so that the House of Representatives could see to it that the "real" winner ultimately won. There could also be attempts to dig up dirt on Gore electors (electors, after all, are generally party hacks utterly unknown to the voters who unwittingly choose them, and some must have skeletons in their closets).

In other words, I think the right may try to steal the election from Gore if he doesn't win the popular vote.

And, of course, they'll have a point -- such a Gore victory would be tainted. I would find it illegitimate.

I'm just throwing out scenarios here with no evidence, admittedly (except the right's track record of always playing hardball). But we'll have a month between the November election and the December EC vote --plenty of time to launch an all-out assault on what I expect will be called "Gore's tainted victory." Do you think the GOP and the VRWC just won't bother? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 12:01 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #133 of 773

Why would a Gore electoral college win be tainted or unconstitutional? After all, if, say, Gore wins with a mere 19 states while Bush gets 31, Gore will be winning with the votes of many states with the largest populations. The vote of an individual in a large state always counts less than the vote of someone in a smaller state because of the nature of the electoral college, which gives extra weight to the votes of smaller states.Because the weight of the votes is already slanted to the smaller states, a Gore victory in the EC would be even more significant.

Also, those are the rules. And it's a little late in the game to start crying about them now! It's not as if we haven't addressed this as a nation before. If Republicans want to abolish the electoral college, it's fine with me. Why should a resident of Alaska or Wyoming have a vote that counts more than someone who lives in the Northeast? I'm sure Democrats would be delighted to do away with the EC--in the future. 
(BOOKMARK)

Russ Logan - 12:43 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #134 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

SheRa

"The vote of an individual in a large state always counts less than the vote of someone in a smaller state because of the nature of the electoral college, which gives extra weight to the votes of smaller states."

How so? In a lightly populated state such as Montana a one vote margin of victory yields an EC tally of say 4 votes and the same margin in California yields 54. Put another way: a thousand vote margin in Montana still only yields 4 votes and the one vote margin in California still yields 54. Where's the extra weight you espouse? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:45 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #135 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I'm talking about a situation in which Gore has fewer votes overall than Bush, but wins the Electoral College because he wins some big states by small (or smallish) margins. It could happen. The number of states is irrelevant.

I think there'd be no questions about the legitimacy of a Gore presidency if Gore won 19 states and Bush won 31 as long as Gore won both the overall popular vote and the Electoral College. It's a discrepancy between overall vote and EC that's problematic. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:45 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #136 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Divide the population of the state by the number of electors, and you'll see that in the smaller states, there are more electors per resident than in the larger states. This is because each state has 2 Senators, regardless of population. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 12:52 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #137 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Ron

However with the exception of Maine and Nebraska the state's electors exist in an all or nothing realm. Thus to get a state's elector vote requires only one criterion: get the most votes by a margin of one vote in that state. Only in the two states mentioned above is there apportionment of the EC tally. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.W. Dimmitt - 01:04 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #138 of 773
Be compassionate, join FUBAR today! (Faith in Unknown, But Awful, Religions)

Why would winning the EC vote, but losing the popular vote be any more of a problem this year than it was in 1824, 1876, and 1888? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:10 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #139 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

WW,

1824 was even wilder, Adams lost both the Polular and the EC, but still ending up winning the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

SheRa - 02:35 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #140 of 773

Russ,

As Ron pointed out, it isn't the states that have more power, but the fact that each individual voter's vote has more impact. That's because the electoral college is made up of the number of its representatives plus its two senators. Wyoming has about 500,000 people (not quite) but it has 3 electoral votes. Texas has about 20 million people and 32 electoral votes. In Wyoming, the votes of about 166,666 people make up one electoral vote. In Texas, it's one electoral vote for about 625,000 people. Therefore, a Wyoming vote has about four times the impact of a Texas vote. Is it a fair system? Yes and no. It's fair because it forces the U.S. to remember the importance of the little states. And it's unfair, because people in big states (meaning states with big populations) have less influence proportionally than people in small states.

And it's just clear and simple according to our system: Whoever wins the electoral college vote is the winner, no matter what the popular vote is. It's been our system for several hundred years, so if people want to change it, they can change it for the NEXT election. It's too late to rethink it for this one! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 02:48 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #141 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

SheRa See my answer to Ron. The votes are not apportioned except in two states (Nebraska and Maine). It is a winner take all and it matters not whether the margin of victory is 1 vote or every vote in that state. The end result is the same the winning candidate gets all that state's votes. The "power" calculation you just cited is an interesting mathematical judgement but it has no bearing on the reality of the mechanics involved in determining the EC vote tally in the state (NE and ME excepted). Thus the example I gave earlier of Montana and California both being decided by a single vote gives that 1 vote far more "power" in CA than the 1 vote in MT, and that is the way it would work, 54 to 4. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:43 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #142 of 773

Well, I do see your point, Russ. That is one of the odd things about the electoral college system. In a way, nearly half the votes of the citizens of the U.S. do not count (because they belong to states where the other part holds sway).

But, Steve, of course it would be completely legitimate for Gore to become President if he wins in the electoral college and not win the popular vote. Our system is an electoral college system. If we went by the popular vote we wouldn't NEED the electoral college. We don't take the average of the two kinds of votes, popular and electoral. We don't use the popular to decide who's going to be president. There's one way, and one way only that Presidents of this country are chosen, and that is through the electoral college. 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 08:39 pm PST - Oct 23, 2000  - #143 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Dimmit said:

Why would winning the EC vote, but losing the popular vote be any more of a problem this year than it was in 1824, 1876, and 1888?

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Fox News
3. Drudge Report
4. VRWC

None of those things existed in 1888. Believe me, the VRWC will be absolutely foaming at the mouth if Gore wins the EC but loses the popular vote. I agree with Steve M.....they will go on a one-month campaign to get EC voters to change their vote when the EC meet on January 3rd. There is no constitutional requirement that an EC elector votes the way his state's results indicated. Look it up. The EC voters are chosen based on the pop vote in their state, but once they get to Washington on January 3rd, there is NO constitutional requirement that they keep their vote that way.

Pressure, the likes of which have never been seen in modern US political history, will be brought to bear on those electors between Nov 8 and Jan 3rd.

Let's hope it is not an issue....but if you think Rush and his minions would let it go, you're very naive, Dimmitt. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 12:38 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #144 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

And if pressure doesn't work, there's always the military coup option. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 04:39 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #145 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Why does Rush Limbaugh matter? He's a washed-up has-been and about as relevant to 2000 as Newt Gingrich. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fred Dawson - 05:28 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #146 of 773
Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

Has this possibility been brought up here? In one or more states, the election is too close to call on the day after. Without these electoral votes neither Gore nor Bush has a majority. The lengthy process of counting absentee ballots and doing recounts sets in. In several places, charges of vote fraud are made.

It's been a popular conspiracy theory that this happened in Illinois in 1960, that Mayor Daley pulled strings to be sure Kennedy was the victor. But in that case Kennedy had a small but clear lead in the popular vote nationwide and the political atmosphere was not so venomous as it is now.

It may not take a divide between the popular and the electoral vote to create a quandry. Just imagine what the militia movement could do if they think the election's been stolen from their guy. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 06:02 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #147 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Dean F., thanks. You're absolutely right.

And Fred D., thank you for mentioning the "vote fraud" canard. If you lurk at Free Republic, as I regularly do, you know that hardcore right-wingers think Democratic vote fraud is an epidemic in this country. The GOP didn't stop Bob Dornan from harassing Loretta Sanchez for months and months with phony charges of vote fraud when she first defeated him. That was just one House seat. This is the damn presidency. They're going to try to win by any means necessary.

I'll upset a few people when I say this, but this is my principal argument for voting Gore rather than Nader. I don't care if you're in a "safe" state like my state, New York. Gore needs every popular vote he can get, not just ever electoral vote.

Oh, and by the way, ABC News now has the race in a dead heat. So every vote counts.
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LanDroid - 09:54 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #148 of 773
http://www.landroid.homestead.com/main.html

This just up on Reuters:

Analysis: Gore Could Lose Popular Vote, Win Election

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chances are growing that Democrat Al Gore could lose the popular vote to Republican George W. Bush and still win the presidency in the Nov. 7 election, according to political scientists. "The chances of a candidate, presumably Gore, losing the popular vote and still winning the election are better than at any time since 1976 when it almost happened," said Catholic University political scientist Mark Rozell.


(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:52 am PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #149 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I think the result of this unlikely event would be that Gore really does take office, but then both parties support a constitutional amendment to modify or abolish the Electoral College. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 12:23 pm PST - Oct 24, 2000  - #150 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

I would hope the EC doesn't get abolished. Because then, in a very close race, voter fraud does becomes a real issue. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:53 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #151 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

In fact it has been the deciding factor in 2 US elections. 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 02:13 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #152 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

I think it has been 4 elections.

1800 (tie)
1824 (winner lost both Popular and Electoral)
1876 (winner lost Popular, but won Electoral) - highly contested election
1888 (winner lost Popular, but won Electoral) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:16 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #153 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I was refering to vote fraud, 1960 and 1876. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 02:26 pm PST - Oct 25, 2000  - #154 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Vote fraud was not decisive in 1960. The issue was finally dropped when a number of recounts which did take place ended up with Nixon further behind. In short the Republicans committed more fraud than the Democrats in that election. It just was not as widely publicized. I think I saw something about this on Slate recently, but I don't remember and could be wrong.

BTW, fraud is not a new problem in the US. The first time Thomas Jefferson ran, he received only seven votes in his home state of Virginia. "Fraud" he quite understandably cried. "Absolutely", replied his opponents, "and as soon as we find the man who voted seven times he will be prosecuted to full letter of the law". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 11:57 am PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #155 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss

They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it.
Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes?...
"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."...
In league with the campaign — which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness — a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."
Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser....
And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."
TOLD YA!!!! 
(BOOKMARK)

Monty G. - 12:15 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #156 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

yeah, I saw that too. did someone dispute it?

I guess losing gracefully just ain't in some folks vocabulary. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 12:22 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #157 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

A lot of people said upthread that the EC was the last word -- whoever won enough states to win the EC would win the election and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.

Also, the Nader "safe state" strategy is predicated on the absolute certainty of the EC being the last word. Nader voters have gotten very cranky when I've mentioned my fears about an EC crisis in Nader threads. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 12:26 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #158 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Also, the Nader "safe state" strategy is predicated on the absolute certainty of the EC being the last word. Nader voters have gotten very cranky when I've mentioned my fears about an EC crisis in Nader threads.
In some ways it would in the long term be more pernicious, Constitutionally speaking, if the Nader vote were to cause a Gore victory with a minority in the popular vote and a majority in the electoral college than if there were an outright Bush win in both. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:46 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #159 of 773

I think there are two nightmare scenarios which might develop from this election (and I'll keep party out of it because each, at this point, could be on the winning or losing side).

1) A candidate wins by a few electoral votes and a party searches for cranks among the electors of the other party who are willing to switch or vote for some third person (much more likely if the EC goes against the popular vote, there are going to be wackos in any group of 535 people, such a move, moreover, would be constitutional).

2) There are allegations of voter fraud in one or two swing states, I'm sure this does happen, our system doesn't try to prevent it, it's a joke, really (this won't prevent someone from taking office but it will follow him for four years).

The EC should be abolished and some national system of voter registration should be put into place (which requires simple verification of signatures, etc). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #160 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Nit-pick: there are 538 electors (3 for DC). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:32 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #161 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The electoral college has its virtues. For one thing it is a road block against extremism. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 01:35 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #162 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

How so? It did nothing to impede the election of Ronald Reagan. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T Boggioni - 01:45 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #163 of 773
Taking political advice from a Nader supporter is kind of like taking swimming lessons from Natalie Wood.

there are going to be wackos in any group of 535 people
What's the margin of error on that? :) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 05:17 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #164 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

I have two words for the notion that, in the event that one candidate wins an electoral majority, but the other has a popular majority, electors ought to take it upon themselves to cast their votes for the one who won the popular vote nationally:

FUCK THAT!

Both candidates campaigned based on the rules known to them at the time. Had they known that the popular vote was to be the determining factor, they would have deployed their resources differently. The aggregate national popular vote is, for this reason, not a valid yardstick.

 As for abolishing the EC for subsequent elections, we can talk. I would point out that the barriers for entry, money-wise, are that much higher if all candidates must cover all fifty. I am myself also not entirely hostile to giving small states slightly higher representation, on federalist grounds. Abolishing winner-take-all would correct many of the perceived evils of the EC without totally wiping out the sovereignty of the states. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:21 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #165 of 773

Dear Kenneth,

EXACTLY. If my kids are playing Monopoly and one of them loses, the other one doesn't say "I meant to play it by some other rules." It's a completely outrageous suggestion. Besides. WHOSE vote in which state should be overcome to give Bush the election under those circumstances? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 05:42 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #166 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

If Gore wins the electoral vote and loses the popular vote, there will be a nationwide mediadriven cyclone - and maybe a military coup to back it up. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:47 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #167 of 773

If Gore wins the electoral vote on November 7, and then somehow doesn't end up becoming President because some electors were pressured to vote otherwise, that IS a coup. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kenneth Heintz - 05:51 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #168 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

If Bush actually gets > 50%, the fur might indeed fly. I don't really see that happening; Gore plus Nader is absolutely certain to be over half, not even counting Buchanan. If Bush merely has a popular plurality over Gore, Gore's "mandate" would surely be damaged (that's a joke; the GOP wouldn't have acknowledged a mandate if Clinton had won all fifty states in 1992), but no one would take seriously the suggestion that Bush actually deserved to be named(?) president. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 06:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #169 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

You HUGELY underestimate the arrogant and self-righteous power lust characteristic of conservatives.

After all, even the THOUGHT that a President should be removed from office for private consensual sex would have seemed laughable before 1998 - yet when the occasion arose, the Republicans and their media henchpeople screamed for precisely that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:47 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #170 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Part of me hopes that this scenario does play out - simply because it will be interesting to see just how far the Republicans are willing to go.

But there is a counter argument, and a simple one: peaceful succession is one of the first, and primary, victories of the US constitution, the basis for longest running democratic republic on earth. To attempt to overturn the election by coercive revolt is what makes states like Serbia or Nigeria what they are. Loosing one election is unpleasant, losing peaceful succession is catatstrophe. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 06:51 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #171 of 773

Well, said, Stirling. One of the basic assumptions citizen in this country have always been able to make is that succession will be orderly, and that the will of the people (even of the damn stupid people) will be carried out. The fact that we have been able to trust in that for more than 200 years is a great gift and a profound part of our sense of national identity. Any tampering with that would indeed be a catastrophe. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 07:04 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #172 of 773

I told the husband about the Republicans' new hope (of undoing an electoral college victory). He said, "Oh, it's like Clinton's impeachment." "How so?" I asked. "Republicans are trying to undo the results of a legitimate election." 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 08:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000  - #173 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Didn't GW Bush say that he was in favor of judges who are "strict constitutionists".

The Constitution says that the winner of the EC is the victor.

When it comes to the 2nd Ammendment, the Republicans claim that the Founding Fathers were infallible.

Now, they would claim that the system for electing the President, that those same Founding Fathers put into place over 200 years ago, is unfair and should be abolished.

Cognitive Dissonance. No....ultimate hypocrisy.

If the Limbaughs of the world try to claim that an EC victory is not legitimate if the popular vote goes the other way, they should end their defense of the 2nd Ammendment.

Can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution is infallible and should be strictly adhered to or it is not. What's it gonna be, Wingnuts? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by kittey morgan on 09:33 pm PST - Nov 1, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:50 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #175 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

If one candidate does indeed win the popular vote while the other wins the electoral vote, I'd expect the Electoral College result to be respected.

But I'd also expect both parties to quickly join forces to support a constitutional amendment that would either abolish the Electoral College, or require 435 of the 538 electors to cast votes according to the majority in each Congressional district instead of winner-take-all by state. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Lodger - 04:42 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #176 of 773
What Would Jesus Do? Immanuel Recount!

Sounds like we're about to see "Bush Rules" vs. the Constitution. Read the top of Gail Sheehy's article in Vanity Fair.

Even if he loses, his friends say, he doesn't lose. He'll just change the score, or change the rules, or make his opponent play until he can beat him. "If you were playing basketball and you were playing to 11 and he was down, you went to 15," says [Doug] Hannah, now a Dallas insurance executive. "If he wasn't winning, he would quit. He would just walk off.... It's what we called Bush Effort: If I don't like the game, I take my ball and go home. Very few people can get away with that."
<http://www.gailsheehy.com/Politics/politicsindex_bush3.html
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 04:46 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #177 of 773

Of course the way the system is now is quite cumbersome. But it would be ridiculous to change the rules--and unconstitutional--to get the results you wanted in an election that had already happened. Especially when there have been several precedents for an EC victory in the past.

Lodger, your quote is incredibly germane. 
(BOOKMARK)

Steve M. - 05:47 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #178 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The Constitution says that the winner of the EC is the victor.
Yes, but the Constitution doesn't dictate that every elector in every state must vote for that state's winner. That's what happens, but it's not in the Constitution.

The outrage of the last few posts, by the way, mirrors what I expect to happen in the country if this scenario does play out. No matter what the eventual result is, I think it will be a significant national crisis -- bigger than, say, Clinton's impeachment. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 05:53 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #179 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Columnist/GOP apparatchik Deborah Orin lays the groundwork for a challenge of election results by Bush.

WE MIGHT NOT KNOW WINNER 'TIL NEW YEAR
THINK it's almost over? Think again - it could be almost Thanksgiving or even after New Year's before we know for sure whether the next president will be named Al Gore or George W. Bush.
That's because out on the West Coast, there will be a deluge of mail ballots - and they won't all get counted right away.
And because if one guy wins the popular vote but not the electoral vote, the winner won't get decided for sure until the Electoral College meets on Dec. 18 and the ballots get counted on Jan. 6.
For the first time, all Oregon ballots will be cast by mail (or dropped off at 240 sites). So will more than half the votes in Washington state and one-third in California....
Or take Florida (25 EVs), a super-tight contest. ABC News this week reported that absentee-ballot requests from Republicans are running 100,000 ahead of Democrats, winning smiles from Team Bush.
But if it's close, that count could drag on. Florida mail ballots are due Election Day. But there's one exception - the state gives a 10-day leeway to 100,000 overseas voters, many of them military folks who tilt pro-GOP.
Then there's the nightmare scenario - the winner of the popular vote loses the Electoral College....
Republicans say they wouldn't just roll over if that happens...

(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:54 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #180 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It would be considerably greater, and it would basically polarise the debate for decades to come, it would be something that would seal the view by the left that the right is headed for hitlerism.

Originally the founders thought of the electoral college as a potentially deliberative body, and a backstop against mobocracy. It would be ironic if it were used as a means of creating mobocracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marie Cook - 05:56 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #181 of 773
This "Yellow-Dog" Democrat is ready to bite those "yellow-belly" Democrats in Congress.

The Republicans intend to overthrow our government if Bush does not win. Impeachment should have been enough warning to everyone to do more to stop them. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 06:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #182 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The GOP also wants to try and challenge Missouri law if Ashcroft looses, but the great state of Missouri has rather specific law on the subject, and there is no constitutional challenge possible.

The GOP is running around arguing that if Mel Carnahan wins, then, since he is not an inhabitant of the state, he can't be seated in the Senate, and therefore Ashcroft must be. However, the consitution specifically says that states set the terms for election, and the local law states that if a candidate deceases before the closing of the ballot, a new one is selected by the party. If a candidate dies after the closing of the ballot, and wins, then the seat is immediately declared vacant by the Governor, who may appoint a qualified individual to fill a term that runs until they may be replaced by the winner of the next general election.

In short, so long as the governor's choice for the seat is constitutionally able, there is no challenge possible. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KathieK - 06:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #183 of 773
"It is typical of Dubya that he won the election by losing it, since his entire career has been built upon a succession of failures from which he emerged better placed on each occasion." - The Guardian, 1/20/01

We are taking this literally, but it could be intended for a different audience entirely. This message could be a RW GOTV ploy: "Tell them we could still win if we get the popular vote even if not the EC vote, so you go out there and you make sure Bush gets >50%." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken MacCardle - 06:04 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #184 of 773

I haven't read the entire thread and I apolgize if I say something already covered. The campaign strategies of the candidates have been formed around the existence of the Electoral College. Gore hasn't campaigned in large (CA and NY) states where he had a wide margin in the polls. Nor has he campaigned in the large and small states where the polls indicated no real chance for a win.

Until recently, Bush followed the same strategy. However, Bush's foray into CA recently marked a real departure from the logic of the Electoral College regime. Is Bush trying to establish a fall-back position? Is he trying to reserve for himself the ploy of attacking the Electoral College in the event he loses the EC vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marie Cook - 06:06 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #185 of 773
This "Yellow-Dog" Democrat is ready to bite those "yellow-belly" Democrats in Congress.

Think of a worst case scenario and you should have the Republican position. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KathieK - 06:06 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #186 of 773
"It is typical of Dubya that he won the election by losing it, since his entire career has been built upon a succession of failures from which he emerged better placed on each occasion." - The Guardian, 1/20/01

Marie, that pretty much sums it up for ALL their positions. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 06:07 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #187 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Couldn't this scenario go either way? Why all the emphasis on only one of the two possibilities? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:07 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #188 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Another footnote - electing by district will not change the possibility that the winner of the election will loose the popular vote. Simply because when voting by district, some districts have much higher turn out than others, hence their votes would count more. Further, districts vary in size by a factor of 2. It would be entirely possible for a democratic candidate to carry all of the congressional districts - apportioned by population - in New York City, win the lions share of the electoral votes in New York, and loose the election.

Several gubenatorial races in New York have had exactly this scenario play out.

If people want a popular vote, then there must be either a run off or a preferential system - simply because any other means allows circumstances of the ballot to defeat the popular choice.

The attempts to do away with the college if Gore were to win and Bush were to loose would be doomed to failure, since, in order to enact such legislation they would need to amend the constitution. Several states benefit greatly from the current block voting system, and would not enact such legislation. Several other states benefit from electoral vote over popular vote, and would not vote for an amendment that takes away this advantage.

Even the idea of holding electors to the results of the poll has its problems. Let us imagine that between now and 6 December the winner dies, or is exposed for having done some tremendous misdeed, the ability of the electors to step in would be a tremendous advantage. It is good to have a few rotten boroughs in a system which are never used, but which exist in case of extreme exingency.

What is interesting about this election is that no such real emergency exists, the stakes are so partisan precisely because neither leader represents a clear and credible center to his party and its policies. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:11 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #189 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The greatest argument in favor of the electoral college, historically, is that it delivered to Abraham Lincoln two mandates to the presidency, even though he did not win a majority of the popular vote in the first case. Lincoln was the last third party nominee to capture the presidency (twice). The first time because the election was divided regionally, the second because he ran on "The Union Party" ticket with a democrat as his VP. 
(BOOKMARK)

Davis X. Machina - 06:51 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #190 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Expect dilatory tactics by the GOP followed by President Cheney...

Meanwhile, the Senate, most likely in Republican hands, cruises right along, doing its constitutional duty of selecting the vice president, in this case Richard B. Cheney.
But if, by Jan. 20, 2001, the House is still deadlocked--Fischbeck reminds us it took the House 36 ballots over six days to pick Thomas Jefferson--then the vice president gets sworn in as president. Voila! President Cheney.
Of course, Cheney could pick Bush to be vice president, subject to confirmation by the House and Senate. Then he could resign and Bush would be president and pick Cheney and so on. . . .
Who says the Founding Fathers didn't have a sense of humor?
Washington Post
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:16 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #191 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Hold on here. It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely) or Ralph Nader carries at least one state (even less likely). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:19 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #192 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

'92 had a serious chance to go to the house. '00 however has a serious chance of electoral victory coupled with popular loss.

But it should be underlined that this is a feature not a bug. The idea is that in such close circumstances favor should be given to the candidate who has shown the widest base of support, rather than the ability to motivate the most ardent supporters 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:28 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #193 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

'92 had a serious chance to go to the house.
Not really. Perot got 19% of the popular vote but didn't carry a single state. He didn't even finish second except in one or two states.

1948 and 1968 would have been much more likely. In both of these elections, a whole region voted for a third-party, segregationist candidate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:40 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #194 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

By the time of the election, this is true, but at various times Perot had been in the lead for the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

Rick Robinson - 07:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #195 of 773
"Down to the banana republics; down to the tropical zone ..." -- Jimmy Buffett

Ron --

Couldn't this scenario go either way? Why all the emphasis on only one of the two possibilities?
Because the current dynamics make a split decision much more likely to favor Gore. In a nutshell, Bush leads narrowly in the national polls, but Gore leads narrowly in the key swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. If Gore wins those three, he only needs a couple of other swing states to make his 270+, and could do so even if Bush led the national vote by a couple of points.

Bush is much less likely to win a split, because he stands to pile up huge majorities in Texas and other GOP base states.

It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely)
Unlikely, to be sure, but not all that unlikely. (Maybe a 5-10 pct chance, as opposed to a <1 pct chance.) Try it on an interactive electoral map -- I forget the specific combination(s) to do it, but it is not hard to come up with a 269-269, based on reasonable possibilities for state results.

-- Rick 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J. Buxton - 09:00 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #196 of 773

Michael Long on why Gore faces long odds in the Electoral Vote count.
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:25 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #197 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The national review's analysis is typically slanted. California is in play only in the wildest wet dreams of the GOP. It is correct in noting that Gore, not Bush, has to tie down his base, but the handwaving misses the crucial point: the odds are not long for Gore in the electoral college, they are very long in the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 10:19 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #198 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

Bush's foray into CA recently marked a real departure from the logic of the Electoral College regime. Is Bush trying to establish a fall-back position? Is he trying to reserve for himself the ploy of attacking the Electoral College in the event he loses the EC vote?
Absolutely. No other motive makes sense.

They are preparing for a fascist takeover. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:23 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #199 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Bush needed to go to CA to help the Republicans in several house races. The republican polls indicate that he is well ahead enough to win both popular vote (by a plurality) and the EC by a straight majority.

There are currently 6 competitive house races in CA. Enough to swing the house even if the Democrats hold their own everywhere else. Also allows him to maintain his "lead" in the polls which is a key part of the republican campaign strategy - to make it so that the undecided who wants to vote for the winner votes for Bush.

No plot is necessary, the campaign math makes sense, especially since he can play to Oregon and Washington - to crucial democratic take away states. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 10:24 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #200 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I'm curious what would make someone still be undecided between Bush and Gore at this very late date. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maria S. - 10:24 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #201 of 773
I'm sorry, but I'm going to be a bickerer....Alcee Hastings

I'm sorry, I just don't think this will fly. There's gonna still be a hefty percentage of the population that won't vote at all, so neither the popular vote nor the EC REALLY represent the will of all the people. I think most Americans will just think they are sore losers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:29 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #202 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Voter apathy is currently part of the system. One of the growing possibilities is that electronic democracy may well change that. Currently it is a productive strategy to discourage the othersides weak supporters. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pinwiz - 10:32 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #203 of 773
"Jeff’s shirt is briefly ignited and he dashes to the river screaming, 'Oh my god, I’m flaming!' 'Tell us something we don’t know,' mutters Alicia." - ModernHumorist.com on _Survivor_

Anyway, here's the real kicker: If the EC/Popular vote split happens, would the anti-EC people have the power to make it through the difficult Constitutional Amendment Process? Would the country ratify it?

I think I need to look up the Amendment process for myself... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:33 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #204 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It is unlikely - it takes 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states - or conventions, which would be a real wild ride. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:38 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #205 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Conventions would be interesting. Has either the federal constitutional convention or the provision for state conventions ever been used? 
(BOOKMARK)

Monty G. - 10:38 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #206 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

God, I do hate always being right.

Check this out:

GOP manipulates online polls. use of net to coordinate warriors

read the whole thing. this what democracy is up against. here is an excerpt.

Some of Bush's acceleration in the polls was likely due to the efforts of Larry Purpuro, the deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee.

His other title, though unofficial, is RNC "technology czar," and over the last year Purpuro has been cobbling together a list of Republican e-mail addresses that has become one of the key factors in the campaign. Purpuro's list also might have helped Bush emerge as the popular victor after the first debate.

The message e-mailed to GOP faithful after the debate was simple: Go to CNN, MSNBC, and other Internet news sites, and make yourselves known. Vote early, and often, in the online polls.

"On CNN, I think we were ahead 2-to-1 at one point," Purpuro said. And to the extent that online polls matter in changing a campaign's "momentum" by indicating, at the very least, which candidate's supporters feel more strongly, the Republicans beat the Democrats handily. By the second debate, nobody was asking whether Bush would get his name right.

"We started in July of 1999 with about 17,000 e-mails," Purpuro said, referring to the project he heads at the RNC, called "e.GOP." Purpuro is charged with getting the party wired, and he said that one of his priorities has been assembling the e-mail list.

Now, with the million-name list, the party can target messages to its constituents based on geography, age, and gender. And when it comes to fund raising, they can sort even finer than that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:40 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #207 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

The greatest argument in favor of the electoral college, historically, is that it delivered to Abraham Lincoln two mandates to the presidency, even though he did not win a majority of the popular vote in the first case. Lincoln was the last third party nominee to capture the presidency (twice). The first time because the election was divided regionally, the second because he ran on "The Union Party" ticket with a democrat as his VP.
Yes, but Lincoln won a plurality in 1860.
Hold on here. It can't get into the House or Senate at all unless either the electors are exactly tied at 269-269 (very unlikely) or Ralph Nader carries at least one state (even less likely).
My guess is that Republicans will issue legal challenges in states with tight margins of victory -- they'll charge voter fraud, or say that absentee ballots haven't been counted (maybe GOP election officials in certain states could help them out there by delaying a count of absentee ballots). In those states the winner will (allegedly) be in doubt, so perhaps no electors from those states will be certified.

Also, Republicans could try to dig up dirt on Dmocratic electors, with an eye toward getting some of them to step aside in disgrace. Since all electors are party hacks, that my not be very hard. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #208 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Why would it be to the Republicans' advantage to manipulate polling data? This will only corrupt the input to their own targeting strategy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 10:41 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #209 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

God I do hate having to read about how RIGHT Monte is in every damn thread. Learn some e-courtesy will ya? 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 10:42 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #210 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I don't think an elector can resign, and if he did I think he'd be replaced by a member of the same party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:46 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #211 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

GOP manipulates online polls
At the right-wing Free Republic site, the posters admit this freely. Every time a poll goes up on a Web site, someone at Free Republic starts a thread: FREEP THIS POLL! (The regulars there call themselves "Freepers," and "Freep" is a verb they use to describe manipulating polls, harassing liberals or Democrats, and other similar mature activities.) The Freepers were responsible for that widely reported poll last year in which Bill Clinton was found to be the second most evil man of the millennium. (Don't believe me? The Freepers BRAG about it!)
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 10:50 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #212 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

heck, when they're bragging about civil wars and overturning elections that doesn't surprise me. None of this surprises me as I've said it was going on for years.

What IS new is the sheer volume of dollars involved , the infobase (odd for people who supposedly want to "protect" info from intrusion, so I guess there needs to be a clause "except for political operators" and "except for big business marketers")

they've no doubt got databases and databases of target info and activists (and enemies) by now.

just want everyone to know what the republic is up against in case anyone still thinks the polls are meaningful or that this isn't serious stuff. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ben Tracadie - 11:23 am PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #213 of 773

The odds of a popular vote/ electoral vote split are increasing by the day. Electoral College lead today!

Today's National Journal Hotline Electoral Vote tally based on the most recent state polls favors Gore. Based on this, if Gore wins either Florida or Pennsylvania plus Maine or New Mexico or Washington, he wins. National Journal is not at all Gore tilted. It plays it fairly straight, although right winger, Michael Kelly, is the editor.

Gore's EV advantage is interesting given the EV boost Bush gets by leading in 28 states vs. Gore's 17. The 11 state advantage gives Bush 22 more electoral votes than he would have if electoral votes were purely representative of relative population sizes. They are not since each state gets 2 votes automatically (two senators plus number of house members).

Incidentally, if Republicans want to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC after this election, the Democrats should agree not only on principle, but also because, in general, the Republicans are more likely to benefit from a popular/electoral vote split. Not this year though. 
(BOOKMARK)

bunnie1 - 12:13 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #214 of 773

Sharing an interesting excerpt; may be helpful for those still undecided:

"For those who enjoy analyzing correlation, the November Money magazine published the following in view of the presidential election this year. The figures are based on the Dow Jones average annual return between March 4, 1901 to August 25, 2000."

President/ Congress/ Dow Jones Ind.Avg./

Democrat/ Democrat/ 6.6%/ Democrat/ Republican/ 10.7%/ Republican/ Republican/ 1.3%/ Republican/ Democrat/ 6.3%/ 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 12:47 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #215 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

There are three things the Demos can do to avoid this problems (and I'm sure are doing two of them).

1) Campaign hard -- win the popular vote and it gets harder for repubs to do this. (Done Deal -- I don't think the Demo activists are going home to sit on their hands.)

2) Choose really loyal Demos as Electors (even if they are "political hacks"). Again already done --I mean who will the Democrats choose - Republicans?

3)Lastly -- and this is the only thing not currently being done -- start and ad/public relations media campaig should Gore win the electoral college and not the popular vote. We have been warned what the Republicans are planning to pull: so the day after the election if the popular vote is even close the Demos need to start their own campaign against changing the rules after the game is over. I think such a campaign could do a lot with the spoiled little boy taking his ball and going home theme suggested by others here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #216 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Ohhh I dunno. i think if either candidate wins the EC and not the Pop, there is going to be some re-evaluation. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 12:52 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #217 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Yeah, but let re-evaluation take place for the next election. Get rid of the obsolete electoral college -- but not for the election that has just been fought by both candidates under it's rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:53 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #218 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Ohh I agree. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 12:55 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #219 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

I always thought the EC was a sham anyway. Regardless of our lil' World Series analogy someone posted upthread. What the EC does is take votes away from the minority bloc within each state. How frustrating for a progressive living in say Wyoming. Or for a conservative living in NY.

And why should Cali get the lions share if they have poor voter turnout?? Huh? 
(BOOKMARK)

T Boggioni - 01:00 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #220 of 773
Taking political advice from a Nader supporter is kind of like taking swimming lessons from Natalie Wood.

why should Cali get the lions share
Cause we're a bitchin' state. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:13 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #221 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Yeah, and look at us, we have the lions share of EC votes, and the candidates aren't paying much attention to us.

It's all those puny "battleground" states with 6 or 7 EC votes that are getting all the attention.

Oooops, wait a second, maybe that's not really bad after all. I really don't want non-stop political ads anyway.

Nevermind. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 01:25 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #222 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Cause we're a bitchin' state.

If you're such a 'bitchin' state, then get your asses out there and vote en masse and earn your influence the correct way. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 01:27 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #223 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

Yeah, and look at us, we have the lions share of EC votes, and the candidates aren't paying much attention to us.

Because there are a lesser percentage of Pubs and Indies than there are Dems... so whats the point.

BTW ending the EC would have a positive effect on voter turnout. But who wants that? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:28 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #224 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Rj: what state are you in? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 01:28 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #225 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

CA 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 01:37 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #226 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I thought California was a big battleground state right now? 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 01:39 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #227 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Media Myth 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Bertelson - 01:43 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #228 of 773
"But his body-gaurds & silver-cane were no match for the Jack-of-Hearts..."

One thing positive about the EC--it FORCES the candidates to get off their lazy asses & actually meet the voters in some of the states. Otherwise both major candidates would sit back, do infomericals & blitz the major media markets EXCLUSIVELY.

Rick 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
kittey morgan - 03:39 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #229 of 773

I am very dismayed in what I am reading here regardingthe EC. The forefathers did this for a reason, it should NOT be abused and eliminated just because a candidate may have won the popular vote but not the EC votes. It has worked for over 200 some years there is NO need to get rid of it. We are talking about our history here, not someone's whim nor a banana republic system of winning. God help us if we come to that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 03:47 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #230 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

I am very dismayed in what I am reading here regardingthe EC. The forefathers did this for a reason,

Ya, they didn't trust a bunch of ignorant farmers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.A. Cooling - 03:48 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #231 of 773
I don't exaggerate -- I just remember big. ~ Mark Twain

What are saying Kitty?? Banana republic? Are you saying the people aren't to be trusted? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 04:03 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #232 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I think she's saying the system's not broken so why "fix" it?

The EC is a safeguard against a regional candidate becoming president racking up a huge vote in his own region while doing so-so everywhere else.

Like what's happening right now. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 05:10 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #233 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Five reasons why the electoral college is a good thing:

1. It forces the winner to have a geographically broad base of support.

2. It grants mandates in close elections to even plurality presidents, this includes Clinton, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson.

3. It gives a preferential voice to smaller states, which otherwise might be ignored entirely.

4. It limits the scope of vote fraud to a single state, and limits the effectiveness of geographically based inducements to vote.

5. It reinforces the connection between the national and the state campaigns, since the campaign of the state is not merely to deliver total votes, but the state as a whole to a coalition able to govern.

The popular vote does none of these things. Direct popular election agrees with the electoral college almost all of the time, but the existance of the electoral college forces a greater geographic range to campaigns, so that even those campaigns which can win a popular majority in one area of the country must contest the entire country, or be shown to be more limited in appeal. The electoral math boltsers the party that wins, but it also bolsters the dissenters from those regions which did not vote for the winning party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 05:59 pm PST - Nov 2, 2000  - #234 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Not sure all these things are an advantage. Why are geographical minorities more important to protect than any other group? Instead of giving Montanans more votes per person than Californians, why not give people of color extra votes to protect them against being outvoted by the white majority?

Seems if you are looking at people subject to "tyranny of the majority" there is no contest here. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:49 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #235 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

1. Representation to congress is based on geography.

2. Many policies have disproprotionate local impact. Therefore one desires a system where the impact of pork on areas of high concentration of population is more limited.

3. Geographic minorities are often cultural minorities.

As for the hows and wherefores of the Great Compromise, Madison's explanation is best. Though some elaboration is now necessary. Small states in population are either geographically small, or sparsely populated. The geographically small states are disproportionately dependant on the national economy and therefore need greater protection, and the sparsely populated states are resource extraction states, whose economies are easier to disrupt by national policy.

The advantage in EC votes per person which Montana has is offset by the advantage that one can swing more electoral votes per percentatge of swing voters. Consider that it would take a 10 point shift to deliver Idaho to the democrats - which would take large concessions to do - for a net gain of 3 votes. However, a swing of 2 percent will swing Michigan's 18 votes. Hence the power of large states comes from the winner take all nature of the contest.

The two alternatives - by district and by popular vote - have great defects.

First, because it would reduce the race to what amount to competative districts, which are a narrow basis.

Second it would increase the power of gerrymandering, which is already to great in the present system.

Third it would put more power to smaller states, since swinging one district swings three votes in small states, where as all other districts swing one with a smaller possibility of swinging more.

The direct popular election is a bad idea for reasons outlined above. While the EC can, occasionally, produce an strange situation - once after the present form of it was put into place - it has more often taken a muddled popular vote and produced a clear mandate to govern. Which is the point. 
(BOOKMARK)

Pinwiz - 07:13 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #236 of 773
"Jeff’s shirt is briefly ignited and he dashes to the river screaming, 'Oh my god, I’m flaming!' 'Tell us something we don’t know,' mutters Alicia." - ModernHumorist.com on _Survivor_

Here's the real kicker for me. Sure, the outcome of this election is making us focus on the Electoral College and the election process in general. Personally, I think that the focus is a good thing.

However, I'd rather that all this time and energy that we will be using on the EC be focused on the Primary system. It needs to be changed. What percentage of the country has absolutely no say in the nomination of the candidates? Why does it have to be spread out over multiple weeks, making the later states vote when a candidate already has the statistical majority of votes?

Isn't that an inherently bigger flaw in the system? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:51 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #237 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The primary system is flawed because of the stupidity of being an "independant" voter, and people's desires to choose in the general election as if it were a primary.

The purpose of a multi-stage primary election system is winnow out candidates, on the general reasoning that no one can be insincere forever. Or at least, those that can can probably do it fo 4 years as well as 1.

The entire thrust of most theoretical discussion - how to translate preference into election - misses the main reason for an election - to select the best person for the job. The campaign is the process by which a candidate proves able to govern. Any amount of making it easier for people to pick the brand they want is actually rather stupid, since people will often choose the worst of alternatives, not the best. Barriers between bias and realisation are, in fact, the reason for the success of the American Federal system.

What is broken is not that people can't choose the person they want, it is that they system no longer rewards candidates most suited to govern. This is something which is a much more complex problem than merely changing the voting system. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:05 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #238 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Getting back to the EC, one scary aspect of a potential crisis is that if the election goes to the House, each state gets one vote. How undemocratic is that? A state with roughly the population of Staten Island gets the same vote as New York State. And as you know if you've seen the electoral maps, Bush has lots more states than Gore -- he just has low-populatio states. Many sparesly populated Western states have solidly GOP congressional delegations. So Bush wins that contest no matter what happens, right? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:12 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #239 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The exact tie case is, currently a very bad system, agreed. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 10:17 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #240 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

It could have been avoided entirely if the DC constitutional amendment had assigned it 4 electors instead of 3 ... 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 10:20 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #241 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Not entirely, because one can still have faithless electors, and more than 2 candidates winning. It is one of those loose ends that should have been fixed with the amendment on presidential succession. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 10:21 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #242 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I wouldn't assume that a tie is the only way the election would go to the House. Obviously it goes there if a third-party candidate deprives both major-party candidates of a majority by winning some states. But I think it could also go to the House if certification of election results doesn't take place by the EC's voting day. Think the GOP would hesitate to hold up certification ("Gosh, these darn absentee ballots take so long to count!") if there's a close race in, say, Jeb Bush's Florida or Tom Ridge's Pennsylvania and Gore seems to be winning there? And I also think voter fraud allegations and allegations of scandal about certain electors can hold things up. Remember how many angles the GOP played to destroy Bill Clinton. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:24 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #243 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

One of the unfortunate side effects of having a republican party that has, several times, in the last half century stooped below the boundaries of decency, is that it creates a pervasive sense that nothing is beneath them. This may or may not be true, but in any case it is bad for the Republic. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 11:40 am PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #244 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

Steve M. 11/3/00 10:21am

The Senate certifies the VP, who would then have to act as president while the house drags its feet... Hello, President Cheney! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Pierson - 04:16 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #245 of 773
People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

One reason why the EC should be eliminated, thru the process of a constitutional amendment, is the current situation where both candidates are already staking out positions to overturn or corrupt it in the event of a split decision.

All arguements about the merits of the system become moot when candidates plan on making an end run around it anyway. The extensive Bush plans, and the likelyhood they would succeed, means that the EC system is already dead.

A Bush (or Gore) challenge of the EC system would be several times more divisive than the recent impeachment show, and even more destructive. I would fully expect it to lead to even greater levels of mindless partisanship at the expense of governance. My paranoid side sees the potential of political violence escalating as well.

There is no longer a question of if the EC should be abondoned, it already has been on a de facto basis, the openly talked about Bush plan means the deal is already done. It is imperative that it be eliminated legally as well.

As for Strict Constuctionism, that is a load of dung which means nothing, or rather means whatever its adherents wants it to mean. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 05:48 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #246 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Simply because people make plans does not mean that they will bear fruit. Have some faith in the weight of the constitutional government, and the realisation that will hang on every elector to do what is right - to vote as they were elected. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 05:54 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #247 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Stirling, what about the fact that the EC leads to a situation where parts of the country get over-saturated with the campaign, while other parts (like our own state) get almost none? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:14 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #248 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

So would popular vote, as candidates would spend all of their time in areas where they could get the most pure turnout. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 06:16 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #249 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Doubt the ratio would be as high. I would strongly reccomend that if the electoral college is eliminated that we also introduce some form of preference voting. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:26 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #250 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Where as I feel that the evidence indicates that preferential voting would have prevented many of our greatest presidents from reaching office, including Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman.

As I have noted on the ISV forum: preferential voting rewards divided majorities over committed minorities. Since committed minorities, for better or for worse, are generally those most interested in enacting change, and most capable of doing it, it would prevent change oriented parties from capturing the white house in crucial circumstances. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:36 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #251 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

A while back, someone mentioned that John F. Kennedy received a minority of the popular vote in 1960, even though he got more votes than Nixon. How did this happen? There was no third-party candidate that year (as there was in 1948, 1968 and 1992). 
(BOOKMARK)

Purcell Edgar - 06:37 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #252 of 773
I know what the word "media" means. It's plural for "mediocre." -- Rocky Bridges

Actually, Kennedy got more popular votes than Nixon, but just barely -- approximately 120,000.

The EC spread was broader, with Kennedy pulling just over 300 votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:40 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #253 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

To my knowledge the 20th century plurality presidents have been Wilson (I), Truman, Nixon (I), Clinton (I and II) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:08 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #254 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Stirling,

Kennedy too. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 08:28 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #255 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

If Kennedy got more votes than Nixon but didn't get a majority, who got the rest of the votes? Gus Hall? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:35 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #256 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Don't remember (actually, I wasn't born yet)

Just remember, Kennedy got something like 49.7% of the vote, to Nixon's 49.5%. It was very close. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Purcell Edgar - 08:45 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #257 of 773
I know what the word "media" means. It's plural for "mediocre." -- Rocky Bridges

I wasn't born yet either, but my trusty World Almanac and Book of Facts says that Kennedy received 34,227,096 popular votes and 303 EC votes, Nixon received 34,108,546 popular votes and 219 EC votes, and Sen. Harry F. Byrd (D-VA) received 15 EC votes (not sure how many popular votes). 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 08:58 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #258 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

In looking up 2 web sites ...

I found one that shows your number for Kennedy, and neither site shows your number for Nixon (but they are close).

Byrd got 15 EC votes, Alabama 6, Missippi 8, and Oklahoma 1

One site, breakdown has:

Kennedy: 34,226,731
Nixon: 34,108,157
Socialist Labor: 47,522
Unpledged Electors: 116,248
Others: 339,561

I have no clue what "Unpledge Electors" means.

The site for this is at: (The PDF file is big)

http://www.klipsan.com

The National Archives site has your number for Kennedy, but a different number for Nixon (34,107,646). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 11:49 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #259 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Earlier someone argued that intense minorities should beat divided majorities.

Roosevelt (who I think was the greatest President of this century ) was the product of a majority -- not an intense minority.

Lincoln won a plurality I believe. He was an extremely shrewd politician, and might well have won in a preferential voting system.

At any rate no one could have anticipated how well Lincoln would govern -- maybe not even Lincoln. His career in politics had been that of a hack, a log-roller -- perhaps a bit shrewder than average but without any sign of greatness. I wonder if he himself knew what he was capable of.

At any rate -- these days the "intense" minorities are of money, not passion or principle. The argument for preferring our current system to majority rule no longer applies when money is the only minority protected. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dean Falcione - 11:52 pm PST - Nov 3, 2000  - #260 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

RJ Heaney,

Saw your letter read on Covuto's show tonight...about his big head.

good one! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 05:04 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #261 of 773

I can see arguments either way on this topic. But what I CANNOT see is changing the results of the CURRENT election that has been run according to these rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nancy Richardson - 07:19 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #262 of 773
A man without as much mental agility as a lump of lead or a block of wood,a man whose utter stupidity is only paralleled by his immorality,can have lots of people at his beck & call,just because he happens to possess a large pile of gold.T.MoreUtopia

One candidate wins the popular vote. Another candidate wins the Electoral College. What happens?
Sound and fury---dogs and cats making friends...many people sign up to take four year sleep cure in Switzerland. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kenneth Heintz - 09:28 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #263 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

Ron Newman:

All of these scenaria are highly unlikely, but the mathematical possibility is quite real that a candidate could get a literal popular-vote blowout and still lose in the Electoral College. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:39 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #264 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

It is also possible for a major party candidate to be revealed as a foreign spy. But the question is about credible outcomes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 09:47 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #265 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

According to pundits (who may not know what they are talking about) there is a one in five chance of a narrow popular vote winner being defeated by an electoral college winner.

And She-Ra, you are aboslutely right; there is no excuse for trying to change this retroactively. Bush has already said that if Gore wins the electoral vote, and loses the popular vote, Bush will campaign among Gore electors to change vote for Bush.

(I wonder by the way if this plan is confined to Bush winning the popular vote. Once the votes are counted Novemember 8th, it would be perfectly legal for Bush to campaign among Gores electors until the actual electoral college vote is held in January. Bush has a long history of trying to change the rules whenever he starts losing.)

If this happens Gore will need to mount a counter-campaign. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 10:36 am PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #266 of 773

Actually, very few electors have changed their votes throughout history, from what I've seen. And it would be a terrible violation of their responsibility to the people who chose them to be the electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Westerner - 03:13 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #267 of 773

Most people do not even pretend to understand that in voting we are not voting for Bush or for Gore but for a Slate of Electors in the State in which the vote is cast.

These electors are actually human beings selected by the political party of the state to cast the electoral votes of the state.

But there is no law on the books--NONE--that I know of which COMPEL a Gore elector to cast his or her electoral vote for Gore when the electors meet on the floor of the House of Representatives in January to do so.

It is even conceivable that a Gore elector might cast his electoral vote for Bush, or vice versa, if suitably [ahem!] "motivated" to do so.

Electors are picked because they are party faithfuls but I wouldn't put it past the Bush team, if, for example, they have won the popular vote, to get one or more Gore electors to switch sides so that the popular vote winner becomes POTUS.

This election may very well turn out to be the most contentious and weird election this country has had in a good long time. 
(BOOKMARK)

Gar Lipow - 03:34 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #268 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

If Bush tries this I don't know what his chances of success are. It is legal to do this, however wrong. (And since when has Bush let either the law or morality stand in the way of doing what he wants?) Now Gore has to concentrate right now on winning the election. But November 8th, one of his strategists will need to skip the second half of the victory party, and plan how to counter this. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 03:38 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #269 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

I bet Dubya's gang will try to get Gore electors to switch their votes even if Dubya loses the popular and electoral votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 03:39 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #270 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

It's kinda hard to see what inducement Bush Inc. would have to persuade Gore electors to change their votes. However, given the contempt the GOP has for the electoral process, one probably ought to anticipate feverish opposition research directed at those Gore electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 03:41 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #271 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

I bet Dubya's gang will try to get Gore electors to switch their votes even if Dubya loses the opular and electoral votes.
As I suggested a few posts back. So again, (and I know FF if nobody else official ties to the party) November 8th someone needs to start planning for this.

I don't this this will be difficult to crush -- as long as Gore fights back instead of relying on the loyalty of his electors without reminders from him as to where there loyalty should lie. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 03:42 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #272 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

The President, when inaugurated, takes an oath to protect the constitution. If that president got to the inauguration by subverting the constitution, there is no way his office could be seen as legitimate...

If the Republicans want to change the constitution, they should get to work and change it the right way, by proposing an amendment. But they won't, since the EC usually actually favors the candidate from a rural constituency... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kenneth Heintz - 03:47 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #273 of 773
rip rap rippity rip-rap a-rip rap rippity roo

In the very unlikely event that the Bush folks try to steal the election from Gore, I am totally up for a(n un)civil disobedience campaign. I am entirely willing to travel to DC for same. I will totally raise hell before such a thing ever comes to pass. 
(BOOKMARK)

Gar Lipow - 03:52 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #274 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Pierre -- unfortunately this would NOT be subverting the constitution.

The original intent of the founders was that the electoral college be a group of wise men , mostly uncommitted to any one candidate, elected by the people to choose the best candidate. Their idea was that the U.S. was so large, no one would have a nationall reputation and be widely know, so that direct election was impractical and undesirable.

However in this case the founders were nuts. The U.S. had leaders with national reputations from the beginning, and the people who chose electors generally said "to hell with picking a wise man. The only thing an elector does is pick the president, and I know who I want to be president. I don't care what kind of man my elector is; I want someone who will vote for my candidate". So, in practice, and by custom the electoral college has become a way for to elect the winner of the popular vote. (There have been, of course, several exceptionss.)

By campaigning for electoral votes, after popular election is over, Bush would be violating custom and long standing practice. He would be violating neither the law nor the letter of the cosntitution. This does not mean we should let him get away with this. But the basis for opposing it is that it is wrong -- not that it is illegal or unconsitutional. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 03:55 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #275 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Kenneth Heinz - don't know how unlikely it is; Bush and his campaign have never had a whole lot of scruples. If he loses this one, he is unlikely to get a second shot. He has a bunch of skeletons -- by 2004 some of the more deadly ones will have de-closeted.

Having no honor nor integrity to begin with, what does he have to lose by trying this?

In fact, the Bush campaign has already said they would do this if they won the popular vote but lost in number of electors. The only question is whether they would try this in a straight loss of both the popular and electoral votes. And I don't really see what they would have to lose by trying -- given that they already lack honor or integrity. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 03:56 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #276 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

Gar, come to think of it, you are right. I stand corrected. I believe that some states require their electors to vote according to the popular vote in their state, but I don't know how many. In any case, that's a matter of state law, and not the constitution.

It's still called stealing the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 04:00 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #277 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Absolutely Pierre - no one said it is right -- only that it is legal. In terms of state laws -- such laws do exist, but have never been enforced. Any way, if this is tried -- the main point would be make sure the campaign was not one-sided. To make sure there was as vigorous a campaign by Gore to keep his electors loyal, as by Bush to urge them to be faithless. 
(BOOKMARK)

Westerner - 04:01 pm PST - Nov 4, 2000  - #278 of 773

The Electoral College voting method is one of the unique features of the American elections and serves a quite good end in that it virtually prohibits splinter parties from forming, as the point was that a popular winner in a State gets ALL of that State's electoral votes. That makes it virtually impossible for a splinter party to survive since they could have little hope of ever getting any Electoral votes.

This is the theory in winner-take-all States, such as in California and in most of the States of the Union, but some States, such as Maine, with, let us assume, 1 1electoral votes, apportion electoral votes in accordnace with the popular vote [say Gore gets 40% of the popular votes and Bush 60% of the popular votes in Maine, then Gore gets 4 of Maine's electoral votes and Bush gets 6 of those electoral votes.]

The whole idea behind the electoral college was to cut out minority or splinter parties; and, on the whole, it works and prevents the kind of instability in some of the European countries where coalitions form AFTER the vote in order to control the government instead of the USA system where coalitions must form BEFORE the vote in order to garner the needed electoral votes to win. Further here, and unlike Europe, the offices [Pres., Sen., Congress] are held a specific number of years and the government does not fall in between elections, as in Europe, where a falling out of a coalition means that the government must fall and new elections must be had.

Thus the Electoral College serves a purpose, but every once in a while the oddities of the system show up. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:41 am PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #279 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I will note that trying to change the minds of electors is not unconstitutional, and in fact was the original vision of the founders - that they be free to vote for whoever once elected. However an election or two thrown to the house and resulting loss of mandate put an end to that - from there on in the tradition, sometimes backed by law was to vote as you were elected to. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 11:05 am PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #280 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

when the electors meet on the floor of the House of Representatives in January
This doesn't happen. The electors for each state meet in their own state, in December. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Piotr Berman - 01:02 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #281 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

Actually, the split vote is possible only for Nebraska and Maine. Nebraska has 5 congresional seats. In their system, in each congressional district a delegate is elected, winner takes all. The two extra electors are chosen on statewide winner takes all basis.

If I recall, Maine, with two districts, is similar. So Maine can split 3-1, never 2-2. 
(BOOKMARK)

Piotr Berman - 01:08 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #282 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

The most significan effect of EC is that it protects the states with low voters attendance. Without EC, attendance would be crucial everywhere, and it could benefit a favorite son (or daughter) of a very populous state. Say that you have someone EXTREMALLY popular in CA and quite controversial elsewhere. When Constitution was written, Virginia had 20% of population and it was important to decrease the inherent advantage of Virginians. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rob B. - 03:04 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #283 of 773
straightway dangerous, and handled with a chain

This is a fascinating thread. It's starting to look very possible that Gore will lose the nationwide popular vote yet win 270 or more electoral votes.

I have no problem with the winner-take-all assignment of electoral votes, but I do wonder why we need electors to cast those votes. How well do you know the electors for whom you will be voting on Nov. 7? One of them might be Ross Perot's crazy aunt.

If the EC does select a President who has not won a plurality of the popular vote, there will surely be widespread sentiment for a constitutional amendment. How do you think the amendment would be initiated --- could we have an actual constitutional convention? What fun! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Piotr Berman - 04:35 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #284 of 773
Brilliant Left: let them abolish Roe vs Wade and then ride the backlash. Brilliant Right: bring the recession now, and then ride the recovery.

I think if some electors would switch the vote and decide for the other side, they would need to live in a guarded community for considerable time. Verbal abuse alone would be considerable. I would not risk it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 04:56 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #285 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Dean Falcione 11/3/00 11:52pm

I couldn't belive they printed it. But come on, which looks bigger, Cavuto's head or O'Reilly's ego? They're both HUGE!!!! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Pierson - 05:07 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #286 of 773
People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

I posted an arguement that the EC must be eliminated because it was, with the Bush announcement, already dead in fact. As the current discussion illustrates, there is nothing, except for some state laws ,which actually bind the electors to vote as their state does.

To show how dangerous this could be it is possible to consider, as some do above, that even a loser of the popular vote could try to change the outcome. I doubt anyone would try this but it is in the realm of possibility.

At least the EC could be changed so that in place of electors there is a simple scorecard.

As I said before, all the nice logical arguements about the merits of the system wouldn't amout to squat if someone, say Bush, successfully thwarts the system. I am not kidding when I say there could be blood in the streets or at least a political landscape so polarized it would make the Newt era look like a love fest. 
(BOOKMARK)

(Deleted message originally posted by Rob B. on 05:45 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RA Yates - 05:51 pm PST - Nov 5, 2000  - #288 of 773
Die Krankheit unserer Zeit ist der Perfektionismus. Konrad Adenauer

It is possible that Maine's non-winner take all EC votes could be decisive. If Gore takes MI, PA, and FL but loses Wisconsin, Delaware, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and New Hampshire, then how Maine splits could decide who has 270 votes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 10:55 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #289 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Aren't there 2 non winner take all states? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Hicken - 11:39 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #290 of 773
but it did happen

Yes. Nebraska is the other one. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
monsterghost - 11:57 am PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #291 of 773
....

is gore likely to get 1 electoral vote from nebraska, even though bush is likely to win the state? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Hicken - 12:06 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #292 of 773
but it did happen

I've heard that. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 12:08 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #293 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I think a split would be more likely in Maine, if the districts are metro-Portland vs the rest of the state. I don't know how they are actually drawn. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
monsterghost - 12:09 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #294 of 773
....

i know i've heard this about ME, and even read a bit on the technicalities of ME electoral vote distribution to see that this indeed might be so, but was unsure if NE's distribution set up was similar to ME's, in that it would result in a similar tally.

i do know NE doesn't have (just like ME) a 'winner take all' distribution as regards the overall vote in the state. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 12:25 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #295 of 773

Probably not because the electors are tied to congressional districts (the winner takes all formula still applies). An interesting reform might divide electors by the popular vote within a state (then Gore would take 40% of the electors in Texas, Bush would take a fraction of Massachusetts, Nader might win one or two in California). That system would put third parties in an interesting position, now that I think of it, because electors could throw their votes to a different candidate (ergo it's not likely).

We should do away with the Electoral College, it's the appendix of our political system. The US has amended its constitution a few times to change how people are elected (eg. Pres and VP now run on the same ticket, Senators are now elected by a popular vote and not state legislators).

I don't think the EC and PV is going to split in this election but if it does the only way it will matter is if the difference is 1 or 2 votes and one or two cranks in the leading party switches to favor the PV winner. This will not create a constitutional crisis, those votes would stand, that's how our system works and it would be no dumber than the other outcome.

In either case some large fraction of the public would consider the winning candidate compromised (not illegitimate but not fully deserving of support). I've talked to a lot of people lately who have just discovered that we have an EC most of them don't like it (the less someone follows politics the more likely he or she is not to like it, that's my sense). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:50 pm PST - Nov 6, 2000  - #296 of 773

A few more thoughts on compromised presidents. When JQ Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1828 (lost the PV but won it in the House of Representitives) Jackson came back with a vengence four years later and ended up with more influence than he might have had if he'd won earlier.

When Benjamin Harrison beat incumbent Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost the PV but won the EC) Mrs. Cleveland told White House servants to take care of all the furniature because she'd be back in four years. That happened, Harrison lasted one term, Cleveland was elected easily.

If someone wins the election without winning the PV (likely Gore) or wins the EC through chicanery (likely Bush) I think it's likely that the new president would last for one term and the chances are good the losing candidate would come back with a vengence.

Neither of these scenarios involve "stealing an election" (legally) but such an outcome would tag the winner as a "politician" and the loser would gain sympathy. Another reason, in my opinion, to do away with the whole thing. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 06:00 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #297 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

I take back just about everything I've said in this thread.

One candidate apparently did win the popular vote and another candidate apparently won the Electoral College. Unfortunately, the guy with the most popular votes is a typical member of my party, the Democratic Party, and is, therefore, a pathetic milquetoast. He apparently has no intention of challenging this travesty of democracy.

I said all along that the GOP would have a point if it challenged the legitimacy of a Gore EC victory in a race in which Bush won more popular votes. The GOP planned to do just that. Good for the GOP. This sucks. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:10 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #298 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Well, what could still happen is Gore tying the Florida result up in a lawsuit, delaying them long enough that Florida can't seat any electors by December 18. That would deny either candidate a majority, sending the election to the House of Representatives. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ronald Helfrich - 06:21 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #299 of 773

1. Kevin I agree with you that a proportional system would be better. It would also be more democratic.

2. If either Bush or Gore had any honour (and assuming the result does not change with the recount in Florida), they would call for a government of national unity in which both Bush and Gore acted as co-presidents (just as the leaders of parties serve as co-prime ministers in parliamentary unity governments).

3. While the rules of the game are clear--the electoral vote is what counts--I am uncomfortable with a situation in which the individual who has won the popular vote loses the election (something that has happened in the US before).

4. Perhaps this is the time for rethinking the electoral college, which is a hangover from landed aristocracy limited franchise days.

5. Perhaps it is also time to rethink the winner take all election mentality in the US.

6. Finally, do any of you think that in a close election the electoral college serves to give smaller states greater power in the electoral system? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 06:22 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #300 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

That would deny either candidate a majority, sending the election to the House of Representatives.
Where each state gets one vote. That's right, kids: New York holds the same weight as a state with the population of Staten Island. Real fucking democratic, that.

And, as anyone who looked at an electoral map knows, virtually every sparsely populated state is a GOP state. So a House election is a Bush election. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:23 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #301 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Stirling, what happened to your theory that the electoral college is supposed to give the new president a mandate? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cohen - 06:49 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #302 of 773
No death penalty for the retarded--give Shrub a life sentence instead.

Of course the electoral college gives additional power to small states. Each state gets two extra votes not related to its population. Take these two extra electoral votes away from each state and Gore would have won the electoral vote even without Florida. (Not to mention how the small states are "empowered" if the vote gets thrown to the House.)

Just one more element(together with the outmoded voter registration system, campaign funding laws, holding elections on a work day, barring some ex-convicts from voting, refusing to allow "second-choice" voting) that deviate from democracy. Change any one of these elements, not to mention all of them, and Gore wins this election easily. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 06:55 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #303 of 773

Well, it's just happened again. Thank you Ralph Nader for depriving the American people of their popular choice. You've screwed the country and you've screwed your party and you've screwed your cause. There will be no progressives at the table when Bush rules. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ronald Helfrich - 06:58 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #304 of 773

alright, more demonising rhetoric...michel foucault...where are you???...joe mccarthy where are you??? hey, why don't you blame it on cain goreswhores?

again, according to analysts nader's voters were "very unlikely" voters (in other words, if Nader was not in the race they probably would not have voted). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 07:04 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #305 of 773

Ronald Helfrich 11/8/00 6:58am

It's not rocket science. Look at Florida and New Hamphsire. Nader handed Bush the presidency. Nader always had a choice. He could have been inside the tent working for change, or pretending to be some sort of populist movement, which he did. Those Nader voters made the difference in Florida, there's no doubt about it. If only 10% of them voted for Gore, we would have been spared four years of Bush. Some progressives can't seem to get through their heads that there comes a time where we actually have to put down our signs of opposition and work for constructive change.

Thank you Ralph. You'll have a whole lot more rude and crude sign carriers while Alaskan wilderness is converted into Exxon property. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ronald Helfrich - 07:07 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #306 of 773

you are right it isn't rocket science. the fact is, and i am sorry if this disturbs your manichean world of simulated good and evil, nader's voters (like ventura's in minnesota's gubernatorial election) were very likely non-voters . In other words they would not have voted either for Gore or Bush. Thus to follow out the logic, ten percent of them would not have voted for Goreborewhore because they would not have voted . perhaps democrats could resurrect richard daley snr. to deal with that problem. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Augie - 07:12 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #307 of 773

Ronald Helfrich 11/8/00 7:07am

Once again. They were not all not going to vote, if Nader didn't run.

Here's what Florida looks like, right now:
George W. Bush (R) 2,909,199 49 Al Gore (D) 2,907,544 49 Ralph Nader (Green) 96,896 2 Pat Buchanan (Ref.) 20,294 0 Harry Browne (Lib.) 18,894 0 James Harris (SWP) 10,477 0 Howard Phillips (CST) 4,282 0 John Hagelin (NLP) 2,275 0 Monica Moorehead (WW) 1,837 0 David McReynolds (Soc.) 621

Are you really telling me that those 96,896 Nader voters, wouldn't have contributed at least 1,655 votes to put Gore over the top? We're talking less than 2% of the Nader Florida voters.

Ralph Nader has handed Bush the presidency, and has deprived progressives an active voice in governing. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ronald Helfrich - 07:30 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #308 of 773

1. Yes. That is probable (as analysts have noted).

2. bushleague and gorewhore aren't that different. granted gorewhore wanted to spend millions more on defence than the bushleague ( difference , merci m. derrida) but both support the drug war which has done more to undermine civil liberties in the US than virtually anything else (of course, we should remember that it was a democrat who institutionalised the police state in the us along with the "red scare"--wooodrow wilson, of course).

3. can i play the blame game too...buchanan votes??? libertarian votes??? constitution party votes??? evil godless commie pinko hagelin votes??? BLAME IT ON CAIN...CAUSE WE NEED SOMEBODY TO BURN. 
(BOOKMARK)

Augie - 07:39 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #309 of 773

2. bushleague and gorewhore aren't that different. granted gorewhore wanted to spend millions more on defence than the bushleague ( difference , merci m. derrida) but both support the drug war which has done more to undermine civil liberties in the US than virtually anything else (of course, we should remember that it was a democrat who instituted the police state in the us along with the "red scare"--wooodrow wilson, of course).
OK, I don't disagree with you, that there are similarities.

However, Bush will be worse in the drug war, if his record in Texas is any indication. We'll probably have a supreme court, that looks more like Scalia and Thomas, where the fourth and fifth amendments are tossed out the window on some tenious constructionist theory.

Defense spending would have risen under either candidate, with Gore talking about more. However, if you will recall that when Cheny ran the DOD, he allowed criminal fraud to occur in defense procurement. I wouldn't see Al Gore doing that.

So getting back to your premise, that there's no difference. That's just plain stupid. Progressives will no longer have any voice, on environmental concerns, equal opportunity, or virtually any other decision.

We can go issue by issue, and any reasonable person can say that Clinton/Gore supported many more progressive causes than did Reagan/Bush. You're uncompromising principled stand has left you without any opportunity to constructively effect change.

Thank you Ralph Nader for diminishing any power to the progressives. Ralph Nader handed power to the NRA, CC, RTL, and every other right wing fringe element, while relegating the green party to the efficacy status of the White Socialist Workers Party. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
courtney - 07:47 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #310 of 773
Web site found. Waiting for reply.

Um, does anybody else remember the Bushites confidently declaring very early this a.m. that they would carry FL by ~2500 votes? How did they know this with such accuracy? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Skeletor - 08:51 am PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #311 of 773
"It's official, we've gone through the looking glass." TT poster

Finally, do any of you think that in a close election the electoral college serves to give smaller states greater power in the electoral system?

I don't see why states should have any say in a nationwide election. The small states already get get way more than their share of representation in the Senate. The electoral college is a travesty and everyone knows it, but as long as one side or the other can see an advantage in keeping it, it will never be repealed. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jennifer Kelly - 02:45 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #312 of 773
FIGHT BACK: www.MediaWhoresOnline.com

Since it might be Bush who won the electoral college vote and lost the popular vote, the only consequence is that he's regarded as even less legitimate than otherwise. 
(BOOKMARK)

Dean Falcione - 02:56 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #313 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

To save our Republic, I'm beginning to advocate having Big Al come out and say (assuming the recount shows Bush still ahead),

"For the sake of the nation that I love and have served for 24 years, I am not going to issue a legal challenge to this election. Congratulations to President-Elect Bush."

The Dems would sweep the congress in 2002 and Big Al's popularity rating would be sky-high for 2004 and he could then win with a clear mandate.

Americans value fairness above all else. The "Gore Won!" bumber stickers would be all over the place around this country.

Gore's stature would grow exponentially over the next four years.

GWB would become a pariah and be considered an illegitimate President. The press would turn HARD against him. Trust me.

By giving in and letting the GOP have the White House now, we could finally lock them out of political leadership for decades.

Something to think about.

If Gore mounted a legal challenge and won, he would still lose. The "Al Gore will do anything to get elected" theme would never go away. He would most assuredly be a one-term President. And we would actually empower GW Bush by making him a sympathetic figure.

Plus...Al would have averted a civil war. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Antonia Guzman - 07:50 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #314 of 773

Let the voters in Florida, who were confused by the ballots, vote again. What could it hurt. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 11:07 pm PST - Nov 8, 2000  - #315 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

But, but, Antonia, for the third time ('92, '96. 00) in a row we might screw up and elect The Wrong Man again. Remember, that while this is technically a democracy, you do not have the right to be wrong.

We had to go into Chile after Allende won in '70, because they elected The Wrong Man.

Voting is an awesome responsibility, and not everyone can be trusted to execute it correctly. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Luke Melia - 01:18 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #316 of 773

Al Gore prevailed in the nation's popular vote. He is undeniably the choice of the people. However, for political reasons whose politics have long ceased to matter, we do not currently choose presidents popular vote, but by electoral vote.

With the mandate of the people's will behind us, we should count and recount and do what it takes to determine the legal, electoral winner of the election. We should not compromise our democratic process to the political posturing of either candidate. We should not yield to the pressure of the media for a right-now, prime-time, unofficial-AP-numbers decision. We should not bow to the illusion that the world's opinion of our nation matters more than the opinion of our democracy's citizens.

Morally, Al Gore was the people's choice. Legally, it may be George W. Bush who is deigned president. Right now, though, Mr. Bush must do the honorable thing: refrain from pandering to the media and his supporters with talk of transition or filing of federal lawsuits. He should step back and let the votes be counted and process work.

It's a shame that we may have a conflict between the moral presidential election and the legal one. Whichever candidate ends up in office, they had better take steps with the Congress and the States to make sure that this is the last national election that makes such a mockery of our democracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

Corey Lamont - 03:40 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #317 of 773
AKA: the man with no tagline

There was a front page article in my local newspaper on the Electoral College. They were pointing out that in many states, electors are not bound to follow the popular vote. In many others, there is only a $1000 fine - pocket cash compared to what could be offered as inducement to vote a certain way. And the electoral votes of seven states are cast via secret ballot.

The paper also pointed out that since 1972, there have been four cases of electors bucking the PV in their state(s).

I think it's pretty clear that the battle for POTUS is about to move to new ground - the votes of the electors. Right now it looks like the winner of the EV total will have to swing a mid-sized state (11+ EV) to his side - not impossible. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SBK - 10:55 pm PST - Nov 11, 2000  - #318 of 773

I can only hope that the debacle of the 2000 election will force the modernization of what passes for democracy in this country. In The Talk of the Town section of the Nov. 13 issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg presents a cogent argument for the "instant-runoff voting" system. In this system, voters rank their preferences and if there is no majority winner, the alternative choices are redistributed until there is a majority winner. This system allows citizens to express their minority (i.e. third party) preferences without the risk of benefiting the least desirable candidate. Not only might this system encourage more folks to vote, it would ensure that the guy in charge had "at least the grudging support of a majority." Read the article. It is brief and persuasive. Then write your congressional rep. The system needs to be changed. Let's make sure it's changed for the better. sbk 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:20 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #319 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I am not sure there is a problem here, at least, not if you are interested in democracy, as opposed to expediency.

The electoral college is doing the job for which it was intended. It is localising the recounts to a few states: Florida, New Mexico, Wisconson, Iowa and Oregon. Oregon's problems are self inflicted, as are the problems in Florida. Why so? Because the problem is not with the system, but the system of presenting and counting. Balloting machines are the best cheap machines that can be come up with. They are generally accurate to one part in 500 or so, and generally this level of accuracy is sufficent. In most elections even if all the disputed votes where pushed in one direction, it would not change the outcome of the election.

In this case it does. The vote was the action, the count is the measurement. They are two different things, and the Bush camp is expressly trying to confuse the issue.

There is a process in place for resolving contending issues and contending sides, and there are laws which provide for more sensitive and nuanced judgements in these cases. If this process is allowed to play out, then there will be final winners in each of the contested states, and a final winner in the general election.

The deeper problem is that the current system - which consists of constitution, law and custom, is meant for coalition parties - parties which are unified around the desire to win the election and govern - rather than ideological factions. We elect leaders for fixed terms, and hence it is better that this be so.

Why? Because with a fixed term, the fear that an ideologically pure party would create would almos certainly be sufficent to cause violence at the transfer of power - too much is at stake. In a parlimentary system parties are purer ideologically, but can fall from power at any time for almost any reason. Parlimentary governments have fallen because of an untimely death, a gasoline tax or provisional regulations.

The current system favors the most committed plurality - in this case quite possibly Bush - rather than the least committed majority, which is what IRV does.

(con't) 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 04:23 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #320 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

This is not a neutral change, and ISV would have shifted the last 3 elections - Bush would have won in 1992, Gore would be the clear winner this time. It would also have shifted the results in 1960, it might have done so in 1948. It would have done so in 1912.

It is not a small matter to enact a change which would, if in place, have significantly altered history. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Supkis - 05:05 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #321 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

HISTORY LESSON FOR TODAY:

Previous posters here have fantasized about Gore being "nice" and stepping aside so the loser, Bush, can win and thus prevent difficulties.

THEY SAID THIS BEFORE!

Lincoln's election was contested and the Dems in the South decided it wasn't legit. Lincoln was warned that his taking office would SPLIT THE NATION and that he should not take it but COMPROMISE and let Douglas take office. Douglas assured Lincoln that he would do something about slavery (ha).

Lincoln WON. He took office anyway, for he said this is what the Constitution says we have to do---hold elections and then abide by the results.

The bitter result was a long civil war and many many people died.

IT HAD TO HAPPEN. We had no choice. Doubt me? Read the Gettyburgh Address! It is ALL THERE.

Our nation is preserved by fighting for priciples and by defending democracy. The Goddess of Democracy was run over by tanks and the students gunned down in Tiannanmin Square.

She stands in a pool of blood, Goddess Democracy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chad Brick - 08:24 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #322 of 773
The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. - Josef Stalin

Antonia Guzman - 07:50 pm PDT - Nov 8, 2000 - #314 of 321
Let the voters in Florida, who were confused by the ballots, vote again. What could it hurt.
In a revote (on any scale), you would not reproduce last Tuesday. People in the re-voting areas would have almost NO incentive to vote for third party candidates. Therefore, Gore would win - not because of the removal of irregularities, but rather by capturing most of Nader's voters. You would not be able to seperate these two effects, and you would wind up in just as an intractable (and unfair) position as we are currently in.

Chad 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amy Joubert - 08:53 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #323 of 773
tagline in progress

<delurking>

I've now heard this argument many times and I don't buy it. Why would Nader voters change their vote? It's not like they ever thought their candidate had any chance of winning, or even much of a prayer of crossing the 5% threshold. They heard endless warnings that their vote might swing the election to Bush, but they were unfazed. In fact, many of them were positively gleeful about the possibility. So what's any different now?

I'm not disputing the principle that the circumstances of Election Day cannot be replicated. But I bet most of the changed votes would be from people who originally supported Bush who are disgusted with W.'s recent conduct. 
(BOOKMARK)

Sean Francis - 09:04 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #324 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

All this discussion about revoting indicates why we need to have runoff elections or at least a Bordo counting method (although that may be far too confusing for the voters).

No President should take the job of Chief Executive without a clear majority of the voters supporting him. That means 50.1% not 47%, 48% etc. So the entire country should have a runoff with Bush, Nader, and Gore and we'll see who wins. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sean Francis - 09:07 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #325 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

I don't think a revote should be done. It is a shame, especially since the guy I gave money too would end up losing, but it sets a bad precedent.

Overall, I think both these bastards shouldn't be President based on their actions. I hope the election does get tossed to the House of Representatives and maybe, just maybe, The Best Person for the Job will be elected (not likely, seeing as the House is filled with ultra-partisans, but it is better than this spitefilled venom fest we have now.) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 09:49 am PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #326 of 773

On the other hand, not RECOUNTING votes because it will take too long (Please god, may Cokie Roberts eat a bad eclair or something?) is just ridiculous. And the NYT could tone it the fuck down a bit. This morning they were blathering about how the "beleagured" nation was "in a war zone." I'm sorry, but I do believe the grocery store is still fully stocked with batteries, candles and bottled water. I for one haven't felt the need to sew diamonds in the lining of my coat or update my passport YET. So some people need to take a chill pill, please! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:00 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #327 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

The real issue on the recount is fairness.

Have you been reading the descriptions of how they recount?

Pregnant ballots vs. dimpled ballots?

Have you thought how easy it is for a bit of chad to get brushed by a finger during the process to change a vote?

How can we trust the results of this recount?

Machines have one stellar virtue.

They aren't partisan. Their errors will be consistent and will not favor one candidate over another.

I have no problem with more accurate machines.

Hand recounts seem more likely to introduce biases based on the desires of the recounters than to achieve greater accuracy.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

Pierre Escutcheon - 02:14 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #328 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

Machines have one stellar virtue.
They aren't partisan. Their errors will be consistent and will not favor one candidate over another.
However, the punch card machines produce a very significant undercount compared to the mark-sense type. In the heavily Demo counties where the vote is disputed, the punch card type was predominantly used.

In the Republican counties, they had better technology that didn't disenfranchise voters.

This means that about 1% (in all probability) of votes were not counted in the heavily Demo counties, while in the heavily Republican counties, (almost) every vote was counted.

Humans may not be perfect, but they can get a more complete count than the machines did, especially on the punch card ballots. There are safeguards against a biased count, namely poll watchers from each party, and strict rules. It is an open, fair, and democratic (small d) process. Only a despot would oppose it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:35 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #329 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

However, the punch card machines produce a very significant undercount compared to the mark-sense type. In the heavily Demo counties where the vote is disputed, the punch card type was predominantly used.
The election machinery was chosen by the Democratic administrations of those counties. You can't claim bias there.
Humans may not be perfect, but they can get a more complete count than the machines did, especially on the punch card ballots.
More complete I believe, but more accurate?
There are safeguards against a biased count, namely poll watchers from each party, and strict rules.
Yes. The strict rule is that on any disputed ballot (and every borderline case is obviously disputed) they vote. And since the board of elections in those counties is dominated by Democrats they are winning every vote.

The real problem here is that human eyes aren't exact instruments.

For example, if you hand a group of human beings 10,000 lines that are randomly drawn to be within one millimeter of 2 cm long and then asked the humans to divide them into piles of larger than 2 cm and smaller, how accurate would they be?

Now imagine that a national election depends on their count.

Manual recounting is clearly not the way to go.

It is an open, fair, and democratic (small d) process. Only a despot would oppose it.
Or anyone who doesn't want the election to be decided by the subjective judgement calls of a group of people who are dominated by a single party.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gar Lipow - 02:41 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #330 of 773
"Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

Xiang baby -- I thought you repubs advocated the rule of law:

Well because of fraud/negligence problems with SPECIFICALLY WITH PUNCHCARD machines in the past, Florida law lets a human count be the last resort when there is a doubt.

Bush, in seeking an injuction against the hand count has no shadow of Florida law on his side. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 02:43 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #331 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

More complete I believe, but more accurate?
Yes, more complete and more accurate. But if you have a problem with that, maybe a statistical method would work better. Assign the undercounted votes in the same proportion as the other votes. Same result.

P.S., wherever the blame lies for saddling the voters in certain counties with inferior machinery, that should not negate a significant portion of their votes if a better method of counting is available. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 02:46 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #332 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Gar Lipow 11/12/00 2:41pm

Xiang baby -- I thought you repubs advocated the rule of law:
Well because of fraud/negligence problems with SPECIFICALLY WITH PUNCHCARD machines in the past, Florida law lets a human count be the last resort when there is a doubt.
Bush, in seeking an injuction against the hand count has no shadow of Florida law on his side.
Gar, perhaps you flunked civics, but the US legal system is part of rule of law.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:53 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #333 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Gar Lipow 11/12/00 2:41pm

X: More complete I believe, but more accurate?
P: Yes, more complete and more accurate.
I disagree.
P: But if you have a problem with that, maybe a statistical method would work better. Assign the undercounted votes in the same proportion as the other votes. Same result.
And what proportion do we use? Florida's statewide count?

And which votes do we do that for? All that were rejected by the machines? The over votes? The illegible write ins?

And do we then apply that in Iowa and Wisconsin and perhaps New Mexico and Oregon?

What about to any votes in Florida's panhandle that weren't counted due to poorly filled out ballots?

What we're approaching here is a system where we keep counting by different methods until we reach a count that people are happy with.

I think the key is to have standards in which any imperfections are pretty clearly not tied to the partisan leaning of election officials and which produces a consistent result.

If it doesn't match what some voters actually wanted, that's something we need to live with because there is a smooth continuum between minor mistakes where we can all see what the voter wanted and total stupidity where no one can see. As soon as we allow human judgement into the counting process we open the door to partisanship in the counting. And that's not acceptable.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pierre Escutcheon - 02:59 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #334 of 773
"You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

And what proportion do we use? Florida's statewide count?
Of course not, you should use the local county or precinct. It really wasn't a serious proposal, anyway, but reports seem to indicate that for those ballots that machine could not count, the proportion was almost exactly the same as the proportion in the entire county. Which indicates to me that the technique that the hand counters are using is valid and NOT biased.

Hand counting is provided for under Florida law, so I'm not sure why you're against it, unless you just want to win at any cost, the will of the people and the rule of law be damned. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 05:44 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #335 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Well, Pierre, the problem is that hand counting can produce any result you want it to.

Even if you judge Bush and Gore votes equally, you can decide how many new votes you get by altering your criteria. If you just recount Gore strongholds that changes the result.

The key to a fair election is having standards set before the vote using machines that aren't altered afterwards.

Using people practically guarantees manipulation.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

Sean Francis - 06:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #336 of 773
2004 Restore Our Democracy

All avenues of Florida law need to be followed before this election is declared. We can bitch and moan about the accuracy of these avenues but it is the State law.

Bush, trying to circumvent this process in the name of expediency is just wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Trying to mount a PR campaign to sway the public opinion and claim the Democrats are just sore losers is plain evil.

Let Florida law and Floridian courts follow due process. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 06:23 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #337 of 773

There is no point to declaring a President before the handcounts are complete. Isn't every ballot looked at by Republicans AND Democrats? And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched. A finger would not be able to poke a hole that is similar to the kind of chad that could only be found by poking the circle out on voting day with a special instrument. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Katya Romega - 06:40 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #338 of 773

I'm curious, I haven't heard the Gore campaign mention the national popular vote much anymore...they seem to be concentrating on the popular vote in Florida, are they worried that Bush will win the popular vote now? I've heard so many different numbers lately..particularly in terms of the number of absentee votes still uncounted in California.
Does anyone have any updated numbers here? Unfortunately those election officials in Palm Beach County seem rather dim...I'm getting really worried. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brad Smith - 07:09 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #339 of 773
I earned my honorable discharge

Mr. Bush and his supporters should shut up and let the state of Florida and the counties follow their own laws...

Mr. Baker is not the Pope, and Mr. Bush sure as hell ain't Napoleon I...ain't nobody crowning themsleves emperor in this country.

If the Bush campaign wants re-counts in other counties, pursue them...in other states? Fine. Go for it.

But if the only way the governor can win is by dis-enfranchising the people, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

What are they afraid of? Being indicted en masse by the Florida Grand Jury?

If the governor is so SURE he has won legitimately, why hasn't he resigned from office in Texas? Surely the question of "who is in charge" should resonate as much in Austin as in Washington?

So here's the question for all the Republicans out there who are so confident their man has won - why hasn't he resigned the governorship? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #340 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Because the president is not officially elected, by the electors, until December 18. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 07:16 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #341 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

SheRa 11/12/00 6:23pm

And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched.
The problem is the borderline cases. It isn't enough for the chad to be pregnant or depressed or even loose on one corner. It has to be loose on two. But if it's loose on one and almost on two then a fingernail brushing past, or even just mechanical stress from being passed around can make the difference.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:17 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #342 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

SheRa 11/12/00 6:23pm

And if a finger dislodges a piece of CHAD, that shouldn't be a problem. Chad is the piece of paper that remains sometimes when a hole is punched, which means that THAT is the hole that has been punched.
The problem is the borderline cases. It isn't enough for the chad to be pregnant or depressed or even loose on one corner. It has to be loose on two. But if it's loose on one and almost on two then a fingernail brushing past, or even just mechanical stress from being passed around can make the difference.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 08:11 pm PST - Nov 12, 2000  - #343 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Hey, check this out.... http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/friday/news_16.html

In a small side-street office of this rural North Florida town, four county officials -- all of them Democrats -- spent seven hours Wednesday examining every pencil mark on 2,073 ballots that had been rejected by Gadsden County's ballot scanning machine to try to reconstruct what the voters meant.
But rather than reject these ballots outright -- as they did in Palm Beach County and many other counties that use punch ballots -- the practice of the Gadsden County canvassing board is to look at each questionable ballot to try to determine the intent of each voter.
Some voters colored in the circle for one candidate, crossed it out and then filled in a circle for another. Others filled in the circle for a candidate, then wrote the name of the same candidate in the write-in space, as if for emphasis.
'`The only ones we reconstructed were the ones we could tell the intent of the voter," explained Sterling Watson, a county commissioner and member of the canvassing board.
This county, the most Democratic in the state, cast 16,812 votes in the presidential race, 66 percent of them for Vice President Al Gore.
I think we can all agree that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

These guys were using Optimark ballots like the ones in West Florida in the Republican counties. Should all of those counties get recounted to the same standard as Gadsen's?

Why or why not?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 05:02 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #344 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Should all of those counties get recounted to the same standard as Gadsen's?
Yes. It's the only fair thing to do. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 05:05 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #345 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Ouch.

But then doesn't that standard apply to Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Hampshire, and New Mexico?

When does this end?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arden Forest - 06:55 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #346 of 773
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete. At last it has a global village idiot. --John O'Farrell, The Guardian, 1/20/01

I think every vote in every questionable state should be recounted until December 18th. Then let the electors do their thing. What does it matter if we remain in "limbo" for another month? Bill is in his Whitehouse, and will be until January 20. At this point, whoever succeeds him will make us all nostalgic for the Clinton Years, so I am currently suspecting Bill as the engineer of this whole mess.

Hmm, maybe I should change my tagline. Well, not yet . . . 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 07:36 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #347 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

No President should take the job of Chief Executive without a clear majority of the voters supporting him.
Whoops -- there goes Lincoln, who received less that 40% of the popular vote in a four-man race in 1860. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Fox - 08:09 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #348 of 773
Stalking: A merit badge in the '50s, a felony in the '00s.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm loving this election. Half the country had no clue how the electoral system worked. I refer you to Federalist paper #68. Here's a great quote from Alexander Hamilton on one of the electoral college's purposes:

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Hah! Fooled you, didn't we, Alex!

So, say Bush appears to win the election by one electoral vote. The, when the electors meet in the several states, two electors in a state that voted for Bush decide to vote for Gore. Gore becomes POTUS. Bush challenges, and the Supremes tell him, "Sorry, Bubba, read the Constitution." You think we've got a crisis now? Hell, they could wrap themselves in the flag: "We just wanted to make sure that an antiquated remnant from this country's beginnings didn't circumvent the popular vote."

Again from Federalist Paper #68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

These guys (Women as electors? Hardly....) were supposed to deliberate among themselves, on a state by state basis, and vote their consciences. There was no thought of their being committed to follow the state's popular vote. In fact, I expect a hue and cry to come up in each state to pass a law committing the electors from each state to that state's popular vote. Some already have such a law. So, the electors meet, two vote their conscience, and are challenged by the state. The electors go to the Supremes and say, "This state law is unconstitutional." I wonder what the Supremes would say to that. The Federalist Papers have been quoted in court before, successfully, as a proper and legal guide to interpretation of the Constitution. 
(BOOKMARK)

Beth Meacham - 08:59 am PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #349 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

Every vote in every precinct in every state should be counted. Punch card systems are notoriously quirky -- that's why every state has provisions for a hand count in the case of a close or disputed election. They were put into service to make vote counting easier and faster --not because they are more accurate.

If a hand count the Florida ballot shows that Bush is the winner, I can safely promise that Democrats will concede. If the Bush campaign is so sure they won, why are they trying to stop the most accurate way of counting the votes?

And if the overseas ballots, when counted, give the victory to Al Gore, will the republicans concede with grace? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Telamon - 01:00 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #350 of 773
The apple must be thrown, to grow another tree.

Whoops -- there goes Lincoln, who received less that 40% of the popular vote in a four-man race in 1860.
And don't forget Clinton; about 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 01:30 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #351 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

But Beth,

When humans count and the decisions are borderline their own desires get in the way.

And it so happens that the people running the current hand count are Democrats.

That's a great way to get a fair count, isn't it?

Machines are the way to go - their mistakes are equal opportunity and don't favor either side.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arden Forest - 01:41 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #352 of 773
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete. At last it has a global village idiot. --John O'Farrell, The Guardian, 1/20/01

I don't see how one side is favored over the other in counts where there is so much supervision by both parties over every ballot counted. Surely it leads to a more accurate rather than less accurate tally. And that's what we all want, isn't it Xiang? An accurate tally of the votes that were cast on Election day? But you are busy spouting the official Republican line here so I am sure you cannot agree to what is eminently fair and reasonable. (And, btw, supported by a vast majority of the public. Tell that to your bosses before they lose what little credibility they have left). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:09 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #353 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Arden,

They vote on each ballot.

And in all those counties the people doing the voting are majority Democrat.

Mind telling me how you think that produces an accurate count?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 02:11 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #354 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Hey, Shrub had a chance to ask for hand-counts in the GOP-majority counties before the 72-hour deadline, and he blew it.

Tough. 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 02:19 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #355 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

I thought the idea was to get an accurate count, not to play games with the law?

But if deadlines are that important to you, then I presume you have no objection to the Tuesday deadline for certified results from all Florida counties?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Arden Forest - 02:25 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #356 of 773
Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete. At last it has a global village idiot. --John O'Farrell, The Guardian, 1/20/01

Yes, I'll tell you how. Disputed ballots are stacked in a pile.The PBC 1% (19 more for Gore) result was not inclusive of such "disputed" ballots, i.e. were ones EVEN THE REPUBLICANS had to agree on. Therefore, even discounting disputed ballots, Gore's likely increase is by far more than enough to win the county and the state.

This is, of course what you and your paymasters are deathly afraid of. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beth Meacham - 05:45 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #357 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

Human beings are more accurate than machines. In the case of the hand counts in Florida, there is a representative of each party with each set of counters, both of whom must on the disposition of the ballot. It's an insult to the Republican party of Florida, and to all the republican elected officals in Florida, to maintain that the hand count is unfair.

I'd like to see all of Florida recounted by hand. Aging punch-card readers do not inspire confidence, especially when they're sporting error rates this high. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fred Dawson - 07:14 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #358 of 773
Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

I heard the OAS (Organization of American States) was offering to send some election overseers to Florida but Clinton said the US didn't need them. These are foreign observers of impeccable character who have watched each stage of elections in fledgling democracies to insure that the contests are either fair or they'll tell the reasons why. While it would be humiliating for the United States to be brought down to the level of Latin American countries, I wonder if the President is having second thoughts. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 08:18 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #359 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I'd like to see Serbia send observers to the Florida election. 
(BOOKMARK)

Brad Smith - 09:05 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #360 of 773
I earned my honorable discharge

Nah, the GOP wouldn't care for the OAS...too many Latins, you know?

Maybe if the House of Lords came over...I've always thought the Bushes would have rather been effete, in-bred, WASP snobs in the UK, rather than effete, in-bred, WASP snobs in New England...

Guess what, Xiang? In two years, your party is going to be roughly as popular as the Whigs were in 1861...

So far your man's people have:

Called the voters idiots; Disparaged the elderly, Jews, and blacks; Attempted to intefere in local government at the county and state level; Worked to further disenfranchise American citizens (Earth to GOP - Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege); Spun 180 degrees from the positions they had just DAYS ago on judicial involvement in the election, much less being totally hypocritical when it comes to hand counts...

Add that to the fact your man is a coward who didn't fight in a war he supposedly supported; a deserter who couldn't even be bothered to show up for his drills as ordered; and a drunk who won't admit he's an alcoholic...

Very impressive...

Hell, Jerry Ford had more moral authority than this guy... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Telamon - 09:21 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #361 of 773
The apple must be thrown, to grow another tree.

Guess what, Xiang? In two years, your party is going to be roughly as popular as the Whigs were in 1861...
This wishful mantra has been repeated for about 4 election cycles now (94, 96, 98, 00) and yet the Republicans are still in control of Congress. Apparently the benighted masses are slow to get the message. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 09:26 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #362 of 773

The founders realized that the winning candidate might not get a majority of the popular vote. They believed other considerations were more important. They still are

That the pop-vote winner isn't the Electoral vote winner is not a sign that something has gone wrong. The system works the way the founders intended as it should. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:01 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #363 of 773

We don't know that Al Gore won the popular vote and if he did he won it by the tiniest margin (200,000 is .2% of 100 million). If the GOP has a 60/40 advantage in outstanding absentees (2 million outstanding) that lead is reversed.

Another reason I don't like the "popular vote" argument. Many people in states with one party control don't vote because it doesn't make a difference in the presidential election. We all know this. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:05 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #364 of 773

"While it would be humiliating for the United States to be brought down to the level of Latin American countries, I wonder if the President is having second thoughts."

The US is breaking so many of the rules it preaches during elections that I'm concerned this might have an effect in the future. For instance. If the early calls in crucial states depressed turnout that would be clear manipulation by the media (a big no no). Partisans should not counting the ballots anywhere, they shouldn't be in charge of the recount process, etc. And yet we're running this like we are a banana republic. It's funny. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 10:09 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #365 of 773

"I don't see how one side is favored over the other in counts where there is so much supervision by both parties over every ballot counted. Surely it leads to a more accurate rather than less accurate tally."

If you're just talking about counting the hole punches then you're right, there should be no difference. The interpretation of ballots ("divining the intent of the voter") is not a simple recount. People should not group the second in with the first. Maybe the second is legitimate (that's a different subject) but it's not recounting, it's interpreting. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dean Falcione - 10:14 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #366 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Kevin and Boomer:

The GOP was planning an all-out attack if Bush won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. This article is from November 1:

<http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-86769.asp>

So your guy doesn't appear to agree with you with respect to the Electoral College. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 10:26 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #367 of 773

Dean

If that story is accurate then Bush was wrong. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dean Falcione - 10:41 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #368 of 773
Al Gore - The People's President

Boomer,

I appreciate your consistency. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brad Smith - 10:49 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #369 of 773
I earned my honorable discharge

Telamon -

Uhm, which party has GAINED seats in Congress in all three of the last elections?

HINT: It ain't the GOP....

Which party has LOST seats in the same three?

Guess what? It ain't the Dems...

Here's a question:

What will happen in every state capital in 2001?

HINT: Reapportionment...(no, that's the answer. I just thought I'd make it easy for you)

So what happens when a large state (California, say) gets two more Congressional seats?

And when that same state's Legislature (both houses controlled by Democrats, and with another Democrat - who went to Vietnam, BTW - in the governor's office) redraws the lines, who do you think they'll benefit?

HINT: It won't be the GOP...

Add in the looming debacle in Florida's Congressional races in 2002 and the timely defection of some New England GOP types, and what happens to the Republican margin in Congress?

Gone like the governor's mandate, I'd reckon...

Sleep well... 
(BOOKMARK)

SBK - 10:57 pm PST - Nov 13, 2000  - #370 of 773

I'm afraid I can't quite figure why "the founding fathers'" reasons for inventing the electoral college apply to today's circumstances. How does the possibility of electing a president who has lost the popular vote benefit the country? I am a liberal living in conservative state. Why should I bother to vote under the electoral college system? What is so sacred here that it cannot be touched, given that the "founding fathers" were so wise that under their rules neither women nor blacks were granted the right to vote. Yes, we are a republic, but are we not also a democracy? sbk 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:47 am PST - Nov 14, 2000  - #371 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Actually, Brad, the one analysis I've seen of the likely impact of reapportionment gives the major benefit to the Republicans.

The Democrats have California and New York, but the Republicans have far more states.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 04:08 am PST - Nov 14, 2000  - #372 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

The founders realized that the winning candidate might not get a majority of the popular vote.
The founders didn't anticipate any kind of popular vote for president at all, even the current popular election of electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 07:38 am PST - Nov 14, 2000  - #373 of 773
Class Maledictorian

The states (i.e., the state legislatures) were supposed to choose presidential electors. It was the states that eventually ceded this responsibility to the populace. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hank Essay - 08:18 pm PST - Nov 14, 2000  - #374 of 773
"American Democracy: 1776 - 2000, R.I.P." "Democratic Party: 2001, RIP"

IS the Electoral College the place we should fight the next battle? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:19 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #375 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I will take the other position. It seems the Republicans have managed to steal the election by use of raw power in Florida. They have 2 years until the next congressional elections and 4 years until the next presidential election. There is nothing that they can do that cannot be erased at that time.

If there is indeed a republican created economic disaster, and a meltdown of civil rights - which seems quite likely given the blatant disregard for the rule of law that the Republicans have shown, and given their policy of polarising the electorate - then in 4 years there will be ample chance to repay them.

However, this would mean that the left must give up its fantasies of a splinter party, the party must give up its insularity by which it discourages talent and a renewed dedication to winning.

It also means a recogntion that constitutional majorities will need to be achieved to put ceratian rights beyond the reach of transient majorities. Specifically abortion, the estate tax and voting rights will have to be taken off of the table. 
(BOOKMARK)

W.W. Dimmitt - 06:51 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #376 of 773
Be compassionate, join FUBAR today! (Faith in Unknown, But Awful, Religions)

It seems to me that in the heat of the moment, letting partisan emotions run rampant, people are forgetting several important facts that have a direct relationship to the electoral college vote, and to the whole structure of the US Constitution:

1. The original United States, as formed in 1789, was a Federal Union, made by a group of individual states joining in a union of states, and maintaining the identity of those states into perpetuity, and reserving the majority of governmental powers to those individual states.

2. The federal republic, organized on the prinicples of representative democracy, has now lasted for 210 years, longer than any other democracy in the modern world. It almost foundered in a civil war from 1860-1865 that rejected the alternative of individual states choosing to disagree with national decisions made on behalf of the entire federal union, but also, it still maintained the seperate identity of the individual states, and they still remained the repository of the majority of governmental powers as they affect individual citizens.

3. After a century and a half of consolidating a continent wide nation/state, with the addition of Hawaii and Alaska in the 1950's, this union of seperate states has forged the most powerful economy the world has ever known, and much of that economic success is based on an open, mutually beneficial market economy that permits everyone to compete on fairly equal terms, and to make the most of the resources they have to employ. North Dakota and Wyoming have almost no people, but they provide the food for tens of millions. New York has huge numbers of people, with world wide trade connections, but they would starve in a month without the food of Kansas, Texas and New Jersey. If Wyoming were to become an individual nation/state the people there could set tariffs as high as they wished on cattle and oats being sold by them, could limit the visitors to Yellowstone to as few as they wished, could move even closer to a third world economy, and they would never starve. New Yorkers might easily pay ten times what they do now for food, since they would have a huge demand, and very limited supply.

The result would be that everyone is worse off, we could have nice little jurisdictional wars as they do in the Balkans, and our fantastic economy would be in the toilet, to the harm of the entire world.

It is the genius of the union of states that has made the US the political and economic succuss that it is, IMO. And part of maintaining that union is the fact that a President must be elected by winning the majority of votes in states, not just from the individual voters of the nation. That is the key ingredient that the electoral college provides.

And yes, you can add up only a few states, 11 or 12 I think, that have a majority of electoral votes, and thus win the Presidency. But if you look at that map, you will see that those 11 or 12 states are spread across every quadrant of the nation. And if you look further at every election in the history of America, you will see that one candidate never wins all those states, except in the huge landslide years, when popular vote is overwhelming for one candidate. If the election is close, as this year, then those key states are split between the candidates, and the winner by mathematical necessity must have fairly widespread support across the country, not concentrated in one narrow part.

In order for the union of states to continue to thrive, there must be a system that provides the President wins by winning a majority interest of those states, not just the individuals within them. This is the essence of the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. The media, due to its marketing biases, tends to urge toward direct democracy, and I think that would be a serious loss of stability over our current system that has proved its stability and resilience.

There is a further point to be made ab 
(BOOKMARK)

Boomer Jeff - 06:59 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #377 of 773

Please help me understand this kind of fear, which seems utterly and completely irrational. What would qualify as a "republican created economic disaster?" Does it occur to you that no political party would ever "create" an ecnomic disaster?

Nobody is more opposed to the Dems than I. I believe their policies serve to slow down the economy, to increase unemployment, etc. I think they're wrong about a lot of things. But I don't expect them to DELIBERATELY set out to cause economic misery. Their Pres. Carter, a really likeable guy, lost his run for re-elcction mostly due to stagflation.

Where do you guys get this fear that a political party, in an effort to gain your vote, would deliberately cause you to suffer financially?

Then there's the rest of your irrational fear...

What does this mean? Do you expect re-segregation of restaurants in Selma? Do you expect the Army to segregate again? What are you talking about? What possible civil right could a political party, while trying to win more votes, curtail?

I see the Democrats trampling on Constitutionally protected property rights. I see the Dems trying to convince us that the Second Amendment doesn't protect gun ownership rights. But I see NO REPUBLICAN ANYWHERE who has anything to say or any agenda that would restrict anyone's civil rights. Can you help me understand your irrational fear? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.W. Dimmitt - 07:09 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #378 of 773
Be compassionate, join FUBAR today! (Faith in Unknown, But Awful, Religions)

As an afterthought:

The best example I have heard for thinking about how and why the electoral college vote works is to compare it to the World Series.

Everyone knows that the winner of the World Series must win 4 invidual games, the first team to 4 wins, wins the Series. One team might score 100 runs in 3 games, while the other team scored only 4 runs in the other 4 games, and the team scoring the four wins at 1-0 would win the Series, and there would be no doubt about who the winner is.

Same deal for the need of the new President to win the election in enough individual states to have a majority of electoral votes, no matter how many popular votes the other guy might get.

We don't have direct democracy, we have never had direct democracy, and if we are smart, we will never choose to have direct democracy. Not unless New York wants to maintain an army in Kansas and Wyoming in order to secure their food supply. YMMV 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beth Meacham - 07:20 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #379 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

The Republican economic plan will lead to economic disaster -- there was plenty of proof of that in the 80s. The Bush team proposes to return to high interest rates, high unemployment, and deficit spending. I don't know how Boomer can say that the Democratic policies encourage unemployment -- the exact opposite has been shown to be true in the past 8 years.

Two years of a Bush administration threatens to change the balance of the Supreme Court, and that will have a dreadful effect on civil rights. Yes, I do fear a return to segregation...the rulings on the right-wing hit list include not just Roe v. Wade and Miranda, but also Brown v. Board of Ed.

Tempting though it is to say "let the repubican party take the hit on this", two years of unified republican government will be a disaster for our nation and our prosperity. 
(BOOKMARK)

Boomer Jeff - 08:51 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #380 of 773

There are two ways to look at and argue this proposition. One way is to simply grant the party in control of the White House all the credit and/or all the blame for whatever happens economically. If we do that then Bill Clinton gets credit for prosperity from the beginning of his influence, late 1993 or early 1994 ­ 2000. But then Ronald Reagan also has to be given credit. The deep recession of the 80s began in late 81-early 82, clearly was not within any control of RR who was sworn in on 1/20/82.

RR’s first budget, his tax cuts and any economic policies didn’t even begin till 1993. From late 82 till the end of RR’s term in 88 interest rates gradually declined from their absolute peek at the end of 1981. Unemployment also peeked before RR’s econ policies began to be felt, mid-1982. From 83 ­ 88 over 19 million new jobs were created.

Deficit spending spiked up in 1983 and gradually declined until the massive cost of the Savings and Loan reorganization drove the deficits up again during the Bush administration. So, On interest rates and employment/unemployment Republicans get just as much credit as Clinton. On deficits one might argue that Republicans lose to Democrats, at least in the most recent two decades.

There was a brief recession beginning in Bush’s third year but the only major economic policy event that proceeded it was the famous Bush tax INCREASE, in violation of his "read my lips" promise and passed without a single GOP vote. This tax increase was clearly an idea of Democrats, who pressured Prez Bush to agree to it.

The other way to look at economic matters is more intellectually honest than blindly laying all the credit and all the blame on the party in power. It consists of serious economic analysis. Doing such an analysis would reveal that lower tax % rates bring about greater prosperity than higher tax % rates, including the top bracket rates. Additional analysis and a study of actual history reveals that over the past 2 decades, contrary to liberal dogma, interest rates do not rise and fall in tandem with federal deficits. In fact a weak case could be made that interest rises as deficits fall.

Actual economic analyze is much more time consuming and difficult than the blindly blaming/crediting Presidents and isn’t really possible in a forum such as this. But there is no way such an exercise could lead to your conclusion, that simply electing a GOP President automatically brings about higher unemployment, interest rates and deficits. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 09:01 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #381 of 773

True enough All I can say is that you've been conditioned by partisans to harbor incredibly irrational fears. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember what segregation was. It was a set of LAWS, mostly in the deep South, enforced by the local police, that required Blacks to live in separate parts of town, eat in separate restaurants, use different rest rooms, etc. Virtually all the white people who were comfortable with this sort of thing are now dead.

The Supreme Court rules only on cases brought to it from "the field." For the Supreme Court to rule that segregation is legal again a case would have to be brought before it. So, somewhere in the US, someone would have to create a racially segregated institution of some kind, and get a local or state law passed to enforce it. Then, a whole series of courts, from the local municipal to the state appeals, to the state supreme, to the federal appeals, would have to affirm that it is Constitutional to enforce racial segregation.

Then, finally the Supreme court would have to accept it, and rule in favor.

Do you really believe such a thing could happen? If you do, I'd like to talk to you about buying stock in the Golden Gate Bridge. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 09:15 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #382 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Please help me understand this kind of fear, which seems utterly and completely irrational. What would qualify as a "republican created economic disaster?" Does it occur to you that no political party would ever "create" an ecnomic disaster?
Actually governments create economic disaster all the time.

Some of the big blunders:

1. Hyper-inflationary monetary policy. Recent example: Russia.

2. Non-transperant economic policy. Recent example: Japan.

3. Collusive Government-Corporate policy. Recent example: Korea.

4. Corrupt favoring of the wealthy. Recent example: Indonesia.

5. Unnecessary shock treatment. Recent example: Brazil.

6. Over reliance on hot investment money. Recent example: Mexico.

7. Excessively cumbersome regulation for growth. Recent example: France.

8. Covering over structural problems with tax stimulus. Recent example: Germany after unification.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made to anyone not steeped in the religion of "governments can't effect the economy much." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:16 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #383 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

All I can say is that you've been conditioned by partisans to harbor incredibly irrational fears. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember what segregation was. It was a set of LAWS, mostly in the deep South, enforced by the local police, that required Blacks to live in separate parts of town, eat in separate restaurants, use different rest rooms, etc. Virtually all the white people who were comfortable with this sort of thing are now dead.
This is completely inaccurate spew. Greenlining is not a law, and continues to this day. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 09:19 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #384 of 773

It's certainly true that governments CAN destroy their economies. What is not true is the irrational belief of Dem partisans that Republicans DESIRE an economic disaster. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 09:19 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #385 of 773

Stirling

How about a definition of green lining so we can discuss it and be on the same page... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 09:33 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #386 of 773
Class Maledictorian

The central flaw in Boomer's thesis is embodied in his contention that Democrats unnecessarily "slow down" the economy. Meanwhile, his partisans routinely praise Alan Greenspan and credit him with our current prosperity, in lieu of giving any credit to Clinton/Gore. But what has Alan Greenspan done but "slow down" the economy?

At every turn the Federal Reserve has sought to keep economic growth at a manageable rate, based on Greenspan's conception of what rate of growth the U.S. economy can sustain without triggering an inflationary spiral.

So what's GW Bush's answer to this? An across-the-board tax cut. I.e., an economic stimulus. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Yes, government can certainly affect the economy. In the GOP's case, it would seem, their policy would not only threaten economical overstimulation, but flies in the face of the policy followed by a man they supposedly revere: Greenspan. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 09:40 am PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #387 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

How about a definition of green lining so we can discuss it and be on the same page...
Do some research, the term is common enough. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fred Dawson - 07:35 pm PST - Nov 15, 2000  - #388 of 773
Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

Question: If the Senate is split 50-50 and one Republican senator, like Strom Thurmond, dies a few months from now and is replaced by a Democrat, does that mean Trent Lott automatically becomes Minority Leader or do the Dems have to wait until the start of the next congressional year? Just how many Republican senators are from states with Democratic governors anyway? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:48 am PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #389 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Good question, I will have to check the rules of the senate. I believe - but am not sure - that the change of minority and majority leader will occur, but that committee reassignments are an order of business. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ellio - 02:57 am PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #390 of 773

Fred: NC has a recently elected Dem governor, who replaced a popular Dem governor. Jesse Helms is from NC. As a NC resident, one can only hope. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 08:41 am PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #391 of 773

If the Dems acquire a working majority they can force immediate elections of new leaders. And they will. Be assured!

Strom Thurman is unlikely to last more than a few more months. The Senate will likely be under Dem control by this time next year. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 01:24 pm PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #392 of 773

The Electoral College could be abolished only by Constitutional Amendment. Amendments must be approved by the Legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

So, as long as 51% of the members of the legislature of at least 13 states want it, we'll continue to enjoy the benefits of the Electoral College.

Ironically, Gore and the Dems, with their fanatical envro-oppression of rural states have guaranteed the continued life of the E.C. It is one of the few ways the victims of radical environmentalism have some power. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 01:30 pm PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #393 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

An amendment requiring states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska method of allocating electors might have more chance of passing. If Florida adopted this system, the stakes in Palm Beach County would be a lot lower -- probably only 2 electoral votes could shift, instead of all 25.

I'd be very interested in knowing what the electoral vote totals would now be under this scheme. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 03:45 pm PST - Nov 16, 2000  - #394 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

An amendment requiring states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska method of allocating electors might have more chance of passing. If Florida adopted this system, the stakes in Palm Beach County would be a lot lower -- probably only 2 electoral votes could shift, instead of all 25.
This idea has been floated by many people as a seeming compromise. In fact it is about the most stupid idea that anyone could put forward, and it would be less, not more, democratic than our current system.

Consider congressional districts. How are they drawn? By congress? By some objective system? Are they fixed? No, they are drawn by state legislatures, and are about the most partisan objects in the political system, crafted by paryt hacks to elect other party hacks.

More over, under the voting rights decisions of the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's the way districts are drawn - to encourage minority representatives - means that there are many districts that run 80% democratic in order to be 60% minority.

In otherwords - other goods are being aimed for other than equity.

Gerrymandering the presidency is simply stupid, and is the kind of unthinking idea that people jump to as a compromise as a way of avoiding the hard issue. This hard issue is that the electoral college matters, usually, as a way of producing a mandate - and occasionally adjudicating close elections.

Let's face facts people - the 200,000 vote margin between Bush and Gore is less than the margin of error of counting votes, but by breaking the measurement up we are at least sure of most of the individual results, and it allows errors to, generally, cancel each other out.

What this election really shows is that we need voting machines that are more sophisticated than coke vending machines from the 1950's so that we can be sure, really sure, of an election.

It is essential to have an election beyond a reasonable doubt. What stands in the way this time is bad voting mechanisms, and fiat abuse of power by republican party hacks bent on pushing things through regardless. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:26 pm PST - Nov 24, 2000  - #395 of 773

It is as if the loser of a chess match were to protest on the grounds that, while checkmated, he ended the game with more pieces.

Well, darn, if you told me that's how we were going to play, I would have stopped to take a few more of them!

Bush did not bother to seriously campaign in Los Angeles or New York City, because the rules were such that those votes wouldn't have helped him. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 04:51 pm PST - Nov 25, 2000  - #396 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Has anyone yet calculated what the electoral vote total would be in this year's election if..

(a) each state allocated electors proportionally to each candidate's popular vote percentage in that state, or

(b) each state used the Maine/Nebraska system of allocating electors winner-take-all by congressional district, plus two winner-take-all statewide electors?

In system (a), I believe Nader would have gotten 2 electors from California; I'm curious if they would now be in a position to decide the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 05:33 pm PST - Nov 25, 2000  - #397 of 773

Ron Newman,

Winner-take-all by congressional district would be easy - each is worth one elector. I believe the New York Times published something like this the day after the election, but I think it was by county, not district. I would guess that Bush would have won under Maine/Nebraska system, based on the GOP majority in the house plus Bush's state totals.

Under system (a), Nader would indeed have received electors, and could hypothetically instuct them to back Gore or Bush in post-election negotiations. Beware, though - it could just as easily have been Buchanan. George Wallace got a lot more than either of these guys.

p.s. I'm sure if Gore had won, we wouldn't be hearing about any of this. Neither Bush's narrow victory nor Nader's disappointing showing are indictments of our electoral system per se. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 11:31 pm PST - Nov 25, 2000  - #398 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

(a) each state allocated electors proportionally to each candidate's popular vote percentage in that state, or

(b) each state used the Maine/Nebraska system of allocating electors winner-take-all by congressional district, plus two winner-take-all statewide electors?

Bush wins in both cases. Rather easily. The fact that large states can be carried by the cities at their center is what balances the system for the democrats.

The congressional district model is, in particular, a horror, which would drag in gerrymandering for presidential races, and all of the intense corruption and competing goals that the process of allocating districts has.

What the EC votes = representation in congress gives to smaller states, the winner take all system helps balance.

Attempts by well meaning liberals to "strike a compromise" within the EC lead to really awful systems, since invariably they move to delete the traditional element of the system - as opposed to the consitutional one - and it is the traditional element which keeps the system competitive. Either accept the EC as is, with a few minor adjustments to get rid of things such as 1 state = 1 vote in elections thrown to the house, uniform standards for balloting etc. Or go over the hill and propose an entirely new system for selecting a president. There are others which could be used.

The essential problem with the second is that it would not be result neutral - if it is what is the point - and hence would have as its opponents who ever would lose as a result. Those who are against the current two party system have a long haul in front of them, since these two parties represent the lion's share of political power, and any sane person looking at third parties in America would have to ask which ones other than the Progressive party of LaFollete and the Bull Moose party of Roosevelt you would want to have survive that didn't.

The essential truth about American third parties is that they are looney bins, and important ones. As soon as the people supporting one start to look and sound normal, there is serious trouble. It is their nihilistic purity and abnormality which attracts people, it is their very impractical stupidity which draws in people who are frustrated or narrow minded.

Consider the most important third party of the post war era: the Dixiecrats. Over the course of 40 years they pressaged a realignment of the white "we don't care for colored people much" vote from being democrat to being republican.

Consider that the Reform Party pressaged the anhilation of the conservative democrat who drew his support from the working class, in effect signalling that the "Regean Democrat" was about to become a "Gingrich Republican" but hadn't quite gone for it at the top of the ticket.


(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 11:55 pm PST - Nov 25, 2000  - #399 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

any sane person looking at third parties in America would have to ask which ones other than the Progressive party of LaFollete and the Bull Moose party of Roosevelt you would want to have survive that didn't.
The third Progressive Party (1948, Henry Wallace) comes to mind. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 12:00 am PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #400 of 773

Stirling S. Newberry wrote,

"The congressional district model is, in particular, a horror, which would drag in gerrymandering for presidential races, and all of the intense corruption and competing goals that the process of allocating districts has." True. I was responding to Ron Newman's hypothesized changes to the current system. It would be easy in the sense that you already have done the census work and are tabulating ballots by district.

Personally, I think our current system works just fine, and it's just become (along with Ralph Nader) a scapegoat for the travails of the Democratic Party. Having lost both houses, the majority of state legislatures and now the preseidency, they frantically look for answers outside of themselves. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 12:12 am PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #401 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

"The third progressive party" - which other than Wallace had who? If you are asking me to pick in terms of caliber of leadership between Truman and Wallace, Truman wins hands down.

There has been a strong "break away" movement on the far left for about the last 30 years, ever since it became clear that an unadulerated far left democrat could not garner more than about 45% of the vote at the presidential level.

The problem is not at the level of the general election, but at the primary level - where there ought to be a diversity of voices, and instead it is increasingly in the hands of those who see the primaries as merely the means of framing an already annointed candidate. We are rapidly moving towards a situation where we have the worst of the backroom deal and the worst of the primary system. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fred Dawson - 05:50 pm PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #402 of 773
Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

Question: Just how would redistricting change if electoral votes were based on congressional districts? Remember that when you talk of gerrymandering, you talk of a practice which has been ongoing since the early 19th century. Up to the present, we've had odd-shaped districts--since the 60's, they've been divided population-wise as equally as possible. So if these districts are going to elect a congressman every two years and an elector every four, how will that alter the present system. Who will have the most influence on the population a district includes, the presidential candidates or the congressional ones? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:03 pm PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #403 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Legislatures draw the distict lines, under pressure from a variety of supreme court decisions. The presidential race would be another pressure on an already corrupt and archaic system. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 06:03 pm PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #404 of 773

Fred Newman asked,

"...So if these districts are going to elect a congressman every two years and an elector every four, how will that alter the present system. Who will have the most influence on the population a district includes, the presidential candidates or the congressional ones?"

Well, the poulations are supposed to be equal as counted by the census. Congress would control the process almost completely. The courts have explicitly recognized the right of congress to gerrymander freely, with the exception of districts created for no other reason except race, which is almost impossible to prove.

Ironically, the GOP teamed with minority advocates, African-Americans in the south and Latinos in Southern California, to institute this restriction. The Democrats at the time were splitting up the minority vote to push them over 50% in several districts, rather than have predominantly minority disticts where their votes would be wasted on a handful of minority candidates (to whom, incidentally, Southern Democrats have not been historically favorable). The results are more minority office-holders, but fewer Democratic seats contributing to the GOP's current majority in the house. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 08:11 pm PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #405 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Congress doesn't draw congressional districts. State legislatures do. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 09:20 pm PST - Nov 26, 2000  - #406 of 773

"Congress doesn't draw congressional districts. State legislatures do." I stand corrected. What I said about the courts, though, is quite true. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:38 am PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #407 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Courts are regularly called in to challenge districts.

One item that people may not be aware of is that new computer technology is allowing gerrymandering down to the precinct level, creating possiblities for districts which are yet more carefully crafted. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tony Karp - 08:47 am PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #408 of 773
In the end, GW Bush was a uniter -- He united his enemies

Sorry to interrupt but the situation alluded to in the thread title has, at least for the moment, occurred.

It was originally assumed that it would be Bush with the popular vote.

Now what? (If anything) 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:55 am PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #409 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Bush laid it out last night, he is going to ram his program through. 
(BOOKMARK)

Symbolman - 09:08 am PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #410 of 773

Here's a possibility as I see it, even emailed the White House hoping that one of the filters there could pass it along..

According to what I read this morning (think it was the NYTimes) the 12th and 26th Amendments specify that Lieberman could step down as the Veep elect, keeping his seat in the Senate.. (thereby keeping the stalemate in the Senate) and then Gore could appoint CLINTON as Veep! Clinton would be the tiebreaker!!

Pass it along..but don't tell the Republo/Brownshirts! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:34 pm PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #411 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Sigh.

You're getting your dates mixed up.

The new senate gets seated Jan 3. The new president and vp get into office on Jan 20.

Lieberman can vote for himself.

And do you really think Gore would do anything for Clinton? After all, Clinton's priapism and lying cost Gore the election!

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 07:38 pm PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #412 of 773

Xiang.

You are correct--and this is a very interesting thing. There will be a new Congress, but the old President, for the beginning of January. It's really quite mindbending. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 07:58 pm PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #413 of 773

Symbolman wrote, “Here's a possibility as I see it...” Hate to burst your bubble, but the VP elect would appear to be Dick Cheney, not Joe Lieberman.

“...but don't tell the Republo/Brownshirts!” Fool! This type of baseless hyperbole has served your faction poorly. Clinton won in 1992 by reaching out and addressing many of the concerns of the GOP, thereby stripping them of their moderate vote. For all Clinton’s faults, he is the only Dem in twenty-four years who has taken the office. In your stridency, you have lost both houses, the majority of state legislatures, the Supreme Court and now the presidency. Bleat on.

And Xiang, our new congress is seated on Jan.5 (in a pro-forma session to accept electors.) Between Jan.5 and Jan. 20, the Dems hold the tiebreaker majority (50 + Gore)

There are two points upon which I am unclear. Does anybody know...

-Would it be possible for congress to call a lame-duck session before the 5th to resolve the elector issue, thereby depriving the dem’s of the Vice-Presidency (which they would otherwise win in the Senate, should the presidency go to the house.) Incidentally, a majoirty in both houses is needed to reject Florida’s electors anyhow. -Is it possible to filibuster to prevent the Vice-Presidency from coming to the floor?

p.s. Hello, SheRa! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 11:14 pm PST - Nov 27, 2000  - #414 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Now we're getting into the kind of thing that results in fist fights between legislators.

CSPAN could win the ratings war....

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 12:30 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #415 of 773

Got that right, Xiang.

By the way, did you know that the quirkily belligerent super-genius known as Leo Carr was disparaging you in other threads (e.g., The Triumph of Anti-Intellectualism in American Politics)?

In response to his unwarranted aggressions, I fired a number of devastating salvos his way, but I somehow feel that it was not enough. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:24 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #416 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

-Would it be possible for congress to call a lame-duck session before the 5th to resolve the elector issue, thereby depriving the dem’s of the Vice-Presidency (which they would otherwise win in the Senate, should the presidency go to the house.) Incidentally, a majoirty in both houses is needed to reject Florida’s electors anyhow. -Is it possible to filibuster to prevent the Vice-Presidency from coming to the floor?
 
 
Nope, the congress gets to open the ballots on 5 January, and there cannot be contests to the results of the electoral college vote - on the grounds that no one is supposed to know how it came out.

What people are forgetting is that usually we hand wave a great deal as formality, because there is no doubt in anyone's mind as to what is going to happen. However, this does not mean that all the intervening steps are formality.

Sometimes I think this has become a self-help book election, with everyone trying to "get it behind them and move on." as quickly as possible. Once upon a time we still would not know the results of the election, because counts and recoutns would have been going on, and results would not have reached everywhere yet. If we were in England in 1840 we still would not know how the US election had turned out, since news travelled at the speed of ships.

While post-modernism goes on about the quest for uncertainty and fragmentation, it seems in truth that post-modernity has lead to the reverse effect - a loathing and fear of uncertainty, even one so short as the working out of an accelerated legal process. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 04:28 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #417 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

On the other hand, the quick working-out of yesterday's Canadian election stands in stark contrast to our own. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:29 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #418 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

We've never had a six cent election however. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 04:34 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #419 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I will also point out that in Canada it is the liberal party that has benefitted from a divided opposition, it has established three straight majority governments even though it has never won the popular vote, this time it picked up approximately 41%. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 04:50 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #420 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

What is a "six cent election" ? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:05 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #421 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Trudeau's last government collapsed over a six cent a gallon increase in the gasoline tax. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:04 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #422 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Canada had one government collapse over a 6 cent a gallon increase in the gasoline tax, after less than two years, the Canadian people had to trudge back to the polls. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beth Meacham - 06:46 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #423 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

There will be a new Congress, but the old President, for the beginning of January. It's really quite mindbending.
This has been true every four years for the past 200 years.

Nothing that has happened since this past election is new, or "unprecedented", as Baker is fond of saying. The Constitution itself contemplates a contested Presidential election, since it contains provisions of settling such contests. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:46 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #424 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

By the way, having just gone back over the previous 3 elections, under the favored reform of dividing the electoral votes by state, the election is thrown to the house all three times. Which means the winners would be Clinton, Dole, Bush.

The recent election would be Gore 258, Bush 260, Nader 19, Buchanan 1. If one places a threshold for representation - as is common in proportional systems in Germany, Isreal, France and Italy - Bush gains 269, Gore 263, Nader 6. Again, election thrown to the house and Bush wins.

This assumes that a uniform requirement that the electors vote for who selected them, as 22 states already do. If electors are allowed to vote for another candidate - that is we can have an Adams style bargain, then the winners would have been Bush Sr., Dole, Gore.

Just something to think about all you dems out there in reform the EC land.

Also for laughs I went back to 1960.

Congratulations President Nixon, you are the first sitting vice president to be elected in over a century. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:48 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #425 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Actually for most of the nation's history inauguration was in March. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 06:52 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #426 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Before the Lame Duck Amendment, when did Congress begin its term? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:16 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #427 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Amendment XX merely codified the traditional date of 3 January. The original consitution allowed the congress to set the date by law. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boomer Jeff - 07:25 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #428 of 773

The hand wringing over this issue is rediculous. Both candidates pursued strategies aimed at maximizing electoral votes. Thus, Bush never spent a single day or a single dollar on New York. Gore never spent a day or a dollar in Texas. Bush put in a token effort in California just to honor a promise he had made to local Republicans over a year earlier.

Gore never even tried to get any votes in the Western states where Bush had a big majority. Both candidates fought like crazy for Florida.

The popular and electoral counts we have RESULT DIRECTLY from the efforts of the candidates. If the rules required the candidates to win BOTH electoral and popular majority they would each have developed a completely different strategy. There is no way to know if Bush would have been more successful pealing off a half-million votes in NY and CA or if Gore could have taken a significant number of votes in Texas.

Since both candidates were playing by the same rules, both were paying little attention to the pop vote, in favor of electoral vote, this issue is moot. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:29 am PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #429 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

If you are willing to multiply through the above numbers by strength of support then do so, I think you will find out what most people insid ethe democratic party found out sometime ago - the Republican base of support, electorally, is stronger than the democrat's base of support, that it is easier to swing votes in California and New York than in Wyoming or Idaho.

That is, the Republican coalition consists largely of one party states, and the democratic coalition consists of more states that have two viable parties. One can see this from a graph of electoral volatility - there is a vast swath of very stable votes that runs from the heart of Pennsylvania down to Texas, and that swath is almost entirely republican. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 02:18 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #430 of 773

S.S. Newberry, thanks for answering my question about the lame-duck session.

Does anybody know if it is possible to filibuster to prevent the Vice-Presidency from coming to the floor of the Senate between Jan.5 and Jan. 20? 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 02:37 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #431 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I would hope not. The Constitution absolutely requires the Senate to elect a Vice-President should the electors fail to do so. However, it has happened only once in the entire history of the USA, in 1836. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by Steve M. on 02:41 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve M. - 02:42 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #433 of 773
This is not a friggin’ charm offensive.

Since both candidates were playing by the same rules, both were paying little attention to the pop vote, in favor of electoral vote, this issue is moot.
So why were Bush's people going to try to wrest the election from Gore if he won the popular vote but not the EC?
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 02:44 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #434 of 773

Ron Newman wrote,

"The Constitution absolutely requires the Senate to elect a Vice-President should the electors fail to do so."

Does it specify any particular timeframe? Could the pres take office on Jan.20, and then try to appoint a vice-president for in the normal manner, subject to congressional approval? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:52 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #435 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Does anybody know if it is possible to filibuster to prevent the Vice-Presidency from coming to the floor of the Senate between Jan.5 and Jan. 20?
Nope, the election has to be concluded on January fifth by law.

It is possible however to have endless contests to the result and foce the VP to take office. This is what happened last time we got into the mess of having a disputed set of electors - a commission was appointed and it wrangled for weeks.

The resulting statute is pretty clear on these things, having been written by the people who had just escaped the debacle with their careers in tact. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:54 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #436 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Does it specify any particular timeframe? Could the pres take office on Jan.20, and then try to appoint a vice-president for in the normal manner, subject to congressional approval?
They could try because the only place to appeal would be the supreme court. They'd be breaking the law, but that doesn't seemed to have stopped the republicans so far. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 02:54 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #437 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

I think that's getting into an unknown gray area.

If the electors and the House and Senate have all failed to elect a President and Vice-President by noon on January 20, the 20th amendment provides that

Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President nor a Vice President elect have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
I believe this is the source of Constitutional authority for the statute that puts the Speaker of the House next in line, then the president pro tem of the Senate, then various Cabinet officers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russ Logan - 03:09 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #438 of 773
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu

Ron

You are correct. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 to be exact. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 05:40 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #439 of 773

S.S. Newberry wrote, "the election has to be concluded on January fifth by law."

So, let me make sure I have this straight. The Senate must vote on the V.P. Jan. 5, no matter what, no sooner and no later. If so, then Joseph Lieberman would absolutely for sure become Vice-President if George W. Bush were selected in the house? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 07:00 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #440 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

They have to start voting for a VP then, if the electors haven't successfuly elected one. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:11 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #441 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

IIRC, there isn't a law that states the election MUST be concluded by the 5th of January. But the constitution provides for what happens if a President hasn't been elected by their first day of office.

Article XX Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Theoretically, we could go a long time without an "elected" President, and still have someone in charge. I believe if they couldn't come to a conclusion, the Speaker of the House would take over, until things finally finished. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 08:23 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #442 of 773

RJHeaney,

Now I am truly baffled. As for the president, it's a done deal. Even if it went to congress, Bush would easily carry the house. But the Vice-President is chosen by the Senate. My big question was, could the GOP seat Bush without letting Lieberman carry the Senate (as he presumably would, were the vote held between Jan.5-Jan.20, when Gore would hold the tie-breaker.)? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:27 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #443 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Actually Timothy, the votes in the House and Senate aren't done the way you seem to think.

Each state only gets 1 vote. So for the Pres or VP to win, in the House or Senate, you must get 26 States. I don't know the balance, but my understanding is, the House is a tie right now. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:30 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #444 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Amendment XII

... The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; ...

(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:32 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #445 of 773

Rj, I am very aware of that. The GOP majority in the house is actually much greater when counted delegation by state delegation (I think it's like 30-20 or something). In the Senate, of course, this would make no difference. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 08:35 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #446 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Someone had told me differently about the state makeup in the house. I've never bothered to verify it. I do know there are several "tied" states though ... at least 4 or 5. 
(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 08:36 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #447 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

In the Senate, of course, this would make no difference.

Yes and no. It is (again theoretically) possible, to get a President from one Party and a VP from another. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SheRa - 08:40 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #448 of 773

I actually think the electoral system is brilliant, even though it works to the advantage of the Republicans who, as you may know, are not my party. To me, it is one of those amazing parts of the U.S. government system that work to give it stability, because it is another way of balancing minority and majority interests.

I was reminded of the importance of this concept in a completely different way when my son told me that he was annoyed at school because all the kids at lunchtime kept talking about "Christ" and getting a little too fervent about their religion. He and his best friend (a Muslim) retreated to play battleship and wait for the other kids to calm down. He said he recognized that those kids had a right to talk about their religion if they wanted, but that it made him feel uncomfortable. He didn't want to tell them to stop, but he just felt left out and pushed out.

Okay, what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps I'm being a little farfetched here, but I think that this kind of situation is what the U.S. government system is all about on a large scale. Large states have a powerful influence because they hold so MANY electoral votes that a handful of them can tip the election. Their constituency must be addressed. Some will say, "Well, what about the fact that neither candidate bothered to go to New York or Massachusetts." I would argue that the residents of states who are strongly Democratic or Republican, who know their own minds, ARE having their beliefs addressed by the fact that the candidate who is a member of their party will be the winner.

On the other hand, the residents of small states do have more than their fair share of power. That may be why Gore won 400,000 more popular votes than Bush, yet basically tied in the electoral college--partly because tiny states had a disproportionate vote.

I mean, frankly, most countries, especially those who follow a parliamentary system, do NOT necessarily get the leader of their choice, the popular vote winner. People in those countries vote for the parties and then the people in those parties have to form coalitions--sometimes horrible ones--to get their candidate to be prime minister, do they not?

To me, the electoral system is something like that little space they build in concrete sidewalks, so that there's room for expansion and contraction caused by different weather. There's that little bit of moving room that keeps things stable. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:50 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #449 of 773

Well said, SheRa. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 08:56 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #450 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

Democracy loving citizens, y'may wanna consider pulling out your credit card for pro-democracy instead of GOP conglomerates for once.

recount fund: from Gore/Lieb mail This committee is based in both Washington, DC, as well as Tallahassee, Florida. It helps us pay for legal representation as well as the hundreds of monitors and support staff needed to oversee the recount effort. If you wish to support the recount committee, you can do so on line at: Gore/Lieb recount fund
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 08:59 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #451 of 773

Gore/Lieberman

"For the people, not the powerful"

Credit cards accepted 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 09:08 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #452 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

yes, credit cards from citizen contributions, not Barrick, Halberton,Choicepoint, Gulf Oil and the "Religious" Rightwing PAC establishment.

DO IT

recount fund: from Gore/Lieb mail This committee is based in both Washington, DC, as well as Tallahassee, Florida. It helps us pay for legal representation as well as the hundreds of monitors and support staff needed to oversee the recount effort. If you wish to support the recount committee, you can do so on line at: Gore/Lieb recount fund
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Liam Wescott - 09:23 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #453 of 773
Gore won the popular vote; Bush won the unpopular vote

RjHeaney 11/28/00 8:27pm

Actually, the Senate votes as an entire body. That is, the senators each vote individually for the VP and you gotta get 51 votes to be elected VP.

It's in the HOUSE that things get interesting. They vote by state and each state gets one (1) vote. 26 votes are needed to win. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 09:28 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #454 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Just re-read that section of Amendment XII. Learn something new everyday. Thanks.

Always thought a single vote per state in the Senate sounded awkward anyway. That makes a lot more sense.

So lets see, since he would still be a Senator, would Joe be able to vote for himself, and Gore break the tie? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 09:38 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #455 of 773

Rj,

Yes, they would. That's why I asked if there was a way for the GOP to hold a lame-duck session to resolve it before the new Senate is seated (according to S.S. Newbury, it's not) or filibuster/"debate" the issue until Jan. 20, when Gore is gone.

Isn't this getting weird? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 09:42 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #456 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Not even sure they would have to "filibuster" it. They need a 2/3 quorum to vote, all they'd need to do is walk out until the 20th. Don't know how well that would go over though.

Not sure what effect that would have, cause I don't think there would be a VP after that, and there are not any rules for succession of the VP, and I don't believe they could let the President appoint one.

Geez, this gets messy fast. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 09:49 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #457 of 773

Doesn't it? I thought, if there's no V.P. (e.g., dies or resigns in office), the president appoints one for approval by congress in the normal manner. Isn't that what happened with Ford? I mean, I know the stuff about speaker of the house, but I think in this case it was just done by analogy with the aforementioned law of presidential succession.

As opposed to the monarchial law of succession, where the former king's son... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 09:57 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #458 of 773

"By the way, having just gone back over the previous 3 elections, under the favored reform of dividing the electoral votes by state, the election is thrown to the house all three times. Which means the winners would be Clinton, Dole, Bush."

Hahaha. It makes sense, though, since no candidate has gotten a majority of the vote in the past three elections. What happens if you do it by congressional seat? Or give the EC vote to the top two candidates? (eg. Clinton:60% Dole: 30% Perot: 20% means Clinton gets 2/3 and Dole gets 1/3). No reform should turn third parties into kingmakers, that would be madness. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 09:58 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #459 of 773

Oops, meant Perot 10% (unless the state is Illinois). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 09:59 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #460 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

Coincidences? You decide

  1. Is it a coincidence that the only state in which this election crisis happened is the one governed by Bush's brother?
  2. Is it a coincidence that the exit polls called the election correctly everywhere in the country - except for Florida?
  3. Is it a coincidence that shortly after Florida was called for Gore, Bush made an urgent call to his brother the governor, and shortly thereafter the call for Gore was recalled by all networks?
  4. Is it a coincidence that soon thereafter the election was incorrectly called for Bush by his own cousin at Fox (creating the lasting myth that Bush won)?
  5. Is it a coincidence that all pre-election polls had Gore leading in Florida the night of Nov. 6 -- a lead that mysteriously evaporated by next day?
  6. Is it a coincidence that the votes lost by Gore in various "irregularities" in Florida could well account for just that missing lead?
  7. Is it a coincidence that pre-election polls (e.g. Zogby/Reuters) correctly called all states except for … Florida?
  8. Is it a coincidence that conservative counties used high-accuracy Optical Scan systems while heavily Democratic counties used antiquated punch-cards?
  9. Is it a coincidence that the Miami-Dade Canvassing Board decided to abruptly stop the hand count after mobs of Republicans paid for by Bush and other GOP campaigns stormed their building?
  10. Is it a coincidence that prior to certifying the election, the Florida Secretary of State chose to toss out hand-counts in Democratic counties (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Nassau) but accepted 418 hand-counted votes for Bush from heavily Republican counties (Franklin, Hamilton, Taylor, Washington, Lafayette and Seminole)?

(BOOKMARK)

RjHeaney - 09:59 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #461 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Yeah, but this isn't a case where the VP dies, or moves up to be Pres, this is the VOTE, and the Constitution gives it different remedies.

It won't happen in this election anyway ... i don't believe.

It is fun to speculate though. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:12 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #462 of 773

In theory the Senate could vote for anyone for VP. It's no longer restricted to the major candidates (eg. Lieberman). Gore could be veep for another four years. Or they could vote for Hillary Clinton. Or Bill Clinton. Why give up a seat in the Senate?

I hope very much this doesn't happen, by the way. The last time the Prez and Veep were from different parties (Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr) it led to a duel (Hamilton) and a trial for treason (Burr). The constitution originally gave the vice presidency to the losing candidate (eg. so if Bush won, under the old rules, Gore would be the Veep again) and was amended for good reason.

But given the importance of the Veep in breaking ties in the Senate I'm pretty sure the Democrats wouldn't toss this advantage away. I doubt it will get this far. My prediction, the Republicans would try to hold up Carnahan's election for a few weeks. It would be a fitting end to an absurd process, though (with many chuckles to come). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:18 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #463 of 773

Oops, I'm wrong, just checked, has to be Lieberman or Chaney, oh well. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 10:22 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #464 of 773

Oh yeah, forgot about Carnahan. (To the guards) "If some dead guy comes by, don't let him in." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:52 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #465 of 773

Hahaha. Okay, I think I've figured this out. Turns out such elections do require a quorum of 2/3rds so technically each party could frustrate the other. The game does end on January 20, though, when the Speaker of the House becomes president.

At this point there is some confusion because the 25th Amendment gives the president the right to appoint a Veep subject to a majority vote in Congress (no quorum required). It's possible the temporary president could appoint Bush and then immediately resign (though hmm, the Speaker would have to resign his office).

Since the Republicans have the ability to elect a president in the House, frustrate the election of a Veep in the Senate, and the Speaker of the House is a Republican, I'm pretty sure they could play their cards so they would get the Veep as well (which seems reasonable to me, though with all of the technicalities it's not impossible that Gary Coleman will end up as Vice President).

Another Republican strategy would be for the Speaker to threaten to recuse himself on January 20 (I have a cold) in which case Strom Thurmond would become acting president (that would be a chuckle). 
(BOOKMARK)

jjames - 11:00 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #466 of 773
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room

In reference to the thread question: looks like it's a moot point. Escambia, Martin, and Seminole will be Dion's next hit. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 11:01 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #467 of 773

A 2/3 quorum IN THE HOUSE??? I thought they didn't do that kind of stuff. If not, there is no way to stop Bush's coronation (indeed, there probably isn't anyway).

To reject Florida's electors requires a majority vote in both the house and the senate. At this point, the house would decide the president, and the senate the vice-president (This would also happen if Florida were, for some reaon, to send no electors.) Are you sure the rejection would not suffice for a quorum in the Senate?

I am so darned confused! But, it seems to me any way you slice it, the GOP has won.

ALL HAIL PRESIDENT THURMOND 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 11:09 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #468 of 773

jjames wrote, "In reference to the thread question: looks like it's a moot point. Escambia, Martin, and Seminole will be Dion's next hit."

It sounds like you're saying that Gore will win the electoral vote. If so, I have bad news. Gore has been defeated. The GOP has won this round.

Even if Gore wins a battle or two in Florida, the Florida House and Senate, the U.S. House and Senate and the Florida executive plus certification trumps the Florida Supreme Court and a few counties.

The only questions are, how much can Gore erode Bush's legitimacy, and will he make himself look like an ass in the process? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kat J. - 11:12 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #469 of 773
George W. Bush: Coup-Dependent (sign from DC inauguration protest)

Sorry, this is a bit off-topic, but I just read through the beginning of this thread looking for links to pre-election musings on a popular/electoral vote split by the Bush campaign, and I found this post by Fred Dawson from a couple of weeks BEFORE the election. Fred Dawson, I just have to salute you for your impressive prescience:

Has this possibility been brought up here? In one or more states, the election is too close to call on the day after. Without these electoral votes neither Gore nor Bush has a majority. The lengthy process of counting absentee ballots and doing recounts sets in. In several places, charges of vote fraud are made.

It's been a popular conspiracy theory that this happened in Illinois in 1960, that Mayor Daley pulled strings to be sure Kennedy was the victor. But in that case Kennedy had a small but clear lead in the popular vote nationwide and the political atmosphere was not so venomous as it is now.

It may not take a divide between the popular and the electoral vote to create a quandry. Just imagine what the militia movement could do if they think the election's been stolen from their guy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jjames - 11:14 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #470 of 773
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room

Timmy, Bush's lawyers asked for more time. He's still waiting for the final outcome. it isn't over, just yet. Mustn't be impatient. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 11:22 pm PST - Nov 28, 2000  - #471 of 773

Not impatient. Only making strategic judgement.

Worst/best case scenario:

-Supreme Court denies Bush's appeal.

-Gore finds enough votes/non-votes (however you choose to see them) in hand counts to put him over the top.

-GOP cries foul, Florida legislature sends GOP slate or no slate

-Election goes to Bush/Cheney outright or is thrown to Congress, where Bush wins in the house (the Senate I'm not so sure).

Am I missing something? Well, I suppose anything can happen, but is there something obvious I'm missing? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:04 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #472 of 773

"Are you sure the rejection would not suffice for a quorum in the Senate?"

I was wrong about the House (each party could get this):

"a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

But right about the Senate:

"a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

The 25th amendment also says:

"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

So there will be no President Thurmond or Vice President Lieberman in a Bush administration. If it goes to the Congress one person wins the presidency, the Senate walks out, and then the new president appoints the Veep. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 12:11 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #473 of 773

Hence a decisive victory for the Grand Old Party, with Bush plus Cheney (?)

Do I also have it right that the GOP can force this via the Florida Legislature? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 12:20 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #474 of 773

There are a few glitches in the constitution which, in theory, could be exploited to mess things up. Article II says:

"The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;" (or else it goes to the House of Representitives).

The key phrase here is, "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed". If there are competing slates of electors from Florida what, exactly, does this mean?

There is one precedent in US history for someone being elected without a majority of the the whole electoral college: Abraham Lincoln in 1864 (when the South, of course, didn't send any). But then these electors weren't appointed.

The Supreme Court would probably rule on which set of electors was legitimate (so as to avoid the situation where Congress is confronted with which set to reject). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 12:21 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #475 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Yup.

In the end game Bush wins. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 12:22 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #476 of 773

"Do I also have it right that the GOP can force this via the Florida Legislature?"

That's the big question. No one knows. The Supreme Court could go either way. It could rule that the Florida Legislature has the power to appoint electors (which is what the legislature is claiming right now) or it could decide that the Florida Legislature set out laws which can't be changed for the appointment of electors by a popular vote. Anyone who claims they know the answer to this is being paid by one of the campaigns. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 12:28 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #477 of 773

Xiang

Somehow, you've just got to see it that way, because their arrayed forces are so much stronger.

Gore needs a royal flush. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 12:47 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #478 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Kevin,

The law is the law is the law.

The Florida legislature makes the laws.

They can get together on December 11th and appoint a slate of electors and it's legal by definition unless they violate Florida's state constitution, federal law, or the federal constitution.

It's also pretty unlikely that federal law can trump their choice of electors.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 03:28 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #479 of 773

"They can get together on December 11th and appoint a slate of electors and it's legal by definition unless they violate Florida's state constitution, federal law, or the federal constitution."

I've just spent two hours of my precious time reading the briefs for the Supreme Court (I can't wait until this election is over). It's not clear what the legislature can do. The conflict is this:

While the consitution gives the legislature responsibility for the appointment of electors (it has to set out the rules, guidelines, etc.) is it bound by the rules it set with respect to the popular election of electors?

See the problem? The federal code can be read different ways. What if it prevents the legislature from changing the rules in the middle of an election (eg. giving itself an authority to appoint electors which doesn't exist in previous law).

The US code is so technical (and this part of it has never been litigated) that I don't even want to guess what the Supreme Court might rule.

From my read this case breaks down into a few questions: 1) was the FSC ruling sound and, if not, does federal law require the USSC to restore the situation to what it was on November 14?

That's a very technical question and I won't even guess. If they do I can see that Gore can never win because he'll never meet the burden of proof required to change the result of the election;

2) Does the Florida legislature have the power to appoint its own set of electors, resolve disputes, etc. (which comes into play if the USSC upholds the FSC). And the answer to this is not obvious.

Even 3.USC.5 (which is often cited as justification) doesn't really address the question being litigated. How it's interpreted, though, will say a lot about what courts, the legislature, etc., can do.

One federal code which probably will make a difference. If two sets of electors show up Congress has to accept the one which is endorsed by the governor of the state (guess who?). 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 03:39 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #480 of 773

Another impression I got from the Supreme Court briefs: that FSC ruling was a crock, they trashed major portions of Florida statute, didn't even try to harmonize it, in some sense all sides are living with the mess they made (the Gore campaign as well because they don't have enough time to contest the election).

There is no question in my mind that the FSC ruling deserves to be overturned. Does that mean the USSC should overturn it, though? Does federal law give it the responsibility to do this?

And since I'm not a Supreme Court justice, I'm just trying to figure out what these nine people might do, I'll suggest that the answer is not obvious. It's not even a question of lacking the proper knowledge of federal law (though, um, that's true).

There's just no way of knowing what the Supreme Court will do because there are no precedents, the laws have never been tested, it's kind of funny reading about legislative intent and knowing that the congressman who delivered the speech has probably been dead for the past hundred years.

It's also quite likely that another hundred years will pass before someone has need to revisit whatever the Supreme Court does. It's a unique moment in American history. Enjoy. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 03:44 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #481 of 773

"They can get together on December 11th..."

There's another glitch in all of these codes. Does the legislature have to act on December 12th if it wants to appoint electors, can it act before, or after? And in every scenario what does Congress have to do?

I couldn't figure this out from the various federal laws, they seemed to contradict, and I can see how this might turn into a serious problem since, without clarification, the legislature could take an action and find that they acted too early or too late.

Time for bed! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jim coil - 04:45 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #482 of 773
If "it's" in the News; it is either a fabrication, exaggeration, distortion, or bald-face lie. Take your pick.

bump 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 05:39 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #483 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Jim: Huh? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jim coil - 05:43 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #484 of 773
If "it's" in the News; it is either a fabrication, exaggeration, distortion, or bald-face lie. Take your pick.

Just moving the good threads up - 
(BOOKMARK)

Don S. - 10:43 am PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #485 of 773
Class Maledictorian

The last time the Prez and Veep were from different parties (Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr) it led to a duel (Hamilton) and a trial for treason (Burr).
Wrong on both counts. The election of 1800 (Jefferson-Burr vs. Adams) was the first election in which partisanship was clearly evident. All of the anti-Federalist electors cast their two votes for their "ticket": Jefferson-Burr, resulting in a tie.

The 12th Amendment, which allowed separate votes for president and vice-president, resulted from the election of 1800.

Hamilton was a Federalist, which was the source of his friction with Burr.

The last time the Electoral College elected a president and vice-president of different parties was in 1796, when the Federalists chose Adams and the anti-Federalists chose Jefferson. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:40 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #486 of 773

Kevin Douglas wrote,

"While the consitution gives the legislature responsibility for the appointment of electors (it has to set out the rules, guidelines, etc.) is it bound by the rules it set with respect to the popular election of electors?"

The Constitution says the legislature may appoint electors in the manner of their choosing. It does NOT say in a manner they have chosen prior to the election, nor does it say "as state law directs". Perhaps the Supreme Court will interpret it thus, but this would just be blatant overreaching, albeit perhaps for a good cause. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis X. Machina - 01:44 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #487 of 773
"Cato used to say that Caesar was the only sober man who ever tried to wreck the Constitution." "Marci Catonis est: unum ex omnibus Caesarem ad evertendam rem publicam sobrium accessisse." Suetonius

The Constitution says the legislature may appoint electors in the manner of their choosing.
A law-school hypothetical. In Maine, four copies of the state tax returns are mailed out with an extra insert where the mail-in envelope should be.

It says -- 'Congratulations. You are a presidential elector!'

Legislation adopting this method of choosing electors was passed in the ordinary way by the Maine legislature.

Constitutional? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:11 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #488 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Stealing an election being a good cause. Mr. Usher, thanks for telling us you are a criminal and advocate criminal activity to overthrow the government. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 02:14 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #489 of 773

Uncharacteristically slanderous, S.S. Newberry wrote,

"Stealing an election being a good cause. Mr. Usher, thanks for telling us you are a criminal and advocate criminal activity to overthrow the government."

I did NOT advocate any of this, but merely pointed out that the constitution allows for it. There are many things in the constitution I'd like to change, and I certainly do not view statements about the constitution as implicitly normative, as you have in this instance. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 02:16 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #490 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will interpret it thus, but this would just be blatant overreaching, albeit perhaps for a good cause.
The Florida legislature is planning to select electors "as state law directs". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 02:25 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #491 of 773
Class Maledictorian

I wrote:

The last time the Electoral College elected a president and vice-president of different parties was in 1796, when the Federalists chose Adams and the anti-Federalists chose Jefferson.
Actually, this happened -- on purpose -- in 1864: Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Andrew Johnson ran on a "national union" ticket.

Just wanted to slip that in before someone called me on it.
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:31 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #492 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Which isn't exactly a slip, they ran as members of "The Union Party". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 02:41 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #493 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Although I don't much like the idea of the Florida legislature choosing 25 Bush electors, I see nothing in the Constitution that would obviously prohibit such an action. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 02:52 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #494 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The legal reasoning required is beyond the capacity of a court that includes Scalia and Thomas.

In front of the Warren Court I would argue that it violates "due process" and the democratic government clauses of the constitution, as well as the long standing principle that a legislature cannot nullify a suceding election. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 02:55 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #495 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

The Constitution was explicitly amended to require direct election of Senators, but never to require direct election of presidential electors. The unelected Colorado electors of 1876 were never challenged, though several other states' electors were.

If one regards the Florida election as statistically tied, with the margin of victory smaller than the measurement error, the only fair thing to do is appoint 12 Bush electors and 12 Gore ones... 
(BOOKMARK)

Beth Meacham - 03:38 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #496 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

The reason that the Florida legislature cannot at this point select their own slate of Electors is that they have already, by law, delegated that choice to a vote of the citizens of Florida.

The Constitution says that the Legislature is responsible for estabilishing a method of selecting Electors. They have done so. They established by law that Electors in 2000 would be selected in the general election. They cannot now, after the fact, change the method. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E.X. Cathedra - 03:44 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #497 of 773
Creationists, Holocaust deniers, Republicans; arguing with these people only gives their ideas the illusion of merit.

FYI, here are the latest unofficial popular vote numbers for the presidential race. I've been keeping tabulations (from state election Web pages, telephone contacts, etc.) since election night, and as states finish counting ballots not included in initial totals, the numbers continue to show a steady Al Gore lead.

As of 3:30 PST:

Gore: 50,424,439

Bush: 50,052,342

margin: +372,097 for Gore 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 04:04 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #498 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

1876 is not good precedent for obvious reasons. Nor was the logic that re-applied the 14th amendment to the states in force at that time, so any legal decisions made at that time have been overturned because the controlling cases have been overturned or superseded.

The brief I would file would run like this:

"Ove the course of the last 211 years, few parts of the constitution have caused as much debate and difficultly, and none have been so frequently amended, as the sections dealing with the election of the president and vice-president."

"The original United States of America had appointed Senators, and even envisioned an Electoral College as a deliberative body."

"Now however, we have direct election of senators - and by long standing tradition, the electors of the states are chosen by ballot. It is our contention that allow any state the right to choose electors by any means other than by ballot violates the due process rights of the citizens of all states. We argue this because these citizens have no standing to sue another state, and they have no say in the laws of that state. What would prevent that legislature from anulling their own state's judiciary powers in any case whatever, if, by simple ballot, they may effectively nullify any action of any court, and may do so without fear of appeal.""

"Further it abrogates a basic principle of federalism - The states are forbidden, by the full faith and credit clause, from abbrogating the rights granted by other states. What right more precious than the vote?"

"In addition, the election had already been held. Under the democratic government clause of the constitution, the ability to abbrogate an election, simply because the legislature does not like its results, is a power foreign to the constitution. What would prevent the legislature from abbrogating the election of the next legislature - if such did not turn out to their liking? "

"Thus, because of full faith and credit, due process and basic principle of democratic government, the appointment of electors by the legislature overturning the results of an election must be ruled unconstitutional. It is, in effect, an attempt by one party in a dispute to avoid propert judicial review, and to avoid abidding by the results of proper judicial review. It is an attempt by the legislature to not only draft law, but to make law."

"We now get to the particulars of this case. The bill in question, on its face, is a bill of attainder, because it deprives, by legislative fiat, one candidate of a slate of electors and awards them to another. Being a bill of attainder on its face, the court cannot help but hold that no only the general principle is violated, but that this is a particularly grevious example."

"Thus we ask the court to order that the state of florida complete its lawful process for the contesting of ballots, and extend the reasoning of the 14th amendment to prevent the enforcement of an instrument of attainder by any state. We further ask that the court enjoin any other party from interfering with the constitutionally mandated process by which Florida chooses its electors." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Captain Billy - 04:23 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #499 of 773
"I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

Oooooooooooh, there's the lad Stirling.....I note that you continue your wordy posts here....You post more and say less than anyone on the web..... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 04:40 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #500 of 773

Beth Meachem,

Nothing in the consitution requires the Florida legislature to appoint electors according to previously codified state law. On the contrary Article II specifies that states shall appoint electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” The end. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 05:16 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #501 of 773

"Wrong on both counts. The election of 1800 (Jefferson-Burr vs. Adams) was the first election in which partisanship was clearly evident. All of the anti-Federalist electors cast their two votes for their "ticket": Jefferson-Burr, resulting in a tie."

I'm not wrong. Maybe I didn't express myself well. You're right about the election of 1800. It was a tie, went to the House, and Jefferson (the Democratic-Republican) beat Burr (the Federalist) because Hamilton (also a Federalist) threw his votes to Jefferson (because he hated Burr). And Burr, under the old rules, because Vice President (it was the consolation prize).

And what happened next? Hamilton and Burr fought a duel (goodbye Hamilton) and Burr was later tried for treason (historians still debate whether that was justified or trumped up by Jefferson). How was I wrong? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:21 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #502 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Which is why the argument goes to the 14th amendment's due process protection. The legislature hath not the power to pass a bill of attainder, nor may it "direct" the selection of electors in such a manner as to be contrary to the full faith and credit clause.

In otherwords, the legislature does not have the power to arbitrarily appoint electors.

This is, again, a case of the republican party of florida being so crassly partisan that it does what is wrong, and unconstitutional. They don't need to appoint a slate of electors. There already is a certified slate - for George Bush even. All the need to do is meet, pass a law stating that if, as of 12 December there are still claims in progress against a presidential election, then the slate initially certified is to be sent to Washington, and is bound to vote as instructed by the original ballot.

Same outcome - and no question that the legislature "appointed" whoever it wanted.

But of course, to do this in time would require Jeb put his hand to it. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beth Meacham - 05:28 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #503 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

I believe that the Florida election laws forbid any change of procedure after the date of the election.

The Fla. lege can make all the changes they want in the way Florida's electors are selected next time around. But they can't nullify this election.

In other words, if the Gore contest proves successful, the legislature can't overrule the election and still send the Republican electors. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 05:32 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #504 of 773

"The Constitution says the legislature may appoint electors in the manner of their choosing. It does NOT say in a manner they have chosen prior to the election, nor does it say "as state law directs"."

I suspect you're right. There's nothing in the constitution which requires the the direct election of presidential electors. Legislatures are elected bodies and so they are ultimately accountable to the voters (and that's probably enough to justify direct appointment).

I disagree with a previous poster, if they're going to appoint they should go all out and select 25 (the 12-13 thing is silly because no other state does it this way). Obviously this is an exceptional situation. Bush has been certified and if that's overturned it would mean there is a constested result (there is ZERO chance a clear winner can emerge in two weeks).

If it looks like this will happen I hope Gore conceeds, it's not a great precedent, in theory this could become a regular feature in presidential elections (though in fairness the Florida situation is extremely unusual, not only is the popular vote tied but one party controls both houses of the legislature and the governorship, I don't know if that's true in many other states and it's an essential condition to appointing electors in this way). 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 05:32 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #505 of 773

S.S.Newberry,

What part of the actual text of amendment XIV? Is your statement an actual quote? Sorry to nitpick, but with our 1st amendment and article II disputes revealed that exact words are important.

And you still haven't apologized for calling me a 'liar' - even though I stood on solid ground, as my responses show.

Good, smart, informed people disagree on this stuff all the time, you know. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:41 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #506 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

No I don't apologise for asserting that you lied, because you did misstate the actions of the Florida State Supreme court. You obviously have decided to hold to this lie for whatever reasons you like, but that does not change the fact that your statement that the court "overturned" a law is incorrect. Now go look up the relevant sections of Title IX and maybe you will see the light of day - the relevant sentence does not read "The elections returns must be in by 7 days no exceptions under any circumstances." Nor does it even ennumerate circumstances. The SoS used her discretion under the statute, and the court ruled she had abused her discretion under the statute. The law in this case really is clear, not muddled, and the Florida State Supreme Court's decision - while I disagree with it - is within the law. Where the court made law is by asserting that recounts had to have a deadline, no such deadline for recounts is specified.

The relevant clause of XIV is

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 05:42 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #507 of 773

"The Fla. lege can make all the changes they want in the way Florida's electors are selected next time around. But they can't nullify this election."

But the legislature has the authority to change Florida law. I think that's the point the other poster is making. Not only does the consitution make the legislature responsible (not the state) but the legislature is the body which makes all of the laws.

Even if the constitution of Florida addressed this question directly (and I'm pretty sure it dosen't) it would be in conflict with the federal constitution.

Lastly, this whole notion of "nullifying" this election is itself part of the issue. What if there is a contested result? If the Florida Supreme Court pronounces Al Gore the winner there is no way (from what I can see) that this can be done with finality (because every issue of this election, in theory, can be litigated for months in state and federal court, under Florida state law the contest phase has no statutory ending).

Federal law very much anticipates a situation where there is a contested result with no clear winner (which, to me, looks like where this is going).

I cited a federal law earlier which requires, in situations where two sets of electors are appointed, Congress is required to accept those which are backed by the governor of the state (which complicates things yet again, under this scheme the legislature doesn't have unlimited power, but the conflict is still resolved). 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 05:44 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #508 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The right to vote is a privilege of the citizens of the US, and the awarding of electors to one party and depriving them from another party is depriving one party of liberty without due process of law since - again according to the wording of the amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the ... immunities of the citizens of the United States."

Which must be construed to mean is no state may pass a bill of attainder, since that is one of the immunities of the citizens of the united states.

Whether a court packed with nincompoops will be able to see this is another story, this is the court that has only gotten worse since Bowers v Hardwick - itself one of the worst decisions ever handed down by any court in US history. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:45 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #509 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Note from above, while florida law prohibits a change in procedure, this is law, not constitutional amendment. The legislature can amend the law and change the procedure in a single bill. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beth Meacham - 05:50 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #510 of 773
"Gore beat you! The people don't want you! How dare you tell us that if we object, we are unfairly partisan!" -- Mario Cuomo

So you're maintaining the position that the legislature can make ex post facto law?

I agree that they can, right now, write legislation that say that if the electors are still being contested as of December 12, they can then appoint a slate. But I really don't think they can revoke the laws that provided for the direct election of Electors after that election has occured. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:53 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #511 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

No, the 12th of December has not happened yet. Note carefully how it is done - the contests to the election are not cut short, but the electors are sent anyway. In otherwords, the legal theory is that the electors are merely acting as provisional electors until the real ones are found. Haha of course, but that is the legal theory which it would work under.

In theory, if the contests produce a different winner between the 12th and the opening of the ballots of the Electoral College, the state's delegation in congress could contest its own electors and replace them with those certified after the 12th.

Fat chance in this case, but any member of the Florida delegation could do it. The Republican house would then certify, the republican senate would then certify (having refused to seat Jean Carnahan) and the result is exactly the same as if they had appointed the slate. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 05:56 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #512 of 773

"The SoS used her discretion under the statute, and the court ruled she had abused her discretion under the statute. The law in this case really is clear, not muddled, and the Florida State Supreme Court's decision - while I disagree with it - is within the law."

I don't think that's true, I think the FSC completely overturned Florida statute, made no intent to harmonize, indeed undid the whole statutory framework, to help Al Gore.

Accept the original assertion about recounts, that they were intended to address actual failures in machinery (not inefficient performance which has been a regular feature of Florida elections for decades) and the whole statutory framework makes sense, the SoS exercised proper discretion, the one tiny conflict ("shall" vs. "may") becomes moot because "may" still includes, in this instance, the authority to say "may not").

The FSC misinterpreted the statutory framework on recounts, created a conflict where none existed, and converted the "shall" vs. "may" conflict into "shall not" (which is difficult to justify. It's not just the deadline.

Or that's how it looks to me. I don't know the circumstances in which the USSC takes upon itself the responsibility for overturning a state supreme court but in this case I think they clearly have grounds. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:58 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #513 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

And of course the bill would be timed to be passed on the 12th itself so there would be no time for appeal. Which is why I say that Jeb would have to sign his name to it. The automatic 7 days would either fall after the federal deadline, or give the FSSC a day to overturn the bill as unconstitutional - which they might do. By signing the bill himself at one minute before midnight, the electors are chosen, and the court does not even have time to issue an injunction, since it cannot enjoin an action before the law is passed. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 06:06 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #514 of 773

S.S.Newberry wrote,

“...court "overturned" a law is incorrect.”

Now you’re speaking sensibly. I shouldn’t have used the word ‘overturn’, which has its own legal meaning. I should have written ‘nullify in this instance’, which is more neutral, and refers only to effect.

As for the optionality of the deadline, we have one stature that says “shall” and a newer one that says “may.” Even taking “may” as superceding “shall” by virtue of being newer, I still see it as outside the court’s interpretive authority to impose a new deadline simply on the basis of the “recount” statute. It seems to me what is needed is an adequate system and funding to conduct these manual recounts within the guidelines set by the legislature.

The XIV amendment clause is interesting and potentially applicable. Do you hold that this is some way nullifies Article II?

I agree that Katherine Harris is partisan as can be. I feel basically the same way about the Florida court, and, indeed, just about everyone invloved.

If you still will not apologize for “liar”, that’s just sad, considering your refusal to own up to your mistaken readings of Amendment I and Article II.

As for Bowers vs. Hardwick, I’ll tangle with you on this any day. Penumbrae??? The only thing that can be said is that it contradicts Griswold vs. Connecticut. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:08 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #515 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

A bill of attainder is a legislative act finding someone guilty of a crime. I don't see how this is relevant in any way to the current controversy. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 06:13 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #516 of 773

"What would prevent that legislature from anulling their own state's judiciary powers in any case whatever, if, by simple ballot, they may effectively nullify any action of any court, and may do so without fear of appeal."

States effectively do have this power so long as what they don't violate the federal constitution. Let's imagine a situation where one party controls the legislature by a 2/3 margin and executive branch. Another controls the state supreme court (hmm, let's call that state Florida).

The two sides can play a cat and mouse game with each other but the first party, effectively, should be able to write whatever legislation it wants, amend its constitution in any manner it seeks, and so long as they don't break federal law they should be able to prevail.

What is judicial power? Courts are not an equal partner in the legislative process. Those which act as if they are should get their butts kicked. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 06:17 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #517 of 773

Want to clarify the above. I'm not suggesting that a legislature can exempt itself from judicial scrutiny. Just that such scrutiny has to be reasonable. If a court finds that a particular action is against the state constitution the legislature can amend the state constitution, etc. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:21 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #518 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

A bill of attainder is one which deprives an individual of life, liberty or property without a court or trial. The court has ruled on same repeatedly whenever it crossed congress' mind to try and pass a bill which de facto applied to one person.

The XIV amendment clause is interesting and potentially applicable. Do you hold that this is some way nullifies Article II?
 
 
It clearly sets limits on state power. But the amendment also has one of the most tangled histories of interpretation. It no longer means what it says because of a long history of right wing judicial activism to strip it of the meaning, as such much of its force was brought in through the back door.

Several bookshelves filled with very heavy books have been written on this issue - to what extent does the 14th amendment control the states. In this case, since it is for a federal office, one would have to argue that it is the controlling legal authority.

That is that the state is acting as an agent for the rights of the citizen at the federal level, and hence cannot abridge those rights. This would be analogous to local officials being charged under federal civil rights statutes for local actions. Again, the court has repeatedly taken a relatively broad interpretation of the Federal government's right to intervene with respect to federally granted rights.

Where the question gets tricky is that there is a federally imposed deadline, and the court would be in a much more difficult position to say that a bill which required that the state meet the deadline was unconstitutional, since otherwise the electors of the state could be lost entirely. It would also be hard to say that a law which required that previously certified electors be sent in the event of on going contest to the election is an unconstitutional limiting of the citizenery's due process right - since the federal deadline moots the contests. That is the federal government has cut short the citizens' legal remedy through contesting an election, and the state is merely passing a law which dictates that provisional electors chosen by ballot be sent to avoid disenfranchisement.

Since the republicans themselves could keep matters tied up, the bill would effectively be the same as the legislature appointing the electors, but would not actually have them do so. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 06:28 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #519 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Again the state did not nullify the deadline - the SoS is still free to penalise the boards of election that did not comply with the deadline. For the deadline to be nullified the supreme court would have had to have said one of the following:

1. The SoS may not penalise canvassing boards which failed to meet the deadline as provided for by the statute. Which it did not.

2. The SoS has no discretion whatever to reject late counts. Which again it did not.

3. That the canvassing boards do not have to supply reasons for the delay to the SoS. Which again it did not.

There is no "deadline" in the statutes in the sense of an absolute wall. There is a point where the SoS does not have to wait any longer if she chooses not to and which she may punish canvassing boards that have failed to produce certified results. The statute does not say that results of the election are only those ballots received by a certain point in time, it does not say that the SoS can not accept results returned after that point in time, and it does not specify that all recounts must be completed by that time.

The so called deadline as the Republicans are presenting it is the point where the canvassing boards are expected to turn in results (must) or face the consequences (penalties and potentially having their counties votes not included in the state total). The SoS has discretion under the statute - which again I wish you would bother to read, as opposed to reading Rush Limbaugh's Short Guide to Florida Election law. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 06:29 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #520 of 773

S.S.Newberry,

How does a citizen have a constitutional right such that, if his vote be in the popular majority in any given state, that this be reflected by the state's electors? Where is this right? Article II seems to me to be pretty clear. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:29 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #521 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The county which flagrantly violated the law was actually Nassau county which threw out the mandatory recount results. I don't notice the SoS diligently fulfilling her duty and whacking them with the required fine and refusing to certify their results - wonder why. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 06:33 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #522 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

How does a citizen have a constitutional right such that, if his vote be in the popular majority in any given state, that this be reflected by the state's electors? Where is this right? Article II seems to me to be pretty clear.
In case you haven't noticed Amendment XIV comes after Article II. Which means its provisions alter what came before. What was legal prior to Amendment XIV for states to do is not legal afterwards. Since some citizens can vote for the electors directly, then it is an abridgement of that privilege for states to deny it to their own citizens.

Which is why I refer you back to the full faith and credit clause. Which is, incidentally, why people scrambled to pass the blatantly unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act", because marriages are covered under the full faith and credit clause as well. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 06:34 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #523 of 773

S.S.Newberry,

Yes, the Nassau stuff is farce. Their defense is that the mandatory recount was itself supposedly flawed, based on 200 votes that were somehow "overlooked" in it, but not in the original count. A psychotic paranoid might think that they deliberately conducted a flawed recount, so as to be able to later void it...

I'm sorry, but I still don't see how Amendment XIV bears on the proposed individual consitutional right to have the legislature send a certain slate of electors. Maybe I would if I thought about it longer. How is a state-granted right fall under "privileges or immunities of citizens" Do you hold that "equal protection" should void all differencs between different state's laws, such that if California granted a right to smoke the good stuff, that folks in Georgia could, too? Enlighten me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 06:42 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #524 of 773
Class Maledictorian

I'm not wrong. Maybe I didn't express myself well. You're right about the election of 1800. It was a tie, went to the House, and Jefferson (the Democratic-Republican) beat Burr (the Federalist) because Hamilton (also a Federalist) threw his votes to Jefferson (because he hated Burr). And Burr, under the old rules, because Vice President (it was the consolation prize).
And what happened next? Hamilton and Burr fought a duel (goodbye Hamilton) and Burr was later tried for treason (historians still debate whether that was justified or trumped up by Jefferson). How was I wrong?
Here's how:

1. Burr wasn't a Federalist. He was what was then known as a Republican (or Democratic-Republican), as was Jefferson. Jefferson and Burr ran as a sort of ticket, in the years before the Consititution tacitly recognized — with the adoption of the 12th Amendment — the existence of parties. (When the 1800 tie occurred, Burr got the notion he might be elected president instead of vice president, and there's a theory that he tried to bargain for Federalist support in the House of Representatives — perhaps that's the origin of your idea that Burr himself was a Federalist. But he wasn't.)

2. Burr and Hamilton's duel didn't occur until 1804, during Burr's campaign for Governor of New York (having been dropped from Jefferson's re-election "ticket"), during which Hamilton's opposition was indeed a factor.

Here's a cite:
<http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/vp/vpburr.html>. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 06:45 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #525 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The argument - and it is an argument since the court has never ruled on this issue - runs as follows.

The 14th amendment states that no state may abridge the rights granted by the federal government to its citizens, and under the original full faith and credit clause, no state may deny its citizens rights that they had or have in other states.

Since citizens in every state - other than Florida - had the right to vote for electors, Florida may not abridge this right - since the right to vote for electors is not a state right, but a federal right. While Florida has the right, as a state, to determine how it selects electors, it does not have the right to do so by abridging its own citizens rights. For example it could not prevent individuals from voting based on failure to pay tax, sex, color or previous condition of servitude, or age over 18. It cannot deprive citizens of the right to vote for electors who have the right to vote on other matters, nor can it deprive a citizen the right to vote without "due process of law".

Now, if the Florida nullifies an election and appoints electors, it is therefore:

1. Abridging a right to exersize a vote for electors which all other citizens of all other states have.

2. It is nullifying an election, in violation of democratic government.

3. It is removing their right to vote for electors - since they had the right when they voted - without substansive due process. That is the citizens of Florida aren't guilty of anything and have not been convicted of anything. And doing so by a bill of attainder to boot, which is also forbidden under the constitution to the federal government, and as an "immunity" of the citizens of the US, the state shall pass no law abridging it.

Again, nobody has been foolish enough to attempt this in the modern era of constitutional law, and the court, as a result, has never had to rule on it. But appointing electors is, on its face, suspect - especially when doing so after an election for same electors has occured and been certified. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 07:25 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #526 of 773

Talk about hyper-federalism! That is an EXTREMELY broad reading of full faith and credit.

"...no state may deny its citizens rights that they had or have in other states." Again, are you saying, if California gives me the right to toke up, then I can do so in Georgia, too?

"Florida may not abridge this right - since the right to vote for electors is not a state right, but a federal right."

How so? Certainly not based on Amendment XV, which only prevents people from being discriminated against vis--vis other people in their state. Sorry, is there something else I'm missing? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:06 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #527 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Hyper-Federalism to follow the exact wording of the federal constitution in an election for a federal office? After all the Supremes regularly intervene in the drawing of districts, both federal and state (there is one such case in front of the court right now) and ruled on the one man-one vote standard. Clearly the intent of these decisions is to make sure that citizens every where have equal access to the ballot.

I would not read the full faith and credit clause so broadly, except that the court has been with me on this one repeatedly, voting rights are the area where federal protections are read most broadly.

How so? Certainly not based on Amendment XV, which only prevents people from being discriminated against vis--vis other people in their state. Sorry, is there something else I'm missing?
Since my argument flowed from Amendment XIV looking at the right law might help you a great deal.

There is ample precedent for the Supremes telling a state how it may or may not conduct an election to comply with federal standards, between districting, voting standards, qualifications, absentee ballot standards and federal mandates on protections for minority ballots.

Any reading that Article II gives the states carte-blanche to do as they like comes out of an era where being free,male, white and 21 wasn't enough to vote in half the states. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 08:20 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #528 of 773

I'm sorry, Sterling, but I've been looking at the exact wording of XIV as you have presented it and I still don't see it. I only mentioned XV because I didn't know where else to look. Marriage is a status or a judgment, and falls cleanly under full faith and credit. I just don't see that your proposed right to have your vote, if it is in the majority, bind the state in its selection of electoral slate. It seemse to me that if the intention was to abolish Article II, they would have spoken more directly. Of course amendments override earlier parts of constitution, but you're talking about a serious penumbral stretch vs. clear and unambiguous language. It'd be like saying the penumbral "right to privacy" overrides the requirement the the President be born in the United States, as it would violate a candidate's privacy to ask him that.

All three reconstruction amendments explicitly address the racial issues/the right of equality before the law. This does not been that state laws have to be the same, only that they must be equally applied in their respective jurisdictions. That is what restricts Article II in the way you describe. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:30 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #529 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:33 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #530 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

If Florida decides to appoint electors while its own contest procedure is in place, it is attempting to abridge the rights of its inhabitants to vote - and according to amendment XIV they are both citizens of Florida, and of the United States.

Since a state may pass no law - and appointing the electors will be a law - which abridges their rights as US citizens - all that needs to be shown is that voting for electors for president is a right of US citizens, rather than a right granted separately to the states.

Which, in light of later law is like rolling off a log, because every case that comes to the supreme court involving voting rights gets there under the theory that the right to vote for federal office holders is a right granted to the citizens of the United States. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:37 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #531 of 773

I STILL don't see it! Am I blind? How is it a "privilege of immunity" to have your vote, if it is in the majority, determine a state's selection of electors? How has anyone been deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? How has anyone been denied equal protection? Florida's laws are being applied equally to all within its jurisdiction.

"If Florida decides to appoint electors while its own contest procedure is in place, it is attempting to abridge the rights of its inhabitants to vote - and according to amendment XIV they are both citizens of Florida, and of the United States." How does this follow? What do you mean they're both citizens? Both of who?

Please, you'll really have to spell it out to me. This must be frustrating for you, but I'm reading it, I'm thinking about it, but I still don't see it. 
(BOOKMARK)

Stirling S Newberry - 08:38 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #532 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The right to vote in a particular election is a "priviledge" of being a citizen.

Prior to the XIVth amendment one could argue that Article II gave the privilege of selecting the president to the states, who could, in turn, grant the right to vote to citizens of that state or not as they choose. Under this theory electors were chosen by states to the first presidential election.

However, subsequent law - amendments to the constitution, the Civil Rights Voting act and a host of cases - show that the right to vote for a federal office is a right of a US Citizen. In otherwords the state has the procedural right to run the election under article II, but not the substansive right to deny the vote to citizens of the US residing in its boundaries.

Since the substansive right adheres to the citizen - that is citizens vote for electors who vote for president, rather than states selecting electors who vote for president - the state may not pass any law, nor enforce any instrument which abridges this right. Nor may they, under supreme court decisions, effect any policy which by its effect or intent has a discriminatory impact on the vote. Nor may it deny rights granted in other states to its citizens.

In otherwords, the electors belong, not to Florida - the State - but to citizens of the US residing in Florida. We fought a war over this particular issue, and the States of the South lost on this one. It took over a hundred years to finally nail the point home. But that is another story. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:43 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #533 of 773

Yes, I know what it means, thank you.

Once again,

How is it a "privilege or immunity" to have your vote, if it is in the majority, determine a state's selection of electors? How is it a "privilege or immunity" to have the determination of that majority conducted in a particular manner, provided that manner is not discriminatory of protected status (i.e., race, creed, etc.)? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 08:50 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #534 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

As simple as it gets:

US Citizens have the right to vote in elections for federal offices.

The electors are a federal office.

Thus a state may not abridge the right to vote to select electors.

Voiding an election is abridging this right.

Lying doesn't help your credibility, nor does faux stupidity. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Supkis - 08:54 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #535 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

The Electoral College was designed to give slave owners more power than farmers up North.

It worked.

When the slaves were freed the former slave owners were ticked off and they conspired to eliminate all voting by former slaves and their descendants.

They succeeded and although the Census showed x number of people in the South, only a fraction were allowed to vote until 1964.

Since then our political landscape has roiled as the Southerners try to reestablish the old unfair methods and use the Electors to keep only reactionaries as President.

I wish we could get rid of the Electoral College. It is unfair and encourages intrangencence. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 08:57 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #536 of 773

Mr.Newberry wrote,

"Lying doesn't help your credibility, nor does faux stupidity."

Enough of this. I am not a liar. The "faux stupidity" was genuine confusion.

Unprovoked hostility sucks dick.

I now see the steps of your argument, but it doesn't seem strong enough IMHO to override the clear language of Article II.

"Thus a state may not abridge the right to vote to select electors." This will in no case be abridged.

"Voiding an election is abridging this right." Voiding what would hypothetically be the fourth of four determinations of majority is not voiding an election.

If you can't keep your baseless accusations in check, we ought to drop the subject. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Supkis - 09:02 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #537 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

The Republicans FAX Stupidity. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:15 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #538 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Unprovoked hostility sucks dick.
Why is it that the sexual act favored by most heterosexual males is receiving oral sex, and yet, when they have finally lost their cool, they say "sucks dick" as if it were a bad thing?

I mean, does Mr. Usher have to suck dick for a living, and thus finds it distasteful? Does Mr. Usher have an aversion to other people sucking dick? He seems to have a problem with people getting to vote for president, so I am not sure what other wierd ideas he might harbor.

Perhaps he should explain to us exactly why he thinks that sucking dick is such a bad idea?

As for unprovoked hostility - I'm afraid that Mr. Usher has tried to play nice, while acting as a hard core partisan for one side. He doesn't seem to realise that his routine has been obvious, and no one has been fooled. If you want to shill for a criminal conspiracy Mr. Usher, you are going to be treated like a criminal. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elaine Supkis - 09:18 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #539 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

They think dicks are cucumbers. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:21 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #540 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Have to tell this story. Was working at a restaurant when very young. One of the waiters was giving the maitre d' - who was very out of the closet - a difficult time about something. The maitre d' picked up a large cucumber and wave it at the waiter saying.

"See this? This cucumber makes me smile. I don't think you, Jim, could make me smile." 
(BOOKMARK)

Robert Kessler - 09:22 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #541 of 773

One question,

Considering that Gore wants "every vote counted"...and about 2,000,000 votes nationwide aren't being counted, how is Gore getting away with saying he won the popular vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:24 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #542 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

He who lives by the technicality talking point dies by it. Gore has stated that he is "ahead" in the popular vote. Which he is. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 09:25 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #543 of 773

"As for unprovoked hostility - I'm afraid that Mr. Usher has tried to play nice, while acting as a hard core partisan for one side." So after the failure of your dubious attempt to prove that amendment XIV makes Gore the president, you conclude that I must be a “hard-core partisan.” You are fucking ridiculous. I could sit and list all the “Democratic” causes I’ve endorsed (and, in very real ways, taken the heat for), but you would just treat that as weakness.

Did you not read that I am a SOCIALIST SYMPATHIZER, i.e., pinko?

“He doesn't seem to realise that his routine has been obvious, and no one has been fooled. If you want to shill for a criminal conspiracy Mr. Usher, you are going to be treated like a criminal."

You, Mr. Newberry, are the Jacobinist. You are the fascist. Neither beliefs or the expression thereof make one a criminal. And you had the nerve to invoke the first amendment! You have done nothing but prove that the partisans of BOTH sides are a bunch of fucking and, yes, cocksucking assholes. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Kessler - 09:27 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #544 of 773

Then isn't Mr. Bush ahead in the Electoral College? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 09:27 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #545 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

Do you people mind ? Try to have some e-courtesy with each other.

Moving on. Bush is only ahead in the electoral college if the courts rule for him on Florida. Without it he's behind in both the popular and electoral vote. With it, he's ahead in the electoral vote only. I should say Dick Cheney is. After all, he's the one running the show while AWOL coasts in Texas. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 09:34 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #546 of 773

MontyG,

Thank you for your input. I am a poster who NEVER flames first, and who ALWAYS accept offers of peace. But if some bozo flames me, who am I to refrain? 
(BOOKMARK)

Robert Kessler - 09:35 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #547 of 773

Didn't the the State Attorney General certify the vote in Florida? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 09:36 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #548 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

I understand, believe me, guy. It's just that x years later I've learned I can't let partisan bickering baggers get me down.

Try the twit filter if someone is really getting under your skin. Of course I have my own methodologies for managing assholes, but that's another story. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:45 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #549 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

To flesh out the legal reasoning.

According to Chisholm v Georgi (1793) sovereignty rests not in the states, but in the people of the United states, and for the purposes of sovereignty the state does not exist.

The election of the president is under the federal constitution, and its selection is a privilege of US citizens. Therefore article II gives procedural right to select electors, not substansive right. This because the soveriegnty belongs to the people.

Under Baker v Carr(1962) disputes over federal voting rights are decided at the federal level and there need be no judicial deference to legislative branches of government.

Under Nixon v Herndon (1927) the right to vote is a fourteenth amendment right protected under due process.

Therefore: since the sovereignty of the United States rests in the people, and the election of a president is an action with respect to the federal government, under Nixon v Herndon a state may not violate the citizen of the United State's due process right to vote in the election.

Sealing the deal is Reynolds v Sims(1964), the declaration that legislators, and that would include Electors to the College, are elected by voters, and not by any other entity. And Chisom v Roemer(1991) which sets the test of acceptability as a "results test". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 09:51 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #550 of 773

Mr.Newberry,

With all these citations, you have indeed left the realm of my familiarity. Given your broad, and I would say overbroad, readings of the parts of the constitution with which I AM familiar, I'm sorry to say I cannot take your interpretations of these rulings at face value. However, I will find judgements and respond in a few days. Perhaps I will come to agree with you. Will you continue to restrain your past tendencies towards unwarranted belligerence? 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 09:52 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #551 of 773

"That is that the state is acting as an agent for the rights of the citizen at the federal level, and hence cannot abridge those rights."

There's a bigger problem with your argument. The constitution, specifically, doesn't define any mechanism by which citizens vote directly for the presidency. It establishes that legislatures in each state are responsible for electors who then are responsible for electing the president.

Citizens, technically, have no right to vote for president. So how can the federal government (in this instance the USSC) step in to protect a nonexistent right?

Members of the Senate used to be appointed by state legislatures. This was changed in 1912 by federal amendment. Until that happened citizens had no federally protected right to vote for senators in their home states (though legislatures could delegate that authority to them and many states did).

How does the 14th amendment change this situation? Wouldn't we have to amend the constitution to assert that the president was elected by the people (with, presumably, some mechanism for contesting elections) before the USSC could act to protect this right? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 09:58 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #552 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

So how can the federal government (in this instance the USSC) step in to protect a nonexistent right?

I presume you mean the Supreme Court , right? And I suppose they can intervene in the same way they can intervene to invalidate lower federal and State courts and claim they know more about Florida State Law than the Florida Courts do. I suppose they can intervene and remove accountability to the courts as they have in several executive branches.

For more info see the excellent article on the Salon Page now regarding what SCOTUS may or may not do and the implications of. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:01 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #553 of 773

"Yes, the Nassau stuff is farce."

Nassau wasn't a farce. It was the lack of state certification, ironicly, which allowed the county canvassers to submit a more accurate total to the SoS. I'm suspect their explenation for what happened is accurate because the Democrats aren't challenging the facts, they're pursuing flimsy technicalities (eg. did the county board advertise a meeting in the proper fashion). Once the SoS certifies she can't accept amended returns but up until that point she has authority to do so. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 10:07 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #554 of 773

"Here's how"

You're right about Burr, I totally forgot, he belonged to the New York faction of the Democratic-Republicans. Okay, you got me on that one. I think the general point stands, though, presidents should be able to choose their Veeps, our system does not function well when it's done some other way (Jefferson hated Burr, as did a lot of people, would have never chosen him and I think never replaced him). 
(BOOKMARK)

Monty G. - 10:08 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #555 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

the Democrats aren't challenging the facts, they're pursuing flimsy technicalities

yeah, er, technicalities as in the Repugs doing everything they can to stall and prevent a legal recount from happening from (of all things) petitioning the Federal Courts to stop it to trucking in rent-a-mobs and housing them to riot and intimidate poll workers.

You guys are real shining gems of consistency and democracy, I'll say. Actually Mencken said it far better than I: In this world of sin and sorrow one must search for reasons to be grateful - as for me I rejoice in that I am not a Republican
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 11:06 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #556 of 773

"I presume you mean the Supreme Court , right?"

I'm not sure you got my point. You're assuming that a citizen's right to cast a ballot for federal offices applies across the board. The presidency might an exception to this rule.

The constitution sets out a citizen's right to vote for representitives (as originally written) as senators (as amended in 1912). Most federal offices, though, are filled through other methods (eg. appointment, it's not that case that every federal office is filled by election).

The constitution explicitly sets out this mechanism whereby state legislatures establish rules for the designation of electors, it doesn't qualify those rules in any fashion, these electors vote for the president.

It's a different situation, that's all I'm saying. If the constitution established that the presidency was determined by popular election then your 14th amendment argument might apply.

Federal law, on the other hand, sets forth standards by which Congress can accept or reject designated electors, choose from between competing slates, even have this choice forced upon them (eg. apparantly they have to accept the one which is backed by the governor of state).

All of this seems to suggest that presidential elections are unique, a different set of rules apply, and that federal courts, to some extent, have to respect those rules (even if no one is completely sure what they are right now).

From my reading federal law seems to anticipate the problem we're having now, that there probably can't be a contest phase where all of the issues which have to be litigated can be resolved before the electoral college meets.

If the Florida legislature appoints a set of electors it won't do so on the theory that it can preempt an election (or I'll suggest it doesn't have to do this). A much better argument would be that the results are contested (which will be true no matter what happens) and federal law seems to offer this as the preferred solution in such cases.

My read of 3.USC.5 (and similar federal laws) isn't that they restrict states (eg. require them to stick with rules established before an election, etc.), but that they limit the power of Congress, if a competing slate of electors shows up you have to accept this one (ie. the one, ironicly, which was endorsed by the governor).

I'm not sure why people are interpreting these laws in a different way (but they seem to undermine the argument you're offering, if I'm right the constitution sets forth a procedure for resolving a messy presidential election so that someone takes office on January 20, it's not up to the courts or even the Congress to resolve these disputes). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 11:15 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #557 of 773

So, Sterling, is the honorable and erudite Mr. Douglas also an ignorant fool, that he would have the temerity to disagree with you or (gasp!) say something that might help the evil Republicans? 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 11:17 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #558 of 773

"In this world of sin and sorrow one must search for reasons to be grateful - as for me I rejoice in that I am not a Republican."

Gore would have been so much better off if he had taken the high road early, demanded a handcount in every county in Florida according to some universal standard, and not bothered with litigation. Only the keenest partisan can fail to see that both parties, essentially, are following strategies where they try to disallow votes which should be counted and accept votes which should be excluded.

Nassau county is just one example of how the Gore campaign does this. The county canvassing board has a reasonable explenation for what happened, I'm guessing it's been checked, these votes should be counted but that means 50 more votes for Bush so they'll be contested (and then it just comes down to the political brawl, which officials, judges, etc., do you have on your side).

And Gore is going to lose the brawl. In some sense he already has. And the inability of Democrats to see this is one of the amazing things about this story. Partisans start from the assumption that we're right, they're wrong, so the end justifies the means, but the public steps back and try to figure out who is reaching for the high ground.

And when the answer is "no one" they'll let the two dogs fight, why get in the middle, and in this election the GOP has the bigger dog. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 11:26 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #559 of 773

Another argument just occured to me which is much more in keeping with the topic of this thread. No one has any doubt about what happens if a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. Doesn't this by itself limit a citizen's right to vote for president? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 11:27 pm PST - Nov 29, 2000  - #560 of 773

Kevin Douglas has it right. It's a no-holds barred fight to the death, and the GOP has many more pieces on the board. Their majorities in the Florida house and senate and in the U.S. House, plus the Florida executive quite simply outmatch Gore's counties and FL Supreme Court. We'll see which side the U.S. Supremes take. It's hard to imagine they will swing so far for Gore as to overcome the GOP's advantages. Same goes for public opinion, which as you say, views both factions as morally equivalent (I do). But we'll see. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 05:31 am PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #561 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

The tide of public opinion is turning against the republicans, as the outright corruption in the process comes to light.

The republican charge that both parties are equally corrupt ressonates with the myth in American politics that politicians are all lawyers gone bad, and gave the GOP a short term advantage in the polls for "just ending it".

But the differences are coming out, and like Bush' drunk driving cover up, it takes a while for that to gradually sink into the consciousness of the public. Politics is not a perfect market where all known information is already discounted into the polls, which is part of its virtue.

The essential difference between the two parties becomes clearer because Gore admits he could loose, while Bush never has. While their have been loud allegations of Democratic corruption and vote tampering by Republicans - they have, strangely enough, not filed any charges, nor produced a scrap of evidence which corrobrates their charges. We have, however, the confession of Republican operatives to what is substansively a crime. Always nice to go to trial with a confession, it simplifies things tremendously.

Douglas, Usher and the rest of the Lord Haw Haw fan club try and put a more civil face on what is a criminal conspiracy in the state of Florida to steal the election. 
(BOOKMARK)

Elaine Supkis - 06:21 am PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #562 of 773
Thrice I was struck by lightning while in a house. This is totally improbable and statistically incredible. Next: the impossible

Usher CIVIL?

Bwahahaha. Read the naughty words this irritating person posts! Always, his excuse to Mommy is, "he did it first!"

Usher, I will torment you at the other thread, the one where you pretend to be an intellectual.

Hee Haw! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:38 am PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #563 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Elaine,

I think it's time for your lithium again.

By the way, are you really sure the Europeans plan to team up with the Chinese to go to war with us?

You know, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you, but if you think they're out to get you you probably are paranoid...

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:11 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #564 of 773

S.S.Newberry, his asscheeks still stinging from Douglas' erudite retort of his legal opinions wrote, "Douglas, Usher and the rest of the Lord Haw Haw fan club..."

Who is Lord Haw Haw? Bush? I notice here and in FReeperland it is the practice of extremists to avoid using the real names of their opponents, so that they might forget their humanity.

Anyhow, if you think I'm a fan, show me the quotes! I only said I was sick of the lying-ass voodoo masters your holiness has foisted upon everyone else for the last eight years, and you know what? I'm not alone, hence your faction's apparent defeat.

Elaine, you're right. I DO care who does what to who first. It's the difference between AGGRESSION and INNOCENCE. Good enough for me. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:12 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #565 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

I haven't forgotten your humanity, you have. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:15 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #566 of 773

Well, why don't you try to remind us by applying a little good-old fashioned civility. Your bullshit is EXACTLY the reason I've been driven away from your camp. Here on TT, you take delight in such things, but out in the real world, you're supposed to draw people INTO your camp, remember? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 01:20 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #567 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Usher, you have lost any claim to civility by not practice the requisite honesty. It is a common fallacy to argue that a civil facade is sufficent, but this is not the case.

You are a liar, and you continue to lie. You demand a place in discussion, but do not discuss. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 01:39 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #568 of 773

S.S. Newberry, wrote,

"You are a liar, and you continue to lie."

I've asked you to back this up, but you've so far been unable to do so except to point out that I wrote "overrruled" when I should have written "nullified in this instance".

As for discussion, I, you and everyone else on this thread knows that it is my discussion of these issues, rather than my failure to do so, that has pissed you off.

Again, were you "dihonest" when you claimed that Article II SAID that electors shall be chosen "according to state law," or were you mistaken? I had initially assumed the latter, but since you so far haven't conceded the point, maybe it was deliberate after all.

If I am wrong about a point of fact, I'm happy to back down, but you are apparently psychologically unable to do so - the mark of a true fanatic. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 01:44 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #569 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

How about y'all taking all this personal stuff to email? (and God-willing perhaps Kevin can follow suit with his ideology/theology essays).

Moving, on the one particularly interesting point T.Usher made is that you don't draw people into your ranks by acting like a foaming polemic. Although I'm not sure persons that hit these boards are entirely open-minded, it's still a valid point - and precisely why I believe in the long-term the far right which has captized the Republican party is doomed. As in, what's going on in Florida, just doesn't appeal to most persons sense of fair play. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nicole E - 01:46 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #570 of 773
Strom Thurmond: one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel (courtesy of belinda blu)

First time I've posted on this thread, but I'd just like to say a few things.

1) At my last count, Gore leads Bush in the popular vote by close to 400,000 votes, and hundreds of thousands of votes still have yet to be counted.

2) New Mexico has been officially called for Al Gore, giving him an electoral total of 267 votes; he is thus three votes away from an electoral college victory, and 21 electoral votes ahead of Bush.

3) Republicans and Democrats both agree that if the votes in Florida were indeed recounted by hand, Gore would wind up with more votes. This is the reason Republicans give when they turned down the opportunity--offered twice by Al Gore and once by the Florida Supreme Court--to hand count the entire state.

4) About a week prior to the election the Bush campaign pledged that in the event Al Gore won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, that the Bush camp would challenge the vote and institute a legal and public relations blitz to pressure electors to follow the example of the popular vote. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty G. - 01:48 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #571 of 773
We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

yes, that sums it up very compactly,N. The rest is fluff. Thank you. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 01:55 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #572 of 773

"The tide of public opinion is turning against the republicans, as the outright corruption in the process comes to light."

There has been a lot of lying by attorneys and candidates during this process but the biggest howler at the present moment is this notion that there are 10,000 votes in Miami county which haven't been counted. The Bush campaign hasn't been honest about the real situation either (what should one do with the undervote throughout the state of Florida?).

What surprises me, though, is how many people get what's going on. There is a voter in Florida, apparantly, who has has requested a hearing in Judge Sauls' court, and he's going to argue that the whole undervote has to be hand counted according to standards which have been determined in advance. It's fascinating because that is the right solution (what common sense would suggest to a neutral party if he or she was looking on and had no vested interest in the outcome).

And not only has neither campaign approached the issue in this way but they're investing themselves in a rhetoric which is false (Gore's 10,000 ballots claim, fake in that it assumes that there are 10,000 votes waiting to be discovered, fake in the assumption that the situation in three counties is different than what exists in the rest of Florida; and Bush's claim that all undervotes are for neither candidate). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 03:45 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #573 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Nicole: New Mexico has officially certified its vote and all recounts are over? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Liam Wescott - 04:07 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #574 of 773
Gore won the popular vote; Bush won the unpopular vote

Ron,

Yup. NM is officially in the Gore column.

Not counting Florida's 25 electoral votes:

Gore: 267 EV
Bush: 246 EV 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 05:53 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #575 of 773

Yesterday I read that the Senate dems would agree not to take control from Jan.5-Jan.20 in return for greater parity in committee seats, staff sizes, etc. after Jan. 20, when the GOP will in all likelihood hold the tiebreaker. Should the election be thrown to congress, this makes Lieberman the sacrificial lamb. But then, if Lieberman is made VP in the Senate, then he's the tiebreaker, right? The Senate Dems are quietly operating as if Bush will win outright in Florida, either through the courts or the legislature.

Bush is now attempting to entice Democratic senators from states with GOP governors into his cabinet. If this succeeds, even the 50-50 senate split will be gone.

I can feel the Rooks entering the seventh ranks... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:05 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #576 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Bush is now attempting to entice Democratic senators from states with GOP governors into his cabinet. If this succeeds, even the 50-50 senate split will be gone.

Only if the Gov of the state is a Republican, otherwise status quo. How many Democratic Senators have Republican Govs?

Btw, I've heard Helms isn't it too great a shape. What if he can't make it into the Senate chambers to cast his vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 06:12 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #577 of 773

Well, Rj, they'll just wheel him in on a wooden frame like they do with Strom.

"How many Democratic Senators have Republican Govs?"

Great question. Don't know.

Breaux, maybe? He's the only one quoted who didn't rule it out, and he hasn't exactly been a great friend of Gore's. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 06:17 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #578 of 773

"Yesterday I read that the Senate dems would agree not to take control from Jan.5-Jan.20 in return for greater parity in committee seats, staff sizes, etc. after Jan. 20, when the GOP will in all likelihood hold the tiebreaker."

The question of whether the VP serves as a tiebreaker in procedural matters isn't clear (and that's something which would be decided by the Supreme Court). There's also no precedent at all for the Senate organizing itself in this fashion before the new president has been inaugurated (it has one duty before January 20, to count the electoral ballots).

This is another situation where the winner is going to take all. One can't negotiate constitutional responsibilities. The Democrats are pushing the best arguments they can but they're not going to prevail nor should they (there is no such thing as coalition government in the American system, that requires a parliament).

But what if Gore gets elected and Lieberman refuses the Vice Presidency? Then the Democrats would take control of the Senate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 06:19 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #579 of 773

It's going to take a miracle (or proof of a MAJOR GOP scandal) for Gore to get elected. He needs a Royal Flush and then some.

My main point was that the Senate Dems seem to have acknowledged that, hence the olive branches. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Newman - 06:28 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #580 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

When's the last time either house was evenly divided 50-50 by party? Is there a precedent for how to organize the house?

This has happened in some states, which I think resulted in a co-presidency or co-speakership and a total 50-50 split on all committees. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:30 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #581 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Kevin Douglas 11/30/00 6:17pm

There's also no precedent at all for the Senate organizing itself in this fashion before the new president has been inaugurated (it has one duty before January 20, to count the electoral ballots).

Actually, Amendment XX, section 2. specifcally states that Congress MUST beginning noon, the 3rd of Jan every year.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 06:33 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #582 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

That's a big "unless". And it says nothing about electing a president pro tem, whips, majority and minority leaders, committee chairs, etc. etc. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:33 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #583 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 11/30/00 6:28pm

Someone told me it has never happened in the Senate. It has been 51 / 49 before.

I don't know if it ever happened in the House. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 06:35 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #584 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Ron Newman 11/30/00 6:33pm

I believe the only time they've changed it (at least in recent times), has been when the 3rd falls on a weekend. The Amendment has only been around since 1933. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deborah Concord - 06:36 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #585 of 773
"Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake." — J.R. Ewing, lead character in the late 20th century American television show “Dallas”

Timothy--what would you consider a "major" GOP scandal? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 06:39 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #586 of 773

Such as if the Seminole County absentee ballots were proven fraudulent. It does look fishy, but so does a lot of what's going on (Miami-Dade recount - what were they hiding?) Xavier Suarez on one side with the absentees, Miami-Dade party organization on the other...

If Gore can prove that or something similar, the GOP will scurry to cut their losses. Otherwise, I think we've seen the end for Gore, at least for now. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 06:42 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #587 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Timothy,

Has anyone even suggested that the ballots, or even the applications, were fraudulent?

The only claim is that the GOP filled in numbers they shouldn't have on the applications for real voters who had already requested absentee ballots. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 06:45 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #588 of 773

Hail and well met, Xiang,

Supposedly, GOP volunteers took the ballots home prior to resubmitting them. But that still is not proof of fraud, anymore than it is that Democratic county volunteers handled some ballots in rooms with no Republican observers.

In these types of situations, fraud suggests, but does not prove, itself. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:22 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #589 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Timothy,

You're confused.

GOP volunteers never touched any ballots.

Just ballot applications.

I didn't know that Democratic country volunteers handled some ballots in rooms without Republican observers.

Do you have a source?

Do you agree that if this occurred there should be a serious investigation into how it happened and if anything untoward occurred?

In fact, doesn't it call into question any recount, whether machine or manual?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 07:27 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #590 of 773

Perhaps I am, fellow strategist Xiang.

"GOP volunteers never touched any ballots." This came from S.S. Newberry.

"I didn't know that Democratic country volunteers handled some ballots in rooms without Republican observers."

I read this in NYT. If I recall, the source was Beyer or whatever his name is, GOP lawyer.

EXTREMELY partisan sources, both. Is Newberry also a lawyer? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 08:03 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #591 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

I know nothing about Newberry.

I do know that the controversy over the absentee ballots is about applications.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:06 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #592 of 773

Yes, Xiang, this is a further allegation. Beyond that, I don't know the details. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 08:09 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #593 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Well, when you can provide a cite I'll be interested.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:11 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #594 of 773

I can't. Like I said, it came from Newberry, and I haven't got around to checking up on it. No need to get 'snippy.' 
(BOOKMARK)

Xiang - 08:14 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #595 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Me? Snippy?

Next you'll be complaining that I am disregarding the will of the people of Florida!!

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:21 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #596 of 773

Me? HAH! I would never say such a thing! "The will of the people of Florida" is indeterminate and abstract. The candidates and their voodoo-master consultants laugh at such naïvité. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by William F. Burton on 08:32 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
William F. Burton - 08:33 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #598 of 773
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

In Seminole County, Republicans corrected absentee ballot applications in the office of the Elections Borad. Democrats were denied the same opportunity.

In Martin County, the Republicans were allowed to take ballot applications home with them.

Several ballots have been found whose signatures didn't match the registration information. At least two of those people have sworn they never got their absentee ballots.

The Democrats will lose control of the Senate even if Lieberman becomes VP. The Governor of Connecticut is a Republican (though there is the possibility that Snowe, Chafee, or Jeffords might switch parties, since all are from relatively Liberal states). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 08:33 pm PST - Nov 30, 2000  - #599 of 773

William F. Burton,

Yes, thank you for reminding me. This crazy Senate stuff is making my head spin. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Voter Colonel - 01:14 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #600 of 773
No Gore in '04.

In case no one's posted it yet (I haven't followed this thread), for general amusement here's a link to Federalist Paper 68, which explains why we have the electoral college.

<http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fed68.htm
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Deleted message originally posted by Voter Colonel on 01:30 am PST - Dec 1, 2000)

Kevin Douglas - 03:03 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #602 of 773

I've been thinking more about appointment of electors by state legislatures and I'll offer my prediction for how the Supreme Court is going to rule.

State legislatures do have this power but only in one situation: when there is a genuine dispute over the result of an election. There have to be objective standards (eg. competing slates of electors) and if such a situation doesn't exist then a legislature can't act.

In the Hayes-Tilden election (which led to these federal laws) the Congress created an extra-constitutional commission to solve the problem of competing electors. It didn't work (or wasn't perceived as fair).

Title III is really a limit on federal power, it sets out rules so Congress will recognize one delegation from competing slates of electors, it doesn't have discretion (which is what created all of the problems in 1876).

I'm starting to think that a previous poster is right, though, the Supreme Court will not allow a state legislature to overturn the results of a popular election. I'm not sure how they'll get there (not convinced the 14th amendment is the excuse they'll use) but they'll put together something.

Unless, as I suggested, there is a genuine dispute, and this would just be an acknowledgement that there are close elections where the deadline for electing the president can pass before the judicial system can declare one winner.

That was the problem in 1876, there were disputes in four states, there was never a final judicial determination of who won in any of them (because deadlines passed, the judicial system was incapable of declaring a winner before the whole issue was mooted).

So what constitutes a fair dispute? That might be the way the Supreme Court decides the election (and in a manner which uses the solution which was devised 120 years ago).

The legislature wouldn't have to appoint electors for this scheme to work, by the way, once the election was certified Bush's electors were empowered, reversal wouldn't necessarily overturn this (it's a federal office), so you'd have two sets either way.

I could be wrong but that would be an elegant way to solve this whole controversy (the USSC could affirm the FSC, deny the Florida legislature its power to appoint electors, but then rule that electors are a federal office and if the result of the election changes there are two sets).

And in that situation federal law would give the state executive the authority to endorse one set over another (that would make some people very upset, of course, but that is the law as it was written 120 years ago).

Guess we'll find out. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 03:08 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #603 of 773

It just occured to me that in the above scenario the Supreme Court could rule that state legislators do NOT have the power to appoint electors in any situation and so long as they define "electors" as a federal office (a state can't overturn their appointment) it would lead to the same result. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 04:58 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #604 of 773

Wow, these are truly elegant solutions. I am interested to hear what Mr. Newberry thinks of all this.

Either way, the GOP has won. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 07:47 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #605 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Actually what Mr. Hamilton has to say on the subject is more to the point. State legislatures, according to Federalist 68 do not have the power to appoint electors, and Hamilton specifically warns of the dangers of "cabal, intrigue, and faction" that are prone when the president shall owe his office to any "pre-existing body of men".

The Republican partisans lied yesterday, they lie today, and they will lie tomorrow. 
(BOOKMARK)

Jim Sagle - 09:09 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #606 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

But lies are true when told by Republicans. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 09:55 am PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #607 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

And complimented by other Republicans as "cogent". 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 12:09 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #608 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Timothy Usher 12/1/00 4:58am

Either way, the GOP has won.
You are far too optimistic. There are other factors in play as well. The health of Thurmond and Helms, are some of the biggest.

What if either Thurmond or Helms can't make it to the Senate floor, retires or passes on. Both have been in the hospital in poor health over the last several months, and it's been rumored that [I believe] Helms still has pneumonia. If either Senator is replaced, both Govs in those states are Democrats.

In that case, it doesn't matter if Gore wins or loses, the Democrats would have slim control of the Senate, instead of the Republicans.

If Gore loses, the Dems have a 51-49 advantage.

If Gore wins and Lieberman becomes VP. The Senator that replaces him will be a Republican. And we would have a tie, again, but with Liberman as the deciding vote.

Things are far to close for either side to be smug.

<on edit> After watching Missouri, all it would take is another airplane to change the balance of the Senate. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don S. - 01:03 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #609 of 773
Class Maledictorian

Mitch McConnell for Sec'y of HHS!! 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:07 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #610 of 773

Sterling S. Newberry wrote,

"The Republican partisans lied yesterday, they lie today, and they will lie tomorrow."

An excellent argument, counsel. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Captain Billy - 01:27 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #611 of 773
"I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

If Gore loses, the Senate is split 50-50 with the Republican VP as the tie breaker. 
(BOOKMARK)

Ron Newman - 01:44 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #612 of 773
American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

Until Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms or preferably both kick the bucket.... 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RjHeaney - 02:01 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #613 of 773
I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

Which of the two was recently in the hospital for pneumonia? Whichever it was, I've heard he hasn't been out of his house since he was released from the hospital.

Those two old geezers are the real keys to the majority. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 11:22 pm PST - Dec 1, 2000  - #614 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

Let's hope for a quick and merciful passage. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stirling S Newberry - 10:39 am PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #615 of 773
traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

Usher -

I fail to understand why you think I should bring a knife to a gun fight. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 01:08 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #616 of 773

Stirling,

Fair enough, but there have been no such gun fights on this thread. So far, all the people you've accused of being right-wingers have refrained from these types of absurdities. Oh, they're out there, but I haven't seen any on Salon.

When I was in college, people were running around hunting for Klansmen and their ilk. Unfortunately, a P.C. liberal arts college isn't a very good place to look, but that didn't stop them, because if they weren't around, it wouldn't have been any fun! Predictably, they used innocent moderates as their scapegoats. MUCH easier and more convenient targets than the actual Klan, who wouldn't pay any mind to these P.C. guys anyway.

It seems to me you're awfully ticked about our national situation - and you have a right to be - but you're just taking out your frustrations on people right in front of you, whom you have in some subconsious way designated as scapegoats for the developments in the east.

We're all just shills for the right, Newberry. 
(BOOKMARK)

William F. Burton - 02:51 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #617 of 773
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Usher:
If the electors from Florida are not seated, the House doesn't decide. That's only if no one gets a majority of seated electors.

If two sets of electors show up (a likely case) bith Houses of Congress have to agree for either to be seated. Until January 20th, the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate. The Republicans have a slim majority in the House. A stalemate would most likely mean that neither set of electors would be seated (although the Supreme Court would get involved). This would give Gore the win. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 05:14 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #618 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

William,

The current thinking seems to be that if the House and Senate can't agree then Jeb Bush's recommendation determines which slate gets seated.

Even if that isn't correct, I don't think anyone denies that even if the House and Senate can't agree on who to seat there were still electors appointed.

That would mean that neither Gore or Bush wins in the electoral college and the House picks.

I think Bush wins in the end game unless something happens to change the minds of Republicans.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 05:21 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #619 of 773

I think it takes a majority in both houses to reject a set of electors, a majority in one house to accept a set of electors, and if there is a conflict the set which is backed by the seal of the governor of the state is seated. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 05:22 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #620 of 773

Yes, I figured the first part out a few weeks ago

This is the part that still confuses me:

"A stalemate would most likely mean that neither set of electors would be seated (although the Supreme Court would get involved). This would give Gore the win."

Under what authority would the second set of electors be sent, if not that of the Florida legislature or executive? For the FL Supreme Court to send them still seems to me blatantly unconstitutional, though I suppose there are those who would say the opposite.

p.s. Sterling S.Newberry,

Antonin Scalia is no fool, and he seemed to allude to some things I had said earlier about Article II - e.g., " “In fact there is no right of sufferage in Article II.” and, "I don't think that the Florida Supreme Court used the Florida Constitution as a tool of interpretation of this statute ... I read the Florida court's opinion as quite clearly saying, having determined what the legislative intent was, we find that our state Constitution trumps that legislative intent. I don't think there's any other way to read it. And that is a real problem, it seems to me, under Article II."

Another "shill for the GOP?" "Encyclopedic legal ignorance?" 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 05:27 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #621 of 773

It turns out that if the electoral college was divided up into Congressional seats Bush would be the clear winner in this election with approx. 280 electoral votes (so, um, don't think we'll be hearing that idea anymore).

I'm still waiting for someone to figure out what would happen if the EC vote was divided by % among the top two candidates.

I'm also wondering if there is a solution to the direct democracy problem. The constitution should be changed so that voters are directly responsible for electing the president. But how the heck could one settle close calls when the issues would be spread out over the entire country? (the margin in this election is .3%, 2% of ballots were spoiled, that would be an enormous mess). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 05:37 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #622 of 773

"Under what authority would the second set of electors be sent, if not that of the Florida legislature or executive? For the FL Supreme Court to send them still seems to me blatantly unconstitutional, though I suppose there are those who would say the opposite."

Who is an elector? He or she is someone who holds a federal office. Who has the authority to revoke or impeach an elector? To the best of my knowledge, no one. They're the drones of the federal system, they do this one thing and then get kicked out of the hive.

I think Congress is given the final job of certifying electors (so the important qusetion might not be how are they appointed but what happens when their votes show up). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 05:40 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #623 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Kevin, what's the point of doing it the way you suggest rather than just having a popular vote? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 05:41 pm PST - Dec 2, 2000  - #624 of 773

Greetings, Mr. Douglas,

The silliest idea of all is the "self-serving compromise" (Tom Tommorow's phrase) of having states split their slates if the election is a "tie" (i.e., victory within the supposed margin of error). Of course, this would in the future establish two threshholds of dispute rather than just one.

Is there any reason, other than Gore's probable defeat, for the clamor to establish a popular vote for president? What benefit would we derive therefrom? Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment, as earlier noted?

I guess this stuff has been beaten to death in the defunct Reforming the EC thread.

I also reiterate my earlier point that national balloting standards, with or without EC reform, would become a major political football; you can decide for yourself whether this is good or bad.

I fear this would promote the professionalization and scientificization of targeted/manipulative ballot design. At least the current system doesn't centralize this authority. 
(BOOKMARK)

Kevin Douglas - 02:31 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #625 of 773

"Kevin, what's the point of doing it the way you suggest rather than just having a popular vote?"

I'm not suggesting, I don't have a position. I think we should change the constitution so that the president is elected by the popular vote (put this in writing, make it a federal right).

I can see two problems with electing the president off of a straight popular vote, though. First, candidates who have very strong support in one part of the country but are disliked in the rest might start winning (and that's not good though the primary system might make it less of a problem).

Second, it actually increases the temptation for voter fraud because in a close election you can probably slip a million ballots under the transom and no one will notice (the electoral college, for all of its faults, at least makes it possible to investigate fraud, "safe havens", states which are controlled by one party, might become vote machines to influence the national election).

Keeping the EC system but dividing by percentages is both a practical solution (one could do this with an easy amendment) and it makes fraud almost pointless (eg. in Florida it would take 240,000 additional votes to win 1 extra vote in the electoral college, the present problem wouldn't exist).

But even that has problems. What do you do about third party candidates? I don't want people like Perot, Nader, and Buchanan to be the king makers in the electoral college (that's crazy).

One more idea, award additional federal electors to people who win a greater fraction of the popular vote (eg. 10 votes for every 1% over the second place candidate). That wouldn't change the result of this election but it would turn runaway candidates into clear winners. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 02:37 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #626 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Kevin,

You would probably end up with fifteen or twenty states close enough that a recount might shift an elector.

That would mean many more disputed elections and recounts in dozens of states.

Not good.

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Douglas - 02:41 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #627 of 773

"Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment, as earlier noted?"

It sure would and that's the major problem. It's hard to pass a constitutional amendment (you need 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all states). The only reform which can make it is one which is simple and doesn't change the situation too much (small states seem to like the extra votes they get but I think the large states are the real winners, I live in CA and we're treated like kings). 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Timothy Usher - 04:11 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #628 of 773

Just leave it alone - it ain't worth it. No compelling benefit. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deborah Concord - 04:19 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #629 of 773
"Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake." — J.R. Ewing, lead character in the late 20th century American television show “Dallas”

I think there's a compelling benefit to making sure each electoral vote represents the same number of actual voters. Right now a single electoral vote in Wyoming represents 225,000 voters, while a single electoral vote in NY represents 550,000 voters. Why is a person's vote worth only half as much in New York as in Wyomoing? It isn't fair and needs to be changed. 
(BOOKMARK)

Timothy Usher - 04:27 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #630 of 773

Hello, Deborah,

I recognize that, but can it be said that N.Y. is underrepresented in any practical way? It seems fund-raising and media influence makes up for it and then some. In the absence of anybody actually getting ripped off, and in the absence of any compelling practical benefit, why?

It would be a lot of political energy put into something has very little chance of passing through the legislatures, and even if successful might open up unforeseen cans of worms.

p.s. I live in California, and we've got it even worse. Still, I feel we have more than enough power as is. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deborah Concord - 04:44 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #631 of 773
"Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake." — J.R. Ewing, lead character in the late 20th century American television show “Dallas”

Well glad you feel that way Timothy but I think a vote is a vote and each electoral vote has to represent the same number of voters or it's an unfair system. Yes, having our electoral votes diluted in favor of increasing the value of electoral votes in the sparsely-populated states DOES mean that New York and California are underrepresented. Even if you do not "feel" that way, it is a simple mathematical fact.

We don't pick our presidents by who raises the most money or gets the most media attention. We pick them by electoral votes, each one of which should mean exactly the same thing as each other one, no more, no less.

What unforeseen can of worms do you think the principle of one man, one vote would open up? You mean the POPULATED states might actually have the influence they DESERVE to have, while the unpopulated states might be relegated to the dustbin where they belong? Sounds much fairer to me than the system we've got now. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 05:26 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #632 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Well, Deborah, those unpopulated states agreed to join the US in part due to a deal that promised that they wouldn't end up in the dust bin.

It's pretty dishonest to change that after the fact.

You're not a very ethical person, are you?

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
William F. Burton - 06:44 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #633 of 773
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Well, Xiang, those voters in Palm Beach and Dade Counties voted in part due to being promised that their votes wouldn't end up in the dustbin.

It's pretty dishonest to change that after the fact.

You're not a very ethical person, are you? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 06:49 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #634 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

William,

No one who followed directions had their votes trashed...

Except, of course, for the military voters that Gore's operatives disenfranchised...

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

William F. Burton - 06:52 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #635 of 773
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Two lies in one post. Good job. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Xiang - 07:18 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #636 of 773
Don't get snippy with me

Finger the lies, Willie...

Also, you might as well get ready to hail your new chief...

Xiang 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deborah Concord - 07:52 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #637 of 773
"Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake." — J.R. Ewing, lead character in the late 20th century American television show “Dallas”

Xiang, you are without doubt THE most annoying person on these boards, so if this has been your goal in life, you have achieved it.

William, thank you for your support.

Xiang, I know it is not worth my fingers' trouble to inform you of this, but the country has changed a bit since whatever deals were struck with the stupid states hundreds of years ago. We've also gotten rid of slavery if you haven't noticed. Times change, though conservatives, of course, do not (by definition, they live in a permanent time warp where nothing ever needs changing).

I guess it was "dishonest" of us to eliminate slavery because that was also part of the deal we made with the stupid states. I guess it was also dishonest to allow women to vote since that was not part of the original deal, either. Is there any aspect of human progress that you would not reverse, Xiang? 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jim Sagle - 09:27 am PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #638 of 773
GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

Xiang went a fart from my ass. 
(BOOKMARK)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Captain Billy - 01:38 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #639 of 773
"I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

In the last dozen or so posts, certain strawmen have again surfaced:

  • The small state vs the large state issue. This has been hashed and rehashed. And it has been pointed out repeatedly this means nothing. No states have benefitted from electors. The suggestion that Wyoming residents have more representation than CA or NY draws a blank. Electors never represent anyone - Senators and Congress-ers do.
  • Vote fraud. This would be no more of an issue with a pooular vote than the EC. All elections are local. We have local tracking on all ballots. Every state has a built in recount process for close votes.

  • If Smirk is certified president, he will be the fourth 2nd place president. Additionally, there has been several too-close-for-comfort calls....We can easily eliminate this abomination with a popular vote. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Xiang - 05:28 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #640 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    You know Cap,

    Just claiming that all issues have been resolved doesn't make it so.

    You have not dealt with either of the issues you have raised.

    Firstly, you have presented no evidence that small states are not treated better because of their disproportionate voting weight. You ask for evidence that they are, but since their treatment is due to a combination of factors no such evidence is possible.

    To see the bankruptcy of your position, please tell us what evidence you would accept to show that small states get treated better because of their disproporitionate electoral votes.

    Secondly, you have never addressed the issue that voter fraud is easiest in places where one party totally dominates. The electoral college makes this kind of fraud pretty useless - there was no benefit to Bush of cheating in Texas because he know he was going to win anyway. On the other hand, if we went by popular vote Bush would have had every reason to vote Texas's graveyards and the probable ability to do so.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 05:40 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #641 of 773

    Correct, Xiang.

    The argument is easily turned on its head. If small states' greater representation in the EC can't be said to help these states, why would increased representation of large states help the large ones? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Fred Dawson - 06:29 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #642 of 773
    Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

    I've wondered how a random system of redistricting would work. I would think a computer program could be given the job, with requirements regarding population size and making districts consist of contiguous areas. I know political power structures would hate this idea since they couldn't use control of the legislatures beforehand and could see key figures end up with weakened population bases. Normally they can probably keep such an idea from enactment but if the call for districting reform is strong enough, it could be set up. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:35 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #643 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Fred, I like your idea, but machines are too easy to tamper with.

    I prefer a more deterministic method.

    What about a scoring algorithm. Anyone can submit a redistricting map together with a $1,000 filing fee. The map that scores highest is automatically used.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:37 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #644 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Note, however, that neither of these ideas will ever fly.

    The current system, which takes into account race, greatly benefits Republicans and black Democrats.

    That's a strong enough combination to beat white Democrats in almost every state.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Pierre Escutcheon - 06:43 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #645 of 773
    "You know I have the greatest enthusiasm possible for the mission."--Hal 9000

    I've wondered how a random system of redistricting would work. I would think a computer program could be given the job, with requirements regarding population size and making districts consist of contiguous areas.
    There's been quite a bit of work in this area, but the mathematics are actually quite difficult. If you simply want contiguous districts with equal population, it's pretty easy to do, but a truly random assignment would result is really ugly districts. You probably would quickly decide you also need a compactness constraint, and you start to get into controversy here, since no-one can agree on the 'right' way to measure compactness.

    Anyway, it gets more complicated from there, since you also have to deal Voting Rights Act constraints, and many other requirements.

    I believe that some of these systems will see some use in the 2000 redistricting, but most likely just to create sample plans, or provide decision support. Humans (well OK, state legislators) will still make the final decisions. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 06:55 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #646 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    X y TU.....

    For whatever reason, you have the EC confused with the Congress. Its the latter that represents us - not the EC.....

    Unless you think that somehow the executive branch, because of their win, bestow some riches on a particular state. Well, okay, I'll give you that, but I can't cite such an example - can you?

    Are you suggesting that I prove that the small states did not get some benefit? I don't know how to prove a negative, do you?

    As to fraud.....There would certainly have to be more failsafe voting devices than we have in much of America today. An article in Time said that every county in America could be updated to a failsafe touch system that would cost about $3 billion. And I am reasonably certain that this is going to happy well before any change in the EC.

    One point that you have never addressed: Many efforts have been made to change the EC by small state congress-ers like Dole - KS, Mundt - SD, Bayh IN.....These senators put strong efforts to change the EC, yet, to my knowledge, no one ever challenged them because of their positions on the EC. This is because the vast majority of Americans are for a popular vote.

    I don't know why you keep coming up with these silly little pee-pee strawmen reasons to keep the archaic EC....It reminds me of listening to a bunch of women discussing world affairs after reading People and the Enquirer. Are you two really a couple of old ladies with blue hair? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 07:02 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #647 of 773

    "Are you two really a couple of old ladies with blue hair?"

    Nope. Doubt Xiang is either. Say, Captain Billy, are you three years old?

    If you read my post, you would have seen my response - if there is no benefit to the small states, what do you care if they get this bonus?

    All you're saying is that representation is no guarantee of gain.

    The obvious: Small states preferred Bush. Bush won. Isn't that what this is all about, choosing a president? If your guy gets in, but it doesn't make you happy, what can be said? Choose someone else next time.

    And Bush's narrow victory, I suggest, is the only reason you're upset about the EC. Perhaps I am wrong - you tell me.

    By the way, you are misusing "straw man." A straw man is when you're arguing against a point someone never made, in order to discredit the arguments they did make. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Xiang - 07:15 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #648 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Cap,

    You also need to remember that parties are organizations that are at least slightly coordinated.

    A party's senators and representatives may give something to a state to keep its people happy and voting their way for president.

    Also, all the fail safe voting equipment in the world won't help if people vote the graveyard or "help" the local Alzheimer's patients or don't clear felons off the voting rolls.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    William F. Burton - 07:45 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #649 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    The EC tends to emphasize states that are "in play", regardless of size.

    In this election, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts (and the rest of New England), California, the Mountain West, and most of the South got little attention (given that they represent most of our population). Florida, the Midwest, and the Northwest got an amazing amount of attention.

    A change to popular vote would spread both the campaign and any influence over a wider area. I'd also like to randomize the primaries, so Iowa and New Hampshire don't get disprortionate influence.

    The real power of small states is in the Senate. We'll never get that changed. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 08:43 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #650 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    One way to alter the EC without altering the constitution would be to up the number of members of the house - which is set by law, not amendment. With a larger house, several smallish states would be helped - since many are on the cusp of getting a second elector - but it would over all reduce the proportion of the "state effect".

    One of the effects of the current system is that many states are in the bottom rungs of representation which have fairly large differences in population.

    Right now 102 of the 548 EC votes are state votes, and 436 are representation votes - or just shy of 19%. The extra 3 electors are from DC. With a house of 650 - the total would be 753 of which 102 would be state votes - or 13.5% state votes. Again because of the wording of the DC vote amendment. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 08:47 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #651 of 773

    So, Sterling, is justice Scalia an ignorant fool and a shill, that he would disagree with you about Article II? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 08:50 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #652 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Sterling,

    I don't think that's a good idea.

    The House is already generally considered to be too large and unwieldy.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    William F. Burton - 08:50 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #653 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    Stirling:
    That was a damn fine idea. It would get support from both big and little states. The only ones against it would be the tiny states (and the Congressmen who don't want their power diluted, but fuck them).

    Scalia has a brilliant legal mind and a 17th century view of the world. He would have been a great help to Cromwell. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 08:54 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #654 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The test of a first rate legal intellect is the willingness to support on principle decisions that go against ones preference, when they are based on principles that one has supported. I have yet to find a case where Scalia did not try and pit bull his way to his prefered bottom line regardless.

    Scalia is a fool because he disagrees with Hamilton over the meaning of article II. And Hamilton knows more about what the drafter of Article II meant than either Scalia or myself. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 08:54 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #655 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    William,

    Are you really ready to make a change that will effect the House and its operation every day to partially correct a problem that only seems to occur every 100 years?

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 08:57 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #656 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    You know, I'll happily admit that I wouldn't be happy if Bush had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

    But I wouldn't be arguing for abolition.

    I'm smart enough to see that a .3% shift in the vote could have flipped it the other way.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 08:58 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #657 of 773

    Sterling has no humility and precious few manners. I stated that Article II should trump his penumbral extrapolations from Amendment XIV (which Gore's attorney's haven't even mentioned, have they?).

    For this opinion, he denounced me as an ignorant fool and a "shill for the right."

    S.S. Newberry wrote, "Scalia is a fool..."

    And yet, I'm sure he'd blow you right out of the courthouse. If your legal sense is so sound, why have Gore's attorneys neglected to base their case on Amendment XIV, as you did? Are they also fools? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    William F. Burton - 09:01 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #658 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    Expanding the House would also address disparities in political representation. As it stands now, Wyoming has as many Congressmen (one) as states with more than twice as many people.

    Close elections occur a lot more often than that.
    In the last 40 years:
    Nixon-Kennedy
    Nixon-Humphrey
    Ford-Carter
    Bush-Gore
    All of these would have been affected by an expanded House. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 09:03 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #659 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Good point... but in which direction?

    In all those cases except the last the winner of the popular vote also won the electoral vote.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 09:04 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #660 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The basis of my argument is Federalist #68 and Chisolm v Georgia.

    As for why they make a different argument

    "Argue to the judge, not with the judge." 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 09:10 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #661 of 773

    Mr.Newberry,

    Well, my point stands. I focused on the actual language of Article II, not penumbral extrapolations from Amendment XIV, however worthy those may have been. This is widely acknowledged to be a difference in approach, not folly vs. wisdom, much less shillery vs. integrity.

    You should apologize for bearing false witness, and for aggressing against someone who had, previous to all this, treated you with courtesy and respect. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    William F. Burton - 09:23 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #662 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    I wasn't looking at who expanding the House would help (I don't know the answer) as much as whether or not it would be a good idea. I think it would. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 09:25 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #663 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Why?

    For example, do you really think that 435 people is too few for a legislative body?

    Personally, I think it's too high.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    William F. Burton - 09:29 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #664 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    Given the size differences in our states, a bigger House would be more representative. Once you scale up from the size of the Senate, size becomes less important. I don't think 600-700 would be any less manageable than 435. Either way, you're not gonna know everybody. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 09:40 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #665 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    More representative, but less effective.

    At what point does representativeness become less important and effectiveness more important?

    I bet that if you went to anyone heavily involved in House politics they could give you a quick rundown on each member in their party if you identified them by name and state.

    Would that still be true with another 50%? I don't know. It would certainly be harder.

    At what point would leadership contests become mass campaigns rather than one on one lobbying? Would that be good?

    You know, the original law set the number of representatives based on the population of the US. It grew as we grew. They changed that when they hit 435 because it was becoming a problem.

    That's something to think about.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 09:51 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #666 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    I don't want the house to be effective. I want it to be noisy, unstable, populous and filled to the brim with every stupid crazy idea that runs through the heads of any constituency in the country.

    In otherwords - exactly as it was intended to be, a barometer for the mood of the country.

    A larger house has many advantages. First, it will promote party discipline on some issues, and make it weaker on others. The more granular the representation, the less likely a representative is to vote in a suicidal manner.

    England, France and Germany all have lower houses of roughy the size I am proposing. In each case the result is a strong differentiation between the front and back bench. In a more partisan environment this level of accountability is preferable. Those who lead into the swamp should be buried there. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 09:54 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #667 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Personally, I am reluctant to tamper with a system that has served us well unless I have a very good reason.

    It's just too easy to screw up.

    You might want to consider that all of those countries are parliamentary democracies. We aren't. Does that effect the analysis?

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 09:56 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #668 of 773

    Prudence: the forgotten virtue. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Stirling S Newberry - 10:02 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #669 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Well, my point stands. I focused on the actual language of Article II, not penumbral extrapolations from Amendment XIV, however worthy those may have been. This is widely acknowledged to be a difference in approach, not folly vs. wisdom, much less shillery vs. integrity.
    No, actually, you didn't focus on the language.

    The language is that the state shall appoint in a manner regulated by the legislature. As noted Federalist #68 makes it clear that the founders intended this to mean an election, and that they were suspicious of the President being dependant on either his partisans or - "any pre-existing body of men, who might, by tampering beforehand, be made to prostitute their votes."

    The 1793 decision establishing the people of the state as the sovereign body comes a good 76 years before the XIVth amendment. It has never been overturned, nor overturned by implication. Where as Macpherson - which is the decision your side is trying to foist on us - has been overturned in parts. Back then the legislature had the power to de facto disenfranchise black people, create districts of wildly unequal size and so on. This was part the the post-civil war compromise which allowed the south to self-govern so long as it did not interfer with the industrialisation and financialisation of the economy.

    Macpherson's logic is directly in conflict with Baker v Carr (1962) and the string of cases that followed - the state legislature does not have plenipotentiary power with respect to state elections, in that it cannot infringe on the sovereignty of the people.

    This is, of course, the first time that 3 USC 15 has come up as a live issue, and the evidence is there - whether based on intent, strict construction or stare decisis - that it is unconstitutional and must be overturned.

    The question is whether this court has the guts to overturn an act of conservative judicial activism. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 10:07 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #670 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    I am again going to point out that Usher is a liar. He is not "focused on the actual language" or any such activity. He is merely repeating what he has heard from the reactionary sections of the press. That he did not think of it himself is evident in that he is not familiar with what even a cursory search through Lexis or Westlaw would pull up, or even a few afternoons conversing with the splinters in a law library.

    There is a word for someone who presents as if he is independant, but, in fact, has his words and actions choreographed as part of a larger action.

    A shill.

    And that is what Usher is, a shill for a side, a mere partisan - who thinks that because his diction is, generally, calm, that others are required to share his pretense that there is any thought behind them.

    There is also a word for those who paraphrase substantially without proper attribution.

    Plagarism.

    And that is what we have been treated to by the right wing shills in the press, and in discourse at the personal level, of which Usher is an example. Endless plagarism of the Scaife's Notes version of US history and law. Not that the people they are plagarising mind of course...

    But all of this is essential to make it seem as if there is a legitimate viewpoint that arises naturally out of every corner - that a whole host of people have considered these questions and come to conclusions on them. In fact, no such thing has happened, since all the roads lead back to a a few places. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 10:23 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #671 of 773

    Your phrase "regulated by the legislature" is strikingly weaker than the actual text: "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct."

    We'll see if Title 3 .15 is overturned.

    You have stated a reasonable, but by no means unassailable position. Law is not physics.

    It is a mistake, as you ought to know, to relay overmuch on the federalist papers, which after all are not law, but propaganda, and do not neccessarily reflect the deliberations which resulted in the wording of the Constitution itself.

    I shall read Federalist 68 before commenting further (searching now). I admit I should not be surprised if your interpretation were similarly distorted.

    "But all of this is essential to make it seem as if there is a legitimate viewpoint that arises naturally out of every corner"

    Not every corner. But the actual Constitution, rather than your penumbral fantasies (I'll bet you support Roe, don't you?), would seem to me to be a good start.

    "...Usher is a liar." lie: "a false statement made to decieve; an intentional violation of truth."

    Show me, both falsehood and intent, like the hardball trial lawyer you fancy yourself to be. Can you, counsel? Or do you imagine that by repeating your shrill charges they will become true?

    "There is also a word for those who paraphrase substantially without proper attribution. Plagarism."

    Show me, both my words and the purported source.

    ..."has his words and actions choreographed as part of a larger action." Don't listen to a word he says - he's one of THEM!!! Paranoid, slanderous and stupid.

    There is a word for you too: slanderer.

    Woe be to the Republic when people of your despicable character are given free reign to bend the law to the whims of the faction which butters their bread.

    p.s. I can now see why Shrub went after you guys in Texas - used to oppose it, but now I understand.

    p.p.s."Endless plagarism of the Scaife's Notes version of US history and law." Is this an actual book that you have read, or is your charge really that insubstantial? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 11:11 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #672 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Stirling,

    I haven't noticed any plagiarism by Usher.

    Can you please cite the offending passage and the source you allege it is from?

    Thanks Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 11:19 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #673 of 773

    For the benefit of TTers who have only seen Newberry’s misleading snippet, here’s the entire relevant section (paragraph 5) of Federalist 68:

    “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

    1. According to Hamilton, the system is thus constructed chiefly to check the influence of foreign powers (truth or propaganda?)

    2. “...an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.”

    The context shows the key word to be "immediate"; the electors are not a pre-existing body. Hamilton’s candy coating of indirect representation is laughable.

    3. The power of legislatures is spoken of as checked by prohibiting them from being among the electors.

    4. There is nothing here that substantively qualifies Article II. The only difference is spin.

    5. One text is ratified law. The other is an 18th century campaign season op-ed column. Guess which is which? (Hint: the first words of the paper are, "To the People of the State of New York.")

    As expected, Newberry's interpretation of Federalist 68 is highly distortive and inadequately supported by the actual text. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Jim Sagle - 11:28 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #674 of 773
    GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

    You must be pretty hot shit to blow off Alexander Hamilton so casually. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 11:37 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #675 of 773

    It is not Hamilton who has been rebuked, but the arrogant slanderous windbag Stirling S.Newberry. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Jim Sagle - 11:43 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #676 of 773
    GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

    Did someone post, or did the website just take a shit? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 11:44 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #677 of 773

    Jim is hoisted by his own petard.

    (petard << Old French << Latin pedere "to fart") 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Jim Sagle - 11:47 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #678 of 773
    GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

    If you hoist up your intellect, you might make triple digits yet. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 11:51 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #679 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Timothy,

    I always thought that a petard was a male member (the one that Jim asks other posters to suck).

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 11:54 pm PST - Dec 3, 2000  - #680 of 773

    "Vote fraud. This would be no more of an issue with a pooular vote than the EC. All elections are local. We have local tracking on all ballots. Every state has a built in recount process for close votes."

    If this election were decided by the popular vote the fracas in Florida would be unfolding across the entire nation. The 350,000 vote margin Gore has in the popular vote (.3%) would exist in a context where 100 million ballots were cast, 2 million ballots where spoiled, and where both parties do have "safe havens" (Republicans dominate Texas, Democrats are in control in NY, it's the "Palm Beach" problem on a much larger scale).

    It's possible to investigate these sorts of things on a local or statewide level (and when I use the term fraud I'm referring to something broader, irregularities of the sort which are being litigated in Florida). It's impossible to do this on a nationwide level (we've already reached the point where the media has to report too much information, it can't organize it all).

    One can reform the electoral college so it essentially conforms to the popular vote (eg. get rid of the two votes each state gets for senators, move to some system of proportional representation, add super electors for candidates who are ahead in the popular vote, etc.).

    I don't think we could have a true nation wide system unless we moved to a system of federal elections (eg. each precinct uses the same voting system) which, constitutionally, is probably impossible.

    The biggest problem in our system isn't the EC, by the way, it's the Senate, why should Delaware get the same number of votes as California? That's a situation where reform does mean abolishing the old system. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 12:07 am PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #681 of 773

    Stirling S.Newberry uses the familiar lawyer's trick of puffing up one's case, hoping to intimidate the other side into backing down without a fight. He throws out citations like confetti, along with sound-byte snippets or misleading restatements, figuring no one on TT will actually take the time to follow up on all his sources.

    When you actually take a look at the laws and cases he's talking about, you see that Stirling's wisdom is reducible to the one-way logic characteristic of attorneys in tort disputes.

    Each time his balloon is popped, he throws another citation at you and subtly alters his reading of the first (e.g., first Article II said "state law", then it was "regulated by the legislature"), never explicitly acknowledging his defeat. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 12:19 am PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #682 of 773

    Xiang

    It means "a case for explosives." To be hoisted on one's own petard is to foiled by one's own devices, as Jim was, since most observers would assume his post referred to itself. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Jim Sagle - 01:09 am PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #683 of 773
    GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

    most observers would assume his post referred to itself.
    Actually most observers most likely have both of you in their twit filters by now. I'll be joining them shortly. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Jim Sagle - 01:10 am PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #684 of 773
    GOP slogan, adapted from the Russian: "We pretend to integrity, and our followers pretend to believe us."

    Ahhhhh...much better. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 06:30 am PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #685 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    Increasing the size of the House has merit irrespective of its effect on the Electoral College. A body with more members representing smaller districts has to be more responsive to the needs of the people.

    The House grew with the US population for many years before being unwisely capped at 435. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:07 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #686 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Can you explain why you think it would be more responsive?

    Very possibly it would be less responsive - each representative would be able to do less and would represent a smaller area, meaning more representatives per newspaper.

    That would make them all more anonymous and make it less likely that their constituents would know very much about them.

    It might very well lead to more party line voting and less actual attention to individual records.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 06:21 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #687 of 773

    Xiang's point rests on the fact that most voters are attuned to a commonly shared media space, where powerful House reps for faraway districts receive more press than their own.

    As Newberry pointed out, it is the difference between the front and back rows of the chamber. The bigger the chamber, the greater the differences in power and thus representation. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:29 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #688 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me or just making an observation?

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 06:36 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #689 of 773

    What does it sound like? Your point is valid. I also made an observation. Everyone's so 'snippy' around here, makes ya paranoid - must I append a :) to every message? You're a positive and respectful poster. I enjoy the elegant geometry of your laconic posts. That's enough for me. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 06:36 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #690 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    If districts are smaller, the number of people represented is smaller and therefore you're going to have more and better access to your representative. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:48 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #691 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Sure... if you try for personal access. But unless we increase the size of the House to many tens of thousands most people are still going to have to have their contact with their representatives through the media.

    And that's going to be harder and less effective and deliver less information if there are more representatives.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 06:51 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #692 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Let me put it this way...

    Who do you know more about?

    1. Your local city councilman
    2. Your representative
    3. Your senators
    For me living in the US it was always my senators.

    That suggests that the House is already too large to effectively represent people.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 07:20 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #693 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    The rulings today are narrowing in on a Gore defeat....Which only proves that Smirk has won the game. Not the real game of win or lose, the game of running out the clock. We will soon have a 2nd place president known for the next 4 years as His Fraudulency.......

    The last was RutherFRAUD B. Hayes. After he was ousted in 4 years, apathy set in and we didn't fix it. Had it been fixed, this election would have been over nearly a month ago. The winner would have had a solid win of the votes of over 1/3rd million Americans.

    As to.....

    The obvious: Small states preferred Bush. Bush won. Isn't that what this is all about, choosing a president? If your guy gets in, but it doesn't make you happy, what can be said? Choose someone else next time.
    The implication seems to be here that I only disagree with the EC because Smirk won. Not true. Before the election, it looked like Smirk would win the popular vote and Gore the EC. I was hoping for this to happen because I knew that the Republicans would now be taking my view in spades. They even had a contingency plan to virtually overthrow the govt by force if it had happened.

    It is becoming very obvious that the only way we will ever get rid of the EC abomination is for the Republican candidate to be fraudlently deprived of the presidency....... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Fred Dawson - 07:33 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #694 of 773
    Diploney--Insincere words of respect and friendship spoken by politicians and world leaders of one another.

    The Founding Fathers, for all their brilliance, did not really envision our modern elections. For one thing, there was no secret ballot--in the early elections, a voter would declare his preferred party and be rewarded with a drink by that party's officials. The idea of voter anonymity came from an even younger country than the US, Australia.

    The original election rules only lasted twelve years but while new amendments and regulations have been added as the need arose since then, there has never a total change. Thus the current system is no one's design but exists as long as it's considered workable. Changes at any time tended to be minimal.

    We should remember the genius of the Constitution's framers lay not in unchangeable laws but in setting up a system that allowed flexibility when needed. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 07:35 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #695 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Not until today there wasn't. Scalia's court overturned 200+ years of electoral history in a draft. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Mitch Buchannon - 08:03 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #696 of 773
    Sprezzatura, Duke of Earl, the Tiger Woods of TableTalk

    You call the one who won the Electoral College...

    President Bush!
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 08:07 pm PST - Dec 4, 2000  - #697 of 773

    Jesus, Mitch, are you gloating a little? Enough. You are pointlessly offending the sensibilities of the natives.

    p.s. - perhaps Mr.Buchannon's presence will remind you all what an actual Republican is. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 12:54 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #698 of 773

    Maybe we should trash the whole system and move to something new. I think the United States is too big. Why should one part of the world have so much power? And why should so much of that power be invested in one person? The constitution was fine when we were a nation of 20 million people but if we're going to reform why not go whole hog?

    My modest proposal: break the United States into five or six countries, each can have a federal government in addition to state governments, and create some loose confederation such as exists in Europe (this might also include Canada and Mexico). People in Massachusetts wouldn't have to share a government with people in Texas. We would no longer elect the leader of the "free world" (and what's so bad about that?).

    Just a thought. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 12:57 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #699 of 773

    San Francisco would presumably be its own country.

    God knows we've already seen the flag. A defective one at that - real rainbows have seven colors, of course. One of them, a giant one at Castro and Market, actually had seven colors, but now it has eight. The natural beauty of the rainbow has now been defaced by a pink stripe at the type, supposedly to emphasize the centrality of gay victims in the Holocaust.

    I've always taken it as a metaphor for this "diversity" of this bobified, yuppified self-absorbed pseudo-leftist capitalist town (the same one that's moving African Americans and Latinos out of town on the sly - the same one where people try to run you over in the crosswalks) 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 01:00 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #700 of 773

    A more realistic (though totally impractical) proposal: pass a constitutional amendment which allows localities (nothing as large as a state) to effectively secede from the state and federal system, they could become "autonomous zones", would get none of the benefits but would also shoulder none of the responsibilties, so that libertarians, feminists, gun nuts, Ayn Rand types, etc., could experiment with their own little utopias.

    Why not? Communism wasn't a bad idea for the 1% of the population who want to live this way. Why not give them their chance? Such systems could not be coercive because anyone who wanted could move to another state. This should be the next frontier of American democracy. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 01:10 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #701 of 773

    Efficience at the macro-level has become the decisive organizing principle of our society, and it is more macro- than ever. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 04:35 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #702 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    Who do you know more about?
    1.Your local city councilman
    2.Your representative
    3.Your senators
    My local city councilman, definitely. I often see him walking around the square a block from my house, going into the post office or the bank, etc. He works for a local insurance agency so I can wave to him when I walk by his storefront. He's also used to getting phone calls from me.

    Surely this is true for most people. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 05:28 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #703 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Not really...

    I've never known who my local councilman was. I've usually known my representative and I always know my senators.

    It's really only senators who can reliably get newspaper copy.

    Do you read local papers? I don't... that may be part of it.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Stirling S Newberry - 06:59 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #704 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Which is again how the system is supposed to work. A senator is a more senior official, and is elected for a six year term. He is, under the design of the constitution, supposed to be a fixture of public life.

    The member of the house is, compared to a senator, supposed to be a much lesser nimal, with less political weight. That he has less recognition, both in his state and in his district, is to reinforce the requirement that he more closely reflect the will, at that moment, of his constituents. Having less goodwill and recognition, he is, accordingly, more vulnerable to being overwhelmed.

    The senator, on the other hand, has more political capital, and can take more political risks.

    In effect what has happened in the House - as with lower houses the world over - is that its members are largely safe most of the time, but that there are periodic shifts in the mode of the voters who are not partisan attached to a party. This small group, when it swings, will often purge from office dozens of long standing members. Normally incumbents are reelected, but then they are tossed from office en mass. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 07:02 am PST - Dec 5, 2000 - #705 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    But Stirling, will a rep really be more responsive if he's never in the papers because he's one of over 600 people and his constituents know little more about him than his party affiliation?

    Seems more likely that the only people he will be responsive to are PACs, his party, and special interest groups that have the resources and interest to track the voting records of every representative and make donations appropriately.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 07:04 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #706 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The representative will rise and fall with his party. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 07:23 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #707 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    If his district is small enough it doesn't matter what the newspapers do. People will know him because he's in the neighborhood. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 07:38 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #708 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Do you read local papers? I don't... that may be part of it.
    It's only been in recent years that I began to realize how many people do not read the dailies.....At best, they get their news, if they get it at all, from cable tv, am radio and late night commedians. Many just overhear stuff on the smoke breaks outside at the workplace....or from a glance at the headlines of supermarket tabloids.....

    But I am the one who should be chastised. It is absurd that I wonder why we allow a toad like Smirk to be installed as president. And, worse, that we should tolerate the one who comes in second to be president.....

    And what does this mean?

    will a rep really be more responsive if he's never in the papers because he's one of over 600 people....
    Which 600 people? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Xiang - 07:40 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #709 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Stirling,

    I thought you wanted government that was more in tune to local concerns, not less.

    Ron,

    How small do you want districts to be? If you have one rep per 100,000 people (still far too many to have any kind of personal contact with most of them) that would be 2,500 representatives.

    Isn't that way too many?

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 08:33 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #710 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The idea to dramatically expand the house was first floated by some Republicans in the late 1970's. While some of their arguments have been outdated, they consisted of the following:

    1. More granularity helps "cusp" states. Small cusp states are helped more. While a rep may be a local thing in New York City, a rep in Montana needs a lear jet to cover the ground.

    2. It makes it harder to draw "pizz slice districts". This has been obsoleted by later practice, but at the time there was considerable anger in the Republican party at the practice of taking a piece of an urban area and running it out into republican suburbs.

    3. Smaller districts would be more compact and hence harder to gerrymander.

    4. Smaller districts would mean that individual reps would be more beholden to the party, and hence it would be easier to enforce party discipline.

    5. The creation of new seats wholesale would create a large number of open districts, which would dilute the power of current incumbents. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 08:40 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #711 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    I don't see any of these as compelling.

    I don't understand why you think it would make pizza pies tougher - there's no limit on the number of slices.

    I also don't see why small districts would have to be more compact and hence harder to gerrymander. I actually think there would probably be more gerrymandering opportunities.

    I don't see party discipline as something that needs to be improved.

    I like the idea of diluting incumbent power, but what you suggest would be a one time thing. We need something that keeps working. If you want to make it harder for incumbents to use their power, I suggest term limits.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 08:49 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #712 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    As noted, these were not my arguments, but the arguments of some New York State Republicans circa 1978, when they thought a change in the congress would blunt the very large class of 1974's power. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Don S. - 10:05 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #713 of 773
    Class Maledictorian

    The last was RutherFRAUD B. Hayes. After he was ousted in 4 years, apathy set in and we didn't fix it.
    First, Hayes wasn't "ousted" -- he stated from the outset that he would serve only one term. Second, just because the Electoral College wasn't dismantled back then, it is untrue to say that "apathy" prevented action: Congress passed the "Electoral Count Act" in 1877, which was intended to fix, at least, the problems that arose from the result of the 1876 election. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Captain Billy - 10:25 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #714 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Why is it that those who win the popular vote, but lose the EC are all Democrats?....

    Sam Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore......

    As to Rutherfraud, DS, whether he jumped or was pushed makes little difference - like Harrison he was a one termer.....And whether it was apathy or pissin' in the wind, we still didn't fix the problem of the archaic and fundamentally anti-American EC.....

    To think that we are being forced to let the Republiscum dominated US SC and a gang of Florida Republicans and Smirk's smirking brother fix this years election is a travesty.....

    If this election was reversed, we'd be well on our way to somehow thwarting the constitution and still installing Smirk.....If that failed, we'd have a change in the EC law as the first congressional order of business...... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 10:27 am PST - Dec 5, 2000  - #715 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The Supreme Court has doen your work for you Captain Billy, they broke the EC while you weren't looking.

    But that is why you are a fanatic - you miss even the facts that are in your favor because you are too busy ranting. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ben Tracadie - 02:52 pm PST - Dec 6, 2000  - #716 of 773

    I thought this also belonged on this thread:

    Gore's popular vote margin over Bush of about 350,000 votes is about three times as large as JFK's popular vote margin (118,000) over Nixon in 1960. Also, this margin is only a little smaller than Nixon's 510,000 popular vote margin over Humphrey in 1968.

    One thing I haven't heard reported anywhere is that, if Gore loses the election, he will have the largest popular vote margin of any losing Presidential candidate in history. The three times this has happened before in 1824, 1876 and 1888, the popular vote margins of the losing candidates were 38,000, 254,000 and 90,000, respectively. While the margin on a popular vote percentage basis was larger in the earlier elections, the raw popular vote margin is still notable.

    In addition, if Bush ultimately is awarded Florida's electoral votes, Bush's 271 to 267 electoral vote margin will be the smallest ever in any election not ultimately decided by the Congress. After Congressional intervention, the 1876 election was decided by 1 electoral vote. In a political overture to the losing Democrats, the Republicans regrettably agreed to end Reconstruction. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform should be the absolute minimum this time.

    I doubt that Bush will ever acknowledge his popular vote defeat or take any conciliatory action based on this fact. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 02:54 pm PST - Dec 6, 2000  - #717 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    By pettiness and greed we have reached the point where the current consitutional regime hangs by a thread. Namely that the Florida Legislature will not assign electors, or, failing that, that electors will defect on 18 December.

    If that failsafe is removed, then there will be a melt down. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Captain Billy - 07:27 pm PST - Dec 6, 2000  - #718 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Stirling....

    Wazzis?

    The Supreme Court has doen your work for you Captain Billy, they broke the EC while you weren't looking.
    The news people must have missed this too.....But us fanatics just stick together....... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 08:29 pm PST - Dec 6, 2000  - #719 of 773

    "In a political overture to the losing Democrats, the Republicans regrettably agreed to end Reconstruction."

    I've been reading more about 1876 by any present standard the Democrats were the "bad guys" (especially if one uses the standards of the present Democratic party). Tilden (governor of NY) wasn't bad, he was a reformer who brought down Boss Tweed, but the Democratic party in the South (where the vote disputes happened) was awful, it was the party of the Ku Klux Klan.

    The only reason Tilden stood any chance in 1876 was because white southerners in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana used violence, intimidation, and fraud to suppress the vote of black voters. Not only didn't Hayes steal the election but in modern terms he was "fighting the good fight" (and I mean intentionally, he understood what was going on, didn't want to abandon these voters).

    There are so many interesting parallels between 1876 and 2000 that someone should write a book (eg. Hayes was considered dull and bland by members of his own party, Tilden accused him during the election of embezzling from the military payroll to fund his election). The more I read, though, the more convinced I am that Hayes was more like Gore.

    Reconstruction was going to end in 1877 no matter who won, the Democrats were going to do it faster, most federal soldiers had already been withdrawn from southern states (there were less than 5,000 in 3 states when the 1876 election took place).

    It's a fascinating period in American history, though, my hunch, the endgame to this election will be similar to what happened after 1876 (because neither party broke the partisan deadlock, it lasted for thirty years). 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 08:41 pm PST - Dec 6, 2000  - #720 of 773

    "Gore's popular vote margin over Bush of about 350,000 votes is about three times as large as JFK's popular vote margin (118,000) over Nixon in 1960."

    When all of the votes were counted Kennedy was 1-2 million votes ahead (the margin wasn't that close, and I don't think that counts Alabama where Kennedy didn't appear on the ballot, there was some generic Democratic Dixiecrat slot for voters in that state).

    Candidates in the 19th century lost after winning larger margins of the popular vote (I think the dubious distinction of being the loser who won the greatest % of the popular vote belongs to Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880 and the margin was between 4-5% but I'd have to check).

    I don't care about the 350,000 votes in this election because: 1) it's .3%, that's statistically insignificant in an election where 100 million voted and 2 million ballots were tossed; 2) everyone voted with the understanding that the EC was what mattered and that probably depressed the vote in states where the outcome was a foregone conclusion;

    3) every ballot cast won't be counted (eg. many states don't count absentees in races where they can't affect the outcome); 4) there are many localities where we don't have a great canvassing system in place (eg. it's hard for me to believe that turnout in places like Philadelphia and Detroit was 95%+, these statistics are ridiculous and yet won't be challenged in this election).

    If Gore wins the popular vote makes no difference, if he loses it's an interesting footnote or booby prize but it also shouldn't make a difference. If he'd won by 5 million votes that would be a different story. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Stirling S Newberry - 05:35 am PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #721 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Finally a Kevin Douglas post based on facts. More over it should be added to the fire that Gore did not win a majority of votes. A subtle, but important difference. It is one thing to claim one has been robbed by the EC with a plurality, it is anothe to claim one has been robbed with a majority.

    Most of the likely cases of a popular vote loss and an EC victory are cases of a plurality winner in the EC. If Gore had the votes that otherwise went Green, to win an absolute majority, then, even with the systematic attempts to alter the results in Florida in favor of Bush, we wouldn't be worrying about it. Gore would have won handily.

    But it will be interesting to note that his EC mandate would be smaller than many other presidents in close elections.

    This is another function of the EC - to demonstrate the geographic spread of ones mandate. By this measure the EC would show a nation divided - with bi-costal federalists and midwestern labor divided against an anti-federalist South and Mountain area combined with the agrarian vote. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 05:53 am PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #722 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    Why do you refer to the Gore states as "federalist" and the Bush states as "anti-federalist" ? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 06:14 am PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #723 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Because the two parties have ceased to be liberal and conservative. The dominant ideology of the republican party is reactionary anti-federalism. Which is worlds away from being conservative. The democrats, in 8 years in power, have managed to enact little in the way of the progressive agenda, nor have they appointed many progressive judges or officials.

    Instead, history will look at this administration and note that it strengthened the financial system, used national military might in pursuit of state building foreign policy, defended federal power to regulate the environment, pursued an expansio of American presence in low orbit and engaged in a restructuring of federal programs and government opperations which retained their centralised character.

    In short, and Bush pointed this out in his campaign, his liberal credentials are quite weak.

    The Bush campaign promises are to repeal estate taxes, passed originally by Republicans, decentralise control over resource extraction, appoint justices who defer to the state legislatures, borrow to finance tax cuts, and disengage foreign from an active monetary and military foreign policy.

    His conservative credentials are, in fact, quite weak. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 11:13 am PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #724 of 773

    So then, are you a federalist? Earlier, you argued that Florida's constitution should supercede that of the United States, at least in this one instance. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Stirling S Newberry - 01:07 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #725 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    I have argued that the correct interpretation of the Federal constitution flows from the principle that the people are the sovereign parties to the Federal Constitution, and that even where it is disposed to do so, the Federal Constitution may not be used to elevate the state government above the people, since both the Federal and State governments are, equally, creatures of that people. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 02:04 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #726 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    But it will be interesting to note that his EC mandate would be smaller than many other presidents in close elections.
    There is no such thing as an EC "mandate".....A mandate only comes from popular votes. Bill Clinton amassed a huge EC majority which meant very little - even in his own party.....FDR and LBJ and Reagan had huge popular votes, hence a mandate. They all assumed office with real power....None of which came from the sham called the electoral college..... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 02:33 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #727 of 773

    Yes, I understood that much. I'll deal with it broadly later today. Putting aside the issue of whether the legislature could arbitrarily override the undisputed preference of the people, upon which you and I would likely agree, the issue before the Court centered around the manner in which that preference is to be quantified - specifically, that the Florida Constitution cannot have any bearing on the matter because of Article II.

    This is vital - if provisions of the Florida Constitution can supercede Article II, than they can also supercede the XIVth, XVth and other suffrage-related amendments. Correspondingly, the primacy of Article II above the state constitution does not in any way diminish the scope of the amendments. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 02:45 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #728 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    That is a confused reading of the issue. The issue before the court was the meaning of Article II. They read the article incorrectly, in fact, they even read Blacker incorrectly but that is beside the point.

    The issue is, can the Constitution grant to the state legislature a power which the state's own constitution denies it? If one is a complete federal supremicist, the answer, of course, is yes. If one is a complete state's rightist, the answer, of course, is no.

    However if one is a federalist one must determine exactly what the state constitution forbids. For example, in Blacker, it was noted that while the state constitution could not remove the power to set the manner of appointment for electors from the legislature - since that was specifically stated in the constitution - their could be judicial review of the actions of the legislature under the provisions in the state constitution.

    That is, the constitution grants a power, so select the manner of appointment, but it does not, and cannot grant power with out judicial review - since the power to appoint lies with the state.

    Again, even the case law that Scalia cites is against him on this one, since "the right under review is the right to vote" macpherson v blacker.

    (By the way, the provisions of the law under review in Michigan would not have passed current constitutional muster, since the districts being used to appoint electors were unfavorably and unequally drawn. Which is why I have repeatedly held that Macpherson v Blacker is based on logic that was overturned with Baker v Carr) 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 03:09 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #729 of 773

    I've been looking at Baker, Nixon, Chisom, Reynolds...and I've been trying to figure out exactly how these relate to the case before us, other that that the apportionment of representation and rights of sufferage (i.e. "manner") cannot be discriminatory or unequal. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 03:19 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #730 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Well give how confused you are about dependant and independant clauses, the basic case that your own side cites and the clear language of the Federalist #68 - no one should be surprised.

    You keep saying that you follow the Socratic method, but it is clear so far that you follow the Aristophanic, rather than Platonic, tradition as to what his methods were. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ben Tracadie - 03:21 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #731 of 773

    Stirling-

    Finally a Kevin Douglas post based on facts.
    Not quite. As a mostly lurker on these threads (esp. Florida thread), I've been impressed with the authoritative tone Kevin Douglas maintains while making things up.
    When all of the votes were counted Kennedy was 1-2 million votes ahead (the margin wasn't that close).
    JFK's popular vote margin over Nixon was 118,000 in 1960. <http://uselectionatlas.org/poltextj.html >

    In fact, Gore's popular vote margin over Bush of about 350,000 is closer to Nixon's margin of 510,000 over Humphrey in 1968 then to JFK's margin in 1960.

    and I don't think that counts Alabama where Kennedy didn't appear on the ballot, there was some generic Democratic Dixiecrat slot for voters in that state
    JFK's popular vote margin in 1960 included the 324,000 votes for Democratic Party electors in Alabama, although it is true that 6 of the 11 Alabama electors voted for Harry Bryd in the Electoral College. (Gore only needs 3 this time.)
    Candidates in the 19th century lost after winning larger margins of the popular vote (I think the dubious distinction of being the loser who won the greatest % of the popular vote belongs to Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880 and the margin was between 4-5% but I'd have to check).
    Hancock lost the popular vote in 1880 by a small margin and the electoral college by a decisive margin of 214 to 155.

    I used to think Kevin's arguments on the Florida thread and elsewhere were in good faith, but his constant factual errors (I'm only pointing these particular ones out because they were in response to my posting) led me to different conclusion several weeks ago. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 03:26 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #732 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    I stand corrected. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 03:32 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #733 of 773

    Stirling,

    The Socratic method being a rational dialogue between divergent opinions that we might arrive at truth, not a pitched emotionalistic battle of ad-hominem partisan invectives.

    You're always ready, it seems, to change the subject to the purported intellectual inabilities or nefarious motivations of the other speaker.

    ON EDIT - Monty, this message is to Mr.Newberry, not Mr.Tracadie. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Monty G. - 03:45 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #734 of 773
    We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

    Don't be silly. Mr. Tracadie took the trouble to post a host of corrections to Kevin's multitude of assertions that were false. I thank him for that and I'm sure others do as well. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 04:01 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #735 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    You're always ready, it seems, to change the subject to the purported intellectual inabilities or nefarious motivations of the other speaker.
    He's talking to me, Usher takes on outrage at this and that, and when he decides someone is a bad, bad, man, he does every thing he can to twist and push and hack at logic to get the result he wants.

    And in Usher's world, not accepting his shallow compliments, and not accepting his bad faith arguments makes you bad.

    Usher has decided I am a bad, bad man, like Clinton, and therefore what he writes about me is rather much irrelevant. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 04:21 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #736 of 773

    blah blah blah... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Monty G. - 04:27 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #737 of 773
    We need smart fighters, not sniveling whiners

    how about taking that kind of stuff to e-mail? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Gar Lipow - 04:37 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #738 of 773
    "Believe nothing until it is officially denied" Claude Cockburn

    Re: Socratic dialogue -- I always thought of Socratic dialogue as a means of forcing the person you are teaching (true Socratic dialogue is always between a teacher and student) to reach the same conclusion you have already come to.

    See for example the case of Socrates and the slave, where Socrates "proves" an uneducated child slave has inherent knowledge that the square of an equilateral triangles hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides. He does this by asking a series of leading questions (correcting each wrong answer with other questions) until the slave gives the answer he wants. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Kevin Douglas - 07:00 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #739 of 773

    Okay, here goes:

    1) I got my impressions of the Kennedy Nixon race from one of the many articles published on that subject during the past month and unfortunately I can't track it down. I think I was confused by the fact that Kennedy's name wasn't officially on the ballot in one or two southern states. The author was probably suggesting that 1) Kennedy's margin went up as states continued the canvassing process (eg. the figures reported by the NY Times on the day after the election weren't the final totals); 2) if one argues that Kennedy didn't win the votes in these southern states (since his name wasn't on the ballot) then one should distinguish between Kennedy votes and Democratic votes (though that's a silly argument).

    So I was wrong.

    2) The candidate who won the greatest % of the popular vote and lost the electoral college, it turns out, was Samuel Tilden, who got approx. 4% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. Hancock-Garfield was a much closer race than I had remembered (in terms of the PV, Garfield won the EC by a convincing margin).

    So I was wrong again.

    I write these posts on the fly, as I'm guessing most people do, this is the internet, not the NYTimes, but since I was wrong twice I apologize, I'll be more careful. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 07:39 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #740 of 773

    Newberry has repeatedly denounced McPherson v. Blacker.

    Would it be correct to suggest that The Court issued a much broader ruling than necessary - as all they would have had to do to uphold the Michigan law is say that the division of electors by district did not infringe upon a citizen's right to vote for that state's electors? 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Robert Pierson - 07:50 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #741 of 773
    People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

    Back when this first became an issue and the conventional wisdom held that it would be Gore with the EC majority and Bush with the popular majority I had a little twinge of doubt as to why it would be so. I was unable to figure it out so I accepted the conventional wisdom, which of course proved wrong. Being a Gore voter I was a bit peeved that the Bush campaign unashamedly announced they would fight such an outcome and the EC proceedure itself by seeking unfaithful electors.

    My tagline, used since the day after the election, puts the irony of the current situation front and center. Matthews, pre election, was already out in front with the GOP talkng points, per usual. While apparanty some Democratic individuals have started to mine the EC rousters to find unfaithful ones I am pleased that the Gore campaign has steered clear of this totaly, only using the fact of his 330+ K lead as a point of debate. Besides, there will be no unfaithful Bush electors.

    The early civics lesson discussions of the EC pointed to all sorts of articles dicussing the almost esoteric advantages it gave to the small states. Only recently has the true basis of the EC been made widely know. That of course is that it apportioned EC votes to states in proportion to their total population, including slaves. This gave a huge boost to the south in presidential contests in our early history when the south,with slaves included, had a majority of the population.

    It now occurs to me that as the souths percentage of the population dropped so too did it's congressional representation and presidential election clout. This to me seems an underlying factor in comming of the war and adds meaning to the fight for allies in the new states leading to the Missouri Compromise.

    The EC, despite this years outcome will have more champions than ever in the less populated states. It is here to stay. Already you see the arguments that the Bush states outnumber the Gore ones and comprise a much larger geographic area. Always under the surface is the point that many of these areas are overwhelmingly white. Real Americans. Who doubts there are dreams of a new Confederacy. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 08:04 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #742 of 773

    Mr.Pierson,

    The whole "Bush will win the popular vote, Gore the EC" stuff has kind of been gnawing at me. Specifically, what do you suppose the Bush campaign in the final days, had done the math correctly and saw exactly what would happen. So they poke at Gore with this stuff in order to get him to trumpet the record about how "It's the EC that counts", etc. If so, it kind of worked. Daley's made insinuations, but Gore's prior statements kept them in a box.

    A classic Sun Tzu-type deception - concealing both strength and weakness. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    William F. Burton - 08:49 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #743 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    I don't recall Gore ever defending the Electoral College before the election. It was a few Bushies attacking, and nobody playing defense.

    I assume that Bush's big lead in Texas and the Deep South led people to believe he might win the popular vote. Most people assumed he'd do better in California and the Upper Midwest than he ended up doing.

    If anything, I think the Bushies screwed up by bragging about winning Oregon, California, Wisconsin, and even Minnesota. They gave a lot of Dems a reason to get to the polls on election day. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 08:58 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #744 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The tide was swinging away from Bush in the last two weeks, he, in the lingo of polling "peaked too early".

    The last week was not a good week for Bush, he got caught in an embarassing cover up, which sucked the air out of the free coverage he was used to getting. As importantly, the pure cockiness came off badly. Finally, in retrospect, it becomes clear that the polls the media emphasised relied on a flawed - and republican biased - determination of "likely voter". The most accurate poll - the much derrided Zogby poll which was consistently placing Gore a percentage point ahead of most other polls. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 09:11 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #745 of 773

    On October 22 Gore was behind 41/45 (Gore/Bush). He stayed behind every day for the next two weeks except for Octber 25-6 (when Gore jumped ahead by two points and then fell back). Gore then jumped ahead by two points during the last two days of polling (November 5-6).

    http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=29

    Why? This was probably the effect of the DUI story. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 10:00 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #746 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Which most major polling organisations had declared "not a factor".

    If there is anything that is clear from this election, it is that there was a consistent bias towards Bush in the major polling organisation's numbers, and there was a terrific pressure arguing that Bush should do even better than those numbers by many right wing academics. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 10:20 pm PST - Dec 7, 2000  - #747 of 773

    I had given Gore a 65% chance of winning the election - nothing but a guess. You just had to think a lot of people who might have gone the other way would get cold feet. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 05:41 am PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #748 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    As I recall, in 1960 the Democratic slate of electors in Mississippi was pledged to Byrd, and the Alabama slate was pledged half to Byrd and half to Kennedy. This makes it tricky to figure out what Kennedy's popular vote was, if any, in either state. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Kevin Douglas - 10:48 am PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #749 of 773

    "Which most major polling organisations had declared "not a factor"."

    At most the effect was small (2-3%) but, in this election, that could have been decisive. People who responded to polls said there was no effect but exit polls (from what I've read) suggested otherwise. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 10:49 am PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #750 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    My experience in practical politics leads me to believe it takes about a week for a bomb to work its way in and either have an effect or be discounted. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Robert Pierson - 12:52 pm PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #751 of 773
    People before property. Property has no rights. People have rights to property, but that right is not absolute.

    I have read that some exit polls suggested that among late deciders or weak Bush prospective voters the DUI story was decisive in turning 25% of them for Gore. I have no cite for this. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Timothy Usher - 01:54 pm PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #752 of 773

    On the one hand, the people’s right to vote for president, although neither in the Constitution nor constant throughout our history, has become a political and judicial assumption - to explicitly curtail it, even if supportable by McPherson v. Blacker, Article II and a broad reading of Title 3, would be certain to have a decidedly negative effect on the American political climate.

    On the other hand, to uphold the Florida court’s decision(s) challenges McPherson more directly than the apportionment decisions in that Article II is qualified not just by expanded interpretations of amendments XIV and XV, but also by state constitutions and assertive judicial “statutory reconcilation” to the degree that Article II’s “manner” clause is nearly void of meaning. This would transfer authority over presidential elections to non-elected officials while simultaneously weakening the authority of the U.S. Constitution over those of the states.

    The proper path for the Court to take is one that recognizes the special prerogative of the legislature to direct the manner of electoral appointment so long as they do not curtail the citizens’ right to vote in presidential elections and do not apportion representation in a unambiguously inequitable manner. The Florida courts’ power of judicial review would be checked only to to the degree that they cannot intervene to the point where they can be said to have infringed upon this prerogative.

    In a case such as the one before us, the Florida legislature may thus act as the immediate agent of the state in appointing a slate of electors reflecting the election results quantified and certified according to the manner which they had previously and lawfully directed. The action would not be arbitrary in that it would would conform to Florida’s established custom and practice of appointing electors pledged to the recipient of the majority of lawfully certified votes.

    Further, in cases where it might be said that the result is for some practical reason indeterminate, including but not necessarily limited to a tie, the legislature could act as the immediate agent of the state in appointing a slate of its choosing pledged to one of the tied candidates (as opposed to, say, a coin toss). 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 02:38 pm PST - Dec 8, 2000  - #753 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The proper path for the Court to take is one that recognizes the special prerogative of the legislature to direct the manner of electoral appointment so long as they do not curtail the citizens’ right to vote in presidential elections and do not apportion representation in a unambiguously inequitable manner. The Florida courts’ power of judicial review would be checked only to to the degree that they cannot intervene to the point where they can be said to have infringed upon this prerogative.
    A well reasoned position, but who is to arbitrate this, given that the legislature is a party to the process, what is to stop it from creating, and then using, ambiguity and uncertainty?
    but also by state constitutions and assertive judicial “statutory reconcilation” to the degree that Article II’s “manner” clause is nearly void of meaning.
    As I have already pointed out, the means to break the current constitutional regime does not require states acting outside of even their current accepted scope. All that it would take is a sufficent number of states to adopt a plan to apportion electors by congressional district or proportion of vote to render our current arrangements untenable.

    The current constitutional regime was upheld by one vote - which suggests that merely tinkering with the edges is insufficent, there is not a mandate for its present form so clear and broad as to make it unassailable. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Ben Tracadie - 02:39 pm PST - Dec 13, 2000  - #754 of 773

    What EX and Nicole were saying about Gore's popular vote margin now appears to be official.

    Gore's nationwide popular vote margin of 534,000 over Bush is not only bigger than JFK's margin over Nixon in 1960 of 118,000, but is also larger than Nixon's 510,000 vote margin in 1968. Gore has 50,944,733 votes (48.39%) and Bush has 50,410,629 votes (47.89%).

    <http://uselectionatlas.org/pol2000.html
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 07:50 am PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #755 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    Irrelevant - Gore wasn't short votes, but vertebrae 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 12:21 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #756 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Combined with Nader, the progressive vote was over 52%.... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 03:03 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #757 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    The democrats in congress have decided to go "bipartisan". Which would seem to confirm Nader's argument that there is no difference between the two parties. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 03:34 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #758 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Its easy to stand around now and talk about "bi-partisan" while its meaningless. I suggest that most of the tilt is going to be towards the Democrats.....Tom Daschle has near universal suppport of the Senate Democtats and is emerging as the powerhouse in the Senate.

    Lott is shunned by the Republican moderates and the conservatives don't trust him....A couple want his job.

    Daschle is smart enough to know that the big middle is where the action is.....He knows that he is not going to get, for example, national health care; but neither will Social Security be Wall Streetized....And there will be no Scalia allies on the court. And the NRA will not have a chair in the Oval Office. And we will see a Patients' Bill of Rights and relief on prescription drugs..... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    Mark Rustow - 04:02 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #759 of 773

    Is Jesse going to start riots? For his most recent lies and abominations, see The Jesse Files:

    Jesse Jackson on How to Steal an Election, and Live Happily Ever After

    Jesse Jackson, Part II: Whose Rights? Our Rights!

    Jesse Jackson, Part III: Gettin' Paid

    Jesse Jackson, Part IV: Like Father, Like Son

    Election Blues
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Stirling S Newberry - 04:02 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #760 of 773
    traitors must be tried, convicted and executed. To take power illegally is to be a traitor.

    I think Daschle has correctly guaged that there isn't support from the Democrats for a scorched earth policy in the Senate.

    Expect to see big tax cuts for the rich. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    RjHeaney - 04:10 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #761 of 773
    I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

    Who needs a "scorched Earth" policy in the Senate? A simple filibuster proof minority is all you need, and that Daschle has.

    No radical agenda will be approved, from either side.

    No National Health Care, but No Massive Tax Cuts.

    No Patients Bill of Rights (with teeth), but Privatized Social Security

    and on, and on.

    Things will remain right down the middle for the next 2 years.

    <on edit>

    There won't be radical appointments either, nor radical promotions when Rehnquist retires. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 04:31 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #762 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    RjH......

    If either party must resort to filabusters as a routine, then nothing will happen. The key will be a reasonable give and take.....The worry immediately goes up that we will have a tax decrease for the wealthy. And certainly this will be true - if the tax decrease is needed to stimulate the economy. Any tax decrease that is designed as an economic measure must give breaks to the top earners.....

    I'm an optomist....I think that we will have patients bill of rights. Wellstone and others will make a huge stink over that issue....It will be too hard to turn down....Plus it will be a great trading plum for the bi-partisan-ers..... 
    (BOOKMARK)

    RjHeaney - 05:23 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #763 of 773
    I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

    If either party must resort to filabusters as a routine, then nothing will happen. The key will be a reasonable give and take....

    I agree, but there are some that are predicting radical crap from the Republicans and that they will try to run roughshod over the Democrats.

    It ain't gonna happen.

    If bi-partisanship happens, things will be good, but it MUST be a centrist agenda.

    If massive tax cuts for the rich, strong anti-abortion legislation, large cuts in social programs and huge expenditures for the Military try to get rammed through, expect Senator Phil A. Buster to become the 51st Democrat. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 05:24 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #764 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    Well, remember...

    The Democrats also supported killing the death tax earlier this year. Clinton vetoed it.

    That will pass.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    RjHeaney - 05:27 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #765 of 773
    I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

    Xiang, 5 of the 62 that voted for it in the Senate last session will not be there come January. They were given their walking papers.

    Don't hold your breath waiting for it. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    RjHeaney - 05:37 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #766 of 773
    I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

    Lott, Daschle differ over tax cuts

    On the question of tax cuts, Daschle said the Senate would not go as far as Republicans want.
    "While we are willing to work with them, I don't think that we'll ever go to the magnitude [of the $1.3 trillion tax cut over 10 years] that George Bush has proposed," he said. "It would destroy the fiscal opportunities we have to retire the debt in the not too far distant future."
    This was only 4 days ago Xiang, you might want to stick to subjects that can't be so easily refuted.

    Big tax cuts will not happen. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Xiang - 05:43 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #767 of 773
    Don't get snippy with me

    RJ,

    You need to remember - Daschle can't speak for all the Democratic senators.

    The senate is much more independent than the house. Herding senators is like herding cats... no fun at all.

    Anything that the Republicans can get 10 Democrats on board for is filibuster proof.

    And cutting the death tax got a fair amount of Democratic support last time it came up.

    The Democrats will also have to decide if this is the fight they want to dig their heels in on.

    Xiang 
    (BOOKMARK)

    RjHeaney - 05:52 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #768 of 773
    I've often wondered, if a public school had a Muslim principal, that wanted to lead the school in Muslim pray each day, how long would it take the Catholics or Baptists of the community to blow a cork? (2 weeks down - 206 to go)

    You need to remember - Daschle can't speak for all the Democratic senators.

    The senate is much more independent than the house. Herding senators is like herding cats... no fun at all.

    But he can make their life difficult. I expect the Democrats to take the Senate back in 2002, and Daschle will be in charge. He will orchestrate them far better then you are giving him credit for.

    Anything that the Republicans can get 10 Democrats on board for is filibuster proof.

    It will not be an easy task.

    And cutting the death tax got a fair amount of Democratic support last time it came up.

    9, but it didn't get full Republican support either.

    The Democrats will also have to decide if this is the fight they want to dig their heels in on.

    I believe you will find many lines in the sand. Daschle holds far more power than you are giving him credit for. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 06:19 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #769 of 773

    Daschle is one smart cookie. A good relationship with him may be a prerequisite for W.'s success. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Captain Billy - 06:52 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #770 of 773
    "I may have left the White House, but I’m still here!" ­ WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, The last person to be elected President of the US.

    Tim said it right....

    Daschle is one smart cookie. A good relationship with him may be a prerequisite for W.'s success.
    And the Democrats in the Senate are more united than ever. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Timothy Usher - 06:55 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #771 of 773

    Captain, people are digging up your posts from two years ago on "Presidential Race 2000." Your academic stature has increased! :) 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ron Newman - 08:12 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #772 of 773
    American democracy -- born April 19, 1775; died Dec. 11, 2000?

    Is Jesse [Jackson] going to start riots?
    I don't want to see "riots", but I hope he does lead a massive march into DC on January 20, big enough to paralyze the city. I'll be glad to participate. 
    (BOOKMARK)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    William F. Burton - 08:15 pm PST - Dec 14, 2000  - #773 of 773
    Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

    I started a thread for protests on Coronation Day.

    I plan to be there with bananas and an air horn.

    Shrub will try to jam through a bunch of wingnut judges to make Pat Robertson happy, and it'll destroy any chance of a good relationship with Senate Dems. He'll learn that these Dems aren't like the ones back home. 
    (BOOKMARK)