Electoral College 240 years and still going strong. What does your popular vote really mean? Legally...
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lesso...
Direct bearing sections in parts. below.
When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.
A work in progress
It was up to the states to decide how they ought to vote for their electors — and to a great extent still is, in fact. There is no national election for president, but rather fifty-one separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. In the beginning, state legislatures voted for electors, who in turn voted for the president and vice president. Electors were free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but over time they were increasingly elected because they supported a particular candidate. By 1832, every state but South Carolina held direct elections for president, and electors were effectively bound to vote for a particular candidate. (South Carolina held out until 1864.)
Today, of course, every state allows citizens to vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. (It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.) Some states have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.
In addition, a state doesn't have to throw all of its electors behind the candidate that receives the most popular votes in that state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign one elector to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two electors to the candidate with the most votes statewide. After the 2000 election, there was some debate about whether that system would be more fair than the winner-take-all system used by the other 48 states and the District of Columbia. * See NOTE at the bottom.
The original Constitution also didn't take into account the development of political parties. Electors were to vote for two candidates for president. The man with the highest number of votes that was a majority became president, and the man with the second highest number of votes became vice president. In 1800, however, the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president, and because there was no separate voting for the two offices, the two men tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives had to decide the issue. Afterwards, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed
In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the compromise electoral process that was included in the Constitution, explains why the president should be elected indirectly, rather than directly by the people.
The people vs. the electors (more historical perspectives)
As everyone learned or was reminded of in the election of 2000, the Constitution doesn't say that the candidate with the most popular support has any claim on the Presidency. It says that the candidate with the most electoral votes will become president. So George W. Bush won the election fair and square, by the rules set forth in the Constitution.
Actually, the last president to be elected by a majority of the voters was George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with a plurality — more than any other candidate, but less than half of the total vote — because there were three major candidates. Because the third candidate, H. Ross Perot, failed to win a majority anywhere, he didn't win any electoral votes, and Clinton was able to win a majority of the electoral votes without winning a majority of the popular vote.
George W. Bush wasn't the first candidate to become president despite losing the popular vote, either. It also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888, and each time, a debate ensued about whether the outcome was fair or right.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes (at least in states where popular elections were held), but no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes. The House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams as president. (Jackson won the election four years later.)
In 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden narrowly won the popular vote over Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, but twenty contested electoral votes prevented either man from winning a majority of electors. A compromise... Congress certified all twenty contested votes as having been cast for Hayes.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison easily won a majority of the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote to his opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland.Harrison won narrow majorities in
.
And in 2000, Democrat Al Gore initially won a narrow plurality of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican George W. Bush, 271 to 266. The vote was so close Gore, thinking he had lost, conceded, then retracted his concession as more votes were counted. When the dust had settled the courts ruled Bush had won both the popular and electoral votes but by a squeaky close margin.
* The winner take all system was meant to ensure a majority and thus bring the country together. Didn't work. The current status is legal but under fire and since it's the parties cal the States law means nothing. Federal trumps State.
The objection is who gave you the right to take my vote and give it to someone else? Violates a number of rights not granted and rights granted and specifically stated not the least of which is due process. Instead it has disinterested people in what they rightly view as a rigged election with stolen votes.
What matters is who takes control. If Hillary or Bernie there will be no more Constitution.
If Trump. Who knows? According to his supporters on issues are not important until after the election or after the inauguration. Kind of like Pelosiillyni's idiot remark you have to vote for it to read it except this one isn't written. In the meantime until my vote vote counts it's going to a different version of None of the Above which used to be don't vote for either one and is called 'under voting.
What Trumps people are trying to get through in violation of this years rules for selecting a candidate.Remember a majority of Republicans voted Against Trump . He's second place at best. Minus winner take all he's a candidate for becoming an un politically involved billionaire and with 46% sitting this one out there will be no majority win in popular vote which doesn't count anyway. and ....Electoral? Up to them. Federal "Trumps" State. I predict this has a chance of going to the Rep's. We'll know Jan 20th.
Direct bearing sections in parts. below.
When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.
A work in progress
It was up to the states to decide how they ought to vote for their electors — and to a great extent still is, in fact. There is no national election for president, but rather fifty-one separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. In the beginning, state legislatures voted for electors, who in turn voted for the president and vice president. Electors were free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but over time they were increasingly elected because they supported a particular candidate. By 1832, every state but South Carolina held direct elections for president, and electors were effectively bound to vote for a particular candidate. (South Carolina held out until 1864.)
Today, of course, every state allows citizens to vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. (It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.) Some states have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.
In addition, a state doesn't have to throw all of its electors behind the candidate that receives the most popular votes in that state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign one elector to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two electors to the candidate with the most votes statewide. After the 2000 election, there was some debate about whether that system would be more fair than the winner-take-all system used by the other 48 states and the District of Columbia. * See NOTE at the bottom.
The original Constitution also didn't take into account the development of political parties. Electors were to vote for two candidates for president. The man with the highest number of votes that was a majority became president, and the man with the second highest number of votes became vice president. In 1800, however, the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president, and because there was no separate voting for the two offices, the two men tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives had to decide the issue. Afterwards, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed
In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the compromise electoral process that was included in the Constitution, explains why the president should be elected indirectly, rather than directly by the people.
The people vs. the electors (more historical perspectives)
As everyone learned or was reminded of in the election of 2000, the Constitution doesn't say that the candidate with the most popular support has any claim on the Presidency. It says that the candidate with the most electoral votes will become president. So George W. Bush won the election fair and square, by the rules set forth in the Constitution.
Actually, the last president to be elected by a majority of the voters was George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with a plurality — more than any other candidate, but less than half of the total vote — because there were three major candidates. Because the third candidate, H. Ross Perot, failed to win a majority anywhere, he didn't win any electoral votes, and Clinton was able to win a majority of the electoral votes without winning a majority of the popular vote.
George W. Bush wasn't the first candidate to become president despite losing the popular vote, either. It also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888, and each time, a debate ensued about whether the outcome was fair or right.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes (at least in states where popular elections were held), but no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes. The House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams as president. (Jackson won the election four years later.)
In 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden narrowly won the popular vote over Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, but twenty contested electoral votes prevented either man from winning a majority of electors. A compromise... Congress certified all twenty contested votes as having been cast for Hayes.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison easily won a majority of the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote to his opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland.Harrison won narrow majorities in
.
And in 2000, Democrat Al Gore initially won a narrow plurality of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican George W. Bush, 271 to 266. The vote was so close Gore, thinking he had lost, conceded, then retracted his concession as more votes were counted. When the dust had settled the courts ruled Bush had won both the popular and electoral votes but by a squeaky close margin.
* The winner take all system was meant to ensure a majority and thus bring the country together. Didn't work. The current status is legal but under fire and since it's the parties cal the States law means nothing. Federal trumps State.
The objection is who gave you the right to take my vote and give it to someone else? Violates a number of rights not granted and rights granted and specifically stated not the least of which is due process. Instead it has disinterested people in what they rightly view as a rigged election with stolen votes.
What matters is who takes control. If Hillary or Bernie there will be no more Constitution.
If Trump. Who knows? According to his supporters on issues are not important until after the election or after the inauguration. Kind of like Pelosiillyni's idiot remark you have to vote for it to read it except this one isn't written. In the meantime until my vote vote counts it's going to a different version of None of the Above which used to be don't vote for either one and is called 'under voting.
What Trumps people are trying to get through in violation of this years rules for selecting a candidate.Remember a majority of Republicans voted Against Trump . He's second place at best. Minus winner take all he's a candidate for becoming an un politically involved billionaire and with 46% sitting this one out there will be no majority win in popular vote which doesn't count anyway. and ....Electoral? Up to them. Federal "Trumps" State. I predict this has a chance of going to the Rep's. We'll know Jan 20th.
It is scary to think of ending programs we like but some of them do have or are supposed to have separate funds so turning them over to the participants or to the states and localities is not impossible.
Reining in Congess is the first step to restoring our Liberties!
Otherwise, a reasonable explantion.
I, personally, think the buffer of the Electoral College has value. I am opposed to pure democracy and wish the 17th would be repealed so state Legislatures coudl recall a US Senator.
The danage was done by turning the Senators in to Representatives at large. which removed the States from thei rrole in the checks and balances system.
Add in the money as free speech rule where a few very wealthy people can campaign in almost every location at every level we now have no checks and balances.
Item three is the multi party system which came about after the fact became a two party system and now a de facto one party system barring a miracle from the Lib Party and the voters.
Without that the present attitude is why have a two party system when we only have one party with two parts who both believe in the same tings near enough?
Next step is direct control of States by the federal government which is almost de facto at present.
So the thought is...maybe this electoral college is the only thing keeping us from sliding off the edge until you go back to the money as free speech crap and the new push to get direct access using money as free speech to candidates, elected and appointed officials.
Face it .. without money your right to a free speech and the right to free and open elections in your own precincts etc. is garbage.
Repealing that one law or making it a choice of the States both selected at state level both direct vote or one of each would be a step but more important is make them employees of the State and delegates to the federal government. Then add recall by the States. If the feds want to help out with the payroll fine but the control stays at the state and local level. There's no better control over elected officials (minus the only two true employees at federal level) and it's a great term limit tool.
What you are really after is rentention or regaining local control to replace the lost check sand balances of the State Government in exchange for direct vote instead of electoral vote. Having all Representatives and Two Senators as state employees and delegates to the federal government with the states right to recall accomplishes that.
Personally I like the two way approach direct and indirect of the founders as it gives both State and local populace controls.
and just as an add on thought make the Reps 3 years, keep the Senators at six. and make the Prez y VP one term of six spend more time working and less time running for office. . the old system was based on horse and buggies or long absences. Still elect the delegates one third one third one third every two years.
Last Point it takes two years to learn the system. WHY? If it's that cumbersome then change it. That's an in house problem. Not a reason to get re-elected.
Clarification: I support repeal of both the Twelfth and Seventeenth Amendments. The Twelfth encourages/entrenches the two-party system. The Seventeenth encourages mob rule and destroys the main check on the Federal Government: the States themselves.
I would also support a rule that said that one was only able to contribute money to candidates representing one's home district and only personal donations (not corporate donations) were permitted. You can donate as much as you want, but only to candidates who directly represent you.
I don't object to the Electoral College at all. The States should be the ones responsible for selecting the President - not the people directly.
Your para three is called geo-political interest. basically the home precinct ballot and voting pamphlet is the guide and says who or what you may or may not contribute towards.
The short title is If you MAY NOT vote you MAY NOT contribute.
The geo political area automatically widens as you go down the list from local school district to county commissioner or city judge to districts of any kind to the State level and that adds State Senators and Representatives as delegates to the Federal government. The only two wide open are President and Vice President.
Add in recall including all but the top two you are good to go. Which is exactly what it says in the constitution . Short of age and citizenship States run their own elections.
I object to the notion that a person's personal wealth is a measure of their voting ability, however. Voting is a right of sentience and citizenship - not wealth. That being said, I do support the notion that anyone who receives government assistance/welfare may do so at the cost of their right to vote. I do agree that those taking money from the government should be prevented from being able to vote for their own largesse.
I would also proffer the idea that the Legislative Branch not be paid for by the Federal Government, but by their respective State Governments. Just as we should never allow a private citizen to vote for themselves a pay raise to come from taxes, neither should our elected representatives be allowed to vote for their own salaries and perks.
However to give the College it's due it's lasted almost two and a half centuries so arguing against that part of the system is a bit late. Or against the way the parties pick their candidates.
When the whole thing first started there was no tradition of country, the USA and a great fear of federalism. The Congress - at the time the largest and still is in terms of power - divided into one section directly elected and the other half indirectly elected through the State Governments. Senate the older wiser more able to leave their regular jobs, better educated, more deliberative was set up to slow the pace. the Representatives shorter term, younger went to the less educated but still became filled with the 'local' notables, less deliberative. each check and balancing each other.
Government was supposed to deal - at federal level - with foreign affairs, wars, judicial. they felt no one would want to stay forever and if they did it would be as a Senator. Cronyism for favoritism is just another term for patronage system. That was in effect until the 1960's thinking about postmasters. Recent example is Hillarys stint at state hiring unqualified people who had made huge donations to the Clinton Foundation.
None of this addressed the party system which came later and when it did was encouraged to be antagonistic and slow things down. This bi partisan and cross partisan crap didn't exist. It was felt if the country moved to overly cooperative parties why have two parties? Which is exactly what happened. We have the Government Coalition Party Democrats and Republicans acting as pretend antagonists but in reality as one one party.
That's the short version off the top of my head. It's been tested every which way and the flaws are easy to spot. Should there be another convention or a rewrite those are that would need addressing. Should 1776 part two ever happen.
Which brings up the true party system with two opposed beliefs.
Government over Citizens
Citizens over Government.
Currently we operate in the first area with a combined single party. Most of the people in government are of that mold. As long as they can bring home the bacon and disregard debt that's possible.
The single party of course uses the 1930's Socialist model of big business, big government and big labor but only the leaders of each segment. Corporatists, Statists, labor leaders.
That's your three major divisions There is no longer any similarity to the pre Woodrow Wilson form be it Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian. Most of it is a meld so we get the Corporatist/Statist the Statist Corporatist and the Labor/Statist etc. all working together.
Linked at the top and purposefully kept divided at the bottom. The divisions are largely fairy tales
the letter goes to those who are themselves half the problem
The party's being the sole control of the primaries may be a useful tool in future a place to drive a wedge. It may also be useful as a campaign plank for any other effort such as Libertarians - are they willing to pledge a change through whatever means denying vote theft?
Write them and make that one of the conditions of considering voting in that direction. Along with whatever else is important to you. I put that down and change to end user consumption tax
replacing any form of income tax. Only way I see to get out of debt with everyone paying a bit every time they make a purchase - - IF - - it's done that way.
When the then Commissar in charge of Directorate of Internal Security accused all of us in and formerly in the military of 'being the greatest danger this government faces' I was burned up. After all 24 year in the infantry....what was I to think
Now I now how such a thing could occur. The government itself starting with that ham'n'egger at the top is going out of it's way to radicalize those of us who have always been patriotic and loyal. We still are I'm sure. But not to Mr. Obama and his left wing fascists. No Sir. Not any more. I am so ashamed that something like that thing could be elected twice but then this really isn't the USA anymore is it?
Back to the current discussion... sorry to interrupt.
I am going to say this again. Rights cannot be granted, only permissions can be. The constitution or laws do not make rights but give the government permissions to act, thus reducing rights. Rights do not require one to even ask others or government anything in order to act. If the act is to include others then it requires permission of the others involved.
As Rand stated, rights are a moral principle which sanctions one's freedom of action in a social context. That implies an individual choice which may not be liked by others but the actor is free to do without getting any kind of permission. Group activities are common individual choices which coincide and are rights if it is not necessary to get permission from those outside the group. If permission is required for an action, that action is not done by right.
I really hope the Republican Central Committee and the Rules Committee uphold these complaints and make a Supreme Court case out of this. By the time that's over with it'll be four to eight years later
The convolution heretofore might be expressed this way. You have a right to student loans IF you sign this little card but in doing so you have volunteered for immediate call up if needed (dodging the draft issue) but if you don't sign up voluntarily you may not get student loans, government jobs and will be fined and jailed.
Of course after the core statement of unalienable rights were abrogated by the current administration and then extended over a number of years, namely the civil rights enumerated with the only results gettng re-elecrted therefore tacit approval those rights if allowed are being granted perhaps piece meal or to certain favorites or because of payments, In that sense the government now has the power to grant rights and hasn't paid attention to 9th and 10th for decades and decades. Must be not very many are bitching about losing their rights - but they are gone nonetheless. starting with the rules for apprehension. They are not only abridged the bridge has been destroyed.
I wondered if any one would ever take notice and sort of pushed it a bit to make sure. Congratulations there are now two of you maybe three or four who woke up.
Unalienable rights is somewhat stronger than inalienable rights in that they are taken to be a natural part of a human which cannot even be given up by the person who can just exorcise them or refuse to exorcise the rights, while inalienable rights are rights that one has by choice and that one can choose to give up. I noticed that Rand used both forms in her writings without comment. Her article on rights in The Objectivist News Letter seem to be about rights that one has to choose to have since they are a moral principle which implies choice and which needs to be discovered by the individual.
Seems to near my understanding.
It is common to find that mistake but it's nevertheless incorrect.
I do not see that the meaning is changed by any of the differences. Should all copies disappear, the US would be the same since it is the ideas that matter. Same with the Constitution and the Flag as long as the ideas remain. The USA is not the symbols, but the ideas.
Follow this if you can. Because the punctuation marked was added a different slant can be taken if the 'forgery' is removed. This allows us to (jumps to the Constitution at this point with no support for that move.) make material and rapid changes without amendments or even the use of the judicial system.
Never mind the Declaration is a form of Mission Statement and not law not a binding contract and the Constitution is a binding contract and the law. Never mind much earlier discussions including items in the Mission Statement were left out.
This is the cite and source.
....A Different Idea of Our Declaration by Gordon S. Wood | The New York ...
www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/08/14/d...
Aug 14, 2014 - Danielle Allen at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, 2008 ... Allen, who is a professor of social science at the Institute for .... Every American, she says, should study the Declaration as she and her night students did...."
Professor Allen is a Social Sciences degrees holder and has zero background in English.
In reading this the first time I used KISS principle and went to sources on punctuation which led me to the long forgotten double dash symbol and it's history as the dis ambiguation marks.
Now you are up to speed. Something Allen has never attempted. Most of her book is what we can now do with this new knowledge of a forged Declaration. etc etc. etc. and is of course self serving
So I'll leave that with you except to add she works with a group within Princeton funded by Soros and is an active secular progressive. Her little contribution is used, also without fact checking by George 'Yoda' Lakoff of Don't See The Elepphant the handbook for Sec Prog activists. That's where i found the story and thought to trace it a bit.
Didn't take long.
Your turn.
They forget that the framers of the Constitution decided that such an egalitarian collective would end in some kind of dictatorship and thus decided that a constitutional-representative- republic would have a chance of lasting.
I personally believe that the Declaration should have not have had a mention of a creator or a god or even nature as a source of rights as part of the implied metaphysics and as with the later constitution have a secular nation with no religious test so that religious factions would not compete for control and that the religious and non-religious could go their own ways and maybe, at the most, just yell at each other. That way it might have been possible to get to more rational views of objective reality.
The second em dash is after a comma and would emphasize the following passage. Except for the emphasis, commas would have said the same thing but without some emotion.
So I question the article until I find that I am wrong in my estimate to its correctness. A rational philosophy, especially metaphysics and epistemology, is a necessity. Quantum mechanics, which does a very good job describing the very small in a probabilistic theory does not have a strong objective reality base for many physicists. Einstein believed that reality was objective. See for example the EPR thought experiment.
As far as the merits -- I prefer the idea of directly electing the president, IF we can do it by something like the Australian preferential ballot so that minor parties have a chance.
Certainly if we're going to go on having an electoral college, and its members are going to continue to have the ability to vote for someone other than their pledged candidates, then the ballot on which you and I vote ought to show the electors' names, rather than those of candidates they may or may not vote for.
Not sooooo far.
BUT, if our government didnt redistribute my stuff and didnt take my rights away, this whole election would be a simple choice of an administrator to efficiently run the government.
If the government is going to take away my rights and money, then I can see the argument that MY vote as well as everyone elses should count- without all this nonsense about delegates and electoral college votes.
So, I go on the side of eliminating the electoral college
Theres too much money now in cronyism. The whole government is set up to service cronyism.
I think as in the TV series Jericho, the only way is a long period of re-education of the populace, followed by complete destruction of the present government ( which might happen anyway as it falls of its own weight as in AS).
as excellent short book on the subject is "Two Tyrants" by A.G.Roderick
If congress passes a law and fails to add the implementing regulations then their are no implementing regulations. If they say write what you need it's ok with us then all the Prez needs do is say. Don't write anything. If they don't want to obey FIRE their sorry asses. KISS it isn't rocket science and they are not anything special except out of control employees. Can't fire them? Then why are you re-electing the same people who exempted them AND themselves at the same time. You think Congress came under Civil Rights Act, or any of the others? Still doing insider trading too. But if you enable them for another two, four, or six years whose fault is that? Maybe we need some new employers