Slashdot Mirror
West Virginian Mayor Might Defy Popular Vote
gleam writes "A maverick Republican mayor in West Virginia is reportedly considering not casting his vote in the Electoral College for Bush, even if Bush wins the popular vote there. South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb says, 'I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous, but I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction.' It wouldn't be the first time a West Virginian Elector defied the popular vote: In 1988 an Elector cast her vote for Michael Dukakis's running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, even though Dukakis won the state's popular vote."
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
tcd004
...People that agree with him will call him "honorable". People that don't will call him a "traitor".
I wonder when the IRS is going to start looking very carefully at this man's returns..
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
This is exactly what the electoral college is designed for, as a check against a popularly-elected president that horrifies Congress. It's usually in the best interests of the electors to go with the flow and approve who the voters choose, but it exists in case the next Hitler comes along so that even with a popular vote such a person would not come to power. (No, I don't think anyone running is the next Hitler, but hyperbole is great for driving points home.)
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I can see the obvious point he's trying to make (I hate bush) but could he also be trying to open people's eyes to the dangers of the entire electoral college system? By making such a wacky move he'll open the eyes of voters (regardless of party) to the fact that there's a slim possibility that their votes may not count after all . . .
Hahah I said may not count - I almost forgot about last election!
Anti-Bush articles:3 (Michael Moore, Bush's ANG service, and now this)
Anti-Kerry articles:0.
CmdrTaco did say you guys were going to be fair right? So far, this politics section has been nothing but a Republican-bashing site since Day 1.
You guys could at least fake it, instead of being so obvious and two-faced about it.
You missed it by about 10 minutes.
the facts are biased against bush.
Dude, it was in the politics. Just turn politics off in your prefs.
This is exactly what the electoral college is designed for...
I am really getting sick of people spouting this BS in articles like this lately.
The electoral college system was designed because 200 years ago, it was the only logical way to do things. You didn't have cars, planes, or busses. All you had was horses.
Imagine a country-wide vote in 1800. Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback. Imagine the number of postman involved, any one of which could easily be picked off, or bribed. Imagine how long it would take to count.
The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington. The individual states could each count the votes in their state, then they know what to tell their guy to vote for. it is the only thing that made sense logistically.
Nowadays, however, all the reasons for it are gone. Your argument is rubbish - why are the electoral college voters more suited for judging character than the populace as a whole? I wouldn't trust most of the politicians I know with keys to my house, let alone keys to the country's vote.
The Electoral College, for those not familiar with the United States Presidental election system, is a particular group of people charged with electing the president.
The electors are charged with voting for the President - the President is elected by this group of people (much like the Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a select group of German/Italian nobles). The people technically vote for electors.
Electors are "pledged" to vote for who the people they represent voted for - but they aren't required. This (electors voting for someone other than the person the popular vote chose) has happened several times in the past, although it has never affected the outcome of the election.
Several reasons have been postulated for the Electoral College system. One, it's a check on the stupidity of the people - make sure a dicatorial demagogue isn't elected. Another reason was that the Founding Fathers didn't trust the communications of their time. For example, if, after the popular election, it was found out that the President-elect was a serial killer, the electors could change their vote.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Isn't it great when posters moderate themselves in their subject line? That way the mods don't even have to read the text!
The US two-party-only system has always baffled me. Every thing I learn more about the system supports the concept that it is pretty much by law only a two-party state.
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
Thats really offensive. It reminds me of when I look at the RNC on tv and 95% of the people are white with a net worth of over $1,000,000. Seems like this racist attitude is a step back from lincoln's republican party.
It's just another layer of "check and balance" that's been built into this system. I'm not surprised that you (and I imagine many like-minded people) want to throw it out as I'm sure it seems arcane, but you must more carefully consider it. A lot of people said the same thing about US Senators, that the people should be trusted to choose them directly instead of letting the legislatures choose them. Are we better off now with direct election of Senators, or worse off?
I'd tend to say that we are worse off now. Senators operate largely on the same basis as the House: whoever brings home the most bacon gets re-elected. It also means the legislative body represents the interests of the people only and not of the states. While the Founders were distrustful of power and authority, there were also distrustful of allowing direct control of all government by the people as a whole.
I think you need to do a little reconsidering of your position. After having read on several of the Founders, I doubt they were more concerned with election fraud than direct elections.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I must second the motion...p ?caching=on&product_id=235339798071835797&inde x=1
defying the popular vote wasn't intended to allow for just random dissent among the electors, I thought it was to prevent a total nutcase from being elected, should there be some kinda bizarre fluke where they get the most popular votes through ballot stuffing, etc.
--
I hope I don't get in trouble for this. WTF bush shirt:
http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.as
They were showing everyone's net worth on TV? Wow! Oh, wait, this is more of that ad hominem stuff, isn't it?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Yes, politics section is good - for all the political posts.
/. front page.
/. would have worked that out, may be from my "Time Zone / Daylight Savings Time" information - which puts me in GMT +10
/. front page along with YRO. All of which should HAVE BEEN FILTERED.
1. I'm not in US, I don't really understand or care, really, who these people are. But I'm open to accept that Americans probably care about their politics. And they probably want it on their
2. A smart
3. I go to my preferences and check off both "Politics" (did anyone notice there are two?
4. As usual, politics posts still appear on my
Gosh, damn. A nerd website that is broken and buggy? Where's your pride?
In 1988 an Elector cast her vote for Michael Dukakis's running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, even though Dukakis won the state's popular vote.
Reminds me of my wife - sometimes she puts the forks where the knives go...simple mistake, but you know how women can be.
If the guy had chosen not to vote for Kerry, would this story have appeared on Slashdot? I think the whole "Politics" section is strange as a Slashdot section.
This isn't a "Republicans" article. By pretending to be fair and having both a Republicans and a Democrats section here, the clearly left-leaning editors can encourage their friends and berate their enemies to their hearts content. Seriously, this is my last /. politics post. I'm banning Democrats, Republicans, and Politics from my homepage. When I want real politics news and discussion I know where to get it. Not here.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
As long as this guy is the only one, the only situation in which this could affect the election is if the electoral vote is supposed to be 270/267 in favor of Bush, and this guy either votes for Kerry instead (making it 269/268) or for some random dude (269/267/1.. back in the 70s some elector cast his vote for the Libertarian candidate instead of whoever he was supposed to pick). In that case, since no one would have the required majority of 270, it'd go to the House (who'd pick Bush anyway).
This is pretty unlikely, though.
In any case, the electoral college is still a good idea, unless you want NY and CA deciding everything. A president has to be able to make decisions for the good of the whole country (geographically), not just the cities.
I would like to see more states follow the Maine/Nebraska method of allocating electors, though (by Congressional district, and the extra 2 go to whoever wins the state overall).
Of course, I'd also like to see Senators appointed by the state legislatures again, too, but that's not going to happen.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington
Then why wasn't the system codified to require the elector to merely report the majority vote for the state, and not allow him/her the option to ignore the will of the people?
democracy
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. [1] I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
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. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
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 noti
"Because electors arent elected anymore! Bwuahahaha!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
nt
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter / Independent
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.
140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.
$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.
$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.
$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.
$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.
7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.
George Bush: Military man
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.
0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove the main proponents of the war in Iraq served in combat (combined).
0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.
8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.
10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.
46 Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys).
Ambitious warrior
2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office.
130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for expressing something I've been thinking about for a long time:
Popular election of Senators may be a bad idea.
"How", you say? "How dare you!", some of you scream. Well, how long have we been complaining that real statesmanship is missing from Congress? The Senate was supposed to be the wise check on the popular passions of the day when the Constituion was written. The Senate was not supposed to be anti-democratic. It was not meant to block the will of the House, those popular representatives of the citizenry. It was mereley supposed to be a group of older and wiser men that would provide moderation in the expression of the democratic will. It didn't always work out this way, but for the exception of the tenure of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (and those two also served in the Senate), the Senate was always known as the chamber of Congress that had the deepest debates about what we would call the Big Picture today. Congressmen were too busy trying to get roads built and budgets passed. The Senate always debated the truly lofty issues of the day.
After the 17th Amendment passed, and Senators became directly elected by popular vote, they became less statesmenlike. For all intents and purposes, they're just "Super-Congressmen" now, just as concerned with bringing home the pork as their fellow House members.
I'm not saying there wasn't abuse of the old system (with state legislatures electing them), or that common people aren't fit to elect their leaders. Far from it. But I wish we could get a better caliber of Senator, regardless of party.
How many truly great Senators have there been last century? Truly wise men that had the best interests of the country at heart, and at times bucked their own party to follow that instinct? In the latter half of the 20th century, I can think of only two I'd apply this label to: Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and John C Stennis of Mississippi. DPM was Liberal, but had common sense. He was a Democrat, but respected Republicans. And keep in mind, I'm a Republican. How often do you hear someone of one party praise someone of another party? Not often. Stennis was a lifelong Democrat that is remembered as the father of the modern navy for his contributions. What about the House? Despite the more partisan nature of the House, Congressmen have more often made their mark in the public memory than Senators have, becoming both famous, and infamous. Sam Rayburn, Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm not familiar with the US system. But it seems that the people pick the electors who then pick the president. But what other powers/responsibilities do the electors have?
If the elector's role is not just electing the president and involves other things then since this particular elector has _announced_publicly_ he might not vote for Bush, arguably if the people still vote for the elector it means they want him in for the other things he does, and they're not bothered if he doesn't vote the party line.
Also some may actually vote for him for the very reason that he is a Republican who's not going to vote for Bush. e.g. he's the one who best reflects their thinking.
So I don't really see what's so wrong if he openly declares his wishes. If people vote him in and they want him to vote for Bush they're stupid. Stupidity is very common though so this politician is taking a big risk.
If he keeps it secret and ONLY does it AFTER he is voted in, then that's being faithless - since the defacto behaviour is expected.
WRT to the Party: Now that he has made the announcement, can't the Republican party kick him out and put a different candidate in? And force this guy to go in as an independent?
I believe electors should not be allowed to decide who they will vote for before the national election. Each party can put electors on the ballot, but each elector runs separately. It would increase representation. It would allow you to vote mostly democrats, but vote against the anti-gun democrats, if that is how you wish to vote!
After the polls close the electors gather together and come to an agreement (by the deadline in the constitution or it goes to congress). Since each electors is independent, electors can compromise on someone in the other party, but with important beliefs to shared with the other. (for example, a anti-abortion democrat)
The electoral college is there because a good leader may have to piss people off.
The Democratic National Convention is full of minorities because of Affirmative Action. In short, the Democratic party set QUOTAS on how many Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, etc. could attend. States had to comply with the quotas or the party would REFUSE TO SEAT THEM at the convention. For example, in Tennesee, based on the statewide population, the party decided that the delegation would look like this:
White, Non-Hispanic: 70.4 percent of delegation (59 delegates)
Black/African American: 27.2 percent of delegation (23 delegates)
Hispanic 2.4 percent of delegation (2 delegates)
Youth (ages 18-29) 10 percent of district delegation (9 delegates) source.
Look it up for your own home state.
Whether or not this is racism is debatable, but the difference between the RNC and DNC is that the RNC was a true picture of the constituents while the Democrats used quotas to make their convention look as colorful as possible.
The World is Yours.
Everyone keeps overlooking the most important part of just why we have an electoral college. It's because our country was founded as a republic - not a democracy. You won't see anything in the constitution about a popular vote, because that's not how the founding fathers wanted the president to be elected. They envisioned a system whereby electors, chosen by the invidual states, would vote for president. They hated the idea of political parties and abhorred the idea that a 'gentleman' should campaign for political office.
The system that they devised was very clever, and based upon models that had worked historically. They decided not to have congress or state legislatures elect a president sice such a method would surely result in partisan bickering or presidents selected by just a few large states without regard to the intrest of others. Instead, they decided to have this college of electors, who hopefully would be the wisest men in the states which they represented, and would choose whom they thought was the best president, without considering anything like political party.
Unfortunately, if you look at what we've got now, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that great men like Washington and Jefferson wouldn't be downright pissed at our sorry system of national political parties selecting two men who pander to the various special interest groups that hold out their hands to the government for help. Now we've got people whining that the electoral college 'doesn't work' and that we should move to some other system. Why is that that we can't realize our problem is that we aren't following the constitutional model?
Look at the situation we've got now - it's as if the states are invisible. All the real power to do anything resides with the federal government, and that government is giving itself more and more power. The ability to control health insurance, the ability to regulate what you can and cannot say during a political debate, the ability to pay for your school and your medicine, and to dictate who can hire whom and for what reasons - all of those things are or will soon be under federal jurisdiction. Can you name your state senator or representative? When was the last time a piece of state legistlation or a decision by your state's supreme court made you happy/pissed? Such a situation is certainly not what our founding fathers had envisioned. Let's face it - we're no longer the republic of independent states that our forefathers hoped for - we're just 'America', and progressing our way towards a national socialist democracy.
What's the solution ? It's not too difficult, really.
The
My blog
How often do you hear someone of one party praise someone of another party? Not often.
John McCain. Most everyone I know loves John McCain, even the staunch Democrats (like myself).
Still, I have to agree that the current political climate makes it damn hard for a politican to get away with sticking with his convictions and speaking his mind rather than rolling over and doing what is demanded by party and fashion. (McCain is another great example of this.)
"...a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."
Edmond Burke of the British Parliament
Quoted by Dr. Lyman Hall (GA), and thus was the Declaration of Independence signed, contrary to the vote in Georgia
From getting front page Slashdot stories now does it?
Go read the original constitution. Originally, people didn't vote for the president. In fact, the people didn't have a say on how the president was chosen.
Article II, section 2, clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The legislature of a state chose the electors, not the people! The popular vote is just as important as the world-wide popular vote. It is irrelevant. All the states have delegated that responsibility to various systems. I believe Rhode Island and Maine appoint electors according to the proportion of the vote.
The electors assembled in their own states and chose two people to be president, one of which must not be from their state. (That's why Cheney moved to Wyoming and claimed residency there - he could not be voted as the second because he was a Texas resident.) They had to send the number of votes for each person, signed and sealed, to the federal government. Whereupon the president of the senate opens the envelopes and reads the votes. The one with the majority is the president. The second place is vice-president, and president of the senate. If there is a tie and both have majority, then the house decides who is president and who is vice-president. If no one gets a majority, then the house chooses one from the top five candidates. In the case the house is tied, the senate breaks the tie.
That's how the president was chosen at first. In fact, in the first election, nobody ran for president. However, George Washington won overwhelmingly. It was said that each of the electorates actually debated and took seriously their duty to choose a president. How I wish we elected representatives to choose the most important office in the land! And how I wish those people would debate and choose outside of the visibility of the people and legislatures the president!
Eventually, we got rid of the "second place is vice-president" rule by amendment because it always meant that the president of the senate was in opposition to the president, and the government was constantly gridlocked due to that.
When the Florida debacle occured, the Florida state legislature could've stepped in and changed the law permitting them to appoint electors without regard to the people's voice. That was their right under the constitution. Then they could've appointed their own electoral college and then sent them off to vote whichever way they pleased. However, because so few Americans have even read the simple document that our nation is built on, they refused to do so for fear of open rebellion. Instead, they allowed the courts to settle the matter.
Now, go read that document! You have to understand what is in it and what is not, and it is an easy read for techies like us. If we forget what checks and balances are in there, and why they are there, we are doomed to end up like France, Germany, Russia, or China one day.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
http://www.venezuela-referendum.com/
***Slashdot rejected this story so here it is***
Edward W. Felten, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Aviel D. Rubin, Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University
Adam Stubblefield, Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University
Summary
After the August 15 referendum in Venezuela on whether or not to recall president Chávez, opposition groups examined the polling data and made accusations of fraud due to statistical anomalies in the reported election results that they claim could not have occurred if the election were run fairly. However, our analysis of the same data, based on simulations, did not detect any statistical anomalies that would indicate obvious fraud in the election.
We emphasize that a lack of statistical evidence does not imply the absence of fraud. Rather, it rules out certain classes of fraud. In any case, the fraud that is alleged is not the type that we would expect a cheating government to employ. In particular, we believe that the forms of election fraud that are most likely to succeed, such as voting machines silently switching some fraction of Yes votes to No votes inside the computer, would not produce observable statistical anomalies.
Electronic voting is more susceptible to widespread fraud than less automated mechanisms. The fact that the opposition is highly suspicious of the outcome is due, in part, to the choice of electronic voting machines in a simple Yes/No election. While we did not find any statistical evidence for the claims of caps on the machines or other specific accusations of fraud, we are concerned that wide scale unobservable fraud is much easier to realize in electronic voting machines than in, for example, precinct based paper systems.
There was a really good speech on C-SPAN a few weeks ago about the two party system we have here in the US. It talked about how everyone loses when we are forced to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. It talked about how the democrats needed the republicans to stay in power and vice-versa. I don't remember who wrote it, but I would really like to find an archive online of it. I think the speech was called "Two party system" by Allen or Al somebody (could be completly wrong on name and author). If anyone else saw the program, please let me know the name/author and it would be great for a link!
The typical reaction of your average neo-con when presented with factual evidence which they find distasteful.
Everything you point to there in that article? All that stuff said Gore won Florida.
An hereditary house like Britain had for centuries?
An appointed house in which the appointer appoints his best friends?
Any person that is going to legislate on the name of the populace has to be elected in a democracy.
If Senators are less statesmen like it may be that the political system needs fixing (when are you guys going to fix your financing rules?), not that the election process is broken.
The way your system works politicians are forced to whore out to the highest bidder. Strong limits on campaign expenditures and strong legislation about fairness during press coverage could alleviate a lot of those problems.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Source: http://www.issues2000.org/askme/Faithless_Electors .htm
The first clear case of the faithless elector happened in 1820, where one of James Monroe's electors voted for John Quincy Adams instead. Monroe carried every state in the Union, so the outcome was not affected.
In this century, there have been 7 faithless electors. The first was in 1948, when Strom Thurmond was running for president on the Dixiecrat platform. Preston Parks, a Truman elector for Tennessee, voted for Thurmond, who was a distant third in the popular vote. W.F. Turner, an elector for Adlai Stevenson, voted in 1956 for a local judge from his home district.
The first appearance of a faithless elector in a close election happened in the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy. An Oklahoma Kennedy elector named Henry D. Irwin voted instead for Harry F. Byrd, a senator from Virginia. Byrd ran as an independent and gained in addition all the 8 electoral votes from Mississippi and 6 of the 7 votes from Alabama. Reportedly Irwin, a southern Democrat, objected to Kennedy's civil rights policies. Although this election was very close, Irwin's vote did not affect the outcome.
In 1968 however, the independent candidate's appeal and his corresponding electoral votes almost did change the outcome. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina Nixon elector, voted instead for George Wallace, who ran as an independent. In this case, Wallace gained a total of 46 electoral votes, which came close to preventing either Nixon or Humphrey from getting the number needed to win.
In 1972, a Nixon elector named Roger L. McBride voted for the Libertarian candidate John Hospers. The publicity McBride received culminated in his own run for President in 1976, also as a Libertarian.
A Ford elector from Washington, Mike Padden, voted in 1976 for Ronald Reagan. Reagan has lost the party's nomination to Ford. The most recent case was in 1988, where Margarette Leach, a Democratic elector from West Virginia, voted for Democratis Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen instead. She said, "it was nice to make a mark on history... I wish every year somebody... would make a statement and it would be heard."
What happens when an elector is faithless? It turns out that only about half of the states have laws binding their electors to vote for the popular vote winner in their state. But wait, the situation is even worse. In the states that do bind their electors, either there is no penalty, or the penalties range from a fine ($1000 in Wisconsin) to conviction of a fourth-degree felony (New Mexico). And, although there are clear documented cases of faithless electors, no faithless elector has ever been punished. Of course, no faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of an election. So far.
If the Democrats had run McCain and he hadn't switched sides, the result would have been a landslide victory. I wish they'd learn to play to win.
+++OK ATH
The entire system of the electoral college was supposed to shield the decision of selecting a president from an ignorant public. In my opinion, the situation in Florida in 2000 was a perfect example of the sort of buffer it provides. I desperately wished that Florida's electoral college representatives would have just split their votes and given the odd one to Bush. That would have been a fair resolution to all the recounting. If it really was too close to call, then make it up in the electoral vote. If it was due to Republicans trying to disenfranchise black voters, if it was due to Democrats trying to disenfranchise military absentee voters, if it was due to Dan Rather calling the election for Gore an hour before the polls closed, whatever the case, make it up in the electoral vote. If all of these battleground states -- if ALL the states -- would cast their votes according to the percentage of the votes that go towards the candidates, we'd have a system that could still correct this sort of confusion, and would still get really close to a system of a popular vote. Don't let anyone fool you, we've had craziness in our voting all along. It's just that technology has provided both the insight to catch it and, more importantly, the means to communicate it immediately. The electoral college may be even more forward-thinking than we knew, but the people who make up the system are going to have to change their attitudes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only tradition that keeps things the way they are. I don't know of any laws that force the delegates to cast their votes a certain way. If they think that the public of their state has made a mistake, it's their duty to cast their vote according to their conscience. (But then we get into a situation were we need to examine how those people get into the position of casting their vote. I have no idea how they are selected.)
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
This guy is saying that he knows better than the populace. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
By the way, does anyone know when/why the electoral college became a winner-takes-all method? With the current system, candidates just focus on the major cities of large battleground states, trying to get 51% of the vote. I wouldn't be surprised if candidates increasingly win the election without the majority of the popular vote.
"Just like I'm not saying Bush is a slave owner I'm not saying he's the one causing global warming (which is I understand it is a culmination of completely natural processes and CFCs)."
Global warming is caused by the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels, now that China and other less-developed countries are modernizing. Another cause is extremely rapid deforestation. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons play a role, too, I understand.
The issues with the Bush administration are more complex than you mentioned, since the administration cannot influence the use of fossil fuels in China, for example. In my opinion, Bush merely sells the government to whomever will pay the most. As with most former alcoholics, George W. Bush is not a very aware person; it is not really he who does the selling, just his administration.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
do some research kiddo.
People respect McCain. That doesn't mean they agree with him. Politics is much more than just whether a candidate is a fundamentally decent person.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's been a problem for a while. It seems to be a known bug related to a major shift in how sections and topics are handled.
I do kinda wish it'd get fixed soon, as well as adding a setting to decide whyether or not you want to see links to stories from other sections.
Oh it's a great feature if you don't habitually check every subsection, but when you do then you end up seeing most stories multiple times. Not to mention that on a busy news day (or weekend) you'll lose the non-specific stories from the front page due to overspill from the sections.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
I have spent the last 18 years living in South Charleston and am very concerned about our mayor. My own political views aside, Mayor Robb should place his vote for president where he sees it fit, but his electoral vote does not belong to him, but to his party and the West Virginia population as a whole. It is misguided and selfish for him to believe otherwise.
8D CB F5 32 BE 2C 49 E9 B5 4A 75 C8 8A 59 70. It's mine, all mine!
While I have little doubt that the numbers you cited are true, without citations and context, you are only going to be dismissed by most on the right due to the Mark Twain equivalence. (That is, statistics are in the same category as lies.)
Besides, you're just preaching to the choir here. /. is already mostly leftist.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
So would you have vote for him if he had run on the 2000 ballot as a Democrat? I think he'd have won in a landslide.
+++OK ATH
So submit posts for politics in your country. Nobody's stopping you. If you're from anywhere with a decent sized population there are probably other slashdotters from your region who will want to talk about it. We Americans might even be interested to peek in on how it works in other nations.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Suppose we have a result opposite the 2000 election results where Kerry wins the electoral vote but loses in the popular count. Are you going to stay consistent in calling for the abolition of the electoral college? Will you claim that Bush really won the election? Or will you sit down and shut up when the system works in your favor?
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Rhode Island (which by the way, isn't the original name of the state)
It isn't the current name of the state either.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
WTF are you talking about?
And that's the problem. We should. Because that system protects our liberties much better. Concentration of power is dangerous. The Founding Fathers knew this, and wisely decentralized it. The federal system itself, not the three branches of the federal gov't, is the greatest check/balance of all. Too bad we lost it when the 17th amendment passed. Combined with the 16th, a central power now has all the authority and all the money it needs. What a dangerous combination.
Constitutionally Correct
Well, you seem to be so damn concerned that elections are invalid if the election disagrees with the exit pools done outside the election site. Exit polls say George Bush lost Florida. You're being a complete hypocrite if you claim to be concerned about election return variances from exit polling data in Venezuela at the same time you recognize the Presidency of George W. Bush. If you are so concerned about the sanctity of the election process, why aren't you in the streets of DC protesting the election Bush stole from Gore?
I posted a link, I didn't state my opinion one way or the other.
Not everything has to have a deep political meaning.
This is the most un-American, absurd thing I've heard in a long time.
Anyway, if something like that does happen, hopefully a further requirement to voting is that you are actually able to spell tax payer.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I guess the Founders were crazy crackpots then: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 2, US Constitution
The electoral college also had the nice effect (and could be its reasoning) of giving white landowners from southern slave holding sates more power in elections than in other states as blacks were counted (as 3/5ths of a person) but were not allowed to vote. The net effect was Virginia got the most power in choosing a president. In the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson would not have won if slaves were not counted. See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.h tm for more views and info on the history and reasoning of the electoral college.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Interesting series of articles on Slate regarding this:
"America's Worst College"
Let's choose our president by popular vote.
Why the "50 Floridas" argument is wrong.
Why the "no more majorities" argument is wrong.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
The 2000 election also defied the popular vote. In a much bigger way.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
lol your party = fundie morons who want a theocracy, congratulations
Jhon Conner aka BUSH is dragging America down.He's doing a superb job at it
(And, no, don't even bring up "The Day After Tommorrow." That's like bringing up "Star Wars" when people start talking about the dangers of totalitarian governments.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix) -- 3,072,149
San Diego County, CA -- 2,813,833
Franklin County, OH (Columbus) -- 1,068,978
Hillsborough County, FL (Tampa) -- 998,848
Fairfax County, VA -- 969,749
Salt Lake County, VA -- 898,387
Marion County, IN (Indianapolis) -- 860,454
DuVal County, FL (Jacksonville) -- 778,879
Mecklenburg County, NC (Charlotte) -- 695,454